[House Report 106-244]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




-----------------------------------------------------------------------

106th Congress                                                   Report
 1st Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                106-244

_______________________________________________________________________






                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


                       APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2561]




 July 20, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                               --------

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE                    
57-992                     WASHINGTON : 1999





                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Bill Totals......................................................     1
Committee Budget Review Process..................................     4
    Introduction.................................................     4
    Basis for Committee Recommendations..........................     5
    The President's Fiscal Year 2000-2005 Defense Program........     5
    Neglect of Traditional Appropriations and Acquisition Program 
      Practices..................................................     8
    ``Lessons Learned'' from Recent Military Operations..........    10
    Shortages of Low-Density, High Demand Assets.................    13
    United States Air Force--At a Crossroads?....................    13
    Air Force Modernization Issues...............................    16
        F-22.....................................................    17
        F-22 Concerns............................................    17
        Potential Alternatives...................................    19
Major Committee Recommendations..................................    20
    Air Force Program Reprioritization...........................    20
    Ensuring ``Lessons Learned'' Are Incorporated into FY 2001-
      2006 Defense Planning......................................    21
    Ensuring Appropriations Process Integrity....................    22
    Multiyear Procurement........................................    22
    Addressing High Priority Shortfalls..........................    22
    Ensuring a Quality Ready Force...............................    23
    Modernization Programs.......................................    23
    Reforms/Program Reductions...................................    24
    Tactical Reconnaissance......................................    25
    Information Assurance........................................    26
    Preparedness Against WMD Terrorist Attacks...................    26
Committee Recommendations by Major Category......................    28
    Active Military Personnel....................................    28
    Guard and Reserve............................................    28
    Operation and Maintenance....................................    28
    Procurement..................................................    28
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation...................    29
Forces to be Supported...........................................    29
    Department of the Army.......................................    29
    Department of the Navy.......................................    30
    Department of the Air Force..................................    31
Title I, Military Personnel......................................    33
    Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel 
      Appropriations.............................................    33
    Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for FY2000.....    33
        Overall Active End Strength..............................    34
        Overall Selected Reserve End Strength....................    34
    Adjustments to Military Personnel Account....................    35
        Overview.................................................    35
        End Strength Adjustments.................................    35
        Pay and Retirement Reform................................    35
        Basic Allowance for Housing..............................    36
        Aviation Continuation Pay................................    36
        Unfunded Requirements....................................    36
        JROTC Leadership Training................................    36
        Quality of Life Study....................................    37
        Guard and Reserve Forces.................................    37
        Full-Time Support Strengths..............................    38
        Guard and Reserve Full-Time End Strengths................    38
    Military Personnel, Army.....................................    38
    Military Personnel, Navy.....................................    40
        AOE-1 Replenishment Ships................................    42
    Military Personnel, Marine Corps.............................    42
        Marine Corps Security Guards Detachments.................    44
    Military Personnel, Air Force................................    44
    Reserve Personnel, Army......................................    46
    Reserve Personnel, Navy......................................    48
    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps..............................    50
    Reserve Personnel, Air Force.................................    52
        Test Support Mission.....................................    54
    National Guard Personnel, Army...............................    54
        Army National Guard Workyear Requirements................    56
    National Guard Personnel, Air Force..........................    56
Title II, Operation and Maintenance..............................    59
    Operation and Maintenance Overview...........................    62
        Rotational Training Initiatives..........................    63
        Real Property Maintenance................................    63
        Base Operations Support..................................    64
        Depot Maintenance........................................    64
        Spares and War Reserve Materiel..........................    65
        Force Protection Initiatives.............................    65
        Soldier Support Initiatives..............................    66
        Operating Tempo Funding..................................    66
        Recruiting and Advertising...............................    66
        Small Business Advertising...............................    67
        Guard and Reserve Unfunded Requirements..................    67
        Army Training Area Environmental Management..............    67
        Headquarters and Administrative Expenses.................    67
        Consultants and Advisory Services........................    68
        Communications Services..................................    68
        Security Programs........................................    68
        Defense Finance and Accounting Service...................    69
        Acquisition Contracting and Travel.......................    69
        Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data..........    69
        Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings.................    69
        A-76 Studies.............................................    70
        Urban Warfare............................................    71
        Controlled Humidity Preservation Program.................    71
    Operation and Maintenance, Army..............................    71
        Logistics and Technology Project.........................    74
        Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO) Facilities..    75
        Humanitarian Airlift Aircraft............................    75
        National Training Center Heliport Security...............    75
        Memorial Events..........................................    75
        General Purpose Tents....................................    76
        Abrams Integrated Management Program.....................    76
        Information Technology Programs..........................    76
    Operation and Maintenance, Navy..............................    76
        Oceanographic Research...................................    81
        Naval Weapons Station Concorde...........................    81
        Portable Firefighting Equipment..........................    82
        Vieques Range Complex, Puerto Rico.......................    82
        Naval Air Station (NAS) LeMoore..........................    82
        Navy Electricity and Electronics Training Series.........    83
    Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps......................    83
        Blount Island............................................    85
    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.........................    85
        Interim Contractor Support...............................    89
        Manufacturing Technology Assistance Pilot Program........    90
        McClellan Air Force Base.................................    90
        Enterprise Integration Program...........................    90
        REMIS....................................................    90
    Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide......................    90
        Performance Measures.....................................    92
        DLA-Warstoppers..........................................    93
        Defense Acquisition University...........................    93
        Family Therapy Program...................................    93
        Defense Finance and Accounting Service...................    93
        Information Technology Programs..........................    93
        DLA-Security Locks.......................................    93
        DLA-Improved Cargo Methods...............................    94
        DTRA-Treaty Implementation...............................    94
        Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)-Management Support...........    94
        JCS-J-MEANS..............................................    94
        OSD-C4ISR................................................    94
        OSD-Near East/South Asia Center for Security Studies.....    94
        OSD-Middle East Regional Security Issues.................    95
        OSD-Energy Savings Performance Contracts.................    95
        OSD-Job Placement Program................................    95
        OSD-Youth Development and Leadership Program.............    95
        OSD-Youth Development Initiative.........................    95
        OSD-Management and Contract Support......................    95
        WHS-Emergency Notification...............................    95
        JCS Mobility Enhancements................................    95
        National Curation Pilot Project..........................    96
        Information Systems Security Education...................    96
        Improved General Purpose Tents...........................    96
        Department of Defense Education Activity.................    97
        Pine Bluff Arsenal Sustainment Training and Technical 
          Assistance Program.....................................    97
        Legacy...................................................    97
        Classified Program.......................................    97
    Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve......................    99
    Operation and Maintenace, Navy Reserve.......................    99
    Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve..............    99
    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.................   103
    Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard...............   105
        Army National Guard Center...............................   107
        Armed Forces Reserve Center..............................   107
        National Guard Bureau Nationwide Fiber Optics Network....   107
        National Guard Distance Learning.........................   107
        NGB Project Management System............................   107
        Repair of UH-1 Engines...................................   108
        Moffett Field and March Air Reserve Base.................   108
    Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard................   108
        National Guard State Partnership Program.................   111
        C-130 Operations.........................................   111
        159th Air National Guard Fighter Group...................   111
    Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund................   111
        Budget Justification and Budget Execution Materials......   111
        Kosovo Base Camp Construction............................   112
    United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces..........   112
    Environmental Restoration, Army..............................   112
        Rocky Mountain Arsenal...................................   113
        Environmental Remediation Contracts......................   113
    Environmental Restoration, Navy..............................   113
    Environmental Restoration, Air Force.........................   113
    Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide......................   113
    Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites.......   114
        Camp Croft...............................................   114
        Lake City Army Ammunition Plant..........................   114
        Newmark..................................................   114
    Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid...............   115
    Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction.........................   115
    Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense........................   116
Title III, Procurement...........................................   117
    Estimates and Appropriations Summary.........................   117
        Special Interest Items...................................   119
        Classified Programs......................................   119
        Rangeless Training.......................................   119
        Foreign Comparative Test New Starts......................   119
        Air Force Interim Contractor Support.....................   119
        Reprogramming Procedures.................................   120
    Army Procurement Issues......................................   120
        Unfunded Requirements List...............................   120
    Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................   121
        Apache A Model Readiness.................................   122
    Missile Procurement, Army....................................   124
    Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.....   126
    Procurement of Ammunition, Army..............................   128
        Program Manager for Ammunition...........................   128
        Self-Destruct Fuzes......................................   129
    Other Procurement, Army......................................   132
        Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles.......................   134
        Information Technology Programs..........................   134
        Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV)..................   134
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................   142
        V-22 Aircraft............................................   143
        KC-130J Aircraft.........................................   143
        Joint Primary Aircraft Training System...................   144
        EA-6B Aircraft...........................................   144
        Consolidated Automated Support System....................   145
        Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS).   146
        Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance Pod System-Completely 
          Digital (TARPS-CD).....................................   146
        Rescissions..............................................   147
    Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................   149
        JSOW.....................................................   149
        Rescissions..............................................   149
    Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.............   151
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................   153
        Post Delivery Test and Trials............................   153
        Rescissions..............................................   153
    Other Procurement, Navy......................................   155
        Pollution Control Equipment..............................   156
        Rescissions..............................................   157
    Procurement, Marine Corps....................................   163
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................   167
        F-22.....................................................   168
        F-15.....................................................   168
        F-16.....................................................   169
        C-130J...................................................   169
        E-8C.....................................................   170
        C-135 Modifications......................................   170
        F-15 Modifications.......................................   171
        T-38 Modifications.......................................   171
    Missile Procurement, Air Force...............................   176
        Minuteman III Guidance Replacement Program...............   176
        JSOW.....................................................   177
        Titan....................................................   177
    Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.........................   180
    Other Procurement, Air Force.................................   182
    Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................   187
        Electronic Commerce Resource Centers.....................   187
        Information Technology Programs..........................   188
        Classified Programs......................................   188
    National Guard and Reserve Equipment.........................   191
        Fire Fighting............................................   191
        Support to Non-Profit Agencies...........................   192
    Defense Production Act Purchases.............................   194
    Information Technology.......................................   194
        Year 2000 (Y2K) Computer Problem.........................   195
        Year 2000 (Y2K) Lessons Learned..........................   195
        Inadequate Information Technology Oversight..............   196
        Defense Joint Accounting System..........................   197
        Information Technology Oversight-Committee 
          Recommendations........................................   197
        Financial Management Regulations.........................   198
        Standard Procurement System..............................   199
        Armor Officer Distance Learning..........................   199
        Power Projection C4 Infrastructure.......................   199
        Supercomputing Work......................................   199
        Electricity and Electronics Training Series..............   199
        IMDS/REMIS...............................................   199
        DIMHRS...................................................   199
        National Guard Bureau Nationwide Fiber Optics Network....   200
        National Guard Distance Learning.........................   200
        Maintenance Automated Identification Technology..........   200
        Global Combat Support System--Army.......................   200
        Ammunition Automated Identification Technology...........   201
        National Guard Distance Learning-Courseware..............   201
        Joint Systems Education and Training Systems Development.   201
        Service Information Infrastructure Shortfalls............   201
        Share in Savings.........................................   201
Title IV, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation.............   203
    Estimates and Appropriation Summary..........................   203
        Special Interest Items...................................   205
        Classified Programs......................................   205
        Technical Data...........................................   205
        Experimentation..........................................   205
        Information Assurance as Part of Independent Operational 
          Testing................................................   205
        Special Termination Cost Clause..........................   206
        Joint Mission Planning System............................   206
        Utilization of Small Business............................   206
        Anti-Tank Weapons Master Plan............................   208
        Tactical Radios..........................................   208
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army.............   208
        Hunter Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV).....................   212
    Basic Research...............................................   213
        Defense Research Sciences................................   213
    Applied Research.............................................   213
        Ballistics Technology....................................   213
        Human Factor Engineering Technology......................   213
        Environmental Quality Technology.........................   213
    Advanced Technology Development..............................   214
        Medical Advanced Technology..............................   214
        Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology...................   214
        Line-Of-Sight Technology Demonstration...................   214
        Joint Tactical Radio.....................................   214
        Artillery Systems-Demonstration and Validation...........   215
        Operational Systems Development..........................   215
        Force XXI, Warfighting Rapid Acquisition Program.........   215
        Other Missile Improvement Programs.......................   216
        Aircraft Modifications/Product Improvement Program.......   216
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy.............   221
        Joint Experimentation....................................   226
        Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology.................   228
        Intercooled Recuperative Gas Turbine Engine..............   228
        JSOW.....................................................   228
        Aerial Targets...........................................   229
        Bone Marrow Registry.....................................   229
        Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP)........................   229
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force........   236
        Consolidation and Elimination of Small Programs..........   236
        AF/National Program Consolidation........................   236
        Air Force Science and Technology.........................   236
        Wright Patterson Landing Gear Facility...................   236
        Aerospace Propulsion Subsystems Integration..............   241
        Advanced Computing Technology............................   241
        Crew Systems and Personnel Protection Technology.........   241
        Joint Strike Fighter.....................................   242
        B-2......................................................   242
        Milstar..................................................   243
        SBIRS High...............................................   243
        Development Planning.....................................   244
        F-16 Squadrons...........................................   244
        F-15 Squadrons...........................................   245
        Spacelift Range System...................................   245
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide.....   252
    Basic Research...............................................   255
        Chemical and Biological Defense Program..................   255
    Applied Research.............................................   255
        Historically Black Colleges and Universities.............   255
        Extensible Information Systems...........................   255
        Biological Warfare Defense...............................   256
    Advanced Technology Development..............................   256
        Chemical and Biological Defense Program--Advanced 
          Development............................................   256
        Verification Technology Demonstration....................   257
        Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations...............   257
        Ballistic Missile Defense................................   258
        National Missile Defense Site Selection..................   259
        Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)...............   260
        Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)...............   260
        Russian American Observational Satellite (RAMOS).........   261
        Space-Based Laser........................................   261
        Sensor and Guidance Technology...........................   261
        Discoverer II............................................   262
        Physical Security Equipment..............................   262
        Coalition Warfare........................................   262
        Technical Studies, Support and Analysis..................   263
        Strategic Environmental Research Program.................   263
        Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency Program...............   263
        Tri-Service Directed Energy Center.......................   263
        Special Operations Tactical Systems Development..........   263
        Information Technology Program...........................   264
    Developmental, Test and Evaluation, Defense..................   269
        Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program...........   269
    Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense.....................   271
Title V. Revolving and Management Funds..........................   273
    Defense Working Capital Funds................................   273
        Defense Reutilization and Marketing Services.............   273
    National Defense Sealift Fund................................   273
        Large Medium Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off (LMSR) Ships.........   273
        Maritime Prepositioning Force Enhancement Conversion.....   274
        National Defense Features................................   274
        DOD Requirements for Commercial Tanker Ships.............   275
        Massachusetts Maritime Academy Training Ship.............   275
        Sealift Ship Leases......................................   275
Title VI. Other Department of Defense Programs...................   277
    Defense Health Program.......................................   277
        Peer Reviewed Research...................................   278
        Tricare Contracts and Pharmacy Costs.....................   278
        Custodial Care...........................................   278
        Fatigue Management.......................................   279
        Joint Diabetes Project...................................   279
        Cervical Cancer Testing..................................   279
        Gulf War Illness.........................................   280
        Computer Based Modeling in Health Care...................   280
    Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army..............   280
    Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense.......   283
        Forward Operating Locations..............................   283
        Fingerprint Operations...................................   284
        C-26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance Upgrade...............   285
        Drug Testing.............................................   285
        A-10 Logistical and Demilitarization Support.............   285
    Office of the Inspector General..............................   285
Title VII. Related Agencies......................................   287
    National Foreign Intelligence Program........................   287
        Introduction.............................................   287
        Classified Annex.........................................   287
    Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System 
      Fund.......................................................   287
    Intelligence Community Management Account....................   288
    Payment to Kaho'Olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and 
      Environmental Restoration Fund.............................   288
    National Security Education Trust Fund.......................   288
Title VIII. General Provisions...................................   289
    Definition of Program, Project and Activity..................   289
        Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles.......................   289
        B-52 Force Structure.....................................   290
        National Missile Defense.................................   290
        Aggressor Squadrons......................................   290
        Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations...............   291
        Medium Extended Air Defense System.......................   291
        Military Recruitment Financial Penalties.................   291
House of Representatives Reporting Requirements..................   291
    Changes in the Application of Existing Law...................   291
        Appropriations Language..................................   292
        General Provisions.......................................   294
    Appropriations Not Authorized by Law.........................   297
    Transfer of Funds............................................   299
    Rescissions..................................................   300
    Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)........   300
    Constitutional Authority.....................................   301
    Comparison with the Budget Resolution........................   301
    Five-Year Outlay Projections.................................   302
    Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments..........   302
        Additional Views.........................................   314





106th Congress                                                   Report
  1st Session           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                106-244

======================================================================




 
            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000

                                _______
                                

 July 20, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


    Mr. Lewis of California, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2561]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Department of Defense, and for other 
purposes, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000.

                              Bill Totals

    Appropriations for most military functions of the 
Department of Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill 
for the fiscal year 2000. This bill does not provide 
appropriations for military construction, military family 
housing, civil defense, or nuclear warheads, for which 
requirements are considered in connection with other 
appropriations bills.
    The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for 
activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Bill totals $263,265,959,000 in new budget (obligational) 
authority. The amounts recommended by the Committee in the 
accompanying bill total $266,061,503,000 in net new budget 
authority. This is $2,795,544,000 above the budget estimate; 
$15,540,955,000 above the sums made available for the 
Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999 in the fiscal year 
1999 Defense Appropriations Act; and, in terms of the total 
authority available to the Department of Defense in fiscal year 
2000, $1,283,432,000 above the sums made available for the 
Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999, when fiscal year 
1999 supplemental appropriations are included.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ These figures include $16,095,949,000 in fiscal year 1999 
emergency defense funding included in Public Law 105-277, Omnibus 
Consolidated and Emergency Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, and 
Public Law 106-31, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal 
Year 1999; and $1,838,426,000 in Fiscal Year 2000 emergency defense 
funding also included in Public Law 106-31.



                    Committee Budget Review Process

    During its review of the fiscal year 2000 budget, the 
Subcommittee on Defense held a total of 17 hearings during the 
period of February 1999 to March 1999. Testimony received by 
the Subcommittee totaled 1,394 pages of transcript. 
Approximately half of the hearings were held in open session. 
Executive (closed) sessions were held only when the security 
classification of the material to be discussed presented no 
alternative.

                              Introduction

    The Committee's consideration of the fiscal year 2000 
Defense Appropriations bill comes as America's armed forces, 
and the plans and budgets intended to support them and U.S. 
security demands in the future, confront a series of difficult 
and interrelated challenges.
    As evidenced by Operation Allied Force and other recent 
military and humanitarian relief operations, the U.S. Armed 
Forces are still without question the finest in the world. The 
overall quality and skill of America's soldiers, sailors, 
airmen and marines remains unsurpassed. And U.S. training, 
equipment, and technology are, when considered in their 
entirety, still superior to those of any potential adversary, 
as well as our allies. Even so, the immediate and long-term 
challenges confronting the Department of Defense (DoD), the 
military services, and policymakers in the executive and 
legislative branches remain difficult and complex.
    The international environment remains uncertain and 
potentially explosive. Recent trends and developments involving 
Russia, China, India and Pakistan are assuredly not optimistic, 
while prospects for other regional threats--including those 
which have dominated recent U.S. military planning, North 
Korea, Iraq, and Iran--remain both unclear and unsettling. 
Meanwhile, political instability persists in many regions, as 
does the growing threat posed by the proliferation of 
technology. Transnational issues such as ethnic conflicts, 
terrorism, the international drug trade and increasingly, 
``information age'' threats continue to loom. And now, the 
United States, on the heels of a mission in Bosnia which nears 
four years in duration, faces an even more difficult and more 
protracted commitment to the Balkans in the wake of the Kosovo 
conflict.
    Against this backdrop, the U.S. military--now having been 
drawn down to the lowest force levels since the end of World 
War II--has been and will doubtless continue to be engaged 
globally. Yet, even before the recent hostilities involving 
Kosovo and Iraq, a combination of overseas commitments, new 
missions, shrinking force structure, aging equipment, and 
insufficient and, in some instances, misprioritized budgets 
joined to bring the current and future readiness of the U.S. 
military into question. These problems have created a punishing 
pace of operational tempo and a decline in overall quality of 
life for servicemembers and their families, which when combined 
with the effects of a strong economy, have created a serious 
military manpower crisis. Within the past year, for the first 
time in over two decades the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force have 
failed by significant margins to meet recruiting goals, while 
these services' retention rates for experienced personnel in 
critical specialty areas (such as Air Force pilots) have 
reached dangerously low levels. In the meantime, serious 
readiness and weapons modernization shortfalls persist. 
Recognizing these problems, both Congress and now the 
Administration have proposed significant increases in defense 
spending above previously planned levels.

                  Basis for Committee Recommendations

    The Committee strongly believes that, in many ways, this 
year is a potential watershed for future defense planning, 
budgets, and programs. It is significant that there now appears 
to be a general consensus between the Administration and the 
Congress that the U.S. military's operational, budgetary and 
programmatic needs call for a steady and sustained increase in 
defense spending. Yet events of just the past eight months--
notably, the strengths and weaknesses displayed during the 
conduct of Operations Desert Fox and Allied Force; the 
deployment of U.S. forces in support of the Kosovo 
Stabilization Force (KFOR); and the ongoing domestic debate 
over future government spending--combine to reinforce serious 
questions regarding the prospects for and adequacy of proposed 
defense budgets, be it the President's or Congressional 
alternatives.
    Therefore, the Committee has endeavored to not only 
consider the details of the Department's proposed fiscal year 
2000 budget request, but has also attempted to measure that 
budget and the new fiscal years 2000-2005 Future Years' Defense 
Plan (FYDP) against a number of factors. These include the 
international challenges cited above; the need to not only plan 
for current DoD needs but those likely to be confronted in 
2010, 2020 and beyond; and the already well-documented and 
articulated manpower, readiness and modernization needs of the 
DoD generally and the services specifically.
    The Committee also gave careful consideration to three 
additional areas in developing its recommendations:
    (a) The overall Federal budget debate and the strengths and 
weaknesses of the Administration's defense budgets in that 
context;
    (b) Neglect by certain DoD agencies of law, regulation and 
practices concerning the use of appropriated funds, including 
the initiation of new programs and diversion of funds provided 
for one purpose to another without the required congressional 
notification or approval--events which the Committee views as 
most troubling given the constitutional imperative that 
appropriated funds be put to the uses specifically delineated 
by the Congress; and
    (c) The actual experience derived from the recent combat 
operations involving Iraq and Yugoslavia; the degree to which 
the Future Years' Defense Plan and the individual services' 
budgets address a series of longstanding needs of the regional 
commanders-in-chief (CINCs) and our forces in the field; and 
whether the nation's current national security strategy (which 
calls for the U.S. military to carry out and win two, near-
simultaneous ``major theater wars'') can reasonably expect to 
be supported given current defense planning and programming.

         The President's Fiscal Year 2000-2005 Defense Program

    The Committee finds, with some qualification, that the 
fiscal year 2000 budget and the overall fiscal years 2000-2005 
defense program announced by the President this February is a 
more realistic attempt to match ``military means to goals'' 
than previous budget submissions. This new budget program calls 
for overall increases in previously planned defense spending 
levels of approximately $112 billion over the period 2000-2005. 
Of this amount, a significant portion (nearly $35 billion) is 
targeted specifically at improving military pay and benefits, 
including repeal of the military retirement program changes 
adopted in 1986. Other significant increases are programmed for 
readiness and operation and maintenance funding generally, as 
well as critical weapons modernization programs.
    Despite these noteworthy proposals, the Committee remains 
deeply troubled about whether this budget program can in fact 
meet both immediate and longer-term national security 
challenges. Three specific problems come to mind:
    The FY 2000-2005 Defense Budget Is Linked To Large 
Increases in Overall Discretionary Spending: The President's 
new fiscal year 2000-2005 defense program proposes steady and 
sustained growth in defense discretionary spending, from 
roughly $272 billion in FY 1999 (not including enacted 
emergency supplemental appropriations) to about $330 billion 
annually in FY 2005. The Committee believes such growth is 
justified, especially with numerous peacekeeping commitments 
and the need to reinvigorate weapons modernization accounts. 
However, the Committee also believes that it is a fair question 
to consider whether a defense program whose very viability 
hinges on such growth is in fact realistic. The defense budget 
cannot be viewed in insolation from the overall budget dynamic, 
involving spending levels for discretionary and entitlement 
programs, potential changes in the the tax code, and estimates 
of the government surplus.
    Such questions about long-term budget levels are 
particularly important to the DoD. Unlike most federal 
agencies, the DoD develops a multi-year budget program with 
some degree of fidelity, essential for an agency with hundreds 
of major equipment procurement and developmental efforts. Given 
the current uncertainty about the future budgetary environment, 
the Committee views with some caution any long-term 
revitalization plan for the DoD which has at its core an 
assumption of very robust outyear defense spending levels. This 
is especially important in light of plans being developed by 
each of the military services to make long-term commitments to 
major production programs which tend to ``squeeze'' other items 
in the budget to unacceptable levels.
    New, ``Unbudgeted'' Defense Budget Commitments Are Already 
Apparent: Since the budget was presented to the Congress in 
February, two new developments have arisen which will require 
major revisions to the existing DoD budget plan. The first 
involves Congressional action on military pay and benefits, as 
expressed through both House- and Senate-passed versions of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. The 
President's budget proposes a sizable increase over previously 
programmed amounts for military compensation. Both the House 
and Senate, most notably through increasing the size of the 
proposed fiscal year 2000 military pay raise (from 4.4 to 4.8 
percent), but also through other initiatives, have now voted 
for authorization changes which pose considerable unbudgeted 
outyear costs for the DoD--perhaps more than $10 billion 
through fiscal year 2005.
    Long-term, unbudgeted costs of continued contingency 
deployments are also escalating, especially those resulting 
from NATO missions in the Balkans. The Committee observes the 
current DoD budget plan was premised on a gradual drawdown of 
U.S. forces in Bosnia, with no funds budgeted after fiscal year 
2001 for any Balkan peacekeeping force or for continued 
sanctions enforcement around Iraq. Until late last year, the 
average cost of these two missions had appeared to stabilize at 
between $1.5-2.0 billion per year. Realistically, one must 
assume there will be costs of some greater magnitude from 2001-
2005 stemming from continued U.S. deployments associated with 
Bosnia and Iraq; and now, these unbudgeted costs will be 
compounded by those resulting from Operation Joint Guardian, 
the U.S. participation in KFOR. Using conservative planning 
factors, the Committee believes these could result in up to $25 
billion in unbudgeted, unprogrammed costs over the FYDP.
    The Committee believes it it essential that these issues be 
kept in plain view as the Congress develops its defense 
spending recommendations for fiscal year 2000 and beyond. They 
clearly cast a long shadow over DoD's overall Future Year's 
Defense Program, and the viability of planned modernization 
budgets in particular since personnel and readiness programs 
must continue to receive top budget priority.
    ``Creative Accounting'' In The Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
Request.--Of immediate relevance to the Committee's 
consideration of the fiscal year 2000 defense appropriations 
request is what senior Department officials have publicly 
conceded is a FY 2000-2005 program built largely on optimistic 
economic assumptions and, for fiscal year 2000, ``one-time 
initiatives'' which the Committee can most charitably describe 
as ``creative accounting''. The most obvious and blatant of 
these are the budget proposals to offset nearly $5 billion in 
new fiscal year 2000 programmatic increases with a like amount 
of budget authority ``offsets''--a $3.1 billion reduction from 
a ``one-time'' proposal to incrementally fund the fiscal year 
2000 Military Construction program (that is, providing only 
half the required budget authority needed to actually complete 
proposed military construction projects); and an unspecified 
cut of $1.65 billion (in the form of a proposed, non-program 
specific general reduction) embedded in the budget request for 
the fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations bill.
    The Committee finds small solace in the refrain of many 
senior Administration officials that its fiscal year 2000 
defense budget ``has a $12 billion increase'' over previous 
plans, much of which is for critical personnel and readiness 
needs--when its budget really only pays for slightly more than 
half of those increases.
    In essence, the Department's FY 2000 budget tries to have 
it both ways: it proposes needed increases in key programs, but 
``offsets'' this growth with ``cuts'' having no substance.
    The Committee will not subscribe to such a ``quick fix'' 
mentality. In both this bill, and the Military Construction 
bill reported by the Committee, it has rejected these proposals 
out of hand. Rather, to meet DoD's unfunded requirements, 
finance congressional initiatives and backfill for the budget's 
creative accounting, the Committee proposes an increase over 
the total fiscal year 2000 defense spending level by the 
President, combined with a wide range of program reductions, 
rescissions of previously appropriated funds and other 
initiatives. This approach is not only justified on the merits, 
but is a direct consequence of the Administration's having sent 
up a fiscal year 2000 budget submission which itself was 
``oversubscribed'' by $4.75 billion.

neglect of traditional appropriations and acquisition program practices

    Adding to the difficulties confronting the Committee in its 
consideration of the fiscal year 2000 budget request are 
serious budgeting and funding execution issues regarding 
appropriations for defense acquisition programs. These are 
occuring with increasing frequency in both the budget requests 
submitted by the Department of Defense as well as in the 
execution of program funding once appropriations have been 
provided by the Congress. Throughout this report there will be 
more specific descriptions of these and related issues. Of 
particular concern is the failure of certain DoD entities to 
comply with many existing procedures governing the expenditure 
of appropriated funds.
    One of the highest duties of the Congress is to exercise 
the mandate in Clause 7, Section 9, Article I of the 
Constitution of the United States that ``No money shall be 
drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations 
made by law.'' In terms of appropriations provided to the 
Department of Defense, this mandate has evolved over time as a 
result of statute, appropriations law, court rulings, and 
executive branch regulations; decades of appropriations 
implementation and resulting ``practices and rules''; and what 
the Committee regards as an ongoing discussion with the DoD and 
its component departments and agencies over budget rules and 
appropriate procedures regarding the use of appropriated funds.
    The Committee's perspective is one of ensuring that funds 
made available in appropriations acts are in fact put to the 
use intended by the elected members of Congress, under the 
terms and conditions the Congress and the House and Senate 
Appropriations Committees place on the funding in question. 
This is a responsibility the Constitution clearly intended for 
the Congress--the so-called power of the purse--and therefore, 
the Committee does not take issues regarding the use of 
appropriated funds lightly. However, given the sheer size, 
complexity, and dynamism of both the real world and the funding 
environments that the Department of Defense and the U.S. 
military operates, the Committee is sensitive to and has in 
fact actively engaged the Department on countless occasions to 
ensure that the DoD has the funding flexibility it needs to 
respond rapidly to emerging circumstances. The Committee notes 
that unless specific restrictions have been enacted into law, 
in most instances the most restrictive rules require the DoD, 
in accordance with certain pre-established thresholds, to 
provide the Committee with prior notification or, through the 
reprogramming process, to seek the Committee's prior approval 
for contemplated funding shifts. All the Committee demands is 
that these well-established procedures--many enshrined in 
statute or appropriations law, not just custom or practice--be 
followed.
    Regrettably, in recent years the Committee has observed a 
steady erosion of departmental compliance with these standards, 
prompting the Committee to actively address these problems in 
recent appropriations acts and accompanying Committee reports. 
The Committee further observes these abuses have generally been 
most numerous and blatant with respect to defense acquisition 
programs--and of late, those managed by the acquisition 
communities within the Department of the Air Force, the 
Department of the Army, and the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense.
    For example, with respect to the Air Force, despite recent 
Committee direction and, in several instances, new 
appropriations law, the Committee finds that both in execution 
of funds provided in appropriations acts and in its fiscal year 
2000 budget submission the Air Force acquisition community 
continues to ignore and violate a wide range of appropriations 
practices and acquisition rules. Details on these specific 
instances can be found elsewhere in this report, but a short 
summary of such Air Force abuses includes:
    (a) In its fiscal year 2000 budget the Air Force continues 
to blithely ignore specific Committee direction and law 
intended to ensure that funds appropriated for one purpose--for 
example, weapons procurement--are in fact used for that purpose 
and not for other efforts, such as research and development, 
by:
          (1) Requesting hundreds of millions of dollars in 
        various procurement programs, when in fact the intended 
        use is to support operation and maintenance funding 
        needs (in violation of DoD policy);
          (2) Requesting substantial procurement funds for a 
        program (the F-22 fighter) when in fact the use of the 
        funds is for development (in violation of specific 
        Congressional direction), and
          (3) Requesting substantial development funds for a 
        program (the MILSTAR satellite), when the intent is to 
        use the funds for procurement (in violation of a 
        provision of law);
    (b) Violation of both new start program regulations and 
law, as well as standard reprogramming procedures, by using 
fiscal year 1999 funds to begin a new start, several hundred-
million dollar production program which the Congress never 
formally approved (the C-5 avionics modernization program)--and 
did so by diverting funds specifically provided by the Congress 
for another program; and
    (c) Initiation of a new Special Access Program without 
prior Congressional notification as required by law.
    Regarding the Army, it has in several instances ignored 
specific Committee or House-Senate conference report direction 
on major programs, to include:
    (a) Entering into a new multi-year production contract for 
the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, despite specific 
Committee direction to defer such action until it first 
identified and then formally submitted to the Congress, an 
approved plan to fix significant technical and safety problems 
plaguing thousands of vehicles already delivered and in 
service;
    (b) Negotiating a multi-year production contract for the 
TOW Improved Target Acquisition System (ITAS) despite both 
fiscal year 1999 Committee and appropriations conference 
committee direction explicitly denying approval of the ITAS 
multi-year contract; and
    (c) In conjunction with OSD, explicitly ignoring fiscal 
year 1999 conference committee direction and using Advanced 
Concept Technology Demonstration funds for the Line-of-Sight 
Tank (LOSAT) program.
    Regarding OSD acquisition officials, in addition to the 
example involving LOSAT cited above, the Committee is little 
short of amazed when it comes to their actions on the Medium 
Altitude Air Defense (MEADS) program. This program was 
specifically terminated in the conference report accompanying 
the fiscal year 1999 Defense Appropriations Act. Internal DoD 
financial management documents issued this spring noted this 
action and correctly stated that: ``This item has been denied 
by the Congress and is not subject to reprogramming'' (emphasis 
added). Nonetheless, the Committee has since learned that 
officials in the OSD acquisition structure as well as in the 
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, an OSD acquisition 
organization, directed the use of over $2 million of funds 
specifically provided for another program to continue MEADS-
related activities, and actually announced the winner of the 
MEADS contract competition. All for a program explicitly 
terminated in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations process.
    The Committee believes these and similar instances raise 
fundamental questions regarding DoD program oversight and 
compliance with existing law and regulations. The Committee is 
also compelled to note such actions contribute to the 
Committee's uncertainty regarding the adequacy of the 
Department's proposed defense budget and program planning. The 
extent of such problems gives the Committee little confidence 
that the military service or defense agency in question is 
requesting appropriations for its major acquisition programs 
based on solid cost estimates, testing and production 
milestones, and firm estimates and commitments to funding 
requirements. In this sense, such actions are extremely 
corrosive to sensible program management, defense planning and 
budgeting. And it severely weakens the working relationship 
between the executive branch--charged with proposing, then 
managing, programs if funded--and the legislative branch, which 
in providing funding must have confidence that the budget and 
program proposals underlying the funding requests in question 
are accurate and executable.
    The Committee could speculate as to the reason behind this 
growing trend--for example, the pressure to deal with weapons 
modernization demands following more than a decade of 
inflation-adjusted cuts in funding--but to do so is to justify 
these practices. While sympathetic to budget pressures, and 
aware of the desire of the acquisition community to exercise as 
much control and flexibility over its programs as possible, in 
keeping with its constitutional duties the Committee simply 
cannot excuse violations of appropriations and acquisition law, 
regulation and practice.

          ``Lessons Learned'' From Recent Military Operations

    The combat operations over Iraq and Yugoslavia (Operations 
Desert Fox and Allied Force, respectively) and their immediate 
aftermath have already been instructive in terms of ``lessons 
learned''--not only for DoD, the Joint Staff, the services, and 
the regional commands, but also for others in the executive 
branch and Congress. These missions have confirmed the wisdom 
of prudent investments over the years in so-called ``force 
multipliers''. These include such programs as advanced 
reconnaissance and intelligence collection; improved command, 
control and communications; selective ``platform'' upgrades, 
such as night attack capability for tactical strike assets, or 
conventional, all-weather precision weapons delivery capability 
for the heavy bomber force; and a new generation of precision-
guided munitions.
    Yet these technological improvements are only one aspect of 
the many factors essential to battlefield success. While much 
attention is being directed at the new capabilities brought to 
bear in these operations, the Committee insists that without 
the less-glamorous ``basics''--such as effective logistics 
systems; solid training; and most importantly, keeping a highly 
motivated and quality force--our technological advances mean 
little.
    Accordingly, the Committee not only acknowledges the 
exemplary performance of the U.S. forces deployed in direct 
support of these operations, but all those who helped prepare, 
train, and equip those forces. This provides a vivid reminder 
to Congress and the senior leadership in the executive branch 
of the shared responsibility to work in concert with the senior 
military leadership of the Department and the forces in the 
field to fashion a defense program which balances these 
competing prerogatives.
    In keeping with this obligation, then, while laudatory of 
the performance of U.S. forces in these recent engagements, the 
Committee must register its deep concern over a number of 
issues which these recent operations have highlighted.
    Current Force Structure and Current Commitments Are Not In 
Balance.--It is now all too apparent that the military services 
are not yet properly reconfigured from their old ``Cold War'' 
orientation, or are simply undermanned or underequipped in 
certain key categories, to meet the Nation's emerging global 
commitments at an acceptable level of risk. In the immediate 
aftermath of the Yugoslav campaign, the Chiefs of Staff of Army 
and Air Force, in different yet equally compelling ways, have 
brought this issue into sharp focus. The new Army Chief of 
Staff has pronounced publicly that, without new and innovative 
thinking in his service--including a fundamental restructuring 
of the Army's heavy and light units--his service risks losing 
strategic and tactical relevance. The Air Force Chief of Staff 
declares that the immediate well-being of his service--
stretched by years of unanticipated operations, unprecedented 
rates of ``peacetime'' operational tempo, declining readiness 
indicators, personnel turbulence and shortages, and now, two 
major air campaigns within the past eight months--makes a 
lengthy ``stand-down'', including a significant reprieve from 
overseas deployments, essential if he is to properly 
reconstitute his force.
    This Committee recognizes these are complex issues, with 
each Service facing its own unique challenges. But it is clear 
the strategy, roles and missions, and force structure 
assumptions underpinning the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 
two years ago--which now form the basis of current DoD 
planning--must be revisited. This is a considerable 
undertaking, made more difficult by the uncertain world 
situation, the budget environment and many difficult resource 
allocation issues in each service. Nevertheless, the Committee 
expresses its conviction that, in light of the additional 
commitments incurred by U.S. forces since the QDR was 
conducted, as well as the serious personnel and readiness 
problems that have emerged over the past few years, the 
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the 
senior leadership of each of the military services, and 
ultimately, the President and the Congress must deal with these 
issues head on, as soon as possible.
    Fundamental Problems Persist In Matching Resource 
Allocations To Operational Requirements.--For years, the 
Committee has expressed deep concern that the DoD's annual 
budget submissions have consistently failed to adequately 
address certain critical warfighting needs. This disconnect was 
illustrated during the early stages of Operation Allied Force, 
when the Air Force had to submit an urgent reprogramming 
request, and then an emergency supplemental budget request for 
the Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile (the Air Force's 
only long-range, all weather conventionally armed stand-off 
weapon), because inventories had been drawn down to 
unacceptable levels. The Committee notes this problem would 
have been far worse had not the Congress in the mid-1990's 
provided funding for 250 CALCMs, which had not been budgeted by 
the Air Force or the DoD. Had this not occurred, CALCM would 
not have even been available for Operations Desert Fox or 
Allied Force.
    The Committee also notes that many of the innovations which 
were used to great effect in Operation Allied Force--such as 
the use of B-2 and B-1 bombers in a conventional bombing role--
are available now only because of congressional actions to both 
initiate and accelerate many of the upgrades required for these 
missions. For example, the initial deployment of a precision-
guided conventional weapon on the B-2--which served as a clear 
precursor to its subsequently being equipped with the highly 
effective JDAM munition--was the so-called ``GATS-GAM'' interim 
weapon, a congressional initiative.
    These examples, unfortunately, are symptomatic of many 
recent budget decisions. The Committee has stated its view 
repeatedly that many programs with strong warfighting 
applications ofttimes are given short shrift in annual service 
budget submissions. The reasons for this vary, but are usually 
found in either budget pressures, service parochialism, and the 
aversion of many of the services' acquisition hierarchies to 
upgrade existing systems (as opposed to developing a new system 
from scratch). The Committee has also observed that these 
problems are especially acute when the capability or system in 
question has a ``joint'' or ``national'' character, and is 
needed by multiple services or joint warfighting commands. 
Regrettably, even when such capabilities are of great utility 
to forces in the field, they often involve missions or 
capabilities--such as logistics, transportation, intelligence 
collection and reconnaissance, and electronic combat--which the 
military services often fail to consider on a par with what 
each considers its core requirements.

              shortages of low-density, high-demand assets

    The Committee is especially troubled as many of these 
deficiencies, including shortages in so-called ``low-density, 
high-demand'' assets, have been well known for some time. These 
include, but are not limited to: electronic warfare aircraft 
and specialized jamming equipment; tactical intelligence 
collection and dissemination assets (ranging from collection 
assets such as the U-2, RIVET JOINT, AWACS and JSTARS aircraft 
and tactical UAVs; interoperable, secure communications and 
command and control, to include new data links and data fusion 
capability); and tactical airlift, aerial refueling capability 
and other transportation and logistics support platforms and 
equipment. The Committee has consistently supported additions 
over DoD budget requests for such programs over the years. 
Nevertheless, continued shortages in these and many other 
categories clearly posed operational constraints during 
Operations Desert Fox and Allied Force. This not only impeded 
the regional commands charged with prosecuting the air 
campaigns, but also other regional commanders who were 
confronted with the physical diversion of assets from their 
areas of responsibility and other unexpected resource 
shortfalls.
    The Committee's concern about these problems is not new, 
and it has demonstrated it will not shy from taking actions to 
ensure that our forces in the field are not at risk or caught 
short. In this regard, the recently-enacted emergency 
supplemental appropriations act which provided funding for the 
conduct of Operation Allied Force (Public Law 106-31) created a 
new appropriations account, the ``Operational Rapid Response 
Transfer Fund'', that was expressly intended to provide a 
funding source to meet immediate shortfalls and needs 
identified by the regional CINCs. The Committee understands the 
Department will soon make use of the $300,000,000 provided by 
the Congress in this fund to address some of these most urgent 
problems, such as those plaguing the limited inventory of Navy 
EA-6B jamming aircraft. The Committee commends the senior 
leadership of the Department for expeditiously following 
through on the Congress' intent in this regard.
    However, it is clear much more must be done. As with the 
questions raised earlier in this report about the proper size 
and organization of each of the military services, a continued 
failure by the DoD generally--and the military services and 
defense agencies specifically--to consistently link operational 
needs to decisions about resource allocations and defense 
program development carries with it serious implications for 
the ability of the U.S. military to carry out the current 
national security strategy. This is not just a theoretical 
discussion, nor one which the Committee believes can be 
deferred. The Committee bill, across all services and defense 
agencies, is intended to bring these questions to the 
forefront--and in the instance of one of the military 
services--the United States Air Force--the Committee believes 
these problems are now so acute that it must take a series of 
immediate and forceful steps.

               United States Air Force--At A Crossroads?

    The air campaigns against Iraq and Yugoslavia, which on the 
whole featured an exemplary level of professionalism, technical 
sophistication and skill, were conducted and supported in large 
measure by the men and women of the United States Air Force. To 
them, and their colleagues in the other branches of the 
military and defense agencies who also played important roles 
in these operations, the Committee expresses its gratitude and 
respect for their service and bravery.
    In the Committee's view, this performance on the part of 
the Air Force is all the more remarkable in light of the 
serious problems which, over the past few years, have 
increasingly beset this service as it struggles with the twin 
dilemmas of redefining its role in the post Cold War era while 
being called to carry out an increasing number of missions with 
fewer people. Among the most serious of these problems:
    --For the first time since 1979, the Air Force will miss 
its recruiting goals for new enlistees--by nearly 2,600 
individuals. This is especially noteworthy given the Air 
Force's success since the transition to an all-volunteer force 
in attracting many more potential recruits than it actually 
requires.
    --The Air Force also is coping with serious retention 
problems, particularly in the midyear grades, with acute 
shortages in a large number of specialty career fields ranging 
from air traffic controllers to security police. Of 
considerable concern is that the Air Force is already suffering 
from a steep shortage of pilots, with an existing deficit of 
over 1,100 that is projected to approach 2,000 within the next 
three years.
    --Overall Air Force readiness--as measured by the mission 
capable rates of aircraft and other key systems--has steadily 
declined in each of the past eight years, with an overall 
rating of less than 75 percent (an eleven percent decline since 
1991) prior to the onset of Operation Allied Force.
    --In the past three years a major aviation spare parts 
shortfall has arisen in the Air Force (as well as the Navy), 
due largely to faulty estimates which failed to accurately 
reflect the effects of increased operational tempo on aging 
equipment. Despite the appropriation of roughly $2 billion over 
budgeted amounts for spare parts over the past three years, 
continued operational demands and the time required to procure 
the necessary parts and perform required maintenance make it 
likely that Air Force operational readiness rates and equipment 
availability will remain low for the foreseeable future.
    --Despite the proposed increases in the President's budget 
submission, major funding shortfalls persist across nearly all 
Air Force mission and functional areas. In February 1999 the 
Air Force Chief of Staff submitted to Congress an ``unfunded 
priority list'' for fiscal year 2000 alone of over $2.3 
billion. The following month, in response to a request from the 
House Armed Services Committee, senior Air Force officials 
provided a detailed unfunded shortfall list covering the period 
of the current Future Years Defense Plan (fiscal years 2000-
2005). After adjusting this list (removing from it fiscal years 
1999 and 2000 needs tied to the contingency operations 
involving Iraq and Kosovo, most of which were dealt with in the 
emergency supplemental appropriations act enacted in late May), 
the Air Force still documents unfunded needs totaling over $14 
billion (emphasis added).
    All of these problems were present prior to the air 
campaigns against Iraq and Yugoslavia, which senior Air Force 
officials freely admit stretched existing Air Force personnel 
and assets to the limit. For example, during Operation Allied 
Force, the Air Force was compelled to implement the so-called 
``stop-loss'' program, whereby individuals whose terms of 
service were due to expire were formally notified that they 
could be kept on active duty for an indefinite period owing to 
operational needs. At the time stop-loss was invoked, the Air 
Force indicated nearly 34,000 servicemembers in critical 
specialty areas could have their tours of duty involuntarily 
extended as a result of Operation Allied Force and the Air 
Force's other global missions.
    Air Force operational assets were also clearly taxed by 
Operations Desert Fox and Allied Force. The most acute problems 
occurred in certain categories--such as reconnaissance, 
airlift, and aerial refueling--where the Air Force carries a 
disproportionate share of, if not the only, capability within 
the U.S. armed forces to support major military operations. The 
Air Force itself describes its unique capabilities as ``Global 
Reach, Global Power''. One may then ask, can the Air Force 
today or in the future deliver on this motto's promise? These 
weaknesses give the Committee doubts about the U.S. military's 
ability to carry out the ``near-simultaneous, two major theater 
war'' capability that the national military strategy is 
premised upon. Of even greater concern is the fact that the 
six-year Air Force budget program demonstrably falls short of 
meeting both existing and projected requirements in these 
critical areas.
    Now, following Operation Allied Force, the Air Force Chief 
of Staff has made clear his view that the Air Force must 
conduct a ``stand-down'' of at least several months duration, 
to reconstitute its forces and give its officers and airmen a 
chance to recover from the operational tempo which is the root 
cause of many of the Air Force's personnel and readiness 
problems. The Committee has been advised that this standdown, 
as envisioned by the Air Force, would be of sufficient scope 
and length that many current operational requirements being 
carried out by the Air Force would either have to be 
transferred to the other services or left unaddressed.
    The Committee believes such candor on the part of senior 
Air Force leadership--clearly at variance from the typical 
``can do'' attitude which the military services often take to 
an extreme--deserves both respect and careful consideration. It 
says much about the current state in which the Air Force finds 
itself.
    The Committee recognizes many of these problems are not of 
the Air Force's making, nor could they have been forecast. Many 
stem from a series of decisions and events which began in 1989-
91, starting with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the resulting 
dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the 
Persian Gulf War, and the acceleration of a major defense 
build-down in response to these events and federal budget 
pressures. The Committee is well aware of the difficulties 
these changes posed for all the military services, and the Air 
Force in particular.
    Moreover, the operational employment of U.S. forces has 
changed markedly in recent years. The Air Force and its sister 
services not only continue to carry existing regional 
commitments and their potential warfighting demands, but now 
find themselves regularly deployed on a large scale on what had 
just a few years ago been called ``non-traditional missions'', 
such as peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and humanitarian 
relief operations. Each of the services--not just the Air 
Force--have and will continue to struggle with these new 
missions.
    With 20/20 hindsight, the Committee believes that the Air 
Force's recognition of the scale of its modernization dilemma 
may have inadvertently contributed to many of the personnel and 
readiness problems it now confronts. The Committee remembers 
vividly how just two years ago the then-Chief of Staff of the 
Air Force explained to the Committee how his service had 
consciously decided to give up force structure and manning 
levels in order to free up additional resources for 
modernization. Now, that gamble, and others taken by this 
Service, have come home to roost, leading to what the Committee 
believes is an Air Force personnel and readiness crisis, even 
while the Air Force still confronts a modernization crisis of 
considerable size and scope.

                     Air Force Modernization Issues

    It is indisputable that the Air Force has many unmet needs 
in modernization, many of which were on clear display during 
Operation Allied Force.
    There is a requirement for at least five additional Joint 
STARS surveillance aircraft beyond those currently funded or 
budgeted--yet after this year, the Air Force budget provides 
none.
    At least 20 percent of the KC-135 aerial refueling fleet--
which uses 1950's and 1960's vintage airframes--has yet to be 
modernized with improved engines and other equipment which will 
not only extend its service life but greatly increase its 
operational flexibility and availability. The Air Force budget 
fails to request even one tanker conversion in its budget until 
fiscal year 2002.
    The Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Transportation Command, 
declares a need for at least 150 C-130J tactical airlift 
aircraft--yet the Air Force budget fails to buy any until 
fiscal year 2002 and active duty units are not scheduled to 
receive any new C-130's until 2006.
    Due to fiscal constraints the Air Force has restructured 
the next-generation of early warning satellites used for 
detection of ballistic missile launches, the Space-Based 
Infrared System-High and -Low. In so doing, at least in the 
case of SBIRS-High, the Air Force has taken a fully funded, 
well-crafted acquisition program and within less than nine 
months, restructured it into a higher risk program, with a two 
year slip in fielding, excessive concurrency between 
development and production--and in the process generated an 
unfunded shortfall of nearly $100 million in its fiscal year 
2000 budget.
    These are just a few examples where the Committee believes 
the Air Force acquisition program and budget priorities are 
inconsistent with actual need. Programs relied upon by forces 
in the field, and in some instances the National Command 
Authority, are not funded adequately or deferred. Other 
efforts, which may have some intrinsic merit but are really 
nothing more than expensive demonstration projects, receive 
increased budget allocations. Meanwhile, as described earlier 
in this report, the Air Force acquisition community seems at 
times to be completely oblivious to the legal and DoD policies 
in place governing the proper use of appropriated funds.

                                  f-22

    The centerpiece of the Air Force's modernization program 
for at least the past decade, along with the C-17 transport 
aircraft, has been its next generation air superiority fighter, 
the F-22. The F-22 was originally conceived in the early 1980's 
to counter a projected threat driven by the expectation that 
the then-Soviet Union would couple the sheer size of its force 
structure with significant technological advances in fighter 
and air-to-air technology. Following the demise of the Soviet 
Union and the huge downsizing of the now Russian military, the 
Air Force has continued development of the F-22 based largely 
on what it states is its desire to guarantee air superiority 
over any potential adversary for the foreseeable future. The 
original F-22 inventory objective of 750 aircraft has since 
been revised downwards, to a figure of 339 today, enough to 
equip three wings plus expected attrition reserve requirements.
    As currently configured, there is little doubt that the F-
22, if it meets its performance specifications, would far 
outclass any single fighter known to be under development. Even 
with the change in the threat environment, little of the F-22's 
high performance characteristics have changed in the past 
decade. The Air Force would concede that both development and 
production of the F-22 is indeed a challenging task, for that 
is the purpose of the program--to develop a fighter so capable 
that it will guarantee U.S. forces air superiority for decades 
once it is fielded.
    However, the ambitious technical goals of the F-22, which 
include a series of new production processes as well as the 
most advanced avionics and electronics ever fielded on a U.S. 
aircraft, have led to a series of delays in the F-22 
development program. Juxtaposed with the Air Force's desired 
fielding schedule, this has led to a program whose recent 
history has been marked by continual cost growth and whose 
current acquisition profile would, even if examined in 
isolation, raise serious questions about the overall 
affordability and feasibility of this program.
    Given these factors, and the magnitude of other Air Force 
problems in personnel, readiness and modernization, the 
Committee decided to make the F-22 a focus of its 
deliberations. The following sections cites the key points 
which it took into consideration when making its 
recommendations.

                             F-22 concerns

    F-22 has been experiencing technical problems.--The F-22 
has experienced several technical problems including: 
manufacturing problems with titanium castings; delamination of 
longerons; structural weaknesses in aft fuselage; anomalies in 
brakes, inertial reference system and environmental control 
system; nagging fuel leaks; problems with engine low pressure 
turbine blades, high pressure turbine blades, and engine 
combustors; and problems with excessive engine vibration. The 
Air Force reports that there are 97 issues limiting aircraft 
operations and 68 issues limiting ground maintenance. There are 
already indications that further flight testing in fiscal year 
1999 will be curtailed while the Air Force labors to correct 
these technical problems. While the Committee recognizes that 
the sophisticated technology intended for use in the F-22 makes 
such technical problems likely, it also must consider that the 
successful resolution of these problems will further both delay 
schedules and drive up costs.
    Affordability of the F-22 is questionable.--Based on Air 
Force acquisition reports, the F-22--even without further cost 
growth--is projected to cost three times as much as the 
aircraft it replaces (the F-15). The unit cost of the six F-
22's proposed to be procured with fiscal year 2000 funds is 
$300 million per plane compared to a $55 million per plane cost 
for the F-15. To finance such an expensive program, DoD's 
modernization plan requires unprecedented levels of spending on 
tactical aircraft over the next 20 years. In fact, DoD's 
tactical aircraft modernization plan requires twice the 
historical percentage of procurement dollars to buy roughly 
half the number of aircraft.
    The Air Force has not demonstrated it can control F-22 
costs.--Ten years ago, the Committee recommended termination of 
the F-22 (then called the Advanced Tactical Fighter) based in 
part on concerns over cost growth and unrealistic budgeting. 
Then, the Air Force told the Committee that F-22 development 
would cost $14 billion, a $900 million increase from the 
estimate provided six months earlier. Since then, the program 
has experienced a decade of cost growth with the current 
estimate for F-22 development now exceeding $23 billion. In the 
last six months alone, the development cost increased another 
$700 million and the production cost of just the first 6 
aircraft increased $300 million.
    The Committee notes, that without any further cost growth, 
the F-22 program is budgeted for more than $23 billion over the 
next six years alone, and has a ``total cost to complete'' of 
$40 billion assuming the Air Force's current schedule, cost 
estimates, and inventory objective of 339 remain static. 
Independent cost estimates developed within the Pentagon, the 
Congressional Budget Office, and the General Accounting Office 
all indicate that the Air Force production cost estimates are 
excessively optimistic. For example, the Cost Analysis 
Improvement Group within the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, responsible for developing independent cost estimates 
for the Secretary, believes the F-22's total production costs 
are understated by at least $9 billion.
    The current F-22 acquisition plan has a high potential for 
even further cost growth.--The F-22 is a technically 
challenging program combining stealth, advanced sensors and 
avionics, and the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds. The 
Air Force will not finish basic testing of these capabilities 
for another four years. To date, the program has completed only 
five percent of the required testing. The advanced sensors and 
avionics (perhaps the highest risk elements of the program) 
have not been tested on the F-22 at all. Yet this year's budget 
proposes production funding for six aircraft.
    Overall, the Air Force's acquisition strategy requires the 
purchase of over $13 billion worth of aircraft before 
completion of basic operational testing. The unit cost of these 
initial aircraft increased 40 percent over the last 2 years, 
and any problems found during the next four years of testing 
will simply add to these costs.
    U.S. has overwhelming numerical advantage of advanced 
fighters without F-22.--Current threat projections for 2010 
indicate that the United States will have a 5 to 1 numerical 
advantage of advanced fighters against our most challenging 
adversaries without the F-22. Against what could be considered 
the most likely medium term adversaries used in Air Force 
planning scenarios, the United States enjoys a numeric 
advantage of 26 of our advanced fighters for every one 
belonging to our adversaries.

                         potential alternatives

    The Committee also examined potential alternatives to the 
current F-22 program, and makes the following findings.
    F-15 economic service life extends beyond 2015.--The Air 
Force has justified the need for the F-22 in part as a 
replacement for aging F-15 aircraft. However, service life data 
from the Air Force indicates that the F-15 can exceed 16,000 
flying hours without major structural changes. The average age 
of the F-15 inventory is expected to be only 8000 flying hours 
by 2015.
    F-15 can be improved to provide greatly enhanced combat 
capability.--F-15 combat capabilities can be improved 
substantially with upgraded radars, jammers, and helmet mounted 
targeting systems. The most cost effective upgrade may be a new 
datalink which allows aircraft to share target information. Air 
Force testimony to the Committee this year described the so-
called ``Link 16'' datalink as ``the most significant increase 
in fighter avionics since the introduction of the on-board 
radar.'' Tests with this $200,000 per aircraft upgrade to the 
F-15 have demonstrated a five-fold increase in air combat kill 
ratios.
    (The Committee fails to understand why the Air Force has 
neglected to budget for this modestly priced upgrade for all 
its combat coded F-15s, while it chooses to request $150 
million in fiscal year 2000 to redesign F-22 parts that have 
already become obsolete. The Committee notes that while this 
upgrade makes the F-15 five times more effective in the air 
combat mission, the Air Force only requires the F-22 to be 
twice as effective as the F-15.)
    JSF has robust air-to-air capabilities and will be 
available in fiscal year 2007.--The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), 
in development to produce a lower cost, yet highly capable 
replacement for Navy F/A-18's, Marine Corps F/A-18's and AV-
8B's, and Air Force F-16's is scheduled to begin production 
deliveries in 2007. This program will be badly needed in this 
timeframe to begin replacing these aircraft types, which 
comprise the vast majority of the U.S. tactical fighter force, 
as their age and usage rates make a replacement in this 
timeframe essential, While incorporating advanced technology 
similar to that being developed for the F-22, the much higher 
inventory objective (over 2,800 aircraft) plus the lack of any 
other alternatives at present to deal with the block 
obsolescence issue make the JSF, in the Committee's view, one 
of the DoD's highest acquisition priorities.
    Like the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter combines stealth 
and advanced avionics to provide a robust air-to-air 
capability. Unlike the F-22, the JSF is being designed to be an 
affordable joint aircraft with far superior air-to-ground 
capabilities.
    U.S. has other advantages in the area of air dominance.--
While not minimizing the potential advantages which accrue to 
the side with a high technology air superiority aircraft, the 
Committee believes that the achievement of air dominance in the 
information age is more than one-on-one dogfights. Eight years 
ago, during Operation Desert Storm, 200 Iraqi aircraft were 
destroyed or captured on the ground whereas only 35 were 
destroyed in air-to-air combat. Since then, the U.S. has 
immensely improved its ability to achieve battlefield 
information dominance and to prosecute ground targets with 
precision guided weapons. The U.S. ability to damage runways, 
destroy aircraft fuel and repair infrastructure, and disrupt 
enemy command and control is improving markedly with the 
continued introduction of precision stand-off weapons into the 
bomber and tactical fighter inventory. This will severely limit 
any adversary's ability to get fighters airborne to mount 
serious challenges to U.S. fighters.
    Should enemy fighters get airborne, absent a complete 
change in U.S. training and readiness priorities, they will 
likely confront a U.S. force possessing large numbers of highly 
maintained advanced fighters operated by better trained pilots 
with superior situational awareness. Despite current inventory 
problems (due largely to limited numbers of the total number of 
specialized platforms), there is no question the United States 
enjoys tremendous advantages in surveillance (AWACS, JSTARS), 
jamming (EA-6B, EC-130), command, control and communications, 
intelligence (RC-135s, EP-3s, UAVs, satellites), tactics, 
training, maintenance, and long-range precision weapons. It is 
vitally important that sufficient resources be invested in 
these systems as well--something the Committee believes is not 
being done.

