House Report 106-644 - DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001

[House Report 106-644]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress Report
2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 106-644
_______________________________________________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001

__________

R E P O R T

of the

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[to accompany h.r. 4576]

June 1, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Bill Totals...................................................... 1
Committee Budget Review Process.................................. 3
Committee Recommendations by Major Category...................... 3
Active Military Personnel.................................... 3
Guard and Reserve Personnel.................................. 3
Operation and Maintenance.................................... 3
Procurement.................................................. 3
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation................... 4
Items of Special Committee Interest.............................. 4
Military Health Care and Medical Research Programs........... 4
Information Assurance and Computer Network Security.......... 5
Ballistic Missile Defense Programs........................... 6
Tactical Fighter Aviation Issues............................. 7
Army Transformation.......................................... 9
Forces to be Supported........................................... 14
Department of the Army....................................... 14
Department of the Navy....................................... 15
Department of the Air Force.................................. 16
TITLE I. MILITARY PERSONNEL...................................... 19
Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel
Appropriations............................................. 19
Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year
2001....................................................... 19
Adjustments to Military Personnel Account.................... 21
End Strength Adjustments................................. 21
Unobligated/Unexpended Military Personnel Balances....... 21
Unfunded Requirements.................................... 21
Basic Allowance for Housing.............................. 22
Guard and Reserve Forces................................. 22
Full-Time Support Strengths.............................. 22
Military Personnel, Army..................................... 23
Military Personnel, Navy..................................... 25
Active Navy Manning...................................... 27
Military Personnel, Marine Corps............................. 27
Military Personnel, Air Force................................ 29
Reserve Personnel, Army...................................... 31
Reserve Personnel, Navy...................................... 33
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps.............................. 35
Reserve Personnel, Air Force................................. 37
Air Force Reserve Manning................................ 39
National Guard Personnel, Army............................... 39
Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams.......... 41
Guard and Reserve Workyear Requirements.................. 41
National Guard Personnel, Air Force.......................... 41
TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................. 45
Operation and Maintenance Overview........................... 48
Real Property Maintenance................................ 48
Depot Maintenance........................................ 49
Soldier Support Equipment................................ 49
Junior ROTC.............................................. 49
Field Maintenance and Logistical Support................. 50
War Reserve and Prepositioned Materiels.................. 50
Headquarters and Administrative Expenses................. 50
Acquisition Program Growth............................... 51
DFAS Program Growth...................................... 51
NATO and Overseas Staff Growth........................... 51
Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data.......... 51
Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings................. 52
Public Transit Vouchers.................................. 53
Recruiting and Advertising............................... 53
Operation and Maintenance, Army.............................. 53
Medium General Purpose Tents............................. 57
Tactical Missile Maintenance............................. 57
Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne (MOTBY).................. 58
Night Training Safety ``Light Sticks''................... 58
Distance Learning--CCCE.................................. 58
Operation and Maintenance, Navy.............................. 58
Navy Aviation Depot Maintenance Apprentice Program....... 61
Man Overboard Indicator.................................. 61
UNOLS.................................................... 62
Naval Sea Cadet Program.................................. 62
USNS Hayes Relocation.................................... 62
Center for Civil-Military Relations...................... 62
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps...................... 62
Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment (MOLLE)...... 64
Civilian Personnel Separation............................ 64
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force......................... 64
C-5 Spare Parts.......................................... 67
Air Force Cargo Distribution Hub......................... 67
Displaying Retired Aircraft.............................. 68
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide...................... 68
Beryllium Work-Related Illnesses......................... 70
DoD Schools.............................................. 70
Family Advocacy.......................................... 71
Youth Development and Leadership Program................. 71
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve...................... 71
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve...................... 73
Fort Worth Naval Air Station............................. 75
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve.............. 75
NBC Defense Equipment.................................... 77
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve................. 77
March Air Reserve Base................................... 79
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard............... 79
National Emergency and Disaster Information Center....... 81
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard................ 81
C-130 Operations......................................... 83
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund................ 83
Budget Justification and Budget Execution Materials...... 83
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.......... 83
Environmental Restoration, Army.............................. 84
Environmental Restoration, Navy.............................. 84
Environmental Restoration, Air Force......................... 84
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide...................... 84
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites....... 84
Nike Battery 55.......................................... 85
Santa Clarita............................................ 85
Newmark.................................................. 85
Depleted Uranium Environmental Restoration............... 85
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid............... 85
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction......................... 86
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense........................ 86
TITLE III. PROCUREMENT........................................... 87
Estimates and Appropriations Summary......................... 87
Special Interest Items................................... 89
Classified Programs...................................... 89
Communication Systems Upgrades........................... 89
Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Vehicles........... 89
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 89
Kiowa Warrior Live-Fire Testing.......................... 90
Ground Proximity Warning System.......................... 90
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 93
Short Range Air Defense Modernization.................... 93
Javelin.................................................. 93
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..... 96
Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge........................... 96
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.............................. 98
Ammunition Management.................................... 98
Sense and Destroy Armor Munition......................... 99
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 101
Up-Armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles.. 103
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 107
Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS). 107
EP-3 Modernization....................................... 108
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 110
Joint Stand-Off Weapon................................... 110
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps............. 113
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 115
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 117
Aviation Requirement for Joint Tactical Terminals........ 118
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 122
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 125
F-15..................................................... 126
C-17 Advance Procurement................................. 126
F-15 Modifications....................................... 126
F-16 Modifications....................................... 127
Miscellaneous Production Charges......................... 127
Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 131
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force......................... 133
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 135
Next Generation Small Loader............................. 136
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 139
National Guard and Reserve Equipment......................... 142
Defense Production Act Purchases............................. 142
Microwave Power Tubes.................................... 142
Information Technology....................................... 142
Information Assurance and Computer Network Security...... 143
Information Technology Oversight......................... 144
Defense Joint Accounting System (DJAS)................... 144
Navy Marine Corps Intranet............................... 144
Information Security Lessons Learned..................... 145
Army High Performance Computing Research Center.......... 145
Information Technology Center............................ 146
National Guard Bureau Fiber Optic Study.................. 146
Global Infrastructure Data Capture Program............... 146
TITLE IV. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION............. 147
Estimates and Appropriation Summary.......................... 147
Special Interest Items................................... 147
Classified Programs...................................... 147
Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan........................... 147
Tactical Radios.......................................... 148
Networking of Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance
Assets................................................. 148
Joint Ejection Seat Program.............................. 148
Discoverer II............................................ 150
Use of Special Access-Like Security Measures to Protect
Business Sensitive Information......................... 150
Budgeting for Operational Test........................... 151
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army............. 151
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)............................ 156
RDT&E Management Support..................................... 156
Rand Arroyo Center....................................... 156
Excalibur (XM-982)....................................... 156
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy............. 161
DD-21 Next Generation Surface Combatant.................. 165
Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP)........................ 167
Network Centric Warfare (NCW)............................ 167
Navy, Marine Corps Imagery Processing Exploitation....... 167
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).......................... 168
Bone Marrow Registry..................................... 168
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force........ 173
Radiation Hardened Electronics........................... 176
Air Traffic Control, Approach, and Landing System........ 176
High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (HAE
UAV)-Global Hawk....................................... 177
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide..... 181
Arms Control Technology.................................. 184
High Performance Computing Program....................... 185
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA)............... 185
Still-Image Compression Standard......................... 185
Competitive Practices.................................... 185
Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense................... 189
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 189
TITLE V. REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS.......................... 191
Defense Working Capital Funds................................ 191
National Defense Sealift Fund................................ 191
Ready Reserve Force...................................... 191
TITLE VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS................... 193
Defense Health Program....................................... 193
Special Interest Items................................... 193
TRICARE Improvements..................................... 194
Transfer of Defense Health Program Funds................. 194
Anthrax Vaccine Program.................................. 195
Chiropractic Demonstration Program....................... 195
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army.............. 195
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense....... 196
DoD Support to Plan Colombia............................. 196
Tethered Aerostat Radar System........................... 197
Office of the Inspector General.............................. 197
TITLE VII. RELATED AGENCIES...................................... 199
National Foreign Intelligence Program........................ 199
Introduction............................................. 199
Classified Annex......................................... 199
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System
Fund....................................................... 199
Intelligence Community Management Account.................... 200
Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and
Environmental Restoration Fund............................. 200
National Security Education Trust Fund....................... 200
TITLE VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS................................... 203
Definition of Program, Project and Activity.................. 203
House of Representatives Reporting Requirements.................. 203
Changes in the Application of Existing Law................... 204
Appropriations Language.................................. 204
General Provisions....................................... 206
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law......................... 208
Transfer of Funds............................................ 210
Rescissions.................................................. 211
Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)........ 211
Constitutional Authority..................................... 211
Comparison with the Budget Resolution........................ 212
Five-Year Outlay Projections................................. 212
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments.......... 212
Full Committee Votes......................................... 212
Additional Views............................................. 224

106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-644

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001

_______

June 1, 2000.--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. 4576]

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, 2001.

Bill Totals

Appropriations for most military functions of the
Department of Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill
for the fiscal year 2001. 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 2001 budget request for
activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations
Bill totals $284,520,572,000 in new budget (obligational)
authority. The amounts recommended by the Committee in the
accompanying bill total $288,512,800,000 in new budget
authority. This is $3,992,228,000 above the budget estimate and
$19,805,014,000 above the sums made available for the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000.

Committee Budget Review Process

During its review of the fiscal year 2001 budget, the
Subcommittee on Defense held a total of 13 hearings during the
period of February 2000 to March 2000. Testimony received by
the Subcommittee totaled 1,408 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.

Committee Recommendations by Major Category

Active Military Personnel

The Committee recommends a total of $65,098,288,000 for
active military personnel, a net increase of $51,800,000 above
the budget request. The Committee supports the budget request
which proposed a 3.7 percent pay raise for military personnel
effective January 1, 2001. The Committee also agrees with the
authorized end strength as requested in the President's budget,
and has included $18,500,000 for additional Navy recruiters and
Navy force structure manning.

Guard and Reserve Personnel

The Committee recommends a total of $10,805,928,000, a net
increase of $50,750,000 above the budget request for Guard and
Reserve personnel. The Committee agrees with the authorized end
strength as requested in the President's budget for the
Selected Reserve, and has included $37,500,000 to provide for
additional full-time support personnel for the Army Reserve,
Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Army National
Guard. The Committee has also included funds for the proposed
3.7 percent pay raise.

operation and maintenance

The Operation and Maintenance appropriation provides for
the readiness of U.S. forces as well as the maintenance of
facilities and equipment, the infrastructure that supports
combat forces, and the quality of life of service members and
their families.
The Committee recommends $97,507,228,000, a net increase of
$1,227,115,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget request. This
increase is driven primarily by the need to address shortfalls
in funding for infrastructure repairs and maintenance, depot
level maintenance, basic soldier support equipment, field level
maintenance and logistical support, and shortages of
sustainment stocks. The Committee also recommends reductions
from the budget request as the result of fact of life changes
and management actions the Department of Defense should
undertake to streamline its operations.

procurement

The Committee recommends $61,558,679,000 for programs
funded in Title III of the Committee bill, Procurement, a net
increase of $2,292,076,000 to the fiscal year 2001 budget
request. Included in these totals is $2,452,551,000 for
procurement of National Guard and Reserve equipment, a net
increase of $622,651,000 above the budget request.
Major programs funded in the bill include:
$183,371,000 for 17 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters.
$709,454,000 for Apache Longbow modifications.
$372,248,000 for 3,754 Javelin anti-tank missiles.
$285,363,000 for 2,200 Hellfire missiles.
$188,689,000 for 66 MLRS launcher systems.
$440,689,000 for Bradley fighting vehicle industrial base
sustainment.
$1,200,077,000 for the Medium armored vehicle family.
$338,422,000 for the Abrams tank upgrade program.
$2,818,533,000 for 42 F/A-18E/F fighter aircraft.
$1,128,592,000 for 16 Marine Corps V-22 aircraft.
$231,118,000 for 3 KC-130J aircraft.
$433,932,000 for 12 Trident II ballistic missiles.
$4,053,653,000 for the CVN-77 aircraft carrier.
$1,198,012,000 for 1 New Attack Submarine.
$2,703,559,000 for 3 DDG-51 Destroyers.
$348,951,000 for 1 ADC(X) ship.
$2,149,882,000 for 10 F-22 fighter aircraft.
$400,000,000 for 5 F-15 fighter aircraft.
$2,185,823,000 for 12 C-17 airlift aircraft.
$250,610,000 for 1 JSTARS aircraft.
$380,232,000 for C-135 modifications.
$219,848,000 for 9,098 JDAM munitions.
$2,357,943,000 for ammunition for all services.
$433,962,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
programs.

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation

The Committee recommends $40,170,230,000 for programs
funded in Title IV of the Committee bill, Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, an increase of $2,307,829,000
to the fiscal year 2001 budget request. Major programs funded
in the bill include:
$614,041,000 for the Comanche helicopter.
$355,309,000 for the Crusader artillery program.
$706,000,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter program.
$257,274,000 for the DD-21 next generation destroyer.
$1,411,786,000 for F-22 development.
$145,313,000 for B-2 development.
$569,188,000 for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)
High.
$332,952,000 for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
program.
$4,111,408,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
programs.

Items of Special Committee Interest

Military Health Care and Medical Research Programs

The Committee continues to emphasize support for and
oversight of defense health care and medical research programs.
The Committee recommends total funding for the Defense Health
Program of $12,143,029,000, an increase of $988,412,000 over
the enacted fiscal year 2000 level (a one year increase of
nearly nine percent), and $542,600,000 above the fiscal year
2001 budget request. In addition, appropriations for other
medical programs in this bill, funded in accounts other than
the Defense Health Program appropriation cited above, are
recommended to receive increases above the budget request
totaling nearly $400,000,000.
The funds provided above the budget request include
$280,600,000 to implement the health care enhancements recently
approved by the House in the National Defense Authorization Act
for fiscal year 2001 (H.R. 4205), which are targeted to achieve
improved access to care for service members, their dependents,
and the retired military community. The Committee bill also
includes additions over the budget request totaling
$638,830,000 for medical research programs, including
$175,000,000 for the peer-reviewed breast cancer research
program and $75,000,000 for the peer-reviewed prostate cancer
research program (both managed by the Department of the Army).
Consistent with findings resulting from its fiscal year
2001 budget review hearings, the Committee also recommends
general provisions intended to give the Department greater
flexibility in the execution of its managed care contracts, as
well as requirements that the Secretary of Defense more fully
monitor and report to Congress on issues associated with the
execution of those contracts, in particular cost growth in the
TRICARE system.