                    Major Committee Recommendations


                   Air Force Program Reprioritization

    As outlined earlier in this report, the Air Force is 
currently facing critical problems in terms of personnel, 
overall readiness, and funding for many essential warfighting 
needs, including many that give U.S. forces significant 
operational advantages over any adversary. The Committee 
believes the case for addressing these shortfalls as soon as 
possible is compelling. At the same time, the Committee is not 
convinced that the F-22 program as currently constituted can 
continue as planned, especially considering the other 
difficulties confronting the Air Force and the DoD generally.
    Therefore, the Committee believes that unless and until the 
Air Force and the Department of Defense can clearly demonstrate 
how they intend to meet these competing demands, continued F-22 
production is not justified at this time. The Committee thus 
recommends an F-22 ``production pause'' until these issues can 
be resolved. To implement this recommendation, the Committee 
specifically denies the $1.8 billion F-22 production funding 
requested for fiscal year 2000. The Secretary of the Air Force 
is further directed to take all necessary actions to cease 
production of aircraft funded in fiscal year 1999 and use all 
available procurement funds provided in that year to finance 
activities needed to ensure an orderly pause in the production 
program.
    The Committee does approve the budgeted amount of $1.2 
billion for F-22 development. These funds are provided in 
expectation that they will be used to complete the buy of nine 
F-22 development aircraft previously purchased. The Committee 
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to use these funds to 
take all necessary actions to restructure the ongoing F-22 
development program into an affordable demonstration program 
tailored to reduce the risk of the Joint Strike Fighter. The 
Committee's expectation is that nine F-22 test aircraft 
currently funded will be more than sufficient to satisfy the 
requirements of this tailored demonstration program. The 
Committee therefore directs that none of the funds provided for 
the F-22 can be used to acquire more than nine flying test 
aircraft without written prior notification to the 
congressional defense committees. The Committee further reminds 
the Air Force that section 8090 of the Committee bill prohibits 
the use of research and development funding for procurement of 
aircraft for operational use.
    Regarding other major Air Force issues, the Committee 
recommands significant increases over the budget request for a 
variety of programs such as: Air Force personnel recruiting and 
retention incentives (including $300 million over the budget 
for the aviation continuation pay program, targeted at 
retaining mid-grade pilots); spare parts and war reserve 
shortages; quality of life upgrades at Air Force facilities; 
and weapons modernization enhancements. The latter includes 
additions over the budget request for new production F-15 and 
F-16 fighters, and upgrades for these aircraft. The Committee 
also has provided funds over the budget request for bomber 
modernization, to accelerate upgrades to the existing inventory 
of B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers, and has also increased funding 
for precision guided weapons. The Committee also proposes 
adding funding for a variety of Air Force reconnaissance assets 
including one additional Joint STARS aircraft, additional 
Predator unmanned aerial vehicles, and upgrades to existing RC-
135 RIVET JOINT and U-2 surveillance platforms. The Committee 
also provides sizable increases in funding for the KC-135 
tanker and RIVET JOINT engine upgrade programs. Finally, the 
Committee also adds $100 million to the Joint Strike Fighter 
program for risk reduction efforts. Additional details on these 
and other Air Force program adjustments can be found elsewhere 
in this report.

Ensuring ``Lessons Learned'' Are Incorporated Into FY 2001-2006 Defense 
                                Planning

    The Committee commends the Secretary of Defense for his 
establishment of an ``After-Action Review Board'' to assess 
Operation Allied Force, jointly chaired by the Deputy Secretary 
of Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, with 
representation from the services and the Joint Staff. The 
Committee expects that this group will examine issues 
associated with the actual conduct of Operation Allied Force, 
which as the first offensive military operation in NATO's 
history clearly evidenced the various problems, be they 
political, strategic, or tactical, associated with coalition 
warfare on this scale.
    However, the Committee also believes that this group, which 
is meeting while the Department is also developing its detailed 
fiscal year 2001-2006 defense plan, must also seek to address 
the force structure, organizational, and resource allocation 
cited earlier in this report. The Committee, therefore, 
recommends a new general provision (Section 8129), which 
following after the lead of a similar congressionally-mandated 
review following the Persian Gulf War, is intended to build on 
the Secretary's initiative by directing that he formally assess 
the conduct of Operation Allied Force, as well as that of 
Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. The Committee believes 
it imperative the Secretary use these reviews to determine 
deficiencies in existing U.S. capabilities; report on his 
findings to both the President and Congress; and to the degree 
possible, incorporate these findings into the defense planning 
guidance and the fiscal year 2001 budget submission. Under this 
section, the Secretary is to report his initial findings to the 
President and the Congress not later than October 15, 1999, and 
will submit his final report with the submission of the fiscal 
year 2001 budget request.

               Ensuring Appropriations Process Integrity

    The Committee recommends a number of initiatives to ensure 
that appropriated funds will not be diverted to programs 
without the required congressional notification or approval. To 
address the agency problems cited earlier in this report, the 
Committee recommends several adjustments to Section 8005 of the 
Committee bill, which provides the Secretary of Defense with 
the authority to transfer funds and propose reprogramming of 
funds. In the instance of problems encountered with specific 
acquisition programs, the Committee has also proposed several 
general provisions which realign and limit certain funding, as 
well as a number of appropriations adjustments described 
elsewhere in this report.

                         Multiyear Procurement

    The Defense Department proposed a number of new multiyear 
procurement initiatives in the fiscal year 2000 budget. As 
described earlier in this report, the Committee is concerned 
that defense acquisition budgets will not materialize as 
forecast. As a result, the Committee believes it unwise to 
commit at this stage to any additional new multiyear 
procurements. If such contracts are initiated and subsequently 
broken for lack of funds, there would be severe cost penalties 
and program disruption. On the other hand, those programs not 
subject to multiyear contracts could suffer disproportionate 
reductions as an even larger share of defense procurement 
funding could be locked into long-term contracts.
    The Committee, therefore, recommends that no funds or 
authority be provided to initiate new multiyear contracts in 
fiscal year 2000. Section 8008 of the Committee bill, which in 
past years has provided multiyear contracting authority, has 
been modified to prohibit new multiyear contracts. This action 
has no effect on on-gong multiyear contracts begun in prior 
years with prior appropriations, except in those instances 
where authority is sought to expand such contracts beyond their 
original timeframes.

                  Addressing High Priority Shortfalls

    The Committee bill recommends additions to the budget 
request of over $3.6 billion to address unbudgeted shortfalls 
identified by the military Service Chiefs in personnel, 
acquisition and readiness-related programs. In total, the 
Committee recommends additions to the budget request that 
encompass nearly 44 percent of the noncontingency operation-
related unbudgeted shortfalls identified by the military 
Service Chiefs. The Committee has also recommended increases 
over the budget request and fiscal year 1999 enacted levels for 
intelligence programs. Specific details are cited throughout 
the report and the classified annex.

                     Ensuring a Quality Ready Force

    Personnel Issues.--The Committee fully funded the 4.4 
percent military pay raise in the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations bill (Public Law 106-31). The 
Committee recommends an additional $165,000,000 in fiscal year 
2000 to increase the pay raise to 4.8 percent. The Committee 
has fully funded and in some cases adds funds over the budget 
request for other pay compensation and bonus programs.
    Military Medical Programs.--The Committee recommends fully 
funding the Defense Health Program and has provided a net 
increase of over $480,000,000 above the budget request for a 
variety of health care efforts.
    Training/OPTEMPO.--For the Active duty forces, the 
Committee has added $112,100,000 to fund various shortfalls at 
the rotational training centers and $55,600,000 for operating 
tempo deficiencies in both the active and Guard and Reserve 
components identified by the Service Chiefs.
    Spare Parts/War Reserve Material Shortfalls.--The Committee 
has added $453,000,000 to fund shortfalls in the active and 
Reserve components' stocks of spare and repair parts, to 
maintain near-term readiness and ensure sustainability of U.S. 
forces.
    Equipment Repair/Maintenance.--The Committee has added 
$297,900,000 for depot level maintenance of active and Reserve 
component weapons systems and support equipment.
    Real Property Maintenance.--The Committee has added a total 
of $854,000,000 for real property maintenance, targeted at 
quality-of-life related needs at defense installations.
    Force Protection.--The Committee has added $41,400,000 for 
force protection initiatives identified by the military 
services as unfunded priorities. In addition, the Committee 
recommends that five percent of the additional $400,000,000 
provided to the active components for base operations support 
be directed toward installation security and force protection 
costs.
    Soldier Support Equipment.--The Committee has added 
$88,000,000 to fund purchases of additional soldier support 
equipment such as cold weather clothing, body armor and initial 
issue equipment for both the active and Reserve components.

                         Modernization Programs

    The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes an increase of 
$4,440,977,000 over fiscal year 1999 levels for modernization 
programs. While this increase is welcomed by the Committee, 
persistent shortfalls still exist. The Committee has included 
many recommendations throughout this bill which address these 
shortfalls identified from the testimony of Defense Department 
witnesses as well as shortfall lists provided to the Committee 
by the Department. In total, the bill recommends a net increase 
to the budget request of over $1,179,859,000 for procurement 
programs.
    The most significant recommendations include:
    Missile Defense.--The Committee recommends total funding of 
$3,899,543,000 for the Ballistic Missile Defense Program. This 
total includes $761,555,000 for national missile defense and 
$1,116,432,000 for theater systems. The Committee has provided 
$527,871,000 for the Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) 
program, a reduction of $83,755,000 to the budget request due 
to the delay in entering the engineering and manufacturing 
development phase. A total of $419,768,000 in new 
appropriations is proposed for the Navy Theater-Wide (Upper 
Tier) program, an increase of $90,000,000 above the budget 
request.
    Major Weapon Programs.--The Committee recommends fully 
funding the budget request for the Army's Crusader next 
generation artillery system, the Navy's AV-8B and F/A-18 E/F 
aircraft, the carrier replacement program, and DDG-51 and LPD-
17 ships. The Committee has also funded the number of C-17 
aircraft requested by the Air Force.
    The Committee has added funds over the budget request to 
procure additional aircraft such as UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters 
for the Army, JPATS trainer aircraft for the Navy and Air 
Force, V-22 and KC-130Js for the Marine Corps, and F-15, F-16 
and JSTARS aircraft for the Air Force. The Committee has also 
added funds over the request for Apache modifications, Bradley 
fighting vehicle industrial base sustainment, KC-135 tanker re-
engining, continued upgrades to the B-2 bomber fleet and 
additional AMRAAM missiles.
    Mission Essential Shortfalls.--The Committee has included 
additional funding for less glamorous, yet mission essential 
items which are critical for the capabilities of deployed 
troops. The Committee recommends increases over the budget 
request for such items as: tactical radios ($40,000,000), 
afloat protection systems ($24,400,000), enhancements to the 
EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft fleet ($111,000,000), 
ammunition for all services ($202,954,000), communication and 
electronics infrastructure equipment ($135,200,000) and tracked 
vehicle modification kits ($60,500,000).
    Guard and Reserve Components.--The Committee continues its 
support of the Guard and Reserve in the fiscal year 2000 
Defense Appropriations Bill with recommended increases of 
approximately $616,000,000 over the budget request for selected 
personnel and operation and maintenance programs. With respect 
to modernization programs, the Committee has provided 
$2,485,300,000 in accounts throughout the bill for procurement 
of National Guard and Reserve Equipment. This is an increase of 
$796,400,000 above the budget request for aircraft, tactical 
vehicles, miscellaneous equipment and upgrades to miscellaneous 
equipment for the guard and reserve components of the total 
force.

                       Reforms/Program Reductions

    The following table shows selected programs in the budget 
request which the Committee has eliminated or reduced funding 
based on their having a relatively low priority, program 
duplication, unaffordability, or where the requested funding is 
excessive due to fact-of-life changes or when compared to 
previously enacted levels.
        Program                                                Reduction
F-22 Production Pause................................... -$1,852,075,000
Revised Fiscal Year 1999 Inflation Estimates............    -452,100,000
Chemical Demilitarization Program.......................    -388,000,000
Military end-strength underexecution....................    -212,300,000
Headquarters and Administrative Expenses................    -179,000,000
Discoverer II...........................................    -108,481,000
Javelin Missile.........................................     -98,000,000
THAAD...................................................     -83,755,000
T-38 Upgrade............................................     -77,000,000
JSOW....................................................     -68,000,000
GPS Satellites..........................................     -67,498,000
SADARM Procurement......................................     -54,546,000
Standard Missile........................................    - 43,600,000
Maneuver Control System.................................     -42,049,000
SHF Terminals...........................................     -31,950,000

                        Tactical Reconnaissance

    During Operation Allied Force and the subsequent deployment 
of NATO peace keeping troops in the Balkans region, the 
Committee believes the Department of Defense learned at least 
two important lessons with respect to tactical reconnaissance: 
it is extremely valuable and there are not enough assets. It 
was clear to many of the commanders that the RIVET JOINT and 
unmanned aerial vehicle assets became the best ``eyes and 
ears'' tactical intelligence monitoring available in theater. 
The problem is that there are a limited number of these assets 
and staffing is extremely lean.
    Unmanned Aerial Vehicles proved their worth during 
Operation Allied Force. The vehicles could fly at altitudes and 
in areas that could not and should not be attempted by manned 
aircraft. The vehicles were vulnerable to enemy fire but 
managed to provide valuable intelligence that was used to 
target future strikes and monitor troop movements.
    The RIVET JOINT, U-2 and special Navy manned reconnaissance 
aircraft were also effective during Operation Allied Force. 
These aircraft were a lucrative source of intelligence and 
logged in excess of 700 sorties over Kosovo and surrounding 
areas. Due to their effectiveness, these assets were popular 
with local commanders. However, the numbers of these aircraft 
are incredibly limited which puts tremendous pressure on 
aircrews.
    Despite the obvious benefits of these reconnaissance assets 
and the fact that they are major providers of intelligence for 
force protection, target acquisition, troop movements, and 
battle damage assessment, the Department's fiscal year 2000 
budget does not include adequate funding for its tactical 
reconnaissance requirements. Therefore, the Committee has 
included a total of $270,100,000 above the budget request to 
fund a variety of upgrades for tactical reconnaissance assets.
    The following is a list of the additional major items for 
which funding is provided by the Committee:

                                                                  Amount
Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle........................    +$20,000,000
Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.....................     +25,000,000
RIVET JOINT.............................................    +102,200,000
U-2.....................................................     +36,000,000
Joint SIGINT Avionics Family............................     +17,400,000

    The Committee believes that these funds will provide 
significant tactical reconnaissance capability for future 
operations. The Department should ensure that the benefits from 
these increases are not shortchanged in future budget requests 
and that needed enhancements and aircraft replacements are 
fully funded.

                         Information Assurance

    The Committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
is vulnerable to unauthorized entries into its information 
infrastructure that could endanger U.S. troops or compromise 
U.S. security. There have been many instances in the past few 
years in which individuals outside of the Department of Defense 
have gained unauthorized access to the Defense Information 
Infrastructure. This is a serious threat to the protection of 
vital data. The DoD must have confidence that unauthorized 
persons have not altered critical information.
    Therefore, throughout this report, the Committee recommends 
increases of over $500,000,000 to the President's fiscal year 
2000 budget request, for critical technology developments and 
system upgrades that will provide information superiority and 
information assurance. As a part of this overall funding level, 
the Committee recommends providing an additional $150,000,000 
for the Deputy Secretary of Defense to use in support of these 
efforts in section 8114 of the Committee bill. These funds are 
available for transfer by the Deputy Secretary to those 
agencies and organizations that require additional funds for 
specific projects, programs and activities that support 
information assurance and computer security. The Committee 
anticipates these funds will only be used as part of an overall 
Department of Defense Information Assurance Plan and not simply 
divided proportionately among the Services.
    The Committee therefore has included language which 
prohibits the transfer of any portion of the additional 
$150,000,000 until the Deputy Secretary has submitted to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a proposed 
funding allocation and plan, with specific goals, targeted at 
meeting DoD's needs in information superiority and information 
assurance.

               Preparedness Against WMD Terrorist Attacks

    Section 8113 of the Committee bill provides an additional 
$50,000,000 above the budget request to enhance efforts 
underway within the Department to develop a domestic emergency 
response capability against potential terrorist attacks using 
weapons of mass destruction. These funds are to be allocated as 
follows:
    RAID Team Training/Equipment.--To complete the training and 
outfitting of Rapid Assessment Initial Detection (RAID) teams 
funded in FY 1999 and in this bill, including procurement of 
unified command suites and mobile analytical laboratory 
systems.

        Appropriation                                             Amount
National Guard Personnel, Army..........................      $4,240,000
National Guard Personnel, Air Force.....................       1,060,000
Operation and Maintenance, Army.........................      10,930,000
Other Procurement, Army.................................      12,180,000

    Military Support Detachment RAID (Light) Team.--To provide 
the training and preliminary equipment issue to field an 
initial operating capability for one traditional drilling 
Military Support Detachment RAID (Light) team.

                                                                  Amount
National Guard Personnel, Army..........................         $70,000
National Guard Personnel, Air Force.....................          20,000
Operation and Maintenance, Army.........................       1,180,000

    Additional Training/Exercises/Coordination Activities.--To 
enhance the training, organization, and support of DOD forces 
to prepare for and respond to WMD terrorism, and to enhance 
interoperability and connectivity between local, state, and 
federal interagency WMD response forces.

                                                                  Amount
Reserve Personnel, Army.................................      $2,000,000
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard..........      12,320,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army........       6,000,000


    Of the funds provided for Operation and Maintenance, Army 
National Guard, the bill provides: $3,000,000 only to establish 
a cost effective counter terrorism training program at the 
Memorial Tunnel facility which has been outfitted by the 
Federal Highway Administration to study the effects of fire and 
smoke mitigation in enclosed spaces; $2,000,000 to develop a 
structured undergraduate research program to address the 
shortage of laboratory personnel skilled in the study of 
organisms and chemicals necessary to defend against biological 
and chemical weapons; $3,500,000 to enhance the Army National 
Guard's distance learning capabilities by implementing and 
expanding the Virtual Readiness University concept, enhancing 
the security of the Guardnet 21 backbone, and other related 
initiatives.
    The Committee believes the National Guard's Distance 
Learning Network provides a ready-made and cost-effective 
infrastructure to deliver WMD training courses across the 
country to local, state, and federal WMD response forces. The 
Committee recommends that the National Guard Bureau and the 
Department of Justice establish a collaborative training 
program to make expanded use of the National Guard Distance 
Learning Network, and other training and education resources of 
the National Guard and Department of Justice, to train civilian 
and military personnel.
    Of the funds provided for Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation, Army, the bill provides $3,000,000 (PE 273610A) to 
continue consequence management and related training activities 
through the National Terrorism Preparedness Institute at the 
Southeastern Public Safety Institute. In addition, funds are 
provided to study the mass psychological trauma and impact of a 
WMD terrorism attack on civilians and on the military, and to 
identify appropriate response strategies.

              Committee Recommendations by Major Category


                       active military personnel

    The Committee recommends a total of $62,132,237,000 for 
active military personnel, a reduction of $1,526,243,000 below 
the budget request. The Committee has reduced the active and 
reserve military personnel accounts by $1,838,426,000 to 
reflect action taken in the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-31) which 
provided advance funding for the fiscal year 2000 pay and 
retirement reform initiatives proposed by the President. The 
Committee also includes additional funds to pay for the cost of 
the pay raise increase from 4.4 percent to 4.8 percent, as 
proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The 
Committee agrees with the authorized end strength as requested 
in the President's budget, and has included funds to provide 
for additional personnel costs for the Navy and Marine Corps.

                           Guard and Reserve

    The Committee recommends a total of $9,899,740,000, a 
decrease of $165,073,000 below the budget request for Guard and 
Reserve personnel. The Committee agrees with the authorized end 
strength as requested in the President's budget for Selected 
Reserve, and has included funds to provide for additional 
personnel costs for the Air Force Reserve, and Air National 
Guard. The Committee has also included funds for the proposed 
pay raise to 4.8 percent.

                       Operation and Maintenance

    The Operation and maintenance appropriation provides for 
the readiness of U.S. Forces as well as the maintenance of 
facilities and equipment, the infrastructure that supports the 
combat forces and the quality of life service members and their 
families.
    The Committee recommends $93,686,750,000, a net increase of 
$2,418,501,000 above the fiscal year 2000 budget request. This 
increase in driven primarily by the need to address shortfalls 
in funding for rotational training centers, spare and repair 
part stocks, depot-level maintenance, support equipment, and 
the infrastructure of U.S. military bases. The Committee also 
recommends reductions from the budget request as the result of 
fact of life changes and management actions the Department 
should undertake to streamline activities.

                              Procurement

    The Committee recommends $53,031,397,000 in obligational 
authority for programs funded in Title III of the bill, 
Procurement, a net increase of $1,179,859,000 over the fiscal 
year 2000 budget request. Major programs funded in the bill 
include the following:
    $207,140,000 for 19 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters.
    $774,536,000 for Apache Longbow modifications.
    $296,472,000 for 2200 Hellfire missiles.
    $307,677,000 for 2682 Javelin anti-tank missiles.
    $138,134,000 for 47 MLRS launcher systems.
    $392,762,000 for Bradley fighting vehicle industrial base 
sustainment.
    $422,996,000 for the Abrams Tank upgrade program.
    $260,444,000 for 12 AV-8B strike aircraft.
    $2,691,989,000 for 36 F/A-18E/F fighter aircraft.
    $856,392,000 for 11 V-22 aircraft.
    $284,493,000 for 17 CH-60S helicopters.
    $325,476,000 for 15 T-45 Trainer aircraft.
    $576,257,000 for 8 KC-130J airlift aircraft.
    $361,202,000 for P-3 aircraft modifications.
    $437,488,000 for 12 Trident II ballistic missiles.
    $155,267,000 for 91 Standard missiles.
    $751,540,000 for the aircraft carrier replacement program.
    $748,497,000 for the New Attack Submarine.
    $2,681,653,000 for 3 DDG-51 Destroyers.
    $1,508,338,000 for 2 LPD-17 ships.
    $439,966,000 for 1 ADC(X) ship.
    $440,000,000 for 8 F-15 aircraft.
    $350,610,000 for 15 F-16 aircraft.
    $2,671,047,000 for 15 C-17 aircraft.
    $468,465,000 for 2 JSTARS aircraft.
    $321,818,000 for F-15 modifications.
    $295,536,000 for F-16 modifications.
    $552,988,000 for C-135 modifications.
    $190,279,000 for AMRAAM missiles.
    $300,898,000 for 32 Patriot PAC-3 missiles.
    $2,044,331,000 for ammunition for all services.

               research, development, test and evaluation

    The Committee recommends $37,169,446,000 for Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation. Major programs funded in the 
bill include:
    $282,937,000 for the Crusader artillery system.
    $427,069,000 for the Comanche helicopter.
    $190,931,000 for cooperative engagement capability.
    $251,456,000 for new submarine design.
    $111,580,000 for ship self defense.
    $308,634,000 for the Airborne Laser program.
    $576,612,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter.
    $1,222,232,000 for F-22 development.
    $344,165,000 for B-2 development.
    $322,803,000 for the evolved expendable launch vehicle 
program.
    $527,871,000 for Theater High Altitude Area Defense 
(THAAD).
    $419,768,000 for Navy Theater Wide Missile Defense.
    $761,555,000 for National Missile Defense.

                         Forces To Be Supported

                         department of the army

    The fiscal year 2000 budget is designed to support active 
Army forces of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and 
reserve forces of 8 divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15 
enhanced National Guard brigades (6 enhanced brigades will be 
aligned under 2 AC/ARNG integrated division headquarters). 
These forces provide the minimum force necessary to meet 
enduring defense needs and execute the National Military 
Strategy.
    A summary of the major active forces follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                      1998         1999          2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Divisions:
    Airborne....................            1          1               1
    Air Assault.................            1          1               1
    Light.......................            2      (-) 1/1         \1\ 2
    Infantry....................            0          0               0
    Mechanized..................            4          4               4
    Armored.....................            2          2               2
                                 ---------------------------------------
        Total...................           10         10              10
                                 =======================================
Non-division Combat units:
    Armored cavalry regiments:..            3          3               3
    Separate brigades...........            0          0           \1\ 1
                                 ---------------------------------------
        Total...................            3          3               4
                                 =======================================
Active duty military personnel,           495        480             480
 end strength (thousands).......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Separate brigade is aligned to one of the light divisions.

                         department of the navy

    The fiscal year 2000 budget supports battle forces totaling 
316 ships at the end of fiscal year 2000, a decrease of 1 ship 
from fiscal year 1999. Forces in fiscal year 2000 include 18 
strategic submarines, 11 aircraft carriers, 245 other battle 
force ships, 1,852 Navy/Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 645 
Undergraduate Training aircraft, 454 Fleet Air Training 
aircraft, 238 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 442 Reserve aircraft, 
and 450 aircraft in the pipeline.
    A summary of the major forces follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--
                                  --------------------------------------
                                       1998         1999         2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Forces.................           18           18           18
                                  --------------------------------------
    Submarines...................           18           18           18
    Other........................            0            0            0

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

General Purpose..................          271          256          256
    Aircraft Carriers............           11           11           11
                                  --------------------------------------
    Surface Combatants...........          107          106          108
    Submarines (Attack)..........           65           57           56
    Amphibious Warfare Ships.....           38           37           37
    Combat Logistics Ships.......           39           34           34
    Other........................           11           11           11
Support Forces...................           25           25           25
                                  --------------------------------------
    Mobile Logistics Ships.......            3            2            2
    Support Ships................           22           23           23
Mobilization Category A..........           18           18           16
                                  --------------------------------------
    Aircraft Carriers............            1            1            1
    Surface Combatants...........           10           10            8
    Amphibious Warfare Ships.....            2            2            2
    Mine Warfare.................            5            5            5
                                  ======================================

        Total Ships, Battle Force          333          317          316
        Total Local Defense/Misc           162          161          167
         Forces..................

Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces......          139          138          143
Surface Combatant Ships..........            2            1            0
Coastal Defense..................           13           12           13
Mobilization Category B..........            6            8           10
Surface Combatants...............            0            0            0
Mine Warfare Ships...............            8           10           11
Support Ships....................            0            0            0
Naval Aircraft:
    Primary Authorized (Plus-            4,204        4,128        4,168
     Pipe).......................
                                  --------------------------------------
    Authorized Pipeline..........          476          456          450
    Tactical/ASW Aircraft........        1,873        1,871        1,852
    Fleet Air Training...........          489          469          454
    Fleet Air Support............          247          242          238
    Training (Undergraduate).....          675          648          645
    Reserve......................          444          442          442
Naval Personnel:
    Active.......................      560,036      544,896      543,929
    Navy.........................      386,894      372,696      371,781
    Marine Corps.................      173,142      172,200      172,148
Reserve:
    Navy.........................       94,294       90,843       90,288
    SELRES.......................       78,158       75,253       75,278
    TARS.........................       16,136       15,590       15,010
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      department of the air force

    The fiscal year 2000 Air Force budget is designed to 
support a total active inventory force structure of 49 fighter 
and attack squadrons, 6 Air National Guard air defense 
interceptor squadrons and 8 bomber squadrons, including B-2s, 
B-52s, and B-1s. The Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBM forces will 
consist of 700 active launchers.
    A summary of the major forces follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       1998         1999         2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF fighter and attack (Active).           51           51           49
USAF fighter and attack (ANG and            36           35           35
 AFRC............................
Air defense interceptor (ANG)....           10            6            6
Strategic bomber (Active)........            8            9            8
Strategic bomber (ANG and AFRC)..            3            3            3
ICBM launchers/silos.............          700          700          700
ICBM missile boosters............          580          580          550
                                  ======================================
USAF airlift squadrons (Active):
    Strategic airlift............           13           13           11
    Tactical airlift.............            9            9            9
                                  --------------------------------------
        Total Airlift............           22           22           20
                                  ======================================
        Total Active Inventory...        6,242        6,207        6,187
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 1998    FY 1999 Col
                                     (Actual)     FY 00 PB     FY 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Duty......................      367,470      365,882      360,877
Reserve Component................      180,066      181,233      180,386
Air National Guard...............      108,096      106,991      106,678
Air Force Reserve................       71,970       74,242       73,708
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

  Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations

    The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request has made 
military personnel its first priority to improve retention and 
recruiting through a more equitable compensation package. The 
budget request proposed increasing the military personnel 
accounts by over $3,100,000,000 from the fiscal year 1999 
enacted levels, and by more than $36,000,000,000 over the Five 
Year Defense Plan. These personnel initiatives include enhanced 
pay raises, reform of the basic pay tables, legislation to 
repeal the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986, new 
legislative initiatives designed to improve recruiting and 
retention in specific skill areas or critical military skills, 
and increased funding for enlistment bonuses and education 
benefits to help the Services' meet their accession goals.
    The Committee, in the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-31), provided 
$1,838,426,000 in advance funds to support the President's 
fiscal year 2000 request for a 4.4 percent pay raise, pay table 
reform and retirement reform. In addition to the funds provided 
in the fiscal year 1999 supplemental, the Committee recommends 
including $164,510,000 for an increase of 0.4 percent in the 
military's pay raise to 4.8 percent, as proposed by the House-
passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee also includes 
$367,200,000 for increases to enlistment, reenlistment and 
aviation bonuses to improve recruiting and retention in the 
Department, $103,800,000 for recruiting, advertising and 
recruiter support programs, and $225,000,000 for the 
acceleration of the Basic Allowance for Housing reform.

   SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

Fiscal year 1999........................................ $70,607,566,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.........................  73,723,293,000
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation.........................  72,011,977,000
Change from budget request..............................  -1,711,316,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$72,011,977,000 for the Military Personnel accounts. The 
recommendation is an increase of $1,404,411,000 above the 
$70,607,566,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1999. These 
military personnel budget total comparisons include 
appropriations for the active, reserve, and National Guard 
accounts. The following tables include a summary of the 
recommendations by appropriation account. Explanations of 
changes from the budget request appear later in this section.

           SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATION
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Change from
                             Account                                  Budget      Recommendation      budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
    Army........................................................     $22,006,632     $21,475,732       -$530,900
    Navy........................................................      17,207,481      16,737,072        -470,409
    Marine Corps................................................       6,544,682       6,353,622        -191,060
    Air Force...................................................      17,899,685      17,565,811        -333,874
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Active..........................................      63,658,480      62,132,237      -1,526,243
                                                                 ===============================================
Reserve Personnel:
    Army........................................................       2,270,964       2,235,055         -35,909
    Navy........................................................       1,446,339       1,425,210         -21,129
    Marine Corps................................................         409,189         403,822          -5,367
    Air Force...................................................         881,170         872,978          -8,192
National Guard Personnel:
    Army........................................................       3,570,639       3,486,427         -84,212
    Air Force...................................................       1,486,512       1,456,248         -30,264
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Guard and Reserve...............................      10,064,813       9,879,740        -185,073
                                                                 ===============================================
      Total, Title I............................................      73,723,293      72,011,977      -1,711,316
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes a decrease of 
5,631 end strength for the active forces and a decrease of 
11,744 end strength for the selected reserve over fiscal year 
1999 authorized levels.
    The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted 
in the tables below.

                      overall active end strength




Fiscal year 1999 estimate..................................    1,390,437
Fiscal year 2000 budget request............................    1,384,806
Fiscal year 2000 House authorization.......................    1,385,432
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation............................    1,385,512
    Compared with Fiscal year 1999.........................       -4,925
    Compared with Fiscal year 2000 budget request..........         +706


                 overall selected reserve end strength




Fiscal year 1999 estimate..................................      877,042
Fiscal year 2000 budget request............................      865,298
Fiscal year 2000 House authorization.......................      865,298
Fiscal year 2000 recommendation............................      865,373
    Compared with Fiscal year 1999.........................      -11,669
    Compared with Fiscal year 2000 budget request..........          +75



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fiscal year 2000
                                              FY 1999       Budget   -------------------------------------------
                                              estimate     request        House                      Change from
                                                                      authorization  Recommendation    request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Forces (end strength):
    Army..................................      480,000      480,000       480,000         480,000   ...........
    Navy..................................      372,355      371,781       372,037         372,037          +256
    Marine Corps..........................      172,200      172,148       172,518         172,518          +370
    Air Force.............................      365,882      360,877       360,877         360,957           +80
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Active Force.................    1,390,437    1,384,806     1,385,432       1,385,512          +706
                                           =====================================================================
Guard and Reserve (end strength):
    Army Reserve..........................      208,000      205,000       205,000         205,000   ...........
    Navy Reserve..........................       90,843       90,288        90,288          90,288   ...........
    Marine Corps Reserve..................       39,966       39,624        39,624          39,624   ...........
    Air Force Reserve.....................       74,242       73,708        73,708          73,764           +56
    Army National Guard...................      357,000      350,000       350,000         350,000   ...........
    Air National Guard....................      106,991      106,678       106,678         106,697           +19
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Guard and Reserve............      877,042      865,298       865,298         865,373           +75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Adjustments to Military Personnel Account


                                overview


                        end strength adjustments

    The Committee recommends an understrength reduction of 
$212,300,000 to the budget request, as a result of a General 
Accounting Office review of the 1999 military personnel end 
strength levels. The General Accounting office has been 
examining the costs for military pay and allowances to 
determine if the fiscal year 2000 requirements are correct. 
They have concluded, based on May 1999 end strength 
projections, that the active components will begin fiscal year 
2000 with approximately 12,000 fewer military personnel on-
board than budgeted. In addition, actual data shows active 
military personnel on-board, by grade mix, is different than 
was requested in last year's budget request. This means the 
fiscal year 2000 pay and allowances requirements for personnel 
are incorrect and the budgets are overstated. The Committee 
will continue to monitor the Services end strength levels as 
more current data becomes available.

                       pay and retirement reform

    The Committee included funds in support of the President's 
budget request for a 4.4 percent increase in basic pay, pay 
table reform, and the repeal of the 1986 Military Retirement 
Reform Act in the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-31), and, therefore, 
recommends a reduction of $1,838,426,000 in the active and 
reserve military personnel accounts for fiscal year 2000 for 
these pay and compensation initiatives.
    Subsequent to the Supplemental appropriations bill, 
however, the House-passed Defense Authorization bill 
recommended language to enhance the percentage pay raise for 
military personnel, effective January 1, 2000, and revised the 
budget's legislative proposal concerning the proposed repeal of 
the Redux retirement system. The Committee recommends an 
additional $164,510,000 to cover the cost of the increased pay 
raise, and recommends a reduction of $392,000,000 to the 
military personnel accounts for modifications to the Redux 
retirement system consistent with the House-passed 
authorization bill.

                      basic allowance for housing

    The Committee recommends an increase over the request of 
$225,000,000 for the reform of the Basic Allowance for Housing 
(BAH) program. In 1998, the services began phasing in the Basic 
Allowance for Housing program, which will replace two separate 
allowances, the Variable Housing Allowance and Basic Allowance 
for Quarters. The transition from the old housing allowance 
system to the new Basic Allowance for Housing was to be phased 
in over six years and was required to be cost neutral. The 
intent of BAH is to provide service members compensation that 
is based on comparable civilian costs of housing, and reduce 
their out-of-pocket housing expenses. The Committee recommends 
the additional funds to complete the transition phase of BAH 
reform, as recommended by the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill, in order to protect service members from 
any further erosion of their housing benefits.

                       aviation continuation pay

    The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000,000 over 
the budget request to provide additional funds for the pilot 
Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) bonus. The Committee is 
concerned about the high personnel tempo and operations tempo 
that aviation officers and enlisted crew members are 
undergoing, and understands that the Air Force is experiencing 
major retention problems in these career fields, as well as 
other critical skill areas. Prior to 1995, one in 14 pilots 
separated after 14 years of service. Today, one in four pilots 
separate prior to retirement. In addition, the Air Force is 
currently operating with approximately 1,100 less pilots, or at 
92 percent of their manning requirements, and have projected 
over 1,600 pilot shortages by fiscal year 2003. The Committee 
believes that an increase in this bonus will allow the Air 
Force to implement an ACP program which offers bonuses to those 
eligible pilots who would otherwise separate from the military. 
The Committee also supports the budget request which 
establishes a new Career Enlisted Flyer Incentive Pay, designed 
to reverse declining retention of enlisted crew members.

                         unfunded requirements

    The Committee recommends an increase over the budget 
request of $592,200,000 for additional active duty and reserve 
component pays and allowances to enhance recruiting, retention 
and quality of life initiatives for military personnel, as 
follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Enlistment Bonuses....................................           $39,200
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses........................            28,000
Aviation Continuation Pay.............................           300,000
Basic Allowance for Housing...........................           225,000
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................           592,200


                       jrotc leadership training

    The Committee recommends an increase of $34,800,000 over 
the budget request in the services' personnel and operations 
and maintenance accounts to expand the number of JROTC programs 
during fiscal year 2000.
    The Committee is impressed with the proposal of the George 
C. Marshall Foundation to develop, deliver, and evaluate a 
school-based community service program to develop ethical 
leadership and problem-solving abilities of JROTC students. The 
Committee commends this proposal to the Department for 
consideration.

                         quality of life study

    The Committee is encouraged by the Department's decision to 
proceed with a service-wide quality of life survey similar to 
the model developed by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and 
reported in GAO Report NSIAD-99-197. The Committee expects that 
the Department's survey will take into account the factors GAO 
identified as having negative effects on unit morale and 
readiness, such as the availability of parts and equipment to 
perform daily job functions, the frequency of deployments, and 
other factors related to the work environment. In addition, the 
Committee supports a limited annual quality of life survey with 
consistent questions to develop longitudinal data on this 
issue. The Department may also consider the use of focus groups 
and the involvement of impartial entities to provide 
independent review and analysis. A report on the findings of 
the survey shall be submitted to the Committee by February 1, 
2000.

                        guard and reserve forces

    The Committee recognizes that Guard and Reserve Forces are 
an essential part of the total force having played an important 
role in recent peacetime operations such as assistance to South 
American countries after Hurricane Mitch, and their continued 
work under the Enhanced New Horizons Exercises, Operations 
Desert Thunder/Fox in Southwest Asia, Operations Joint Guard/
Forge in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and most recently the conflict in 
Kosovo. Many of the skills needed for response to a crisis 
reside in the Reserve components, guaranteeing the increased 
use of Reservists in military operations other than war. The 
Committee's recommendation for fiscal year 2000 continues its 
support of the Guard and Reserve and recommends an increase of 
$611,906,000 over the budget request for the operation and 
maintenance accounts. In addition to the $1,688,900,000 
requested in the budget, and fully funded for Guard and Reserve 
equipment, the Committee has recommended $796,400,000 
throughout the bill for additional aircraft, tactical vehicles, 
and various miscellaneous equipment and upgrades to existing 
equipment for the Guard and Reserve components. The following 
table summarizes the Guard and Reserve funding issues:

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Operation and Maintenance.............................         +$611,900
Modernization.........................................          +796,400
                                                       -----------------
    Total.............................................        +1,408,306


                      full-time support strengths

    There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard 
and Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and 
Reserve (AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component 
personnel.
    Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, 
maintain and administer the Reserve components. Civilian 
(Military) technicians directly support units, and are very 
important to help units maintain readiness and meet the wartime 
mission of the Army and Air Force.
    Full-time support end strength in all categories totaled 
90,086 in fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 2000 budget request 
is 113,827 end strength. The following table summarizes Guard 
and Reserve full-time support end strengths:

                                    GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              FY 1999       Budget        House                      Change from
                                              estimate     estimate   authorization  Recommendation    request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve:
    AGR...................................       12,804       12,804        12,804          12,804   ...........
    Technicians...........................        6,474        6,474         6,474           6,474   ...........
Navy Reserve TAR..........................       15,618       15,010        15,010          15,010   ...........
Marine Corps Reserve......................        2,362        2,272         2,272           2,272   ...........
Air Force Reserve:
    AGR...................................          991        1,078         1,078           1,134           +56
    Technicians...........................        9,761        9,785         9,785           9,785   ...........
Army National Guard:
    AGR...................................       21,763       21,807        22,563          21,807   ...........
    Technicians...........................       24,761       23,161        23,161          23,161   ...........
Air National Guard:
    AGR...................................       10,930       11,091        11,025          11,096            +5
    Technicians...........................       22,750       22,589        22,589          22,596            +7
Total:
    AGR/TAR...............................       64,468       64,062        64,752          64,123           +61
    Technicians...........................       63,746       62,009        62,009          62,016            +7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................   $20,841,687,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................    22,006,632,000
Committee recommendation..............................    21,475,732,000
Change from budget request............................      -530,900,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$21,475,732,000 for Military Personnel, Army. The 
recommendation is an increase of $634,045,000 above the 
$20,841,687,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



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

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted
 Personnel:
    1100  Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses.............            25,000
    1100  Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonus...            24,000
Other Adjustments:
    2755  Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106-31........          -559,533
    2770  Personnel Underexecution....................           -15,000
    2790  4.8% Pay Raise Increase.....................            49,533
    2800  Retirement Reform...........................          -127,500
    2805  Basic Allowance for Housing.................            72,600


                        MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................   $16,570,754,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................    17,207,481,000
Committee recommendation..............................    16,737,072,000
Change from budget request............................      -470,409,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$16,737,072,000 for Military Personnel, Navy. The 
recommendation is an increase of $166,318,000 above the 
$16,570,754,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Military 
Personnel, Navy are shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Other Adjustments:
    5555  Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106-31........          -436,773
    5580  Personnel Underexecution....................           -51,300
    5595  4.8% Pay Raise Increase.....................            37,464
    5605  Retirement Reform...........................           -96,400
    5610  Basic Allowance for Housing.................            71,600
    5615  AOE-1 Replenishment Ships...................             5,000


                       aoe-1 replenishment ships

    The Committee recommends an increase over the budget 
request of $5,000,000 in ``Military Personnel, Navy'' to 
provide additional manpower costs for the required end strength 
associated with the decision not to implement the fiscal year 
2000 decommissionings of the AOE-1 class of ships.

                    MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $6,263,387,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     6,544,682,000
Committee recommendation..............................     6,353,622,000
Change from budget request............................      -191,060,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,353,622,000 
for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an 
increase of $90,235,000 above the $6,263,387,000 appropriated 
for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Military 
Personnel, Marine Corps are shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Other Adjustments:
    8205  Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106-31........          -177,980
    8240  4.8% Pay Raise Increase.....................            15,520
    8242  Marine Corps Security Guards................             6,600
    8250  Retirement Reform...........................           -38,700
    8255  Basic Allowance for Housing.................            19,500
    8260  Marine Corps Execution Repricing............           -16,000


                marine corps security guard detachments

    The Committee recommends an increase over the budget 
request of $6,600,000 in ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', 
and $4,100,000 in ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'' 
to provide additional personnel and sufficient operational 
support costs associated with increasing the number of 
embassies guarded by Marine Security Guard Detachments.

                     MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................   $17,211,987,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................    17,899,685,000
Committee recommendation..............................    17,565,811,000
Change from budget request............................      -333,874,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$17,565,811,000 for Military Personnel, Air Force. The 
recommendation is an increase of $353,824,000 above the 
$17,211,987,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Military 
Personnel, Air Force are shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Other Adjustments:
    11005  Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106-31.......          -471,892
    11020  Personnel Underexecution...................          -146,000
    11040  4.8% Pay Increase..........................            40,518
    11070  Retirement Reform..........................          -105,800
    11080  Basic Allowance for Housing................            61,300
    11090  Aviation Continuation Pay..................           300,000
    11100  TERA Rephasing.............................           -12,000


                        RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $2,167,052,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     2,270,964,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,235,055,000
Change from budget request............................       -35,909,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,235,055,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase 
of $68,003,000 above the $2,167,052,000 appropriated for fiscal 
year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



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

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:
    11750  Administration and Support/Enlistment                   2,200
 Bonuses..............................................
Other Adjustments:
    12005  Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106-31.......           -40,574
    12030  4.8% Pay Raise Increase....................             4,765
    12045  JROTC Program..............................             2,400
    12050  Retirement Reform..........................            -4,700


                        RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $1,426,663,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,446,339,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,425,210,000
Change from budget request............................       -21,129,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,425,210,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease 
of $1,453,000 below the $1,426,663,000 appropriated for fiscal 
year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve 
Personnel, Navy are shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:
    12600  Administration and Support/Enlistment                   5,000
 Bonuses..............................................
    12600  Administration and Support/Selective                    4,000
 Reenlistment Bonuses.................................
Other Adjustments:
    12855  Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106-31.......           -29,833
    12895  4.8% Pay Raise Increase....................             3,004
    12899  JROTC Program..............................             1,400
    12910  Retirement Reform..........................            -4,700


                    RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $406,616,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       409,189,000
Committee recommendation..............................       403,822,000
Change from budget request............................        -5,367,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $403,822,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is a 
decrease of $2,794,000 below the $406,616,000 appropriated for 
fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve 
Personnel, Marine Corps are shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Other Adjustments:
    13755  Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106-31............       -7,820
    13780  JROTC Program...................................        2,600
    13790  4.8% Pay Raise Increase.........................          853
    13795  Retirement Reform...............................       -1,000


                      RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $852,324,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       881,170,000
Committee recommendation..............................       872,978,000
Change from budget request............................        -8,192,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $872,978,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an 
increase of $20,654,000 above the $852,342,000 appropriated for 
fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve 
Personnel, Air Force are shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Other Adjustments:
    14605  Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106-31............      -13,143
    14620  4.8% Pay Raise Increase.........................        1,751
    14626  JROTC Program...................................        1,900
    14630  Retirement Reform...............................       -1,000
    14635  Transfer of Test Support Mission/AGR's..........        2,300


                          test support mission

    The Committee recommends an increase over the budget 
request of $2,300,000 in ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'' to 
provide additional personnel costs required for the proposed 
transfer of the Functional Check Flight mission and two Test 
Support missions to the Air Force Reserve Command from the 
active Air Force.

                     NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $3,489,987,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     3,570,639,000
Committee recommendation..............................     3,486,427,000
Change from budget request............................       -84,212,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,486,427,000 
for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a 
decrease of $3,560,000 below the $3,489,987,000 appropriated 
for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



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

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:
    15200  Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses...        7,000
Other Adjustments:
    15355  Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106-31............      -70,416
    15370  4.8% Pay Raise Increase.........................        7,704
    15395  Retirement Reform...............................       -8,500
    15400  Workyear Reduction/Annual Training..............      -20,000


               army national guard workyear requirements

    The Committee recommends a reduction from the budget 
request of $20,000,000 due to a General Accounting Office (GAO) 
review of the Army National Guard's military personnel budget 
request. The GAO reports that the Guard has overstated the 
number of average workyears of military personnel that is 
budgeted in fiscal year 2000 because of overstated 
participation rates for annual training and the variance in 
costs of the different pay groups. In addition, the GAO reports 
that last year the Army Guard moved approximately $86,000,000 
of annual training funds (budget activity one) to pay for 
schools and special training costs (budget activity two) 
without the Department's knowledge and without congressional 
approval. The Committee directs that the Secretary of Defense 
report to the Committee, by February 1, 2000, on its efforts to 
ensure the Army Guard's accounting procedures for determining 
annual training and schools and special training costs are 
properly coded, and that the Army Guard follow the Department's 
financial management regulations in the future.

                  NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $1,377,109,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,486,512,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,456,248,000
Change from budget request............................       -30,264,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,456,248,000 
for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is 
an increase of $79,139,000 above the $1,377,109,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



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

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Other Adjustments:
    16105  Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106-31............      -30,462
    16130  4.8% Pay Raise Increase.........................        3,398
    16140  Retirement Reform...............................       -3,700
    16145  C-130 Personnel.................................          500


                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

    The fiscal year 2000 budget request for Operation and 
maintenance is $91,268,249,000 in new budget authority, which 
is an increase of $7,225,435,000 above the amount appropriated 
in fiscal year 1999. The request also includes a $150,000,000 
cash transfer from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction 
fund.
    The accompanying bill recommends $93,686,750,000 for fiscal 
year 2000, which is an increase of $2,418,501,000 above the 
budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends that 
$150,000,000 be transferred from the National Defense Stockpile 
Transaction fund, as proposed in the budget request.
    These appropriations finance the costs of operating and 
maintaining the Armed Forces, including the reserve components 
and related support activities of the Department of Defense 
(DoD), except military personnel costs. Included are pay for 
civilians, services for maintenance of equipment and 
facilities, fuel, supplies, and spare parts for weapons and 
equipment. Financial requirements are influenced by many 
factors, including force levels such as the number of aircraft 
squadrons, Army and Marine Corps divisions, installations, 
military personnel strength and deployments, rates of 
operational activity, and the quantity and complexity of 
equipment such as aircraft, ships, missiles and tanks in 
operation.
    The table below summarizes the Committee's recommendations.



                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW

    Despite increases proposed by the administration in the 
fiscal year 2000 budget request, the Committee notes that there 
are substantial unfunded requirements in the Operation and 
Maintenance accounts that are critical to maintaining the 
readiness of U.S. armed forces, enhancing the sustainability of 
such forces when they are deployed, and improving the condition 
of the supporting infrastructure. As in past years, the 
Committee requested that the Military Services identify their 
top unfunded priorities for consideration during the 
Committee's deliberations on the fiscal year 2000 Department of 
Defense Appropriations bill. Once again, the Military Services 
have identified significant shortfalls in the Operation and 
Maintenance accounts. In the Committee's view, these shortfalls 
pose a serious risk to both the near term readiness of U.S. 
forces as well as the ability of these forces to sustain combat 
operations. These shortfalls are evident in a number of areas 
financed by the Operation and Maintenance accounts including: 
funding for the rotational training centers; funding for stocks 
of spare and repair parts necessary to ensure that equipment is 
mission capable and can be sustained once deployed; depot-level 
maintenance of weapons systems and support equipment; and, 
basic troop support gear such as cold weather clothing and body 
armor. These shortfalls are also apparent in the funding 
required to maintain the condition of U.S. military bases 
which, despite increases in the budget request, is perennially 
underfunded. To correct these deficiencies, the Committee 
recommends increased funding above the budget request in a 
number of areas including those areas of need cited above.
    The Committee notes that an additional $2,250,000,000 was 
provided in the fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-31) for critical, readiness-
related shortfalls identified by the military Services 
including: spare parts, depot maintenance, readiness related 
training and base operations support. These increases, outlined 
below, have had a direct impact on certain recommendations made 
by the Committee in its deliberations on the fiscal year 2000 
Department of Defense Appropriations bill. For instance, the 
Committee recommendation for additional spare parts for the 
Services is biased toward improving stocks of war reserve 
materials because a large percentage of the Department's 
immediate needs were met in Public Law 106-31, the Supplemental 
Appropriations Act.
    The following listing indicates those readiness categories 
and funding addressed earlier this year in Public Law 106-31.




Spare Parts Requirements..............................    $1,124,900,000
Depot Maintenance.....................................       742,500,000
Readiness Training and OPTEMPO........................       200,200,000
Base Operations Support...............................       182,400,000


    The Committee also notes that there are areas in the 
Operation and Maintenance accounts where savings can be 
achieved to free up resources both for readiness needs, and to 
make resources available for more robust modernization 
programs. Given the need to correct deficiencies in the 
Operation and Maintenance accounts in order to enhance near-
term readiness and sustainability as well as weapons 
modernization, the Committee believes it is imperative for the 
Department of Defense to use its Operation and Maintenance 
funding as efficiently as possible. Therefore, the Committee 
recommends certain reductions based on fact-of-life 
considerations, as well as management actions that the 
Department should undertake to streamline activities funded in 
the Operation and Maintenance accounts.

                    ROTATIONAL TRAINING INITIATIVES

    The Committee recommends an increase of $112,100,000 above 
the budget request to address shortages of equipment and parts 
and to improve the state of infrastructure at each of the 
Military Service's rotational training centers. Consistent with 
the recommendations of the House Armed Services Committee in 
the report accompanying the fiscal year 2000 National Defense 
Authorization bill, the Committee finds that the rotational 
training centers are a key to maintaining the readiness of U.S. 
forces, and that the equipment, facilities and ranges at these 
centers are in urgent need of upgrades and repairs. To address 
these shortfalls, the Committee recommends additional funding 
over the budget request, to be distributed as follows:




Army..................................................       $42,100,000
Navy..................................................         2,000,000
Marine Corps..........................................        25,700,000
Air Force.............................................        42,300,000


                       real property maintenance

    The Committee recognizes that the Administration, for the 
first time, requested funding for the Quality of Life 
Enhancements, Defense account. While the Committee recommends 
including funding in this account, as discussed elsewhere in 
this report, the Committee recommends returning the funds 
included in the budget request to the Services' Operation and 
Maintenance accounts. The Committee notes that a substantial 
portion of the funding included in the budget request for 
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense is not related to quality 
of life enhancing projects such as dormitories, barracks and 
related facilities. Similarly, the Committee notes that the 
funding proposed in the budget request was derived primarily by 
transferring funds which would have otherwise been included in 
the Services' Operation and Maintenance accounts.
    Despite the administration's change in approach to real 
property maintenance (RPM) funding, the budget materials 
acknowledge that the central problem of RPM, a persistent and 
growing backlog, continues unabated. The budget estimates 
indicate that the RPM backlog is at least $9,600,000,000 and 
growing. The Committee notes with interest that the budget 
materials have not even included an estimate of the backlog of 
Army RPM for the past two years. (The last available data 
indicate that the backlog for this one service alone was 
$5,900,000,000.) To improve the information in the budget 
request, the Committee directs that the Department of Defense 
include estimates of the backlog of real property maintenance 
for the Army as well as all other Services and Defense-wide 
components in the fiscal year 2001 budget request, and all 
subsequent budget requests.
    In order to reduce the backlog of real property maintenance 
requirements, the Committee recommends an increase totaling 
$854,000,000 above the budget request. Of this amount, 
$800,000,000 for the Active components is provided in the 
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense account as described 
elsewhere in this report. Funding over the budget request for 
the Guard and Reserve components totals $54,000,000 and is 
provided to each component's respective Operation and 
Maintenance account. The additional funding over the budget 
request is distributed as follows:

Army....................................................    $182,600,000
Navy....................................................     285,200,000
Marine Corps............................................      62,100,000
Air Force...............................................     259,600,000
Defense-wide............................................      10,500,000
Army Reserve............................................      10,000,000
Navy Reserve............................................      10,000,000
Marine Corps Reserve....................................       4,000,000
Air Force Reserve.......................................      10,000,000
Army National Guard.....................................      10,000,000
Air National Guard......................................      10,000,000

                        base operations support

    The Committee recommends increases above the budget request 
totaling $439,800,000 to meet unfunded requirements associated 
with base operations support, broken out by component in the 
table below. The Services continue to suffer from significant 
unfunded priorities in their base operations support accounts. 
The Committee recognizes that unfunded requirements in this 
area have an indirect yet corrosive effect on the readiness of 
U.S. forces, as the Services have and will continue to shift 
funding from readiness related activities, such as training and 
equipment maintenance, to meet ``must pay'' bills related to 
base operations. Due to continuing concerns about installation 
security and force protection, the Committee expects the 
Department of Defense to allocate not less than 5 percent of 
the increases over the budget request for the active military 
services for base operations support to programs and costs 
associated with installation security and force protection.

Army....................................................    $154,600,000
Navy....................................................      91,200,000
Marine Corps............................................      10,000,000
Air Force...............................................     144,200,000
Army Reserve............................................      10,000,000
Navy Reserve............................................      10,000,000
Air Force Reserve.......................................      10,000,000
Air National Guard......................................       9,800,000

                           depot maintenance

    The Committee recommends an increase of $297,900,000 above 
the budget request to meet unfunded depot-level equipment 
maintenance requirements. The Committee notes that the 
Department of Defense has an unfunded backlog of depot-level 
maintenance of over $1,100,000,000, with an additional 
$200,000,000 in unfunded ship maintenance availabilities. As it 
has noted in previous years, the Committee observes the fiscal 
year 2000 budget request once again provides for depot 
maintenance funding at significantly less than 100 percent of 
the Services' requirements. In order to reduce backlogs, and 
improve the availability of weapons systems and related 
equipment, the Committee recommends increases over the budget 
request, to be distributed as outlined below. Further detail on 
the distribution of this funding is found in the tables 
accompanying the description of each Service's Operation and 
Maintenance account.
    The following list indicates the additions over the budget 
request.

Army....................................................     $35,600,000
Navy....................................................     125,100,000
Marine Corps............................................      20,000,000
Air Force...............................................      68,800,000
Army Reserve............................................       3,400,000
Air Force Reserve.......................................      15,000,000
Army National Guard.....................................      10,000,000
Air National Guard......................................      20,000,000

                    spares and war reserve materiel

    The Committee recommends an increase of $453,000,000 above 
the budget request to meet unfunded requirements for the 
acquisition of spare and repair parts for both peacetime 
operations as well as war reserve requirements. The Services 
have significant unfunded requirements as regards to the 
acquisition of critical inventory, including unit readiness 
spares and war reserve sustainment spares for the Army; 
aviation spares for the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Air 
National Guard; readiness spares kits and bare base kits for 
the Air Force; war reserve material procured by the Defense 
Logistics Agency; and various peacetime operating stocks in 
support of Marine Corps Reserve and Air National Guard 
requirements. The availability of this material has a direct 
bearing on the Services' ability to prosecute the two MRC 
scenario postulated in the National Security Strategy.
    To address these shortfalls, the Committee recommends 
increases over the budget request as outlined below. In 
addition, the Committee directs that the Secretary of Defense 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees not 
later than January 31, 2000, which delineates the amounts that 
the each Service plans to spend on peacetime operating stocks 
and war reserve materials. The Committee further directs the 
Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees not later than February 28, 2000, that 
identifies the components of both the peacetime operating 
stocks and war reserve materials that will be allocated to 
improve the readiness of Apache helicopters.

    The following list indicates the additions over the budget 
request.

Army....................................................    $213,500,000
Navy....................................................      85,000,000
Marine Corps............................................      25,000,000
Air Force...............................................     115,000,000
Defense-wide............................................       3,000,000
Marine Corps Reserve....................................       1,500,000
Air National Guard......................................      10,000,000

                      force protection initiatives

    The Committee recommends an increase of $41,400,000 above 
the budget request for force protection to meet unfunded 
priorities identified by the Chief of Naval Operations and the 
Chief of Staff of the Air Force. This increased funding is 
distributed as outlined below. In addition to these amounts, as 
described elsewhere in this report the Committee has directed 
that not less than 5 percent of the additional funding provided 
above the budget request for base operations support for the 
active duty military services be directed toward enhanced 
facilities security and force protection requirements.




Navy..................................................       $36,400,000
Air Force.............................................         5,000,000


                      soldier support initiatives

    The Committee recommends an increase of $88,000,000 above 
the budget request in several Operation and Maintenance 
accounts for additional soldier support equipment. The 
Committee notes that there continues to be a substantial 
backlog of this type of equipment, which is essential to 
sustain troops in the field and enhance combat readiness. Items 
to be procured with these extra funds include extended cold 
weather clothing, body armor, equipment harnesses and other 
initial issue gear, and other personnel support equipment 
items. The funds added above the budget request are outlined 
below:




Army..................................................       $26,000,000
Marine Corps..........................................        35,000,000
Marine Corps Reserve..................................        13,000,000
Army National Guard...................................        14,000,000


                        operating tempo funding

    The Committee recommends an increase of $55,600,000 above 
the budget request for training operations. Based on unfunded 
training needs identified by the Service Chiefs, and the 
recommendations in the House report accompanying the fiscal 
year 2000 National Defense Authorization bill, the Committee 
recommends that this increased funding be distributed as shown 
below. In addition, the Committee notes the additional funds 
provided for the Air National Guard are for the purpose of 
increased flying hours in support of F-16 training activities.




Marine Corps..........................................       $10,600,000
Army Reserve..........................................        20,000,000
Army National Guard...................................        10,000,000
Air National Guard....................................        15,000,000


                       recruiting and advertising

    The Committee recognizes that the military Services' 
recruiting efforts to enlist high quality recruits is 
continuing to be difficult and recommends an increase of 
$103,800,000 over the budget request to support the 
Department's efforts in achieving their recruiting objectives.
    The Committee understands the Army is currently developing 
two new test accession programs, the GED+ and the College First 
Program. These programs while designed to expand recruiting 
markets to all qualified applicants, and increase opportunities 
for youths to serve in the Army, are also expected to increase 
minority representation in the military. Of the funds provided, 
the Committee has included $33,000,000 for the Army for 
recruiting and

advertising, which will allow for the implementation of these 
two new test programs.

                       Small Business Advertising

    The Committee understands that there are many qualified 
minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses, and small 
businesses that design and place advertising and advertising 
campaigns, which can assist the Department in its recruiting 
efforts using print, electronic, and the radio media. The 
Committee believes these firms can provide valuable new 
insights and expertise to servicewide recruiting programs. The 
Committee expects the Department to increase the use of these 
qualified businesses in the initiation, design and placement of 
its advertising in the print, radio and electronic media.

                guard and reserve unfunded requirements

    The Committee recommends an increase of $356,600,000 over 
the budget request for additional Guard and Reserve Operation 
and maintenance requirements described by the Service's as 
readiness priorities, as follows:

Base Operations Support.................................     $39,800,000
Real Property Maintenance Backlog.......................      54,000,000
Depot Maintenance.......................................      48,400,000
Optempo/Flying Hours....................................      45,000,000
Spares..................................................      11,500,000
Recruiting and Recruiter Support........................      51,500,000
Military (civilian) technicians shortfall...............      48,000,000
Information Management/Operations.......................      31,400,000
Initial Issue/ECWCS.....................................      27,000,000

              army training area environmental management

    The Committee recommends providing $32,000,000 over the 
budget request, in Operation and Maintenance, Army, Army 
Reserve, and Army National Guard accounts, as outlined in the 
Army's unfunded requirements list, to conduct preventive 
maintenance on training grounds to ensure continued realistic 
training and to protect the environment. This funding is 
distributed as follows:




Army..................................................       $24,736,000
Army Reserve..........................................         1,000,000
Army National Guard...................................         6,264,000


                headquarters and administrative expenses

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $179,000,000 below 
the budget request for headquarters and administrative 
activities. Despite past attempts to streamline the management 
of DoD activities, the Committee notes that the budget request 
once again reflects headquarters activities which cost in 
excess of $3,000,000,000 in total and which are manned by over 
40,000 personnel. In addition, the Committee agrees with the 
assessment found in the House report accompanying the fiscal 
year 2000 National Defense Authorization bill that these 
figures substantially understate the true funding and manning 
levels of headquarters and administrative activities. 
Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions 
from the budget request:




Army..................................................      -$64,000,000
Navy..................................................       -35,000,000
Air Force.............................................       -20,000,000
Defense-wide..........................................       -60,000,000


                   consultants and advisory services

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $40,000,000 below 
the budget request for consulting and advisory services. 
Despite numerous unfunded requirements which contribute 
directly to the readiness of U.S. forces, or which represent 
must pay bills, as noted elsewhere in this report, the 
Department continues to request substantial amounts for studies 
which do not contribute directly to solving these fundamental 
problems. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following 
reductions from the budget request:




Army..................................................      -$10,000,000
Navy..................................................       -10,000,000
Air Force.............................................       -10,000,000
Defense-wide..........................................       -10,000,000


                        communications services

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $81,150,000 below 
the budget request for communications services. The Committee 
notes that the budget request includes alarmingly high levels 
of both price and program growth. For instance, on prices, the 
budget request reflects growth of over 16 percent in some 
cases, as compared to the general purchase rate of inflation of 
1.5 percent. Therefore, the Committee recommends the following 
reductions from the budget request:




Army..................................................      -$36,000,000
Navy..................................................       -23,000,000
Marine Corps..........................................          -150,000
Air Force.............................................       -22,000,000


                           security programs

    The Committee recommends a decrease of $24,067,000 below 
the budget request for security programs of the Department of 
Defense. The budget request reflects substantial growth for 
security programs, notably work performed by the Defense 
Security Service and certain arms control programs. A review 
performed by the House Appropriations Surveys and 
Investigations staff indicates that this growth can be reduced 
and effect neither the work of the Defense Security Service, 
nor U.S. treaty compliance obligations. Accordingly, the 
Committee recommends the following reductions from the budget 
request:




Army..................................................       -$9,867,000
Navy..................................................        -6,900,000
Air Force.............................................        -7,300,000


                 defense finance and accounting service

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $30,000,000 below 
the budget request for the Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service. The Committee notes that, on balance, the budget 
portrays program growth in the Services' Operation and 
Maintenance accounts, and is convinced that DFAS can further 
increase the efficiency of its operations. The Committee 
therefore recommends this reduction be distributed as follows:




Army..................................................       -$9,300,000
Navy..................................................        -9,300,000
Marine Corps..........................................        -2,000,000
Air Force.............................................        -9,400,000


                   acquisition contracting and travel

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $17,531,000 from 
the budget request for acquisition personnel travel and 
contracting expenses, to be distributed as follows:




Army..................................................       -$3,350,000
Air Force.............................................        -4,181,000
Defense-Wide..........................................       -10,000,000


            operation and maintenance budget execution data

    The Committee directs the Department of Defense to continue 
to provide the congressional defense committees with quarterly 
budget execution data. Such data should be provided not later 
than forty-five days past the close of each quarter of the 
fiscal year, and should be provided for each O-1 budget 
activity, activity group, and subactivity for each of the 
active, defense-wide, reserve and National Guard components. 
For each O-1 budget activity, activity group and subactivity, 
these reports should include: the budget request and actual 
obligations; the DoD distribution of unallocated congressional 
adjustments to the budget request; all adjustments made by DoD 
during the process of rebaselining the O&M accounts; all 
adjustments resulting from below threshold reprogrammings; and 
all adjustments resulting from prior approval reprogramming 
requests.
    In addition, the Committee requires that the Department of 
Defense provide semiannual written notifications to the 
congressional defense committees which summarize Operation and 
Maintenance budget execution to include the effect of 
rebaselining procedures, other below threshold reprogrammings, 
and prior approval reprogrammings. The Committee further 
directs that the Department of Defense provide the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations written notification 30 
days prior to executing procedures to rebaseline the Operation 
and Maintenance accounts.

                operation and maintenance reprogrammings

    The Committee directs that proposed transfers of funds 
between O-1 budget activities in excess of $15,000,000 be 
subject to normal, prior approval reprogramming procedures. 
Items for which funds have been specifically provided in any 
appropriation in this report using phrases ``only for'' or 
``only to'' are Congressional interest items for the purpose of 
the Base for Reprogramming (DD form 1414). Each of these items 
must be carried on the DD form 1414 at the stated amount, or a 
revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise 
specifically addressed in the conference report. In addition, 
due to continuing concerns about force readiness and the 
diversion of Operation and maintenance funds, the Committee 
directs the Department of Defense to provide written 
notification to the congressional defense committees for the 
cumulative value of any and all transfers in excess of 
$15,000,000 from the following budget activities and 
subactivity group categories:

Operation and maintenance, Army

    Land Forces: Divisions, Corps combat forces, Corps support 
forces, Echelon above corps forces, Land forces operations 
support; Land Forces Readiness: Land forces depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Navy

    Air Operations: Mission and other flight operations, Fleet 
air training, Aircraft depot maintenance; Ship Operations: 
Mission and other ship operations, Ship operational support and 
training, Intermediate maintenance, Ship depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps

    Expeditionary Forces: Operational forces, depot 
maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Air Force

    Air Operations: Primary combat forces, Primary combat 
weapons, Air operations training, Depot maintenance; Mobility 
Operations: Airlift operations, Depot maintenance, Payments to 
the transportation business area; Basic Skills and Advanced 
Training: Depot maintenance; Logistics Operations: Depot 
maintenance.
    Further, the Department should follow prior approval 
reprogramming procedures for transfers in excess of $15,000,000 
out of the following budget subactivities.

Operation and maintenance, Army

    Depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Navy

    Aircraft depot maintenance, Ship depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps

    Depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Air Force

    Air Operations: Depot maintenance; Mobility Operations: 
Depot maintenance; Basic Skills and Advanced Training; Depot 
maintenance; and Logistics Operations: Depot maintenance.

                              a-76 studies

    The Committee harbors serious concerns about the current 
DoD outsourcing and privatization effort. While the Committee 
recognizes the need to reduce DoD infrastructure costs, the 
cost savings benefits from the current outsourcing and 
privatization effort are, at best, debatable. Despite end-
strength savings, there is no clear evidence that this effort 
is reducing the cost of support functions within DoD with high 
cost contractors simply replacing government employees. In 
addition, the current privatization effort appears to have 
created serious oversight problems for DoD especially in those 
cases where DoD has contracted for financial management and 
other routine administrative functions. DoD appears to be 
moving toward a situation in which contractors are overseeing 
and paying one another with little DoD oversight or 
supervision. As a result of this developing situation, the 
Committee recommends a reduction of $100,000,000 from the 
budget request as described in a new general provision, Section 
8109. In addition, the Committee directs that DoD undertake a 
comprehensive review of A-76 studies as described in a new 
general provision, Section 8110.

                             urban warfare

    The Department of Defense has recently placed increased 
emphasis on the importance of urban warfare. For example, the 
Committee is aware that the Army has recently begun efforts to 
acquire weapons systems that would have special application to 
an urban environment, and has developed an urban training area 
within the Joint Readiness Training Center. Nevertheless, the 
Committee is persuaded that efforts in this area must be 
substantially expanded in order to improve the readiness of 
U.S. forces for possible conflicts centered in urban 
environments. Consequently, the Secretary of Defense shall 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees not 
later than March 31, 2000, that provides the following: an 
inventory of Department of Defense assets dedicated to urban 
warfare and associated training, including equipment and 
training areas; a description of the training programs specific 
to urban warfare; and an assessment of the readiness of U.S. 
forces in the conduct of urban warfare. This report shall also 
provide an assessment of shortfalls in equipment, personnel and 
facilities necessary to enhance the posture of U.S. forces in 
this area.

                controlled humidity preservation program

    The Committee believes that the Controlled Humidity 
Preservation (CHP) Program will enhance the condition of 
Department of Defense equipment such as weapons systems and 
associated support equipment by minimizing maintenance 
requirements associated with moisture-induced corrosion. 
Accordingly, the Committee requires that the Secretary of 
Defense submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
not later than March 31, 2000, that outlines measures taken by 
each of the military Services to expand the application of the 
CHP Program.

                    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................   $17,185,623,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................    18,610,994,000
Committee recommendation..............................    19,629,019,000
Change from budget request............................     1,018,025,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$19,629,019,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army. The 
recommendation is an increase of $2,443,396,000 above the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army are shown below:

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
    250  Soldier Support--Extended Cold Weather Clothing 
      system (ECWCS)..........................................    19,000
    250  Military Gator.......................................     8,000
    250  Soldier Support--Field Kitchen Modern Burner Units 
      (MBU)...................................................     4,000
    250  Soldier Support--Soldier Modernization...............     3,000
    450  Rotational Training--NTC Prepo Fleet Maintenance.....    28,000
    450  Rotational Training--Korea Training Area.............     4,100
    450  Rotational Training--CMTC Mission Support............     4,000
    450  Rotational Training--FORSCOM Developments to National 
      Training Center.........................................     4,000
    450  Rotational Training--JRTC Prepo Fleet Maintenance....     2,000
    550  Training Area Environmental Management...............    23,984
    650  Depot Maintenance/System Sustainment Tech Support....    35,600
    650  Humanitarian Airlift Aircraft Maintenance............       200
    750  Transportation Improvements-National Training Center.    12,500
    750  Ft. Baker Repairs and Maintenance....................     6,000
    750  NTC Airhead..........................................     2,000
    750  Security Improvements-NTC Heliport...................       300
    850  Headquarters growth..................................    -4,000
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    1650  Air Battle Captain Program..........................     1,250
    1850  Improved Moving Target Simulator (IMTS).............     3,500
    1950  Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies..............     1,500
    2000  University of Mounted Warfare.......................     3,000
    2000  Armor Officers Distance Learning....................       500
    2000  Training Area Environmental Management..............       440
    2050  Training Area Environmental Management..............       312
    2200  Recruiting and Advertising..........................    17,500
    2400  Junior ROTC.........................................     6,000
    2450  Recruiting Leases...................................    15,500
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
    2650  Security Program (Arms Control, DSS)................    -9,867
    2800  Pulse Technology....................................     5,000
    2850  Supercomputing Work.................................     6,500
    2850  Logistics and Technology Project....................     1,100
    2850  Power Projection C4 Infrastructure..................   -16,552
    3000  Acquisition Travel and Contracts....................    -3,350
    3000  Headquarters growth.................................    -5,000
    3050  Service-wide communication underexecution...........   -20,000
    3200  Ft. Atkinson Preservation...........................       250
    3200  DFAS Reduction......................................    -9,300
    3250  Claims Underexecution...............................   -43,400
    3350  Corps of Engineers Building Demolition..............     4,650
Undistributed:
    3710  Classified Undistributed............................     2.500
    3775  Base Operations Support.............................   154,600
    3835  Memorial Events.....................................       400
    3940  Real Property Maintenance (Transfer From Quality of 
      Life Enhancements)......................................   625,808
    3960  Contract and Advisory Services......................   -10,000
    4070  Management Headquarters.............................   -55,000
    4080  Reductions in JCS Exercises.........................   -10,000
    4085  Spares/War Reserve Material.........................   213,500
    4086  Communications Reduction............................   -16,000
          CECOM telecommunications upgrades (Ft. Monmouth)....  (18,600)

                    logistics and technology project

    The Committee recognizes the need for substantial 
improvements in the Department of Defense logistics system. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs that $1,100,000 of the funds 
provided for Operation and Maintenance, Army be used only to 
initiate a Logistics and Technology project to establish 
benchmarks based on civilian technologies and to develop and 
present educational materials to DoD logistics personnel.

        government-owned, contractor-operated (goco) facilities

    The Committee remains concerned about the Army's lack of 
progress in recovering costs associated with the environmental 
restoration of GOCO facilities. The Committee is disappointed 
with the gaps in the Army's information collection efforts on 
24 GOCO facilities, frustrated with the continued failure to 
file claims, and skeptical that the Army's proposed recovery 
strategy will produce results. Accordingly, the Committee 
includes a provision in Operation and Maintenance, Army which 
withholds $4,000,000 of the funds available in the Army 
Administration subactivity group until the completion of a 120-
day assessment of the prospects of recovering costs associated 
with the environmental restoration at these 24 GOCO facilities.
    Consistent with its request in last year's Conference 
Report, the Committee further directs that no later than March 
30, 2000, the Secretary of the Army shall submit a report on 
the results of that assessment to the congressional defense 
committee that provides: a summary of historical third-party 
insurance coverage for each GOCO facility; a detailed legal 
analysis of the potential claims for each of the GOCO 
facilities; recommendations as to which insurance carriers to 
notify, including the procedure for notifying the carriers; 
recommendations for interfacing with past and present GOCO 
contractors relative to the pursuit of insurance recovery; 
recommendations for responding to insurance carrier inquiries 
and/or coverage positions; and recommendations for maximizing 
the insurance recovery in an efficient and cost effective 
manner, including a projected timetable for completion.

                     HUMANITARIAN AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT

    The Committee understand that Department of the Army is in 
possession of a C-12 Aircraft which may be deemed surplus. The 
Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to convey, without 
consideration, this plane to a non-governmental organization 
(NGO) which provides humanitarian airlift primarily to sub-
Saharan Africa. Further, the committee includes $200,000 solely 
for the purposes of repairing the aircraft prior to transfer.

               national training center heliport security

    The Committee believes that there is not adequate security 
for the National Training Center's heliport. To begin 
addressing this problem, the Committee provides $300,000 only 
to begin implementing the planned security improvements at this 
facility.

                            Memorial Events

    The Committee has included an additional $400,000 above the 
budget request of $1,500,000 only to support memorial events to 
reflect increased costs.

                         GENERAL PURPOSE TENTS

    Of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, 
Army, for soldier life support equipment, the Committee directs 
that $18,000,000 be made available for the purpose of meeting 
prospective requirements for modular general purpose tents 
(M.G.P.T.) associated with wartime and other mobilizations. The 
Committee understands that the M.G.P.T. system developed by the 
Army provides a more durable and habitable replacement for the 
current general purpose tent, and has provided funds to 
continue the program under Army management.

                  abrams integrated management program

    The Department of Defense budget request for fiscal year 
2000 includes funding of $72,600,000 for the Abrams Integrated 
Management XXI Program (AIM XXI), to rebuild early versions of 
the Abrams tank and to bring these tanks up to the most recent 
configuration. The Committee supports this program, and the 
funding level proposed in the budget request.

                    information technology programs

    Information on the Armor Officer Distance Learning, 
Supercomputing Work, and Power Projection C4 Infrastructure 
programs can be found in the Information Technology section of 
this report.

                    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................   $21,872,399,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................    22,188,715,000
Committee recommendation..............................    23,029,584,000
Change from budget request............................       840,869,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$23,029,584,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The 
recommendation is an increase of $1,157,185,000 above the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy are shown below:

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
    4400  Flying Hours (Marine Aviation Logistics CH-46/7-58).    27,400
    4400  UAV Flight Hours....................................     2,000
    4450  Contractor Maintenance Support (Marine Corps 
      Aviation)...............................................     3,100
    4450  Rotational Training--Naval Air Strike Airwarfare 
      Center..................................................     2,000
    4600  Depot Maintenance--Aircraft and Support Equipment 
      Rework..................................................    37,600
    4600  Depot Maintenance--EA-6B Depot Support (Marine Corps 
      Aviation)...............................................     2,500
    4600  Depot Maintenance--EA-6B Pod Repair (Marine Corps 
      Aviation)...............................................     1,000
    5000  Depot Maintenance--Ship Depot Maintenance...........    55,000
    5400  Joint Warfare Analysis Center.......................     5,000
    5500  Unjustified Growth for USACOM.......................    -2,000
    5550  Reverse Osmosis Desalinators........................       500
    5950  Depot Maintenance--Aegis Cruiser Upgrade Program....    15,000
    5950  Depot Maintenance--MK-45 Overhaul...................    10,000
    5950  Depot Maintenance--CWIS Overhaul....................     4,000
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
    6650  NWS Concord.........................................       500
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    7300  Monterey Institute for Counter Proliferation Studies     4,000
    7300  Naval Postgraduate School--Facility Maintenance.....     2,000
    7300  Defense Language Institute..........................     1,500
    7350  CNET................................................     4,000
    7350  Navy Electricity and Electronic Training............     4,000
    7550  Recruiting and Advertising..........................     5,000
    7700  Junior ROTC.........................................     3,500
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
    8000  DFAS Reduction......................................    -9,300
    8250  Servicewide Communications..........................    -4,000
    8600  ATIS................................................     2,500
    8600  Object Oriented Simulations/Reengineering...........     2,500
    8750  Integrated Combat Systems Test Facility Support.....     2,000
    9000  Security Programs (DSS).............................    -6,900
Undistributed:
    9355  Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of 
      Life Enhancements)......................................   508,369
    9357  Force Protection (Afloat)...........................    24,400
    9357  Force Protection (Ashore)...........................    12,000
    9360  Classified Programs Undistributed...................     5,500
    9395  Base Operations Support.............................    91,200
    9540  Navy Environmental Leadership Program...............     5,000
    9590  Executive Education Demonstration Project...........     1,000
    9600  Spares..............................................    85,000
    9700  Management Headquarters.............................   -35,000
    9705  Reduction in JCS Exercises..........................    -2,000
    9710  Contract and Advisory Services......................   -10,000
    9725  Communications Reduction............................   -19,000

                         oceanographic research

    Within the funds provided for Operation and Maintenance, 
Navy, the Committee directs that $7,500,000 be used only to 
fund backlogs in oceanographic research.

                     naval weapons station concord

    The Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 above the 
budget request only to conduct a joint-use study examining the 
potential for joint use of the Naval Weapons Station, Concord 
(CA), by civilian and military entities that is consistent with 
the missions of the Navy and the Army and the needs of the 
surrounding communities. The study shall be conducted by the 
Navy in conjunction with the Army and the cities of Concord, 
Martinez, and Pittsburg, Contra Costa County, the communities 
of Clyde and Bay Point, and the East Bay Regional Parks 
District. This study shall be concluded no later than December 
31, 2000.

                    portable firefighting equipment

    The Committee is concerned about the condition and types of 
equipment currently used by Navy and Marine Corps initial fire 
fighting response teams. The Committee is aware that equipment 
has recently become available that can improve the 
effectiveness of fire fighters while substantially improving 
the safety of working conditions for such personnel. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs that not less than $300,000 
of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, Navy 
be used to purchase commercially available portable foam supply 
vests.

                   vieques range complex, puerto rico

    The Committee is deeply concerned about the tragic accident 
which occurred in April 1999 on the Navy's training range on 
the Island of Vieques. The Committee recognizes that the Navy 
considers this range to be a critical training asset, necessary 
to maintain the readiness of the aviation units of the Navy's 
Atlantic Fleet. However, because of this incident and other 
factors, the Committee directs the Navy to reexamine this 
issue, supports the Navy's decision to temporarily suspend all 
training at Vieques, and awaits the results of the panel that 
the Secretary of Defense has appointed to review this incident. 
The Committee believes the Panel must place special emphasis on 
reviewing the actual need for the Navy's use of the Vieques 
range, and should study the results of the Puerto Rican Special 
Commission on Vieques. In addition, the Committee directs the 
Panel to look at the use of alternative sites.

                    naval air station (nas) lemoore

    The Committee strongly believes that a key to enhancing 
retention rates in the Navy is to improve the quality of life 
at its key bases and installations. In particular, the 
Committee has been told by many Navy fighter pilots that the 
deficiency of quality of life facilities, including recreation 
facilities, at NAS Lemoore, California is a significant reason 
for the retirement of experienced personnel. As the major new 
concentration for west coast tactical Naval Aviation, the 
excellence of this facility is critical to morale and 
retention. Because NAS Lemoore is located in a remote and 
isolated location, the normal metrics defining policy for 
construction of revenue generating recreational facilities 
cannot prevail. The Committee encourages the Department of 
Defense to find a method such as designation as remote and 
funding by appropriated funds, or waiver of the normal 
parameters for rates of return to allow for construction of 
necessary recreation facilities at NAS Lemoore. The Committee 
directs DoD to report on this plan by December 31, 1999.

            navy electricity and electronics training series

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Technology section of this report.

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $2,578,718,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     2,558,929,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,822,004,000
Change from budget request............................       263,075,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,822,004,000 
for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation 
is an increase of $243,286,000 above the amount appropriated 
for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps are shown below:

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
    10050  Soldier Support--Initial Issue.....................    30,000
    10050  Rotational Training--MCAGCC Improvements...........    25,700
    10050  Training and OPTEMPO (III MEF Airlift Requirements)    10,600
    10050  Soldier Support--Body Armor........................     5,000
    10050  NBC Defense Equipment..............................     1,100
    10100  Corrosion Control..................................    13,800
    10100  Fuel Conversion to JP 5/8..........................     1,100
    10150  Depot Maintenance..................................    20,000
    10350  Care in Storage (WRM Materials)....................     2,000
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    11200  Recruiting and Advertising.........................     5,000
    11250  Off-Duty and Voluntary Education...................     3,000
    11300  Junior ROTC........................................     2,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
    11650  DFAS Reduction.....................................    -2,000
Undistributed:
    11905  Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of 
      Life Enhancements)......................................   120,225
    11945  Base Operations Support............................    10,000
    12030  Reduction in JCS Exercises.........................    -2,400
    12070  Marine Corps Security Guards.......................     4,100
    12075  Spares/War Reserve Materiel........................    25,000
    12085  Communications Reductions..........................      -150
    12090  IRV Transfer.......................................   -11,000

                             blount island

    The Committee supports the actions of the Marine Corps to 
acquire the Blount Island Command Complex property that is 
currently under lease. The Committee expects that this 
initiative will include acquisition of all surrounding property 
impacted by the current explosive safety quantity distance 
(ESQD) arc to permanently prevent development that is 
incompatible with the loading/offloading of ordnance on 
Maritime Prepositioning Ships.

                  OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................   $19,021,045,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................    20,313,203,000
Committee recommendation..............................    21,641,099,000
Change from budget request............................     1,321,896,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$21,641,099,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. The 
recommendation is an increase of $2,619,964,000 above the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force are shown below:

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
    12600  Battlelabs--Engineering and Technical Support......     4,000
    12650  Reverse Osmosis Dersalinators......................     1,000
    12750  Rotational Training--AETC Mission Essential 
      Equipment...............................................    14,000
    12750  Rotational Training--Utah Test and Training Range 
      Support.................................................    11,700
    12750  Rotational Training--Funding for Air Warfare Center 
      Range Support...........................................     6,100
    12750  Rotational Training--AETC Range Improvements.......     5,900
    12750  Rotational Training--Funding for Air Warfare Center 
      Fiber Link..............................................     4,600
    12775  Depot Maintenance..................................    31,000
    12775  Object Oriented Simulations/Reengineering..........     2,500
    12800  Communications, Other Contracts....................    -2,000
    13100  Power Scene........................................     4,000
    13100  SIMVAL.............................................     1,261
    13350  Launch Facility Enhancements.......................    10,000
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
    13850  Interim Contractor Support (C-17)..................   396,600
    13850  Airlift Operations (C-17 Sustainability)...........     2,900
    13975  Depot Maintenance..................................     5,400
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    14950  Recruiting and Advertising.........................     9,300
    15150  Junior ROTC........................................    15,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
    15350  REMIS..............................................     3,500
    15350  Joint Service Ammo Management Automated Info System 
      (JAMSS).................................................     1,935
    15650  Acquisition Travel and Contracts...................    -4,181
    15700  Servicewide Communications.........................    -4,000
    15750  Personnel Programs.................................   -11,400
    15950  DFAS Reduction.....................................    -9,400
    16050  Civil Air Patrol Corporation.......................     7,500
    16100  William Lehman Aviation Center.....................       500
    16250  Security Programs (DSS)............................    -7,300
Undistributed:
    16410  Classified Undistributed...........................      -800
    16480  Base Operations Support............................   109,300
    16670  Force Protection Infrastructure....................     5,000
    16680  Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of 
      Life Enhancements)......................................   400,826
    16700  Spares.............................................   115,000
    16775  Base Operations Support (Real Property Support)....    34,900
    16795  NBC High Leverage Programs.........................    18,800
    16800  C-130J Logistics and Training......................     6,055
    16810  ICBM Prime Contract................................    16,300
    16825  AEF Joint Experimentation (JEFX)...................    35,600
    16835  Management Headquarters............................   -20,000
    16840  Reduction in JCS Exercises.........................   -10,000
    16845  Contract and Advisory Services.....................   -10,000
    16850  Depot Maintenance--Rivet Joint #15-16/COBRA BALL 3.    32,400
    16855  Air Force MTAP.....................................     4,000
    16865  Air Force ICS Transfer.............................   106,100
    16870  Communications Reduction...........................   -16,000

                       Interim Contractor Support

    As described elsewhere in this report, the Committee has 
transferred a total of $502,700,000 from various Air Force 
procurement accounts to Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. 
This includes $396,600,000 associated with the C-17, and 
$106,600,000 associated with various other weapons systems. In 
the Committee's view, this funding, since it covers expenses 
such as sustainment spares and depot maintenance, should be 
both budgeted for and appropriated under Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force, rather than in the procurement 
accounts.

           Manufacturing Technology Assistance Pilot Program

    The Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 above 
the budget request to continue and expand the Manufacturing 
Technology Assistance Pilot Program (MTAPP). Of this amount, 
not less than $2,000,000 shall be available only to expand the 
MTAP program to Pennsylvania.

                       Mc Clellan Air Force Base

    The Committee notes that with the impending closure of 
McClellan Air Force Base, unique research assets will become 
available to the local community. Accordingly, the Committee 
supports the provision included in the House-passed National 
Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2000 which provides 
for the transfer of the McClellan Nuclear Radiation Center.

                     Enterprise Integration Program

    The Committee urges the Air Force and the Defense Logistics 
Agency to jointly consider the development and implementation 
of an Enterprise Integration program to improve the quality and 
availability of logistical data necessary to support the 
acquisition of spare and repair parts required to field Air 
Force weapons systems.

                                 REMIS

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Technology section of this report.

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................   $10,914,076,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................    11,419,233,000
Committee recommendation..............................    11,401,733,000
Change from budget request............................      - 17,500,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$11,401,733,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. 
The recommendation is an increase of $487,657,000 from the 
amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide are shown below:

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
    17050  JCS Exercises:.....................................   -35,000
    17100  SOCOM--ASDS Slip...................................    -3,000
    17100  SOCOM--JTT/CIBS-M..................................       500
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
    17250  DLA--Warstopper....................................     3,000
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    17460  DAU--Organizational Composition Research...........     2,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
    17775  Starbase...........................................       300
    17775  Innovative Readiness Training......................   -15,000
    17800  Classified and Intelligence........................    11,600
    17900  DCAA--Low priority program growth..................    -5,000
    17900  DCAA--Performance Measures.........................    -2,000
    18000  DHRA--DIMHRS.......................................   -41,200
    18000  DHRA--DEERS........................................     8,000
    18000  DHRA--DCPDS (program slip).........................    -2,000
    18200  DLA--Automated Document Conversion.................    12,500
    18200  DLA--Security Locks................................    10,000
    18200  DLA--Performance Measures..........................    -5,000
    18200  DLA--Improved Cargo Methods........................     4,000
    18310  DSCA--Performance Measures.........................    -2,000
    18475  DTRA--Treaty Implementation........................    -4,500
    18475  DTRA--Performance Measures.........................    -2,000
    18500  DoDEA--WIC Program Overseas........................     2,000
    18600  JCS--JMEANS........................................     4,500
    18600  JCS--Management Support............................    -5,000
    18650  OEA--Pico Rivera...................................     2,000
    18650  OEA--Completion of Fort Ord conversion support.....     5,000
    18650  OEA--Completion of San Diego Conversion Center.....     5,000
    18700  OSD--C4ISR.........................................     6,000
    18700  OSD--NGB Project Management System.................     5,000
    18700  OSD--NE/SA Center for Security Studies.............     1,500
    18700  OSD--Middle East Regional Security Issues..........     1,500
    18700  OSD--Energy Savings Performance Contracts..........     8,000
    18700  OSD--Job Placement Program.........................     4,000
    18700  OSD--Youth Development and Leadership Program......       300
    18700  OSD--Performance Measures..........................   -10,000
    18700  OSD--Youth Development Initiative..................     2,500
    18700  OSD--Management and Contract Support...............   -15,000
    18700  OSD--(A&T) Travel and Contracts....................   -10,000
    18700  OSD--Commercial Technologies for Maintenance 
      Activities..............................................    12,000
    18900  WHS--Low Priority Programs.........................   -10,000
    18900  WHS--Defense Travel Service........................   -32,000
    18900  WHS--Emergency Notification........................     2,500
    19110  Impact Aid.........................................    35,000
    19250  JCS Mobility Enhancements..........................    50,000
    19295  Human Resources Enterprise Strategy................     7,500
    19305  Headquarters and Management........................   -40,000
    19335  Contract and Advisory Services.....................   -10,000
    19341  United Service Organizations.......................    25,000

                          Performance Measures

    The Committee is disappointed with the quality of the 
performance measures included in the Department's Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide budget justification books. On 
multiple occasions the Congress has made clear its intentions 
to link an agency's budget to the quality of its performance 
measures and the progress it makes in improving its 
performance. The Committee recommends reductions totaling 
$21,000,000 against those defense agencies that presented weak 
or non-existent performance goals.

                            DLA--Warstoppers

    The Committee recommends $3,000,000 only for the warstopper 
program to be used to maintain industrial readiness through 
microcircuit solutions like the Department's Generalized 
Emulation of Microcircuits program.

                     Defense Acquisition University

    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Defense Systems 
Management College, only for the Information Technology 
Organizational Composition Research Project. The Committee also 
supports the Defense Acquisition University's efforts to use 
state-of-the-art commercial training technology that would 
train the acquisition workforce in a simulated government 
procurement environment.

                         family therapy program

    The Department's National Guard Youth Challenge program has 
developed a residential program for at-risk youths which 
focuses on providing leadership, responsible citizenship, job 
skills, life coping skills, and educational and physical 
fitness programs. The Committee urges the Department to 
consider adding to this curriculum an in-depth family 
reintegration phase to the Challenge Youth program, which 
addresses the problems of family disintegration and juvenile 
violence.

                 Defense Finance and Accounting Service

    The Committee understands that due to unusual circumstances 
the Department had to budget for $400,000 in security costs in 
the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide account, but that 
starting in fiscal year 2001, these expenses will be properly 
realigned to the Defense Working Capital Fund.

                    Information Technology Programs

    Information on Defense Human Resources Agency (DEERS), 
Defense Human Resources Agency (DIMHRS), Military Personnel 
Information Systems, and Automated Document Conversion programs 
can be found in the Information Technology section of this 
report.

                          DLA--Security Locks

    Federal Specification FF-L-2740A was established by the 
Inter-Agency Committee on Security Equipment as the standard 
for providing secure protection to our nation's most sensitive 
classified material. In the past, the Committee has supported 
Department of Defense efforts to retrofit existing containers 
with security locks that conform to this specification.
    The Committee is concerned, however, that sensitive 
classified materials in the possession of defense contractors 
are not subject to the same protection under Federal 
Specification FF-L-2740A, as mandated by Executive Order 12829. 
While new containers purchased by defense contractors must have 
locks which meet or exceed this specification, there remain a 
great deal of classified materials stored by defense 
contractors in containers which fall well below the prescribed 
standard.
    The Committee therefore directs the Department to retrofit 
all security containers under the control of, or accessed by 
defense contractors with locks meeting the federal 
specification FF-L-2740A. The Committee has provided 
$10,000,000 for this purpose, and expects full utilization of 
these funds in the current fiscal year.

                      DLA--Improved Cargo Methods

    The Committee recommends $4,000,000 only to test, develop 
and implement cost saving opportunities identified in ongoing 
studies of private sector logistics technology, practices and 
procedures to move military cargo more cheaply, with greater 
speed, and with greater reliability.

                      DTRA--Treaty Implementation

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $4,500,000 due to 
delays in treaty implementation and changes in requirements. If 
additional funds prove necessary to meet emergent requirements 
stemming from valid treaty obligations, the Committee expects 
the Department to submit a reprogramming request subject to 
normal, prior approval reprogramming procedures.

            Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)--Management Support

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $5,000,000 from JCS 
Management Support. None of this, or any other reduction, is to 
be taken against the Joint Staff's efforts in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide to support Joint Vision 2010.

                              JCS--J-MEANS

    The Committee recommends $4,500,000 only for the Joint 
Multi-Dimensional Education and Analysis System (J-MEANS). This 
program will incorporate the National Defense University's 
wargaming modules and allow students to fully assess the effect 
of alternate strategies and technologies in an information age 
battlefield.

                               OSD--C4ISR

    The Committee recommends $6,000,000 only to sustain the 
enhanced Command, Control, Communications, Computer, 
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) 
Integrated Architecture Program and to extend the development 
across all the unified commands.

         OSD--Near East/South Asia Center for Security Studies

    The Committee supports the Department's plans to examine 
establishing a Near East/South Asia Center for Security Studies 
to promote a stable regional security environment, enhance 
military-to-military exchanges and to promote regional security 
cooperation. The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs, to 
facilitate planning for the Center.

               OSD--Middle East Regional Security Issues

    The Committee recommends providing $1,500,000 for the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, International Security 
Affairs only to support current and established programs, 
conducted since 1993, to promote informal region-wide dialogues 
on Arms Control and regional security issues for Arab and 
Israeli officials and experts.

                osd-energy savings performance contracts

    The Committee recommends $8,000,000 only to assist in 
training, providing technical expertise, performing energy 
audits, and otherwise assisting in the ESPC process.

                       OSD--Job Placement Program

    The Committee understands that the Department has been 
fully briefed on an innovative job placement and community 
outreach services program, FirstDay of the Future. With the 
imminent closure of Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases, the 
Committee continues to believe that this innovated program will 
be beneficial to the effected military and civilian personnel 
and their families. Therefore, the Committee recommends 
$4,000,000 only to expeditiously implement this program.

             OSD--Youth Development and Leadership Program

    The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 over the 
budget request for the Youth Development and Leadership 
program, only to develop a safety net program to serve as the 
follow-up activity for the program initiated under Public Law 
105-174.

                   osd--youth development initiative

    The Committee recommends $2,500,000, consistent with 
Section 8107, only for a grant to a widely respected non-profit 
organization to finance on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis 
efforts to mobilize individuals, groups, and organizations to 
build and strengthen the character and competence of America's 
youth.

                  osd--management and contract support

    The Committee is concerned about the continued growth in 
contractor support to the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
(OSD), that more than offsets the reductions made in OSD 
personnel. The Committee therefore recommends a reduction of 
$15,000,000 and directs that none of this, or any other 
reduction, be taken against the studies funded through the 
Office of Net Assessment.

                      whs--emergency notification

    The Committee notes the success the Pentagon's Army 
Operation Center has had with its automated emergency 
notification system and recommends $2,500,000 only to field the 
system to other organizations in the Department with similar 
notification requirements.

                       jcs mobility enhancements

    The Committee recommends $50,000,000 to support 
Transportation Command's mobility enhancements efforts. The 
Committee believes that the Center for Commercial Deployment of 
Transportation Technologies should be considered for up to 
$15,000,000 of this amount.

                    national curation pilot project

    The Committee understands that the Department has a 
requirement to safely store over 41,000 cubic feet of cultural 
and historical artifacts collected from public lands and to 
make these collections available to the public. In response to 
this, the Defense Legacy Resources Management Program awarded a 
grant to the Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the State 
of Montana, to study and develop a design for a curatorial 
collections and processing building. The curation pilot project 
is designed to lead to the construction of new facilities in 
cooperation with the pilot institutions who will rehabilitate 
federally-associated collections for the Department. The 
Committee understands that the study is complete. The Committee 
therefore directs the Department to provide this report to the 
Committee by September 30, 1999, and the Department is 
encouraged to move forward with this important effort.

                 information systems security education

    The increasing dependence by the Department of Defense on 
computers and computer communications has also increased its 
vulnerability to attacks on these information systems. This 
threat to a national critical infrastructure mandates the 
fostering and ongoing support of well-educated professionals 
that are able to protect our critical information system. The 
President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection 
completed a two-year study that concluded, in part, that a 
significant portion of the nation's infrastructure protection 
is tied to the development of information security 
professionals.
    The Committee is aware that, although there are several 
post-graduate level educational programs currently available 
for advanced training in this area, there are no doctorate 
level programs currently available. The Committee believes that 
the development of a doctoral program in information security 
is required to provide a flow of individuals with the knowledge 
and credentials to support the expanding needs of the 
Department. The Committee urges the Secretary of Defense to 
review requirements for doctorate-level information systems 
security professionals within the Department and, if 
appropriate, consider sponsoring the establishment of doctorate 
level education programs in educational institutions capable of 
providing this level of training.

                     improved general purpose tents

    The Committee is pleased with the Army's successful 
development of a modular general purpose tent system 
(M.G.P.T.S.) to replace the current general purpose small, 
medium and large tents, which use 1940's design and 
manufacturing techniques. The M.G.P.T.S. has been designed to 
serve as a new generation of tents, providing greater 
durability and improved performance when exposed to severe 
weather. The Committee believes the new system may better 
support Marine and Air Force field operations and encourages 
utilization of the improved system by these forces.

                department of defense education activity

    The Committee understands that before and after school 
programs are a strong support system to families living on 
military bases. The Committee believes that consideration 
should be given to enhancing services including tutorial and 
learning enrichment programs.

   pine bluff arsenal sustainment training and technical assistance 
                                program

    The Committee directs the Department of Defense to 
establish a Sustainment Training and Technical Assistance 
Program at Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR, for chemical and biological 
defense equipment in support of the Department of Justice 
equipment grant program.

                                 legacy

    The Committee encourages the Department to consider the 
U.S.S. Constitution museum for funding in its legacy program.

                          classified programs

    Additional recommendations by the Committee are described 
in the classified annex accompanying this report.



                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $1,202,622,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,369,213,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,513,076,000
Change from budget request............................      +143,863,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,513,076,000 
for Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation 
is an increase of $310,454,000 above the $1,202,622,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:
    The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army Reserve are shown below:

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
    19620  Mission Operations/Increased Optempo...............    20,000
    19640  Forces Readiness Operations Support/Training Area 
      Environmental Management................................     1,000
    19660  Depot Maintenance..................................     3,400
    19680  Base Support.......................................    10,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
    20070  Recruiting and Advertising.........................    25,000
Other Adjustments:
    20090  Real Property Maintenance..........................    10,000
    20120  Recruiting Support.................................     3,500
    20360  Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of 
      Life Enhancements)......................................    39,563
    20365  Information Management.............................    27,000
    20365  Information Operations.............................     4,400

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $957,239,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       917,647,000
Committee recommendation..............................       969,478,000
Change from budget request............................       +51,831,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $969,478,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation 
is an increase of $12,239,000 above the $957,239,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy Reserve are shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    22055  Recruiting and Advertising.................             3,000
    22060  Recruiting Support.........................             5,000
Other Adjustments:
    22794  Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from
 Quality
      of Life Enhancements)...........................            13,831
    22796  Base Operations............................            10,000
    22810  Real Property Maintenance..................            10,000
    22815  Contributory Support to CINCs..............            10,000


            OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $117,893,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       123,266,000
Committee recommendation..............................       143,911,000
Change from budget request............................       +20,645,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $143,911,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The 
recommendation is an increase of $26,018,000 above the 
$117,893,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve are shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]



Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    23600  Maintenance of Real Property...............             4,000
Other Adjustments:
    24110  Increased Use of Guard and Reserves........             1,200
    24220  Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from
 Quality
      of Life Enhancements)...........................               945
    24250  Initial Issue..............................            10,000
    24260  782 Career Gear Issue......................             3,000
    24270  Spares.....................................             1,500


              OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $1,747,696,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,728,437,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,788,091,000
Change from budget request............................       +59,654,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,788,091,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The 
recommendation is an increase of $40,395,000 above the 
$1,747,696,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force Reserve are shown below:

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
    24970  Depot Maintenance..................................    15,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
    25400  Recruiting and Advertising.........................     1,500
    25410  Recruiting Support...........................           1,000
Other Adjustments:
    25510  Real Property Maintenance..........................    10,000
    25520  Base Operations....................................    10,000
    25558  Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of 
      Life Enhancements)......................................    12,154
    25570  C-130 Operations...................................    10,000

             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $2,678,015,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     2,903,549,000
Committee recommendation..............................     3,103,642,000
Change from budget request............................      +200,093,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,103,642,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard. The 
recommendation is an increase of $425,627,000 above the 
$2,678,015,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard are shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    26340  Depot Maintenance............................          10,000
    26400  Base Operations/Training Area Environmental 
      Management........................................           6,264
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide 
    Activities:
    26680  Information Management/Distance Learning.....          17,500
    26740  Recruiting and Advertising...................           6,500
Other Adjustments:
    26860  Military (Civilian) Technicians Shortfall....          48,000
    26865  Optempo Increase.............................          10,000
    26866  School House Support.........................          10,000
    26867  Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from 
      Quality of Life Enhancements).....................          60,629
    26880  Real Property Maintenance....................          10,000
    26900  Extended Cold Weather Clothing System........          14,000
    26910  Angel Gate Academy...........................           4,200
    26920  NGB Project Management System................           3,000

                       Army National Guard Center

    The Committee understands that the Headquarters, 53rd 
Support Battalion, Army National Guard is in extensive need of 
repair and renovation. The Committee has provided additional 
funds for Real Property Maintenance for the Army National 
Guard's backlog of repair and maintenance projects, and directs 
that $1,000,000 be designated for repair of the armory in 
Florida.

                      armed forces reserve center

    The Committee has provided additional funds for Real 
Property Maintenance for the Army National Guard and directs 
that $3,000,000 be provided for remedial site preparation for 
the Eugene Armed Forces Reserve Center and Organizational 
Maintenance Shop.

         National Guard Bureau Nationwide Fiber Optics Network

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Technology section of this report.

                    National Guard Distance Learning

    Information on this project can be found in the Information 
Technology section of this report.

                     NGB Project Management System

    The Committee recommends a total increase of $8,000,000 for 
the National Guard's Project Management System. The Committee 
understands that the National Guard Bureau has taken the lead 
within the Department to implement a project management system 
using the latest commercially developed off-the-shelf 
technology, which will enable program managers to better manage 
programs in a timely manner and stay within budget and cost 
limits. The Committee believes that the National Guard Bureau 
Project Management System Pilot Project has tremendous 
applicability throughout all services and urges the Secretary 
of Defense to implement this program throughout the Department. 
The Committee has included $3,000,000 in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard for the continuation of the 
Project Management System Pilot Project, and $5,000,000 in 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide to implement this 
project management system throughout the Department.

                         repair of uh-1 engines

    The Committee understands that the Army National Guard's 
UH-1 Iroquois helicopter fleet has been restricted in the types 
of missions flown because of the unreliability of the T-53 
engines, many of which require major repairs or overhaul for 
deficiencies. The Committee urges the Secretary of the Army to 
consider the use of commercial practices regarding the repair 
and overhaul of these helicopter engines.

                moffett field and march air reserve base

    The Committee recognizes the many advantages of the Moffett 
Airfield complex and the March Air Reserve Base for providing 
needed facilities in supporting the ongoing effort to upgrade 
domestic preparedness against weapons of mass destruction. 
Moffett's infrastructure and command and control capabilities 
include not only the airfield, but critical Federal, civil and 
housing assets, including NASA/Ames, Onizuka Air Station, DoD 
and DoT activities, together with the unique emergency support 
capabilities of the California Air National Guard 129th Rescue 
Wing, FEMA and the Red Cross.
    March Air Reserve Base hosts various military and civilian 
activities including Air Mobility, National Guard Refueling, 
and a Fighter Wing serving the U.S. Customs Service Domestic 
Air Interdiction. March is a fully operational public safety 
training complex which combines law enforcement, fire and 
rescue, emergency management, response and medical training for 
first responders or biological and chemical terrorism, SWAT 
training, domestic terrorism and fire technology for hazardous 
materials.
    The Committee urges the Department and cognizant state and 
local officials to fully consider Moffett's and March's 
operational and support capabilities when selecting new 
locations for expanding the capability of weapons of mass 
destruction first responders to train, equip and support local 
authorities in California. The Committee requests a report from 
DoD/National Guard and Reserves by December 31, 1999 on use of 
these key Federal facilities.

             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $3,106,933,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     3,099,618,000
Committee recommendation..............................     3,239,438,000
Change from budget request............................      +139,820,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,239,438,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard. The 
recommendation is an increase of $132,505,000 above the 
$3,106,933,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000:



    The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and 
Maintenance, Air National Guard are shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    27660  Aircraft Spares..............................          10,000
    27750  Base Support.................................           5,000
    27750  Base Support/Buckley ANG Base................           4,800
    27800  Maintenance of Real Property.................          10,000
    27850  Depot Maintenance............................          20,000
    27860  F-16 Flight Training Hours...................          15,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide 
    Activities:
    28100  Recruiting and Advertising...................           4,000
Other Adjustments:
    28150  Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from 
      Quality of Life Enhancements).....................          63,020
    28160  C-130 Operations.............................           5,000
    28175  Recruiting Support...........................           2,000
    28180  National Guard State Partnership Program.....           1,000

                National Guard State Partnership Program

    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 only for the National 
Guard's State Partnership Program. The Committee directs that 
these funds be used to support theater engagement opportunities 
for National Guard soldiers and state civilian personnel who 
directly support the State Partnership Program and civil-
military engagement goals and for the National Guard Minuteman 
Fellows Program which the Committee has supported in the past.

                            C-130 Operations

    The Committee recommends a total of $1,500,000 over the 
budget request for personnel and operation and maintenance 
costs to support the restoration of C-130 operational 
capabilities for the Florida Air National Guard.

                 159th Air National Guard Fighter Group

    The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 over the 
budget request in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard 
and directs that these funds be used for the operation of C-
130H operational support aircraft of the 159th ANG Fighter 
Group.

             OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $439,400,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     2,387,600,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,812,600,000
Change from budget request............................      -575,000,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,812,600,000 
for the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. The 
funding in this paragraph provides for ongoing DoD operations 
in Southwest Asia and Bosnia. Due to the termination of air 
operations over Kosovo and reduced air operations tempo over 
Southwest Asia, the Committee recommends a reduction of 
$575,000,000 from the budget request.

          Budget Justification and Budget Execution Materials

    The Committee notes that the budget request includes a 
relative lack of justification data concerning U.S. 
participation in contingency operations in both the Military 
Personnel accounts, the Procurement accounts and the Overseas 
Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. Accordingly, the 
Committee includes a new general provision, Section 8111, which 
requires the Department of Defense to include the same type of 
budget justification materials as are provided for other 
Department of Defense activities. In addition, the Committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees at the end of each quarter of 
the fiscal year, with the first such report due on December 31, 
1999, detailing both the financial transactions associated with 
the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund as well as 
all other appropriation accounts from which contingency 
operations expenses are paid, and programmatic data for each 
contingency operation. This budget execution data shall include 
the amounts paid from each appropriation account to include 
funds distributed from the Overseas Contingency Operations 
Transfer Fund to each appropriation account, for each 
contingency operation; a comparison of actual troop strength 
for active duty and Guard and Reserve components for each 
contingency operation compared to the amounts anticipated in 
the budget request; and, a comparison of major weapons systems, 
including but not limited to all types of aircraft, naval 
vessels and major ground equipment items for each active duty 
and Guard and Reserve component for each contingency operation 
compared to the level assumed in the budget request.

                     Kosovo Base Camp Construction

    The Committee is aware of ongoing efforts to construct two 
base camps that will house U.S. troops deployed in support of 
the NATO peacekeeping force in Kosovo. While the Committee 
acknowledges that such efforts are essential to support the 
quality of life for deployed troops, the Committee agrees with 
the language included in the report accompanying the House 
version of the fiscal year 2000 Military Construction 
Appropriations bill. Accordingly, the Committee reminds the 
Department of Defense that Section 110 of Public Law 105-237 
prohibits construction of new bases overseas without prior 
notification to the Committee on Appropriations.

          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        $7,324,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................         7,621,000
Committee recommendation..............................         7,621,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,621,000 for 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The 
recommendation is an increase of $297,000 from the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 1999.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $370,640,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       378,170,000
Committee recommendation..............................       378,170,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $378,170,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an 
increase of $7,530,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal 
year 1999.

                         Rocky Mountain Arsenal

    The Committee is encouraged by the Department's progress in 
remediating the environmental contamination at the Rocky 
Mountain Arsenal site near Denver, Colorado, and in 
facilitating the successful conversion and reuse of the 
property. The Committee encourages the Defense Department to 
continue to fully support the cleanup and conversion projects 
at this site.

                  Environmental Remediation Contracts

    The Committee is concerned about the Department's limited 
use of indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts 
for environmental remediation. The Committee directs the 
Department to report to the congressional defense committees on 
how this contract vehicle compares with other contract options 
in cost, involvement of small businesses and inclusion of local 
companies.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $274,600,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       284,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................       284,000,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $284,000,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is an 
increase of $9,400,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal 
year 1999.

                  ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $372,100,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       376,800,000
Committee recommendation..............................       376,800,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $376,800,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is 
an increase of $4,700,000 from the amount appropriated in 
fiscal year 1999.

                ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       $26,091,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        25,370,000
Committee recommendation..............................        25,370,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,370,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide. The recommendation 
is a decrease of $721,000 from the amount appropriated in 
fiscal year 1999.

         ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $225,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       199,214,000
Committee recommendation..............................       209,214,000
Change from budget request............................       +10,000,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $209,214,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $15,786,000 from the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 1999.

                               Camp Croft

    The Committee is concerned about the unexploded ordnance at 
the former Camp Croft and the danger this poses to the safety 
of the citizens living on or near this former military base. 
The Committee encourages the Department to address this problem 
as quickly and as completely as possible.

                    lake city army ammunition plant

    The Committee is concerned about the soil and groundwater 
contamination at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. The 
Committee understands that the U.S. Army has signed an 
interagency agreement with the Environmental Protection agency 
and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and urges the 
Department to allocate the funds necessary to implement the 
projects required by this agreement.

                                newmark

    The Committee continues to have serious concern about the 
Department's failure to respond at a senior level to 
groundwater contamination at the Newmark and Muscoy Superfund 
sites in California. The Committee understands that both the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the City of San 
Bernardino believe that the contamination is a direct result of 
industrial waste from Camp Ono, a World War II depot and 
maintenance facility. The EPA has reported that there is ``no 
other reasonable source for the contamination,'' than the 
former Army base, and, more recently, that the Army is ``a 
likely source of the contamination.''
    Report language in the conference reports accompanying the 
fiscal year 1997 and 1998 Defense Appropriations Bills 
highlighted the urgency of this problem and requested adequate 
funding and prompt action by the Department to remediate this 
site. The Committee is disappointed with the Department's 
response. The Department has, thus far, ignored a September, 
1998 court order to mediate the dispute. The Committee is 
particularly concerned by the Department's lack of a response 
to the Committee's November, 1998 request for senior-level 
mediation involving the Department and the Environmental 
Protection Agency. As a result, the Committee strongly believes 
that the Department should, within 60 days of enactment of this 
Act, initiate mediation in this matter with the EPA and report 
to the congressional defense committees fully explaining the 
Department's plan to reach a timely resolution to this matter.

             OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       $50,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        55,800,000
Committee recommendation..............................        55,800,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,800,000 
for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The 
recommendation is an increase of $5,800,000 from the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 1999.

                  FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $440,400,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       475,500,000
Committee recommendation..............................       456,100,000
Change from budget request............................       -19,400,000


    This appropriation funds the Former Soviet Union Threat 
Reduction activities of the Department of Defense.

                       Committee Recommendations


                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from
                              Item                                Budget request  recommendation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction............................         475,500         456,100         -19,400
Strategic Nuclear Arms Elimination Ukraine......................          33,000          43,000         +10,000
Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination Russia.....................         157,300         177,300         +20,000
Weapons Transportation Russia...................................          15,200          15,200               0
Weapons Storage Security Russia.................................          40,000          90,000         +50,000
Warhead Dismantlement Processing Russia.........................           9,300           9,300               0
Reactor Core Conversion.........................................          20,000          20,000               0
Fissile Material Storage Russia.................................          64,500          60,900          -3,600
Chemical Weapons Destruction Russia.............................         130,400          24,600        -105,800
Defense and Military Contacts...................................           2,000               0          -2,000
Other Assessments...............................................           1,800           1,800               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                           PROJECT LEVEL TABLE
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget                 Change from
                                     request    Recommended    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biological Weapons Proliferation         2,000       14,000      +12,000
 Prevention Russia...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  former soviet union threat reduction

    The Department recommended $475,500,000 for the Former 
Soviet Union Threat Reduction programs. The Committee 
recommends $456,100,000, a net decrease of $19,400,000. The 
Committee has recommended changes to each program in accordance 
with the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. However, the 
Committee is also recommending an increase of $12,000,000 for 
the biological weapons proliferation prevention program for 
additional security enhancements.

                 QUALITY OF LIFE ENHANCEMENTS, DEFENSE




Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $455,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,845,370,000
Committee recommendation..............................       800,000,000
Change from budget request............................    -1,045,370,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $800,000,000 
for Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense. The recommendation 
is an increase of $345,000,000 above the amount appropriated 
for fiscal year 1999.
    The President's budget proposed providing $1,845,370,000 
for this account. However, upon examination the Committee has 
determined these funds are intended to be used for general real 
property maintenance projects, and not solely quality of life-
related efforts, which was the basis for the Committee's having 
created this account several years ago. Accordingly, the 
Committee recommends providing the $1,845,370,000, requested by 
the administration in this account directly to the Services in 
their respective Operation and Maintenance accounts.
    For this account, the Committee provides an increase of 
$800,000,000 for active component real property maintenance 
which is reserved only for quality of life related projects. 
The Committee designates the increased funding provided in this 
account as a special interest item, subject to normal prior 
approval reprogramming procedures.
    The adjustments to the budget request for Quality of Life 
Enhancements, Defense are shown in the table below:

Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense: Program Increases:
    Army......................................................  $182,600
    Navy......................................................   285,200
    Marine Corps..............................................    62,100
    Air Force.................................................   259,600
    Defense-Wide........................................          10,500
    NTC LEA...................................................   (1,200)
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense: Transfers Out:
    Army......................................................   625,808
    Navy......................................................   508,369
    Marine Corps..............................................   120,225
    Air Force.................................................   400,826
    Army Reserve..............................................    39,563
    Navy Reserve..............................................    13,831
    Marine Corps Reserve......................................       945
    Air Force Reserve.........................................    12,154
    Army National Guard.......................................    60,629
    Air National Guard........................................    63,020
                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                  ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY

    The fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense procurement 
budget request totals $51,851,538,000. The accompanying bill 
recommends $53,031,397,000. The total amount recommended is an 
increase of $1,179,859,000 above the fiscal year 2000 budget 
estimate and is $4,440,977,000 above the total provided in 
fiscal year 1999. The table below summarizes the budget 
estimates and the Committee's recommendations.



                         special interest items

    Items for which additional funds have been provided as 
shown in the project level tables or in paragraphs using the 
phrases ``only for'' or ``only to'' in this report are 
Congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for 
Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these items must be 
carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, or a revised 
amount if changed during conference or if otherwise 
specifically addressed in the conference report. These items 
remain special interest whether or not they are repeated in a 
subsequent conference report.

                          classified programs

    Adjustments to classified programs are addressed in a 
classified annex accompanying this report.