Information Assurance and Computer Network Security

The fiscal year 2001 budget request generally accelerates
the efforts underway within the Department of Defense and the
intelligence community to take advantage of rapid advances in
information technology. The Committee, as in years past,
supports such efforts as the DoD's ``Revolution in Military
Affairs'' and ``Revolution in Business Affairs'' which are
largely premised on taking advantage of a growing ability to
move and process information.
However, as in society at large, the national security
community's growing use of such technology poses great
vulnerabilities as well. Events of recent weeks have only
served to highlight this problem, with the news dominated by
acts by individual hackers committing computer vandalism. The
threats posed by such seemingly random acts--in themselves
real--pale in comparison to the potential dangers posed by
those who seek to damage American interests. The range of
possibilities runs from those attempting to discreetly break
into systems to steal information, to more active measures
intended to destroy or disable information networks in order to
damage U.S. military and intelligence capabilities, perhaps in
connection with a real world conflict.
The Committee believes that a concerted, focused effort is
needed to protect key information systems, not only by those
within the national security community but at all levels of
government. The Committee commends the DoD for the efforts it
has already initiated in this regard, which among other things
includes taking advantage of lessons learned from the Year 2000
computer problem. Nevertheless, it is the Committee's belief
that much more needs to be done in this arena.
The Committee is well aware that the complexity of this
problem does not lend itself to a ``silver bullet'' solution. A
more appropriate response is a broad approach intended to
create a ``defense-in-depth'', with multiple levels of
protection and avoidance of any single point of failure.
Drawing on testimony from experts in the Department of Defense,
the FBI, industry and academia, the Committee therefore
recommends increases over the budget request totaling
$150,000,000, targeted at addressing the most serious
vulnerabilities in the Department's information infrastructure.
These funds are directed towards specific objectives,
including increased monitoring of DoD networks; enhanced
protection of military communications; additional training for
DoD personnel; and increasing the Department's knowledge of its
vulnerabilities. The funding allocations include:
$36,000,000 to purchase hardware and software applications
to monitor computer networks for suspicious activity;
$35,000,000 for new digital secure phones to replace the
outdated STU-III;
$20,000,000 to ensure security capabilities are built into
new cell phones, rather than retrofitting them later at a
significantly higher cost;
$18,600,000 to accelerate the DoD's Public Key
Infrastructure (PKI) program;
$15,000,000 for information security awareness, education
and training;
$12,100,000 for an effects-based evaluation of a computer
network attack on information systems and processes;
$10,300,000 for an assessment of the physical and cyber
vulnerabilities of militarily-critical DoD and commercial
infrastructures; and
$3,000,000 for additional basic (6.1) research into
information assurance.
Specific program details associated with this initiative
are noted throughout this report and are summarized in the
Information Technology section under Title III, Procurement.
The Committee directs that those information assurance program
elements or projects receiving funds over the budget request in
the Committee report be designated as items of congressional
interest and shall be so noted on DD Form 1414 (this is to
include amounts requested in the budget request and the
additional funding cited above).
The Committee intends that this Information Assurance
initiative be the first step in a longer-term effort to
increase programmed funding for DoD's efforts towards securing
its information systems and networks. Accordingly, the
Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees with the fiscal year
2002 budget submission which provides details on the planned
obligation of these funds, as well as the funding proposed in
the fiscal year 2002 budget for information assurance programs.

Ballistic Missile Defense Programs

In light of the growing threat posed to deployed U.S.
military forces, the citizens and territory of the United
States, and our allies, the Committee recommends a total of
$4,555,370,000 for programs under the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO). This is a net increase of $168,245,000
over the budget request, and $738,824,000 above the amounts
provided for fiscal year 2000.
Within this amount, the Committee recommends specific
funding allocations for certain key programs as shown below:

National Missile Defense:
Procurement......................................... $74,530,000
RDT&E............................................... $1,740,238,000
Theater High-Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) RDT&E......... $549,945,000
Navy Theater-Wide RDT&E................................. $512,671,000
Navy Area RDT&E......................................... $274,234,000
PAC-3:
Procurement......................................... $365,457,000
RDT&E............................................... $81,016,000
International Cooperative Programs RDT&E................ $116,992,000

Tactical Fighter Aviation Issues

The Committee, as it noted in its report last year, remains
concerned about the developmental challenges and overall costs
associated with the current Department of Defense plans to
modernize its tactical fighter inventory. The Committee
recognizes the need and justification for each of the major
ongoing tactical fighter modernization programs: the Navy's F/
A-18 E/F fighter; the Air Force's F-22 fighter; and the Marine
Corps/Air Force/Navy Joint Strike Fighter. Nevertheless, given
the current expense of each of these programs, and the growing
share of the DoD budget they will consume as they move from
development into low-rate and then full-scale production, the
Committee believes it is absolutely essential that the DoD
insist on a rigorous testing and development process as well as
sound program and cost management for each program. Absent such
controls, the financial ``bow wave'' associated with tactical
fighter modernization, already immense, can only grow--which
could result in either reduced procurement objectives, putting
even more pressure on existing, aging assets; or the diversion
of funds from other critical defense needs.
The Committee's fiscal year 2001 recommendations for each
of these programs are summarized below.
F/A-18 E/F: The Committee recommends $2,818,553,000 for
procurement of 42 aircraft, the number of aircraft requested in
the budget; $101,068,000 in advance procurement, and
$248,093,000 for research, development, test and evaluation
(the budgeted amounts).
F-22: The Committee recommends funding the budgeted amounts
for procurement of 10 aircraft ($2,149,882,000), advance
procurement ($396,222,000), and research, development, test and
evaluation ($1,411,786,000).
The Committee continues to believe it is essential the F-22
aircraft receive adequate testing prior to a production
decision. Unfortunately, the F-22's flight test program
continues to fall short of Air Force projections. Between
November 1999 and March 2000, the F-22 program lost an
additional nine flight test months. The Committee is especially
concerned about slips in static and fatigue testing, which are
now both more than a year behind schedule. In a related matter,
the Committee has become increasingly convinced that the
congressionally-imposed F-22 development cost cap is forcing
the Air Force to reduce or delay the funding for, and planned
scope of, testing in order to accommodate continued cost growth
on the F-22 development contract.
Responding to these concerns, the Committee has included
two general provisions. The first (Section 8116 of the
Committee bill) restates the criteria established in Public Law
106-79 (the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000),
which prohibits award of a low-rate production contract for the
F-22 until:
(1) first flight of an F-22 aircraft incorporating Block
3.0 software;
(2) certification by the Secretary of Defense that all
Defense Acquisition Board exit criteria for award of low-rate
production has been met; and
(3) submission of a report by the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation assessing the adequacy of the testing to
date.
The Committee also proposes Section 8117, which replaces
the existing, individual statutory budget caps on F-22
development and production with a single, overall cap for the
entire program. This will provide the Air Force greater
flexibility to plan, budget, and execute a sound testing and
development program than is currently the case under existing
law.
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF): The Joint Strike Fighter is a
critically important program for the Marine Corps, Air Force
and Navy. As currently planned it will be the largest single
defense acquisition program in the history of the DoD. The
Committee fully understands the integral part that this program
plays in all three Services' tactical fighter modernization
plans. It also believes that the JSF, should it live up to its
technological promise and cost goals, represents the best
option for replacing aging Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18 and AV-
8B fighters, as well as Air Force F-16s. In short, the
Committee wants this program to succeed.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for JSF was premised on
completion of the program's concept demonstration/validation
phase by March 2001. By this date, the program was expected to
be ready for transition into engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD), to be conducted by one of the two competing
contractor teams following a ``winner-take-all'' source
selection decision. However delays in the start of the JSF
flight demonstration program, as well as technical problems
which may hinder demonstration of critical JSF design
characteristics, have made a March 2001 completion date for
concept demonstration increasingly unlikely.
Moreover, the Department of Defense has been actively
assessing the effects of the ``winner-take-all'' acquisition
strategy on the defense industrial base. It is possible that
the Department may, in a matter of weeks, announce a revised
acquisition strategy involving some degree of teaming or
cooperation between what are currently two opposing industrial
teams, each with distinctly different design concepts,
hardware, subcontractors and vendor bases. Should such a
revision to the acquisition strategy occur, logic dictates that
the JSF development program and budget plan will require
adjustments, perhaps even major changes, to those currently
assumed in the fiscal year 2001 budget submission and the
existing Future Years Defense Plan.
The Committee believes Congress must be in a position to
carefully consider, and respond if necessary, to any proposed
revisions in the JSF's acquisition strategy--especially in
light of the potential schedule and cost impacts. Additionally,
the current JSF program schedule and the fiscal year 2001
budget request both presume a source selection and EMD contract
award will be completed by March 2001. As stated above,
technical and schedule problems make it unlikely this milestone
will be met.
The Committee also notes that this projected March 2001
date is just two months into the beginning of a new
Administration and Congress. The Committee believes there must
be sufficient time for the next Administration to formulate its
own plans for the JSF in the context of its own overall defense
program. In this regard, a March 2001 decision point involving
a program of this importance is clearly unrealistic.
Therefore, the Committee recommends the following actions:
(1) The Committee bill includes total fiscal year 2001
funding for the Joint Strike Fighter of $706,606,000, a net
decrease of $150,000,000 from the budget request. Within this
total the Committee has provided $411,101,000 for concept
demonstration, an increase of $150,000,000 over the budget
request; and $295,502,000 for engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD), a decrease of $300,000,000 from the budget
request. These changes have been allocated to the appropriate
program elements in the Navy and Air Force research,
development, test and evaluation accounts. The effect of these
changes is to provide sufficient funding to extend the concept
demonstration/validation phase from March to June 2001; and to
delay initiation of entry into the engineering and
manufacturing development phase of the JSF program by three
months, from March to June 2001.
(2) To ensure that Congress is kept apprised of the status
of the JSF program, the Committee bill includes a general
provision (Section 8118) which requires that 60 days following
enactment of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2001, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the
congressional defense committees describing what, if any
changes have been made to the JSF acquisition plan as a result
of the Secretary's review of the ``winner-take-all'' strategy.
If applicable, this report shall address any contemplated
changes in the JSF development schedule and funding profile
resulting from a revised acquisition strategy. The Secretary is
also to report on a number of issues regarding the technical
progress made towards achieving planned JSF performance
characteristics.
(3) This provision also requires submission of a similar
report from the next Administration's Secretary of Defense by
March 30, 2001, which will provide Congress with updated
information regarding the JSF demonstration phase as well as a
detailed explanation of the next Administration's plans for
this program. The provision also restricts the obligation of
funds for the EMD phase of the JSF program until June 1, 2001,
and further conditions the release of funds on a certification
from the Secretary that the JSF EMD program has been fully
funded by each of the participating services in the Future
Years Defense Plan.

Army Transformation

The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Department of
the Army marks the first year of a 12- to 15-year, $70 billion
effort to transform its Cold War legacy force--designed for a
different era and a different enemy--into a force built on
speed, lethality, versatility, survivability, and
sustainability. This ambitious and far-reaching plan, conceived
less than a year ago, has become known as the ``Army
Transformation'' strategy.
Recent operations have clearly shown that, in the wake of a
40 percent reduction in personnel and a 37 percent reduction in
buying power over the last decade, and a weapons acquisition
process which has proven to be lacking in many respects, the
Army cannot quickly deploy its heavy forces, and is not
optimally equipped or organized to meet the changing demands
placed on it in the post-Cold War era. The Army Chief of Staff
has described this problem succinctly: ``... our heavy forces
are too heavy and our light forces lack staying power.''
In light of the clearly demonstrated need for the Army to
reconfigure itself, and the depth of the commitment to change
exhibited by the Army leadership, the Committee has made the
issue of Army Transformation a major focus of its deliberations
in fashioning the fiscal year 2001 Defense Appropriations bill.
The Committee took the following issues into consideration.
Past Restructuring Initiatives. The Committee notes that
``Army transformation'' is not a new idea. Especially since the
end of the Cold War, different Administrations and different
Army leaders have recognized the need for the Army to adapt to
new and different threats. Over the last decade, the Army has
undertaken a variety of restructuring initiatives, large and
small. They include such efforts as the advanced warfighting
experiment process, ``Force XXI'', digitization, the ``Army of
Excellence'', the ``Army After Next'', and most recently the
Strike Force headquarters concept. Many of these initiatives
have shown some promise, but have regrettably failed to
generate sufficient impetus to bring about transforming change
to the Army. The reasons for this are varied, including
prolonged research and development efforts or extended and
disjointed experimentation programs. Other efforts suffered
from lack of sufficient funding. None had sufficient momentum
or budgetary priority to be completed as originally envisioned.
The consequence of the Army's having failed in these
attempts to make significant changes were perhaps most
pungently summed up by the then-Deputy Secretary of Defense,
John Hamre, who in August 1999 stated: ``If the Army only holds
onto nostalgic versions of its grand past, it is going to
atrophy and die.''
The New ``Army Vision''. Within the past year, the Army has
responded to this challenge by devising a new strategy,
intended to provide in the near-term an enhanced capability to
rapidly deploy combat power, while laying the foundation for
the creation of an ``objective'' force that is as lethal and
survivable as its heavy forces but as deployable, agile, and
versatile as its light forces. The Army intends to accomplish
this through three major initiatives.
``Interim Force''.--The Army has initiated an aggressive
program to convert a selected number of brigades into 4,000
person interim brigade combat teams (IBCTs, also referred to as
``new medium brigades''), intended to bridge the gap between
traditional heavy and light Army forces. The fiscal year 2001
budget contains funding to begin this process for the first
such IBCT. The primary focus of the ``interim force'' is to
make the Army's light combat formations more lethal,
survivable, and tactically mobile. The transition to interim
force elements will also convert some heavy brigades into
lighter and more agile forces.
The IBCTs are specifically designed for employment as early
entry forces that can begin operations immediately upon
departure from the port of debarkation. The mobility goal is to
deploy an entire interim brigade by C-17 or C-130 aircraft to a
theater twice as fast as a mechanized brigade (approximately 96
hours with a dedicated airflow). The Army intends this interim
force to provide the National Command Authority with a better-
tailored and more effective capability for smaller scale
contingencies, such as past operations in Grenada, Somalia,
Haiti, or current operations in Kosovo. The Army also contends
that this force will improve American combat power for fighting
major theater wars (MTW), such as on the Korean peninsula,
especially should the Nation find itself confronted with a
second MTW scenario.
The interim force concept, which is currently estimated to
cost around $600 to $900 million per brigade, centers on
acquiring a family of off-the-shelf, medium weight infantry
carrier vehicles and a new mobile armored gun system. Costs
will be refined with the final selection of interim armored
vehicles later this summer.
The current Army budget funds an equipment acquisition
profile of one interim brigade combat team per fiscal year over
the Future Years Defense Plan. In testimony before the
Committee, the Army Chief of Staff made clear his view that it
is preferable to implement the interim force transition at a
rate of two brigades per year. This is in order to reduce the
risk to U.S. forces, which in all likelihood will continue to
be ordered to undertake operations with equipment,
organization, and doctrine that is not optimized for many of
the missions they will be tasked with performing.
``Objective Force''--While attempting to address immediate
operational needs through the rapid fielding of the interim
brigades, the fiscal year 2001 Army budget also proposes a
major research and development effort to support the design and
eventual fielding of a new medium weight ``objective force'',
based on ``leap ahead'' technology, and intended for deployment
in the 2012 timeframe. This force will be designed to deploy a
combat-capable combined arms brigade anywhere in the world in
96 hours, the remainder of the division 24 hours later, and
five divisions anywhere in the world in 30 days. Even though it
would be centered around a relatively lightweight (10 to 20
tons), advanced technology Future Combat System vehicle, the
Army believes the objective force can be shaped and equipped to
have the versatility, sustainability, and lethality to fight
and win a full spectrum of conflicts ranging from small
stability and support operations to full-scale major regional
wars.
Heavy Force Recapitalization.--The third major element of
the Army strategy calls for ``recapitalization'' of its legacy
heavy forces, to ensure that the Army will continue to have the
ability to generate overwhelming heavy combat power to fight
and win the Nation's wars. This part of the plan is centered on
further tank upgrades, revitalization of helicopter assets,
artillery upgrades, and enhanced situation awareness
(digitization) capabilities. It calls for modernizing III
Corps, the 3rd Infantry Division, selected Guard brigades, and
other units not part of the interim force. The Committee notes
that even under the most optimistic implementation timetables
for the future ``objective force'', it will be necessary to
maintain the Army's heavy formations for at least another two
decades.
Committee Observations and Concerns:--The Committee
commends the present Army leadership for devising a program
that not only attempts to learn lessons from past restructuring
efforts, but also tries to reevaluate and make fundamental
changes to core organizational, doctrinal, and institutional
concepts. However, the Committee believes that if this effort
is to avoid the fate of previously well-intended Army efforts,
it will require a sustained level of commitment from the Army,
the Secretary of Defense, and Congress, a demonstrated
dedication to change and willingness to make tough choices, and
a concerted effort to make this a top Department of Defense
priority.
Internal Army Transformation Needed.--While laudatory of
the Army leadership's aggressive efforts over the past year to
make its transformation vision a reality, the Committee
believes that the Army must undertake a serious self-
examination of how it is internally organized and resourced to
manage a complex and expensive undertaking such as
Transformation. The Committee has not been impressed with the
slow and protracted way in which the Army has historically
developed and acquired many of its major systems. For example,
it will take 30 years for the Army to develop and procure a new
fleet of medium trucks, the Comanche helicopter will be in
development for nearly 20 years before it is procured, and
hundreds of millions were spent to develop the medium Armored
Gun System only to see the Army recommend its cancellation
immediately prior to procurement. Other examples abound. The
Committee has observed how any number of Army research and
development programs have displayed a lack of focus and
relevance over the years, while there have been a series of
embarrassing design problems involving relatively simple items
such as trailer hitches and medium trucks.
Budget Priorities Must Shift As Well.--The Army must also
come to grips with the need to make the hard budgetary choices
needed to reorder its internal priorities and to eliminate
lower priority expenditures. It is not unreasonable to require
the Army to contribute a significant portion of the total cost
of the transformation effort from savings derived from other
desirable but lower priority Army programs--especially those
that after years of development have yet to demonstrate
success, are duplicative of existing capabilities, or represent
a ``Cold War'' mindset in terms of requirements and operational
utility.
The Committee is also puzzled by the actions of the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The Committee notes that
after issuing what amounts to an ultimatum to the Army to
transform itself, OSD did not follow up its challenge with the
resources necessary to properly and robustly implement the
transformation plan. Even though Army transformation is a
centerpiece of the President's fiscal year 2001 defense budget,
the Administration proposed larger program increases for both
the Air Force and the Navy than for the Army. Indeed, the
proposed fiscal year 2001 budget cuts the Army's overall buying
power by 1.5 percent.
The Committee takes no issue with the legitimacy of the Air
Force and Navy program increases, most of which meet valid
needs and requirements. But the Committee also believes that if
the DoD and the next Administration does not accord Army
transformation the budgetary priority it deserves, it will
languish and eventually be homogenized into the traditional
Army structure along with many past initiatives, producing only
marginal long term effect.
Interim Force Implementation Issues.--The Committee is
concerned about many aspects of the proposed ``off-the-shelf''
acquisition plan the Army has initiated to equip the new
interim brigades. But given Army immediate operational
requirements, and the well-demonstrated inability of the Army
acquisition system to quickly develop and field equipment, the
Committee believes this unconventional acquisition initiative
must be given a chance to succeed. Even then, the interim
brigade acquisition strategy cannot be allowed to become yet
another drawn-out, overly expensive program which collapses
from its own weight.
The Committee is aware that some have called for slowing
down the fielding of the interim force to allow for a period of
experimentation, detailed platform demonstrations, and
operational analysis. The Committee believes that the Army
shall, and must, take the necessary steps to ensure that the
equipment and operational tactics for the interim force meet
the warfighting needs of those commanders who may be called
upon to use this capability, as well as providing for the
safety of those soldiers who may be called upon to fight on
behalf of the Nation. On balance, given the Army's needs the
Committee finds itself supportive of the Army Chief of Staff's
crisply stated vision for the interim force: ``We intend to
stand it up, organize it, equip it, train it, pick it up, and
lift it and use it, as opposed to study it.''
The Committee cautions the Army that it should be prepared
to demonstrate that it has given full and careful consideration
to vehicle cost in awarding upcoming IBCT vehicle production
contracts. In particular, the Committee will review how the
Army has weighed such costs against the benefits and desire of
achieving commonality among all medium combat vehicle types.
The Committee expects the Army to follow a ``best value''
concept when evaluating bids and awarding IBCT contracts.