                           rangeless training

    Last year, the Congress directed the Defense Department to 
conduct a technical evaluation between the Joint Tactical 
Combat Training System and other alternatives to ensure that 
the best and most affordable system is chosen to accomplish the 
rangeless training mission for the Navy and the Air Force. The 
Department did an outstanding job of initiating the evaluation 
on a timely basis. In particular, the Committee commends the 
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology; the Director of Test, Systems Engineering and 
Evaluation, Ranges and Resources; the Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Readiness, Readiness and Training; the Director, 
Operational Test and Evaluation, Conventional Systems; and the 
Joint Tactical Training System project office. The Committee 
recognizes that implementing the initiative took a great deal 
of time and commitment from these organizations. The result of 
these efforts will allow the Department to field a much-needed 
rangeless training system in the most efficient and cost-
effective manner.
    The Navy and the Air Force requested a total of $42,300,000 
to continue the Joint Tactical Training System in fiscal year 
2000 which the Committee recommends. The procurement funds are 
designated to be of special interest, and may only be obligated 
to procure equipment for the system which DoD selects as the 
result of the congressionally-directed technical evaluation.

                  foreign comparative test new starts

    The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure 
that all DoD components follow new start notification 
procedures prior to award of production contracts resulting 
from successful foreign comparative tests. The Committee notes 
that DoD notification of the desire to test a foreign system 
does not constitute notification of procurement of that system.

                  air force interim contractor support

    Interim Contractor Support is the maintenance and support 
of a new weapon system provided by a commercial vendor pending 
transition to organic support. Current DoD policy allows 
procurement appropriations to fund Interim Contractor Support 
(ICS) whereas organic support is funded in the operation and 
maintenance (O&M) appropriations. DoD policy calls for all 
acquisition programs to minimize the scope and duration of ICS. 
However, the Committee has recently learned of a growing trend 
in the Air Force to abuse the ICS concept by maximizing its 
scope and duration, effectively shifting the O&M burden of 
certain programs to the procurement accounts. For example, the 
C-17 program now plans to use approximately $400 million a year 
of procurement funding to finance flying hour spares and depot 
aircraft maintenance for the life of the C-17 production 
program.
    The Committee believes that using ICS in this manner blurs 
the distinction between O&M and procurement appropriations and 
therefore seriously compromises oversight in Congress and OSD. 
ICS represents large pools of funding that a program manager 
could divert, without the prior knowledge of Congress, for 
additional procurement end-items or acquisition cost overruns 
while ``shorting'' operational forces. The Committee also notes 
that in the last several years, DoD witnesses have highlighted 
efforts to increase modernization funding to meet the Joint 
Staff goal of $60 billion per year. Funding high levels of O&M 
effort in the procurement accounts gives Congress a false 
picture of how well DoD is meeting these higher modernization 
funding goals.
    Given these concerns, the Committee recommendation includes 
a transfer of $502.7 million from Air Force procurement to O&M 
appropriations. The Committee directs the Air Force to fund all 
ICS in the O&M accounts in future budget submissions.

                        reprogramming procedures

    The Committee understands that DoD policy prevents defense 
components from acting on notification reprogrammings until 
written approval has been provided by the Senate defense 
committees. The Committee further understands that DoD policy 
does not extend this courtesy to House defense committees. The 
Committee believes that each of the congressional defense 
committees should be accorded the same opportunity to review 
and approve all reprogrammings submitted for Congressional 
consideration, including notification reprogrammings. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure the reprogramming policy is updated to reflect the 
requirement to receive written approval from all congressional 
defense committees prior to implementing reprogrammings, 
including notification reprogrammings. This direction applies 
to all defense appropriations.

                        ARMY PROCUREMENT ISSUES

                       unfunded requirements list

    This year, as in the past, the Committee requested that the 
Service Chiefs provide ``unfunded requirements lists''. Usually 
the lists include critical activities or items that the 
Services believe are not adequately funded in the budget 
request, for example, base operations. It has also been the 
Committee's understanding that the Secretary of Defense only 
allows the Services to include those items that are included in 
the current budget request and the outyears. However, the 
Committee notes that several items on the Army's shortfall list 
are not funded in the Future Years' Defense Plan and have such 
large outyear funding requirements that the Committee does not 
believe they can be accommodated in future budget submissions, 
such as the Huey, Blackhawk, and the Bradley Service Life 
Extension Programs (SLEP). While programs such as the Blackhawk 
SLEP have merit, the Committee is reluctant to add a ``down 
payment'' of $31 million in fiscal year 2000 if the Army will 
not budget the half billion dollars required in the outyears. 
Although the Committee appreciates the Army Chief of Staff's 
candor when submitting the Army's unfunded requirements list, 
the Committee encourages him to include only items which are 
included in the budget request and can be supported in future 
budget submissions.

                       AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY




Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $1,388,268,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,229,888,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,590,488,000
Change from budget request............................      +360,600,000


    This appropriation finances the acquisition of tactical and 
utility airplanes and helicopters, including associated 
electronics, electronic warfare, and communications equipment 
and armament, modification of in-service aircraft, ground 
support equipment, components and parts such as spare engines, 
transmissions gear boxes, and sensor equipment. It also funds 
related training devices such as combat flight simulators and 
production base support.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         Authorization Changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with House authorization action:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
             Item                 request    recommendation    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CH-47 Cargo Helicopter Mods...       70,738        126,838       +56,100
Utility/Cargo Airplane Mods...        6,308          9,308        +3,000
AH-64 Longbow Mods............      729,536        774,536       +45,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget                 Change from
                                     request    Recommended    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UH-60 BLACKHAWK (MYP)............       86,140      207,140     +121,000
    UH-60L Blackhawks (+6).......  ...........  ...........      +54,000
    (NOTE: UH-60L aircraft are
     only for the Dual Mission
     General Support Aviation
     Company, National Guard, 40
     Infantry Division)
    UH-60Q (+5)..................  ...........  ...........      +67,000
    (NOTE: UH-60Q aircraft are
     only for the National Guard)
AH-64 MODS.......................       22,565      116,565      +94,000
    LOLA boost pump..............  ...........  ...........       +3,000
    Vibration management           ...........  ...........       +7,000
     enhancement program.........
    (NOTE: Only for the National
     Guard)
    Oil debris detection system..  ...........  ...........       +3,000
    Apache A model second          ...........  ...........      +75,000
     generation FLIR.............
    Apache A model HF radio        ...........  ...........       +6,000
     integration.................
UH-60 MODS.......................       12,087       13,587       +1,500
    UH-60Q training device.......  ...........  ...........       +1,500
AIRBORNE AVIONICS................       43,690       47,090       +3,400
    Airborne video recorder &      ...........  ...........       +3,400
     image transceiver...........
AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT.           88       24,188      +24,100
    ASET IV......................  ...........  ...........      +18,100
    AN/AVR-2A laser detection      ...........  ...........       +6,000
     sets........................
COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT..........       35,915       37,915       +2,000
    Helicopter external lift       ...........  ...........       +2,000
     enhancer....................
AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS.......        4,394       14,894      +10,500
    UH-60 A\L cockpit air bag      ...........  ...........      +10,500
     system......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        apache a model readiness

    The deployment of Task Force Hawk to Albania during 
Operation Allied Force revealed a series of personnel training, 
readiness, and equipment problems affecting the Army's Apache 
forces. The Committee is extremely concerned with the condition 
of the current Apache fleet and has recommended the following 
increases in procurement to alleviate recognized deficiencies: 
$75,000,000 only to procure and integrate the Second Generation 
Forward Looking Infrared Radar and $6,000,000 only to procure 
and integrate HF radios on Apache A model helicopters. The 
Committee also recommends an increase of $213,500,000 in 
Operations and Maintenance, Army for spare parts and war 
reserve material. The Committee expects that a portion of these 
funds will be used to meet Apache requirements.
    The Committee's recommendation procures upgrades for 24 
Apache A model helicopters. The Committee encourages the Army 
to adequately fund upgrades for the remaining fleet in 
subsequent budget requests.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



                       MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $1,226,335,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,358,104,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,272,798,000
Change from budget request............................       -85,306,000


    This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to-
air, surface-to-surface, and anti-tank/assault missile systems. 
Also included are major components, modifications, targets, 
test equipment, and production base support.

                       Committee Recommendations


                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with House authorization action:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
             Item                 request    recommendation    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avenger System Modifications..       33,750         35,050        +1,300
Avenger Modifications.........            0          4,300        +4,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget                 Change from
                                     request    Recommended    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY         98,406            0      -98,406
 (AP-CY).........................
    Economic order quantity for    ...........  ...........      -98,406
     multi-year contract.........
MLRS LAUNCHER SYSTEMS............      130,634      138,134       +7,500
    Vehicular intercommunications  ...........  ...........       +2,500
     system (AN/VIC-3)--cordless.
    Loader Launch Module and Fire  ...........  ...........       +5,000
     Control System..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



        PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $1,548,340,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,416,765,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,556,665,000
Change from budget request............................      +139,900,000


    This appropriation finances the acquisition of tanks; 
personnel and cargo carriers; fighting vehicles; tracked 
recovery vehicles; self-propelled and towed howitzers; machine 
guns; mortars; modification of in-service equipment, initial 
spares; and production base support.

                       Committee Recommendations


                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with House authorization action:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Budget       Committee     Change from
             Item                request    recommendations    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armor Machine Gun, 7.62MM           12,204         40,004        +27,800
 M240........................
Machine Gun, 5.56 (SAW)......            0         10,100        +10,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget                 Change from
                                     request    Recommended    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley base sustainment.........      308,762      392,762      +84,000
    AO to ODS conversion.........  ...........  ...........      +80,000
    (Note: Only for the National
     Guard)
    Vehicular intercommunications  ...........  ...........       +4,000
     system (AN/VIC-3)...........
Carrier, MOD.....................       53,463       68,463      +15,000
    Upgrade......................  ...........  ...........      +15,000
Howitzer, 155MM M109A6 (MOD).....        6,259        7,259       +1,000
    Vehicular intercommunications  ...........  ...........       +1,000
     system (AN/VIC-3)...........
M1 Abrams Tank Modifications.....       29,815       31,815       +2,000
    Vehicular intercommunications  ...........  ...........       +2,000
     system (AN/VIC-3)...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



                    PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $1,065,955,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,140,816,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,228,770,000
Change from budget request............................       +87,954,000


    This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, 
modification of in-service stock, and related production base 
support including the maintenance, expansion, and modernization 
of industrial facilities and equipment.

                       Committee Recommendations


                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with House authorization action:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Changes
             Item                 Budget       Committee         from
                                 request    recommendations    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25MM, All Types..............       46,618         48,618         +2,000
40MM, All Types..............       36,645         44,645         +8,000
105MM DPICM XM915............            0          5,000         +5,000
Bunker Defeating Munition....            0         10,000        +10,000
Grenades, All types..........       11,431         16,431         +5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget                 Change from
                                     request    Recommended    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTG, Mortar 60MM Smoke WP M722...            0        4,000       +4,000
    Procure additional rounds....  ...........  ...........       +4,000
CTG Mortar 81MM Prac 1/10 Range          1,906        3,306       +1,400
 M880............................
    Refurbishment kits...........  ...........  ...........       +1,400
CTG Mortar 120MM HE M934 W/MO           46,279       49,279       +3,000
 Fuze............................
    Procure additional rounds....  ...........  ...........       +3,000
CTG Mortar 120MM Illum XM930 W/              0       10,000      +10,000
 MTSQ FZ.........................
    Procure additional rounds....  ...........  ...........      +10,000
CTG 120MM WP Smoke M929A1........       51,819       59,619       +7,800
    Procure additional rounds....  ...........  ...........       +7,800
CTG 120MM APFSDS-T M829A2/M829E3.            0       32,000      +32,000
    Procure additional M829A2      ...........  ...........      +32,000
     rounds......................
CTG 120MM HEAT-MP-T M830A1.......            0       22,000      +22,000
    Procure additional rounds....  ...........  ...........      +22,000
Proj Arty 155MM SADARM M898......       54,546            0      -54,546
    Terminate basic SADARM         ...........  ...........      -54,546
     production..................
Mine at M87 (VOLCANO)............            0       15,000      +15,000
    Procure additional systems...  ...........  ...........      +15,000
Wide Area Munitions..............       10,387       20,837      +10,000
    Procure additional systems...  ...........  ...........      +10,000
Provision of Industrial                 46,139       53,439       +7,300
 Facilities......................
    IOWA AAP production line.....  ...........  ...........       +5,400
    Large caliber, deep drawn      ...........  ...........       +1,900
     cartridge facility..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     program manager for ammunition

    A July 1997 study conducted for the Army advocated the 
reconfiguration and management of the U.S. munitions industrial 
base through the creation of a single, general-officer level 
Program Manager who would be responsible for overseeing the 
life-cycle development of ammunition. According to the study, 
creating a single Program Manager for ammunition would 
significantly reduce costs for the Army and provide better 
management of the U.S. munitions industrial base. To date, the 
Army has not implemented this recommendation. The Committee 
encourages the Army to create a Program Manager for Ammunition 
at Picatinny Arsenal and directs the Commander of the Army 
Materiel Command to report by January 5, 2000, on his plan to 
implement this recommendation.

                          self-destruct fuzes

    The Committee is aware that the Army has completed testing 
of, and type classified, M234 and M235 self-destruct fuzes for 
artillery and rocket grenades. The Committee believes that 
using a self-destruct fuze in future production of grenades, 
bomblets and submunitions could reduce the risk of unexploded 
ordnance casualities on the battlefield. The Committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committee, no later 
than December 31, 1999, an analysis of unexploded ordnance 
issues and the recommended solutions including the use of self-
destruct fuzes.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



                        OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $3,339,486,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     3,423,870,000
Committee recommendation..............................     3,604,751,000
Change from budget request............................      +180,881,000


    This appropriation finances the acquisition of: (a) 
tactical and commercial vehicles, including trucks, semi-
trailers, and trailers of all types to provide mobility and 
utility support to field forces and the worldwide logistical 
system; (b) communications and electronics equipment of all 
types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile strategic and 
tactical communication equipment; (c) other support equipment 
such as chemical defensive equipment, floating and rail 
equipment, generators and power units, material handling 
equipment, medical support equipment, special equipment for 
user testing, and non-system training devices. In each of these 
activities, funds are also included for modification of in-
service equipment, investment spares and repair parts, and 
production base support.

                        Committee Recommendation


                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with House authorization action:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from
                              Item                                Budget request  recommendation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles...............................         190,399         196,399          +6,000
Product Improved Combat Vehicle Crewman Headset.................               0          15,000         +15,000
Lightweight Video Reconnaissance System.........................           3,436           5,936          +2,500
Combat Support Medical..........................................          25,250          40,250         +15,000
Roller, vibratory, self-propelled...............................               0          10,300         +10,300
Compactor, high speed...........................................           9,798          12,938          +2,600
Crane, wheel mounted, 25 ton....................................          12,089          20,089          +8,000
Items less than $2 million (Construction Equipment--UBM)........           4,286           6,286          +2,000
Pusher tug, small...............................................               0           9,000          +9,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Change from
                                                                  Budget request    Recommended       request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tactical Trailers/Dolly Sets....................................          15,277          20,277          +5,000
    Trailer modernization/life cycle sustainment................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
HEMTT Modifications.............................................           4,901          11,701          +6,800
    HEMTT-load handling system (Note: Transfer from PE 0203761A)  ..............  ..............          +6,800
Modification of Inservice Equipment.............................          29,769          33,269          +3,500
    HET air-conditioning........................................  ..............  ..............          +1,500
    Fuel injection test stand upgrade (A8020)...................  ..............  ..............          +2,000
SHF Term........................................................          31,950               0         -31,950
    STAR-T schedule delay.......................................  ..............  ..............         -31,950
SMART-T (Space).................................................          61,761          31,761         -30,000
    Program slip................................................  ..............  ..............         -30,000
SCAMP (Space)...................................................           5,033               0          -5,033
    Program slip................................................  ..............  ..............          -5,033
Army Data Distribution System...................................          36,763          58,763         +20,000
    EPLRS (Note: Only for the National Guard)...................  ..............  ..............         +20,000
SINCGARS Family.................................................          13,205          33,205          20,000
    Additional SINCGARS (Note: Only for the National Guard).....  ..............  ..............         +20,000
ACUS Mod Program (WIN T/T)......................................         109,056         115,956          +6,900
    High speed multiplexers (HSMUX), (Note: Only for the          ..............  ..............            +900
     National Guard.............................................
    Facsimile machines (TS-21 Blackjack)........................  ..............  ..............          +6,000
Medical Comm for CBT Casualty Care (MC4)........................          20,600          21,600          +1,000
    Medical logistics--division (Note: Transfer from PE           ..............  ..............          +1,000
     0203761A)..................................................
Information System Security Program-ISS.........................          28,750          39,450         +10,700
    Secure terminal equipment...................................  ..............  ..............          +2,000
    Airterm and Minterm security devices........................  ..............  ..............          +8,700
Joint Stars (Army) (TIARA)......................................          82,176         107,176         +25,000
    Common Ground Station Upgrade...............................  ..............  ..............         +25,000
CI HUMINT Automated Tool Set (CHATS) (TIARA)....................           3,137           4,637          +1,500
    Procure additional units....................................  ..............  ..............          +1,500
Shortstop.......................................................               0          28,000         +28,000
    Procure additional systems..................................  ..............  ..............         +28,000
Night Vision Devices............................................          20,977          67,777         +46,800
    25mm gen III tubes..........................................  ..............  ..............         +25,000
    Night vision goggles (AN/PVS-7D)............................  ..............  ..............         +10,000
    AN/PEQ-2A TPIALS devices....................................  ..............  ..............          +5,200
    AN/PAQ-4C infrared aiming lights............................  ..............  ..............          +6,600
Combat Identification Aiming/Light..............................           9,486               0          -9,486
    Transfer to PE 0603001A.....................................  ..............  ..............          -9,486
Mod of In-Svc Equip (Tac Surv)..................................           6,533          29,533         +23,000
    Firefinder--additional systems..............................  ..............  ..............         +23,000
Digitization Applique...........................................          66,423          56,423         -10,000
    Reduction in quantity.......................................  ..............  ..............         -10,000
Mortar Fire Control System......................................           3,740               0          -3,740
    Program slip................................................  ..............  ..............          -3,740
Maneuver Control System (MCS)...................................          52,049          10,000         -42,049
    Program delay...............................................  ..............  ..............         -27,049
    Transfer to PE 0203759A.....................................  ..............  ..............         -15,000
Production Base Support (C-E)...................................             378           2,878          +2,500
    IOC--Tobyhanna..............................................  ..............  ..............          +2,500
Heavy Dry Supt Bridge System....................................          13,980          17,980          +4,000
    Vehicular intercommunications system (AN/VIC-3).............  ..............  ..............          +4,000
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Eqpmt (EOD E).......................           4,989          10,989          +6,000
    Zeus laser ordnance neutralizatioun system..................  ..............  ..............          +6,000
Lightweight Maintenance Enclosure (LME).........................           2,128           3,728          +1,600
    Procure additional units....................................  ..............  ..............          +1,600
Distribution Sys, Pet and Water.................................          10,716          13,716          +3,000
    Tactical water purification systems.........................  ..............  ..............          +3,000
Generators and Associated Equip.................................          78,639          81,639          +3,000
    Small generators............................................  ..............  ..............            +500
    5-60k generators............................................  ..............  ..............          +2,500
Combat Training Centers Support.................................           2,450           9,050          +6,600
    JTRC MOUT instrumentation...................................  ..............  ..............          +6,600
Training Devices, Nonsystem.....................................          67,374          75,124          +7,750
    GUARDFIST (Note: Only for the National Guard)...............  ..............  ..............          +3,750
    BEAMHIT.....................................................  ..............  ..............          +4,000
SIMNET/Close Combat Tactical Trainer............................          75,367          40,367         -35,000
    Reliability issues..........................................  ..............  ..............         -35,000
Intergrated Family of Test Equipment (IFTE).....................          41,602          56,602         +15,000
    Electro-optics test facilities..............................  ..............  ..............         +15,000
Modification of In-Svc Equipment (OPA-3)........................          24,852          39,352         +14,500
    D-7 Dozer service life extension program (Note: Only for the  ..............  ..............         +10,000
     National Guard.............................................
    Laser leveling equipment....................................  ..............  ..............          +4,500
Ultra Lightweight Camouflage Net System.........................               0          20,000         +20,000
    Procure systems.............................................  ..............  ..............         +20,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   family of medium tactical vehicles

    Recently, the Committee's Surveys and Investigations (S&I) 
staff completed an in-depth analysis of the Family of Medium 
Tactical Vehicles Program (FMTV). The Committee was very 
disturbed when it became aware of the S&I staff's findings. The 
S&I staff, which spent many hours in the field with unit 
personnel, found many problems with the truck. For example: (1) 
Door latches do not secure properly causing the doors to open 
during normal operations; (2) Starters which fail after only 
2,000 miles of operation; (3) Transmission tanks that crack 
causing anti-freeze and transmission fluid to mix; (4) Tail 
gates that cannot be closed with troops seated because the 
truck bed warps; and (5) Batteries that boil over and leak acid 
onto air tanks causing corrosion. The S&I staff found many 
other problems, from poorly constructed seats to fragile 
bumpers. The Committee remains troubled that the FM TV truck 
has so many outstanding technical issues.
    Additionally, the S&I staff found that even though the Army 
claims that many of the problems identified by the S&I staff 
are being resolved, the Army is unable to provide even 
rudimentary cost estimates for fixing the problems. The 
Committee directs that the Army provide the Congress, no later 
than December 15, 1999, a report that addresses the outstanding 
technical and operational problems with the FMTV, the solution 
for each problem and the cost of implementing each solution.

                    Information Technology Programs

    Information on the Committee's proposed adjustments to the 
LAN, LogTech, STAMIS, and ADPE programs can be found in the 
Information Technology section of this report.

                tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (tuav)

    The Committee supports the Army's revised Acquisition 
Strategy for the Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV). This 
revised strategy was outlined in a March 26, 1999 letter from 
the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics 
and Technology. The revised strategy includes the termination 
of the Outrider Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration and a 
new competition to meet the Army's TUAV requirement.
    The Committee notes that since the new strategy was 
presented to Congress after submission of the fiscal year 2000 
budget, funding for the TUAV was not requested in the proper 
appropriation. The Army requested procurement funding for the 
Outrider vehicle, not research and development funding for the 
new acquisition strategy. The Committee has made the necessary 
correction by reducing Outrider procurement funding by 
$45,863,000 and increasing the research and development funding 
for tactical unmanned aerial vehicle by $40,000,000, a net 
reduction of $5,863,000 which the Committee believes is 
justified given the revised acquisition plan.
    The Committee directs that the Army consider reliability 
and interoperability with the Tactical Control System (TCS) as 
critical source selection evaluation criteria for the new TUAV.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



                       AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $7,541,709,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     8,228,655,000
Committee recommendation..............................     9,168,405,000
Change from budget request............................      +939,750,000


    This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of 
aircraft and related support equipment and programs; flight 
simulators; equipment to modify in-service aircraft to extend 
their service life, eliminate safety hazards, and improve their 
operational effectiveness; and spare parts and ground support 
equipment for all end items procured by this appropriation.

                       Committee Recommendations


                         Authorization Changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with House authorization action:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from
                              Item                                Budget request  recommendation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V-22............................................................         796,392         856,392         +60,000
Special Project Aircraft........................................          28,782          30,782          +2,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget      Commitee   Change from
                                     request    recommended     request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CH-60S...........................      208,493      284.493      +76,000
    Additional aircraft..........  ...........  ...........      +76,000
JPATS............................       44,826       55,826      +11,000
    ECO allowance................  ...........  ...........       -1,000
    Additional aircraft only for   ...........  ...........      +12,000
     UNFO replacement............
KC-130J..........................       12,257      576,257     +564,000
    Additional aircraft..........  ...........  ...........     +564,000
EA-6 Series......................      161,047      272,047     +111,000
    Night vision devices.........  ...........  ...........      +31,000
    Simulators...................  ...........  ...........      +60,000
    Refurbish test aircraft to     ...........  ...........      +20,000
     operational configuration...
F-18 Series......................      308,789      281,789      -27,000
    ATFLIR premature award.......  ...........  ...........      -27,000
AH-1W Series.....................       13,726       16,726       +3,000
    Night targeting system.......  ...........  ...........       +3,000
SH-60 Series.....................       56,824       60,324       +3,500
    AQF-13F dipping sonar........  ...........  ...........       +3,500
H-1 Series.......................        6,339       16,339      +10,000
    AN/AAQ-22 thermal imaging      ...........  ...........      +10,000
     system......................
EP-3 Series......................       27,433       44,433      +17,000
    Specific emitter               ...........  ...........      +12,000
     identification/LPI..........
    Assessment study for           ...........  ...........       +5,000
     additional sensors..........
P-3 Series.......................      276,202      361,202      +85,000
    Additional AIP modification    ...........  ...........      +60,000
     kits........................
    Lightweight environmentally    ...........  ...........       +5,000
     sealed parachutes...........
    Advanced digital recorders...  ...........  ...........       +5,000
    Specific emitter               ...........  ...........      +15,000
     identification..............
E-2 Series.......................       28,201       55,101      +26,900
    Lightweight environmentally    ...........  ...........       +5,000
     sealed parachutes...........
    Cooperative engagement         ...........  ...........      +21,900
     capability..................
E-6 Series.......................       86,950       85,250       -1,700
    Modified miniature receive     ...........  ...........       -1,700
     terminals, program slip.....
Special Project Aircraft.........       28,782       30,782       +2,000
    Common data link on special    ...........  ...........       +2,000
     project aircraft............
Common ECM Equipment.............       50,584       58,584       +8,000
    ALR-67 radar warning           ...........  ...........       +6,000
     receivers...................
    APR-39 radar warning           ...........  ...........       +2,000
     receivers...................
Common Ground Equipment..........      413,732      379,782      -33,950
    CASS savings for multiple      ...........  ...........       -2,900
     year acquisition............
    High pressure pure air         ...........  ...........       +3,750
     generators..................
    Jet start units (cancelled     ...........  ...........      -35,800
     program)....................
    Direct support squadron        ...........  ...........       +1,000
     readiness training..........
Other Production Charges.........       39,991       64,991      +25,000
    TARPS-CD.....................  ...........  ...........      +25,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             V-22 aircraft

    The Navy requested $796,392,000 for 10 V-22 aircraft. The 
Committee recommends $856,392,000, an increase of $60,000,000 
for one additional V-22. The Committee strongly endorses the 
Department's plan to replace aging CH-46E's and CH-53D's with 
the versatile and comparatively quieter V-22 Osprey. The 
Committee expects the Department to accelerate the procurement 
of the V-22 to achieve the most economical buy rate. In 
addition, the Committee directs the Department to accelerate 
the stand up of West Coast V-22 squadrons in order to provide 
better operational support and geographical balance.

                            kc-130j aircraft

    The Marine Corps requested $12,257,000 for support of KC-
130J aircraft. The Committee recommends $576,257,000 to procure 
eight aircraft and their associated support equipment, an 
increase of $564,000,000. The Marine Corps requires 51 KC-130J 
aircraft to replace KC-130F air-to-air refueler/tactical 
transports, the oldest aircraft in the Marine Corps' inventory, 
which were procured between 1960-1962 and are currently being 
flown by the active forces. KC-130Fs comprise 73 percent of the 
Marine Corps active force tanker inventory and 45 percent of 
the Department of Defense's rotary wing capable tanker 
inventory. They play a vital role in supporting forward-
deployed Marine Air-Ground Task Forces and other CINC forward 
presence missions.
    Current KC-130F aircraft are not night vision capable, they 
lack external fuel tanks (which reduces range by 1000 miles or 
fuel offload capability by 18,000 pounds), and they lack 
defensive systems to warn and protect from enemy missile 
attack. The KC-130F fleet averages over 22,000 flight hours and 
12,000 landings per aircraft. An engineering assessment 
completed in December 1998 indicated that actual center wing 
fatigue life remaining on these aircraft is significantly less 
than previously estimated. The Marine Corps subsequently 
informed the Committee that the urgency of the need for KC-130J 
aircraft to replace those in-service aircraft significantly 
increased after the fiscal year 2000 budget request was 
submitted to Congress. During the last four years, 3 aircraft 
(6 percent of the active tanker fleet) were struck from 
operation due to fatigue. Today, while the inventory 
requirement is 79 KC-130 tanker aircraft, the Marines are only 
operating at 77 aircraft.
    The Committee agrees with Marine Corps assessments 
concerning the overwhelming need to modernize the tactical 
tanker aircraft force. The Committee notes that even with 
congressional funding, 80 percent of the Marine Corps 
requirement for KC-130J aircraft has not been budgeted. The 
Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the 
fiscal year 2001 and subsequent budgets contain sufficient 
funds to sustain the KC-130J line at an efficient rate after 
fiscal year 2000.

                 joint primary aircraft training system

    The Navy requested $44,826,000 for procurement of 8 JPATS 
training aircraft. The Committee recommends $55,826,000 for 12 
aircraft, an increase of $11,000,000. This includes $12,000,000 
for procurement of 4 additional aircraft only for the navigator 
(UNFO) mission, and a decrease of $1,000,000 as recommended by 
House authorization action due to excessive engineering change 
order allowances. The Navy recently informed the Committee that 
by replacing 16 older training aircraft with 9 new JPATS 
aircraft, it could save $16,000,000 annually while also 
significantly improving the quality of training. In this bill, 
the Committee has recommended the maximum number of additional 
JPATS aircraft in both Navy and Air Force aircraft procurement 
accounts allowable under the current contract, in order to take 
advantage of the contract's favorable pricing. The Committee 
directs the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the fiscal 
year 2001 budget contains funds for the remaining 5 JPATS UNFO 
aircraft.

                            e/a-6b aircraft

    With the retirement of the Air Force EF-111 aircraft, the 
EA-6B has become the Defense Department's primary escort jammer 
aircraft to support combat strike missions. The crews and 
aircraft of Navy and Marine EA-6B squadrons performed admirably 
during Operation Allied Force. However, due to the Department's 
overall lack of jamming aircraft, the forces were stretched, 
air crews were stressed, and the logistics support tail was 
strained. This operation also made it clear that even advanced 
stealth aircraft benefit from escort jamming from the EA-6B, 
counter to assumptions made when the EF-111s were retired.
    The Committee views recent EA-6B operations be it in 
Operation Allied Force, or in the ongoing sanctions enforcement 
operations around Iraq, as a premier example of the actual and 
potential future benefits of joint service combat operations. 
The Committee believes this clearly indicates that more, not 
less, tactical escort jamming support, will be needed in the 
future. Yet the EA-6B airframe has limited life remaining and 
its limited numbers have already posed severe challenges to 
operational planners. Therefore, the Committee bill recommends 
an additional $227,000,000 to reinvigorate the tactical jamming 
aircraft force.
    The fiscal year 1999 Supplemental Appropriations Act 
financing the cost of Operation Allied Force provided 
$300,000,000 for a operational rapid response fund. The Defense 
Department has indicated that a number of EA-6B near-term 
upgrades will be financed from the supplemental funds, to 
include: $45,000,000 for band 9/10 jammers, $39,000,000 for 
universal exciters, and $30,400,000 for miniaturized automated 
tactical terminals/integrated data modems. Although these items 
provide important and quick warfighting improvements to the EA-
6B fleet (a use for the fund consistent with its creation by 
this Committee), they do not address the mid and long term 
fleet force structure and modernization issues.
    Therefore, the Committee recommends an additional 
$111,000,000 in Aircraft Procurement, Navy for EA-6B 
enhancements. This includes $60,000,000 for the procurement of 
high-fidelity simulators for EA-6B bases at Cherry Point, North 
Carolina and Whidbey Island, Washington; $31,000,000 to procure 
and install EA-6B night vision equipment; and $20,000,000 to 
remanufacture a test aircraft into an operational asset. The 
rationale for these additions as follows. After the budget was 
submitted, the Navy informed the Committee that competitively 
procuring high fidelity simulators for east and west coast EA-
6B bases was feasible and would result in reduced need for 
aircraft flight training hours, more airframes for forward 
deployment, and reduced airframe wear. Outfitting the EA-6Bs 
with night vision devices increases operational effectiveness 
while reducing crew risk to enemy optically guided surface-to-
air missiles. Finally, refurbishment of an EA-6B test asset 
will result in one additional combat aircraft deployed to the 
fleet.
    The EA-6B force structure, already heavily tasked to meet 
current commitments, will decline over time due to aircraft 
wear and attrition and cannot be augmented with new production 
aircraft on a cost-effective basis. Moreover, in about ten 
years, the EA-6B fleet size and capabilities will begin a 
steady decline as older aircraft reach the age of retirement. 
The Defense Department currently has no plan to meet these 
eventualities, and therefore, the Committee believes it would 
be prudent to begin planning now to ensure that no EA-6B force 
degradation occurs. Elsewhere in this report, the Committee 
recommends an additional $116,000,000 in the Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy account for tactical 
jamming aircraft enhancements. This includes $60,000,000 to 
provide the EA-6B with Link 16 connectivity; $16,000,000 to 
initiate an analysis of alternatives for a follow-on jammer 
aircraft; and $40,000,000 to immediately begin risk reduction 
and concept development for a F/A-18E/F variant to become the 
follow-on tactical jamming aircraft. The Committee urges the 
Defense Department to expand the tactical jammer aircraft 
fleet, in particular to capitalize upon the operational need 
and advantages which accrue from combining jamming with stealth 
aircraft, by introducing a tactical jamming variant of the F/A-
18E/F aircraft by the year 2006.

                 consolidated automated support system

    The Navy has standardized its aircraft support equipment 
through the Consolidated Automated Support System. The 
Committee believes that the Navy should develop a longer term 
acquisition strategy, rather than using annual buys, in order 
to stabilize the program and achieve cost reductions.

        Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS)

    The Committee remains concerned about the lack of progress 
that has been made in fielding new technologies to meet Marine 
Corps tactical reconnaissance requirements. The F/A-18 ATARS 
program has been hindered with a troubled past and despite its 
recent deployment to meet emergency requirements in the Balkans 
region, is limited by technology developed in the mid-1980's. 
Following an investment of almost $1,000,000,000 and 15-years 
of development effort, the ATARS program remains plagued with 
annoying maintenance issues, has yet to complete a successful 
Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL), and has not been certified for 
full rate production.
    Therefore, the Committee directs that prior to the 
obligation of any fiscal year 2000 appropriations, the Marine 
Corps must complete a ``by the book'' OPEVAL of the full-up 
ATARS system. If the ongoing operational assessment tests and 
the OPEVAL indicate that the system does not meet the stated 
requirements, the Committee requires that it be immediately 
notified of the shortfalls and the Marine Corps plan for the 
future of ATARS.
    The Committee notes that in fiscal year 1999, the Navy's 
budget justification material indicated that it intended to use 
1999 funds to finance the ATARS OPEVAL and initiation of Full 
Rate Production. Congress agreed and this became the 
``Congressionally approved'' program. The Committee understands 
that the Navy now desires to not use 1999 appropriations to 
initiate Full Rate Production, but intends to waive acquisition 
regulations and move to a Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) 
III decision prior to completion of the OPEVAL. With the 
execution of the LRIP III, the Navy will have committed, 
through the LRIP process, to procure half of the ATARS 
inventory objective. The Committee requests that prior to 
making such a decision, the Secretary of the Navy submit to the 
Committee a revised acquisition plan for ATARS. Additionally, 
the Secretary of the Navy should submit a letter to the 
Committee that addresses the Navy's desire to alter the fiscal 
year 1999 Congressionally approved program and request approval 
to use appropriated funds for a similar, although alternative, 
purpose.
    Additionally, the Committee directs that the Marine Corps 
complete and submit to the Committee by November 1, 1999, a 
report that addresses its future plans for meeting 
reconnaissance requirements. This ``road map'' of tactical 
reconnaissance must address the Marine Corps plan to acquire 
the Navy's Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP) system when it 
successfully completes evaluation and testing and becomes 
available for procurement.

tactical airborne reconnaissance pod system--completely digital (tarps-
                                  cd)

    The Committee understands that TARPS(CD) is the proof of 
concept for the next generation of tactical reconnaissance 
systems: the Shared Airborne Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP). 
TARPS(CD) is employing off the shelf technology similar to the 
more capable technology being developed for the SHARP system. 
The Committee fully supports this approach and the rapid 
prototyping process that the Navy, particularly the Naval 
Research Lab, is promoting with SHARP.
    The Committee also supports the Navy's decision to deploy 
TARPS(CD) on board the USS John F. Kennedy to support 
peacekeeping operations in the Balkans region. The opportunity 
now presents itself for additional limited operational 
experience with TARPS(CD) and through that experience, to 
assist with the design and risk mitigation for SHARP. The 
operational lessons learned from a limited, interim deployment 
of TARPS(CD) therefore would have a two-fold effect: preparing 
operational forces to more quickly integrate the capability 
increases of SHARP into their tactics and also allowing that 
experience to assist the final design of the SHARP system to 
ensure it meets fleet operational requirements.
    Therefore, the Committee adds $25,000,000 only to procure 
and test additional TARPS(CD) systems. These additional systems 
will provide for continued development in support of the rapid 
prototyping process for SHARP, as well as spares for the system 
deployed with the USS John F. Kennedy.

                              rescissions

    The Committee recommends rescissions of $62,500,000 from 
several fiscal year 1999 Aircraft Procurement, Navy programs. 
These include: $41,500,000 in Common Ground Equipment due to 
the cancellation of the jet start unit project; $11,000,000 in 
AV-8B due to cancellation of the aircraft life extension 
program; and $10,000,000 due to contract savings resulting from 
E-2C multiyear procurement.

                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000.



                       WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $1,211,419,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,357,400,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,334,800,000
Change from budget request............................       -22,600,000


    This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of 
strategic and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes, 
guns, associated support equipment, and modification on in-
service missiles, torpedoes, and guns.

                       Committee Recommendations


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget     Committee   Change from
                                     request    recommended    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard missile.................      198,867      155,267      -43,600
    Block IVA missiles,            ...........  ...........      -43,600
     authorization reduction.....
Aerial Targets...................       21,177       51,177      +30,000
    BQM-74 targets...............  ...........  ...........      +30,000
Penguin missiles.................            0       10,000       10,000
Tomahawk.........................       50,894       50,894            0
    Note: Funds provided only to
     convert Anti-Ship Tomahawks
     to the block III C variant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  jsow

    The Navy requested $154,913,000 for JSOW. The Committee 
recommends $135,913,000, a net decrease of $19,000,000. This 
amount includes a decrease of $39,300,000 for the anti-armor 
JSOW variant and an increase of $20,300,000 for the baseline 
JSOW variant. As discussed in the Air Force section of this 
report, the Committee recommends deferring production of the 
anti-armor variant of the JSOW pending resolution of technical 
problems with the improved BLU-108 submunition and pending 
resolution of targeting problems. In order to minimize 
disruption to the JSOW production flow, the Committee 
recommends converting the proposed BLU-108 weapons to baseline 
weapons resulting in a savings of $19,000,000. The Committee 
expects the Navy to include separate budget exhibits for each 
variant of JSOW in future budget submissions.

                              rescissions

    The Committee recommends a rescission of $8,000,000 from 
fiscal year 1999 Weapons Procurement, Navy due to delay in 
procurement of the Improved Tactical Air Launched Decoy 
resulting from deficiencies revealed in recent operational 
testing.

                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000.



            PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $484,203,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       484,900,000
Committee recommendation..............................       537,600,000
Change from budget request............................       +52,700,000


    This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, 
ammunition modernization, and ammunition related material for 
the Navy and Marine Corps.

                        Committee Recommendation


                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with House authorization action:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from
                              Item                                Budget request  recommendation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Expendable Countermeasure...................................          34,259          39,259          +5,000
5.56MM, All Types...............................................          12,958          21,958          +9,000
7.62MM, All Types...............................................               7           5,007          +5,000
40MM, All Types.................................................          11,247          12,547          +1,300
60MM, All Types.................................................          12,433          16,433          +4,000
25MM, All Types.................................................           3,194          11,394          +8,200
Demolition Munitions, All Types.................................          14,733          21,933          +7,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget                 Change from
                                     request    Recommended    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 Caliber.......................       16,364       18,364       +2,000
    Procure additional rounds....  ...........  ...........       +2,000
Grenades, All Types..............        2,270        4,270       +2,000
    M69 practice grenades........  ...........  ...........       +2,000
Rockets, All Types...............       11,030       20,030       +9,000
    Procure additional rounds....  ...........  ...........       +9,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



                   SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $6,035,752,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     6,678,454,000
Committee recommendation..............................     6,656,554,000
Change from budget request............................       -21,900,000


    This appropriation provides funds for the construction of 
new ships and the purchase and conversion of existing ships, 
including hull, mechanical, and electrical equipment, 
electronics, guns, torpedo and missile launching systems, and 
communication systems

                       Committee Recommendations


                         Project Level Changes

                       [In thousands of dollars]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Budget     Committee
                                                                   request    recommended   Change from Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVN Refueling Overhauls (AP-CY)................................      345,565      323,665                -21,900
    Savings from Navy/Newport News MOU.........................  ...........  ...........                -21,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     post delivery test and trials

    The Committee directs that in future budgets, the costs 
associated with post delivery test and trials conducted during 
the post delivery period for all fiscal year 1997 and 
subsequent ships be included in the subdivision of funds 
appropriated in the fiscal year in which the test and trials 
occur.

                              rescissions

    The Committee recommends rescissions of $46,400,000 from 
several fiscal year 1999 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 
programs. These include: $32,400,000 in the Virginia class 
submarine due to reduction in shipyard labor and overhead rates 
resulting from the multi-mission modification to SSN-23; 
$11,400,000 due to contract savings in the CVN-69 CVN refueling 
advance planning contract; and $2,600,000 due to contract 
savings in nuclear propulsion components for the Virginia class 
submarine.

                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000.



                        OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $4,072,662,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     4,100,091,000
Committee recommendation..............................     4,252,191,000
Change from budget request............................      +152,100,000


    This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of 
major equipment and weapons other than ships, aircraft, 
missiles, and torpedoes. Such equipment ranges from the latest 
electronic sensors for updating naval forces to trucks, 
training equipment, and spare parts.

                       Committee Recommendations


                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with House authorization action:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from
                                                                  Budget request  recommendation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undersea Warfare Support Equipment..............................           2,605          11,205          +8,600
SATCOM ship Terminals (Space)...................................         237,722         247,722         +10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget     Committee   Change from
                                     request    recommended    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Navigation Equipment.......       67,516       87,516      +20,000
    WQN-2 doppler sonar velocity   ...........  ...........      +10,000
     logs........................
    Computer aided dead reckoning            0  ...........      +10,000
     tracers.....................
    Note: CADRT funds are only to
     begin low rate initial
     production.
Pollution Control Equipment......      113,506      116,506       +3,000
    Ozone friendly refrigerants..            0  ...........       +3,000
Strategic Platform Support               6,070       21,070      +15,000
 Equipment.......................
    Submarine workstation                    0  ...........      +15,000
     replacement.................
    Note: For procurement of
     submarine workstations, to
     include but not be limited
     to the navigation system
     workstation, OJ-172, and the
     data exchange auxilliary
     console, on SSN-688 and
     Trident class submarines.
Minesweeping Equipment...........       16,302       20,802       +4,500
        Dyad mine countermeasures            0  ...........       +4,500
         system..................
Items Less Than $5.0M............      126,133      154,533      +28,400
    Afloat force protection......            0  ...........      +24,400
    Integrated condition                     0  ...........       +4,000
     assessment system...........
Radar Support....................            0       22,300      +22,300
    AN/BPS-16 submarine                      0  ...........       +8,000
     navigation radar upgrade....
    AN/SPS-73 surface search                 0  ...........      +14,300
     radar.......................
Surface Sonar Support Equipment..            0        5,000       +5,000
    New material sonar dome......            0  ...........       +5,000
Undersea Warfare Support                 2,605       11,205       +8,600
 Equipment.......................
    Surface ship torpedo defense.            0  ...........       +8,600
    Note: Only for procurement of
     surface ship enhanced
     capability torpedo defense
     systems for large deck ships
     and LEAD countermeasure
     units for all ships to
     include upgraded torpedo
     countermeasure winch and tow
     capability for littoral
     operations.
Sonar Support Equipment..........            0        3,000       +3,000
    CV-TAS.......................            0  ...........       +3,000
C-3 Countermeasures..............            0       10,000      +10,000
    Outlaw bandit signature                  0  ...........      +10,000
     reduction for surface ships.
Shipboard IW Exploit.............       48,031       21,531      -26,500
    Cooperative outboard                     0  ...........      -20,200
     logistics update, milestone
     III delay due to test ship
     collision/repairs...........
    Price revisions..............            0  ...........       -6,300
Common High Bandwidth Data Link..       40,083       31,283       -8,800
    BGPHES common high band data             0  ...........       -8,800
     link for ES-3...............
Navy Tactical Data System........            0       25,000      +25,000
    LHA combat display console               0  ...........      +20,000
     upgrade.....................
    Note: To install Wintel-based
     shipboard display emulator
     computers workstations, and
     displays in LHA-1, LHA-3,
     and LHA-5 ships.
    Display emulators for land               0  ...........       +5,000
     based sites.................
Other Training Equipment.........       44,229       54,229      +10,000
    BFTT air traffic control                 0  ...........       +5,800
     trainers for aircraft
     carriers....................
    BFTT electronic warfare                  0  ...........       +4,200
     trainers....................
TADIX-B..........................        6,248       23,548      +17,300
    Additional joint tactical                0  ...........      +17,300
     terminals--Navy.............
Naval Space Surveillance System..        6,634        7,834       +1,200
    Super span ultimate building             0  ...........       +1,200
     machines....................
GCCS-M Equipment Tatical/Mobile..        7,077       17,077      +10,000
    MIUW upgrades................            0  ...........      +10,000
RADIAC...........................        7,778        4,278       -3,500
    Dosimetry system contract                0  ...........       -3,500
     award delay.................
Items Less Than $5.0M............        5,206       10,206       +5,000
    Shipboard display emulators              0  ...........       +5,000
     for surface ships...........
Submarine Communication Equipment       85,368       53,268      -32,100
    Submarine high data rate                 0  ...........      -32,100
     antennas, milestone III
     delay/submarine antenna
     distribution system
     cancellation................
SATCOM Ship Terminals (Space)....      237,722      247,722      +10,000
    AN/USC-52 mini-DAMA SATCOM               0  ...........      +10,000
     terminals...................
    Note: Includes procurement/
     installation of mini-DAMA
     UHF SATCOM terminals on MCM
     and MHC ships, and mini-DAMA
     medium data rate upgrades
     for DDGs, SSN-688s, MHCs,
     MCMs, and submarine shore
     sites.
JEDMICS..........................            0       17,000      +17,000
    Encryption...................            0  ...........      +12,000
    Note: Only for the continued
     procurement and integration
     of the same security
     solution implemented in
     1999.
    Enhancements.................            0  ...........       +5,000
Naval Shore Communications.......      114,339       92,439      -21,900
    IT-21 excessive program        ...........  ...........      -21,900
     growth......................
Passive Sonobuoys (non-Beam             15,933       23,933       +8,000
 forming)........................
    Additional AN/SSQ-53                     0  ...........       +8,000
     sonobouys...................
AN/SSQ-57 (Special purpose)......            0        1,000       +1,000
    Additional AN/SSQ-57                     0  ...........       +1,000
     sonobouys...................
AN/SSQ-62 (DICASS)...............       17,111       17,711         +600
    Unit price savings based on              0  ...........       -4,400
     FY 99 actual costs..........
    Additional sonobouys.........            0  ...........       +5,000
AN/SSQ-101 (ADAR)................       12,773       18,773       +6,000
    Additional sonobouys.........            0  ...........       +6,000
Aviation Life Support............       17,053       23,053       +6,000
    Inertial reels...............  ...........  ...........       +6,000
Aegis Support Equipment..........       86,668       93,668       +7,000
    CAST lesson authoring system.  ...........  ...........       +2,000
    Wireless sensors.............  ...........  ...........       +5,000
Command Support Equipment........       14,471       16,471       +2,000
    Advanced technical             ...........  ...........       +2,000
     information system..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Pollution Control Equipment

    The Committee directs the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense to conduct an evaluation of the 
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Navy's pollution 
control equipment program for upgrading equipment on Navy 
ships.

                              rescissions

    The Committee recommends rescissions of $22,700,000 from 
several Other Procurement, Navy programs. This includes 
$6,384,000 in fiscal year 1998 and $8,953,000 in fiscal year 
1999 due to the recent program slip in the Combat Survivor 
Evader Radio; $5,500,000 in fiscal year 1999 for FFG upgrades; 
and $1,900,000 in fiscal year 1999 due to a reduction in 
quantity in the MK XII IFF digital interrogator systems.

                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000.



                       PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $874,216,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,137,220,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,333,120,000
Change from budget request............................      +195,900,000


    This appropriation provides the Marine Corps with funds for 
procurement, delivery and modification of missiles, armament, 
communication equipment, tracked and wheeled vehicles, and 
various support equipment.

                        Committee Recommendation


                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with House authorization action:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from
                              Item                                Budget request  recommendation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Vision Equipment..........................................           9,032          17,532          +8,500
Material Handling Equipment.....................................          50,010          66,510         +16,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousand of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
             Item                 request    recommendation    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification Kits (TRKD Veh)..       22,853         83,353       +60,500
    Improved recovery vehicle.  ...........  ..............      +60,500
Comm Switching and Control           65,125         98,025       +32,900
 Systems......................
    Upgrade...................  ...........  ..............      +32,900
    (Note: Further details are
     provided in the
     Information Technology
     section of this report)
Comm and Elec Infrastructure         81,770        139,070       +57,300
 Support......................
    Upgrade...................  ...........  ..............      +57,300
    (Note: Further details are
     provided in the
     Information Technology
     section of this report).
Mod Kits MAGTF C41............       13,821         18,821        +5,000
    MEWSS-MAGTF C41             ...........  ..............       +5,000
     modernization kits.......
Fire Support System...........            0          6,000        +6,000
    Shortstop.................  ...........  ..............       +6,000
Command Support Equipment.....            0          2,000        +2,000
    Ultimate building machine.  ...........  ..............       +2,000
Field Medical Equipment.......        2,445          7,645        +5,200
    Small unit biological       ...........  ..............       +5,200
     detector.................
Modification Kits.............            0          2,000        +2,000
    Laser leveling equipment..  ...........  ..............       +2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



                    AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $8,095,507,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     9,302,086,000
Committee recommendation..............................     8,298,313,000
Change from budget request............................    -1,003,773,000


    This appropriation provides for the procurement of 
aircraft, and for modification of in-service aircraft to 
improve safety and enhance operational effectiveness. It also 
provides for initial spares and other support equipment to 
include aerospace ground equipment and industrial facilities. 
In addition, funds are provided for the procurement of flight 
training simulators to increase combat readiness and to provide 
for more economical training.

                       Committee Recommendations


                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
             Item                 request    recommendation    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F-16 Post Production Support..       30,010         50,010       +20,000
C-17 Modifications............       95,543         93,543        -2,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          Project Level Changes
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
             Item                 request    recommendation    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-17 (MYP)....................    3,080,147      2,671,047      -409,100
    Excess nonrecurring funds.  ...........  ..............       -2,500
    Rephase funding for         ...........  ..............      -10,000
     trainer concurrency......
    Transfer ICS to O&M.......  ...........  ..............     -396,600
C-17 (MYP) (AP-CY)............      304,900        301,700        -3,200
    Underexecution of prior     ...........  ..............       -3,200
     year AP..................
JPATS.........................       88,232        106,332       +18,100
    Additional aircraft.......  ...........  ..............      +21,000
    Transfer ICS to O&M.......  ...........  ..............       -2,900
V-22 OSPREY...................       29,203         16,736       -12,467
    Support equipment procured  ...........  ..............      -12,467
     ahead of need............
Operational Support Aircraft..            0         63,000       +63,000
    737-700ER for CINC CENTCOM  ...........  ..............      +63,000
TARGET DRONES.................       36,152         31,652        -4,500
    Contract savings on BQM-34  ...........  ..............       -4,500
     targets..................
B-1B..........................      130,389        147,039       +16,650
    Excess Link 16 funds......  ...........  ..............       -8,350
    Conventional Bomb Modules.  ...........  ..............      +25,000
Predator UAV..................       38,003         58,003       +20,000
    5 Attrition Aircraft......  ...........  ..............  ...........
A-10..........................       24,360         29,360        +5,000
    CUPID.....................  ...........  ..............       +5,000
F-16..........................      249,536        295,536       +46,000
    Unjustified modification    ...........  ..............       -7,100
     cost growth..............
    Litening II ANG...........  ...........  ..............      +30,000
    Digital Terrain System      ...........  ..............      +12,000
     (DTS)....................
    F-16 Digital Engine         ...........  ..............      +11,100
     Control..................
KC-10A (ATCA).................       53,366         29,757       -23,609
    Transfer to RDTEAF for      ...........  ..............      -23,609
     GATM.....................
C-130.........................      207,646        165,546       -42,100
    Transfer to RDTEAF for
     Avionics Modernization
    Program...................  ...........  ..............      -38,600
    Excess ECO funding in       ...........  ..............       -3,500
     Airlift Defense Systems..
DARP..........................      138,436        302,936      +164,500
    Two additional RC-135 re-   ...........  ..............      +60,000
     enginings................
    TAWS on RC-135 Rivet Joint  ...........  ..............      +17,300
    SYERS on U-2..............  ...........  ..............       +9,000
    Common Data Link on U-2...  ...........  ..............       +5,000
    Quick Reaction              ...........  ..............      +13,400
     Capabilities for RC-135
     Rivet Joint..............
    U-2 upgrades..............  ...........  ..............      +22,000
    Program transfer from GDIP  ...........  ..............      +37,800
E-3...........................      124,061         94,561       -29,500
    Proper phasing of SATCOM    ...........  ..............       -6,000
     integration funding......
    Restructured computer       ...........  ..............      -16,700
     upgrade program..........
    Accelerate Block 30/35      ...........  ..............      +11,200
     installations............
    Excess RSIP NRE, ECO, and   ...........  ..............       -6,000
     OGC funds................
    Proper phasing of RSIP SE/  ...........  ..............      -12,000
     PM funding...............
E-4...........................       19,985          9,985       -10,000
    Delays in Modified Mobile   ...........  ..............      -10,000
     Receive Terminal.........
PASSENGER SAFETY MODIFICATIONS            0         75,000       +75,000
    TAWS (Note: Funding         ...........  ..............      +40,000
     includes, but is not
     limited to upgrade of the
     KC-135)..................
    GATM......................  ...........  ..............      +35,000
COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT......      171,369        185,897       +14,528
    Modular Airborne            ...........  ..............       +6,000
     Firefighting System for
     ANG......................
    Common, multi-platform      ...........  ..............       +1,400
     boresight equipment......
    LANTIRN Support and Bomb    ...........  ..............      +10,600
     Damage Assessment........
    Self Generating Nitrogen    ...........  ..............       +4,000
     Servicing Cart...........
    JSECTS production delayed   ...........  ..............       -7,472
     to FY 2001...............
    CAPRE.....................  ...........  ..............       -2,528
B-2A..........................      106,882         75,482       -31,400
    B-2 shelters..............  ...........  ..............      +16,200
    Transfer ICS to O&M.......  ...........  ..............      -47,600
WAR CONSUMABLES...............       29,282         54,282       +25,000
    ALE-50 Towed Decoys.......  ...........  ..............      +25,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  f-22

    The Committee recommendation with respect to F-22 is 
discussed elsewhere in this report.

                                  f-15

    The Committee recommendation includes $440,000,000 to 
procure 8 F-15E aircraft. The budget proposed no funding for 
new F-15 production. The F-15E is a multi-role fighter with 
both robust air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, and was 
a key player in Operation Allied Force because of its ability 
to carry a wide range of precision guided munitions. The F-15E 
is the only Air Force all-weather deep interdiction aircraft 
capable of employing the entire range of available or 
programmed precision guided munitions including laser guided 
bombs, AGM-130, JDAM, JSOW, JASSM, and WCMD. The procurement of 
these aircraft will not only significantly enhance warfighting 
capability, but also, in view of the Committee's recommendation 
regarding a production ``pause'' on the F-22, it will preserve 
fighter modernization options pending delivery of the Joint 
Strike Fighter.

                                  f-16

    The Air Force requested $252,610,000 for 10 F-16 aircraft. 
The Committee recommends $350,610,000, a net increase of 
$98,000,000, for a total of 15 F-16s. (This amount includes a 
$17,000,000 reduction for excess engineering change orders and 
nonrecurring engineering funding. The Committee notes that 
given the maturity of the F-16 program, there should be few 
changes demanding such funding.)
    The Air Force budget this year included 10 F-16s in fiscal 
year 2000 and a total of 30 F-16s over the next 4 years, none 
of which were programmed prior to submission of the fiscal 
years 2000-2005 defense program. The Air Force has made this 
adjustment in light of the need to bolster the Suppression of 
Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) mission area, as well to address 
various inventory and unit shortfalls and modernization needs 
by cascading active F-16s to the Air National Guard and 
Reserves. The Committee agrees with the Air Force plan and 
notes that that Operation Allied Force has further highlighted 
the urgent need for additional SEAD assets, and the limitations 
of those early model F-16s which remain fielded largely in 
Guard and Reserve units. Accordingly, the Committee believes 
the Air Force F-16 procurement plan could be accelerated 
through purchase of additional aircraft in fiscal year 2000 and 
has included an additional $115,000,000 over the budget request 
to procure an additional 5 F-16 Block 50 aircraft. The 
Committee has also provided an additional $24,000,000 in F-16 
advance procurement to allow follow-on buys to be accelerated 
into fiscal year 2001.

                                 c-130j

    The Air force requested $30,618,000 for the C-130J program. 
The Committee recommends $17,718,000, a reduction of 
$17,718,000 representing a transfer of Interim Contractor 
Support to the Operations and Maintenance account as discussed 
elsewhere in this report.
    The Committee is concerned with the current Air Force C-
130J acquisition plan. The Air Mobility Command (AMC) has 
clearly indicated its requirement for 150 new production C-130J 
aircraft beyond those already purchased. In fact, the Committee 
notes AMC has just issued preliminary basing plans for the 
aircraft. Yet the Air Force budget does not include funding for 
these aircraft until fiscal year 2002, and under the 
preliminary AMC fielding plan these assets will not begin 
arriving at active duty units until 2006. Moreover, an Air 
Force failure to budget for any C-130Js for two years could 
cause significant disruption to the existing production 
program. As stated throughout this report, this is yet another 
example of a well documented CINC operational requirement which 
is being deferred or not funded (a need which in this case is 
further buttressed by production line concerns).
    As discussed earlier in this report, to ameliorate this 
disruption and to satisfy an even more urgent Marine Corps 
requirement, the Committee has recommended eight KC-130J 
aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps. Given its own tactical 
airlift needs, the Committee directs the Air Force to 
accelerate the start of its buy of C-130J aircraft into next 
year's budget (fiscal year 2001) which, along with continued 
Marine Corps purchases, would minimize the inefficiencies in 
the current production profile.

                                  e-8c

    The Air Force requested $280,265,000 for one E-8C Joint 
STARS aircraft. The Committee recommends $468,465,000 for two 
Joint STARS aircraft (a net increase over the budget of 
$188,200,000). This amount includes a decrease of $13,000,000 
budgeted for shutdown, a decrease of $23,000,000 based on 
refurbishment cost savings of the newly acquired German Boeing 
707, and a $25,800,000 decrease associated with transfer of 
Interim Contractor Support funding to the Air Force Operations 
and Maintenance account.
    The Committee recommendation also includes a $250,000,000 
increase to procure the fifteenth Joint STARS aircraft. The 
Committee notes the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) 
approved requirement for Joint STARS is 19 aircraft. Though all 
19 aircraft were budgeted several years ago, the quantity was 
reduced largely in anticipation of sales to NATO. NATO has 
decided not to buy Joint STARS, leaving a shortfall of five 
aircraft. Operation Allied Force has only highlighted the 
importance of Joint STARS, whose performance has been lauded by 
the operational community. However, it has also reinforced the 
importance of, and need to adequately budget for, a sufficient 
quantity of these and other ``low-density, high demand'' 
assets. The Joint STARS operational base of aircraft and crews 
is among the most stressed in the U.S. military's force 
structure, and there are clearly not enough Joint STARS 
programmed to support the current strategy of being able to 
conduct two near-simultaneous major theater wars.
    Given these concerns, the Committee believes it is prudent 
to procure an additional aircraft in fiscal year 2000. The 
Committee further strongly encourages the Air Force to fund the 
remaining four aircraft in its fiscal year 2001-2006 budget 
plan.