Committee Recommendations:

The Committee strongly supports the thrust of the Army
leadership's strategic vision to transform its Cold War legacy
force to one that is better tailored to conduct a full spectrum
of operations with dominance, speed, agility, lethality, and
sustainability.
In addition, the Committee concurs with the Army leadership
that the greatly increased frequency of small-scale contingency
operations over the past decade, and the likely continuation of
such missions in the foreseeable future, justifies the need for
establishing its interim brigades more quickly than the ten-
year timeframe currently proposed. The Army believes that it
can implement this force in half the time if funds are
available, and the Committee agrees that this is what should be
done. In addition, the Committee strongly supports the concept
that the interim force must not just be developed as a
specialized force only for small contingency operations, but as
a ``full spectrum force'' capable of effective combat at all
levels of conflict.
Therefore, after careful consideration, the Committee makes
these recommendations regarding the key aspects of the Army
Transformation strategy:
The Committee recommends fully funding the budget request
of $105,000,000 for the cornerstone of the ``objective force'',
the Future Combat Vehicle, and also provides an additional
$46,000,000 over the request to accelerate this effort.
The Committee bill fully funds the budget request of
$646,077,000 to develop and field interim armored vehicles for
the first interim brigade combat team--and provides additions
above the budget request of $150,000,000 for development costs,
and $133,000,000 in procurement accounts to completely test,
equip and field the first IBCT.
In addition, the Committee provides an additional
$800,000,000 in procurement funding to equip a second IBCT, in
accordance with the Army's preferred rate of interim brigade
implementation.
As stated above, the Committee believes that the Department
of Defense must increase the overall attention and priority it
is giving to the interim brigade transformation concept. The
Committee bill therefore contains a general provision (Section
8115) prohibiting the obligation of any funds provided for the
second IBCT, unless and until the Secretary of Defense
certifies to Congress that the fiscal year 2002 Department of
Defense budget submission fully funds an additional two IBCTs
for fiscal year 2002, as well as in each of the succeeding
years of the Future Years Defense Plan until eight brigades are
financed. The Committee expects and directs the DoD to include
adequate funding in next year's budget request to meet the
recommended pace of converting two brigades per year.
Finally, a key aspect of the Army transformation process
must be an internal transformation, to revitalize and modernize
its processes for developing and acquiring major systems in a
timely, efficient, and cost effective manner. The Committee
therefore directs the Secretary of the Army to commission an
independent organization (as discussed in the Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army portion of this report)
to review and make necessary recommendations to improve the
Army's management structure, procedures, requirements
development and resource allocation levels for its research and
development, major systems acquisition, and budget/fiscal
analysis functions. This review shall expressly compare the
manner in which these functions are organized and resourced by
the other military services, and shall solicit the views and
recommendations for improving these functions from cognizant
officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of
Management and Budget, the Congress, and industry. This review
shall be completed no later than March 31, 2001, and a summary
of the recommendations and actions the Secretary plans to take
in response to those recommendations shall be transmitted to
the congressional defense committees by April 30, 2001.

Forces To Be Supported

Department of the Army

The fiscal year 2001 budget is designed to support active
Army forces of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and
reserve forces of 8 divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15
enhanced National Guard brigades (6 enhanced brigades will be
aligned under 2 AC/ARNG integrated division headquarters).
These forces provide the minimum force necessary to meet
enduring defense needs and execute the National Military
Strategy.
A summary of the major forces follows:

department of the navy

The fiscal year 2001 budget support battle forces totaling
316 ships at the end of fiscal year 2001, the same as in fiscal
year 2000. Forces in fiscal year 2001 include 18 strategic
submarines, 12 aircraft carriers, 246 other battle force ships,
1,835 Navy/Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 619
Undergraduate Training aircraft, 517 Fleet Air Training
aircraft, 254 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 404 Reserve aircraft,
and 472 aircraft in the pipeline.
A summary of the major forces follow:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Forces................. 18 18 18
--------------------------------------
Submarines................... 18 18 18
Other........................ 0 0 0
SLBM Launchers................... 432 432 432
General Purpose.................. 256 257 258
Aircraft Carriers............ 11 11 12
--------------------------------------
Surface Combatants........... 106 108 108
Submarines (Attack).......... 57 56 55
Amphibious Warfare Ships..... 37 37 38
Combat Logistics Ships....... 34 34 34
Other........................ 11 11 11
Support Forces................... 25 25 25
--------------------------------------
Mobile Logistics Ships....... 2 2 2
Support Ships................ 23 23 23
Mobilization Category A.......... 18 16 15
--------------------------------------
Aircraft Carriers............ 1 1 0
Surface Combatants........... 10 8 8
Amphibious Warfare Ships..... 2 2 2
Mine Warfare................. 5 5 5
--------------------------------------
Total Ships, Battle Force 317 316 316
Total Local Defense/Misc 162 165 155
Force...................
Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces...... 138 143 132
Surface Combatant Ships.......... 1 0 0
Coastal Defense.................. 13 13 13
Mobilization Category B.......... 10 9 10
Surface Combatants........... 0 0 0
Mine Warfare Ships........... 10 9 10
Support Ships................ 0 0 0
Naval Aircraft:
Primary Authorized (Plus 4,100 4,115 4,101
Pipe).......................
--------------------------------------
Authorized Pipeline.......... 480 477 472
Tactical/ASW Aircraft........ 1,869 1,827 1,835
Fleet Air Training........... 453 517 517
Fleet Air Support............ 260 255 254
Training (Undergraduate)..... 621 627 619
Reserve...................... 417 412 404
Naval Personnel:
Active:
Navy..................... 373,046 371,800 372,000
Marine Corps............. 172,641 172,518 172,600
Reserve:
Navy..................... 89,172 89,134 88,900
SELRES................... 73,297 74,124 74,251
TARS..................... 15,875 15,010 14,649
------------------------------------------------------------------------

department of the air force

The fiscal year 2001 Air Force budget is designed to
support a total active inventory force structure of 78 fighter
and attack squadrons, 4 Air National Guard air defense
interceptor squadrons and 12 bomber squadrons, including B-2s,
B-52s, and B-1s. The Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBM forces will
consist of 605 active launchers.
A summary of the major forces follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF fighter and attack 83 81 78
(Active).....................
USAF fighter and attack (ANG 45 45 45
and AFRC)....................
Air defense interceptor (ANG). 6 6 4
Strategic bomber (Active)..... 10 11 12
Strategic bomber (ANG and 3 3 3
AFRC)........................
ICBM operational launch 605 605 605
facilities/control centers...
ICBM operational missile 550 550 550
boosters.....................
=========================================
USAF Airlift Squadrons
(Active):
Strategic airlift......... 15 15 12
Tactical airlift.......... 11 11 11
-----------------------------------------
Total Airlift......... 26 26 23
=========================================
Total Active Inventory 6,203 6,143 6,114
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 FY 2000 Col/
(Actual) FY 2001 PB FY 2001 PB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Duty................... 360,590 357,900 357,000
Reserve Component............. 177,478 180,386 182,300
Air National Guard............ 105,715 106,678 108,000
Air Force Reserve............. 71,772 73,708 74,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE I

MILITARY PERSONNEL

Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations

The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request continues
to make military personnel programs a high priority. The budget
request proposed a 3.7 percent pay raise, effective January 1,
2001, included a significant increase in funds for advertising
and recruiting support, expanded pays, bonuses and other
retention incentives, recommended an increase in the number of
recruiters, and contained new initiatives to improve the
Services' ability to recruit and retain a quality force.
The Committee agrees with these personnel initiatives and
recommends increases over the budget for programs such as Basic
Allowance for Housing costs, Dislocation Allowance, enlistment
and selective reenlistment bonuses, recruiting and advertising,
and additional recruiters.

SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

Fiscal year 2000...................................... $73,894,693,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 75,801,666,000
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... 75,904,216,000
Change from budget request............................ +102,550,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$75,904,216,000 for the Military Personnel accounts. The
recommendation is an increase of $2,009,523,000 above the
$73,894,693,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2000. 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 2001 MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATION
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change from
Account Budget Recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
Army.................................................. $22,198,457 $22,242,457 +$44,000
Navy.................................................. 17,742,897 17,799,297 +56,400
Marine Corps.......................................... 6,822,300 6,818,300 -4,000
Air Force............................................. 18,282,834 18,238,234 -44,600
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Active.................................... 65,046,488 65,098,288 +51,800
=====================================================
Reserve Personnel:
Army.................................................. 2,433,880 2,463,320 +29,440
Navy.................................................. 1,528,385 1,566,095 +37,710
Marine Corps.......................................... 436,386 440,886 +4,500
Air Force............................................. 981,710 980,610 -1,100
National Guard Personnel:
Army.................................................. 3,747,636 3,719,336 -28,300
Air Force............................................. 1,627,181 1,635,681 +8,500
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Guard and Reserve......................... 10,755,178 10,805,928 +50,750
=====================================================
Total, Title I...................................... 75,801,666 75,904,216 +102,550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes a slight
decrease of 618 end strength for the active forces and an
increase of 1,556 end strength for the selected reserve over
fiscal year 2000 authorized levels.
The Committee recommends the following personnel levels
highlighted in the tables below.

Overall Active End Strength

Fiscal year 2000 estimate............................. 1,382,218
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,381,600
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... 1,382,242
Compared with Fiscal year 2000.................... +24
Compared with Fiscal year 2001 budget request..... +642

Overall Selected Reserve End Strength

Fiscal year 2000 estimate............................. 864,144
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 865,700
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation....................... 866,934
Compared with Fiscal year 2000.................... +2,790
Compared with Fiscal year 2001 budget request..... +1,234

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001
FY 2000 -----------------------------------------
estimate Budget Change from
request Recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Forces (end strength):
Army................................................. 480,000 480,000 480,000 ...........
Navy................................................. 371,800 372,000 372,642 +642
Marine Corps......................................... 172,518 172,600 172,600 ...........
Air Force............................................ 357,900 357,000 357,000 ...........
------------------------------------------------------
Total, Active Force................................ 1,382,218 1,381,600 1,382,242 +642
======================================================
Guard and Reserve (end strength):
Army Reserve......................................... 205,000 205,000 205,300 +300
Navy Reserve......................................... 89,134 88,900 88,900 ...........
Marine Corps Reserve................................. 39,624 39,500 39,558 +58
Air Force Reserve.................................... 73,708 74,300 74,470 +170
Army National Guard.................................. 350,000 350,000 350,706 +706
Air National Guard................................... 106,678 108,000 108,000 ...........
------------------------------------------------------
Total, Guard and Reserve........................... 864,144 865,700 866,934 +1,234
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adjustments to Military Personnel Account

Overview

End Strength Adjustments

The Committee recommends a personnel understrength
reduction of $138,400,000 to the budget request, as a result of
a General Accounting Office review of the fiscal year 2000
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 2001 requirements
are correct. It has concluded, based on March 2000 end strength
projections, that the active and Reserve components will begin
fiscal year 2001 with approximately 3,200 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 2001 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.