                          C-135 Modifications

    The Air Force requested $347,088,000 for C-135 
Modifications. The Committee recommends $552,988,000, a net 
increase of $205,900,000. This amount includes a $2,100,000 
decrease for Pacer Crag in accordance with House authorization 
action, and a $208,000,000 increase to procure eight additional 
KC-135E to R reengining conversions for the Air National Guard.
    Having a robust and capable aerial refueling capability is 
yet another critical link in the overall ability of the 
American military to conduct global operations and meet its 
worldwide security commitments. This has been demonstrated 
repeatedly in recent years, be it through humanitarian relief 
deployments or military operations abroad. Like the need for 
intelligence support, or adequate air- and sealift, the aerial 
refueling mission area is critical national military asset. 
Operation Allied Force stressed that capability, both in terms 
of the sheer number of aerial refueling platforms and aircrews 
needed to support that air campaign, and the adjustments, 
workarounds and disruptions to other U.S. global military 
activities that resulted from the diversion of assets to 
EUCOM's area of operation.
    At present, the bulk of the nation's aerial refueling 
capability resides in the KC-135 tanker fleet, which was 
largely acquired during the 1950's and 1960's. Despite its age, 
this fleet has been slowly modernized over the last fifteen 
years, largely as a result of funds added by the Congress for 
the KC-135E to R engine conversion program. Each aircraft so 
upgraded has a 25 percent increase in fuel offload capability, 
a 35 percent reduction in time-to-climb, and a 23 percent 
decrease in take-off distance, and also meets all Stage III 
noise and emission standards. Combined, these improvements 
greatly enhance operational utility and flexibility, as well as 
access to a wider number and variety of airfields.
    This re-engining program is a high priority for the Air 
Mobility Command, and the Committee notes that there are still 
over 130 Air National Guard tankers requiring this upgrade, 
many of which are over 40 years old. Yet the current Air Force 
outyear budget plan defers additional conversions until fiscal 
year 2002. Given the operational need and considerable utility 
of a more modern, robust and available aerial refueling 
capability, the Committee recommends $208,000,000 over the 
budget request for an additional eight KC-135E to R 
conversions.

                           F-15 Modifications

    The Air Force requested $263,490,000 for F-15 
modifications. The Committee recommends $321,818,000, a net 
increase of $58,328,000. This amount includes a decrease of 
$22,000,000 for excess funds budgeted for APG-63 radar 
nonrecurring costs, a decrease of $8,672,000 for excess funds 
in various modification programs as identified by GAO, an 
increase of $21,000,000 for F-15C fighter datalinks for active 
combat coded aircraft, an increase of $18,000,000 for fighter 
datalinks for the Air National Guard, an increase of 
$25,000,000 for E-kit engine upgrades for Air National Guard 
aircraft, and an increase of $25,000,000 for E-kit engine 
upgrades for active component Air Force aircraft.
    At relatively modest cost and in relatively short time, 
such upgrades can provide considerably improved operational 
capabilities to the Air Force's fighter inventory. For example, 
the fighter datalinks are estimated to provide the F-15 with a 
5-to-1 increase in kill ratio, and are part of a capability 
which Air Force testimony to the Committee this year described 
as ``the most significant increase in fighter avionics since 
the introduction of the on-board radar.'' The funds added by 
the Committee over the budget request will outfit all remaining 
active and guard combat coded F-15 air superiority aircraft 
with this vital capability. The E-kit engine upgrades 
recommended by the Committee likewise provide significant 
benefits including 86 percent increased availability, 46 
percent reduction in engine flight hour costs, increased 
throttle response and overall thrust, and an estimated 
improvement in aircraft safety rates.

                           T-38 Modifications

    The Air Force requested $94,487,000 for T-38 modifications. 
The Committee recommends $43,987,000, a decrease of 
$50,500,000. The Air Force request includes funding for the T-
38 Avionics Update Program. When structuring this program, the 
Air Force wisely adopted a ``fly before buy'' acquisition 
strategy with operational testing scheduled to complete prior 
to procurement. However, initial flight tests revealed both 
hardware and software deficiencies which will delay completion 
of operational testing approximately one year. The Committee 
believes it is important to preserve the ``fly before buy'' 
acquisition strategy, especially in light of the development 
problems recently experienced. Therefore, the Committee 
recommends deferring the production program one year to 
accommodate the delayed testing by rescinding fiscal year 1999 
production funds and reducing fiscal year 2000 funds by 
$50,000,000. In addition, the Committee recommends a reduction 
to the T-38 propulsion upgrade by $500,000. The Committee fully 
supports this program, but believes production funding in 
fiscal year 2000 is premature.



                     MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $2,069,827,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     2,359,608,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,329,510,000
Change from budget request............................       -30,098,000


    This appropriation provides for procurement, installation, 
and checkout of strategic ballistic and other missiles, 
modification of in-service missiles, and initial spares for 
missile systems. It also provides for operational space 
systems, boosters, payloads, drones, associated ground 
equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial facilities, 
machine tool modernization, and special program support.

               minuteman iii guidance replacement program

    For the past several years, the Air Force has reduced the 
budget for the Minuteman III Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) 
as a billpayer for other Service priorities. The Committee is 
concerned about how these actions are impacting the projected 
reliability of the Minuteman III weapon system. Accordingly, 
the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 
with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide a 
report separately detailing the inventory and the weapon system 
reliability (required and projected) of each Minuteman III 
variant (unmodified missiles, missiles modified with GRP only, 
and missiles modified with GRP and Propulsion Replacement 
Program) by year for fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2010. 
The Committee further directs that this report be provided to 
the congressional defense committees no later than September 1, 
1999.

                       Committee Recommendations


                         AUTHORIZATION CHANGES

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
             Item                 request    recommendation    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGM-65 Maverick...............        2,800         12,800       +10,000
Spaceborne equipment..........        9,594          4,594        -5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget                   Change from
                                  request    Recommended     requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMRAAM........................       97,279      190,279         +93,000
    Transfer funds to RDTEAF    ...........  ...........          -7,000
     for P3I phase III........
    Procure additional AMRAAMs  ...........  ...........        +100,000
MM III Modifications..........      242,960      277,960         +35,000
    Guidance Replacement        ...........  ...........         +40,000
     Program..................
    Pricing of Propulsion       ...........  ...........          -5,000
     Replacement Program......
Global Positioning (Space)....      139,049      103,349         -35,700
    Rubidium Clock Build......  ...........  ...........          -5,500
    Premature GPS Block IIF     ...........  ...........         -25,200
     launch services and on-
     orbit support............
    Delays in GPS IIF           ...........  ...........          -5,000
     crosslink................
Global Positioning (Space) (AP-      31,798            0         -31,798
 CY)..........................
    Defer Block IIF based on 2  ...........  ...........         -31,798
     year extended life of
     current constellation....
NUDET Detection System........       11,375        1,575          -9,800
    Excess funds..............  ...........  ...........          -9,800
DEF Meteorological SAT Prog          38,223       34,223          -4,000
 (Space)......................
    Unjustified growth in on-   ...........  ...........          -4,000
     orbit support............
Defense Support Programs            111,609      106,609          -5,000
 (Space)......................
    Unjustified growth in post  ...........  ...........          -5,000
     production services......
Evolved Expendable Launch Veh        70,812       66,812          -4,000
 (Space)......................
    Program reduction.........  ...........  ...........          -4,000
MILSTAR.......................            0      150,000        +150,000
    Transfer from RDTEAF......  ...........  ...........        +150,000
    Convert program to full     ...........  ...........         +65,000
     funding..................
    Contract underrun.........  ...........  ...........         -65,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  jsow

    The Air Force request includes $79,981,000 for procurement 
of JSOW precision guided munitions. The Committee recommends 
$60,981,000, a net decrease of $19,000,000 which includes a 
decrease of $39,300,000 for BLU-108 JSOW and an increase of 
$20,300,000 for baseline JSOW. The BLU-108 is designed to 
attack armored vehicles, however, Air Force testimony provided 
to the Committee states that the technology which would allow 
aircraft to target these vehicles is years away. Air Force 
testimony further states that the technology required to 
transfer targeting data from a third party such as JSTARS is 
also years away. Without realtime targeting, the Air Force and 
Navy must rely on prior intelligence to develop pre-planned 
JSOW missions. However, predicting the precise location of 
vehicles 24 to 48 hours in advance (in order to incorporate the 
missions into the theater's Air Tasking Order) is extremely 
difficult.
    The Committee further notes that recently identified delays 
in the improved BLU-108 submunition have further degraded the 
performance of the JSOW anti-armor variant. Because of the 
development delays in the improved BLU-108, the Air Force and 
Navy propose to procure the JSOW anti-armor variant using the 
older, less capable BLU-108 submunition. The Committee believes 
it is more prudent to defer procurement of the anti-armor 
variant until the Air Force and Navy can resolve the targeting 
issues and complete development on the improved BLU-108 
submunition. In order to minimize disruption to the JSOW 
production flow, the Committee recommends converting the 
proposed BLU-108 weapons to baseline weapons resulting in a 
savings of $19,000,000.

                                 TITAN

    The Air Force budget for Titan assumes approval of a 
Special Termination Cost Clause which waives the requirement to 
budget for termination liability. The Committee notes that the 
Air Force has not yet submitted an STCC notification letter to 
the Congress. Nevertheless, the Committee sees no reason to 
make an exception to the longstanding requirement to budget for 
termination liability for this program. The Committee directs 
the Air Force to fully fund the Titan contract including all 
termination liability.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



                  PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $379,425,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       419,537,000
Committee recommendation..............................       481,837,000
Change from budget request............................       +62,300,000


    This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, 
modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related 
items for the Air Force.

                       Committee Recommendations


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget                 Change from
                                     request    Recommended    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practice Bombs...................       24,325       24,325       (6000)
    Cast Ductile Bomb............  ...........  ...........       (6000)
Sensor Fuzed Weapon..............       61,334       73,634      +12,300
    SFW shortfall................  ...........  ...........      +12,300
Joint Direct Attack Munition.....      125,605      175,605      +50,000
    JDAM.........................  ...........  ...........      +50,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



                      OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE




Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $6,960,483,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     7,085,177,000
Committee recommendation..............................     6,964,227,000
Change from budget request............................      -120,950,000


    This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapon 
systems and equipment other than aircraft and missiles. 
Included are vehicles, electronic and telecommunications 
systems for command and control of operation forces, and ground 
support equipment for weapon systems and supporting structure.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
             Item                 request    recommendation    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mechanized Material Handling         15,320         25,320       +10,000
 Equip........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget                    Change from
                                  request    Recommendation    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60K A/C Loader................       81,163         69,863       -11,300
    Transfer ICS to O&M.......                                   -11,300
Intelligence Comm Equip.......        5,495         28,395       +22,900
    Additional Joint Tactical                                    +22,900
     Terminals................
Air Traffic Ctrl/Land Sys               887          5,887        +5,000
 (Atcals).....................
    MPN-25 Tactical Air                                           +5,000
     Traffic Control System...
National Airspace System......       54,394         45,394        -9,000
    Reduce radar LRIP                                             -9,000
     quantities below 10% of
     total buy................
Theater Air Control Sys              37,917         23,417       -14,500
 Improvement..................
    Reduced requirements for                                      -8,500
     interface units..........
    Transfer to RDTEAF for                                        -6,000
     Expert Missile Tracker...
Automatic Data Processing            71,173         84,173       +13,000
 Equip........................
    SPARES....................                                   +10,000
    Battlelab Collaborative                                       +3,000
     Network..................
Theater Battle MGT C2 Sys.....       47,648         44,548        -3,100
    Transfer ICS to O&M.......                                    -3,100
Base Information                    122,839        197,839       +75,000
 Infrastructure...............
    Information assurance.....                                   +30,000
    Communication                                                +45,000
     infrastructure...........
Defense Message System (DMS)..       14,025          4,125        -9,900
    Delay hardware pending                                        -9,900
     software maturity........
NAVSTAR GPS Space.............       14,614         13,314        -1,300
    Reduce risk from early                                        -1,300
     buyout of new GPS unit...
AF Satellite Control Network         33,591         17,591       -16,000
 Space........................
    Delay hardware pending                                       -16,000
     software maturity........
Eastern/Western Range I&M            83,410        107,910       +24,500
 Space........................
    Funded Air Force                                             +27,000
     identified shortfall in
     space ranges.............
    Transfer ICS to O&M.......                                    -2,500
MILSATCOM Space...............       46,257         37,757        -8,500
    Program delays............                                    -6,300
    Delay hardware pending                                        -2,200
     software maturity........
Radio Equipment...............       16,685         20,435        +3,750
    SCOPE command.............                                    +3,750
Comm Elect Mods...............       56,195         53,995        -2,200
    Reduced requirements for                                      -2,200
     BEWS replacement parts...
Base/ALC Calibration Package..       10,157          7,557        -2,600
    Late contract award.......                                    -2,600
Night Vision Goggles..........        2,800          4,800        +2,000
    Night vision goggles for                                      +2,000
     groundcrews..............
Items Less Than $5.0M.........        3,559          6,559        +3,000
    Laser eye protection......                                    +3,000
Base Procured Equipment.......       14,035         25,035       +11,000
    Master Cranes for ANG.....                                    +5,000
    Ultimate building machines                                    +1,000
     for ANG..................
    Ultimate building machines                                    +1,000
     for Reserve..............
    Laser leveling............                                    +2,000
    Hazardous gas detection                                       +2,000
     equipment................
Items Less than $5.0M.........       22,500         21,500        -1,000
    Reduced requirements for                                      -1,000
     pallets..................
Intelligence Production              40,047         16,247       -23,800
 Activity.....................
    Cobra Upgrades............                                   +10,000
    Software Development and                                      +4,000
     Training Facility........
    Program transfer to JMIP..                                   -37,800
Tech Surv Countermeasures EQ..        2,976          3,976        +1,000
    OSI computer crime                                            +1,000
     investigation............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



                       PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $1,944,833,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     2,128,967,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,286,368,000
Change from budget request............................      +157,401,000


    This appropriation funds the Procurement, Defense-Wide 
activities of the Department of Defense.

                       Committee Recommendations


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget                 Change from
                                     request    Recommended    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Equipment, OSD.............       88,976      166,976      +78,000
    High Performance Computing     ...........  ...........      +75,000
     (HPC) [Note: $20 million is
     only for the Army High
     Performance Computing
     Research Center (AHPCRC) to
     upgrade its installed
     computing systems base].....
    Mentor-protege...............  ...........  ...........       +3,000
Major Equipment, DLA.............
Defense Support Activities.......       47,455       56,455       +9,000
    Electronic Commerce Resource   ...........  ...........       +9,000
     Centers.....................
    Transfer from RDT&E,DW (for    ...........  ...........     (+6,000)
     ECRC's).....................
Automatic Document Conversion                0       12,500      +12,500
 System..........................
Special Operations Command
SOF Rotary Wing Upgrades.........       41,233       83,233      +42,000
    MH-47E.......................  ...........  ...........      +42,000
Advanced Seal Delivery Sys.......       21,213        7,400      -13,813
    ASDS schedule slip...........  ...........  ...........      -13,813
SOF Intelligence Systems.........       19,154       21,154       +2,000
    Joint Threat Warning System    ...........  ...........       +2,000
     (PRIVATEER).................
SOF Small Arms and Weapons.......       23,355       30,355       +7,000
    Nightstar binoculars.........  ...........  ...........       +7,000
Chemical/Biological Defense:
    Individual Protection........      124,612      125,612       +1,000
        M42 protective mask        ...........  ...........       +1,000
         reclamation.............
Human Resources Enterprise                   0        7,500        7,500
 Strategy........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  electronic commerce resource centers

    The Committee has long supported the Electronic Commerce 
Resource Center (ECRC) program as a means to streamline 
acquisition procedures and reduce acquisition costs, and has 
provided a total of $39,491,000 to continue this program for FY 
2000. The ECRC program continues to provide valuable service to 
small- and medium-sized businesses to move to paperless 
electronic contracting when conducting business affairs with 
the Department of Defense. The Committee believes it is 
important to ensure that small- and medium-sized businesses are 
not placed at further competitive disadvantages as the 
Department rapidly moves to more sophisticated methods of 
electronic commerce as part of its acquisition reform strategy.
    The Committee is disappointed that the Department has 
requested significantly less funding for this program in FY 
2000 than was requested in FY 1999 with no apparent 
justification for this decrease provided in the budget 
submission. In addition, the Committee is disturbed to learn 
that ECRC program funds appropriated for FY 1999 have not been 
released and in fact have been used for other purposes or for 
activities of lower value, including reimbursement of 
administrative support contractors. The Committee has 
recommended bill language to ensure that ECRC funds are used as 
intended by the Congress. The Committee is also aware that the 
Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition) finally has chartered a 
panel to review this program pursuant to the direction of this 
Committee two years ago. The Committee intends that this review 
be a constructive effort to retool and expand the ECRC program 
to become a more integral part of the Department's broader 
paperless contracting strategy. This should include a strategy 
to spin off those centers that become self-sustaining, 
consolidate overlapping centers, create new centers, and 
develop program performance measures.

                    information technology programs

    Information on the Automated Document Conversion and Human 
Resources Enterprise Strategy programs can be found in the 
Information Technology section of this report.

                          classified programs

    Additional recommendations by the Committee are described 
in the classified annex accompanying this report.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



                  NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $352,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................                 0
Committee recommendation..............................       130,000,000
Change from budget request............................      +130,000,000


    This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of 
tactical aircraft and other equipment for the National Guard 
and Reserve.

                       Committee Recommendations

    In all accounts throughout the bill, the Committee 
recommends a total of $2,485,300,000 for procurement of 
National Guard and Reserve equipment, a net increase of 
$796,400,000 above the budget request.
    The Committee believes that the Chiefs of the Reserve and 
National Guard components should exercise control of 
modernization funds provided in Procurement, National Guard and 
Reserve Equipment account, and directs that they provide a 
separate submission of a detailed assessment of their 
modernization requirements and priorities to the congressional 
defense committees. The Committee expects the component 
commanders to give priority consideration for funding in this 
appropriation of the following items: CH-47 helicopters, AN/
PEQ-2A TPIALs and AN/PAQ-4C infrared aiming lights, master 
crane aircraft component hoisting systems, aluminum mesh gas 
tank liners for C-130 aircraft and Army ground vehicles, A/B 
FIST 21 training systems, CH-60S combat search and rescue kits, 
super scooper aircraft, modular airborne fire fighting systems, 
F-16 ALR-56M radar warning receivers, deployable rapid assembly 
shelters, C-40A aircraft, C-22 replacement aircraft, secure 
communications and data systems, CH-60 helicopters, M270A1 
long-range surveillance launchers, M106A Paladin self-propelled 
howitzer/M1992A2 FAASV ammunition carrier, AN/AVR-2A(V) laser 
detecting sets, ALQ-184(V)9 electronic countermeasure pods, 
extended cold weather clothing systems, HEMTT trucks, multi-
role bridge companies, medium tactical wreckers, rough terrain 
container cranes, CH-47 cargo compartment expanded range fuel 
systems, C-38A aircraft, C-17 communications suite upgrades, 
mobile radar approach control, internal crashworthy fuel cells, 
DFIRST, F/A-18 series mods, UH-60 Q kits, MLRS launchers, 
meterological measuring systems, improved target simulators, 
and C-17 maintenance training systems.

                             Fire-Fighting

    The Committee is aware that National Guard Units in 
California and Florida are providing valuable assistance to 
federal, state, and local firefighters whose states have been 
ravaged by an unusually large number of wildfires. The 
Committee is also aware that the current inventory of aircraft 
available to assist in these efforts is inadequate and that 
there are a number of platforms and systems available for lease 
or purchase which could improve the National Guard's fire-
fighting capabilities dramatically. The Committee has included 
a general provision (Section 8112) providing $20,000,000 to the 
Army National Guard to begin to improve fire-fighting 
capabilities and directs the National Guard Bureau to provide a 
report to the Committee examining the various options available 
for this mission prior to the expenditure of any of these 
funds.

                     Support to non-profit Agencies

    The Committee is aware that National Guard units throughout 
the United States provide assistance to non-profit 
organizations including the transportation and lending of 
equipment as goodwill in their community relations programs. 
One such example is the cooperative relationship between the 
Alabama Sports Festival and the Alabama Army National Guard. 
The Committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is 
interfering with these relationships by impeding the ability of 
National Guard units to assist local non-profit organizations 
and directs the Secretary of Defense to review current policy 
to determine if it has become overly restrictive.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



                    DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES




Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................                 0
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................                 0
Committee recommendation..............................        $5,000,000
Change from request...................................        +5,000,000


    The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only for microwave 
power tubes. The Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to 
Congress, submitted by the Secretary of Defense in February 
1999, stated that the most pressing concern for the microwave 
power tube industry was the difficulty in obtaining reliable 
suppliers of various critical materials and components. 
Microwave power tubes generate and amplify microwave energy for 
applications in radar, electronic warfare, and 
telecommunications systems. DOD currently uses over 270 
different types of operating systems employing over 180,000 
microwave tubes. Microwave power tubes will be used in these 
and similar applications for at least the next two to three 
decades since there are no foreseeable replacement 
technologies. The additional funding will provide DOD assured 
access to affordable microwave tubes by incentivizing the 
insertion of consistent, quality-driven improvements in the 
tube industry's supplier chain.

                         INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

    The Department requested $16,216,119,000 for Information 
Technology. The Committee recommends $16,517,219,000, an 
increase of $301,100,000 as explained below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Operation and Maintenance, Army:
    Armor Officer Distance Learning.....................             500
    PPC4I...............................................         -16,552
    Supercomputing work.................................           6,500
Operation and Maintenance, Navy:
    Electricity and Electronics Training Series.........           4,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:
    REMIS...............................................           3,500
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:
    DIMHRS..............................................         -41,200
    DEERS...............................................           8,000
    DCPDS (Schedule slip)...............................          -2,000
    Automated Document Conversion.......................          12,500
    Human Resources Enterprise Strategy.................           7,500
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard:
    Fiber Optics Study..................................           2,500
    Distance Learning...................................          15,000
Other Procurement, Army:
    PPC4I...............................................          16,552
    Maintenance AIT.....................................           5,000
    GCSS-Army...........................................         -18,100
    Ammunition AIT......................................          15,000
    NG Distance Learning................................          15,000
    NG Distance Learning Courseware.....................           8,000
Other Procurement, Navy:
    JEDMICS--Encryption.................................          12,000
    JEDMICS--Enhancements...............................           5,000
Procurement, Marine Corps:
    Base Telecommunications Infrastructure..............          32,900
    Network Infrastructure..............................          57,300
Other Procurement, Air Force:
    Spares Information System...........................          10,000
    Communications Infrastructure.......................          45,000
    Supply Asset Tracking System........................          10,000
Procurement, Defense-Wide:
    Automated Document Conversion.......................          12,500
    Human Resources Enterprise Strategy.................           7,500
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:
    Digital Information Technology Testbed..............           2,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy:
    Advanced Distributed Learning.......................          10,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force:
    IMDS................................................           9,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-
    Wide:
    Joint Systems Education and Training Systems 
      Development.......................................           5,000
    DIMHRS..............................................          41,200

                    Year 2000 (Y2K) Computer Problem

    In the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999, the 
Congress directed the Department to undertake an extensive 
program of system tests, functional end-to-end tests and 
warfighting operational evaluations to ensure the Department's 
readiness to deal with the Year 2000 computer problem. In the 
subsequent Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, 1999, the Congress provided $1,100,000,000 
in emergency appropriations to support the testing and 
remediation efforts.
    Although it was initially difficult to get the Department 
to focus on the Year 2000 computer problem, the Committee is 
pleased with the progress the Department has made since last 
Fall. The direct intervention of the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense proved critical to focusing the attention of the 
services, regional commanders and functional managers on this 
important issue and ensuring the sustained level of effort 
needed to address this problem. The numerous audit reports 
prepared by the Department of Defense Inspector General were 
very effective in focusing the attention of individual 
commanders on this problem and in keeping the reporting system 
honest. In addition, the Committee appreciates the Department's 
openness and, in particular, its willingness to include 
representatives from several congressional committees in its 
oversight process.
    This summer, the Department is entering the most critical 
phase of the process, conducting tests to evaluate multiple 
computer systems working together as part of ``end-to-end'' 
testing for different functional capabilities. With little time 
remaining for the Department to conduct hundreds of related 
end-to-end test events it is critical that these events and 
their evaluations be well planned and well managed. The 
Committee agrees with the recommendations of the recent General 
Accounting Office report and encourages the Department to 
establish a strong quality assurance program for its testing 
efforts.

                    Year 2000 (Y2K) Lessons Learned

    There have been many positive outcomes to dealing with the 
Y2K computer problem. The Department has developed a series of 
databases, tests, and exercises that are readily applicable to 
information assurance. The Department, for instance, has 
created a database listing its information technology systems, 
examined the interfaces between systems, outlined a ``thin 
line'' series of systems that have to work to complete 
particular warfighting missions, and has conducted operational 
evaluations of how regional commanders would continue to fight 
even if certain key systems failed.
    One of the unfortunate lessons of the Y2K process, however, 
was the inability of the Department's Chief Information Officer 
(CIO) to get the services and agencies to concentrate on this 
problem earlier. With the exception of a few activities (the 
White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico deserves particular 
mention for its early and aggressive Y2K remediation effort), 
the Department did not become fully engaged until the Secretary 
of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense made it a 
continued priority. The Committee is concerned that similar 
problems will occur in addressing the Department's information 
assurance problem.
    The Committee believes that the problems the Department 
encountered and the steps it has taken to deal with the Y2K 
problem are directly related to addressing the problem of 
information assurance. For example, maintaining the database of 
information technology systems, with key information about the 
system interfaces, is a prerequisite to any information 
assurance effort. To this end, the Committee has included a 
general provision (Section 8125) requiring all information 
technology systems to register with the CIO by March 31, 2000 
and to provide additional information as the Secretary of 
Defense may require. The Committee directs the Department to 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees by 
March 15, 2000 on the lessons learned from Y2K with particular 
emphasis on what additional programs should be continued and 
what lessons can be applied to information assurance.

              inadequate information technology oversight

    The Committee is disappointed with the Department's current 
level of oversight of its information technology systems. In 
the words of the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD 
IG), information technology projects ``have tended to overrun 
budgets, slip schedules, evade data standardization and 
interoperability requirements, and shortchange user needs''. 
The DoD IG rates this as one of the Department's top ten most 
serious management problems. Likewise, the General Accounting 
Office has consistently designated the Department's information 
technology project management as a high risk area.
    Despite these concerns, the senior group responsible for 
reviewing and approving information technology investments 
(called the IT OIPT) has not even met in over a year. Those 
systems that are reviewed are often approved despite lacking 
key documentation. For example, at least seven programs 
totaling $780,000,000 are moving forward despite lacking an 
Acquisition Program Baseline, a critical tool for program 
management. Others have gone forward without being able to 
demonstrate the costs and benefits of the investment. In 
hearings, when the Committee has requested lists of systems 
terminated or significantly restructured as part of the 
Department's oversight process, the answers have consistently 
indicated that this rarely if ever happens. In fact, an 
investigation of the systems terminated by the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense reveals that the majority of them were 
canceled because their sponsoring organization was abolished, 
not because of any problems with the system.

                    defense joint accounting system

    A recent example of these problems is the Defense Joint 
Accounting System (DJAS), currently under development. Despite 
the importance of developing joint systems, the Department has 
allowed the Air Force and the Navy to opt out of this program 
and to develop and modernize their own distinct systems. Thus, 
this `joint' system will be fielded only to the Army and a few 
defense-wide activities. After its initial Milestone O 
approval, the timeline for completing the DJAS software 
development effort expanded from 16 months to six or more 
years, the benefits declined from $322,000,000 to $204,000,000 
and are now characterized as ``productivity savings'', whereas 
before they were real cost savings. In November, the DoD IG 
issued a draft report warning that DJAS had not completed the 
steps required under the program management process to be 
prepared for a Milestone I review. In March, the Office of 
Program Analysis and Evaluation issued similar warnings about 
the dramatic change in the programs scope, cost and duration. 
Despite these serious concerns, the Department not only issued 
Milestone I approval, but also Milestone II approval at the 
same time, all without having a meeting of the IT OIPT to 
review the system. The Committee rejects this approval as 
inconsistent with the intent of the Information Technology 
oversight process and the Clinger-Cohen Act. Further, the 
Committee directs that the DoD IG update and complete their 
audit of DJAS with particular emphasis on determining if DJAS 
meets the standards for Milestone I or Milestone II approval 
and the requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act. In addition, 
following the Inspector General's report, the Committee directs 
the Department to conduct a proper Milestone I review of this 
system and to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees consistent with the requirements of general 
provision Section 8125 of this bill.

      information technology oversight--committee recommendations

    The basic policies and procedures necessary for sound 
oversight and program management are clearly outlined in the 
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. The Committee believes that a strong 
Chief Information Officer, with visibility over the programs 
and a commitment to implementing the Clinger-Cohen Act, is the 
best approach to correcting the Department's problem. The 
Committee therefore supports the Department's request for a 
$14,710,000 increase in the ASD(C3I)/CIO operation and 
maintenance budget specifically for improving information 
technology oversight and for compliance with the Clinger-Cohen 
Act and directs that no reductions be taken against this 
account.
    Furthermore, the Committee has included a new general 
provision (Section 8125) that prohibits any information 
technology system from receiving Milestone I, Milestone II, or 
Milestone III approval until the Chief Information Officer 
certifies in writing to the congressional defense committees 
that the system is in compliance with the provisions of the 
Clinger-Cohen Act. The Committee provides this funding and this 
additional authority in the expectation that they will be used 
to instill discipline into the process. The Committee is 
prepared to make an activity's or a program's compliance with 
the Clinger-Cohen Act a condition of future funding.
    In addition, the Committee directs the Department to take 
the following steps and except where otherwise noted, to 
provide a report on its progress to the congressional defense 
committees by March 1, 2000.
    1. Ensure that program managers for all major information 
technology investments are adequately trained and provide to 
the congressional defense committees a status report on the 
number of program managers who meet the training requirements 
and the plans to train those who do not meet the requirements.
    2. Establish separate program elements for each major 
information technology system.
    3. Review how information technology infrastructure is 
acquired and consolidate infrastructure resources into 
infrastructure specific accounts, if appropriate.
    4. Establish procedures to ensure infrastructure efforts, 
such as the Metropolitan Area Networks, are consistent with 
Department policy and architecture.
    5. Establish clear guidance for how economic analyses 
should be done and ensure that they are implemented uniformly.
    6. Periodically, conduct post-implementation reviews to 
determine if programs are achieving the anticipated benefits.
    7. Resolve the discrepancies between how the Acquisition 
Program Baselines, the Economic Analysis, and the IT-42s report 
costs and benefits to ensure consistency in reporting and 
analysis.
    8. Include in the 300b reports the original baseline costs 
and benefits, any revised baseline costs and benefit 
projections as well as the actual costs and benefits achieved.
    9. Examine the Milestone review process for information 
technology to determine if changes are needed to reflect the 
front loaded costs of software development.
    10. Complete a coordinated, final 1999 DOD Information 
Technology strategic plan and the incorporated CIO Action Plan 
and provide to the congressional defense committees no late 
than September 1, 1999. In addition, the Department should 
provide a detailed report on the progress made thus far toward 
achieving the established priorities as outlined in the Action 
Plan.

                    Financial Management Regulations

    In last year's report this Committee highlighted its 
concern that the Department's use of operation and maintenance 
funds to develop and modernize its information technology 
systems was inconsistent with the Financial Management 
Regulations and directed the Department to correct this in its 
fiscal year 2000 budget submission. The Department failed to do 
so. The Committee is concerned the continuation of this 
practice undermines the most basic distinction between 
appropriations and puts the Department in jeopardy of 
committing anti-deficiency violations. Consistent with last 
year's report the Committee directs the Department to submit 
prior approval reprogrammings as necessary to bring its 
programs into compliance. The Committee, however, remains 
prepared to work with the Department to realign funding between 
appropriation accounts prior to the completion of the fiscal 
year 2000 defense appropriations bill in order to bring the 
Department into compliance with the least disruption.

                      Standard Procurement System

    The Committee is concerned about the ability of the 
Standard Procurement System to meet the requirements of its 
users. The Committee recommends that the Chief Information 
Officer delay the fielding of the infrastructure for this 
system, until it confirms that the software release version 5.0 
satisfies the users requirements and until there is resolution 
on the appropriateness of the Defense Logistic Agency's 
contracting strategy.

                    armor officer distance learning

    The Committee recommends $500,000 only to continue 
developing distance learning technologies for the Armor 
officer's courses at Fort Knox.

                   power projection c4 infrastructure

    The Committee recommends transfering $16,552,000 from the 
Operation and Maintenance, Army account to the Other 
Procurements, Army account (Local Area Network) to ensure that 
this program is funded in accordance with fiscal law and the 
Department's Financial Management Regulations for investments.

                          supercomputing work

    The Committee recommends an increase of $6,500,000 only for 
the Army's High Performance Computing Research efforts to 
enable the Army to continue its supercomputing work.

              electricity and electronics training series

    The Committee recommends $4,000,000 only for the Center for 
Navy Education and Training (CNET), for the conversion of Navy 
training manuals into an enhanced interactive electronic format 
suitable for distance learning.

                               imds/remis

    The Committee recommends $12,500,000 only for the 
Integrated Maintenance Data Systems (IMDS) and the Reliability 
and Maintainability Information System (REMIS). Of this amount, 
$9,000,000 is provided in Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation, Air Force for accelerated development and fielding 
in addition to improved training for IMDS. The remaining 
$3,500,000 is provided in Operations and Maintenance, Air Force 
to ensure continued support for the legacy REMIS system while 
the necessary changes are being made to transition it to the 
IMDS system.

                                 dimhrs

    The Committee supports section 8147 of the 1999 Department 
of Defense Appropriations Act which directed the Department to 
establish a Defense Reform Initiative (DRI) enterprise program 
for military manpower, personnel, training and compensation 
programs using a revised Defense Integrated Military Human 
Resources System (DIMHRS) as a baseline. The Committee supports 
the President's request of $65,100,000 for the DIMHRS program. 
In coordination with the Department and the Program Manager's 
office, $41,200,000 has been realigned from Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide to Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation, Defense-wide to be consistent with the Financial 
Management Regulations (FMR) and to provide more flexibility in 
managing the program. The Committee directs that this funding 
be used only to develop a system that is consistent with the 
Human Resources Enterprise Strategy. The Committee recommends 
$7,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide and 
$7,500,000 in Procurement, Defense-wide only to support the 
development of the Human Resources Enterprise Strategy and to 
continue program support and infrastructure improvements at the 
Systems Executive Officer for Manpower and Personnel (SEO/MP) 
and the Navy/DoD Information Technology Center. The Committee 
directs the Department to provide these funds only for and 
under the management and control of the Secretary of the Navy 
and the SEO/MP. The Committee expects that these funds will be 
allocated quickly and that the Department will coordinate the 
modernization of individual service systems to ensure they are 
consistent with the Human Resources Enterprise Strategy.

         national guard bureau nationwide fiber optics network

    The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the National Guard 
Bureau only for feasibility study and engineering design of 
NDFON to provide a dedicated fiber optic network to satisfy 
high volume telecommunications traffic generated by the 
National Guard's distance learning initiative. The Committee 
expects this initiative to determine if a fiber optic network 
can satisfy the National Guard's requirements and save the 
government money while being consistent with the Department's 
information architecture.

                    national guard distance learning

    The Committee recommends $15,000,000 in Other Procurement, 
Army (ADPE) and $15,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army 
National Guard only for the continued fielding of the National 
Guard Distance Learning Network Program.

            maintenance automated identification technology

    The Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 to Other 
Procurement, Army (LogTech) only to allow the implementation of 
the Maintenance Automated Identification Technology Initiative 
into the Army's Blackhawk aviation units and at the Corpus 
Christi Army Depot.

                   global combat support system--army

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $18,100,000 from 
Other Procurement, Army (STAMIS) for the Global Combat Support 
System--Army. This program was awarded a combined Milestone O/
I/II without even a cost--benefit analysis. The budget requests 
procurement funds to begin fielding this system in fiscal year 
2000 even though the first tier of the program is not scheduled 
for a Milestone III review until fiscal year 2001. The Com-

mittee is skeptical of this program's approval process and 
opposes providing any funds for fielding until after it has 
achieved Milestone III.

             ammunition automated identification technology

    The Committee recommends providing $15,000,000 in Other 
Procurement, Army (ADPE) to be used only for the completion of 
the ongoing Radio-Frequency Tagging/Intransit Visibility 
program at the remaining Army ammunition depots and related 
ammunition supply points and ports.

              national guard distance learning--courseware

    The Committee recommends an increase of $8,000,000 in Other 
Procurement, Army (ADPE) for the Washington State Army National 
Guard only to develop online distance learning courses. This 
program is important to meet unfunded Army National Guard 
training requirements and to take full advantage of the Army 
National Guard Distance Learning Network.

        joint systems education and training systems development

    The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only for the Simulation 
Training and Instrumentation Command and the Naval Air Warfare 
Center--Training Systems Division for the development of an 
advanced distributed learning (ADL) prototype.

             service information infrastructure shortfalls

    In response to significant shortfalls identified in the 
service unfunded requirements list, the Committee recommends 
providing an additional $135,200,000. Of this amount, 
$32,900,000 is to upgrade the Marine Corps base 
telecommunications infrastructure. Another $57,300,000 is to 
procure upgrades and replacement of information transfer 
components located inside buildings on Marine Corps bases and 
stations (to include Barstow, 29 Palms, Camp Pendleton, and 
Quantico). Finally $45,000,000 is for upgrades to the Air Force 
Communications Infrastructure.

                            share in savings

    The Committee is interested in the potential benefits of 
the share-in-savings pilot program as authorized in the 
Clinger-Cohen Act and encourages the Department to present its 
recommendations to the congressional defense committees on how 
to expand the use of this program.
                                TITLE IV

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

                  ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

    The fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense research, 
development, test and evaluation budget request totals 
$34,375,219,000. The accompanying bill recommends 
$37,169,446,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of 
$2,794,227,000 above the fiscal year 2000 budget estimate and 
is $412,796,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 1999. 
The table below summarizes the budget estimates and the 
Committee's recommendations.



                         Special Interest Items

    Items for which additional funds have been provided as 
shown in the project level tables or in paragraphs using the 
phrases ``only for'' or ``only to'' in this report are 
Congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for 
Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these items must be 
carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, or a revised 
amount if changed during conference or if otherwise 
specifically addressed in the conference report. These items 
remain special interest whether or not they are repeated in a 
subsequent conference report.

                          Classified Programs

    Adjustments to classified programs are addressed in a 
classified annex accompanying this report.

                             Technical Data

    The Rand Corporation has been funded by many federal 
agencies to create a common data base for government and 
private-sector research, in order to prevent duplication of 
effort by individual researchers funded under federal 
contracts. The Committee directs the Defense Department to 
continue its support for and participation in the Rand RADIUS 
data base. In addition, the Department shall ensure that access 
to defense technical data is provided to Members of Congress 
and their staffs on the same level as Defense Department 
employees. The Committee directs the Deputy Secretary of the 
Department of Defense to report to the congressional defense 
committees by September 1, 1999 on how these objectives will be 
met.

                            Experimentation

    The Committee directs that with each annual budget 
submission to Congress, the Defense Department provide a report 
to the congressional defense committees which identifies all 
funds for experimentation by appropriation, fiscal year, P-1 or 
R-1 line item, and effort. The report shall include Atlantic 
Command experimentation, other experimentation, exercises with 
significant experimentation, wargaming, advanced concept 
technology demonstrations, modelling and simulation, science 
and technology exercises, CINC initiative funding, BMDO 
experiments, and advanced technology demonstrations.

    information assurance as part of independent operational testing

    The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure 
that information assurance testing is included in the 
Independent Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) of all DOD 
information technologies and national security systems. The 
Committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 
the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 
2000 on the Department's plans to implement the directed 
testing.

                    special termination cost clause

    The Committee reaffirms the existing policy of providing 
the congressional defense committees notification 30 days prior 
to contractual implementation of a special termination cost 
clause. The Committee further notes that the need to budget for 
termination liability is a fundamental financial management 
principle and therefore discourages, as a general principle, 
the use of special termination cost clauses for either 
procurement or research and development programs.

                     joint mission planning system

    The Committee is concerned that several DOD programs are 
continuing to develop separate, ``stove-piped'' mission 
planning systems rather than taking full advantage of the joint 
mission planning system architecture currently under 
development by the Air Force and Navy. The Committee notes that 
efforts are underway to develop new or upgraded planning 
systems for Tomahawk, CALCM, and Air Mobility Command's 
Advanced Computer Flight Plan System. The Committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to review these programs and make 
recommendations on the merits, cost, and timetable of migrating 
these systems to the joint mission planning system 
architecture. The Committee directs that this report be 
provided to the congressional defense committees no later than 
February 1, 2000.

                     utilization of small business

    The Committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has 
made great strides at developing programs that foster small 
business involvement in the material development and 
acquisition process. There are a number of programs that 
provide opportunities for small businesses to develop new 
technologies, and a number of management organizations and 
mechanisms already in place in an effort to facilitate such 
opportunities. The Committee also recognizes that the military 
department scientific and technology communities also play an 
active role in encouraging small business participation in 
development of advanced technologies for military applications. 
The Committee encourages such activities and urges that they be 
strengthened.
    During the last decade, corporate mergers, acquisitions, 
and downsizing have considerably reduced the number of 
competitors in defense industry generally. While this may be 
desirable to the Defense Department to reduce infrastructure 
costs and to minimize the unnecessary duplication of 
capabilities, it may have the effect of making it much more 
difficult for small businesses to gain access to compete with 
large industrial organizations than just five years ago. 
Further, the fiscal pressure on the Defense budget and major 
contractors during the last few years have driven down both 
government funded and corporate R&D investments in new 
technologies and processes. Technology development itself, 
particularly in the areas of advanced communications and 
information technologies, is evolving at such a rapid pace that 
it is incompatible with DoD weapon system acquisition 
timelines. These factors argue for an increased emphasis on 
technology development and insertion by small businesses, which 
are more affordable and more able to take risk and to innovate.
    The Committee notes that the current Department of Defense 
system relating to small businesses does well on the front-end 
of the process: providing R&D funds to small businesses for 
development of new concepts, approaches, and technologies. 
However, the Committee believes that the present system could 
do better in terms of integrating small businesses into 
mainstream weapons acquisition programs. The present system is 
geared to providing incentives to DoD weapon system managers to 
use small businesses, who however are under no real pressure to 
utilize or foster small businesses in their programs for the 
long term. The Committee recognizes that there are some unique 
defense areas--such as nuclear reactor technology--that do not 
readily lend themselves to small business approaches. On the 
other hand, the Committee believes that program managers for 
major weapons system should be more prone to use and grow small 
business participation in their programs that may span 20 and 
30 year timeframes. The Committee is also concerned that the 
present DoD system for small business innovative research is 
viewed as a ``tax'' by weapon system program managers. Once 
taxed, they may no longer feel compelled to foster small 
business involvement within their programs as the funds they 
would use to do this have been taken from them and given to 
another organization to manage.
    An area that may be ripe for increased small business 
participation is DOD upgrades or modifications to major 
platforms which tend to be done with incumbent contractors who 
have little real incentive to innovate and little competitive 
pressure once awarded a contract. The budget situation 
generally has caused DoD to forgo new system development and to 
rely more on modifications, upgrades, and conversions of 
existing systems. A main feature of such upgrades is the 
insertion of new technologies, particularly those involving 
computing and communications.
    The Department of Defense reported to Congress in February 
1999 on its plan on processes that would facilitate the rapid 
transition of successful SBIR projects to Phase III 
incorporation into DoD acquisition programs. While the 
Committee supports these initiatives and believes that they may 
bring together initial SBIR research and development with 
acquisition program needs, the Committee also strongly believes 
that unless program managers budget for phase III SBIR 
participation in their acquisition programs that the increased 
utilization of small businesses will not occur. The Committee 
also believes that program managers for weapon system upgrades 
should expressly be charged with the responsibility for 
generating small business participation in their modification/
upgrade programs, including budgeting for SBIR phase III 
activities.
    The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition and Technology to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2000 which: (1) 
describes the current system for small business participation, 
technology development, and technology insertion into defense 
weapon system acquisition programs; (2) describes improvements 
that are underway to improve the SBIR process; (3) provides 
options, including legislative initiatives, to increase SBIR 
participation in DoD weapon system programs and contracts; and 
(4) provides options and incentives for weapon system program 
mangers to themselves foster development of small business 
technologies and integration of small business products into 
long term weapon system acquisition or modernization programs.

                     ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS MASTER PLAN

    In the fiscal year 1999 Statement of the Managers, the DoD 
was directed to provide Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan with the 
fiscal year 2000 budget. To date, the Congress has not received 
the plan. The Committee understands that the Master Plan is 
complete, but disagreements on the recommendations and analysis 
between the Services and the Office of Secretary of Defense 
prevent the plan from being delivered to the Congress. The 
Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to deliver the Anti-
Armor Weapons Master Plan immediately. Absent the Anti-Armor 
Weapons Master Plan, the Committee has recommended the 
following program reductions and terminations: The Army's 
Javelin missile system, the Army's Line-of-Sight Anti-tank 
missile system, and the joint Navy and Air Force Joint Stand-
off Weapon Anti-Armor missile variant.

                            TACTICAL RADIOS

    The Committee directs that no more than 25 percent of the 
funds appropriated for the research and development of any 
tactical radio program may be obligated until the Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and 
Intelligence certifies in writing to the congressional defense 
committees that the development program meets interoperability 
requirements, is not duplicative of other developmental 
efforts, and is fully funded in the budget.

            RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY




Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $5,031,788,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     4,426,194,000
Committee recommendation..............................     5,148,093,000
Change from budget request............................      +721,899,000


    This appropriation finances the research, development, test 
and evaluation activities for the Department of the Army.

                        Committee Recommendation

                         AUTHORIZATION CHANGES

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with House authorization action:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from
                              Item                                Budget request  recommendation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Factors Engineering Technology............................          16,932          19,792          +3,400
MLRS Product Improvement Program................................          36,540          67,440         +30,900
Maneuver Control System.........................................          45,125          46,125          +1,000
Information Systems Security Program............................           9,426          15,426          +6,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget                 Change from
                                     request    Recommended    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensors and Electronic                  22,978       25,978       +3,000
 Survivability...................
    Passive millimeter wave        ...........  ...........       +3,000
     imaging.....................
Missile Technology...............       32,892       43,892      +11,000
    Scramjet.....................  ...........  ...........       +2,000
    Aero-optic evaluation center.  ...........  ...........       +5,000
    GPS/IMU......................  ...........  ...........       +4,000
    (Note: Only to accelerate the
     development of a low cost
     guidance unit for precision
     guided weapons and
     munitions)
Combat Vehicle and Automotive           39,749       42,249       +2,500
 Technology......................
    Full spectrum active           ...........  ...........       +2,500
     protection..................
Weapons and Munitions Technology.       34,687       37,187       +2,500
    Electro-rheological fluid      ...........  ...........       +1,500
     recoil system...............
    Extended range DPICM mortar    ...........  ...........       +1,000
     munition, XM984.............
Electronics and Electronic              25,796       37,596      +11,800
 Devices.........................
    ARL, Electronics and           ...........  ...........       +5,000
     electronic devices..........
    Improved high rate alkaline    ...........  ...........       +1,000
     cell........................
    Low cost reusable alkaline     ...........  ...........       +1,400
     managenese-zinc battery.....
    Rechargeable coin cells......  ...........  ...........         +600
    Lithium carbon monfluoride     ...........  ...........         +400
     coin cell...................
    ``AA'' zinc battery..........  ...........  ...........         +400
    Microchannel diesel fuel       ...........  ...........       +3,000
     reformer technology.........
Countermine Systems..............       10,321       14,121       +3,800
    Standoff, multi-sensor mine    ...........  ...........       +3,800
     system......................
Military Engineering Technology..       41,085       61,085      +20,000
    GEOSAR.......................  ...........  ...........      +15,000
    (Note: For the continuation
     of the dual-use geographic
     synthetic aperture radar
     (GeoSAR) program. The
     development and
     implementation of this
     airborne dual and
     interferometic SAR
     technology will not only
     provide the Army with highly
     detailed, comprehensive data
     and significantly contribute
     to target identification,
     trafficability analysis, and
     battlefield awareness
     capabilities, but will serve
     to clearly demonstrate the
     productivity and cost
     benefits which accrue
     through the Defense
     Department's dual-use
     policy).
    Climate change fuel cells....  ...........  ...........       +5,000
Warfighter Technology............       23,971       26,971       +3,000
    Rapid deployment, air-         ...........  ...........       +3,000
     transportable airbeam
     shelter.....................
Dual Use Applications Program....       18,222       10,000       -8,222
    Program Growth...............  ...........  ...........       -8,222
Medical Technology...............       70,136      169,636      +99,500
    Dreams.......................  ...........  ...........      +10,000
    Center for Minimally Invasive  ...........  ...........      +12,000
     Therapy.....................
    Neurofibromatosis............  ...........  ...........      +15,000
    Osteoporosis.................  ...........  ...........       +5,000
    Polynitroxylated Hemoglobin..  ...........  ...........       +4,000
    Tissue regeneration..........  ...........  ...........       +2,500
    Informatics-based medical      ...........  ...........       +4,500
     emergency decision tools
     [NOTE: $4,500,000 is only
     for the development of the
     IMED tools project.]........
    Ovarian Cancer...............  ...........  ...........      +15,000
    Molecular Genetics and         ...........  ...........       +6,000
     Musculoskeletal Research
     Program.....................
    [Note: $6,000,000 is only to
     continue the Army Molecular
     Genetics and Musculoskeletal
     Research program.]
    National Medical Testbed.....  ...........  ...........      +15,000
    Synchrotron-based high energy  ...........  ...........       +5,000
     radiation beam cancer
     treatment [Note: $5,000,000
     is only to continue the Army
     synchrotron-based radiation
     beam cancer treatment
     program.]...................
    Blood Research [Note:          ...........  ...........       +5,500
     $5,500,000 is only for
     Improved blood products and
     safety in systems compatible
     with military field use.]...
Warfighter Advanced Technology...       31,287       42,773      +11,486
    Transfer from other            ...........  ...........       +9,486
     procurement (CIDS)..........
    Army metrology...............  ...........  ...........       +2,000
Medical Advanced Technology......       10,539       69,339      +58,800
    Diabetes Project.............  ...........  ...........       +7,000
    Diabetes Project [Note:        ...........  ...........       +7,000
     $7,000,000 only to continue
     the research program on
     juvenile diabetes performed
     at the Children's Hospital
     at Pittsburgh as recommended
     by the Diabetes Research
     Working Group.].............
    Gallo Cancer Center..........  ...........  ...........       +5,000
    Alcoholism Research..........  ...........  ...........       +7,000
    HIV Research.................  ...........  ...........      +10,000
    LSTAT........................  ...........  ...........       +7,500
    Advanced Cancer Detection....  ...........  ...........       +3,500
    Laser Vision Correction......  ...........  ...........       +4,000
    Enzymatic Wound Disinfectant.  ...........  ...........       +3,800
    Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB)...  ...........  ...........       +1,000
    Smart Aortic Research........  ...........  ...........       +3,000
Weapons and Munitions Advanced          39,893       67,643      +27,750
 Technology......................
    Precision guided mortar        ...........  ...........       +8,000
     munitions...................
    Warhead and Energetics Center  ...........  ...........       +5,000
     of Excellence...............
    (Note: This Center of
     Excellence will focus on the
     development and
     demonstration of the next
     generation of warheads and
     explosives, and would
     provide the Army with the
     smart munitions and enhanced
     ballistics necessary to
     maintain our military's
     lethality overmatch)
    120mm, one-tenth range         ...........        1,800       +1,800
     training round..............
    Future direct support weapon   ...........  ...........       +5,000
     system......................
    Microchip lasers.............  ...........  ...........         +750
    Future combat vehicle........  ...........  ...........       +4,000
    (Note: Only for concurrent
     development of light cannon
     armament systems for use
     with future vehicles)
Combat vehicle and Automotive           90,941      137,441      +46,500
 Advanced Technology.............
    Advanced Combat Automotive     ...........  ...........      +10,000
     Technology..................
    (Note: Only to further the
     Army's development and
     deployment of the advanced
     combat vehicle building of
     the programs initiated in
     this area by DARPA)
    Silicon carbide fiber          ...........  ...........      +13,500
     research....................
    Mobile parts hospital........  ...........  ...........       +6,000
    Giesel engine................  ...........  ...........       +6,000
    Composite armor vehicle......  ...........  ...........       +3,000
    Combat vehicle research......  ...........  ...........       +8,000
    (Note: Only for a technology
     transfer center to identify
     and transfer weight
     reduction technologies and
     processes for ground
     vehicles)
Missile and Rocket Advanced             43,639       51,639       +8,000
 Technology......................
    Future missile technology      ...........  ...........       +8,000
     integration.................
Night Vision Advanced Technology.       36,628       45,628       +9,000
    Helmet mounted sensors for     ...........  ...........       +3,000
     firefighters and damage
     control.....................
    Lightweight Man-portable       ...........  ...........       +1,000
     Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
     (UAV).......................
    (Note: The UAV could be
     employed as an adjunct to
     ground reconnaissance units.
     The funds are to be applied
     by the U.S. Army Armor
     Center, Ft. Knox, for
     concept exploration, initial
     hardware development and
     evaluation.)
    Wire detection and obstacle    ...........  ...........       +5,000
     avoidance...................
Advanced Tactical Computer              22,610       27,610       +5,000
 Science and Sensor..............
    Telemaintenance..............  ...........  ...........       +5,000
Army Missile Defense Systems            12,353       24,853      +12,500
 Integration (DEM/V).............
    Microelectromechanical (MEMS)  ...........  ...........       +6,500
     systems process technology..
    Missile systems integration..  ...........  ...........       +3,000
    (Note: Only for multi-mission
     battlefield sensors program
     including spectral analysis,
     isotope identification, and
     real time forensic analysis
     in support of WMD detection
     and counter-terrorism.)
    Aero-acoustic instrumentation  ...........  ...........       +3,000
Landmine Warfare and Barrier--Adv        4,099       12,099       +8,000
 Dev.............................
    Transfer from PE 0604808A....  ...........  ...........       +8,000
Armament Enhancement Initiative..       36,937       56,937      +20,000
    XM 1007 development..........  ...........  ...........      +20,000
Tactical Electronic Surveillance             0        2,500       +2,500
 System--Adv Dev.................
    Semi-automated imagery         ...........  ...........       +2,500
     processor...................
Weapons and Munitions--Adv Dev...        1,751        4,751       +3,000
    Shoulder-launched              ...........  ...........       +3,000
     multipurpose assault weapon--
     bunker defeat munition (SMAW-
     D)..........................
    (Note: Funds are to improve
     the SMAW-D by leveraging
     SMAW-CS technology to give
     the system a fire from
     confined space capability)
All Source Analysis System.......       49,684       57,684       +8,000
    Army Tactical Light Analysis   ...........  ...........       +8,000
     System (ALTAS)..............
    (Note: The successful
     development of this
     lightweight laptop computer
     will complete the
     intelligence fusion
     architecture and provide a
     ``seamless intelligence
     flow'' to all echelons)
Logistics and Engineer Equipment--       6,514        9,514       +3,000
 Adv Dev.........................
    Real time container port       ...........  ...........       +3,000
     control project.............
Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles            0        1,400       +1,400
    PLS water distributors.......  ...........  ...........       +1,400
Air Traffic Control..............        1,981        5,981       +4,000
    MEANPALS development and       ...........  ...........       +4,000
     testing.....................
Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle.            0        7,000       +7,000
    Joint U.S./Norwegian mine      ...........  ...........       +7,000
     clearing vehicle............
    (Note: To continue research
     on joint mine-clearing flail
     technology under the
     direction of the Unmanned
     Ground Vehicles/Systems
     Joint Program Office)
Night Vision Systems--Eng Dev....       30,644       36,544       +5,900
    Combustion driven eyesafe      ...........  ...........       +4,000
     laser.......................
    Enhanced night vision goggle.  ...........  ...........       +1,900
Combat Feeding, Clothing, and          110,829       84,329      -26,500
 Equipment.......................
    Landwarrior..................  ...........  ...........      -26,500
Non-System Training Devices--Eng        71,034       74,234       +3,200
 Dev.............................
    Aerial weapon scoring system.  ...........  ...........       +3,200
Automatic Test Equipment                10,252       20,252      +10,000
 Development.....................
    Integrated Family of Test      ...........  ...........      +10,000
     Equipment...................
    (Note: Only to continue the
     development of the Improved
     Target Acquisition Systems
     electro-optical avionics
     support)
Brilliant Anti-Armor Submunition       128,026      144,026      +16,000
 (BAT)...........................
    TACMS 2000...................  ...........  ...........      +16,000
Joint Surveillance/Target Attack        11,535       27,535      +16,000
 Radar System....................
    Common ground station........  ...........  ...........      +13,000
    (Note: Of this amount,
     $5,000,000 is only for
     Engineering Support for
     Requirements Development and
     $8,000,000 is only for the
     Surveillance Common
     DataLink.)
    Joint service wideband         ...........  ...........       +3,000
     datalink....................
Aviation--Eng Dev................        6,312       13,312       +7,000
    Aircrew common helmet........  ...........  ...........       +7,000
Weapons and Munitions--Eng Dev...       54,943       73,143      +18,200
    Small arms fire control        ...........  ...........       +4,500
     system......................
    Mortar anti-personnel/anti-    ...........  ...........       +7,200
     material round..............
    M2HB.50 caliber with quick     ...........  ...........       +3,000
     change barrel...............
    M795E1 extended range high     ...........  ...........       +2,500
     explosive base burner.......
    Rifle launch entry munition..  ...........  ...........       +1,000
    (Note: Transferred from PE
     0203761A)
Landmine Warfare/Barrier--Eng Dev       40,916       30,120      -10,796
    Schedule delay...............  ...........  ...........      -10,796
    (Note: Transfer $8,000,000 to
     0603619A)
Army Tactical Command & Control         35,299       39,799       +4,500
 Hardware & Software.............
    Next generation command and    ...........  ...........       +4,500
     control system..............
    (Note: Only to leverage
     advanced 3D display
     technology development work
     in support of other services
     at a not-for-profit
     technology transfer center
     for incorporation into Army
     command and control
     modernization initiatives
     for fixed sites and at
     tactical command centers at
     the corps, division and
     brigade levels)
Concepts Experimentation Program.       16,990       19,990       +3,000
    Mounted maneuver battlespace   ...........  ...........       +3,000
     lab.........................
Army Test Ranges and Facilities..      137,193      147,193      +10,000
    White Sands Missile Range      ...........  ...........      +10,000
     instrumentation.............
Army Technical Test                     30,470       31,670       +1,200
 Instrumentation and Target......
    Characterization and           ...........  ...........       +1,200
     quantification of missile
     debris study................
Survivability/Lethality Analysis.       30,138       40,138      +10,000
    Information warfare            ...........  ...........      +10,000
     vulnerability analysis......
DOD High Energy Laser Test              14,230       34,230      +20,000
 Facility........................
    HELSTF.......................  ...........  ...........      +10,000
    Solid state laser............  ...........  ...........      +10,000
Munitions Standardization,              10,537       19,037       +8,500
 Effectiveness and Safety........
    Contained detonation           ...........  ...........       +3,000
     technology..................
    Bluegrass Army depot.........  ...........  ...........       +2,500
    Cryofracture disposal of anti- ...........  ...........       +3,000
     personnel mines.............
Environmental Compliance.........            0        8,000       +8,000
    Natural gas boilers..........  ...........  ...........       +3,000
    Near-term climate change fuel  ...........  ...........       +5,000
     cells.......................
Adv Field Artillery Tactical Data       36,222       42,722       +6,500
 System..........................
    Interface development........  ...........  ...........       +6,500
Combat Vehicle Improvement              29,544       42,544      +13,000
 Programs........................
    Lightweight vehicle track      ...........  ...........       +2,000
     development.................
    M1 large area flat panel       ...........  ...........       +8,000
     displays....................
    VIS AN/VIC-3, cordless.......  ...........  ...........       +3,000
Aircraft Engine Component                2,900        4,900       +2,000
 Improvement Program.............
    Variable displacement vane     ...........  ...........       +2,000
     pump and lola boost pump....
Digitization.....................       28,180       30,180       +2,000
    Ft. Hood digitization          ...........  ...........       +2,000
     research....................
Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade       44,225       59,225      +15,000
 and Below (FBC).................
    Transfer from Other            ...........  ...........      +15,000
     Procurement, Army...........
Missile/Air Defense Product             29,985       34,985       +5,000
 Improvement Program.............
    SWORD........................  ...........  ...........       +5,000
Digital Information Technology               0        2,000       +2,000
 Test Bed........................
    Develop security and           ...........  ...........       +2,000
     multimedia data integration.
Security and Investigative                   0       10,000      +10,000
 Activities......................
    Land information warfare       ...........  ...........      +10,000
     activity....................
    (Note: Funds are only for the
     U.S. Army Intelligence and
     Security Command's
     Information Dominance
     Center)
End Item Industrial Preparedness        66,167      102,667      +36,500
 Activities......................
    Munitions manufacturing        ...........  ...........      +15,000
     technology..................
    Rotary wing sustainment        ...........  ...........       +3,000
     technology..................
    Instrumental Factory for       ...........  ...........       +4,000
     Gears (INFAC)...............
    Totally Integrated             ...........  ...........       +7,000
     Manufacturing Enterprise
     (TIME)......................
    Electro-Optics Center........  ...........  ...........       +1,500
    (Note: To support the
     existing Mantech Electro-
     Optics Center in meeting
     precision manufacturing
     requirements)
    Natural gas engine drive air   ...........  ...........       +4,000
     compressors.................
    Best Practices...............  ...........  ...........       +2,000
Army Ground Intelligence Center..            0       35,000      +35,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Hunter Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)

    The Hunter UAV, a system whose production the Army has 
terminated, was deployed to Operation Allied Force in the 
Balkans region. The Army has lost seven air vehicles in 
theater. Despite these losses, the Army claims it possesses 
sufficient Hunter inventory to continue operational support.
    While the Army is not continuing to develop the Hunter, it 
has incorporated certain modifications to improve performance 
and reduce support costs for deployment to the Balkans region. 
The Committee understands that the Joint Requirements Oversight 
Council (JROC) has recommended that $15,650,000 from the amount 
appropriated in Public Law 106-31 for the Operational Rapid 
Response Transfer Fund, be used to offset the cost of Hunter 
operations in the Balkans region. The Committee supports this 
recommendation.
    The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure 
that within available resources, adequate funds are provided 
for all necessary Hunter requirements.

                             Basic Research


                       DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES

    The Army requested $125,613,000 for defense research 
sciences. The Committee recommends the budget request and 
directs that $3,000,000 is only for vehicle mobility research 
at the Center for Advanced Propulsion Systems.

                            Applied Research


                         BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY

    The Army requested $36,287,000 for ballistics technology. 
The Committee recommends $42,287,000, an increase of $6,000,000 
only for electromagnetic (EM) gun pulsed power technology. 
Furthermore, the Committee directs that within the available 
amount, $2,500,000 is only for electrothermal-chemical 
technology development.

                  human factors engineering technology

    The Committee urges all the military services to budget for 
the implementation of the lessons learned through the Army's 
MedTeams program to reduce emergency department errors and 
improve patient satisfaction.

                    Environmental Quality Technology

    The Army requested $12,758,000 for environmental quality 
technology. The Committee recommends $81,258,000, an increase 
of $68,500,000. Of this amount $9,000,000 is only for the 
Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System, which is capable of destroying 
hazardous, chemical and medical waste. In addition, $7,000,000 
is only for the Sustainable Green Manufacturing Initiative to 
develop advanced, environmentally responsible manufacturing 
processes for weapons systems. Of the total, $3,000,000 is only 
to continue efforts to develop a computer-based land management 
model for the Army to reduce time and costs attributable to 
military training area recovery and restoration. Further, 
$8,000,000 is only for the continuation of the 
Commercialization of Technologies to Lower Defense Costs 
Initiative. In addition, $13,000,000 is only for the 
continuation of the Demanufacturing of Electronic Equipment for 
Reuse and Recycling (DEER2) Initiative. Another $3,000,000 is 
only to continue the next phase of the ongoing DEER2 program by 
establishing a state of the art product and material recycling 
site. Furthermore, $9,000,000 is only for a Corrosion 
Measurement and Control Project to leverage available 
technologies and tools to detect, measure and control corrosion 
to meet the Department's sustainment and readiness goals and to 
lower maintenance costs. Another $10,000,000 is only for the 
Range Safe Technology Demonstration Initiatives which include 
clean-up demonstrations at five installations. An additional, 
$4,500,000 is only for the continuation of the environmental 
pollution projects at Watervliet Arsenal. Finally, $2,000,000 
is only to advance the maturation of Vessel Plating Technology, 
an environmental friendly process for chrome plating long gun 
tubes.

                    Advanced Technology Development


                      medical advanced technology

    The Committee is very concerned about the roughly $15 
million the Services spend on alcohol rehabilitation each year. 
Research to uncover the biological basis for alcoholism and to 
develop a chemical block to the addiction appears promising. 
The Committee encourages the Department to participate or 
partner in this research to identify the pharmacological causes 
of alcoholism.

                 MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY

    Last year, the Congress terminated the EFOG-M program. The 
Committee is aware that adequate funding was appropriated in 
fiscal year 1999 to pay for any termination costs incurred for 
the EFOG-M program, and no additional funds are required for 
program termination.

                 LINE-OF-SIGHT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION

    The Army requested $41,619,000 for the Line-of-Sight 
Technology (LOSAT) Demonstration. The Committee recommends no 
funds for this program based on recommendations in the Army's 
Light Anti-Tank (LAT) Study/Program and inadequate outyear 
funding.
    The Army LAT Study indicated an improved TOW missile, with 
a Fire and Forget capability is of higher priority of than 
LOSAT. It is the Committee's understanding that the Army has 
decided to begin developing an improved TOW fire and forget 
system in fiscal year 2001 and has included this item on this 
year's unfunded requirements list. Therefore, the Committee has 
included funds to accelerate the TOW Fire and Forget Program. 
Additionally, the Army budget does not include adequate funds 
to procure LOSAT and the Army has identified a shortfall in 
excess of $250 million. Further details are provided under the 
heading ``Other Missile Product Improvement Programs.''

                          JOINT TACTICAL RADIO

    The Committee understands that the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition and Technology will make key 
architecture and acquisition strategy decisions on the Joint 
Tactical Radio System (JTRS) in October 2000. Although the 
Committee is pleased that top management attention is being 
given to this program, the Committee believes that the 
architecture and acquisition strategy decisions need to be made 
at an earlier date in order to influence key development 
decisions.
    Since JTRS will resolve interoperability issues among 
service radios, the Committee believes the DoD should 
accelerate this effort. The Committee recognizes the difficult 
task of replacing approximately 750,000 radios in the DoD 
inventory; but believes the task can be made less daunting if 
DoD will determine which radios and wave forms will be given 
priority. Additionally, the Committee believes an operational 
test and evaluation plan needs to be established with adequate 
criteria to measure successful operations, both in joint and 
coalition operations.
    The Committee directs the DoD to provide to the Committee 
by December 15, 1999, a report on its strategy for developing 
and fielding the JTRS. The plan is to include priority radios 
for replacement, cost of the development program, a development 
schedule and estimated unit cost of production radios.

            ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--DEMONSTRATION AND VALIDATION

    The Army requested $282,937,000 for artillery systems 
demonstration and validation. The Committee recommends the 
budget request. The Committee expresses its continued support 
for the Crusader development program and encourages the Army to 
provide adequate funding in future budget submissions for this 
program.

                    Operational Systems Development


            FORCE XXI, WARFIGHTING RAPID ACQUISITION PROGRAM

    The Army requested $55,921,000 for the Force XXI, 
Warfighting Rapid Acquisition Program (WRAP). The Committee 
recommends $36,621,000, a decrease of $19,300,000. Of the 
decrease $10,500,000 is excess funds due to the denial of a 
fiscal year 1999 WRAP initiative. The Committee also recommends 
the transfer of $8,800,000 from this program element to other 
lines, as follows:




Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:
    Rifle Launch Entry Munitions (Transferred to PE           $1,000,000
 0604802A)............................................
Other Procurement, Army:
    HEMTT-Load handling...............................        $6,800,000
    MEDLOG-Division...................................        $1,000,000


    The Army's rationale for establishing the WRAP initiative 
was to accelerate the development and fielding of mature 
technologies. Once again, the Committee notes a significant 
number of WRAP initiatives have experienced schedule delays and 
cost growth, such as the Mortar Fire Control, Gun Laying and 
Positioning System, and the Airborne Command and Control 
System. Additionally, the Committee notes the Army has not 
fully supported all of the WRAP initiatives in subsequent 
budget requests such as the Airborne Command and Control 
system. Therefore, the Committee directs the Army to submit 
with its fiscal year 2001 budget request a detailed report 
describing the status of the WRAP initiatives. The report is to 
include the original and current schedule and cost estimates 
for each approved initiative.
    The Committee directs that none of the WRAP funds may be 
obligated without prior approval from the congressional defense 
committees. Notification of the Army's intent to obligate the 
funds is to include supporting criteria outlining the technical 
merit and maturity; criticality and priority to warfighting 
requirements; affordability; effectiveness; and sustainability 
in future budget submissions. Further, the Committee directs 
that none of the WRAP funds may be used for technologies 
included in the budget request, such as, but not limited to, 
applique, night vision equipment, and radios. Instead, WRAP 
funds are to be reprogrammed, with prior approval, to the 
proper project for obligation.

                   OTHER MISSILE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

    The Army requested $9,914,000 for other missile improvement 
programs. The Committee recommends $20,914,000, an increase of 
$11,000,000 only for a TOW Fire and Forget missile. Based on 
the Army's Light Anti-Armor Study, the Committee believes that 
the TOW Fire and Forget System will increase lethality and 
survivability for the light forces. The Committee understands 
this particular initiative is among the programs analyzed in 
the Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan. Also, the Committee 
understands that the Army is reviewing various options for 
fielding a TOW Fire and Forget capability to include 
modifications to existing missiles; producing new Fire and 
Forget missiles; and developing a new TOW-like Fire and Forget 
missile. Therefore, the Committee directs that none of the 
funds appropriated for the improved TOW Fire and Forget may be 
obligated until 30 days after Congress receives the Anti-Armor 
Weapons Master Plan. Additionally, none of the funds may be 
obligated until the Army submits a TOW Fire and Forget program 
plan to the Congress for prior approval. The plan is to include 
the TOW Fire and Forget requirement, the alternatives for 
satisfying that requirement, and the total program cost for 
each alternative.

           AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

    The Army's unfunded requirements list included $31,400,000 
for a Blackhawk Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). Although 
the Committee believes that the current Blackhawk fleet is 
aging and needs to be upgraded, the Committee believes it is 
premature to add funds for this initiative at this time. The 
Committee directs the Army to provide with the fiscal year 2001 
budget request a report on the state of the Blackhawk fleet. 
The report is to include the various Blackhawk models in the 
inventory, the average age of each model type, required 
upgrades and the estimated cost of a Service Life Extension 
Program as compared to the cost of procuring new aircraft. 
Furthermore, the Committee directs the Army to provide adequate 
funds for either the Blackhawk SLEP or new aircraft in 
subsequent budget submissions.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



            RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $8,636,649,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     7,984,016,000
Committee recommendation..............................     9,080,580,000
Change from budget request............................    +1,096,564,000


    This appropriation provides funds for the research, 
development, test and evaluation activities of the Department 
of the Navy and the Marine Corps.

                       Committee Recommendations


                         Authorization Changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with House authorization action:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
                                  request    recommendation    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW systems development.......       17,780         23,780        +6,000
Industrial preparedness.......       59,104         74,104       +15,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 FY 2000
                                 budget        Committee     Change from
                                 request    recommendation     request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air and Surface Launched            37,616         54,616        +17,000
 Weapons Technology.........
    Free electron laser.....  ............  ..............        +3,000
    Phased array weather      ............  ..............       +10,000
     radar..................
    Pulse detonation engine   ............  ..............        +4,000
     technology.............
Ship, Submarine & Logistics         43,786         64,586        +20,800
 Technology.................
    Stainless steel double    ............  ..............        +5,000
     hull...................
    Modernization through     ............  ..............        +2,000
     remanufacturing and
     conversion.............
    Curved plate double hull  ............  ..............        +8,000
     technology.............
    (Note: Funds for curved
     plate double hull are
     only to continue the
     demonstration of
     developed techniques
     for the advancement of
     curved plate advanced
     double hull technology
     for naval and
     commercial
     applications.)
    Three dimensional         ............  ..............        +4,000
     printing metalworking
     technology at Puget
     Sound Naval Shipyard...
    Bioenvironmental hazards  ............  ..............        +1,800
    NOTE: Funds for
     metalworking technology
     are only for test and
     evaluation of systems
     that provide more
     efficient and
     affordable methods of
     metal fabrication for
     components on navy
     ships, carriers and
     submarines performed at
     the Center for
     Concurrent Technology
     in Bremerton,
     Washington.
Communications, Command and         68,823         78,073         +9,250
 Control, Intel, Surveillan.
    Hybrid fiberoptic         ............  ..............        +2,500
     wireless communication
     technology.............
    Optically multiplexed     ............  ..............        +4,750
     wideband radar
     beamformer.............
    Optoelectric high         ............  ..............        +2,000
     definition camera......
Human Systems Technology....        30,586         37,086         +6,500
    Biological hazard         ............  ..............        +6,500
     detection system.......
Materials, Electronics and          77,957         90,457        +12,500
 Computer Technology........
    Silicon carbide           ............  ..............        +3,000
     semiconductor
     substrates.............
    Ultra-high thermal        ............  ..............        +2,500
     conductivity fibers....
    Engineered wood           ............  ..............        +5,000
     composite lumber.......
    NOTE: Funds for
     engineered wood
     composite lumber are
     only to continue the
     ongoing collaborative
     research to adapt wood
     based composites for
     specific building
     applications for
     improved Navy
     construction.
    Smart wiring technology.  ............  ..............        +2,000
Oceanographic and                   60,334         71,084        +10,750
 Atmospheric Technology.....
    Autonomous UUV..........  ............  ..............       +10,000
    Completion of PM-10 air   ............  ..............          +750
     quality study..........
Undersea Warfare Weaponry           34,066         39,066         +5,000
 Technology.................
    Microelectromechanical    ............  ..............        +2,000
     systems................
    6.25 multimission weapon  ............  ..............        +3,000
Dual Use Applications               18,390         10,000         -8,390
 Program....................
    Program reduction,        ............  ..............        -8,390
     excessive growth.......
Air Systems and Weapons             42,046         51,046         +9,000
 Advanced Technology........
    Aircraft affordability    ............  ..............        +5,000
     project (DP-2).........
    RAMJET propulsion         ............  ..............        +4,000
     technologies at Naval
     Air Warfare Center,
     China Lake.............
Precision Strike and Air            52,580         82,080        +29,500
 Defense Technology.........
    Small combatant craft...  ............  ..............       +18,000
    NOTE: Funds for small
     combatant craft are
     only for the purchase,
     test, and evaluation of
     small combatant craft
     (one low radar
     signature and one high
     effective operational
     speed), for close in-
     shore naval operations.
    Extending the littoral    ............  ..............        +7,500
     battlespace............
    Hybrid LIDAR/RADAR        ............  ..............        +4,000
     technology.............
Surface Ship & Submarine            41,515         75,515        +34,000
 HM&E Advance Technology....
    Power node control        ............  ..............        +3,000
     centers................
    Project M...............  ............  ..............        +5,000
    Virtual test bed for      ............  ..............        +3,000
     advanced electrical
     ship systems...........
    Electronmagnetic          ............  ..............        +3,000
     propulsion systems.....
    High temperature          ............  ..............        +5,000
     superconducting AC
     synchronous motor......
    Permanent magnet motor..  ............  ..............        +5,000
    Superconducting DC motor  ............  ..............       +10,000
Marine Corps Advanced               56,943         62,943         +6,000
 Technology Demonstration
 (ATD)......................
    Advanced lightweight      ............  ..............        +3,000
     grenade launcher.......
    BURRO...................  ............  ..............        +3,000
Medical Development.........        15,064         81,864        +66,800
    Dental research at the    ............  ..............        +6,000
     Naval Dental Research
     Institute..............
    Bone marrow program.....  ............  ..............       +34,000
    Improved Bone Marrow      ............  ..............        +2,000
     Transplantation [Note:
     $2,000,000 is only for
     unrelated donor marrow
     transplantation
     clinical trials of
     graft engineering.]....
    Teleradiology...........  ............  ..............        +3,000
    Disaster management and   ............  ..............        +3,000
     humanitarian assistance
    Medical readiness         ............  ..............        +9,000
     telemedicine initiative
    Rural health............  ............  ..............        +3,000
    Naval blood research lab  ............  ..............        +5,000
    National biodynamics      ............  ..............        +1,800
     research...............
Manpower, Personnel and             20,632         39,632        +19,000
 Training Adv Tech Dev......
    Remanufacturing and       ............  ..............        +3,000
     resource recovery......
    Advanced distributed      ............  ..............       +10,000
     learning...............
    NOTE: Funds are only to
     continue effort to
     standardize distributed
     learning courseware.
    Distrbuted simulation,    ............  ..............        +6,000
     warfighting concepts...
    NOTE: Funds are only to
     begin phase I,
     developing linkage
     between joint and
     military service
     demonstration and
     experimentation
     initiatives and the
     design of future
     carriers using
     methodology
     demonstrated in the JMO-
     T program.
Environmental Quality and           23,809         28,809         +5,000
 Logistics Advanced Tech....
    Aviation depot            ............  ..............        +3,000
     maintenance technology
     demonstration at NADEP
     Jacksonville...........
    Allegheny Ballistics      ............  ..............        +2,000
     Laboratory.............
    NOTE: Only for
     Integrated Data
     Environment Systems
     development and
     testing.
Navy Technical Information          41,840         19,940        -21,900
 Presentation System........
    Joint warfighting         ............  ..............       -21,900
     experimentation program
    NOTE: $520,000 is only
     to establish the Center
     for Defense Technology
     and Education for the
     military services at
     the Naval Postgraduate
     School to focus on the
     impact of emerging
     technologies on joint
     warfare.
Advanced Technology                 75,635         96,535        +20,900
 Transition.................
    Littoral warfare fast     ............  ..............        +5,000
     patrol craft...........
    Vectored thrust ducted    ............  ..............        +5,900
     propeller..............
    Demonstration of          ............  ..............       +10,000
     advanced sub carrier
     modulation/magnetic
     resonance technology in
     current and advanced
     sonobouy and databouy
     R&D efforts to detect
     metallic objects at
     extremely long ranges..
    NOTE: Sub carrier
     modulation is to be
     managed by the Navy
     Undersea Warfare
     Center.
C3 Advanced Technology......        23,808         39,808        +16,000
    National technology       ............  ..............        +5,000
     alliance...............
    Dominant battlespace      ............  ..............        +6,000
     command initiative.....
    SPAWAR/NATAC program....  ............  ..............        +5,000
C2W Replacement for EA-6B...             0         16,000        +16,000
    Analysis of alternatives  ............  ..............       +16,000
Software Development and                 0          2,000         +2,000
 Management.................
    Tri-service software      ............  ..............        +2,000
     program managers
     network................
Aviation Survivability......         7,280         16,280         +9,000
    Smart aircrew integrated  ............  ..............        +3,000
     life support system....
    Dynamic flow ejection     ............  ..............        +3,000
     seat facility
     improvements...........
    NOTE: Funds are only for
     improvements to the
     existing ejection seat
     test facility at Naval
     Air Warfare Center
     Aircraft Division.
    Lightweight               ............  ..............        +1,500
     environmentally sealed
     parachute assembly
     sealing technology.....
    Pilot vehicle interface   ............  ..............        +1,500
     center upgrades........
ASW Systems Development.....        17,780         23,780         +6,000
    Beartrap/stochastic       ............  ..............        +6,000
     resonance..............
Surface and Shallow Water           82,465         94,465        +12,000
 Mine Countermeasures.......
    Remote minehunting        ............  ..............       +12,000
     system.................
Advanced Submarine Combat                0         10,000        +10,000
 Systems Development........
    Conformal array velocity  ............  ..............        +6,800
     sensor.................
    Common towed array        ............  ..............        +3,200
     program................
Surface Ship Torpedo Defense           640          5,640         +5,000
    Cooperative               ............  ..............        +5,000
     international program..
    NOTE: Funds are only to
     continue the joint
     collaborative SSTD
     program with the United
     Kingdom including the
     upgrade of the SLQ-25 A
     torpedo countermeasure
     capability, including
     the winch and tow, for
     littoral operations.
Shipboard System Component         108,334        114,484         +6,150
 Development................
    Man overboard indicator.  ............  ..............        +3,150
    Ship survivability and    ............  ..............        +2,000
     personnel protection...
    Advanced waterjet         ............  ..............        +1,000
     technology.............
Advanced Submarine System          115,767        124,267         +8,500
 Development................
    Affordable advanced       ............  ..............        +5,000
     acoustic arrays........
    Enhanced performance      ............  ..............        +3,500
     motor brush............
Ship Concept Advanced Design         5,318         29,818        +24,500
    Smart propulsor model...  ............  ..............        +1,500
    Trident SSGN design.....  ............  ..............       +13,000
    Automated maintenance     ............  ..............       +10,000
     environment............
    NOTE: Automated
     maintenance environment
     funds are only to
     integrate the NAVSEA
     AME project with the
     NAVAIR GAME project to
     create a deployable
     battle group level
     integrated maintenance
     system under the NAVSEA
     AME contract.
Advanced Surface Machinery          17,727         22,727         +5,000
 Systems....................
    Intercooled recuperated   ............  ..............        +5,000
     gas turbine............
Combat System Integration...        46,740         79,740        +33,000
    Common command and        ............  ..............       +30,000
     decision system........
    NAVSEA methodology for    ............  ..............        +3,000
     fleet legacy systems...
Conventional Munitions......        34,309         43,309         +9,000
    Environmentally safe      ............  ..............        +2,000
     energetic materials....
    Optical correlation       ............  ..............        +7,000
     technology for
     automatic target
     recognition............
Marine Corps Assault                94,843        112,843        +18,000
 Vehicles...................
    Advanced amphibious       ............  ..............       +18,000
     assault vehicle........
Marine Corps Ground Combat/         42,654         45,654         +3,000
 Support System.............
    SMAW-CS system level      ............  ..............        +3,000
     qualification test and
     evaluation.............
Cooperative Engagement......       114,931        190,931        +76,000
    Low cost data             ............  ..............       +15,000
     distribution system/
     cooperative engagement
     processor..............
    CEC network capacity      ............  ..............       +12,700
     expansion..............
    System protection.......  ............  ..............       +10,000
    Low cost planar array...  ............  ..............        +5,000
    Forward pass/remote       ............  ..............        +5,000
     launch.................
    Modeling and simulation.  ............  ..............        +7,500
    One additional land       ............  ..............        +6,800
     based unit to evaluate
     CEC/Patriot............
    Airborne antenna          ............  ..............        +4,000
     improvement............
    Area Air Defense          ............  ..............       +10,000
     Commander..............
Environmental Protection....        70,793         84,793        +14,000
    Asbestos conversion       ............  ..............        +4,000
     pilot program..........
    NOTE: Only to continue
     the validation of a
     thermochemical
     conversion process used
     to decontaminate mixed
     waste streams and PCB's
     from retired Navy
     submarines at Puget
     Sound Naval Shipyard.
    Resource preservation     ............  ..............       +10,000
     initiative at Puget
     Sound Naval Shipyard...
Navy Energy Program.........         4,984          7,984         +3,000
    Demonstration of          ............  ..............        +3,000
     desiccant-based
     dehumidification in
     naval facilities.......
Navy Logistics Productivity.             0         27,500        +27,500
    Virtual system            ............  ..............       +10,000
     implementation program.
    Rapid retargeting of      ............  ..............       +10,000
     electronic circuits....
    Compatible processor      ............  ..............        +7,500
     upgrade program........
Ship Self Defense--Dem/Val..         5,654         10,654         +5,000
    Test ship repairs.......  ............  ..............        +5,000
Land Attack Technology......       101,489        111,489        +10,000
    ERGM guidance system      ............  ..............       +10,000
     cost reduction.........
    Projectile common         ............  ..............        +3,000
     guidance and control...
    Proximity fuze for DPICM  ............  ..............        +2,000
     submunitions...........
    Continuous processor,     ............  ..............        +5,000
     NSWC Indian Head.......
    Land attack standard      ............  ..............       -10,000
     missile, program delays
Space and Electronic Warfare        35,170         37,170         +2,000
 (SEW) Architecture/Engine..
    Navy collaborative        ............  ..............        +2,000
     integrated information
     technology initiative..
Other Helo Development......        48,776         80,776        +32,000
    SH-60 third test asset..  ............  ..............       +19,000
    Development,              ............  ..............       +10,000
     construction, and
     system integration of a
     CH-60 AMCM engineering
     development model......
    Ship-air mission system   ............  ..............        +3,000
     integration............
Standards Development.......        74,325         78,825         +4,500
    Joint services metrology  ............  ..............        +4,500
     program................
S-3 Weapon System                    2,095          7,095         +5,000
 Improvement................
    Surveillance system       ............  ..............        +5,000
     upgrade................
P-3 Modernization Program...         3,010         18,010        +15,000
    Radar upgrades: moving    ............  ..............       +15,000
     target indicator/
     periscope detection....
Tactical Command System.....        41,599         45,599         +4,000
    Ocean Surveillance        ............  ..............        +4,000
     Information System
     (OED)..................
Air Crew Systems Development         6,801         14,301         +7,500
    Front line ejection       ............  ..............        +4,000
     equipment testing......
    NOTE: Funds are only for
     continuation of Navy
     effort in concert with
     a similar Air Force
     program to define
     ejection seat
     deficiencies and
     identify corrective
     actions relative to
     stability, restraint,
     and accommodation
     configurations.
    Ejection seat stability,  ............  ..............        +3,500
     enhancements in fins,
     booms, trailing after-
     bodies, drogue
     parachutes, and pintal
     propulsion system
     technologies...........
EW Development..............       163,077        237,577        +74,500
    Location of GPS system    ............  ..............        +4,500
     jammers................
    EA-6B connectivity (link  ............  ..............       +60,000
     16)....................
    Integrated defensive      ............  ..............       +10,000
     electronic
     countermeasures........
Surface Combatant Combat           204,480        244,480        +40,000
 System Engineering.........
    Cruiser conversion,       ............  ..............        +7,500
     flight l ships.........
    Interoperability/         ............  ..............       +25,000
     tactical display
     services...............
    NOTE: Funds for displays
     are only to address
     AEGIS-specific
     interoperability issues
     and the development of
     tactical display
     services supporting TMD
     and CEC systems.
    Advanced food service     ............  ..............        +7,500
     technology.............
SSN-688 and Trident                 48,896         76,896        +28,000
 Modernization..............
    Multipurpose processors.  ............  ..............       +25,000
    BQG-5 wide aperture       ............  ..............        +3,000
     array..................
    NOTE: BQG-5 funds are
     for integration and
     installation planning
     for the inboard segment
     and testing on a
     submarine.
Submarine Combat System.....         6,546          9,546         +3,000
    Integration of UYQ-70     ............  ..............        +3,000
     into backfit submarines
New Design SSN..............       241,456        251,456        +10,000
    Non-propulsion            ............  ..............       +10,000
     electronics systems....
Navy Tactical Computer               3,300         58,300        +55,000
 Resources..................
    Submarine communications/ ............  ..............       +20,000
     computer infrastructure
    NOTE: Funds are only to
     develop selected
     submarine combat system
     Q-70 retrofits for SSN-
     688/Trident class
     submarines.
    Computer aided dead       ............  ..............        +5,000
     reckoning tracer.......
    UYQ-70 improvements/      ............  ..............       +25,000
     technology refreshment.
    NOTE: UYQ-70 technology
     refresh funds are only
     to develop and
     implement technology
     refresh, to include but
     not be limited to, Q-70
     COTS networking and
     interconnect
     infrastructure, common
     system service software
     components, advanced
     human to machine
     interfaces, IT21
     workstation, systems
     compatibility design
     and logistics
     streamlining.
    Advanced digital          ............  ..............        +5,000
     logistics integrated
     data capture and
     analysis...............
    NOTE: ADLIDCA equipment
     only for Puget Sound
     Naval Shipyard.
Ship Self Defense--EMD......        96,580        111,580        +15,000
    AIEWS for DDG-91 and LPD- ............  ..............       +12,000
     22.....................
    AIEWS middleware/multi-   ............  ..............        +3,000
     purpose processors.....
Medical Development.........         4,285         10,285         +6,000
    Voice interactive device  ............  ..............        +6,000
    NOTE: Only for continued
     development of a Navy
     voice interactive
     device to facilitate
     the collection,
     processing, storing,
     and forwarding of
     critical medical
     information for
     treatment of combat
     casualties.
Distributed Surveillance            14,910         38,910        +24,000
 System.....................
    Advanced deployable       ............  ..............       +19,000
     system improved
     detection/tracking
     algorithms.............
    Network centric warfare.  ............  ..............        +5,000
Commerical Operations and           18,729         16,500         -2,229
 Support Savings Initiative.
    Program reduction.......  ............  ..............        -2,229
Major T&E Investment........        42,621         49,621         +7,000
    NAWC, PAX range tracking  ............  ..............        +3,500
     system upgrades........
    Advanced virtual          ............  ..............        +3,500
     environment............
Studies and Analysis                 8,531          6,031         -2,500
 Support--Navy..............
    Program reduction,        ............  ..............        -2,500
     excessive growth.......
Sew Surveillance/                   12,121         16,121         +4,000
 Reconnaissance Support.....
    Hyperspectral analysis..  ............  ..............        +4,000
Marine Corps Program Wide            8,198         28,398        +20,200
 Support....................
    Acquifer vulnerability/   ............  ..............        +1,500
     contamination
     assessment.............
    Chemical biological       ............  ..............        +4,800
     individual sampler.....
    Small unit biological     ............  ..............        +4,100
     detector...............
    Probable cause detection  ............  ..............        +3,000
     system.................
    Chem/bio integrated       ............  ..............        +4,800
     information system.....
    Human Effects Advisory    ............  ..............        +2,000
     Panel..................
Strategic Sub & Weapons             45,907         60,407        +14,500
 System Support.............
    Models for radiation      ............  ..............       +14,500
     hardened electronics/
     upgrade integrated
     circuit fabrication
     facility at SPAWAR
     Systems Center.........
F/A-18 Squadrons............       315,714        373,214        +57,500
    LAU-138A/A BOL chaff      ............  ..............        +2,500
     countermeasures........
    EA-6B follow-on support   ............  ..............       +40,000
     jammer, F/A-18E/F
     variant................
    Radar ECCM improvements.  ............  ..............       +15,000
E-2 Squadrons...............        16,132         55,132        +39,000
    Radar modernization       ............  ..............       +15,000
     program................
    Advanced support          ............  ..............        +9,000
     aircraft (follow-on to
     E-2/C-2)...............
    Satellite communications  ............  ..............       +15,000
Tomahawk and Tomahawk              147,223        142,223         -5,000
 Mission Planning Center
 (TMPC).....................
    Tactical Tomahawk         ............  ..............        -5,000
     schedule delay.........
Consolidated Training           26,257 500         33,757         +7,500
 Systems Development........
    Battle force tactical     ............  ..............        +7,500
     training (conversion to
     Windows environment)...
Harm Improvement............        23,642         43,642        +20,000
    Advanced anti-radiation   ............  ..............       +20,000
     guided missile.........
Aviation Improvements.......        53,292         63,292        +10,000
    C-2 composite propeller   ............  ..............       +10,000
     flight testing.........
Marine Corps Communications         90,293         94,293         +4,000
 Systems....................
    MEWSS/MAGTF C4I           ............  ..............        +4,000
     modernization kits.....
Marine Corps Ground Combat/         39,941         36,741         -3,200
 Supporting Arms Systems....
    Improved recovery         ............  ..............        -7,200
     vehicle................
    Shortstop...............  ............  ..............        +4,000
Tactical Unmanned Aerial            69,742         77,242         +7,500
 Vehicles...................
    Multifunction self-       ............  ..............        +4,500
     aligned gate...........
    Tactical control system-- ............  ..............        +3,000
     UAV....................
    System integration lab..  ............  ..............        +4,500
    Tactical control system-- ............  ..............        -4,500
     program office.........
Airborne Reconnaissance              4,958         18,958        +14,000
 Systems....................
    EO framing technologies.  ............  ..............       +10,000
    NOTE: Funds are only for
     Electro-Optical Framing
     with on chip FMC.
    Hyperspectral modular     ............  ..............        +4,000
     airborne reconnaissance
     system.................
Manned Reconnaissance               30,958         39,958         +9,000
 Systems....................
    SHARP...................  ............  ..............        +9,000
    NOTE: Funds are only for
     testing and evaluation
     of a small lightweight
     synthetic aperture
     radar for the SHARP
     reconnaissance system.
Naval Space Surveillance....           712          2,712         +2,000
    RESIC...................  ............  ..............        +2,000
Industrial Preparedness.....        59,104         74,104        +15,000
    Program increase........  ............  ..............       +15,000
Maritime Technology                 19,681         24,681         +5,000
 (Maritech).................
    Maritime technology       ............  ..............        +5,000
     development............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Joint Experimentation

    The Navy requested $41,840,000 for joint experimentation 
conducted by the United States Atlantic Command (ACOM). The 
Committee recommends $19,940,000, a decrease of $21,900,000 due 
to delay in the fiscal year 1999 program and to reduce program 
scope as explained below. The Committee notes that a 
reprogramming request to accelerate the fiscal year 1999 
program was not approved by Congress until the last quarter of 
the fiscal year, and these funds can be used to partially 
offset the amount requested in fiscal year 2000. Within the 
amount requested in fiscal year 2000, $18,720,000 has been 
identified for the highest priority: attack operations against 
critical mobile targets. This highest priority is fully funded 
in the Committee's recommendation.
    The joint experimentation program has noble goals, namely 
to improve wartime operations and interoperability of the 
military services' forces by analyzing, evaluating, and perhaps 
changing organizations, doctrine, tactics, weapon system 
acquisitions, and identifying or defining requirements for the 
development of future technologies. The budget request 
envisions an expenditure of over $374 million and establishing 
a bureaucracy of 161 personnel during the next six years to 
address these issues. The output of this large expenditure of 
funds, according to the Commander-in-Chief of the United States 
Atlantic Command, is workshops, seminars, and wargames. The 
Committee notes that for $374 million proposed for this 
initiative, not a single item of equipment would be fielded to 
combat troops, who today face many shortages of equipment and 
parts. The proposed ACOM organization would operate 
autonomously and not be integrated with or responsible to any 
other chain of command. The potential for duplication of effort 
or wasted effort is of major concern to the Committee. The 
Atlantic Command also cannot articulate with clarity how these 
funds would be used, other than to provide general 
categorization of broad potential activities.
    The Committee agrees that ACOM could play a useful role in 
improving joint organizations, tactics, and doctrine. The 
Committee questions whether ACOM can play a significant role in 
weapon systems acquisition or technology development. Before 
agreeing to the manpower and funding investments envisioned in 
the budget, the Committee would like to see ACOM focus on a 
well-defined area of weapon systems acquisition and demonstrate 
to the Defense Department and to Congress that through its 
activities it can make a meaningful contribution to the 
process. The Committee directs that ACOM experimentation funds 
in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 may only be used for attack 
operations against critical mobile targets, limited 
infrastructure investments needed to facilitate that single 
objective, and participation in OSD weapon system reviews. The 
Committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to report 
quarterly to the congressional defense committees on the 
results of ACOM activities during the previous quarter. Such 
reports should not focus on inputs (how much ACOM has spent, 
how many seminars it conducted, how many trips were taken) but 
rather on outputs (changes that have been made to 
organizations, tactics, doctrine, or weapon system 
acquisitions).
    The claimed rationale for an investment of $374 million and 
establishment of a new bureaucracy of 161 non-combat personnel 
is the perception that the Defense weapon system oversight 
process is not working properly and weapons are not being 
fielded which are interoperable among the military services. 
The Committee views the ACOM initiative as a politically-driven 
substitute to addressing the real problem, managing the weapon 
system acquisition process to ensure that the best systems are 
fielded to U.S. combat forces, to provide the best performance 
during wartime when conducting joint service operations. The 
Commander-in-Chief of the United States Atlantic Command 
informed the Committee that the test of whether the ACOM joint 
experimentation initiative is successful is whether or not ACOM 
``gets a seat at the table'' when weapon systems acquisition 
decisions are made. The Committee believes this concern can be 
addressed in a straightforward manner without a huge investment 
of funds for studies and establishment of a huge new 
bureaucracy. The Committee has therefore included a new general 
provision (Section 8120) which: requires the Defense 
Acquisition Board to include the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. 
Atlantic Command as a fully participating member; prohibits 
approving weapons systems from moving into subsequent phases 
unless the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command 
certifies to the congressional defense committees that an 
acquisition before the Defense Acquisition Board fully meets 
joint service interoperability requirements as determined by 
theater Commanders-in-Chief; and requires that funds to support 
the U.S. Atlantic Command participation in Defense Acquisition 
Board reviews be absorbed within those proposed in the 
President's budget for ACOM activities.

                oceanographic and atmospheric technology

    The Committee encourages the Navy to accelerate transfer of 
the research ship USNS Hayes from Cape Canaveral to the South 
Florida Test Facility as soon as possible.

              intercooled recuperative gas turbine engine

    The Navy requested $17,700,000 for continued development of 
the intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine. The Committee 
recommends $22,700,000, an increase of $5,000,000 to provide a 
federal government share of a cost improvement program with 
industry and international partners that could allow the engine 
to be better suited for future ships such as DD-21. The 
Committee has included bill language to implement the cost 
improvement program, while limiting the Navy's program share to 
not more than one-third of the total program cost, to 
capitalize on the approximate $400 million investment in this 
program to date. The Committee hereby withdraws the program 
development cost cap stated in the conference report 
accompanying the fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, since the Navy has indicated that it 
desires to participate in the allied engine qualification 
effort and to reflect the additional costs of the cost 
improvement initiative.

                                  jsow

    The Navy requested $30,567,000 for JSOW. The Committee 
recommends $15,000,000, a net decrease of $15,567,000. This 
amount includes a decrease of $30,567,000 for the JSOW unitary 
variant and an increase of $15,000,000 only for GPS anti-
spoofing. Last year, the Committee recommended termination of 
the Navy-unique JSOW unitary variant based on its high cost and 
low performance relative to other DoD stand-off munitions. 
Despite the Committee's recommendation last year, the Navy has 
requested additional funds in fiscal year 2000 for development 
of a new, cheaper unitary variant. As a cost saving measure, 
the new variant no longer includes ``man-in-the-loop'' which 
severely limits the weapon's capability against moving targets. 
However, the GAO has learned that the Navy's JSOW unitary 
inventory requirement is based almost completely on the use of 
the weapon against just this class of targets. The small number 
of fixed targets that drive the inventory requirement hardly 
justifies development of another service-unique weapon system, 
given the acquisition plans for such other service-unique 
systems as SLAM-ER, Tactical Tomahawk, and JASSM which can more 
effectively attack the same targets. Accordingly, the Committee 
once again recommends termination of the JSOW unitary program.

                             aerial targets

    The Navy is conducting a competition for development and 
production of the Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target (SSST). The 
Committee directs the Navy conclude the competition and select 
a vendor by October 15, 1999. The Committee further directs 
that none of the funds in this Act may be used for the SSST 
after October 15, 1999 if the Navy has not concluded the 
competition by that time.

                          bone marrow registry

    The Committee provides $34,000,000 to be administered by 
the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research 
Program, also known, and referred to, within the Naval Medical 
Research Center, as the Bone Marrow Registry. This DoD donor 
center has recruited 200,000 DoD volunteers, and provides more 
marrow donors per week than any other donor center in the 
Nation. The Committee is aware of the continuing success of 
this life saving program for military contingencies and 
civilian patients, which now includes more than 3,600,000 
potential volunteer donors, and encourages agencies involved in 
contingency planning to include the C.W. Bill Young Marrow 
Donor Recruitment and Research Program in the development and 
testing of their contingency plans. DD Form 1414 shall show 
this as a special congressional interest item, and the 
Committee directs that all of the funds appropriated for this 
purpose be released to the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor 
Recruitment and Research Program within 60 days of enactment of 
the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Appropriations Act.

                   shared reconnaissance pod (sharp)

    The Committee is pleased with the commitment the Secretary 
of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations have made in the 
development of the SHARP system. The Committee notes that in a 
June 1, 1999 report to Congress, the Secretary of the Navy 
determined that the SHARP program is the ``most effective 
reconnaissance system for the F/A-18, the scheduled replacement 
for F-14 Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance Pod System (TARPS).''
    Given these results, it is difficult to understand why the 
Marine Corps has not aggressively pursued this technology in 
conjunction with the Navy. The Committee requests that the 
Secretary of the Navy review the Marine Corps proposals for its 
roadmap to meet future tactical reconnaissance requirements to 
ensure that this plan includes a transition to SHARP when the 
system becomes available for acquisition.
    The rapid prototyping development and acquisition strategy 
for SHARP is unique in that the Navy seeks to use off the shelf 
sensor technology and integrate this technology into a pod that 
can be used on the F/A-18. The Committee believes that 
significant progress has been made in the commercial sector to 
develop electro-optic sensor, radar, and pod technologies that 
can meet most of SHARP's operational needs immediately. 
However, several challenges exist, both technically and 
philosophically, to getting this technology integrated, tested, 
and fielded on the F/A-18.
    Technical challenges include development of a suitable pod 
and the integration of the sensors, radar, and the ground 
station data link with the aircraft. The Committee is confident 
that the Navy will overcome these challenges. The philosophical 
challenge includes a new development and acquisition strategy 
that requires the Service to adopt a rapid prototyping process 
with ``off-the-shelf'' technology. The Committee believes a 
flexible and dynamic development and acquisition approach is 
necessary to quickly and effectively field SHARP.
    The Committee has included $9,000,000 for the SHARP program 
only to pursue the acquisition and testing of a small, 
lightweight synthetic aperture radar for inclusion into SHARP. 
Significant work has already been conducted on such a system 
that is being leveraged by the Navy on other platforms. The 
Navy should not use these funds to pursue a new developmental 
effort for this SAR, but should test what is available today. 
This is a congressional interest item. These funds shall not be 
used for other program requirements without prior approval.
    The Committee is aware that there could be future funding 
shortfalls in the SHARP program based on additional 
requirements and technology enhancements. The Committee directs 
the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that any and all SHARP 
program requirements are fully funded in future budget 
requests.
    Finally, the Committee is concerned that technical 
challenges in the development of a suitable pod could 
potentially delay fielding of SHARP. The Navy should 
aggressively pursue the most innovative and competitive SHARP 
pod design and development. It appears the current acquisition 
approach does not allow for participation by small innovative 
companies.

                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2000.



         RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................   $13,758,811,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................    13,077,829,000
Committee recommendation..............................    13,709,233,000
Change from budget request............................      +631,404,000


    This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation activities of the Department of the Air Force.

                       Committee Recommendations


            consolidation and elimination of small programs

    The Committee is concerned about the proliferation of 
program element line-items in the Air Force research and 
development budget. The Committee notes that several of these 
program elements request appropriations below a million dollars 
often to fund legacy programs that have long since transitioned 
from development to production to fielding. The Committee 
believes that these efforts should either be consolidated with 
other similar efforts or eliminated altogether. Accordingly, 
the Committee recommendation denies funding for these small 
programs with the expectation that the Air Fore will make 
further suggestions regarding consolidation or elimination.

                   af/national program consolidation

    The Air Force request included three line-items each 
funding different aspects of cooperation among national 
intelligence programs and the Air Force. The Committee believes 
it would be more efficient to consolidate these efforts into a 
single line-item. The Committee recommendation for this new 
line-item totals $23,500,000, which includes $19,500,000 
(representing a 15 percent reduction based on consolidation 
efficiencies) and a $4,000,000 increase for a TENCAP program as 
authorized in the House version of the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense 
Authorization Act.

                    air force science and technology

    The Air Force budget reduces various Science and Technology 
efforts by $94,600,000 to fund the Space Based Laser and Space 
Based Radar programs. The Air Force subsequently submitted a 
request for $94,600,000 as part of its list of unfunded 
priorities. The Committee recommendation includes the 
additional $94,600,000 of Science and Technology funding. This 
additional funding has been spread to the various Science and 
Technology line-items in accordance with specific project 
recommendations made by the Air Force. As discussed elsewhere 
in this report, the Committee recommendation further includes 
reductions to the budgeted amounts for Space Based Laser and 
termination of the Space Based Radar.

                 wright patterson landing gear facility

    The Committee understands that the Air Force intends to 
keep the Wright Patterson Landing Gear Facility open and 
available to both military and commercial users, but plans to 
shift ownership of the facility from the Air Force Research 
Laboratory to either another Air Force organization or a 
commercial firm. The Committee further understands that the Air 
Force is evaluating options and will make a decision on the 
final disposition of the facility by the end of fiscal year 
1999. The Committee agrees with the Air Force that the facility 
should stay open and makes no judgments as to the final 
ownership. However, the Committee does expect the Air Force to 
notify the Committee of its final decision on the disposition 
of the facility prior to implementation of this decision.

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from
                              Item                                Budget request  recommendation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EELV............................................................         324,803         322,803          -2,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Budget                     Change from
                                 request     Recommended      request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Research Sciences...       209,505       216,505         +7,000
    National Solar            ............  ............           (600)
     Observatory............
    Astronomical active       ............  ............         +4,000
     optics.................
    Coal based advanced       ............  ............         +3,000
     thermally stable jet
     fuels..................
Materials...................        63,334        74,234        +10,900
    Friction stir welding...  ............  ............         +2,000
    Thermal management for    ............  ............         +2,500
     space structures.......
    Carbon foam development   ............  ............         +1,500
     for aircraft and
     spacecraft.............
    Materials and processes   ............  ............         +1,000
     for metal cleaning,
     corrosion control, and
     coatings...............
    High temperature          ............  ............         +1,900
     materials..............
    Advanced composite        ............  ............         +2,000
     materials and
     processing technology
     transfer (NCC).........
Aerospace Flight Dynamics...        43,898        49,298         +5,400
    Autonomous control        ............  ............         +2,100
     technology.............
    Extreme environment       ............  ............         +1,200
     structures.............
    Virtual development and   ............  ............         +2,100
     demonstration
     environment............
Human Effectiveness Applied         51,512        72,412        +20,900
 Research...................
    Solid electrolyte oxygen  ............  ............         +3,000
     separator..............
    Environmental quality     ............  ............         +4,000
     technology, Tyndall AFB
    Materials and processes   ............  ............         +1,000
     for metal cleaning,
     corrosion control, and
     coatings...............
    Sustained operations....  ............  ............         +2,500
    Oxygen research (ATD)...  ............  ............         +2,100
    Spatial disorientation..  ............  ............           +900
    Altitude protection.....  ............  ............           +600
    Physiology..............  ............  ............         +1,500
    Information training....  ............  ............         +3,200
    Space training..........  ............  ............         +2,100
Aerospace Propulsion........        62,012        77,212        +15,200
    Magnetic bearing cooling  ............  ............         +8,500
     turbine technology.....
    Aircraft and weapon       ............  ............         +3,400
     power..................
    Fuels, lubes, combustion  ............  ............         +3,300
Aerospace Sensors...........        64,988        75,688        +10,700
    Connectivity and          ............  ............         +6,000
     collaboration
     infrastructure among
     modeling, simulation,
     and computer resources.
    Space protection........  ............  ............         +2,200
    Automatic target          ............  ............         +2,500
     recognition............
Hypersonic Technology                    0        16,600        +16,600
 Program....................
    Hypersonic and high       ............  ............        +16,600
     speed propulsion
     technology.............
Phillips Lab Exploratory           115,313       147,613         32,300
 Development................
    IHPRPT..................  ............  ............         +5,300
    Hyperspectral imaging     ............  ............         +6,400
     technology.............
    Tropo-weather...........  ............  ............         +2,500
    Space survivability.....  ............  ............           +600
    Terabit.................  ............  ............         +5,000
    Post boost control        ............  ............         +2,900
     system.................
    Missile propulsion        ............  ............         +1,700
     technology.............
    Tactical missile          ............  ............         +3,000
     propulsion.............
    Orbit transfer            ............  ............         +2,300
     propulsion.............
    Space optics relay        ............  ............         +1,000
     mirror concept.........
    Laser remote optical      ............  ............         +1,600
     sensing................
Command Control and                 46,448        47,548         +1,100
 Communications.............
    Defer bistatic effort...  ............  ............         -2,600
    Distributed agent based   ............  ............         +1,000
     C2 planning............
    Common battle space       ............  ............           +800
     algorithms/processing..
    Intelligent networks for  ............  ............           +900
     global information
     assurance..............
    Computer forensics......  ............  ............           +500
    Real time knowledge       ............  ............           +500
     based sensor to shooter
     decision making........
Dual Use Science and                17,927        10,000         -7,927
 Technology Program.........
    Reduce to FY 1999 level.  ............  ............         -7,927
Advanced Materials for              25,890        31,890         +6,000
 Weapon Systems.............
    Advanced low observable   ............  ............         +6,000
     coatings...............
Advanced Aerospace Sensors..        29,405        47,805        +18,400
    Multispectral             ............  ............        +15,000
     battlespace simulation
     for IDAL...............
    Combat ID AGRI ATD......  ............  ............         +3,400
Flight Vehicle Technology...         5,992        11,992         +6,000
    Aging aircraft life       ............  ............         +6,000
     extension..............
Aerospace Propulsion and            38,778        39,378           +600
 Power Technology...........
    Aircraft and weapon       ............  ............           +600
     power..................
Personnel, Training and              4,827         7,027         +2,200
 Simulation Technology......
    Night vision training...  ............  ............         +2,200
Electronic Combat Technology        27,334        34,434         +7,100
    CLIRCM..................  ............  ............         +7,100
Space and Missile Rocket            11,231        26,531        +15,300
 Propulsion.................
    IHPRPT..................  ............  ............        +11,000
    Missile propulsion        ............  ............         +2,600
     technology.............
    Orbit transfer            ............  ............         +1,700
     propulsion.............
Ballistic Missile Technology             0        23,000        +23,000
    GPS range safety demo...  ............  ............        +23,000
Advanced Spacecraft                 76,229        67,259         -8,970
 Technology.................
    Terminate Discoverer II.  ............  ............        -28,670
    Miniature Satellite       ............  ............         +4,000
     Threat Reporting System
     (MSTRS)................
    Radiation hardened        ............  ............        +10,000
     microelectronics.......
    Hyperspectral imaging...  ............  ............         +1,200
    Composite space launch    ............  ............         +4,500
     payload dispensers.....
Space Systems Environmental          3,677         4,177           +500
 Interactions Technology....
    Space survivability.....  ............  ............           +500
Conventional Weapons                21,479        23,033         +1,554
 Technology.................
    Defer PIOS II technology  ............  ............         -2,446
     for AMRAAM.............
    Optical correlator        ............  ............         +4,000
     technology.............
Advanced Weapons Technology.        38,995        56,495        +17,500
    LaserSpark..............  ............  ............         +2,500
    GLINT...................  ............  ............        +15,000
Environmental Engineering                0         3,000         +3,000
 Technology.................
    Environmental quality     ............  ............         +3,000
     technology, Tyndall AFB
C31 Subsystem Integration...         9,122         7,922         -1,200
    Defer bistatic effort...  ............  ............         -1,200
Space-Based Laser...........        63,840        35,000        -28,840
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............        -28,840
National Polar-Orbiting             80,137        40,137        -40,000
 Operational Environmental
 Satellite..................
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............        -40,000
Space Based Infrared               151,378             0       -151,378
 Architecture (SPACE)--DEM/
 VAL........................
    Transfer funds to         ............  ............       -151,378
     0604442F...............
C-130.......................  ............        43,600        +43,600
    Transfer from aircraft    ............  ............        +39,600
     procurement for
     Avionics Improvement
     Program................
    AC-130 Leading Edge.....  ............  ............         +4,000
Wideband Milsatcom (SPACE)..        53,344        44,344         -9,000
    Excessive program         ............  ............         -6,000
     support costs..........
    Excessive Joint Terminal  ............  ............         -3,000
     Program Office funding.
Air Force/NRO Partnership            2,905  ............         -2,905
 (AFNP).....................
    Consolidate AF/NRO        ............  ............         -2,905
     activities.............
B-1B........................       203,544       183,544        -20,000
    Delay in IDECM program..  ............  ............        -20,000
Specialized Undergraduate           38,656        41,156         +2,500
 Pilot Training.............
    Transfer from aircraft    ............  ............         +2,500
     procurement for T-38
     Avionics Upgrade
     Program................
EW Development..............        90,347        89,047         -1,300
    Delay in IDECM program..  ............  ............        -15,000
    Precision location and    ............  ............        +13,700
     ID program (PLAID).....
Space Based Infrared System         77,651       229,029       +151,378
 (SBIRS) Low EMD............
    Transfer from 0603441F..  ............  ............       +151,378
Munitions Dispenser                      0         3,900         +3,900
 Development................
    Wind corrected munitions  ............  ............         +3,900
     dispensor development..
Armament/Ordnance                    8,887        27,887        +19,000
 Development................
    Accelerate Miniaturized   ............  ............        +19,000
     Munitions Capability...
Submunitions................         4,798        10,798         +6,000
    3-D advanced track        ............  ............         +6,000
     acquisition and imaging
     system (3-Data)........
Agile Combat Support........           946             0           -946
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............           -946
Joint Direct Attack Munition         1,385        20,385        +19,000
    Accelerate JDAM           ............  ............        +19,000
     integration on strike
     platforms..............
Life Support Systems........         6,135         9,135         +3,000
    Arm, torso, head & neck   ............  ............         +3,000
     wind blast shielding
     and other aircraft
     inflatable restraint
     configurations.........
Combat Training Ranges......         6,220        17,820        +11,600
    Advanced Data Oriented    ............  ............         +6,000
     Security Module........
    Mini-MUTES modernization  ............  ............         +5,600
     program................
Computer Resource Technology           196         6,396         +6,200
 Transition (CRTT)..........
    NPLACE National Product   ............  ............         +5,200
     Line Software
     Initiative.............
    AF product line           ............  ............         +1,000
     engineering............
Joint Interoperability of            5,837         2,837         -3,000
 Tactical Command & Control.
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............         -3,000
Commercial Operations and           30,485        15,937        -14,548
 Support Savings Initiative.
    Reduce program to FY      ............  ............        -14,548
     1999 level.............
Evolved Expendable Launch          324,803       322,803         -2,000
 Vehicle Program (SPACE)....
    Unjustified growth in     ............  ............         -2,000
     program support........
Target Systems Development..           192             0           -192
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............           -192
Major T&E Investment........        47,334        69,534        +22,200
    MARIAH II Hypersonic      ............  ............         +6,000
     Wind Tunnel program....
    Unjustified growth in     ............  ............         -3,000
     propulsion wind tunnel
     hardware...............
    Eglin range improvements  ............  ............         +9,000
    Modify B-52H as launch    ............  ............        +10,200
     platform for
     experimental space
     vehicles and new weapon
     systems................
Initial Operational Test &          23,819        30,569         +6,750
 Evaluation.................
    AFOTEC..................  ............  ............         +6,750
Test and Evaluation Support.       392,104       400,104         +8,000
    Big Crow program office.  ............  ............         +8,000
Information Operations                 491             0           -491
 Technology.................
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............           -491
B-52 Squadrons..............        32,139        47,539        +15,400
    Situational awareness     ............  ............        +15,400
     upgrades...............
Advanced Cruise Missile.....           688             0           -688
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............           -688
Air and Space Command and            2,946             0         -2,946
 Control Agency (ASC2A).....
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............         -2,946
Manned Destructive                   5,402         3,402         -2,000
 Suppression................
    ``R7'' Harm Targeting     ............  ............         -2,000
     System (HTS) study.....
Advanced Medium Range Air-To-       49,783        52,783         +3,000
 Air Missile (AMRAAM).......
    Transfer from missile     ............  ............         +3,000
     procurement for P31
     phase III..............
AF TENCAP...................        10,102             0        -10,102
    Consolidate AF/NRO        ............  ............        -10,102
     activities.............
Compass Call................         4,908         12908         +8,000
    TRACS-F Upgrade.........  ............  ............         +8,000
Aircraft Engine Component          160,212       175,212        +15,000
 Improvement Program........
    F-16 engine problems....  ............  ............        +15,000
Theater Air Control Systems.           467         6,467         +6,000
    Transfer from OPAF for    ............  ............         +6,000
     Expert Missile Tracker.
Airborne Warning and Control        33,393        36,393         +3,000
 System (AWACS).............
    Transfer from aircraft    ............  ............         +3,000
     procurement for AWACS
     computers..............
    AWACS Cooperative         ............  ............        (15,800)
     Engagement Funding.....
Advanced Communications              2,864             0         -2,864
 Systems....................
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............         -2,864
Joint Surveillance and             130,488       161,988        +31,500
 Target Attack Radar System.
    Properly phase Link 16    ............  ............        -15,000
     funding................
    Unjustified growth of     ............  ............         -2,000
     management support
     funding................
    RTIP....................  ............  ............        +48,500
USAF Modeling and Simulation        19,299        23,799         +4,500
    STORM...................  ............  ............         +2,500
    Powerscene..............  ............  ............         +2,000
Wargaming and Simulation             5,192        26,692        +21,500
 Centers....................
    Theater Air Command and   ............  ............        +21,500
     Control Simulation
     Facility...............
Mission Planning Systems....        16,764        20,764         +4,000
    JMASS...................  ............  ............         +4,000
War Reserve Materiel--               1,467  ............         -1,467
 Equipment/Secondary Items..
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............         -1,467
Defense Satellite                    8,985         3,985         -5,000
 Communications System
 (SPACE)....................
    EELV integration delays   ............  ............         -5,000
     and savings............
Information Systems Security         7,992        12,492         +4,500
 Program....................
    Computer coordinated      ............  ............         +4,500
     distributed attack
     detection..............
Medium Launch Vehicles               1,179             0         -1,179
 (SPACE)....................
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............         -1,179
Security and Invesigative              466         1,466         +1,000
 Activities.................
    OSI computer crime        ............  ............         +1,000
     investigations.........
National Airspace System             1,756             0         -1,756
 (NAS) Plan.................
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............         -1,756
Tactical Terminal...........           239             0           -239
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............           -239
Navstar Global Positioning          53,963        49,313         -4,050
 System (User Equipement)...
    NAVWAR ACTD savings       ............  ............         -4,050
     identified by GAO......
Endurance Unmanned Aerial           70,835        89,800        +18,965
 Vehicles...................
    Dark Star...............  ............  ............         -6,035
    Global Hawk.............  ............  ............        +25,000
Airborne Reconnaissance            124,608       144,008        +19,400
 Systems....................
    High Data Rate Laser      ............  ............         +2,000
     Comms..................
    JSAF....................  ............  ............        +17,400
Manned Reconnaissance                9,388        12,488         +3,100
 Systems....................
    MSAG on RC-135..........  ............  ............         +3,000
    Program transfer from     ............  ............           +100
     GDIP...................
Distributed Common Ground           12,820        33,820        +21,000
 Systems....................
    Eagle Vision--Air         ............  ............        +21,000
     National Guard.........
NCMC--TW/AA System..........        16,408         4,524        -11,884
    Defer new Cheyenne        ............  ............        -11,884
     Mountain Upgrade
     (NUWSS)................
Space Architect.............         9,898             0         -9,898
    Consolidate AF/NRO        ............  ............         -9,898
     activities.............
Modeling and Simulation              1,069             0         -1,069
 Support....................
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............         -1,069
C-5 Airlift Squadrons.......        63,041        60,041         -3,000
    Unjustified mission       ............  ............         -3,000
     support growth in AMP..
C-17 Aircraft...............       170,718       149,918        -20,800
    Rephase communications    ............  ............        -15,000
     avionics...............
    Unjustified funding for   ............  ............         -5,800
     ``other'' on-going
     improvements...........
Air Cargo Material Handling.           502             0           -502
    Program reduction.......  ............  ............           -502
KC-10.......................  ............        23,609        +23,609
    Transfer from aircraft    ............  ............        +23,609
     procurement for GATM...
Depot Maintenance (non-IF)..         1.500         5,000         +3,500
    AF metrology............  ............  ............         +3,500
Joint Logistics Program--           11,333        13,268         +1,935
 Ammunition Standard System.
    Transfer from O&M.......  ............  ............         +1,935
Support Systems Development.        22,383        37,383        +15,000
    Simulation Based          ............  ............         +3,000
     Forecasting Decision
     Support System (SBFDSS)
    Integrated Maintenance    ............  ............         +9,000
     Data Systems...........
    Reengineering and         ............  ............         +2,000
     enabling technologies..
    Air Resource Rapid        ............  ............         +1,000
     Reapplication Tools....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              aerospace propulsion subsystems integration

    The Air Force requested $29,825,000 for Aerospace 
Propulsion Subsystems Integration. The Committee recommends 
$8,925,000, a decrease of $20,000,000 associated with the 
advanced engine demonstration project for next generation 
fighter and bomber aircraft. The Committee notes that all next 
generation aircraft currently in development already have 
dedicated engine development programs. In the absence of a 
clear transition path to a next generation aircraft, the 
Committee believes it is premature to fund such an engine 
demonstration project at this time.

                     advanced computing technology

    The Air Force requested $4,507,000 for Advanced Computing 
Technology. The Committee recommends no funding for this 
program given that the commercial computer marketplace is 
making sufficient investment in this technology area.

            crew systems and personnel protection technology

    The Air Force requested $14,841,000 for crew systems and 
personnel protection technology. The Committee recommends 
$34,341,000, an increase of $19,500,000. Of this amount, 
$4,500,000 is only for the high brightness head-mounted display 
project and $15,000,000 is only for risk reduction to initiate 
a program to conduct pre-qualification testing and 
modifications for ejection seats from all viable competitors. 
The Committee believes there is a great need to upgrade 
ejection seat technology to maximize safety at all airspeeds, 
attitudes and altitudes for all pilot profiles to include 
lighter weight female pilots. The Committee is aware that at 
least three different manufacturers are actively engaged in 
development efforts to improve ejection seat safety and 
believes that a fair and open competitive process will best 
ensure safety, performance and affordability. The Committee 
therefore has added $15,000,000 to this account and directs 
that this sum be combined with $5,000,000 from the amount 
requested for ejection seat risk reduction efforts. This 
program shall be a joint Air Force--Navy program, and shall 
have as its goal to complete pre-qualification testing within 
12 months of contract award. The Committee expects that this 
program will lead to development of fully qualified generic 
seats that can be competed for installation into the Joint 
Strike Fighter and other current and future aircraft.