Unobligated/Unexpended Military Personnel Balances

The Committee recommends a reduction of $96,000,000 to the
budget request, as a result of a General Accounting Office
review of prior year unobligated military personnel account
balances. Generally the Services' military personnel
appropriations are obligated in the year of appropriation, with
the majority of the obligated balances being disbursed within
two years after being appropriated. However, all of the funds
obligated are not always expended, and those unexpended
balances are then transferred to the foreign currency account.
Since the Services' account data have shown a pattern of not
spending all of their appropriated funds, the Committee
believes that the fiscal year 2001 military personnel budget
request is overstated and can be reduced.
The Committee also believes the Services need to do a more
comprehensive job of reviewing their appropriations balances to
ensure that funds are properly obligated and expended, and if
not, to adjust their budget submissions accordingly.

Unfunded Requirements

The Committee recommends an increase over the budget
request of $250,550,000 for additional active duty and reserve
component pays and allowances to enhance enlisted recruiting,
retention, and quality of life initiatives for military
personnel, as follows:

[Dollars in thousands]

Enlistment Bonuses.................................... $130,400
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses........................ 33,000
AGR Pilot Bonus....................................... 12,400
College First Program................................. 5,000
Basic Allowance for Housing........................... 63,750
Dislocation Allowance................................. 6,000
-----------------
Total........................................... $250,550

Basic Allowance for Housing

The Committee recommends an increase over the budget
request of $63,750,000 for the Basic Allowance for Housing
(BAH) program. The budget recommended funds for a BAH
initiative that will eliminate the out-of-pocket housing costs
being paid by military personnel. This initiative will lower
the average out-of-pocket costs for off-base housing from the
current 18.8 percent to 15 percent next year, and eliminate
them entirely by fiscal year 2005. The Committee recommends an
additional $30,000,000, to further reduce out-of-pocket housing
expenses for military personnel over the budget request.
In addition, the Committee recommends $33,750,000 to
maintain housing allowances at the 1999 levels during fiscal
year 2001, in order to protect service members from any further
erosion of their housing benefits in areas where the 2000 BAH
rates had been decreased.

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. 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 continues its support
of the Guard and Reserve and recommends an increase of
$320,150,000 over the budget request for the personnel and
operation and maintenance accounts as shown below.

[Dollars in thousands]

Military Personnel.................................... +$50,750
Operation and Maintenance............................. +269,400
-----------------
Total........................................... +$320,150

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
148,849 in fiscal year 2000. The fiscal year 2001 budget
request is 133,023 end strength. The following table summarizes
Guard and Reserve full-time support end strengths:

GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 Budget Change from
estimate request Recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve:
AGR.................................................. 12,804 12,806 13,106 +300
Technicians.......................................... 6,474 6,444 7,094 +650
Navy Reserve TAR......................................... 15,010 14,649 14,649 ...........
Marine Corps Reserve..................................... 2,272 2,203 2,261 +58
Air Force Reserve:
AGR.................................................. 1,134 1,278 1,336 +58
Technicians.......................................... 9,785 9,733 9,733 ...........
Army National Guard:
AGR.................................................. 22,430 22,448 23,154 +706
Technicians.......................................... 23,957 23,957 24,992 +1,035
Air National Guard:
AGR.................................................. 11,157 11,148 11,148 ...........
Technicians.......................................... 22,596 22,547 22,547 ...........
Total:
AGR/TAR.............................................. 64,807 64,532 65,654 +1,122
Technicians.......................................... 62,812 62,681 64,366 +1,685
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $22,006,361,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 22,198,457,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 22,242,457,000
Change from budget request............................ +44,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$22,242,457,000 for Military Personnel, Army. The
recommendation is an increase of $236,096,000 above the
$22,006,361,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:
1100 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses..................... 71,000
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
2450 Unemployment Benefits............................... -2,100
Other Adjustments:
2770 Personnel Underexecution............................ -24,900
2805 Basic Allowance for Housing......................... 12,800
2815 BAH Out-of-Pocket Costs............................. 10,200
2820 Dislocation Allowance............................... 2,000
2825 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances................ -25,000

MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $17,258,823,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 17,742,897,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 17,799,297,000
Change from budget request............................ +56,400,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$17,799,297,000 for Military Personnel, Navy. The
recommendation is an increase of $540,474,000 above the
$17,258,823,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:
3900 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses..................... 23,500
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
5250 Unemployment Benefits............................... -1,400
Other Adjustments:
5610 Basic Allowance for Housing......................... 4,300
5625 USS Houston manning................................. 3,500
5630 Additional Recruiter Manning........................ 15,000
5631 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs..................... 9,500
5632 Dislocation Allowance............................... 2,000

Active Navy Manning

The Committee recommends an increase of $18,500,000 over
the ``Military Personnel, Navy'' budget request to provide
additional manpower costs for the required end strength
associated with the decision not to implement the fiscal year
2001 decommissioning of the USS Houston submarine, and to
increase the Navy's recruiter manning levels from 4,500 to
5,000 total strength level.

MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $6,555,403,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 6,822,300,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 6,818,300,000
Change from budget request............................ -4,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,818,300,000
for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an
increase of $262,897,000 above the $6,555,403,000 appropriated
for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:
6700 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses..................... 4,000
6700 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses......... 4,000
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
7900 Unemployment Benefits............................... -700
Other Adjustments:
8230 Personnel Underexecution............................ -8,100
8255 Basic Allowance for Housing......................... 1,500
8260 Marine Corps Execution Repricing.................... -8,000
8265 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs..................... 2,800
8270 Dislocation Allowance............................... 500

MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $17,861,803,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 18,282,834,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 18,238,234,000
Change from budget request............................ -44,600,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$18,238,234,000 for Military Personnel, Air Force. The
recommendation is an increase of $376,431,000 above the
$17,861,803,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:
9350 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses.................... 7,500
9350 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses........ 29,000
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
10700 Unemployment Benefits.............................. -600
Other Adjustments:
11020 Personnel Underexecution........................... -59,600
11080 Basic Allowance for Housing........................ 12,100
11115 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances............... -42,000
11120 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs.................... 7,500
11125 Dislocation Allowance.............................. 1,500

RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $2,289,996,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 2,433,880,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 2,463,320,000
Change from budget request............................ +29,440,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,463,320,000
for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase
of $173,324,000 above the $2,289,996,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:rs]
11750 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses...... 12,400
Other Adjustments:
12020 Full Time Support/AGRs............................. 10,000
12045 JROTC Program...................................... 1,300
12055 College First Program.............................. 5,000
12060 Basic Allowance for Housing........................ 740

RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,473,388,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,528,385,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,566,095,000
Change from budget request............................ +37,710,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,566,095,000
for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase
of $92,707,000 above the $1,473,388,000 appropriated for fiscal
year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Other Adjustments: [In thousands of dollars]
12880 JROTC Program...................................... 600
12895 Basic Allowance for Housing........................ 310
12900 CINC Active Duty for Training...................... 13,400
12910 Annual Training.................................... 23,400

RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $412,650,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 436,386,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 440,886,000
Change from budget request............................ +4,500,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $440,886,000
for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an
increase of $28,236,000 above the $412,650,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Other Adjustments: [In thousands of dollars]
13780 JROTC Program...................................... 300
13795 Personnel Underexecution........................... -700
13800 Active Duty for Special Work....................... 3,000
13805 Active Personnel Reserve Reassessment.............. 1,900

RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $892,594,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 981,710,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 980,610,000
Change from budget request............................ -1,100,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $980,610,000
for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an
increase of $88,016,000 above the $892,594,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Other Adjustments: [In thousands of dollars]
14610 Personnel Underexecution........................... -8,100
14626 JROTC Program...................................... 1,200
14640 AGR Pilot Bonus.................................... 3,700
14645 RED HORSE Unit..................................... 400
14650 Additional Recruiter Manning....................... 1,700

air force reserve manning

The Committee recommends an increase over the request of
$2,100,000 in ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'' to provide
additional personnel costs required for the stand up of a new
total force Rapid Engineer-Deployable Heavy Operations-Repair
Squadron Engineer (RED HORSE) unit, and additional Reserve
recruiter manning end strength.

NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $3,610,479,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 3,747,636,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 3,719,336,000
Change from budget request............................ -28,300,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,719,336,000
for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an
increase of $108,857,000 above the $3,610,479,000 appropriated
for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:rs]
15200 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses...... 12,000
Other Adjustments:
15360 Personnel Underexecution........................... -36,100
15390 Additional Full Time Support AGR................... 23,500
15420 Basic Allowance for Housing........................ 1,300
15430 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances............... -29,000

Weapons of Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams

The Department of Defense has currently fielded 10 Weapons
of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams. Last year, the
Congress directed the establishment and organization of an
additional 17 teams, for a total of 27 teams. The stationing of
these additional teams has already been determined by the
Department. However, the Committee believes that should
additional WMD teams be established by the Congress or the
Department in the future, priority should be given to states in
the Southwestern United States, and other areas which are
experiencing significant population increases.

Guard and Reserve Workyear Requirements

For the past several years, the Committee has asked the
General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the Reserve military
personnel budget requests. In the course of their review, the
GAO found that the Army National Guard has overstated the
average number of military personnel workyears budgeted because
the inactive duty training participation rates used to estimate
the budget were overstated. Last year, the Committee also
directed the Secretary of Defense to ensure the Army National
Guard's accounting procedures for determining annual training
and schools and special training costs were properly coded, and
that the Army National Guard follow the Department's financial
management regulations. GAO has determined that the Army
National Guard has not corrected the accounting problems
reported last year, and further found that this accounting
practice is also followed by the other Guard and Reserve
components. The Committee again directs the Secretary of
Defense to report to the Committee, by February 1, 2001, on its
efforts to ensure that accurate accounting information is used
in preparing the Reserve components budget submissions.

NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,533,196,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,627,181,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,635,681,000
Change from budget request............................ +8,500,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,635,681,000
for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is
an increase of $102,485,000 above the $1,533,196,000
appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Other Adjustments: [In thousands of dollars]
16120 Personnel Underexecution........................... -900
16155 Basic Allowance for Housing........................ 700
16160 AGR Pilot Bonus.................................... 8,700
TITLE II

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The fiscal year 2001 budget request for Operation and
Maintenance is $96,280,113,000 in new budget authority, which
is an increase of $4,045,344,000 above the amount appropriated
for fiscal year 2000. The request also includes a $150,000,000
cash transfer from the National Defense Stockpile Fund
Transaction fund.
The accompanying bill recommends $97,507,228,000 for fiscal
year 2001, which is an increase of $1,227,115,000 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 operation
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 increased funding proposed by the administration in
the fiscal year 2001 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 2001 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 the near term readiness of U.S. forces
as well as the ability of these forces to sustain combat
operations once deployed. These shortfalls are evident in a
number of areas financed by the Operation and Maintenance
accounts including: maintenance of infrastructure; funding for
depot-level maintenance of weapons systems; field level
equipment maintenance and logistical support; recruiting,
advertising and related programs; and basic personnel support
equipment such as cold weather gear, body armor, naval
shipboard accommodations, and minor equipment items to support
soldiers in the field. To correct these deficiencies, the
Committee recommends increased funding above the budget request
in a number of areas including those cited above.
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 the readiness needs
discussed above, 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 under take to streamline activities funded in
the Operation and Maintenance accounts.

real property maintenance

The Committee recommends an increase of $830,300,000 above
the budget request to slow the growth in the backlog of real
property maintenance. The Committee notes that despite modest
increases proposed by the administration for real property
maintenance, the level of funding in the fiscal year 2001
budget request falls far short of arresting the growth in the
backlog of such work. The budget justification materials
indicate an increase in the backlog of real property
maintenance workload of almost $1,600,000,000 from 2000 to
2001, and a total backlog in 2001 of $27,200,000,000. Of this
amount, the backlog for the Army is over $16,000,000,000. To
address this backlog, the Committee recommends additional
funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.

Army.................................................... $555,800,000
Navy.................................................... 70,000,000
Marine Corps............................................ 47,000,000
Air Force............................................... 70,000,000
Defense-Wide............................................ 10,500,000
Army Reserve............................................ 30,000,000
Navy Reserve............................................ 15,000,000
Marine Corps Reserve.................................... 2,000,000
Air Force Reserve....................................... 10,000,000
Army National Guard..................................... 15,000,000
Air National Guard...................................... 5,000,000

depot maintenance

The Committee recommends an increase of $343,202,000 above
the budget request for depot-level maintenance of weapons
systems. The Committee notes with concern that the budget
proposes reducing funding available for depot maintenance by
over $700,000,000 from fiscal year 2000 levels while allowing
the backlog of such maintenance to increase to nearly
$1,200,000,000. To stem the growth in the backlog of depot
maintenance, the Committee recommends additional funding over
the budget request to be distributed as follows.

Army.................................................... $54,402,000
Navy.................................................... 181,200,000
Marine Corps............................................ 22,000,000
Air Force............................................... 29,100,000
Defense-Wide............................................ 10,000,000
Navy Reserve............................................ 10,000,000
Marine Corps Reserve.................................... 5,000,000
Air Force Reserve....................................... 15,000,000
Air National Guard...................................... 16,500,000

Soldier Support Equipment

The Committee recommends an increase of $66,150,000 above
the budget request for soldier support equipment. The Committee
notes that there remains a substantial backlog of basic troop
support equipment such as minor equipment needed to support
soldiers in the field, cold weather clothing, body armor, and
materials to support shipboard accommodations for sailors. To
address these deficiencies, the Committee recommends additional
funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.

Army.................................................... $5,000,000
Navy.................................................... 15,850,000
Marine Corps............................................ 21,300,000
Army Reserve............................................ 9,000,000
Army National Guard..................................... 12,000,000
Air National Guard...................................... 3,000,000

Junior ROTC

The Committee recommends an increase of $12,100,000 above
the budget request for the Junior ROTC program. Of this amount,
$3,400,000 is for the Reserve Personnel accounts, and
$8,700,000 is for the Operation and Maintenance accounts. The
Committee notes that the Department of Defense is nearly 800
units below authorized levels for the JROTC program, and does
not plan to reach the authorized levels until fiscal year 2006.
In order to accelerate this schedule, the Committee recommends
additional funding over the budget request to be distributed as
follows.

Reserve Personnel, Army................................. $1,300,000
Reserve Personnel, Navy................................. 600,000
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps......................... 300,000
Reserve Personnel, Air Force............................ 1,200,000

Operation and Maintenance, Army......................... 4,500,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy......................... 1,700,000
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps................. 700,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.................... 1,800,000

Field Maintenance and Logistical Support

The Committee recommends an increase of $60,800,000 above
the budget request to address deficiencies associated with
field level equipment maintenance, field logistics, and other
logistical support programs. The Committee notes that a number
of these programs have routinely been highlighted on the
Services' unfunded lists and include programs such as corrosion
control, system sustainment and technical support, and
reliability and maintainability programs. To fully fund these
programs, the Committee recommends additional funding over the
budget request to be distributed as follows.

Army.................................................... $20,000,000
Navy.................................................... 20,500,000
Marine Corps............................................ 15,000,000
Air Force............................................... 5,300,000

War Reserve and Prepositioned Materials

The Committee recommends an increase of $60,000,000 above
the budget request to address deficiencies associated with war
reserve and pre-positioned materials stocks. The Committee
notes that the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress has
routinely highlighted vast shortfalls in the stocks of such
material which are critical to sustaining combat operations. To
address these shortfalls within the Marine Corps' Maritime
Prepositioning program and the Air Force readiness spares kits,
the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget
request to be distributed as follows. In addition, the
Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees not later than January
31, 2001, in both classified and unclassified form, which
details specific shortfalls in war reserve materials,
prepositioned materials, and other stocks needed to sustain
combat operations as described in the Quarterly Readiness
Report to the Congress. This report shall include estimates for
both the quantities and types of material shortfalls, measures
that DoD will take to eliminate these shortfalls, and estimates
of the cost to remedy these shortfalls.