                          joint strike fighter

    The Air Force requested $235,374,000 for the Joint Strike 
Fighter program. The Committee recommends $335,374,000, an 
increase of $100,000,000 only for further risk reduction for 
the Joint Strike Fighter program. The Joint Strike Fighter 
program is being designed to be a joint, affordable, multi-
mission aircraft. The Committee believes these attributes are 
fully consistent with the changed national security 
environment. The Committee provides the additional funds to 
ensure the Joint Strike Fighter program remains on track to 
meet its objectives.

                                  B-2

    The Air Force requested $201,765,000 for B-2 bomber 
development efforts. The Committee recommends $344,165,000, an 
increase of $142,400,000. This amount includes a decrease of 
$31,600,000 for JASSM integration contract savings, a decrease 
of $37,000,000 based on rephased upgrades to AV-3, an increase 
of $30,100,000 for a classified program identified by the Air 
Force, an increase of $92,000,000 for Link 16/Center Instrument 
Display upgrades, an increase of $35,900,000 for EGBU-28 
integration, an increase of $35,000,000 for an inflight 
replanning upgrade, an increase of $16,000,000 for stealth 
enhancements, and an increase of $2,000,000 for a next 
generation bomber study.
    With respect to the reduction associated with aircraft 
designated AV-3, the Committee notes that the AV-3 Block 30 
modification budgeted in fiscal year 2000 will now be delayed 
to future years to allow the aircraft to serve as a test 
vehicle for JSOW, LO maintenance improvements, SATCOM/DAMA, 
software updates, and JASSM integration. These funds should be 
budgeted in the year of need.
    With respect to the next generation bomber study, the 
Committee believes that the conflict in Kosovo has clearly 
demonstrated the value of a highly capable bomber force. The 
Committee supports the Long Range Air Power Panel 
recommendation that ``the Department develop a plan to replace 
the existing force over time.'' However, the Committee notes 
that the Air Force's Long Range Bomber Roadmap postpones the 
start of any program to fulfill the requirements of such a plan 
until 2013. The Committee believes this decision is 
unsupportable given the long-lead times associated with bomber 
development programs. The Committee notes that in the past 
several years, three different studies have each indicated the 
need for additional bombers. These studies have recognized that 
bombers are force multipliers, providing the inherent advantage 
of being able to carry large payloads over extremely long 
ranges.
    The Committee further believes that the integration of 
precision guided munitions on bombers provides a tremendous 
capability to attack multiple targets per sortie at a fraction 
of the cost of using expensive cruise missiles. Accordingly, 
the Committee directs the Air Force to study alternatives for 
modernizing the bomber force with new aircraft. The Committee 
directs that this study include required capabilities, required 
quantities, projected costs (by year, by appropriation and in 
total), and nominal schedules for two alternatives: (1) a new 
design bomber, and (2) a new ``low cost'' B-2 using acquisition 
reform measures and commercial best practices. The Committee 
believes RAND should review the Air Force assumptions, 
analysis, and conclusions and provide its comments along with 
the Air Force report. Finally, the Committee directs that this 
report be provided no later than May 1, 2000.

                                milstar

    The Air Force requested $361,308,000 for the MILSTAR 
program. The Committee recommends $214,308,000, a net decrease 
of $147,000,000. The Committee recommendation includes a 
$3,000,000 increase for integrated satellite communication 
control and a $150,000,000 decrease to transfer MILSTAR 
satellite procurement to the missile procurement account. The 
Committee is concerned with the Air Force's compliance with 
past legislation on this program. Over the last two years, 
Congress has passed legislation preventing the use of research 
and development funds to procure end-items for operational use 
unless these end-items are required for testing purposes. Over 
these past two years, the Air Force has ignored this provision 
of law with respect to the MILSTAR program and has continued to 
budget and execute the program using research and development 
funding. The Committee was further dismayed to learn that by 
incrementally funding satellite procurement along with various 
development activities, the Air Force is now unable to 
determine an accurate unit cost of the MILSTAR satellite 
recently lost. Therefore, the Air Force has no way to determine 
a fair and reasonable cost for any MILSTAR satellite 
replacement. The Committee finds this lack of accountability 
astonishing and is a perfect example of the dangers of 
budgeting for procurement items in the research and development 
account. Accordingly, the Committee recommendation transfers 
the remaining funding for MILSTAR satellite procurement to the 
Missile Procurement, Air Force account and expects the Air 
Force to budget for MILSTAR and other satellites not 
specifically needed as test articles in the procurement 
accounts.

                               sbirs high

    The Air Force requested $328,653,000 for SBIRS High. The 
Committee recommendation provides this amount. The Committee is 
concerned that the currently proposed Air Force production 
program maximizes hardware concurrency, an unacceptably high 
risk acquisition approach. For example, the Air Force proposes 
to procure hardware in fiscal year 2001 for the entire SBIRS 
High constellation (including all development and production 
satellites), a full four years before launch and test of the 
first development satellite. Parts for the fifth satellite are 
being procured more than 4 years ahead of need and will 
presumably ``sit on a shelf'' for these years. Given the 
significant remaining development risk in this program, by all 
appearances such a highly concurrent acquisition strategy is 
unwise, representing a potential ``rush to failure'' that the 
Government would be well advised to avoid.
    In addition, the proposed production program is 
incrementally funded, in violation of the long-standing ``full 
funding policy'' for procurement. There is no sound reason to 
make an exception to this long-standing and important 
acquisition principle for the SBIRS program. If the program is 
a priority, then it should be funded in the traditional manner, 
with Air Force budget submissions and program execution so 
configured.
    Accordingly, the Committee directs that no more than 
$100,000,000 of the funds provided for SBIRS High shall be 
obligated until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the 
production program complies with all DoD full funding policies 
(including the prohibition against funding more than 20% of the 
end-item cost using advance procurement) and that program 
concurrency risk has been minimized through the use of 
annualized production buys. The Committee further directs that 
concurrent with the Secretary of Defense certification above, 
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation submit an 
assessment of whether the SBIRS High acquisition strategy 
allows for adequate on-orbit testing prior to a final 
production decision.

                          development planning

    The Air Force requested $5,696,000 for development 
planning. The Committee specifically denies funding for this 
program. This program is ostensibly intended to perform pre-
milestone I studies and analysis in order to transition 
projects into later phases of the acquisition process. Though 
the FY 1999 President's Budget requested funding in this 
program for specific efforts which received subsequent 
appropriations, the Committee has learned that the Air Force 
diverted these appropriated funds to an entirely different set 
of efforts without prior notification to congressional defense 
committees. Such diversion of funds is inconsistent with the 
spirit, if not the letter, of Section 8111 of the Fiscal Year 
1999 Appropriations Act prohibiting initiation of new programs 
without prior congressional notification. Though this abuse 
alone would be sufficient justification to deny funding for 
this line-item, the Committee further notes the program's 
failure to transition projects into later phases of the 
acquisition process. The Committee simply will not tolerate 
these abuses, and therefore specifically denies all funding for 
this program.

                             f-16 squadrons

    The Air Force requested $112,670,000 for F-16 squadron 
development. The Committee recommends $152,670,000, an increase 
of $15,000,000 only for jamming countermeasure improvements for 
F-16 aircraft. The Committee believes that the Air Force has 
not sufficiently prioritized the need to address advances in 
threat jamming techniques in its current fighters. Consistent 
with the Department's strategy of maintaining Information 
Dominance on the battlefield, the Committee believes it is 
critical to maintain superiority in electronic counter 
countermeasures (ECCM) and provides the additional funds to 
accelerate efforts in this area. The Committee is further 
concerned about limitations in the combat range of F-16s and 
encourages the Air Force to explore ways to increase this 
range.

                             f-15 squadrons

    The Air Force requested $112,670,000 for F-15 squadron 
development. The Committee recommends $152,670,000, an increase 
of $40,000,000. Of the additional funds provided, $20,000,000 
is only for F-15 service life extension and $20,000,000 is only 
for jamming countermeasure improvements for F-15 aircraft as 
discussed in association with the F-16. The Committee 
understands that F-15 aircraft service life can be extended to 
16,000 flight hours without major structural modifications, 
allowing the aircraft to stay in service well past 2015. To 
maximize the return on the nation's significant investment in 
this platform, the Committee provides an additional $20,000,000 
to ensure the aircraft reaches its maximum economic service 
life.

                         spacelift range system

    The Air Force requested $43,186,000 for the Spacelift Range 
System. The Committee recommends $60,986,000, an increase of 
$17,800,000 which includes $9,300,000 only to fund Air Force 
identified shortfalls in on-going space range modernization and 
an additional $8,500,000 only to prepare a comprehensive study 
of required modernization, upgrades, and enhancement of 
existing space launch related facilities at Vandenberg AFB and 
Edwards AFB. The Committee is deeply troubled with the pace, 
scope, and cost of the space range modernization program. The 
space launch ``business'' has changed dramatically in recent 
years, going from a ``design, test, fix, and retest'' approach 
dominated by relatively infrequent government launches to a 
significant increase in launches dominated by the commercial 
sector. Much of the equipment at the ranges is 30 years old and 
manpower intensive and simply cannot support the nation's space 
launch needs in an efficient manner. For years, range 
modernization funds have been used as a funding ``source'' to 
address other Air Force priorities. Now there appears to be 
growing recognition, both in and out of the Air Force, that the 
range problems must be fixed quickly. For example, 
recommendation 24 of the Cox Commission report states that it 
is in the national security interest of the United States to 
increase U.S. domestic launch capacity. In addition, the White 
House has recently initiated a major review of the space ranges 
with participation from DOD, NASA, and industry. The Committee 
further notes that the Air Force unfunded priority list 
requests additional funds to address range problems which the 
Committee has provided. The Committee further recommends an 
increase of $8,500,000 for the state spaceport authority to 
prepare a comprehensive study of required modernization, 
upgrades, and enhancements of existing space launch related 
facilities at Vandenberg AFB and Edwards AFB. The study shall 
include, but is not limited to, engineering plans and designs 
for a universal launch complex, solid rocket motor storage 
facility, hazardous structural test systems, launch vehicle 
processing facility, and gas storage and distribution system.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



        RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................    $9,036,551,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     8,609,289,000
Committee recommendation..............................     8,930,149,000
Change from budget request............................      +320,860,000


    This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation activities of the Department of Defense.

                       Committee Recommendations


                         AUTHORIZATION CHANGES

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from
                              Item                                Budget request  recommendation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations......................         117,969          88,569         -29,400
PATRIOT PAC-3...................................................          29,141          77,641         +48,500
Industrial Preparedness.........................................           6,665          10,415          +3,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Change from
                                                                  Budget request    Recommended       request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Research Sciences.......................................          64,293          66,293          +2,000
    Nanoelectric research.......................................  ..............  ..............          +2,000
University Research Initiatives.................................         216,778         227,278         +10,500
    DEPSCOR.....................................................  ..............  ..............        (25,000)
    Remote sensing..............................................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
    Defense commercialization research initiative...............  ..............  ..............          +5,500
Chemical and Biological Defense Program.........................          31,386          45,386         +14,000
    Chemical and biological detection programs..................  ..............  ..............          +1,000
    Laboratory-based and analytical threat assessment research    ..............  ..............         +10,000
     (non-agent specific) (USAMRIID)............................
    Chemical and biological point detectors.....................  ..............  ..............          +3,000
Next Generation Internet........................................          40,000          41,000          +1,000
    Next generation internet....................................  ..............  ..............          +1,000
Support Technologies--Applied Research..........................          65,328          80,328         +15,000
    Wide band gap materials.....................................  ..............  ..............         +10,000
    High frequency surface wave radar (HFSWR)...................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
Medical Free Electron Laser.....................................           9,719          12,000          +2,281
    Program increase............................................  ..............  ..............          +2,281
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU).............          14,329          16,329          +2,000
    Minority research program (HSI).............................  ..............  ..............          +2,000
    [Note: $2,000,000 is only for Hispanic-Serving Institutions
     (HSI).]
Computing Systems and Communications Technology.................         322,874         330,874          +8,000
    Systems engineering for miniature devices [Note: $5,000,000   ..............  ..............          +5,000
     is only for the National Applied Software Engineering
     Center to build on its work in VLSI, artificial
     intelligence, embedded control systems, software
     architecture, systems integration, to develop technology
     for the next generation of miniature, mobile robots.]......
    RTAPS.......................................................  ..............  ..............          +3,000
Extensible Information Systems..................................          70,000          30,000         -40,000
    Program reduction due to excessive growth...................  ..............  ..............         -40,000
Biological Warfare Defense......................................         145,850         101,850         -44,000
    Reduction per House Authorization...........................  ..............  ..............         -12,000
    Aerogel special silica material.............................  ..............  ..............          +4,000
    Asymmetrical protocols for biological warfare defense.......  ..............  ..............          +4,000
    Program reduction due to excessive growth...................  ..............  ..............         -40,000
Chemical and Biological Defense Program.........................          64,780          99,280         +34,500
    Protocols to enhance biological defense.....................  ..............  ..............         +10,000
    Countermeasures to biological and chemical threats..........  ..............  ..............         +13,000
    Safeguard...................................................  ..............  ..............          +3,000
    Chemical and biological point detectors.....................  ..............  ..............          +4,500
    Chemical and biological chemical hazard detection...........  ..............  ..............          +4,000
Tactical Technology.............................................         137,626         137,626  ..............
Integrated Command and Control Technology.......................          31,296          43,996         +12,700
    High definition systems/flat panel displays.................  ..............  ..............          +8,700
    Flat panel displays and schott glass technology.............  ..............  ..............          +4,000
Materials and Electronics Technology............................         235,321         248,821         +13,500
    Fabrication of 3-D micro structures, including research on    ..............  ..............          +4,000
     materials..................................................
    Materials in sensors (MINSA)................................  ..............  ..............          +9,500
WMD Related Technology..........................................         203,512         215,512         +12,000
    Thermionics.................................................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
    Discrete particle methods...................................  ..............  ..............          +2,000
    Nuclear weapons effects (x-ray simulator)...................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
Explosives Demilitarization Technology..........................          11,183          22,383         +11,200
    Explosives demilitarization technology......................  ..............  ..............          +7,000
    Hydrothermal oxidation of explosives waste..................  ..............  ..............          +3,000
    Waterjet cutting technology.................................  ..............  ..............          +1,200
Counterterror Technical Support.................................          52,223          57,223          +5,000
    Facial recognition technology...............................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
Support Technologies--Advanced Technology Development...........         173,704         196,317         +22,613
    Atmospheric interceptor technology..........................  ..............  ..............         +20,000
    Excalibur...................................................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
    Scorpius....................................................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
    Space based laser...........................................  ..............  ..............         -16,187
    PRIME.......................................................  ..............  ..............          +1,300
    Cruise missile defense initiative...........................  ..............  ..............         (7,000)
    KE ASAT.....................................................  ..............  ..............          +7,500
Chemical and Biological Defense Program--Advanced Development...          40,910          45,910          +5,000
    Biological counterterrorism response programs for emergency   ..............  ..............          +5,000
     medical support............................................
Special Technical Support.......................................          10,948          15,948          +5,000
    Complex systems design......................................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
Verification Technology Demonstration...........................          58,455          76,455         +18,000
    Nuclear detection, analysis.................................  ..............  ..............          +6,000
    Center for Monitoring Research..............................  ..............  ..............        (10,000)
    Basic and applied research to support nuclear testing.......  ..............  ..............         +12,000
Generic Logistics R&D Technology Demonstrations.................          17,336          30,536         +13,200
    Microelectronics (DMEA).....................................  ..............  ..............          +4,700
    Computer assisted technology transfer (CATT)................  ..............  ..............          +6,000
    Competitive sustainment demonstration.......................  ..............  ..............          +2,500
Strategic Environmental Research Program........................          53,506          59,506          +6,000
    Environmental cleanup workers safety........................  ..............  ..............          +3,000
    Toxic chemical cleanup criteria.............................  ..............  ..............          +3,000
Advanced Electronics Technologies...............................         246,023         256,523         +10,500
    Defense techlink............................................  ..............  ..............          +1,500
    Center for advanced microstructure and devices (CAMD).......  ..............  ..............          +4,000
    Laser plasma x-ray [Note: $5,000,000 is only to continue      ..............  ..............          +5,000
     development of laser plasma point-source lithography
     technology to use in the fabrication of missile seekers,
     digital battlefield systems and F-22 radar modules.].......
High Performance Computing Modernization Program................         159,099         167,099          +8,000
    Multithread architecture system for high performance          ..............  ..............          +8,000
     computing..................................................
Sensor and Guidance Technology..................................         232,319         182,658          49,661
    Underground facilities detection............................  ..............  ..............          +2,000
    Large millimeter telescope..................................  ..............  ..............          +3,000
    Low cost cruise missile defense.............................  ..............  ..............          -4,000
    Discoverer II termination...................................  ..............  ..............         -50,661
Marine Technology...............................................          22,538          23,538          +1,000
    Waterhammer ship defense....................................  ..............  ..............          +1,000
Physical Security Equipment.....................................          37,107          25,792         -11,315
    Program reduction due to excessive growth...................  ..............  ..............         -11,315
Joint Robotics Program..........................................          12,937          16,937          +4,000
    Joint robotics..............................................  ..............  ..............          +4,000
Advanced Sensor Applications Program............................          15,345          26,845         +11,500
    Solid state dye laser applications (ASAP)...................  ..............  ..............          +6,000
    High power mid-infrared laser...............................  ..............  ..............          +2,000
    Remote Operating Minehunting Sonar..........................  ..............  ..............          +3,500
Theater High-Altitude Area Defense System--TMD..................          34,133         527,871        +493,738
Navy Theater-Wide Missile Defense System........................         329,768         419,768         +90,000
    Radar improvements competition..............................  ..............  ..............         +50,000
    Navy Theater Wide acceleration..............................  ..............  ..............         +40,000
    [Note: The Committee bill also provides $35,000,000 in        ..............  ..............     * [+35,000]
     additional funding for Navy Theater-Wide accleration to be
     derived from funds previously provided in Public Law 105-
     277.]
MEADS--DEM/VAL..................................................          48,597               0         -48,597
National Missile Defense--DEM/VAL...............................         836,555         761,555         -75,000
National Missile Defense DEM/VAL................................  ..............  ..............         -75,000
    [Note: The Committee bill also provides $75,000,000 in        ..............  ..............     * [+75,000]
     additional funding for National Missile Defense to be
     derived from funds previously provided in Public Law 105-
     277.]
Joint Theater Missile Defense--DEM/VAL..........................         195,722         200,722          +5,000
    Liquid surrogate target development program.................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
BMD Technical Operations........................................         190,650         200,650         +10,000
    IR sensor data..............................................  ..............  ..............        [10,000]
    Development of wide bandwidth information infrastructure....  ..............  ..............         +10,000
International Cooperative Programs..............................          36,650          36,650  ..............
    [Note: The Committee bill also provides $45,000,000 in        ..............  ..............     * [+45,000]
     additional funding for the Arrow Third Battery to be
     derived from funds previously provided in Public Law 105-
     277.]
Chemical and Biological Defense Program--DEM/VAL................          62,033          69,533          +7,500
    M93A1 Fox Simulation Training Suites........................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
    Counterterror research......................................  ..............  ..............          +2,500
Joint Systems Education and Training............................               0           5,000          +5,000
Humanitarian Demining...........................................          15,847          20,647          +4,800
    Demining....................................................  ..............  ..............          +3,000
    Humanitarian demining.......................................  ..............  ..............          +1,800
Chemical and Biological Defense Program--EMD....................         116,365         120,865          +4,500
    Chemical biological protective material.....................  ..............  ..............          +4,500
Commercial Operations and Support Savings Initiative............          16,976           8,000          -8,976
    Program reduction due to excessive growth...................  ..............  ..............          -8,976
Theater High-Altitude Area Defense System--TMD--EMD.............         577,493               0        -577,493
Patriot PAC-3 Theater Missile Defense Acquisition--EMD..........          29,141          77,641         +48,500
    Program cost growth.........................................  ..............  ..............         +48,500
    [Note: The Committee bill also provides $75,000,000 in        ..............  ..............     * [+75,000]
     additional funding for PAC 3 to be derived from funds
     previously provided in Public Law 105-277.]
Navy Area Theater Missile Defense--EMD..........................         268,389         310,189         +41,800
    Program cost growth.........................................  ..............  ..............         +41,800
DIMHRS..........................................................               0          41,200         +41,200
OSD Technical Studies and Assessments [Note: Consolidation of                  0          30,021         +30,021
 studies lines.]................................................
Network Security................................................               0          12,000         +12,000
    Protection of vital data....................................  ..............  ..............         +12,000
    [Note: The Department is directed to transfer funds provided
     for this project to the National Security Agency for
     execution.]
Defense Imagery and Mapping Program.............................          88,401         101,401         +13,000
    National technology alliance................................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
    NIMA Viewer.................................................  ..............  ..............          +8,000
C3I Intelligence Programs.......................................           9,480          15,480          +6,000
    C3I intelligence programs...................................  ..............  ..............          +6,000
Manned Reconnaissance Systems...................................           8,494          16,994          +8,500
    Combat Sent RC-135..........................................  ..............  ..............          +8,500
Tactical Cryptologic Activities.................................         109,540         106,840          -2,700
    Aerial common sensor........................................  ..............  ..............          -2,700
Industiral Preparedness.........................................           6,665          10,415          +3,750
    Aging aircraft sustainment technology.......................  ..............  ..............          +3,750
Special Operations Tactical Systems Development.................         106,671         149,370         +42,699
    CV-22 Modifications.........................................  ..............  ..............          +9,000
    CV-22 Second Digital Map....................................  ..............  ..............          +3,600
    Small Craft Propulsion Systems Improvements.................  ..............  ..............          +4,000
    Advanced Seal Delivery Systems..............................  ..............  ..............         +26,099
Special Operations Intelligence Systems Development.............           1,407           6,507          +5,100
    SOTVS underwater camera.....................................  ..............  ..............          +2,100
    Joint Threat Warning System.................................  ..............  ..............          +3,000
SOF Medical Technology Development..............................           2,039           6,039          +4,000
    Clinical assessment recording enviornment...................  ..............  ..............          +4,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Funds noted in brackets are provided from within those provided for in Section 102 of division B, title 1,
  chapter 1 of Public Law 105-277.

                             Basic Research


                CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM

    The Department requested $31,386,000 for Chemical and 
Biological Defense basic research. The Committee recommends 
$45,386,000, an increase of $14,000,000. Within this amount 
$1,000,000 is only for chemical and biological detection 
programs, $10,000,000 is only for laboratory-based and 
analytical threat assessment research at the U.S. Army Medical 
Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), and 
$3,000,000 is only for chemical and biological point detectors.

                            Applied Research


              HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

    The Department requested $14,329,000 for Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities. The Committee recommends 
$16,329,000, an increase of $2,000,000. Within this amount, the 
Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 only for a 
minority research program.

                     EXTENSIBLE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

    The Department requested $70,000,000 for Extensible 
Information Systems. The Committee recommends $30,000,000, a 
decrease of $40,000,000. The Committee recognizes the 
importance of advanced computing capability for defense weapon 
systems and requirements. However, the Committee notes that 
DARPA is requesting funds for three new projects: deeply 
networked systems (AE-01), software for autonomous systems (AE-
02) and software for embedded systems (AE-03). The Committee 
believes that all three new technology areas have promise but 
notes that DARPA is requesting a 15 percent increase in overall 
computing technology programs versus the prior year. The 
Committee therefore recommends a total of $30,000,000 for these 
new programs. This is a 5 percent increase over the prior year 
level for computing technology programs--including Next 
Generation Internet ($40 million), Computing Systems and 
Communications Technology ($323.8 million) and Extensible 
Information Systems ($30 million).

                       biological warfare defense

    The Department requested $145,850,000 for Biological 
Warfare Defense programs. The Committee recommends 
$101,850,000, a decrease of $44,000,000. Within this amount, 
the Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 only for 
aerogel special silica material technology and an increase of 
$4,000,000 only for asymmetrical protocols for biological 
warfare defense. In addition, the Committee recommends a 
decrease of $12,000,000 for consequence management software as 
proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The 
Committee also notes that the fiscal year 2000 request 
represents an approximately 77 percent increase in the 
biological warfare defense program over last year's enacted 
level. While the Committee believes that the additional 
emphasis is warranted, it is not sure that such a significant 
increase in funding can be executed properly.
    In addition, the Committee notes that the Army Medical 
Research Institute for Infectious Disease (USAMRIID) has 
significant experience with known and emerging biological 
threat agents. Furthermore, the Committee believes that 
USAMIIRD may be able to substantially enhance the work being 
done within the DARPA program through additional laboratory-
based and threat assessment research--to include medical 
countermeasures and novel approaches to emerging biological 
threat agents. Therefore, as noted elsewhere in this report, 
the Committee recommends an increase in the Chemical and 
Biological Program appropriation for USAMRIID. The Committee 
believes that the Army research program should supplement the 
DARPA Biological Warfare Defense program and the Committee 
encourages collaboration between DARPA and USAMRIID on emerging 
biological defense research.

                    Advanced Technology Development


     chemical and biological defense program--advanced development

    The Department requested $64,780,000 for Chemical and 
Biological Defense advanced development. The Committee 
recommends $99,280,000, an increase of $34,500,000. Within this 
amount, the Committee recommends an increase of $10,000,000 
only for laboratory-based and analytical threat assessment 
research and protocols to enhance biological defense, an 
increase of $13,000,000 only for countermeasures to biological 
and chemical threats, an increase of $3,000,000 only for 
safeguard, an increase of $4,500,000 for chemical and 
biological point detectors and an increase of $4,000,000 only 
for biological and chemical hazard detection.
    The Committee recommends an increase of $13,000,000 only to 
establish a program to develop interdisciplinary research and 
training for countermeasures to biological and chemical agents. 
The Committee believes that such a program will provide a 
working infrastructure for the scientific resources needed to 
improve countermeasures to chemical and biological threats.

                 VERIFICATION TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION

    The Department requested $58,455,000 for Verification 
Technology Demonstration. The Committee recommends $76,455,000, 
an increase of $18,000,000. Within this amount, the Committee 
recommends an increase of $6,000,000 only for nuclear detection 
analysis, and an increase of $12,000,000 only for basic and 
applied research to support nuclear testing. In addition, the 
Committee recommends from within available funds $10,000,000 
only for the center for monitoring research.
    The Committee recommends an additional $6,000,000 only for 
the Nuclear Treaty sub-element of the Verification Technology 
Demonstration program, of which $2,500,000 is only for the 
continuation of an industry-based program for developing 
systems using advances in solid state nuclear detectors, 
processing electronics, and analysis software; and $3,500,000 
is only for the continuation of an industry-based program for 
the development of detection technologies and advanced 
analytical and monitoring techniques.
    Last year's nuclear tests in South Asia raise serious 
concerns about the Department's ability to support a robust 
operational nuclear test monitoring program. The Committee 
directs that $12,000,000 shall be available only for peer-
reviewed basic and applied research only to support operational 
nuclear test monitoring. Of this amount, $4,000,000 shall be 
available only for peer-reviewed seismic research; and 
$8,000,000 shall be available only for peer-reviewed basic 
research--$7,000,000 of which is only for explosion seismology 
research. The Committee directs that the basic and applied 
seismic research program address the specific prioritized 
research topics recommended to the Department by the National 
Research Council.
    The Committee directs the Defense Threat Reduction Agency 
to award these funds through a competitive peer panel review 
process; to segregate the basic and applied research funds for 
this program into clearly identifiable projects within the 6.1 
and 6.2 budget categories; and to improve integration of the 
basic and applied components of the program. Further, the 
Committee directs the Department to provide by December 1, 
1999, a detailed report to the Committee on the plan for 
obligating these funds. Finally, the Committee directs the 
Department to sustain funding for these activities in future 
budgets to ensure the expertise needed in this critical 
operational program.

               ADVANCED CONCEPT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS

    The Department requested $117,969,000 for Advanced Concept 
Technology Demonstrations (ACTD). The Committee recommends 
$88,569,000, a decrease of $29,400,000 as proposed in the 
House-passed Defense Authorization bill.
    The Committee notes that the goal of ACTDs is to get 
critical technology into the field so that it can be 
expeditiously evaluated in an operational environment. Although 
the Committee supports this idea in principle, the Committee 
remains concerned about the process of funding these 
demonstrations. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned about 
providing funds to the Department in advance of an explicit 
justification of individual projects. The ACTD appropriation is 
provided with the understanding that the Department may make 
funds available for specific projects without further 
notification to Congress. The Department has argued that such 
fiscal flexibility is necessary in order to take advantage of 
emerging technologies and to field these technologies 
expeditiously and it has consistently asked for increased 
appropriations to expand ACTDs. However, the Committee has been 
reluctant to approve increases because of the potential for 
abuse of resources inherent in this program. Unfortunately, it 
has come to the Committee's attention that such an abuse has 
occurred.
    The House Defense Appropriations Committee report for 
Fiscal Year 1999 contained a specific prohibition on the use of 
ACTD funds. The report directed that ``none of these funds can 
be used for LOSAT or EFOGM.'' Unfortunately, the Department 
willingly disregarded this prohibition and proceeded to use 
$7,000,000 of Fiscal Year 1999 ACTD funds for LOSAT. As 
discussed at the beginning of this report, this is but one of 
an increasing number of instances where specific guidance from 
the Congress has been ignored. Therefore the Committee 
recommends its reduction to the budget request with prejudice, 
and expresses its intent to deny future funding increases for 
ACTDs under this account. The Committee cannot overstate its 
strong concern regarding this matter. Therefore, the Committee 
has included a general provision (Section 8118) that requires 
DOD to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 
prior to the obligation of funds for all ACTD projects.

                       BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

    The Department requested $3,672,822,000 for all ballistic 
missile defense programs.
    The Committee bill provides for a total of $3,899,543,000 
for all ballistic missile defense programs. This amount 
includes $3,669,543,000 in new appropriations and $230,000,000 
to be derived from funds previously provided in Section 102 of 
division B, title I, chapter 1 of Public Law 105-277. Of the 
new appropriations provided within this bill, a total of 
$2,970,009,000 is provided for research and development; 
$355,900,000 is provided for procurement within the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) budget; and, $343,634,000 
is provided in Air Force research and development programs to 
include $308,634,000 for the Airborne Laser and $35,000,000 for 
the Space-Based Laser. The Committee bill provides the budgeted 
amount for the joint U.S.-Israel ARROW anti-tactical ballistic 
missile development program, and also provides for $45,000,000 
to support deployment of a third ARROW battery. The recommended 
amounts represent an increase of $226,721,000 over the budget 
request of $3,672,822,000 for these programs.
    Changes to specific programs are summarized in the 
following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget                   Change from
                                  request    Recommended      request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support Technologies--Applied        65,328       80,328         +15,000
 Research.....................
    Wide band gap materials...  ...........  ...........         +10,000
    High frequency surface      ...........  ...........          +5,000
     wave radar (HFSWR).......
Support Technologies-Advanced       173,704      196,317         +22,613
 Technology Development.......
    Atmospheric interceptor     ...........  ...........         +20,000
     technology...............
    Excalibur.................  ...........  ...........          +5,000
    Scorpius..................  ...........  ...........          +5,000
    Space based laser.........  ...........  ...........         -16,187
    PRIME.....................  ...........  ...........          +1,300
    Cruise missile defense      ...........  ...........         (7,000)
     initiative...............
    KE ASAT...................  ...........  ...........          +7,500
Theater High-Altitude Area           34,133      527,871        +493,738
 Defense systems--TMD.........
    [Note: The Committee notes
     that R-1 documents
     submitted with the
     President's Budget did
     not accurately reflect
     the Department's request
     and has made its
     recommendation based upon
     submitted budget
     justification material.].
Navy Theater Wide Missile           329,768     +419,768         +90,000
 Defense system...............
    Radar improvements          ...........  ...........         +50,000
     competition..............
    Navy Theater Wide           ...........  ...........         +40,000
     acceleration.............
    [Note: The Committee bill   ...........  ...........      *[+35,000]
     also provides $35,000,000
     in additional funding for
     Navy Theater Wide
     acceleration to be
     derived from funds
     previously provided in
     Public Law 105-277.].....
MEADS--DEM/VAL................       48,597            0         -48,597
National Missile Defense--DEM/      836,555      761,555         -75,000
 VAL..........................
National Missile Defense--DEM/  ...........  ...........         -75,000
 VAL..........................
    [Note: The Committee bill   ...........  ...........      *[+75,000]
     also provides $75,000,000
     in additional funding for
     National Missile Defense
     to be derived from funds
     previously provided in
     Public Law 105-277.].....
Joint Theater Missile Defense--     195,722      200,722          +5,000
 DEM/VAL......................
    Liquid surrogate target     ...........  ...........          +5,000
     development program......
BMD Technical Operations......      190,650      200,650         +10,000
    IR sensor data............  ...........  ...........        [10,000]
    Development of wide         ...........  ...........         +10,000
     bandwidth information
     infrastructure...........
International Cooperative            36,650       36,650  ..............
 Programs.....................
    [Note: The Committee bill   ...........  ...........      *[+45,000]
     also provides $45,000,000
     in additional funding for
     the Arrow Third Battery
     to be derived from funds
     previously provided in
     Public Law 105-277.].....
Theater High-Altitude Area          577,493            0        -577,493
 Defense systems--TMD--EMD....
Patriot PAC-3 Theater Missile        29,141       77,641         +48,500
 Defense Acquisition--EMD.....
    Program cost growth.......  ...........  ...........         +48,500
    [Note: The Committee bill   ...........  ...........      *[+75,000]
     also provides $75,000,000
     in additional funding for
     PAC 3 to be derived from
     funds previously provided
     in Public Law 105-277.]..
Navy Area Theater Missile           268,389      310,189         +41,800
 Defense--EMD.................
    Program cost growth.......  ...........  ...........         +41,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Funds noted in brackets are provided from within those provided for in
  Section 102 of division B, title I, chapter 1, of Public Law 105-277.

                NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SITE SELECTION

    The Committee is concerned about the growing ballistic 
missile threat and the implications of testing by North Korea 
of advanced ballistic missiles. Furthermore, the Committee 
believes that potential deployment options for the National 
Missile Defense system should be fully examined for their 
effectiveness in defending the U.S. against a potential limited 
ballistic missile threat. Therefore, the Committee directs that 
with the submission of the Fiscal Year 2001 budget, the 
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 
committees a report that contains an assessment of the 
advantages or disadvantages of deploying a ground-based 
National Missile Defense system at more than one site.

               THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE (THAAD)

    The Department requested $611,626,000 for the Theater High 
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program. Of that amount, 
$527,871,000 is requested for Demonstration and Validation and 
$83,755,000 is requested for Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development (EMD). The Committee recommends $527,871,000 for 
Demonstration and Validation and no funds for Engineering and 
Manufacturing Development (EMD).
    The THAAD program has experienced serious problems--
including extensive delays, cost growth, and six consecutive 
intercept test failures. However, the Committee believes that 
continued demonstration and validation flight testing is 
necessary to verify that ``hit-to-kill'' missile defense 
systems like THAAD will be effective against the growing 
theater ballistic missile threat. While the Committee is 
pleased that Flight Test 10 was successful in intercepting a 
target last month, the Committee believes that THAAD should not 
proceed to the next phase of acquisition until all exit 
criteria have been met and that senior acquisition officials 
are confident that the proposed system design will meet the 
needs of the military. Therefore, the Committee recommends no 
funding for the EMD phase of the THAAD program at this time.

               MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM (MEADS)

    The Department requested $48,597,000 to continue the 
international cooperative Medium Extended Air Defense System 
(MEADS) program. The Committee denies the request. The 
Committee continues to be concerned about several issues 
regarding the MEADS program and believes that these concerns 
have not been addressed in the proposed Fiscal Year 2000 
budget.
    The Committee recognizes the valid need for a mobile ground 
based system for ballistic missile defense. In addition, it 
recognizes that a multinational program could possibly meet 
both U.S. needs but also those of our NATO allies. However, the 
MEADS program, since its inception, has been inadequately 
funded, ill-defined, and as currently structured is unlikely to 
meet the requirements of the military.
    To date, more than $100,000,000 has been appropriated for 
MEADS with little more accomplished than a seemingly endless 
series of studies. This pattern is repeated in the fiscal year 
2000 request. Senior OSD acquisition officials have told the 
Committee that the request of $48,597,000 is nothing more than 
a planning wedge. The Department's lack of a strong commitment 
to this program is further evidenced by the programming of only 
$146 million over the next three years for MEADS. The GAO has 
recently reported that MEADS development costs alone are 
estimated to be rougly $2 billion, with deployment costing 
approximately $12 billion. Under existing funding costraints, 
the Committee fails to see how these funding requirements can 
be met without reducing programmed funding and delaying the 
potential deployment of more mature programs such as PAC-3, 
THAAD, and the Navy Area and Theater-Wide programs. The 
Committe also notes the checkered record of other efforts to 
launch multinational programs, and while recognizing the 
importance of this program to our multinational partners it 
realizes such an effort raises a series of problems which 
previous multinational development efforts failed to overcome. 
For such an ambitious undertaking as MEADS to succeed, it will 
require a real commitment from all partners, including the 
United States, as well as focused management and a solid 
acquisition program.
    In addition to these serious programmatic issues, the 
Committee is also greatly disturbed about fiscal irregularities 
regarding the use of fiscal year 1999 funds. As indicated 
earlier in this report, officials in the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense knowingly decided to expend fiscal year 
1999 funds to continue the MEADS program, in direct conflict 
with specific congressional direction. Furthermore, the 
Committee is extremely disturbed that the funds used for MEADS 
were from the Air Directed Surface to Air Missile, 
appropriations which according to DoD's own internal financial 
management documents were not available for such purposes. In 
order to preclude a repeat of this experience, the Committee 
bill includes new general provisions, which restores the funds 
diverted from the Air Directed Surface to Air Missile and also 
implements the Committee's recommendation regarding fiscal year 
2000 funds for MEADS.
    For the reasons cited, even though it acknowledges the 
operational need for a program which meets the MEADS 
requiremet, the Committee cannot support the MEADS program as 
currently constituted and therefore denies the budget request.

            RUSSIAN AMERICAN OBSERVATIONAL SATELLITE (RAMOS)

    The Committee understands that the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization, working with the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense, plans to make $16,000,000 of current and/or prior 
year funds available for the RAMOS program. The Committee 
directs that these funds shall be available only to continue 
the RAMOS satellite demonstration program.

                           space-based laser

    The Department requested $75,000,000 and the Air Force 
requested $63,840,000 for the Space Based Laser (SBL) program 
for a total program of $138,840,000. The Committee recommends a 
total of $93,813,000, a decrease of $16,187,000 from the 
Department's request and a decrease of $28,840,000 from the Air 
Force request. The Committee believes that the SBL is an 
interesting technology program but believes that the Department 
has higher priority considerations and more immediate 
requirements for space--including the Space-Based Infrared 
System (SBIRS) High and Low programs. The Committee therefore 
recommends no increase over the fiscal year 1999 budget 
request.

                     SENSOR AND GUIDANCE TECHNOLOGY

    The Department requested $232,319,000 for Sensor and 
Guidance Technology. The Committee recommends $180,658,000, a 
net decrease of $51,661,000. Within this amount, the Committee 
recommends an increase of $3,000,000 only for the large 
millimeter telescope, a decrease of $4,000,000 for the low cost 
cruise missile defense initiative and a decrease of $50,661,000 
for the Discoverer II program.

                             DISCOVERER II

    The Department requested $50,661,000, the Air Force 
requested $28,670,000 and the National Reconnaissance Office 
requested $29,150,000 for the Discoverer II satellite 
technology demonstration program. The Committee denies the 
request.
    The Committee understands the Department's interest in 
developing and building a low-cost constellation of radar 
satellites to provide tactical commanders with important 
information--including ground moving target indication and 
terrain-mapping capability.
    However, while the Committee agrees that the goals of the 
Discover II program are laudable, it does not believe that they 
can realistically be achieved. The Committee is very concerned 
about the technological risk in the program and the lack of a 
validated requirement. Furthermore, the Committee is extremely 
concerned that one of the principal goals of the program--a low 
cost system--is highly unrealistic given the history of space 
acquisition programs. The Committee notes that an Independent 
Cost Estimate (ICE) already concludes that the demonstration 
program would cost approximately twice the original $600 
million estimate.
    Therefore, the Committee recommends no funding for the 
program and directs that the Discoverer II program should be 
terminated.

                      PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT

    The Department requested $37,107,000 for Physical Security 
Equipment. The Committee recommends $25,792,000, a decrease of 
$11,315,000. The Committee notes the budget request is a 44 
percent increase over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. 
Therefore the Committee recommends a reduction due to program 
growth.

                           COALITION WARFARE

    The Department requested $12,781,000 for Coalition Warfare. 
The Committee denies the request. This is a new start program 
that would provide $12,781,000 to conduct Advanced Concept 
Technology Demonstrations (ACTD) with U.S. allies. The 
Committee agrees with the goal of increasing interoperability 
with coalition forces. However, the Committee believes that the 
first priority must be to insure that U.S. forces have the 
capability to be interoperable. Furthermore, the Committee 
believes that issues of interoperability should be considered 
in the normal course of planning and acquisition and does not 
believe that the U.S. will gain substantially by after the fact 
measures to force interoperability with allied forces. The 
Committee also notes that funding provided in this bill for the 
Joint Warfighting Experimentation program should provide a 
basis for understanding and correcting problems with U.S. 
military joint operations and encourages the Department to 
address and solve these issues before it tries to address the 
larger problems related to coalition warfare.

                TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS

    The Department requested a total of $40,861,000 for several 
different studies activities. These include $353,000 for 
Technical Studies, Support and Analysis; $4,900,000 for 
Assessments and Evaluations; $29,506,000 for Technical Studies, 
Support and Analysis; $588,000 for Technical Studies, Support 
and Analysis; $2,215,000 for USD(A&T) Critical Technology 
Support; and $3,299,000 for Industrial Capabilities 
Assessments. The Committee recommends no funds for these 
studies lines. However, the Committee recommends a new line for 
technical studies and assessments and provides $30,021,000 for 
all technical studies, support and analysis.

                Strategic Environmental Research Program

    The Department requested $53,506,000 for the Strategic 
Environmental Research Program. The Committee recommends 
$59,506,000, an increase of $6,000,000. Of this amount, 
$3,000,000 is only to continue the research, development and 
demonstration program devoted to health and safety issues of 
environmental cleanup and shipyard workers and $3,000,000 is 
only to continue the risk-based approach to research the 
effects of toxic chemicals on human health and the environment 
to help establish cleanup criteria for the Department's 
environmental cleanup sites.

               defense imagery and mapping agency program

    The Department requested $88,401,000 for the Defense 
Imagery and Mapping Agency Program. The committee recommends 
$101,401,000, an increase of $13,000,000. Of the additional 
amount provided by the Committee, $5,000,000 is only for the 
National Technology Alliance (NTA) and $8,000,000 is only for 
NIMA's acquisition of an enterprise license of the commercial 
off-the-shelf NIMA viewer and for the distribution and support 
of the NIMA Viewer to NIMA customers.

                   tri-service directed energy center

    The Committee requests the Air Force, as the lead for the 
Tri-Service Directed Energy Center (Tri-DEC), to further 
investigate the use of non-lethal directed energy (DE) 
technologies for intelligence gathering in the area of counter-
proliferation to support the needs of the services. The Air 
Force should give specific emphasis on technologies that 
support the following areas:
          1. Long range detection and identification of 
        development, production, and test of weapons of mass 
        destruction;
          2. Detection and identification of illicit drug 
        production;
          3. Long range detection and characterization of 
        battlefield use of weapons of mass destruction; and,
          4. Assessment of battle damage and the need for 
        follow-up strikes against underground storage 
        facilities for weapons of mass destruction.

            special operations tactical systems development

    Special Operations MC-130 Combat Talon aircraft are 
required to provide night, all-weather infiltration and 
extraction of Special Operations personnel and equipment as 
well as the resupply of military operations in hostile areas. 
The Committee is aware that the Autonomous Landing Guidance 
System (ALG) may provide Special Operations Force pilots with a 
precision approach system that enhances their ability to 
descend into landing strips under adverse conditions. The 
Committee encourages the U.S. Special Operations Command 
(USSOCOM) to investigate the feasibility of equipping its 
aircraft with ALG and directs USSOCOM to provide a report to 
the Committee not later than April 1, 2000 on the operational 
utility of incorporating this system into its Combat Talon 
aircraft.

                    information technology programs

    Information on the Joint Systems Education, Training 
Systems Development and DIMHRS programs can be found in the 
Information Technology section of this report.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



               DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $258,606,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       253,457,000
Committee recommendation..............................       271,957,000
Change from budget request............................       +18,500,000


    This appropriation funds the Developmental, Test and 
Evaluation activities of the Department of Defense.

                       Committee Recommendations


                                              PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Change from
                                                                  Budget request    Recommended       request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Test and Evaluation Investment Development..............         121,741         140,241         +18,500
    Roadway simulator...........................................  ..............  ..............          +8,500
    Airborne separation video system............................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
    Magdalena ridge observatory.................................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program

    The Department requested $121,741,000 for Central Test and 
Evaluation Investment Program. The Committee recommends 
$140,241,000, an increase of $18,500,000. Within this amount, 
$8,500,000 is only for the roadway simulator, $5,000,000 is 
only for the airborne separation video system and $5,000,000 is 
only for the Magdalena Ridge observatory program. The Committee 
directs that none of the funds provided for the roadway 
simulator may be made available for military construction.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



                OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       $34,245,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        24,434,000
Committee recommendation..............................        29,434,000
Change from budget request............................        +5,000,000


    This appropriation funds the Operational Test and 
Evaluation activities of the Department of Defense.

                       Committee Recommendations


                                              PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Change from      Committee
                                                                  Budget request      request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Fire Testing...............................................           9,832          14,832          +5,000
Live fire testing and training initiative.......................  ..............  ..............          +5,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS




Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       $94,500,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        90,344,000
Committee recommendation..............................        90,344,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $90,344,000 
for the Defense Working Capital Funds. The recommendation is a 
decrease of $4,156,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal 
year 1999.

              defense reutilization and marketing services

    The Committee does not recommend including language, as 
proposed in the budget request, allowing the transfer of 
Defense Stockpile sales proceeds to the Defense Reutilization 
and Marketing Service (DRMS). The Committee notes that this 
solution, like other recent funding schemes for DRMS is a 
temporary measure; and would not last longer than five to six 
years. The Committee directs that the Department of Defense 
continue funding the relevant portion of DRMS operations costs 
through the surcharge included in the price of wholesale supply 
items until such time as a permanent funding mechanism can be 
developed for DRMS. Accordingly, the Committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees not later than March 31, 2000, which 
outlines a plan to provide funding for DRMS on a permanent 
basis.

                     NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND




Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation........................      $708,366,000
Fiscal Year 2000 budget request.......................       354,700,000
Committee recommendation..............................       729,700,000
Change from budget request............................      +375,000,000


    This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation, 
and supply of prepositioning ships; operation of the Ready 
Reserve Force; and acquisition of ships for the Military 
Sealift Command, the Ready Reserve Force, and the Marine Corps.

            large medium speed roll-on/roll-off (lmsr) ships

    In fiscal years 1995 and 1997, Congress appropriated funds 
for conversion of three commercial ships for the Marine Corps' 
Maritime Prepositioning Fleet Enhancement (MPF-E). These ships 
were a direct response to lessons-learned from Operation Desert 
Storm, and have a significant impact on the warfighting ability 
of the Marine Corps. Late last year, it became evident that the 
program was not viable under the existing plan. Cost increases/
overruns have occurred on the first two MPF-E ships, and the 
procurement for the third ship was canceled. This has left a 
major void in the combat prepositioning capability of the 
Marine Corps.
    The Defense Department has a successful program to build 14 
new-construction prepositioning ships for the Army. These Large 
Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) ships have much more 
capability and a significantly longer life than the used 
commercial ships that the Marine Corps originally envisioned 
for the MPF-E mission. The Committee understands that one of 
the Army ships can be reconfigured for the Marine Corps mission 
and fielded within a year. The Committee believes reconfiguring 
this ship immediately to meet one-third of the Marine Corps' 
prepositioning enhancement requirement and replacing the 
diverted Army capability with a new LMSR to be delivered in the 
mid-term provides the best mix of sealift assets to increase 
warfighting capability. The Committee directs that an existing 
LMSR ship be transferred to the Marine Corps. The Committee 
recommends $320,000,000 for procurement of one additional LMSR 
ship for prepositioning of Army materiel. The Committee also 
recommends $30,000,000 to convert an existing LMSR ship to the 
Marine Corps MPF-E specifications.

          maritime prepositioning force enhancement conversion

    The Navy recently notified Congress of a second episode of 
significant cost growth for the conversion a used commercial 
ship to meet Marine Corps Maritime Prepositioning Force 
Enhancement requirements. In section 8083 of the Committee 
bill, the Committee has transferred $38 million of previously 
appropriated funds within the National Defense Sealift Fund as 
requested by the Navy so that the conversion can continue 
without disruption.

                       national defense features

    The commercial shipping industry is contemplating the 
construction of a new class of high-speed, high-capacity 
sealift ships for cargo routes in the North Atlantic ocean. 
Should such ships be constructed in the United States, the 
Committee believes they could also provide much needed fast 
sealift capability for the U.S. military and would be excellent 
candidates for the defense features program. This program 
provides funding by the Department of Defense so that 
commercial ships constructed in the United States are to be 
built in a manner to facilitate their use by the military 
during a national emergency. This can provide substantial cost 
savings over existing and traditional sealift capability. 
Should the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) 
approve loan guarantees for construction of such commercial 
ships, the Committee directs that the Department of Defense 
report to the congressional defense committees within one month 
of the MARAD approval on the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, 
desirability, and cost to the Department of Defense for 
installation and life cycle maintenance of such features in 
those ships.

              dod requirements for commercial tanker ships

    The Committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
has not determined with sufficient precision the extent to 
which it may have to request the U.S. Maritime Administration 
to requisition former U.S. government-owned tankers to meet 
defense needs in the event of a national emergency. The 
Department of Defense must have an adequate tanker capacity to 
draw upon in a national emergency. On the other hand, 
commercial shipping companies should not be unduly burdened 
with requisition and other conditions on use of their tanker 
ships that are in excess of legitimate defense needs. The 
Committee is most concerned about tanker ships which are more 
than 25 years old, the generally accepted useful life of a 
tanker ship, and whether the Maritime Administration is being 
too restrictive in prohibiting the disposition of ships that 
have exceeded their useful life estimates due to uncertainty 
over Department of Defense actual requirements. The Committee 
directs that the Secretary of Defense submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2000 on the 
Department's requirements and criteria for maintaining 
government control on commercial tanker ships which have 
exceeded their estimated useful lives.

              massachusetts maritime academy training ship

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 only for the 
Department of Defense to upgrade a ship for the Ready Reserve 
Force that can also be used as a training ship for 
Massachusetts Maritime Academy cadets. These funds would be 
used to convert an existing vessel in the Department of Defense 
Ready Reserve Force into a training ship for Academy's maritime 
cadet during peacetime which also serves as a Ready Reserve 
Force troop ship for use during national emergencies. The 
current ship that the Department of Defense uses for these dual 
purposes has been deemed unsuitable due to its material 
condition. The Commander in Chief of the U.S. Transportation 
Command recently approved the upgrade of a ship already in the 
DOD inventory on an interim basis but that ship is ported on 
the west coast and is too small for the wartime troop carrying 
mission, leaving a significant gap in the Defense Department's 
sealift capability for wartime. The Committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to include any additional funds beyond 
those contained in this bill needed to complete the ship in the 
fiscal year 2001.

                          sealift ship leases

    The Committee notes that no funds were requested in the 
National Defense Sealift Funds for leases of ships which 
involve new construction, and therefore none of the funds in 
this Act are available for such leases.
                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM




Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................   $10,149,872,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................    10,834,657,000
Committee recommendation..............................    11,078,417,000
Change from budget request............................      +243,760,000


    This appropriation funds the Defense Health Program 
activities of the Department of Defense.

                       Committee Recommendations

                          PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget                 Change from
                                     request    Recommended     request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance........   10,477,687   10,471,447       -6,240
    Computational neuroscience...  ...........        3,000       +3,000
    Lung cancer program [Note:     ...........        7,000       +7,000
     $7,000,000 only to explore
     multiple avenues of
     research, prevention,
     diagnosis, and therapy that
     would yield new treatment
     options for lung cancer.]...
    Post-polio...................  ...........        1,300       +1,300
    Neuroscience research [Note:   ...........        3,000       +3,000
     $3,000,000 only to establish
     West Coast Functional MRI
     brain research
     capabilities.]..............
    Neuroscience research [Note:   ...........        5,000       +5,000
     $5,000,000 only to continue
     neurological research under
     cooperative agreement DAMD
     17-99-2-9007.]..............
    Digital Mammography..........  ...........        5,000       +5,000
    Nutrition Research...........  ...........        3,760       +3,760
    Periscopic surgery for the     ...........        2,000       +2,000
     spine [Note: $2,000,000 only
     for research into the
     development of minimally
     invasive surgical procedures
     for the brain, spinal cord,
     and spine under DAMD 17-99-1-
     9022.]......................
    Comprehensive breast cancer    ...........        7,500       +7,500
     clinical care project [Note:
     $7,500,000 only for the
     Walter Reed Army Medical
     Center to establish a peer-
     reviewed research program to
     test and improve the
     Department's ability to
     provide comprehensive breast
     care risk assessment,
     diagnosis, treatment, and
     research. This program shall
     be a multi-disciplinary
     public/private effort in
     coordination with the
     Uniformed Services
     University for the Health
     Sciences, and a non-profit
     research center, and a rural
     primary health care center..
    Coronary and prostate disease  ...........        5,000       +5,000
     reversal [Note: $5,000,000
     only to continue the non-
     invasive coronary and
     prostate disease reversal
     program.....................
    Chronic disease management...  ...........       10,000      +10,000
    Computer based patient         ...........        4,200       +4,200
     records [Note: $4.2 million
     is only for further
     development of the
     Government Computer-based
     Patient Record program.]....
    Budget execution savings.....  ...........      -63,000      -63,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         defense health program

    The Department requested $10,834,657,000 for the Defense 
Health Program, of which $10,477,687,000 is for operation and 
maintenance and $356,970,000 is for procurement. The Committee 
recommends $11,078,417,000, a net increase of $243,760,000. Of 
this amount $10,471,447,000 is for operation and maintenance, 
$356,970,000 is for procurement and $250,000,000 is only for 
research and development.

                         peer reviewed research

    Once again, the Administration requested no funds for 
breast cancer and prostate cancer peer-reviewed research 
programs. The Committee recommends $175,000,000 for the Army 
peer-reviewed breast cancer research program, and $75,000,000 
for the Army peer-reviewed prostate cancer research program.

                  tricare contracts and pharmacy costs

    The Committee notes that the Defense Health Program budget 
request is significantly higher than in prior years. In fact, 
the DHP budget request represents over a six percent increase 
over the fiscal year 1999 level. The Committee is pleased that 
the Department has fully funded the Defense Health Program, has 
recognized the impact of technology and pharmaceutical costs on 
the military health care budget, and that it has proposed 
increases in funding for these purposes.
    However, the Committee also understands that various trends 
in pharmaceutical use, to include cost shifting, may be having 
an adverse and unanticipated impact on existing TRICARE 
contracts. In addition, these increases have not been accounted 
for under existing TRICARE contracts nor are they reflected in 
the budget request.
    Therefore, where it can be demonstrated that increases in 
pharmaceutical costs could not be anticipated by a contractor 
at the time of the initial contract award, the Committee 
believes the Department and its TRICARE vendors should work 
together to make arrangements for equitable adjustment.
    However, the Committee also recognizes that there is no 
conclusive study that attributes increases in the cost of care 
provided under TRICARE contracts solely to increases in 
pharmaceutical costs. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to provide a 
report on the impact of pharmaceutical costs on TRICARE 
contracts to the congressional defense committees no later than 
February 1, 2000. The report should evaluate and review 
civilian contractor and government data to determine the actual 
reasons for the increases in health care costs. If it is 
determined that cost shifting is a primary reason for the 
increase in pharmacy costs, the Department is directed to take 
steps to ensure that requests for equitable adjustment are 
promptly and fairly considered.

                             Custodial Care

    The Committee recommends a general provision (section 8122) 
clarifying the definition of ``custodial care'' for the 
provision of health care to military families with complex 
medical needs. The Committee strongly disagrees with the 
Department's decision to interpret the custodial care exclusion 
to include medically necessary skilled care and thereby 
transition this care to Medicaid. The Committee intends that 
the military health care system interpret the custodial care 
exclusion in a manner consistent with other federal programs 
(FEHBP and Medicare) and related case law. The Committee 
intends that the military health care system continue to 
provide for the needs of patients with exceptionally serious, 
long range, and incapacitating physical or mental conditions in 
a manner fully consistent with the direction provided in 
section 726 of P.L. 102-484, and in P.L. 97-377. The Committee 
expects the Department to redesign its case management program 
to ensure that: (a) members and former members of the uniformed 
services, and their dependents and survivors, have access to 
all medically necessary health care through the health care 
delivery system of the uniformed services regardless of the age 
or health care status of the person seeking the health care; 
and (b) military families do not have to resort to Medicaid, 
welfare or charity programs for the provision of medically 
necessary health care services.

                           fatigue management

    The Committee commends the Department for its efforts to 
better understand the risks of fatigue and the impact of 
fatigue on safety. The Committee believes a department-wide 
fatigue management initiative, designed to minimize accidents, 
injuries, and fatalities associated with fatigue has merit and 
should be considered for implementation of such a program. The 
initiative should include research on non-amphetamine 
treatments.

                         joint diabetes project

    The Committee has provided $14,000,000 in the Army 
(603002A) for continued funding for the Joint Diabetes Project, 
as presented in testimony before the Committee. These funds are 
to be equally divided between the participating institutions. 
The project will reduce suffering and costs associated with 
diabetes and related complications for DOD personnel and 
dependents, utilizing the partnership's advanced, state-of-the-
art expertise and strengths in the areas of diabetes research, 
detection, prevention and managed care protocol (clinical 
practice guidelines).

                        cervical cancer testing

    The Committee strongly urges the Department to investigate 
emerging methods to better test for, prevent, and treat cases 
of cervical cancer. In 1999, there were an estimated 12,800 new 
cases of cervical cancer and 4,800 cervical cancer deaths in 
the United States. It has clearly been shown that this cancer 
is more than 90 percent curable if it is detected in the early 
stages. The Committee is aware of new testing techniques 
combining tests for the human papillomavirus (HPV) and 
conventional pap tests that can provide a new dimension to the 
cervical cancer screening process. The Committee is also aware 
of promising clinical trials of a new HPV-16 vaccine at the 
National Cancer Institute, which could potentially prevent the 
spread of the type of HPV found in 50 percent of cervical 
cancers. The Committee directs the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense (Health Affairs) to report to the congressional defense 
committees by no later than January 31, 2000 on actions taken 
in the military health system to establish a systematic program 
for early detection and prevention of cervical cancer using the 
most modern and up to date screening methods.

                            gulf war illness

    The Committee concurs with the findings of a recent GAO 
report on squalene antibodies and is concerned by the 
Department's reluctance to test for squalene antibodies since 
squalene is a potential contributing factor in illnesses of 
veterans of the Persian Gulf War. The Secretary of Defense is 
directed to develop and/or validate the assay to test for the 
presence of squalene antibodies. A report detailing the 
proposals to carry out this requirement shall be submitted to 
the Committee by January 1, 2000.

                 computer based modeling in health care

    The Committee believes that computer based modeling and 
simulation capabilities may assist military health planners to 
assess the cost, access and quality impacts of reengineering 
delivery processes, delivery of protocols, and insertion of 
technology before committing vital resources. The Committee 
urges the Department to consider these management tools.

            CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY


                            ,

Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $780,150,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................     1,169,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................       781,000,000
Change from budget request............................      -388,000,000


                       Committee Recommendations

                           Program Reductions

    The Army requested $1,169,000,000 for Chemical Agents and 
Munitions Destruction, Army. The Committee recommends 
$781,000,000, a decrease of $388,000,000. Of the decrease, 
$4,500,000 is taken with prejudice against program management 
consultants. Of the funds available, $75,303,000 shall be 
transferred to the Federal Emergency Preparedness Program to 
provide off-post emergency response and preparedness assistance 
to the communities surrounding the eight continental United 
States chemical storage and disposal sites.
    The Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program, Army 
mission is to safely destroy all U.S. chemical warfare 
munitions and related materiel while ensuring maximum 
protection of the public, personnel involved in the destruction 
effort, and the environment. The Committee commends the Army 
for its efforts in destroying chemical munitions in a safe 
manner. As of March 17, 1999, over 13.5 percent, or 4,259 tons, 
of the stockpile has been destroyed. Currently there are two 
sites operational and five sites in the design phase. Despite 
the fact that two additional sites are on hold until completion 
of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Demonstration, the 
Committee is hopeful that the U.S. will meet the deadline of 
April 2007 for the destruction of chemical munitions as called 
for by the Chemical Weapons Convention.
    Although the Committee is extremely supportive of this 
important national program, it is troubled at the lack of 
management and financial oversight exercised by both the Army 
and OSD on such a large program. In earlier years, the 
Committee expressed its concern because the chemical munitions 
destruction program was plagued by cost growth and schedule 
delays. It appears as if the DoD has made an attempt to rectify 
cost and schedule issues by managing the program as an 
Aquisition Category 1 program. The Committee hopes that this 
action will allow the Army better control over the schedule and 
costs in the future.
    The Committee is aware that the chemical agents and 
munitions program uses the practice of budgeting in advance of 
need and uses funds outside of the funded delivery period. As a 
result, the funds are often obligated later than anticipated.
    The Committee remains concerned over the extremely slow 
obligation and expenditure rates for the chemical munitions 
destruction program. Recently, the Committee has learned that 
its concerns are valid.
    Through an internal DoD comptroller memorandum, the 
Committee has learned that the chemical agents and munitions 
program uses unique and questionable budget execution actions. 
Not only are there large unexpended and unobligated balances of 
prior year funds, but the budget request is $388 million higher 
than last year's appropriated amount. Since not only the 
Committee, but also the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
Comptroller's staff, can not determine the validity of the 
program's prior year obligations, the Committee recommends the 
program be held at last year's level.
    The Committee is disturbed to learn that individuals 
employed by the Department of Defense have visited the Congress 
with paid consultants to ``promote'' the chemical agents and 
munitions destruction program. Therefore, the Committee 
recommends the decrease in program management for consultants.
    Given the questionable budget execution and management 
activities, the Committee directs that the DoD Inspector 
General and the General Accounting Office report to the 
Congress no later than March 15, 2000 on the chemical agents 
and munitions destruction program.

                          alternative methods

    The Committee recognizes the proximity of densely populated 
areas and the importance of safely and completely destroying 
chemical munitions such as those stored in the Bluegrass Army 
Depot. The Committee directs the Army to proceed in a timely 
manner to complete the evaluation of the merits of all 
practical methods, including alternatives to incineration, that 
may effectively and efficiently dispose of stored chemical 
ordnance.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2000:



         DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $735,582,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       788,100,000
Committee recommendation..............................       883,700,000
Change from budget request............................       +95,600,000


    This appropriation provides funds for Military Personnel; 
Operation and Maintenance; Procurement; Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation; and Military Construction for drug 
interdiction and counter-drug activities of the Department of 
Defense.

                       Committee Recommendations

    The Department of Defense requested $788,100,000 for Drug 
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee 
recommends $883,700,000, an increase of $95,600,000.

                         Authorization Changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from
                              Item                                Budget request  recommendation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation Caper Focus...........................................               0           6,000          +6,000
Wide Aperture Radar Facility....................................               0          17,500         +17,500
Southwest Border Fence..........................................               0           6,000          +6,000
P-3 Forward Looking Infrared Radars.............................               0           2,700          +2,700
Tethered Aerostat Radar System..................................          40,489          31,689          -8,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ADJUSTMENTS

                        [In thousands of dollars]

National Guard counter-drug support...........................   +20,000
Gulf States Initiative........................................   +10,000
Regional Counter-drug Training Academy........................    +2,000
Northeast Regional Counter-drug Training Center...............    +2,000
Counter-narcotics Center at Hammer............................    +2,000
Other Joint Military Intelligence Programs....................    +6,000
Observation Aircraft..........................................    +4,000
Mothership Operations.........................................    +3,500
Lake County HIDTA.............................................    +1,000
Appalachian HIDTA.............................................    +3,200
Multi-Jurisdictional Counter-drug Task Force..................    +4,000
Southwest Border States Initiative............................    +6,000
National Interagency Counter-drug Institute...................    +2,000
Young Marines.................................................    +1,500
A-10 Logistical and Demilitarization Support..................    +5,000

                      FORWARD OPERATING LOCATIONS

    In the ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, 
Defense'' appropriations account, the Department requested 
$59,555,000 to establish Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) in 
Central and South America including $42,800,000 for Military 
Construction to establish these new facilities. The Committee 
recommends the budget request. However, it directs that none of 
the funds can be used for Military Construction at an FOL until 
a formal binding long-term agreement which specifies the 
extent, use of, and host nation support for, the forward 
operating location is executed by both the host nation and the 
United States.
    As a consequence of the Panama Canal Treaty, U. S. Forces 
are required to fully withdraw from the Republic of Panama by 
December 31, 1999 and Howard AFB will no longer be available as 
the principal operating location for Counter-drug operations in 
Central and South America. Negotiations for the continued use 
of Howard AFB beyond 1999 failed shortly before the budget was 
submitted. The Commander-in-Chief U.S. Southern Command 
(CINCSOUTH) plans to restructure his theater counter-drug 
concept of operations by establishing FOL staging areas at 
Liberia, Costa Rica; Manta, Ecuador; and Curacao and Aruba as 
replacements for Howard AFB. U.S. Forces are currently 
operating out of Curacao, Aruba, and Ecuador under interim 
agreements.
    The Committee commends the Department and CINCSOUTH for 
their ability to begin operations so quickly and successfully 
at three of the four sites after suspending operations at 
Howard AFB on May 1, 1999. The Committee notes that an 
agreement to use the Costa Rica FOL has not been achieved. 
Therefore, the Departments of Defense and State are encouraged 
to seek another location to cover the area previously 
identified with that site as soon as possible.
    The Committee is concerned that the military construction 
costs identified in the budget have grown substantially, and 
are still not stable. The Committee has been assured by the 
CINCSOUTH that these estimates will stabilize below the current 
estimate of $122,500,000 over the next two fiscal years.
    The Committee would not normally provide Military 
Construction funds in the DoD appropriations bill as proposed 
in the budget. It does so this year only following consultation 
with, and with the approval of, both the Military Construction 
Appropriations Subcommittee and the House Armed Services 
Committee. This one-time recommendation is an effort to 
facilitate and expedite plans the CINCSOUTH has made to protect 
the substantial investment the Committee has made above the 
budget in the past to stem the flow of drugs to the United 
States from the source zone and through the transit zone. The 
Committee, however, directs that future requests for Military 
Construction funding be contained in budget requests for 
Military Construction consistent with past practices.

                         Fingerprint Operations

    The Committee is aware of a proposal to install and 
demonstrate contactless fingerprint device systems in drug 
theater corridors of the U.S.-Mexico border region. The 
Committee believes that such devices, once fully certified by 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, have the potential to 
enhance the identification of drug traffickers, reduce costs, 
and reduce the time required to process Federal, State and 
local government drug suspects throughout the region. The 
Committee encourages the Department of Defense, in conjunction 
with the Justice Department, to carry out a broad-based 
demonstration of contactless fingerprint device systems in 
those areas where the drug trafficking threat is most acute.

               C-26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance Upgrade

    In fiscal year 1998 and 1999, the Committee provided 
$9,500,000 to upgrade counter-drug C-26 aircraft with an 
improved photo reconnaissance capability. The Committee is 
concerned that this program has not yet begun and directs the 
National Guard to expedite delivery of this enhanced mission 
capability to C-26 counter-drug aircraft.

                              DRUG TESTING

    The Committee is aware of a number of new technologies in 
the drug testing area which have the potential to provide 
immediate, onsite results, at less cost than existing systems. 
In view of the significant existing expenditures by the 
Department of Defense and the services to carry out drug 
testing, the Committee encourages the Department to conduct an 
evaluation of available testing systems and technologies to 
determine if the methods currently in use by the DoD are the 
most cost-effective and efficient.

              A-10 Logistical and Demilitarization Support

    The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only to provide 
logistical and demilitarization support for the transfer of 
three excess A-10 aircraft from the Aircraft Maintenance 
Regeneration Center for loan to the Bureau of International 
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the Department of 
State to support international drug eradication and 
interdiction efforts.

                    OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL





Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $132,064,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       140,844,000
Committee recommendation..............................       140,844,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,844,000 
for the Office of the Inspector General. The recommendation is 
an increase of $8,780,000 above the amount appropriated for 
fiscal year 1999.
                               TITLE VII

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                 NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM

                              introduction

    The National Foreign Intelligence Program consists of those 
intelligence activities of the government which provide the 
President, other officers of the Executive Branch, and the 
Congress with national foreign intelligence on broad strategic 
concerns bearing on U.S. national security. These concerns are 
stated by the National Security Council in the form of long-
range and short-range requirements for the principal users of 
intelligence.
    The National Foreign Intelligence Program budget funded in 
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily 
of resources for the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense 
Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National 
Security Agency, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, 
intelligence services of the Departments of the Army, Navy and 
Air Force, Intelligence Community Management Staff and the CIA 
Retirement and Disability System Fund.

                            classified annex

    Because of the highly sensitive nature of intelligence 
programs, the results of the Committee's budget review are 
published in a separate, detailed and comprehensive classified 
annex. The intelligence community, Department of Defense and 
other organizations are expected to comply fully with the 
recommendations and directions in the classified annex 
accompanying the fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations Bill.

   CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND




Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $201,500,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       209,100,000
Committee recommendation..............................       209,100,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    This appropriation provides payments of benefits to 
qualified beneficiaries in accordance with the Central 
Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain 
Employees (P.L. 88-643). This statute authorized the 
establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System 
(CIARDS) for a limited number of CIA employees, and authorized 
the establishment and maintenance of a fund from which benefits 
would be paid to those beneficiaries.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $209,100,000 for the Central 
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Systems Fund 
(CIARDS). The recommendation is the same as the budget request 
and $7,600,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 
1999.

               INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT




Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................      $129,123,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................       149,415,000
Committee recommendation..............................       144,415,000
Change from budget request............................        -5,000,000


    This appropriation provides funds for the activities that 
support the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the 
Intelligence Community.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The budget requested $149,415,000 for the Intelligence 
Community Management Account. The Committee recommends 
$144,415,000, a decrease of $5,000,000. Details of adjustments 
to this account are included in the classified annex 
accompanying this report.

PAYMENT TO KAHO'OLAWE ISLAND CONVEYANCE, REMEDIATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL 
                            RESTORATION FUND




Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................       $25,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................        15,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................        15,000,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000 
for Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and 
Environmental Restoration Fund. The recommendation is a 
decrease of $10,000,000 below the amount appropriated for 
fiscal year 1999.

                 NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND




Fiscal year 1999 appropriation........................        $3,000,000
Fiscal year 2000 budget request.......................         8,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................         8,000,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The National Security Education Trust Fund was established 
to provide scholarships and fellowships to U.S. students to 
pursue higher education studies abroad and grants to U.S. 
institutions for programs of study in foreign areas and 
languages.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the National 
Security Education Trust Fund. This recommendation is the same 
as the budget request and $5,000,000 above the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
                               TITLE VIII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The accompanying bill includes 129 general provisions. Most 
of these provisions were included in the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 and many have been 
included in the Defense Appropriations Act for a number of 
years.
    Actions taken by the Committee to amend last year's 
provisions or new provisions recommended by the Committee are 
discussed below or in the applicable section of the report.

              Definition of Program, Project and Activity

    For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) as amended by the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act 
of 1987 (Public Law 100-119) and by the Budget Enforcement Act 
of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), the following information 
provides the definitions of the term ``program, project, and 
activity'' for appropriations contained in the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act. The term ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items, identified in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act, 1999, the accompanying House and Senate Committee reports, 
the conference report and accompanying joint explanatory 
statement of the managers of the Committee on Conference, the 
related classified reports, and the P-1 and R-1 budget 
justification documents as subsequently modified by 
Congressional action.
    In carrying out any Presidential sequestration, the 
Department of Defense and agencies shall conform to the 
definition for ``program, project, and activity'' set forth 
above with the following exception:
    For Military Personnel and the Operation and Maintenance 
accounts the term ``program, project, and activity'' is defined 
as the appropriations accounts contained in the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act.
    The Department and agencies should carry forth the 
Presidential sequestration order in a manner that would not 
adversely affect or alter Congressional policies and priorities 
established for the Department of Defense and the related 
agencies and no program, project, and activity should be 
eliminated or be reduced to a level of funding which would 
adversely affect the Department's ability to effectively 
continue any program, project, and activity.

                   Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles

    The Committee has serious concerns over the status of the 
Family of Medium Tactical Vehicle Program. Since the current 
program has experienced cost growth, schedule delays, and 
technical issues, the Committee believes it is extremely 
important to conduct a second source competition. The Army has 
requested that the Committee provide language which clarifies 
Section 112 of Public Law 105-261 because it hinders the second 
source competition strategy. Therefore, the Committee includes 
a new general provision (Section 8105) which makes Section 112 
of Public Law 105-261 apply only to Phase III of the Army's 
second source acquisition strategy for the Family of Medium 
Tactical Vehicles.

                          B-52 Force Structure

    The Committee includes a new general provision (Section 
8108) which earmarks $47,100,000 from various Air Force 
appropriation accounts to fund a total force structure of 94 B-
52 aircraft of which 23 shall be maintained in an attrition 
reserve status. Given the Air Force's continuing requirements 
for these aircraft, as evident in the recent campaign in 
Kosovo, the Committee is convinced that a robust force 
structure should be maintained. Of the funds earmarked for this 
purpose, $3,000,000 shall be derived from Military Personnel, 
Air Force, $34,500,000 from Operation and Maintenance, Air 
Force, and $9,600,000 from Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.

                        National Missile Defense

    The Committee includes a new provision (section 8115) that 
requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report with the 
fiscal year 2001 budget on National Missile Defense basing 
locations. The report shall include an assessment of (1) The 
ability of a single site versus multiple sites to counter the 
expected ballistic missile threat; (2) optimum basing 
locations; (3) the survivability and redundancy of potential 
National Defense Systems; (4) the estimated costs associated 
with different site deployment options. The Committee is 
concerned that prior to the decision to deploy National Missile 
Defense at any particular site, all options should be 
evaluated.

                          Aggressor Squadrons

    The Committee has serious concerns about the state of 
dedicated aggressor squadrons maintained by both the Navy and 
the Air Force. The committee notes that the size of such 
squadrons has dwindled over the course of this decade, and that 
the current force structure is insufficient to meet as much of 
the training burden as it once did. In addition, the Committee 
is aware that the dissimilar combat flight training provided by 
these squadrons is essential to developing, and maintaining the 
skills of Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force combat pilots. 
Accordingly, the Committee includes a new general provision 
(Section 8116) which requires the Secretary of the Navy and the 
Secretary of the Air Force to provide an inventory of the 
personnel and equipment available for dedicated aggressor 
squadrons from 1990 to the present, and an assessment of the 
training requirements that such squadrons are able to meet over 
the same time period.

               Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations

    The Committee includes a new general provision (section 
8118) that requires the Department to submit a report to the 
congressional defense committees regarding the obligation of 
funds for ACTDs. The Committee includes this section due to the 
Department's disregard for instructions included in the Fiscal 
Year 1999 House Report regarding Line of Site Anti-Tank 
(LOSAT). In addition, the section includes language regarding 
the use of funds made available in Public Law 105-262.

                   Medium Extended Air Defense System

    The Committee includes a new general provision (section 
8119) that provides that none of the funds available in Public 
Law 105-262 may be used to fund MEADS. The Committee recommends 
this section due to DOD's improper use of fiscal year 1999 
funds for MEADS. That action was in direct conflict with the 
Conference Report direction to terminate MEADS.

                Military Recruitment Financial Penalties

    The Committee includes a new general provision (Section 
8124) clarifying the scope of previous law governing the 
withholding of federal funds from institutions of higher 
education that choose to restrict the U.S. military from 
recruiting on their campuses and from conducting ROTC programs. 
Section 8124 makes clear that this prohibition of federal funds 
affects all identified categories of federal aid except student 
financial assistance.

            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:

               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the 
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the 
application of existing law.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue on-going activities which require annual authorization 
or additional legislation, which to date has not been enacted.
    The bill includes a number of provisions which place 
limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing 
limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be 
construed as changing the application of existing law.
    The bill includes a number of provisions, which have been 
virtually unchanged for many years, that are technically 
considered legislation.
    The bill provides that appropriations shall remain 
available for more than one year for some programs for which 
the basic authorizing legislation does not presently authorize 
each extended availability.
    In various places in the bill, the Committee has earmarked 
funds within appropriation accounts in order to fund specific 
programs and has adjusted some existing earmarking.
    Those additional changes in the fiscal year 2000 bill, 
which might be interpreted as changing exiting law, are as 
follows:

                        Appropriations Language

    Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Army'' which changes the amount provided for emergency and 
extraordinary expenses, and includes language which transfers 
funds to the National Park Service for necessary infrastructure 
repair improvements at Fort Baker. Language has also been 
included concerning environmental remediation costs of 
government-owned, contractor-operated facilities.
    Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Navy'' which changes the amount provided for emergency and 
extraordinary expenses.
    Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Air Force'' which changes the amount provided for emergency and 
extraordinary expenses.
    Language has been included in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Defense-wide'' which earmarks funds for providing the Computer/
Electronic Accommodations program to federal agencies; amends 
the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses; 
deletes language concerning federally owned educational 
facilities located on military installations; includes language 
which earmarks funds provided in Public Law 105-277 for certain 
procurement and research and development accounts; and includes 
language which earmarks funds for certain classified activities 
to be transferred as necessary to the appropriate 
appropriations. Language has also been included which earmarks 
$10,000,000 for security locks.
    Language has been deleted in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Army National Guard'' regarding base operations reporting 
requirements.
    Language has been included in ``Overseas Contingency 
Operations Transfer Fund'' which allows for additional transfer 
authority for the Defense Health Program, and which provides 
that funds may be transferred back to this appropriation if not 
necessary for the purposes otherwise provided.
    Language has been deleted in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Army'' which earmarked funds for environmental remediation by 
the Corps of Engineers; and includes language regarding 
additional transfer authority.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Navy'' regarding additional transfer authority.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Air Force'' regarding additional transfer authority.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Defense-Wide'' regarding additional transfer authority.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Formerly Used Defense Sites'' regarding additional transfer 
authority.
    Language has been deleted in ``Former Soviet Union Threat 
Reduction'' which earmarked funds for the dismantling and 
disposal of submarine reactor components in the Russian Far 
East.
    Language has been included in ``Quality of Life 
Enhancements, Defense'' which authorizes the use of Operation 
and Maintenance, Defense-Wide funds for grants to local 
educational authorities.
    Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Army'' 
which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for 
replacement, and the purchase cost of vehicles for physical 
security of personnel.
    Language has been amended in ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
Navy'' which provides specific project-level appropriations.
    Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Navy'' 
which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for 
replacement.
    Language has been amended in ``Procurement, Marine Corps'' 
which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for 
replacement.
    Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Air 
Force'' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles 
for replacement.
    Language has been amended in ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' 
which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for 
replacement, and the purchase cost of vehicles for physical 
security of personnel; includes language which earmarks funds 
only to support Electronic Commerce Centers; and includes 
language which prohibits funds for the Joint Electronic 
Commerce Program Office.
    A new appropriations paragraph, ``Defense Production Act 
Purchases'' has been included which provides funds only for 
microwave power tubes.
    Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation, Army'' which earmarks funds for an operational 
test of the Starstreak and Stinger missiles.
    Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation, Navy'' regarding live fire stock tests on the 
SSN-21 submarine; and includes language which earmarks funds 
for the Intercooled Recuperated Gas Turbine Engine program 
subject to certification by the Secretary of the Navy.
    Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' that restricted funds for the 
Navy Upper Tier program; amends language which earmarks funds 
for the Theater Wide Missile Defense program; and includes 
language which earmarks funds provided in Public Law 105-277 
for ballistic missile defense, for certain missile defense 
programs.
    Language has been included in ``Defense Working Capital 
Funds'' which provides for the purchase of passenger motor 
vehicles for replacement only for the Defense Security Service.
    Language has been deleted in ``National Defense Sealift 
Fund'' which earmarked funds for alteration of bridges.
    Language has been included in ``Defense Health Program'' 
which earmarks research and development funds only for the Army 
peer-reviewed breast cancer and prostate cancer research 
programs.
    Language has been amended in ``Chemical Agents and 
Munitions Destruction, Army'' which deletes an earmark of funds 
for the Johnston Atoll off-island leave program, and includes 
language which would transfer funds to the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency's Defense Chemical Stockpile Emergency 
Preparedness Program.
    Language has been included in ``Drug Interdiction and 
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' which transfers funds to 
``Military Construction, Air Force'' for construction at 
forward operating locations in the United States Southern 
Command area of responsibility.
    Language has been amended in ``Office of the Inspector 
General'' which changes the amount provided for emergency and 
extraordinary expenses.
    Language has been amended in ``Intelligence Community 
Management Account'' which earmarks funds for the Advanced 
Research and Development Committee.

                           general provisions

    Section 8005 has been amended to include restrictions on 
below threshold reprogramming of funds within certain accounts 
in Titles III and IV of the bill as discussed in the Major 
Committee Recommendations section of this report.
    Section 8008 has been amended to restrict initiation or 
expansion of certain multiyear contracts as discussed in the 
Major Committee Recommendations section of this report.
    Section 8013 has been amended to delete language which 
prohibited Army personnel from jointly receiving an enlistment 
bonus and Army College Fund benefits.
    Section 8024 has been amended to delete language which 
referenced Public Law 105-56 concerning the availability of 
funds appropriated for the Indian Financing Act Incentive 
payments program.
    Section 8033 has been amended to designate funds 
exclusively for use by the Civil Air Patrol.
    Section 8034 has been amended to delete language which 
reduced amounts in the bill to reflect savings from the number 
of staff years to be performed by Federally Funded Research and 
Development Centers.
    Section 8036 has been amended to change the names of the 
``congressional defense committees''.
    Section 8044 has been amended to delete language which 
prohibited obligation of funds until a report was submitted on 
details in the Overseas Military Facility Investment Recovery 
Account.
    Section 8056 has been amended which provides authorization 
of appropriations in this Act and in fiscal year 1999 
supplemental appropriations on intelligence activities until 
enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 
2000.
    Section 8057 has been amended to include language to permit 
the Army Corps of Engineers to demolish and remove its former 
northwest district headquarters.
    Section 8058 has been amended to include language which 
rescinds funds from the following programs:
                                                           (Rescissions)
1998 Appropriations:
    Other Procurement, Navy:
        Combat Survivor Evader Radio....................      $6,384,000
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force:
        F-16 savings....................................      11,700,000
        C-130 Avionics Modernization Program............       1,800,000
        JSTARS contract savings.........................      12,600,000
    Missile Procurement, Air Force:
        Classified program..............................     100,000,000
1999 Appropriations:
    Other Procurement, Army:
        Scamp terminals.................................       4,000,000
        CSEL............................................      13,700,000
        Maneuver Control System.........................       3,000,000
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy:
        Universal Jet Air Start Unit....................      41,500,000
        E-2C savings....................................      10,000,000
        AV-8B Mods, termination of life extension 
          program.......................................      11,000,000
    Weapons Procurement, Navy:
        Improved Tactical Air Launched Decoy............       8,000,000
    Under the heading, Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
      Navy:
        New Attack Submarine overhead savings...........      32,400,000
        New Attack Submarine contract savings...........       2,600,000
        CVN-69 Overhaul contract savings................      11,400,000
    Other Procurement, Navy:
        Combat Survivor Evader Radio....................       8,953,000
        MK-12 IFF contract savings......................       1,900,000
        FFG upgrades....................................       5,500,000
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force:
        F-16 savings....................................       7,800,000
        C-130 Avionics Modernization Program............       2,700,000
        T-38 Avionics Upgrade Program...................      27,600,000
        C-17 prior year savings (GAO)...................      36,400,000
        B-1 prior year savings (GAO)....................       6,729,000
    Missile Procurement, Air Force:
        GPS prior year savings (GAO)....................       6,800,000
        Medium Launch Vehicle Savings from delayed GPS 
          launch (GAO)..................................       2,600,000
        Classified program..............................     146,100,000
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:
        Mines...........................................       4,000,000
        Force XXI initiative............................      12,400,000
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air 
      Force:
        Satellite Control Network (GAO).................      10,300,000
        DSCS delays in EELV integration (GAO)...........       2,500,000
        GBS reduced receiver suites (GAO)...............       5,300,000
        SBIRS SABRS (GAO)...............................       3,500,000
        B-2 JASSM savings...............................       7,000,000
        B-1B prior year savings (GAO)...................      10,721,000
        Milstar (GAO)...................................      10,600,000
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-
      Wide:
        ACTD/LOSAT......................................       7,000,000
        Tactical Technology.............................      16,500,000

    Section 8064 has been amended to include language on the 
design and construction of secure offices and support 
facilities to the subway entrance at the Pentagon.
    Section 8075 has been amended, concerning quarterly reports 
on loan guarantees, to reflect a name change of the 
congressional defense committees.
    Section 8080 has been amended to change the amount of funds 
that would be available for transfer from operation and 
maintenance accounts to military personnel accounts for the 
Innovative Readiness Training program.
    Section 8083 has been amended to change the amounts of 
shipbuilding and conversion transfers.
    Section 8091 has been included which rescinds $452,100,000 
of 1999 appropriations to reflect savings from revised economic 
assumptions.
    Section 8097 has been amended to include the Office of 
Management and Budget to be notified regarding initiating a new 
start program.
    Section 8098 has been amended to prohibit contracting with 
individuals who have been debarred by the Department for the 
unlawful manufacture or sale of the Congressional Medal of 
Honor.
    Section 8099 has been included which earmarks funds for a 
grant to the Women in Military Service for America Memorial.
    Section 8100 has been amended to delete reporting 
requirements by the Secretary of Defense regarding training of 
foreign security forces.
    Section 8101 has been included which reduces the budget 
request by $171,000,000 to reflect savings from favorable 
foreign currency fluctuations.
    Section 8103 has been included which provides funding to 
repair and upgrade the road access route to the National 
Training Center.
    Section 8104 has been included which makes funds 
appropriated to the Navy available to replace lost Treasury 
checks for which claims were filed.
    Section 8105 has been included which make Section 112 of 
Public Law 105-261 apply only to Phase III of the Army's second 
source acquisition strategy.
    Section 8106 has been included which prohibits funds 
appropriated to the Navy to be used to develop, lease or 
procure ADC(X) class of ships unless the main propulsion diesel 
engines are manufactured domestically in the United States.
    Section 8107 has been included which provides funds for a 
non-profit organization.
    Section 8108 has been included which earmarks $47,100,000 
to maintain an attrition reserve of 23 B-52 aircraft and a 
total inventory of 94 such aircraft.
    Section 8109 has been included which reduces amounts 
available in several Operation and Maintenance accounts by 
$100,000,000 for savings related to A-76 studies, and which 
prohibits contracting out certain functions pursuant to such 
studies.
    Section 8110 has been included requiring the Department of 
Defense to provide a summary of the results of A-76 studies 
conducted by DoD since 1995.
    Section 8111 has been included requiring that the 
Department of Defense submit budget justification materials for 
contingency operations costs for each appropriation account.
    Section 8112 has been included which appropriates 
$20,000,000 for the Army National Guard for the procurement or 
lease of fire-fighting aircraft or systems.
    Section 8113 has been included which appropriates 
$50,000,000 only for Weapons of Mass Destruction Domestic 
Preparedness.
    Section 8114 has been included which provides $150,000,000 
in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for information 
security and assurance programs and includes reporting 
requirements.
    Section 8115 has been included which directs the Department 
to submit a report regarding basing options for National 
Missile Defense.
    Section 8116 has been included which requires a study of 
dedicated aggressor squadrons by the Secretary of the Navy and 
the Secretary of the Air Force.
    Section 8117 has been added prohibiting the Department of 
Defense from using funds provided in Department of Defense 
Appropriations Acts for the repair and maintenance of military 
family housing.
    Section 8118 has been included which provides that funds 
appropriated in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
Defense-Wide account for advance concept technology 
demonstrations may only be obligated after a report to the 
congressional defense committees is provided by the Department.
    Section 8119 has been included which provides that none of 
the funds appropriated may be used for the Medium Extended Air 
Defense System (MEADS).
    Section 8120 has been added as discussed in the Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy section of this report 
under the heading ``Joint Experimentation.''
    Section 8121 has been included providing $250,000 for the 
purpose of acquiring and preserving the cemetery site near Ft. 
Atkinson, Nebraska.
    Section 8122 has been included which defines custodial care 
as care designed essentially to assist an individual in meeting 
the activities of daily living not medically necessary care.
    Section 8123 has been amended to credit refunds associated 
with the use of government travel and purchase cards to the 
appropriation account which initially paid for purchases made 
with such cards.
    Section 8124 has been included concerning funds for student 
financial assistance at schools.
    Section 8125 has been included to enhance DoD oversight of 
information technology systems.
    Section 8126 has been included which enforces current 
policy by prohibiting the Department from providing certain 
support to other agencies who are in arrears to the Department.
    Section 8127 has been included which restores reimbursement 
rules for the Foreign Military Sales account.
    Section 8128 has been included which allows the 
acceleration of certain spectrum sales.
    Section 8129 has been included which requires a report from 
the Secretary of Defense on the conduct of recent contingency 
operations.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table lists the 
appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not 
authorized by law:

Military Personnel, Army
Military Personnel, Navy
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
Military Personnel, Air Force
Reserve Personnel, Army
Reserve Personnel, Navy
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
National Guard Personnel, Army
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
Operation and Maintenance, Army
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Environmental Restoration, Army
Environmental Restoration, Navy
Environmental Restoration, Air Force
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Missile Procurement, Army
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
Other Procurement, Army
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Other Procurement, Navy
Procurement, Marine Corps
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
Other Procurement, Air Force
Procurement, Defense-Wide
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Defense Production Act Purchases
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Defense Working Capital Funds
National Defense Sealift Fund
Defense Health Program
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
Office of the Inspector General
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System 
        Fund
Intelligence Community Management Account
Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation and 
        Environmental Restoration Fund
National Security Education Trust Fund
    Sec. 8099.
    Sec. 8112.
    Sec. 8113.
    Sec. 8114.

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing 
the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
    The following table shows the appropriation affected by the 
transfers:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Appropriations from which
   Appropriations to which transfer is made         Amount              transfer is made              Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and maintenance, Army...............     $50,000,000  National Defense Stockpile......    $150,000,000
                                                                Transaction Fund
Operation and maintenance, Navy...............      50,000,000
Operation and maintenance, Air Force..........      50,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Language has been included in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Army'', which provides for the transfer of $6,000,000 to the 
``National Park Service'' for improvements at Fort Baker.
    Language has been included in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Defense-Wide'', which provides for the transfer of $40,000,000 
to certain classified activities.
    Language has been included in ``Overseas Contingency 
Operations Transfer Fund'', which provides for the transfer of 
funds out of this account to other appropriations accounts.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Army'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into 
this account.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Navy'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into 
this account.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Air Force'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and 
into this account.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Defense-Wide'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of 
and into this account.
    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Formerly Used Defense Sites'' which provides for the transfer 
of funds out of and into this account.
    Language has been included in ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' 
which provides for the transfer of $6,000,000 out of 
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' 
into the account.
    Language has been included in ``Chemical Agents and 
Munitions Destruction, Army'' which provides for the transfer 
of $75,303,000 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for 
the Defense Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness program.
    Language has been included in ``Drug Interdiction and 
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' which transfers funds to 
other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense.
    Language has been included in ``Intelligence Community 
Management Account'' which provides for the transfer of 
$27,000,000 to the Department of Justice for the National Drug 
Intelligence Center.
    Ten provisions (Section 8005, 8006, 8015, 8040, 8064, 8066, 
8080, 8083, 8113, and 8114) contain language which allows 
transfers of funds between accounts.

                              Rescissions

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted 
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying 
bill:

Other Procurement, Navy 1998/2000.......................      $6,384,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1998/2000...............      26,100,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force 1998/2000................     100,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Army 1999/2001....................       8,000,000
Missile Procurement, Army 1999/2001.....................       7,000,000
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 
    1999/2001...........................................       9,000,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Army 1999/2001...............       6,000,000
Other Procurement, Army 1999/2001.......................      39,700,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy 1999/2001....................     106,500,000
Weapons Procurement, Navy 1999/2001.....................      16,000,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps 1999/
    2001................................................       3,000,000
Under the heading, Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 
    1999/2003:
    Inflation savings...................................      37,000,000
    New Attack Submarine................................      35,000,000
    CVN-69..............................................      11,400,000
Other Procurement, Navy 1999/2001.......................      39,353,000
Procurement, Marine Corps 1999/2001.....................       5,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001...............     127,229,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001................     169,500,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force 1999/2001..........       2,000,000
Other Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001..................      44,400,000
Procurement, Defense-Wide 1999/2001.....................       5,200,000
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army 1999/
    2000................................................       5,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 1999/
    2000................................................      36,400,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy 1999/
    2000................................................      40,900,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 
    1999/2000...........................................     126,821,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide 
    1999/2000...........................................      52,200,000

         Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

   SECTION 8118 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

    Sec. 8118. During the current fiscal year and hereafter, no 
funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of 
Defense may be used to award a contract to, extend a contract 
with, or approve the award of a subcontract to any person who 
within the preceding 15 years has been [convicted] debarred by 
the Department of Defense based upon a conviction under section 
704 of title 18, United States Code, of the unlawful 
manufacture or sale of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

             section 337 of the communications act of 1934

SEC. 337. ALLOCATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF NEW PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES 
                    LICENSES AND COMMERCIAL LICENSES.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Assignment.--The Commission shall--
          (1) commence assignment of the licenses for public 
        safety services created pursuant to subsection (a) no 
        later than September 30, 1998; and
          [(2) commence competitive bidding for the commercial 
        licenses created pursuant to subsection (a) after 
        January 1, 2001.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states that:
    ``Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 
of a public character, shall include a statement citing the 
specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to 
enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.''
    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states:
    ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .''
    Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

                 Comparison With the Budget Resolution

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with 
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as 
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill 
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing 
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under 
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to 
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from 
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. For purposes of 
determining the 302(b) allocation for this bill, all figures in 
this table include funding in this bill, plus previously 
enacted fiscal year 2000 appropriations from Public Law 106-31.


                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               302(b) allocation--                       This bill--
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Budget authority       Outlays        Budget authority       Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary.......................            267,692            259,130            267,691            258,040
Mandatory...........................                209                209                209                209
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains 
five-year projections associated with the budget authority 
provided in the accompanying bill. (This includes funding in 
this bill, plus previously enacted fiscal year 2000 
appropriations from Public Law 106-31.)

                        [In millions of dollars]



Budget Authority in bill..............................           267,900
  2000................................................           181,503
  2001................................................            55,399
  2002................................................            19,790
  2003................................................             6,897
  2004................................................             5,748


          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, no new budget or outlays are 
provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to 
State and local governments.

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with 
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are 
printed below:
    There were no recorded votes.




                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    This bill may signify an important change in how Congress 
approaches defense budget policy in the next century as we 
continue to struggle under highly constrained discretionary 
budget caps.

                          f-22 fighter program

    In recognition of the changing post-Cold War threat and the 
constraints being placed on all discretionary programs by 
unrealistic budget caps, the Committee has for the first time 
in recent years taken issue with a costly high-profile military 
program proposed by the Defense Department. The Committee has 
deleted all production funds in this budget ($1.858 billion for 
six aircraft) for the proposed F-22 fighter aircraft program. 
This action not only frees up nearly $2 billion for higher 
priority military programs this year, but also will allow 
reallocation of roughly $40 billion of military funds over the 
next decade for higher priority needs.
    The Defense Subcommittee recommended this action in a 
bipartisan and unanimous fashion, and the Committee agreed by 
voice vote with little controversy.
    Reorient Military Spending Priorities.--By this action, the 
Committee is sending a clear message to the Pentagon that it is 
time to reorient its spending priorities to meet a broader 
array of military budget requirements for the 21st Century. 
That means paying far more attention to so-called 
``asymmetrical'' threats like chemical and biological 
terrorism, information warfare, smaller scales urban warfare, 
cruise missile defense and bolstering conventional military 
capabilities like airlift, sealift, electronic jamming, 
intelligence and surveillance, and communications. It also 
means we must review the force structures of our NATO allies 
and demand more investment from them in force modernization as 
well.
    Tactical Aircraft Plan is Out of Balance.--For too long the 
Pentagon has resisted calls to restructure its hyper-expensive 
tactical aircraft procurement plan to buy three separate types 
of tactical aircraft costing in excess of $300 billion even 
though the traditional Cold War threats for which they were 
designed have dissipated and new non-conventional threats are 
emerging.
    The most expensive of these planes is the F-22, which was 
first designed to meet a Cold War threat from overwhelming 
numbers of advanced Soviet aircraft. Over the years, even 
though the old Soviet threat has evaporated, the only thing 
that has changed about the F-22 program has been its cost and 
its production schedule. Development costs have nearly doubled 
from $12 billion in 1985 to over $23 billion today. Current 
estimates are that it will cost at least another $40 to $60 
billion to procure. Over the next five years, the Air Force 
proposes to pay $151 million apiece for the F-22 fighter, about 
three times the cost of our top of the line F-15E fighter 
(about $55 million), and about six times the cost of an F-16 
fighter. And since the Air Force wants to begin buying these 
planes with less than 5% of the required testing completed, 
most independent analysts predict that F-22 costs will grow 
even further.
    F-22 Consumes Too Much Funding Needed For Other Military 
Capabilities.--In making this decision, the Committee reviewed 
not only what capability the F-22 can provide for the future 
compared to other planes, but what capability we are giving up 
because of the cost of this plane--the so-called ``opportunity 
cost.'' It is now clear from experiences in Yugoslavia and Iraq 
that other Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps aviation 
capabilities are being stretched dangerously thin in certain 
key areas because of the need to pay the exorbitant F-22 budget 
costs. It is also clear that from a larger perspective, the F-
22 is consuming resources that could be used to address other 
critical strategic concerns such as emerging threats from 
chemical/biological/nuclear terrorism, information warfare, and 
cruise missiles.
    The Committee has recognized that it takes more than an 
ultra-sophisticated fighter to successfully prosecute modern-
day air operations. It requires a total balanced and integrated 
system, starting with highly trained and well-motivated 
aircrews. It also depends on sophisticated surveillance systems 
such as the AWACS and JSTARS systems, modern information and 
communications systems to provide instantaneous situation 
awareness, sophisticated missiles, electronic jamming support, 
intelligence gathering platforms such as the U-2 and various 
unmanned aerial vehicles, and support from refueling tankers 
and specialized helicopters.
    The Committee rightly believes that the Pentagon is over-
emphasizing fighter procurement, proposing to buy this 
expensive high tech fighter at a cost that will severely limit 
other weapons purchases and upgrades. This could actually 
degrade performance in the years ahead, since there will be no 
additional funds to sufficiently upgrade these other systems in 
a timely manner. The Air Force and the Department as a whole 
are already starting to pay this price. For instance:
      The Air Force retired its F-111 airplanes with their 
electronic jamming capability in order to save money for the F-
22; now we find that the military will not fly missions even 
with our stealthy aircraft, such as the B-2, without jammer 
protection and there is concern about a shortage of these 
critical assets;
          The Air Force has greatly cut back on its ``Red 
        Flag'' pilot training program using dedicated aggressor 
        squadrons--a program widely regarded as a key to 
        superior US pilot proficiency;
          The Air Force relies on 1950s and 1960s-era aerial 
        tankers, many of which urgently require re-engineering 
        and other upgrades, yet no funding is requested.
          One of their most critical intelligence assets--the 
        U-2 plan--flies with outdated avionics, which the Air 
        Force has no plan to upgrade due to budget constraints;
          The Air Force has no bomber modernization plan--the 
        best they can come up with is a plan to keep the B-52s 
        flying until they are literally 80 years old;
          To find more money for the F-22, the Air Force has 
        forced at least a two year delay in our next generation 
        satellite early warning system (SBIRS-High) for the 
        detection of ballistic missile attack--a critical 
        system to our national security;
          The Air Force isn't able to find enough new recruits 
        and it is losing veteran pilots to early retirement at 
        an alarming rate with the shortage now topping over 
        1,100 pilots--in part due to poor facilities for Air 
        Force personnel and their families;
          The Air Force has had serious ongoing spare parts 
        shortages and has increasing equipment maintenance 
        backlogs;
          The Air Force ran out of key precision guided cruise 
        missiles--the CALCM--during the Kosovo campaign;
          There are new technologies for our top of the line F-
        15 and F-16 aircraft that will add significantly to 
        their effectiveness, like the ``link-16'' system that 
        could and should be fielded now--but must wait due to 
        funding considerations;
          The Marine Corps is being forced to replace its worn 
        out helicopters with the new V-22 tiltrotor at a much 
        slower rate than is optimal from an operational 
        perspective.
    What is the Realistic Threat? In making its recommendation 
on the F-22, the Committee also had to weigh whether the 
potential threat to future air superiority was real and as 
ominous as the Air Force alleges. It is fair to say that the 
Air Force can make a case for only an ill-defined and ambiguous 
potential threat that would justify this level of expenditure. 
In making the decision to allocate limited dollars, national 
security decisionmakers are put in the unenviable position of 
making choices based on the likelihood and severity of 
potential threats. It seems clear in this case that other 
concerns, such as the spread of weapons of mass destruction and 
terrorism rate a higher budget priority than the F-22 program.
    There are also some issues of credibility. The Air Force 
does not have a particularly good record in making 
straightforward threat assessments to support its F-22 budget 
proposals. In the early 1990s, after the Soviet Union collapsed 
(and the Air Force's argument for procuring the F-22 with it), 
the Air Force changed its threat analysis to say that some 35 
countries had procured aircraft with the capabilities that 
threatened U.S. air domination. Only later were we surprised to 
learn that the Air Force included countries like Switzerland, 
Norway, Israel, Australia, even New Guinea as possible threat 
countries, all of whom possessed U.S.-built F-16 aircraft that 
we had sold to them. We were also told at the time that new 
Russian planes like the Mig-29 were making our F-15s and F-16s 
obsolete. This of course was disproved in Iraq and Yugoslavia.
    Since events of the last decade have made many of the old 
F-22 arguments untenable, it is not surprising that a new 
argument is taking shape. We are now told that yet a new 
Russian plan, the SU-37, and several Western European planes 
under development are the new threats to U.S. air supremacy
    While these planes might be highly capable (an assumption 
that should be closely scrutinized for the SU-37), most 
analysts doubt whether the Russian economy will be in a 
position for decades to finance and produce such an expensive 
plane in large quantity. The Air Force budget alone is more 
than the entire Russian, Iraqi, North Korean, Iranian, Syrian, 
and Cuban authorized military budgets combined. It is reported 
that the Russians now spend a paltry sum for military research 
and development (about $2 billion a year) and for military 
procurement (about $3.5 billion per year). Most analysts 
believe this decline has fractured the Russian defense 
industrial base to the point that it will not recover for 
decades if at all.
    The real threat from Russia emanates from its weakness, not 
its strength. A much more productive use of just some of the 
funds earmarked for the F-22 program would be to expand ongoing 
efforts to disarm Russian nuclear and chemical warheads, and to 
keep Russian weapons scientists gainfully employed for peaceful 
purposes. This threat is much more real and ominous than the 
paper threat of great numbers of futuristic Russian-made 
aircraft.
    As for the potential fielding of advanced Western European 
fighter aircraft, the Yugoslav air campaign exposed numerous 
deficiencies in the military capabilities of even our largest 
Western European NATO allies. Domestic pressure for continuing 
military budget cutbacks continues in many of these same 
European countries and it remains to be seen if there is the 
political will to undertake massive and expensive upgrades of 
European air force units. A strong argument could be made that 
these countries should undertake such upgrades to pull a far 
greater share of the burden in any future NATO military air 
operation. A valid concern may exist about proliferation of 
these aircraft to other nations. But it would seem that a 
cheaper and far more rationale response is to work with our 
allies diplomatically to ensure that these planes do not fall 
into the hands of the rogue states and other undesirable 
regimes (something that certainly seems attainable).
    Pilot Training and Skill Levels Are Being Discounted.--Even 
more important than any single piece of technology or the 
numbers of aircraft possessed by potential opponents are the 
capabilities of the pilots flying those aircraft. History 
repeats the same lesson whether from World War I, from Mig 
Alley, from Viet Nam, or from Desert Storm, that the training 
of pilots, including their ability to see the battlefield, is 
the key factor in victory. That factor continues to favor the 
United States and should continue well into the 21st Century. 
It seems unlikely that any second-world or Third World nation 
could possibly match the training and skill of American pilots.
    Threats From Rogue States.--Indeed, no serious analyst 
would predict that potential opponents such as Iraq, North 
Korea, Libya, or Iran will be in a position politically or 
financially to acquire such advanced aviation technology in the 
quantities needed to threaten U.S. air supremacy. Nor will they 
be able to train a sophisticated air force and provide the 
sophisticated support assets that would be required to sustain 
them in any kind of serious conflict. It is clear that if they 
wish to challenge the United States in the 21st Century, there 
are cheaper, quicker, and potentially more deadly ways to 
confront us. Those threats should be the focus of our budget 
priorities for the 21st Century.
    Reassessment Is Warranted.--Given the high cost that the 
Air Force has proposed for addressing such an ambiguous threat 
to our fighter supremacy, it is time that U.S. defense planners 
reassess the entire tactical aircraft program. Three hundred 
billion dollars for three different new tactical airplanes is 
extravagant in a world where we will have no military peer for 
at least the next 20 years. The Committee is to be 
congratulated for making this difficult choice on a bipartisan 
basis, and forcing this reassessment to take place.

                        Problems With This Bill

    As much as I would wish to support the Committee bill 
because of its F-22 provision, there are other problems that 
prevent me from doing so at this point--problems that I hope 
will be corrected so that I can eventually support the 
conference report.
    Unfortunately, this bill still exhibits many of the same 
tired old military spending traits we have seen in recent years 
from this Congress. Too many extra dollars have again been 
siphoned off from key domestic education, health, clean water, 
food and drug safety, law enforcement, veterans' health care, 
national parks, and other important priorities to pay for 
military pork barrel projects of little or no value. We still 
see hundreds of millions of dollars in military equipment being 
bought in this bill not on the basis of how much it is needed, 
but rather on the basis of where it is built.
    Serious Congressional Oversight Is Too Often Lacking.--This 
Congress also has already dodged any significant attempt at 
reform to cut out the wasteful military spending that everyone 
knows is widely prevalent. For instance, the authorizing 
committees have once again refused to act on military base 
closures, rejecting the Pentagon's request for two additional 
rounds of base closures that some have projected would save 
another $20 billion by 2005, and $3 billion per year 
thereafter. Instead, this Congress finds it acceptable to pay 
billions of extra dollars per year for unneeded and unnecessary 
military bases that the Defense Department readily admits add 
little or nothing to our national security.
    Many other opportunities for making large military spending 
savings exist as well. Little serious Congressional attention 
has been paid to a continuous stream of GAO reports explaining 
how the Pentagon's financial management operations are so weak 
that they are classified as a ``high risk'' for fraud, waste, 
and abuse. Despite many promises, the Pentagon still cannot 
properly account for billions of dollars of property, 
equipment, inventory, and supplies.
    The Navy for instance has lost track of more than $3 
billion worth of goods over the last three years, including 
night vision devices, communications gear of all sorts, even 
guided missile launchers for planes. That's the equivalent of 
misplacing three Navy destroyers. In April of this year, the 
GAO reported that about 60% of DoD's inventory of on-hand 
items, or about #39.4 billion of DoD's secondary inventory, 
exceeded DoD's requirements.
    The Pentagon's financial management system is so weak that 
it cannot keep track of billions of dollars of yearly military 
expenditures. Million dollar-plus overpayments to military 
contractors are oftentimes found out only because the 
contractor voluntarily returns the money.
    In past reports to Congress, the GAO has pointed out many 
other opportunities to save significant sums as well, only to 
have them fall on deaf ears in Congress. For instance, the GAO 
has reported that:
          DoD's laboratory infrastructure is estimated to have 
        an excess capacity approaching 35 percent;
          DoD's capacity for rotary-wing aircraft training is 
        close to double what is needed by all the military 
        services;
          The cost to educate a physician in DoD's Uniform 
        Services University of Health Sciences is more than 
        twice as much as the cost of providing scholarships to 
        students in civilian medical schools;
          DoD's overhead for transportation services has been 
        two to three times the basis cost of transportation.
    In my view, it is not possible to support a bill that 
shifts billion from key domestic accounts like education, 
health, veterans, and the environment to pay for extra military 
spending. This is especially the case when the Congress makes 
no serious effort to clean up the billions in wasteful and 
unnecessary military spending--waste that every Member of 
Congress knows exists.
    Budget Gimmickry At An All Time.--Instead of rigorous 
oversight to root out these inefficiencies and wasteful 
practices, this Congress has spent its time concocting budget 
gimmickry of unprecedented proportions to pay for these 
excesses.
    Three-and-a-half years ago, the Congressional Republican 
leadership closed down the federal government over its demand 
that the President use only ``honest numbers'' from the 
Congressional Budget Office to measure appropriations bills. 
They said at the time that estimates from the CBO were the only 
``meaningful'' numbers that provided ``no wiggle room'' and 
``no smoke and mirrors.''
    Now, the Republican leadership has wiggled into a complete 
about face on this issue. For this bill, the Republican 
leadership has very quietly ``directed'' the head of the 
Congressional Budget Office to ignore his own professional 
spending estimates and simply not count $10.473 billion of 
spending in this bill. The leadership has also directed the CBO 
to ignore its scoring rules on asset sales as well--ordering 
them to credit this bill with another $2.6 billion from the 
expected proceeds from the FCC auction of portions of the 
frequency spectrum (having little of nothing to do with 
defense).
    We once again have a situation in which this Republican 
leadership is pronouncing their unabiding support and 
steadfastness for adhering to the budget caps while they 
whisper orders to the CBO to ignore those very same caps.

                   FY 2000 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Budget
                                             authority        Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Resolution Cap (302b for FY 2000)         267.692         259.130
Actual CBO Spending Estimate:
    This bill--.........................         270.291         271.113
                                         -------------------------------
    Over the cap........................          +2.599         +11.983
                                         ===============================
Scorekeeping Gimmickry:
    Changes ``directed'' by House         ..............         -10.473
     leadership.........................
    Asset sale (spectrum auction sale)..          -2.600          -2.600
                                         -------------------------------
      Total scorekeeping changes........        (-2.600)       (-13.073)
                                         ===============================
Under caps due to ``directed scoring''..             0.0          -1,090
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     military spending and tax cuts

    Perhaps the most important decision that Congress will make 
this year affecting the defense budget over the next decade 
will be the upcoming vote to cut taxes.
    Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee, in correct 
with the House Republican leadership, approved an $864 billion 
ten-year tax cut bill. Since the bill will trigger additional 
debt service of $155 billion, the real cost of this bill is 
$1.02 trillion.
    Tax Cut Crowds Out Defense Increases.--This tax cut 
dissipates more than the entire non-Social Security surplus 
projected by CBO, and it leaves no money to extend the solvency 
of either Social Security or Medicare. This tax cut would make 
it extremely unlikely that other initiatives including the $150 
billion ten-year defense spending (outlays) increase proposed 
by the President, could be financed without returning to 
deficit spending.
    What's more, the underlying spending assumptions that make 
up the 10-year budget surplus estimates are fallacious--they 
assumed deeper cuts in the discretionary spending category 
(that includes defense) than Congress has ever imposed before.
    The implications for all discretionary programs (including 
defense) are ominous if Congress chooses to endorse these 
spending assumptions by voting for a massive tax cut. If 
enacted, this tax cut promises to return us to the dark days of 
the 1980's--with large deficits and cutthroat competition 
between domestic and defense programs.
    Living Within The Assumed Caps.--The CBO now projects a 
non-Social Security surplus totaling $964 billion over the next 
ten years. This projection assumes that appropriations will be 
capped at designated levels in 2000, 2001, and 2002 (an 
extremely dubious assumption), in accordance with the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997. Thereafter, the projected surplus assumes 
that total appropriations will remain at the 2002 funding level 
in real purchasing power. In addition, the projections assume 
that there will be no emergencies in the next decade that 
require federal spending.
    Congress has already breached this ten-year ``freeze'' 
assumption by providing growth rates above this level for 
highway and mass transit programs. In addition, the President 
has called for providing an additional $150 billion (outlays) 
above a freeze level for defense programs over this period. If 
only these two deviations are allowed to occur over the next 
decade, the remaining funds for non-defense/non-transportation 
domestic programs would have to be reduced by 31 percent (-$750 
billion) below their 1999 levels, after adjusting for 
inflation.
    While some may think this could be somewhat acceptable in 
the abstract, I challenge Members to say whether they would 
vote for 31 percent reductions (at a minimum) in the following 
domestic programs:
          Veteran's hospitals and medical care
          National Institutes of Health (NIH)
          NASA
          FAA air traffic control system
          Education for the disadvantaged
          Special education
          Community development block grants
          Coast Guard
          Federal Bureau of Investigation
          WIC (nutrition for women, infants, and children)
          Customs
          Section 8 housing for the elderly and handicapped
          National Park Service
          Drug Enforcement Agency
          INS
          FEMA
          National Science Foundation
          EPA Superfund grants to states
          Head Start
          Pell Grants
          National Weather Service
          Agriculture conservation
          Flood control
          Teacher training
          Food and Drug Administration
    It is politically and economically naive and irresponsible 
to the people whom we represent to think that these programs 
can sustain a 31% reduction over ten years without threatening 
public health and safety and the economic prosperity on which 
the future of American working families depends. America will 
not be frozen in time for ten years. Our population will 
continue to grow, our economy and social structures will 
continue to evolve and become more complex, and our 
responsibilities as the world's only economic and military 
superpower will be great.
    The Republican tax cut would place into serious jeopardy 
the President's military spending proposal and sets the chances 
at zero that any funds could be found to increase the 
President's defense plan.

                                                         Dave Obey.

                                