Marine Corps............................................ $15,000,000
Air Force............................................... 45,000,000

Headquarters and Administrative Expenses

The Committee recommends a reduction of $143,630,000 below
the budget request for headquarters and administrative
activities. The Committee supports the efforts of the Defense
Authorization Committees to reduce administrative expenses to
the same degree that other elements of the Armed Forces force
structure have been reduced. In addition, the Committee notes
that the fiscal year 2001 budget justification materials
reflect substantial growth in headquarters activities for each
of the Services including staffing, supplies and materials, and
vehicle leases which do not appear justified in light of unmet
readiness and modernization needs discussed elsewhere in this
report. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following
reductions from the budget request.

Army.................................................... $38,700,000
Navy.................................................... 12,376,000
Air Force............................................... 75,000,000
Defense-Wide............................................ 17,554,000

Acquisition Program Growth

The Committee recommends a reduction of $54,481,000 below
the budget request as a result of acquisition program growth.
While the Committee has expressed its support for programs
needed to provide logistical support to the operating forces,
the Committee is concerned about the level of acquisition
staffing growth proposed in the budget request. Accordingly,
the Committee recommends the following reductions from the
budget request.

Navy.................................................... $45,681,000
Air Force............................................... 8,800,000

DFAS Program Growth

The Committee recommends a reduction of $47,111,000 below
the budget request as a result of program growth for the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service as reflected in the
Operation and Maintenance accounts. The Committee notes that
this growth is, in part, the result of a proposal to establish
a European site for DFAS in the fiscal 2001 budget. However,
the budget materials are unclear as to the ultimate costs and
benefits of this action. Accordingly, the Committee recommends
the following reductions from the budget request.

Army.................................................... $19,590,000
Air Force............................................... 27,521,000

NATO and Overseas Staff Growth

The Committee recommends a reduction of $26,000,000 below
the budget request as a result of program growth for NATO and
other European headquarters elements. In light of readiness and
modernization shortfalls discussed elsewhere in this report,
the Committee believes that such growth is unwarranted, and
recommends maintaining resource levels for overseas
headquarters elements at fiscal year 2000 levels. Accordingly,
the Committee recommends the following reductions from the
budget request.

Army.................................................... $18,700,000
Navy.................................................... 6,200,000
Air Force............................................... 1,100,000

Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data

The Committee directs the Department of Defense to continue
to provide the congressional defense committees with quarterly
budget execution data. Such data should be provided not later
than forty-five days past the close of each quarter of the
fiscal year, and should be provided for each O-1 budget
activity, activity group, and subactivity group for each of the
active, defense-wide, reserve and National Guard components.
For each O-1 budget activity, activity group, and subactivity
group, these reports should include: the budget request and
actual obligations; the DoD distribution of unallocated
congressional adjustments to the budget request; all
adjustments made by DoD during the process of rebaselining the
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'' and
``only to'' are Congressional interest items for the purpose of
the base for Reprogramming (DD form 1414). Each of these items
must be carried on the DD 1414 at the stated amount, or revised
amount if changed during conference or if otherwise
specifically addressed in the conference report. In addition,
due to continuing concerns about force readiness and the
diversion of Operation and Maintenance funds, the Committee
directs the Department of Defense to provide written
notification to the congressional defense committees for the
cumulative value of any and all transfers in excess of
$15,000,000 from the following budget activities and
subactivity group categories:

Operation and maintenance, Army

Land Forces: Divisions, Corps combat forces, Corps support
forces, Echelon above corps forces, Land forces 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.

Public Transit Vouchers

The Committee is aware that executive order 13150, April
21, 2000, establishes a public transportation fringe benefit
for employees in the National Capital Region (NCR). The
Committee is interested in the measures that the Secretary of
Defense will take to implement this benefit. Accordingly, the
Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report,
no later than December 31, 2000, to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations which delineates the measures that
the Department of Defense will take to implement Executive
Order 13150, and an estimate of the funding required to support
this Executive Order.

Recruiting and Advertising

The Committee recommends an increase of $75,000,000 over
the budget request for active and reserve recruiting and
advertising programs. The Committee recognizes that the
military services' recruiting efforts to enlist high quality
recruits is continuing to be difficult and provides additional
funds to help meet their recruiting goals. The Committee
further recommends that $2,000,000 of the funds provided are
only for the Joint Recruiting and Advertising Program for a
pilot program aimed at developing a partnership program
involving DoD and athletic associations at two sites to deliver
recruitment messages to high school students.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $19,256,152,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 19,073,731,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 19,386,843,000
Change from budget request............................ +313,112,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$19,386,843,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army. The
recommendation is an increase of $130,691,000 above the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
250 M-Gator.............................................. 3,000
550 JCS Exercises........................................ -11,000
550 Integrated Training Area Management.................. 12,900
550 Modern Burner Unit................................... 5,000
650 Depot Maintenance.................................... 50,000
650 Depot Maintenance Apprenticeship Program............. 4,402
750 NTC Airhead.......................................... 2,000
750 Security Improvements-NTC Heliport................... 1,900
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
1300 Industrial Preparedness Growth...................... -20,100
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
1850 Institutional Training-Specialized Skill Training... 10,000
1850 Military Police School/MCTFT Joint Training......... 2,000
1850 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education.... 3,000
1950 DLI Classroom and Office Furnishings................ 2,500
1950 Defense Language Institute.......................... 2,000
1950 Monterey Regional Education Initiative.............. 2,000
1950 Office Furnishings for DOIM Computer Center......... 1,500
1950 Joint Multi-Dimensional Education & Analysis System
(NDU)................................................... 3,000
1950 Support to International Students................... 1,000
2000 Institutional Training-Training Support............. 10,000
2000 Distance Learning-CCCE.............................. 1,500
2000 Armor Officers Distance Learning.................... 1,500
2200 Recruiting and Advertising.......................... 15,000
2400 JROTC............................................... 4,500
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
2800 Pulse Technology.................................... 5,000
2850 System Technical Support............................ 20,000
2850 Supercomputing Work................................. 6,000
2850 Logistics and Technology Project.................... 1,000
3250 Claims Underexecution............................... -40,000
3600 NATO Administrative Growth.......................... -12,400
3650 Administrative Cost Growth in Europe................ -6,300
Undistributed:
3710 Classified Programs Undistributed................... 7,000
3740 Memorial Events..................................... 700
3750 Real Property Maintenance........................... 273,300
3780 Headquarters and Administration Growth.............. -38,700
3825 DFAS Program Growth................................. -19,590
3830 Chicago Military Academy............................ 5,000
3835 Repairs at Fort Baker............................... 6,000
3840 Clara Barton Center at Pine Bluff................... 1,500
3845 Defense Joint Accounting System..................... -14,000
3846 WMD-Distance Learning Network....................... 4,000
3847 WMD-Counter-Terrorism Training and Testing.......... 7,000

medium general purpose tents

Of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance,
Army the Committee directs that $14,000,000 be made available
only for the purpose of meeting prospective requirements for
modular general purpose tents (M.G.P.T.) associated with
wartime and other mobilizations as described in the report
accompanying the House Department of Defense Appropriations
bill for fiscal year 2000.

tactical missile maintenance

Of the amount recommended for Operation and Maintenance,
Army, specifically depot maintenance, the Army will be funded
with $48,300,000 to be applied to Army Tactical Missile Depot
Maintenance requirements, to include ground support equipment,
at its organic public depots.

military ocean terminal bayonne (motby)

Of the funds provided in Operation and Maintenance, Army
for real property maintenance, $5,000,000 shall only be made
available to the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, only for the stabilization of the South
Berths at MOTBY.

night training safety ``light sticks''

The Committee believes that the number of night training
accidents may be reduced if soldiers were provided with small,
inexpensive, low light emitting, emergency signaling devices.
Although chemiluminescent devices are available though the
defense supply system, they are a discretionary item and not
provided to the Army on a scheduled basis. Accordingly, the
Committee directs the Army to study the feasibility of
providing low-light, chemiluminescent, emergency lighting
devices to individual soldiers involved in tactical training.

distance learning--ccce

The Committee recommends $1,500,000 to enhance and expand
the City Colleges of Chicago Europe (CCCE) college degree and
certificate program for U.S. military service members.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $22,958,784,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 23,250,154,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 23,426,830,000
Change from budget request............................ +176,676,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$23,426,830,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The
recommendation is an increase of $468,046,000 above the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
4600 Aviation Depot Maintenance.......................... 20,000
4650 Object Oriented Simulations/Reengineering Pilot
Program................................................. 5,000
5000 Ship Depot Maintenance.............................. 142,000
5050 Berthing & Messing Barge............................ 20,000
5400 JCS Exercises....................................... -1,000
5500 Man Overboard Indicator............................. 2,850
5500 CINCUSNAVEUR Administrative Growth.................. -1,500
5550 Reverse Osmosis Desalinators........................ 1,000
5550 Surface Ship Calibration Support.................... 4,000
5850 Arms Control........................................ -200
5950 CWIS Overhauls...................................... 4,000
5950 Mk 45 Mod 1 Maintenance............................. 10,000
6220 Partnership for Rapid Innovation Pilot Project at
Navy Region Northwest................................... 10,000
6220 Portal Crane Maintenance, Rota...................... 3,500
6220 NATO Administrative Cost Growth..................... -4,700
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
6500 Ship Disposal Initiative............................ 10,000
6500 Nuclear Submarine Inactivations (PSNS).............. 46,700
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
7200 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education.... 3,000
7300 NPS-Center for Civil Military Relations............. 1,245
7300 Joint Multi-Dimensional Education & Analysis System
(Naval War College)..................................... 2,000
7300 Support to International Students................... 500
7300 Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, Monterey...... 4,000
7350 CNET................................................ 5,000
7350 Distance Learning--CNET............................. 4,000
7700 JROTC............................................... 1,700
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
8550 Acquisition Management.............................. -8,318
8600 Acquisition Management.............................. -19,349
8600 Information Technology Center....................... 7,000
8650 Acquisition Workforce............................... -13,614
8650 Configuration Management Information System (to
insert weapon systems data into the CMIS database)...... 15,000
8700 Acquisition Management.............................. -4,400
8700 Trident Sonar Manual Conversion..................... 3,000
Undistributed:
9280 Classified Programs Undistributed................... -15,144
9320 Navy Environmental Leadership Program............... 5,000
9360 Headquarters and Administration Growth.............. -12,376
9380 Contract and Advisory Services...................... -14,061
9405 Civilian Personnel Underexecution................... -49,600
9410 Improved Shipboard Mattresses....................... 13,000
9415 Defense Joint Accounting System..................... -7,000
9420 Communications Program Growth....................... -15,557

navy aviation depot maintenance apprentice program

Of the funds available for Operation and Maintenance, Navy
for aviation depot maintenance, the Committee directs that
$4,000,000 shall be available only for apprentice programs to
augment the civilian workforce at the Navy's aviation
maintenance depots.

man overboard indicator

The Committee has provided an additional $2,850,000 for the
procurement, installation, training and verification, and
maintenance of a man overboard indicating system capable of
active integration into a shipboard Personnel Tracking and
Monitoring System for two U.S. Navy carrier battle groups as a
field demonstration. This device should have the capability for
modification to include the PTMS characteristics as discussed
in the Secretary of the Navy's February 1999 Report to the
Congress.

unols

Of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance,
Navy, the Committee directs that $3,000,000 shall be made
available only for the purpose of funding backlogs in
oceanographic research.

naval sea cadet program

The Committee is aware that the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps
has maintained a youth training program in close cooperation
with the Navy for over forty years. In the interest of possible
expansion of this program, the Committee directs that the
Secretary of the Navy provide a report to the congressional
defense committees, not later than December 31, 2000, which
lists the benefits of this program to the Navy, and identifies
the financial, material and manpower resources that the Navy
should make available to the Naval Sea Cadet Corps in order to
expand this program.

usns hayes relocation

The Committee is aware of plans by the Navy to relocate the
research vessel USNS Hayes. The Committee supports this
initiative and urges the Navy to expedite the relocation of
this vessel.

center for civil-military relations

The Committee recommends $1,245,000 for the Naval
Postgraduate School to expand its Masters degree program to
reach additional National Guard officers by providing funds for
student assistance, curriculum development and distance
learning support.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $2,808,354,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 2,705,658,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 2,813,091,000
Change from budget request............................ +107,433,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,813,091,000
for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation
is an increase of $4,737,000 above the amount appropriated for
fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
10050 Initial Issue Gear................................. 21,300
10050 ULCANS............................................. 10,000
10050 Lightweight Maintenance Enclosures................. 3,000
10050 Modular Command Post System........................ 4,000
10050 Joint Service NBC Defense Equipment Surveillance... 3,700
10100 Equipment Maintenance.............................. 8,500
10100 Corrosion Control.................................. 6,500
10150 Depot Maintenance.................................. 22,000
10200 Urban Warfare Training-Former George AFB Lease..... 1,500
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
10850 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education... 3,000
11200 Recruiting and Advertising......................... 8,100
11300 JROTC.............................................. 700
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
11700 Servicewide Transportation Underexecution.......... -2,000
Undistributed:
11990 MPS replenishment/replacement stocks............... 15,000
12015 Contract and Advisory Services..................... -367
12020 Civilian Personnel Separation...................... 2,500

modular lightweight load-carrying equipment (molle)

Of the funds provided in Operation and Maintenance, Marine
Corps for initial issue equipment, as discussed elsewhere in
this report, the Committee directs that $10,000,000 shall only
be available for the Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying
equipment (MOLLE).

civilian personnel separation

Of the funds provided in Operation and Maintenance, Marine
Corps, the Committee directs that up to $2,500,000 shall be
used only for civilian separation pay and associated expenses
at the Marine Corps Logistics Base at Barstow, California.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $20,896,959,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 22,296,977,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 22,316,797,000
Change from budget request............................ +19,820,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$22,316,797,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. The
recommendation is an increase of $1,419,838,000 above the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
12650 Reverse Osmosis Desalinators....................... 500
12775 Depot Maintenance--Operating Forces................ 15,000
12800 Air Force Battlelabs............................... 4,000
13000 Tethered Aerostat Radar System..................... 8,500
13100 TACCSF Theater Air Command and Control Simulation
Facility................................................ 8,000
13150 JCS Exercises...................................... -12,200
13450 Eastern Missile Range Launch Facility Enhancements. 10,000
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
13975 Depot Maintenance--Mobilization.................... 14,100
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
14600 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education... 3,000
14600 IT Workforce Re-Skilling--Aeronautical Systems
Center.................................................. 2,000
14700 Joint Multi-Dimensional Education & Analysis System
(Air War College)....................................... 2,000
14700 Support to International Students.................. 500
14950 Recruiting and Advertising......................... 8,200
15150 JROTC.............................................. 1,800
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
15350 Acquisition Management............................. -8,800
15350 Engine Reliability & Maintainability Program....... 4,300
15900 Arms Control....................................... -6,900
15950 Manufacturing Technical Assistance Pilot Program... 4,000
16000 Personnel Support Programs Underexecution.......... -4,000
16100 William Lehman Aviation Center..................... 500
16350 NATO & International Program Growth................ -1,100
Undistributed:
16450 Classified Programs Undistributed.................. 35,574
16500 Readiness Spare Kits............................... 45,000
16580 Headquarters and Administration Growth............. -75,000
16600 Contract and Advisory Services..................... -4,633
16655 DFAS Program Growth................................ -27,521
16660 Defense Joint Accounting System.................... -7,000

c-5 spare parts

The Committee continues to harbor concerns about the
persistent shortages of spare and repair parts needed to
support Air Force aircraft. Accordingly, the Committee directs
the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional
defense committees no later than January 31, 2001, and again on
September 30, 2001, on the overall status of the Air Force
spare and repair parts program, with a specific emphasis on the
C-5 aircraft, to include whether the necessary resources are
programmed to address future spare and repair parts
requirements.

air force cargo distribution hub

The Committee is aware of available capacity at the
Youngstown-Warren Airport, home of the 910th Air Force Reserve
Airlift Wing, that may be employed by the Department of Defense
for cargo shipments. Accordingly, the Committee directs that
the Commander of the Air Mobility Command provide a report to
the House Committee on Appropriations not later than December
31, 2000, which assesses the feasibility of using Youngstown-
Warren Airport as a hub for the distribution of Department of
Defense cargo.

Displaying Retired Aircraft

The Committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to
provide all authorized assistance to defray the costs of
demilitarization, preparation, and transportation of a retired
AT-38B aircraft for purposes of putting the aircraft on public
display at the Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, Kentucky.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $11,489,483,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 11,920,069,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 11,803,743,000
Change from budget request............................ -116,326,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$11,803,743,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide.
The recommendation is an increase of $314,260,000 from the
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:sands of dollars]
17250 DLA--Generalized Emulation of Microcircuits......... 3,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
17775 Civil Military--Angel Gate Academy.................. 4,200
17775 Civil Military--Youth Development and Leadership
Program................................................. 500
17800 Classified and Intelligence......................... -2,322
17900 DCAA--Pay rate Calculation.......................... -2,000
18000 DHRA--Joint Recruiting and Advertising Program...... 2,000
18050 DISA--Information Assurance: IT Training and
Education............................................... 3,000
18200 DLA--Automated Document Conversion.................. 20,000
18200 DLA--Security Locks................................. 15,000
18500 DoDEA--Family Advocacy Program...................... 4,000
18500 DoDEA--Math Program Skill Set Kits.................. 600
18600 JCS--Headquarters Personnel Reduction............... -522
18650 OEA--Pico Rivera.................................... 2,000
18650 OEA--NAS Cecil Field................................ 3,000
18700 OSD--Command Information Superiority Architectures
(CISA) Program.......................................... 5,000
18700 OSD--Headquarters Personnel Reduction............... -4,446
18700 OSD--Information Assurance: JCOATS-IO............... 1,600
18700 OSD--Information Assurance: Critical Infrastructure
Protection.............................................. 10,300
18700 OSD--Energy Savings Performance Contracts........... 4,000
18700 OSD--CTMA: Depot Level Activities................... 10,000
18700 OSD--CTMA: Wearable Computers....................... 850
18700 OSD--Special Subsistence Stipend.................... 5,000
18820 WHS--Low priority programs.......................... -10,000
18860 Special Programs.................................... -200,000
Undistributed:
19020 Impact Aid Program.................................. 35,000
19070 Defense Agencies Headquarters Personnel Reduction... -12,586
19160 Defense Joint Accounting System..................... -13,500

beryllium work-related illnesses

Beryllium is a metal that has long been an important
component of nuclear explosives, aircraft, missiles and other
weapons due to its lightness and strength. The Administration
has proposed a package of compensation for the employees of
contractors and vendors to the Department of Energy who are
suffering from chronic beryllium disease and other work-related
illnesses associated with the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
The Committee believes it would be prudent to have an
understanding of whether the use of beryllium in non-nuclear
applications for the Department of Defense has resulted in a
similar situation for the Defense workforce. The Committee bill
directs (in Section 8111 of the General Provisions) that the
Secretary of Defense submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on beryllium-related illnesses, to include
information on incidences of beryllium-related illnesses,
potential costs of compensation of Defense workforce employees
for such illnesses, and whether such compensation is justified
or recommended by the Secretary of Defense.

dod schools

The Committee commends everyone involved in the DoD school
system for recent achievements that have placed it among the
best performing schools in our nation. The Secretary of Defense
testified before the Committee this year that the DoD school
system is performing ``magnificently''. Maintaining, and where
needed, improving the education system supporting our military
families must continue to be a high priority for the DoD and
Congress.
The Committee is concerned that the compensation and
allowance structure for DoD school teachers has evolved over
time to a point where there may be actual or perceived
inequities for different personnel stationed at the same
location overseas. The Committee is also concerned that
teachers stationed overseas have to pay high out-of-pocket
medical costs for themselves and their dependents that would
not apply if they taught in the United States, and this has
become a major disincentive for preventative and follow-up
health care. Either of these issues could adversely impact the
Department's ability to sustain its current level of excellence
in the military school system. The Committee, therefore,
directs that the Secretary of Defense submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by January 15, 2001 on DoD
school teacher compensation/allowances and fees for teacher/
dependent medical services. The report should include his
recommendations and legislative proposals, if appropriate, for
improving the current compensation system, removing inequities
that may exist, and improving the access to quality health care
for military school teachers.

family advocacy

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 over the budget request
in the Department of Defense Dependents Education account, only
for enhancements to Family Advocacy programs for at-risk youth
such as KidsPeace National.

youth development and leadership program

The Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 over the
budget request for the Youth Developmental 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.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,469,176,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,521,418,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,596,418,000
Change from budget request............................ +75,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,596,418,000
for Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation
is an increase of $127,242,000 above the $1,469,176,000
appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
19640 Forces Readiness Operations Support/Integrated
Training Area Management................................ 700
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
20010 Recruiting and Advertising.......................... 12,000
Other Adjustments:
20110 Real Property Maintenance........................... 30,000
20140 CINC Overseas Deployment Training................... 2,800
20145 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System............... 9,000
20150 Additional Full Time Support Technicians............ 20,500

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $958,978,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 960,946,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 992,646,000
Change from budget request............................ +31,700,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $992,646,000
for Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation
is an increase of $33,668,000 above the $958,978,000
appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
21600 Ship Depot Maintenance............................. 10,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
22300 Military Manpower and Personnel Management/
Recruiting and Advertising.............................. 6,700
Other Adjustments:
22670 Real Property Maintenance.......................... 15,000

Fort Worth Naval Air Station

The Committee has provided additional funds for Real
Property Maintenance for the Navy Reserve and directs that
$1,250,000 be provided for demolition of selected buildings at
the Fort Worth Naval Air Station.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $138,911,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 133,959,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 145,959,000
Change from budget request............................ +12,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $145,959,000
for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The
recommendation is an increase of $7,048,000 above the
$138,911,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
23500 Operating Forces/Single Storage Site for NBC
Equipment............................................... 1,800
23600 Real Property Maintenance.......................... 2,000
23650 Depot Maintenance.................................. 5,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
23850 Recruiting and Advertising......................... 2,000
Other Adjustments:
24200 Increased Use of Guard and Reserve................. 1,200

nbc defense equipment

The Committee recommends $1,800,000 over the budget
request, only to support the single site storage facility
program in consolidating the storage and management of nuclear,
biological, and chemical defense equipment.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,782,591,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,885,859,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,921,659,000
Change from budget request............................ +35,800,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,921,659,000
for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The
recommendation is an increase of $139,068,000 above the
$1,782,591,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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......................... 4,000
Other Adjustments:
25600 Real Property Maintenance.......................... 10,000
25640 RED HORSE Unit..................................... 1,800
25645 Technician Pilot Retention Allowance............... 5,000

March Air Reserve Base

The Committee has provided additional funds for Real
Property Maintenance for the Air Force Reserve and directs that
$2,000,000 be provided for required roof repairs for hangars
and support buildings at March Air Reserve Base (ARB), and for
navigational aids upgrades at March Inland Port.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $3,161,378,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 3,182,335,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 3,263,235,000
Change from budget request............................ +80,900,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,263,235,000
for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard. The
recommendation is an increase of $101,857,000 above the
$3,161,378,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
26400 Base Operations/Integrated Training Area Management 2,400
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
26680 Information Management/NGB Nationwide Dedicated
Fiber Optic Network..................................... 5,000
26740 Recruiting and Advertising......................... 12,000
Other Adjustments:
26810 Additional Full Time Support Technicians........... 30,500
26870 Real Property Maintenance.......................... 15,000
26890 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System.............. 12,000
26945 National Emergency and Disaster Information Center. 1,000
26946 R-2000 Engine Flush Systems........................ 3,000

national emergency and disaster information center

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the National
Emergency and Disaster Information Center to support the
National Guard's mission as first responder to emergencies and
the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program. The Center would
provide supporting functions in a number of areas to include
consequence management for WMD incidents, continuity of
operations, critical asset and infrastructure assurance, and
disaster response. The Committee understands that the Center
will have the capability to identify, analyze, and maintain a
database of best practices and lessons learned associated with
the activities performed by Guard personnel, such as the WMD
Civil Support Teams. The Center should be managed by the
Adjutant General of an eastern Division state, as determined by
the National Guard Bureau, who will coordinate and consult with
other federal, state and local government agencies to ensure
effective and efficient operation of the Center.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $3,241,138,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 3,446,375,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 3,480,375,000
Change from budget request............................ +34,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,480,375,000
for Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard. The
recommendation is an increase of $239,237,000 above the
$3,241,138,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

Program Recommended

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001:

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

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:s of dollars]
27800 Real Property Maintenance.......................... 5,000
27850 Depot Maintenance.................................. 16,500
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
28100 Recruiting and Advertising......................... 5,000
Other Adjustments:
28210 C-130 Operations................................... 1,500
28240 National Guard State Partnership Program........... 1,000
28255 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System.............. 3,000
28260 Laser Leveling..................................... 2,000

C-130 Operations

The Committee recommends a total of $1,500,000 over the
budget request for operation and maintenance costs to support
operational capabilities of the 125th Jacksonville, Florida C-
130 unit.

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,722,600,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 4,100,577,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 4,100,577,000
Change from budget request............................ ................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,100,575,000
for the Overseas Contingency Operations transfer Fund. The
recommendation is an increase of $2,377,977,000 above the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000. The funding in this
paragraph provides for ongoing DoD Operations in Southwest
Asia, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Budget Justification and Budget Execution Materials

The Committee notes the efforts of the Department of
Defense to comply with direction found in the fiscal year 2000
Department of Defense Appropriations Act to establish
justification books specifically to support the contingency
operations budget request. However, to fully justify the budget
request, the Committee directs that DoD include in the fiscal
year 2002 budget request for the Overseas Contingency
Operations Transfer Fund a budget justification exhibit which
indicates the appropriation accounts which underlie the
requirements for the funds requested in this account. This
exhibit should indicate for each appropriation account, for
each service, and for each contingency the amount of funds
requested for this account.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $7,621,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 8,574,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 8,574,000
Change from budget request............................ ................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,574,000 for
the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The
recommendation is an increase of $953,000 from the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2000.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $378,170,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 389,932,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 389,932,000
Change from budget request............................ ................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $389,932,000
for Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an
increase of $11,762,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal
year 2000.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $284,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 294,038,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 294,038,000
Change from budget request............................ ................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $294,038,000
for Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is an
increase of $10,038,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal
year 2000.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $376,800,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 376,300,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 376,300,000
Change from budget request............................ ................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $376,300,000
for Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is
a decrease of $500,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal
year 2000.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $25,370,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 23,412,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 23,412,000
Change from budget request............................ ................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,412,000
for Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide. The recommendation
is a decrease of $1,958,000 from the amount appropriated in
fiscal year 2000.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $239,214,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 186,499,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 196,499,000
Change from budget request............................ +10,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $196,499,000
for Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The
recommendation is a decrease of $42,715,000 from the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2000.

Nike Battery 55

The Committee understands that the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes has discovered lead contamination on property that,
prior to its transfer, was used by the Department of the Army
as a rifle range. Given that the contamination has forced the
local community to close the city's park, interpretive center
and whale watching site, the Committee encourages the Army to
address this problem as quickly and as completely as possible.

Santa Clarita

The Committee is concerned about the environmental
contamination of the Porta Bella site, a former munitions
manufacturing and testing facility in Santa Clarita,
California. The Committee requests that the Army examine this
issue and, if appropriate, begin the necessary remediation.

Newmark

The Committee is concerned with the lack of progress the
Army, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
Justice, the City of San Bernardino, and the State of
California have made toward resolving the litigation regarding
groundwater contamination at the Newmark and Muscoy Superfund
site in California. The Committee encourages the parties to
continue their progress towards satisfactorily resolving the
litigation and to complete actions to fully characterize the
groundwater contamination and identify potential sources in
order to protect this valuable water supply. The Committee is
interested in providing the encouragement necessary to bring
this issue to closure.

Depleted Uranium Environmental Restoration

The Committee understands that production of depleted
uranium penetrators at the Army's STARMET site ended in
September 1999, yet there is not an agreed-upon plan for
environmental restoration of the site as required by federal
regulations and law. The Committee directs the Under Secretary
of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees no later than November 23, 2000 which defines the
Army's responsibilities for environmental restoration of the
site, if any, and how the Army plans to meet them. The report
shall identify funding requirements for the restoration and how
the Army has financed them, as well as a detailed schedule for
completion of all work.

OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $55,800,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 64,900,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 56,900,000
Change from budget request............................ -8,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $56,900,000
for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The
recommendation is an increase of $1,100,000 from the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2000.

FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $460,500,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 458,400,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 433,400,000
Change from budget request............................ -25,000,000

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

Committee Recommendations

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change from
Budget request Recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination--Russia.............. 152,800 162,800 +10,000
Weapons Storage Security--Russia.......................... 89,700 89,700 ................
Weapons Transportation Security--Russia................... 14,000 14,000 ................
Fissile Material Storage Facility--Russia................. 57,400 57,400 ................
Fissile Material Processing and Packaging--Russia......... 9,300 9,300 ................
Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium--Russia............ 32,100 32,100 ................
Strategic Nuclear Arms Elimination--Ukraine............... 29,100 34,100 +5,000
BW Proliferation Prevention............................... 12,000 12,000 ................
Chemical Weapons Destruction--Russia...................... 35,000 0 -35,000
Defense and Military Contacts............................. 14,000 9,000 -5,000
Other Program Support..................................... 13,000 13,000 ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

former soviet union threat reduction

The Department recommended $458,400,000 for the Former
Soviet Union Threat Reduction programs. The Committee
recommends $433,400,000, a net decrease of $25,000,000. The
Committee has recommended program changes in accordance with
the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act (H.R.
4205).

QUALITY OF LIFE ENHANCEMENTS, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $300,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... ................
Committee recommendation.............................. 480,000,000
Change from budget request............................ 480,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $480,000,000
for the Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense account. The
recommendation is an increase of $180,000,000 above the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
The Committee notes that the administration has not
requested funds for this account despite the substantial
backlogs of real property maintenance as noted elsewhere in
this report. To address this backlog, the Committee recommends
additional funding of $480,000,000 above the budget request, to
be distributed as follows:

Army.................................................... $282,500,000
Navy.................................................... 70,000,000
Marine Corps............................................ 47,000,000
Air Force............................................... 70,000,000
Defense-Wide............................................ 10,500,000
TITLE III

PROCUREMENT

ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY

The fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense procurement
budget request totals $59,266,603,000. The accompanying bill
recommends $61,558,679,000. The total amount recommended is an
increase of $2,292,076,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget
estimate and is $8,577,965,000 above the total provided in
fiscal year 2000. 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 items whether or not they are repeated
in a subsequent conference report.

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

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

COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS UPGRADES

Fielded military radios and communications equipment
systems still require upgrades and improvements, when cost
effective, to improve operational capability and dependability
as well as reduce operations and support costs. The Committee
is aware of Military Standard 188-141A which includes an
approved miniaturized, multi-functional, digital communications
technology based on compressor and expander techniques that
dramatically improves quality of voice and data communications
over both wired and wireless networks. The Committee directs
the Department of Defense to continue to use this technology,
when cost effective, to upgrade and improve current
communications systems, such as SINCGARS, JTRS, ARC-190 and
PRC-104.

BALLISTIC ENGINEERED ARMORED RESPONSE VEHICLES

The Committee is aware of the development of a Ballistic
Engineered Armored Response vehicle that may be able to enhance
rescue and combat readiness by providing armored transportation
to as many as 12-14 units and also provide the capacity to
rescue 20 to 30 people during a combat and rescue mission. The
Committee directs the Department of Defense to consider the
desirability, utility, and cost effectiveness of such vehicles
for the services.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,451,688,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,323,262,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,547,082,000
Change from budget request............................ +223,820,000

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

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In Thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UH-60 BLACKHAWK (MYP)............ 64,651 183,371 +118,720
Army Reserve: 8 UH-60L ........... ........... +78,520
aircraft....................
National Guard: 3 UH-60Q ........... ........... +40,200
aircraft....................
TH-67 TRAINING HELICOPTER........ 0 18,000 +18,000
Procure training helicopters. 0 0 +18,000
AH-64 MODS....................... 18,516 52,616 +34,100
Vibration Management ........... ........... +7,000
Enhancement Program.........
Oil debris detection and burn ........... ........... +5,000
off system..................
Longbow internal auxillary ........... ........... +10,000
fuel tank...................
Strap pack................... ........... ........... +4,300
Funny harness................ ........... ........... +3,400
Aerial rocket control system. ........... ........... +4,400
UH-60 MODS....................... 3,021 15,021 +12,000
National Guard: Firehawk Kits ........... ........... +3,000
Extended range fuel system... ........... ........... +9,000
AIRBORNE AVONICS................. 60,042 63,042 +3,000
Airborne video recorder and ........... ........... +3,000
image transceiver...........
AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT. 0 14,000 +14,000
ASET IV...................... ........... ........... +4,000
AN/AVR-2A Laser detection.... ........... ........... +10,000
AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT....... 0 14,000 +14,000
AN/AVS-6 night vision upgrade ........... ........... +14,000
AIRBORNE COMMUNICATIONS.......... 0 10,000 +10,000
ARC-220...................... 0 ........... 10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

KIOWA WARRIOR LIVE-FIRE TESTING

Live-fire testing legislation (10 U.S.C 2366) requires
realistic live-fire testing of major Department of Defense
weapon systems. The intent of the legislation is to conduct
tests early in the production of the weapon system in order to
ensure adequacy of design and to allow incorporation of design
changes, if any, as a program moves into full rate production.
Since the waiver authority for this legislation is very narrow,
the DoD has concluded that it must do live-fire testing on the
Kiowa Warrior helicopter for the cost of approximately $6
million. Kiowa Warrior entered production in 1992; the last
production contract was signed in fiscal year 1999 and
deliveries will be completed this year. Given that the Army
does not plan on procuring additional Kiowa Warrior aircraft
and plans on retiring all of the Kiowa Warriors helicopters by
2013, the Committee strongly questions the need for conducting
live fire tests on the platform. The Committee directs that no
funds may be spent on live fire testing on the Kiowa Warrior,
until the Commander-in-Chief of the Joint Forces Command
certifies that such tests must be conducted to fulfill
operational requirements for the aircraft.

GROUND PROXIMITY WARNING SYSTEM

The Committee is concerned about recent mishap rates in
Army aviation, particularly those that involve loss of life or
aircraft, and recognizes that many of these losses occurred as
a result of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) caused by
loss of situational awareness. The Committee is aware that the
FAA has mandated use of an electronic warning device known as
the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) for all passenger-
carrying aircraft and that has resulted in a 93 percent
reduction in CFIT. The Committee is also aware that the Navy
and the Air Force are now installing GPWS on all aircraft, but
the Army continues to reject the use of this device. The
Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report by April
1, 2001 on the viability of installing GPWS on Army transport
helicopters. The report shall include a cost analysis of the
latest generation of GPWS on a single circuit card and an
acquisition plan.

Program Recommended

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the
following in fiscal year 2001:

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,322,305,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,295,728,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,240,347,000
Change from budget request............................ -55,381,000

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

Committee Recommendations

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In Thousands of Dollars]

SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE MODERNIZATION

The fiscal year 2001 budget terminates the Stinger Block II
program. The Committee understands that the Army's decision to
terminate Stinger Block II was based not on new threat analysis
or a change in requirements. Instead, the program was used as a
``bill payer'' for Army Transformation. The Committee is
concerned because with the termination of Stinger Block II, the
Army budget includes no funds to modernize its Army Short Range
Air Defense (SHORAD) forces. The Committee does not recommend
funding for Stinger Block II, but has provided additional
funding for Stinger Block I to mitigate the risk to SHORAD
forces in the near-term.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to submit no later than January 15, 2001 a comprehensive plan
for the modernization of the SHORAD force. The plan should
include: an analysis of the threat against the current, mid-
term (Interim Brigade) and future threat (Objective) forces,
the alternatives for meeting the current and emerging threat,
the cost of each alternative, and the Army's plan to fund
SHORAD modernization to ensure that it is synchronized with the
Army's Transformation plan.

javelin

The Army requested $372,248,000 for Javelin missiles. The
Committee recommends the budget request; however, the Committee
also recommends rescinding $150,000,000 of the $347,677,000
appropriated in fiscal year 2000 for Javelin.
Last year, the Army requested authorization to enter into a
multi-year contract for Javelin missiles. Since Javelin was
experiencing technical problems, the statement of the managers
accompanying the conference report on the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2000, directed that the Army may only enter
into a multi-year contract thirty days after the Secretary of
Defense certified that all outstanding technical issues were
resolved. Additionally, since the Anti-Armor Weapons Master
Plan did not sufficiently address congressional concerns, the
conference agreement also directed that the Army could not
enter into a Javelin multi-year contract until thirty days
after the Secretary of Defense certified that the planned
procurement quantities for Javelin are correct.
To date, the Secretary of Defense has not submitted the
required certification to proceed with a Javelin multi-year
contract. As a consequence, contract award has slipped by at
least six months, resulting in excess funding which the
Committee proposes to rescind.

Program Recommended

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the
following in fiscal year 2001:

PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,586,490,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,874,638,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 2,634,786,000
Change from budget request............................ +760,148,000

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

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In Thousands of Dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY BASE SUSTAINMENT......... 359,389 440,689 +81,300
National Guard: Bradley A0 to ........... ........... +81,300
ODS.........................
MEDIUM ARMORED VEHICLE FAMILY: 537,077 600,077 +63,000
MAVF............................
Fully fund first interim ........... ........... +63,000
brigade.....................
IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88 68,385 76,685 +8,300
MOD)............................
Army Reserve: Additional ........... ........... +8,300
vehicles....................
AVLB SLEP........................ 15,252 0 -15,252
Terminate program............ ........... ........... -15,252
ARMY TRANSFORMATION: MEDIUM 0 ........... +600,000
ARMORED VEHICLE.................
Procures 2nd IBCT set of MAV. ........... ........... +600,000
MACHINE GUN, 5.56MM (SAW)........ 0 ........... +18,300
M249 SAW..................... ........... ........... +18,300
GRENADE LAUNCHER, AUTO, 40MM, 11,835 14,335 +2,500
MK19-3..........................
MK-19 MOD 3.................. ........... ........... +2,500
5.56 CARBINE M4.................. 5,190 7,190 +2,000
Additional systems........... ........... ........... +2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

wolverine--heavy assault bridge

The Army requested no funds for the Wolverine heavy assault
bridge. The Committee understands that the Army's decision to
terminate Wolverine was not based on a change in requirements,
but rather on the need to realign resources to support Army
Transformation. In addition, although the Congress appropriated
$82,000,000 for Wolverine in fiscal year 2000, the Committee
understands that the Army does not intend to use the funds for
the purpose for which they were appropriated. The Committee has
included a General Provision, Section 8114, that directs the
Army to use the fiscal year 2000 funds to procure Wolverine.
Additionally, Section 8114 transfers $15,000,000 of unobligated
fiscal year 2000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Army funds appropriated for the Grizzly minefield breacher
program to the Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat
Vehicles, Army appropriations, only to procure additional
Wolverine heavy assault bridges.

Program Recommended

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the
following in fiscal year 2001:

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,204,120,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,131,323,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,227,386,000
Change from budget request............................ +96,063,000

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

Committee Recommendations

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In Thousands of Dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTG .50 CAL. ALL TYPES........... 10,646 20,646 +10,000
.50 Caliber SLAP............. ........... ........... +4,000
M903 and M962 ammunition..... ........... ........... +6,000
CTG CAL .50 API MK211 MOD 0...... 1,987 3,987 +2,000
Additional ammunition........ ........... ........... +2,000
CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES.............. 57,780 66,380 +8,600
M919 ammunition.............. ........... ........... +8,600
CTG 30 MM, ALL TYPES............. 9,517 14,517 +5,000
HEDP ammunition for Apache ........... ........... +5,000
helicopters.................
NONLETHAL WEAPONS CAPABILITY SET. 8,397 10,397 +2,000
Portable vehicle arresting ........... ........... +2,000
barrier systems.............
60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES........... 28,673 36,643 +7,970
M721/M767 ammunition......... ........... ........... +7,970
CTG MORTAR 120MM ILLUM XM930 W/ 0 5,600 +5,600
MTSQ FZ.........................
M930/M983 ammunition......... ........... ........... +5,600
PROJ ARTY 155MM SADARM M898...... 14,907 0 -14,907
Terminate program............ ........... ........... -14,907
PROJ ARTY 155MM HE M107.......... 35,178 45,178 +10,000
Additional ammunition........ ........... ........... +10,000
MODULAR ARTILLERY CHARGE SYSTEM 27,432 37,432 +10,000
(MACS)..........................
Additional ammunition........ ........... ........... +10,000
MINE AT M87 (VOLCANO)............ 0 20,000 +20,000
Additional ammunition........ ........... ........... +20,000
WIDE AREA MUNITIONS.............. 7,284 12,284 +5,000
Additional ammunition........ ........... ........... +5,000
BUNKER DEFEATING MUNITION (BDM).. 0 10,000 +10,000
SMAW-D, Bunker Defeat ........... ........... +10,000
Munition....................
ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES...... 152,767 158,567 +5,800
Additional ammunition........ ........... ........... +5,800
DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES.. 16,603 17,603 +1,000
Fighting position excavator.. ........... ........... +1,000
GRENADES, ALL TYPES.............. 20,260 24,760 +4,500
M83 Smoke Launcher/LVOSS ........... ........... +4,500
Smoke Launcher..............
PROVISION OF INDUSTRIAL 47,748 51,248 +3,500
FACILITIES......................
Riverbank Army Ammunition ........... ........... +3,500
Plant.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ammunition management

While the Committee is disappointed with the Army's
decision to implement a Triad structure for ammunition
management instead of vesting responsibility in a single
executive, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
report back to the Committee within three months of enactment,
on the effectiveness of the Triad at managing ammunition
effectively and efficiently.
The Secretary should determine the effectiveness based on
the following metrics: percentage of procurement funds spent to
purchase hardware, especially precision munitions, compared to
the amount spent on administrative or overhead costs; a list of
every decision made by the Triad since its inception in
September, 1998 including: date when an issue was first raised,
and ultimately resolved; the cost of that decision in both
dollars and manpower hours, either in anticipated savings or
increased expenditures; the number of decisions brought to the
attention of the Triad, and how many were unresolved and
forwarded to the superior officer; examples showing whether the
Triad is meeting the objectives for efficient development and
production of precision munitions set forth in objectives 1, 5
and 7 on page 16 of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(PNNL) Study.
The report is also to include readiness measurements such
as: munition family life cycle time reductions; on-time
delivery of quality ammunition products to customers; reduction
in backlog of delinquent deliveries, and modernization of the
production base. Performance measurements such as: first time
pass for first article product; first time pass for lot
acceptance testing; and first time pass for period inspection.
Warfighter and logistics support measurements such as:
horizontal technology insertion success; increased fill to
Brigade Combat Team munition requirements; and increased fill
of war reserve stockpile with precision munitions.

sense and destroy armor munition

The Army requested $14,907,000 for Sense and Destroy Armor
Munition (SADARM). The Committee recommends no funds. The
SADARM program, which has been in development for almost twenty
years and has cost almost two billion dollars to date, has yet
to pass an operational test.
The statement of the managers accompanying the conference
report on the Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 directed that
none of the fiscal year 2000 funds for SADARM may be obligated
until Army's Operational Test and Evaluation Command (now known
as Army Test and Evaluation Command) certified that SADARM had
met its reliability requirement of 80 percent. Preliminary
results from the most recent test in May indicate that the 80
percent reliability requirement for SADARM was not met.
More importantly, the current Army outyear budget plan does
not fund SADARM production after fiscal year 2001, and no
funding is provided for the SADARM Product Improvement Program
after fiscal year 2001. Since the Army budget plan terminates
the program and the system has not met its reliability
requirement, the Committee recommends no funding for SADARM.

Program Recommended

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the
following in fiscal year 2001:

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $3,738,934,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 3,795,870,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 4,254,564,000
Change from budget request............................ +458,694,000

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 the modification of in-
service equipment, investment spares and repair parts, and
production base support.

Committee Recommendations

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In Thousands of Dollars]

UP-ARMORED HIGH MOBILITY MULTI-PURPOSE WHEELED VEHICLES

The budget request includes no funds for Up-armored High
Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV). However, the
Committee understands that the Army has an unsatisfied
requirement for Up-armored HMMWV's. The Committee directs the
Army to submit no later than July 10, 2000, a report which
outlines the Army's acquisition objective for Up-armored
HMMWV's and the current inventory levels. The report is also to
include the funding required to alleviate the shortfall.

Program Recommended

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the
following in fiscal year 2001:

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $8,662,655,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 7,963,858,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 8,179,564,000
Change from budget request............................ +215,706,000

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

Committee Recommendations

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SH-60R........................... 162,327 152,327 -10,000
Non-recurring cost growth.... ........... ........... -5,000
Avionics support equipment ........... ........... -5,000
deferment...................
UC-35............................ ........... 15,200 +15,200
Additional aircraft.......... ........... ........... +15,200
KC-130J.......................... 154,818 231,118 +76,300
Additional aircraft.......... ........... ........... +76,300
F-18 SERIES...................... 212,614 200,214 -12,400
Tactical Aircraft Moving Map ........... ........... +5,000
Capability (TAMMAC).........
ATFLIR....................... ........... ........... +9,600
ATARS Procurement (OPEVAL ........... ........... -27,000
results)....................
H-46 SERIES...................... 16,556 21,556 +5,000
Engine Reliability ........... ........... +5,000
improvement program risk
reduction...................
AH-1W SERIES..................... 9,758 13,758 +4,000
AH-1 Night targeting system.. ........... ........... +4,000
H-53 SERIES...................... 19,919 22,519 +2,600
Marine Corps Reserve: CH-53 ........... ........... +2,600
Night Vision B-kits.........
SH-60 SERIES..................... 21,088 39,088 +18,000
AN/AQS-13F................... ........... ........... +8,000
Specific Emitter ........... ........... +10,000
Identification (procurement/
installation)...............
H-1 SERIES....................... 2,642 16,642 +14,000
AN/AQQ-22 Upgrade............ ........... ........... +8,000
H-1 Upgrade program.......... ........... ........... +6,000
EP-3 SERIES...................... 25,833 80,833 +55,000
Modification of P-3 to EP-3 ........... ........... +55,000
configuration...............
P-3 SERIES....................... 60,710 78,710 +18,000
Digital Recorder Reproducers ........... ........... +4,000
(DRRs)......................
SLAM-ER Weapon Integration... ........... ........... +6,000
Digital Instantaneous ........... ........... +6,000
Frequency Management Upgrade
Lightweight Environmentally ........... ........... +2,000
Sealed Parachute Assembly...
S-3 SERIES....................... 79,050 64,050 -15,000
Accelerated retirement of S-3 ........... ........... -15,000
fleet in 2008...............
E-2 SERIES....................... 18,485 57,485 +39,000
Hawkeye 2000 Upgrade......... ........... ........... +39,000
SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS.......... 941,553 947,553 +6,000
Spares for P-3 to EP-3 ........... ........... +6,000
modification................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS)

The Committee recommends a $27,000,000 reduction in F/A-18
procurement funding, the amount included in the request for the
Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS). ATARS
did not have a successful Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL) and
was deemed ``not operationally suitable'' due to reliability
and availability shortfalls.
This situation will cause the Navy and the Marine Corps to
re-evaluate the ATARS program approved by Congress in fiscal
year 2000 and should also result in a revision to the program
presented in the fiscal year 2001 budget request. The Congress
provided the ATARS budget request in fiscal year 2000, but
prohibited the expenditure of 50 percent of the funds until
completion of the OPEVAL. Despite the fact that the OPEVAL is
complete, the Navy has wisely put the program on hold because
it was not completely successful. This puts the Milestone III
decision in jeopardy and causes the Committee to believe that
based on the program presented in the fiscal year 2001 request,
the requested ATARS procurement funds are excess to the needs
of the Navy.
The Committee recognizes that some may perceive this
decision as exacerbating the Marine Corps' un-met requirement
for tactical reconnaissance. However, faced with the lack of a
clear approach to move forward to a Milestone III decision and
an unknown cost associated with potential ATARS modifications
that would meet the OPEVAL criteria, the Committee's action is
prudent.
The Committee directs the Navy to provide a recommendation
on what it will do to meet both the short-term and the long-
term Marine Corps requirement for tactical reconnaissance.

EP-3 Modernization

The Committee has provided a total of $61,000,000 for the
Navy to modify one P-3 to an EP-3 configuration, which meets a
Navy priority requirement by moving the modification from the
fiscal year 2002 budget plan to a fiscal year 2001
appropriation. This asset has been the workhorse of the
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) fleet and
the Committee is pleased that the Navy has identified an urgent
need to increase its inventory of EP-3s. The urgency of course
is also due to the operational loss of four aircraft for
various sensor upgrades, a protracted process due in part to
poor management on the part of the Navy.
The Committee is concerned that the Navy is not adequately
planning or budgeting for a possible Service Life Extension
Program (SLEP) for the EP-3 to ensure the viability of the
aircraft to 2025. Therefore, the Committee directs the Navy to
submit a report by January 15, 2001, which identifies the
outyear requirements for a SLEP of the EP-3, including any
requirement to replace sensors.

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,383,413,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,434,250,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,372,112,000
Change from budget request............................ -62,138,000

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

Committee Recommendations

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRONES AND DECOYS................ ........... 10,000 +10,000
Improved Tactical Air ........... ........... +10,000
Launched Decoy (ITALD)......
FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON... 170,537 95,500 -75,037
Defer EELV launch services ........... ........... -75,000
until leadtime away from
need per GAO recommendation.
MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS......... 38,926 44,926 +6,000
Increased Procurement........ ........... ........... +6,000
ASW RANGE SUPPORT................ 14,955 18,955 +4,000
Northwest Undersea Test Range ........... ........... +4,000
Upgrade.....................
CIWS MODS........................ 964 5,964 +5,000
Phalanx CIWS Block IB Upgrade ........... ........... +5,000
kits........................
GUN MOUNT MODS................... 4,779 14,779 +10,000
MK-45 Gun System Mod 4 ........... ........... +10,000
Upgrade kits................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT STAND-OFF WEAPON

The Navy requested $171,624,000 for procurement of the
Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW). The Committee recommends
$149,523,000, a decrease of $22,101,000.
Of the 636 JSOWs requested, the Navy plans to procure 150
of the ``JSOW-B'' anti-armor variant. The JSOW-B uses the BLU-
108 submunition, the same submunition used in the Air Force
Sensor Fuzed Weapon in production for several years. For a
number of reasons, the Committee believes that it is premature
to significantly ramp up production of the anti-armor variant.
First, the Committee continues to be concerned that DoD is
acquiring too many anti-armor weapons and has failed to respond
adequately to Committee reporting requirements in this regard.
The GAO has observed that DoD is acquiring an anti-armor
inventory that exceeds levels achieved during the Cold War
despite a vastly diminished threat. Until DoD comes to grips
with this mismatch between program and threat, the Committee
must make its own judgements in terms of reducing the
Department's anti-armor programs. Second, the JSOW-B continues
to suffer from targeting limitations that prevent efficient use
of the weapon system until technologies such as sensor-to-
shooter, advanced electronically scanned arrays, and an
improved Harm Targeting System are available. In the meantime,
the Navy and Air Force plan to use exceedingly inefficient
targeting ``work-arounds'' such as launching weapons blindly
into choke points hoping that moving armor happens to be
transiting at the exact time of weapon impact. Third, the
Committee notes that the Navy now recognizes the limited
application of this weapon as reflected by a 50 percent
reduction in the requirement for the JSOW-B variant in its
latest Non-Nuclear Ordnance Requirement (NNOR) analysis
completed after submission of the budget.
Fourth, as mentioned, the Air Force already has in its
inventory the Sensor Fuzed Weapon that uses the same
submunition as the JSOW. Sensor Fuzed Weapon is not a stand-off
munition and therefore avoids some of the targeting issues
associated with JSOW. Though available, this weapon was
prohibited from use in Kosovo over fears of collateral damage.
Adding stand-off to this capability (i.e., JSOW) would only
exacerbate the potential for collateral damage. In summary, the
Committee believes it is premature to procure this weapon in
large numbers until the issues of targeting and requirements
are resolved. Given these considerations, the Committee
recommends a reduction of 120 of the budgeted 150 anti-armor
JSOW-B variants, a decrease of $42,240,000. The Committee
further recommends an increase of 120 baseline JSOW-A variants
for an additional $20,139,000. The Committee notes that the
JSOW-A variant performed well in recent operations in Iraq and
Kosovo. The Committee has made similar adjustments to the Air
Force JSOW program.

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $525,200,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 429,649,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 491,749,000
Change from Budget Request............................ +62,100,000

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

Committee Recommendation

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............ 63,157 73,157 +10,000
Laser Guided Bombs........... ........... ........... +10,000
PRACTICE BOMBS................... 50,600 60,600 +10,000
Laser Guided Training Rounds. ........... ........... +10,000
AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES... 39,293 45,793 +6,500
MJU-52/B IR expendable ........... ........... +6,500
countermeasures.............
5.56 MM, ALL TYPES............... 23,456 26,456 +3,000
Increased quantity........... ........... ........... +3,000
7.62 MM, ALL TYPES............... 2,039 3,039 +1,000
Increased quantity........... ........... ........... +1,000
LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES........ 40,945 44,945 +4,000
Anti-personnel obstacle ........... ........... +4,000
breaching system............
.50 CALIBER...................... 7,637 8,637 +1,000
Increased quantity........... ........... ........... +1,000
GRENADES, ALL TYPES.............. 8,358 12,358 +4,000
M67 fragmentation hand ........... ........... +4,000
grenade.....................
ROCKETS, ALL TYPES............... 1,592 6,192 +4,600
SMAW Common round............ ........... ........... +4,600
ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES............. 322 18,322 +18,000
M795 HE ammunition........... ........... ........... +18,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $7,053,454,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 12,296,919,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 12,266,919,000
Change from budget request............................ -30,000,000

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

Committee Recommendations

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW SSN.......................... 1,203,012 1,198,012 -5,000
Other Cost Growth............ ........... ........... -5,000
CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS.......... 703,441 698,441 -5,000
C4ISR Upgrade, Engineering ........... ........... -5,000
Services cost growth........
DDG-51 (MYP)..................... 2,713,559 2,703,559 -10,000
Basic Construction cost ........... ........... -10,000
growth......................
LPD-17........................... 1,489,286 1,479,286 -10,000
Escalation................... ........... ........... -10,000
ADC(X)........................... 338,951 348,951 +10,000
Second shipyard support ........... ........... +10,000
engineering.................
OUTFITTING....................... 301,077 291,077 -10,000
LPD schedule delays.......... ........... ........... -10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $4,320,238,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 3,334,611,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 3,433,063,000
Change from budget request............................ +98,452,000

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

Committee Recommendations

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT....... 33,425 45,425 +12,000
WSN-7B Ring Laser Gyro....... ........... ........... +12,000
STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP. 6,206 21,206 +15,000
AN/UYQ-70 Submarine ........... ........... +15,000
Workstations................
LCAC............................. 3,559 ........... -3,559
LCAC SLEP (unobligated ........... ........... -3,559
balances)...................
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION....... 58,851 60,851 +2,000
Unattended Paint Removal and ........... ........... +2,000
Application system..........
RADAR SUPPORT.................... ........... 25,000 +25,000
AN/SYS-2 Integrated Tracking ........... ........... +10,000
System......................
SPS-73 (V) Radar............. ........... ........... +14,000
BPS-15H radar enhanced bridge ........... ........... +1,000
repeaters...................
SSN ACOUSTICS.................... 106,647 114,647 +8,000
TB-23 Array refurbishment.... ........... ........... +8,000
UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT 847 2,847 +2,000
EQUIPMENT.......................
Carrier Tactical Surveillance ........... ........... +2,000
Center (CV-TSC).............
SONAR SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.......... ........... 5,000 +5,000
New sonar dome windows (Note: ........... ........... +5,000
Funding is only for
completion of fabrication of
production tooling and first
article production dome with
the new material system.)...
SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT............. 61,524 50,024 -11,500
Contract Savings/Unobligated ........... ........... -11,500
balances....................
NAVY TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM........ ........... 10,000 +10,000
Land based display emulators. ........... ........... +10,000
COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY 15,853 33,853 +18,000
System life extension, test ........... ........... +18,000
sites.......................
SHALLOW WATER MCM................ 16,863 16,363 -500
Contract Savings............. ........... ........... -500
OTHER TRAINING EQUIPMENT......... 21,390 28,390 +7,000
Air Traffic Control On-board ........... ........... +3,000
trainer.....................
BFTT electronic warfare ........... ........... +4,000
trainers....................
SURFACE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS... ........... 4,000 +4,000
Shipboard Advanced Radar ........... ........... +4,000
Target ID system (SARTIS)...
TADIX-B.......................... 32 6,032 +6,000
Additional JTT-N terminals... ........... ........... +6.000
EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION...... 5,378 8,378 +3,000
Mobile Inshore Undersea ........... ........... +3,000
Warfare System (MIUW)
Upgrades....................
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION....... 4,889 11,889 +7,000
Network based shipboard ........... ........... +7,000
interior secure voice
communications (Note:
funding is only for
procurement of AN/UYQ-70
secure voice technology
equipment for land based
evaluations.)...............
SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS. 252,695 206,606 -46,089
Defer procurement of EHF ........... ........... -46,089
follow-on terminals pending
successful end-to-end
testing per GAO
recommendation..............
JEDMICS.......................... ........... 12,000 +12,000
JEDMICS Encryption (Note: ........... ........... +12,000
only for the continued
procurement and integration
of the same security
solution implemented in 1999
and 2000.)..................
INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM 46,563 66,563 +20,000
(ISSP)..........................
Information Assurance: ........... ........... +8,000
Network Intrusion Detection
Device......................
Information Assurance: Secure ........... ........... +12,000
Terminal Equipment..........
WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.. 15,125 26,225 +11,100
Mobile Remote Emitter ........... ........... +15,000
Simulator (MRESS)...........
Underwater Acoustic Telemetry ........... ........... -2,700
Modem.......................
GOMEX Mine Warfare Range..... ........... ........... -1,200
AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT............ 20,374 16,674 -3,700
CSEL--contract award slip.... ........... ........... -3,200
PRC-112 upgrades--contract ........... ........... -500
cancellation................
NATO SEASPARROW.................. 21,716 22,716 +1,000
Enhancement for Automatic ........... ........... +1,000
Audio Video Tracking and non-
Cooperative Target
Recognition.................
RAM GMLS......................... 37,309 36,809 -500
Contract savings............. ........... ........... -500
AEGIS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.......... 36,848 36,848 ...........
Total ship monitoring program ........... ........... +5,000
Smartship fielding ........... ........... -5,000
(unobligated balances)......
SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS....... 20,896 19,596 -1,300
AN/BSG-1--operational test ........... ........... -1,300
slip........................
CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP. 6,238 8,238 +2,000
Laser leveling equipment..... ........... ........... +2,000
EDUCATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT...... 2,076 5,076 +3,000
Navy recruiting kiosks....... ........... ........... +3,000
ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.. 22,247 14,747 -7,500
Primary ocean prediction ........... ........... -7,500
system--software delays.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aviation Requirement for Joint Tactical Terminals

The Committee directs the Navy to review, and report by
March 15, 2001, its requirement for aviation joint tactical
terminals.

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,300,920,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,171,935,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 1,229,605,000
Change from budget request............................ +57,670,000

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

Committee Recommendations

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAPID ACQUISITION PROGRAM........ 4,930 0 -4,930
Cancel program............... ........... ........... -4,930
INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT... 11,960 17,960 +6,000
MEWSS procurement............ ........... ........... +6,000
RADIO SYSTEMS.................... 3,097 9,097 +6,000
Tactical handheld radio...... ........... ........... +6,000
COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE 80,564 82,564 +2,000
SUPPORT.........................
Common end user computer ........... ........... +2,000
package (Marine Corps
Reserve)....................
FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM.............. 12,343 17,343 +5,000
SHORTSTOP.................... ........... ........... +5,000
5/4T TRUCK HMMWV (MYP)........... 124,448 149,448 +25,000
HMMWV (Note: Of the ........... ........... +25,000
additional amount,
$1,500,000 is only to
procure HMMWV's for
recruiting purposes)........
POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED......... 9,325 10,825 +1,500
Laser leveling equipment..... ........... ........... +1,500
COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT........ 0 2,000 +2,000
Ultimate building machines... ........... ........... +2,000
MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP.......... 36,311 48,411 +12,000
D-7G bulldozer and scraper ........... ........... +12,100
program (remanufacture).....
TRAINING DEVICES................. 0 3,000 +3,000
Improved moving target ........... ........... +3,000
simulator...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $8,228,630,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 9,539,602,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 10,064,032,000
Change from budget request............................ +524,430,000

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

Committee Recommendations

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

F-15

The Air Force requested no funds for additional F-15
aircraft. The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for 5
additional F-15E aircraft. The Committee understands that there
are a number of potential F-15 foreign military sales cases
pending. The Committee strongly encourages the Air Force to
take all necessary action to expeditiously negotiate these
potential agreements.

C-17 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT

The Air Force requested $266,800,000 for advance
procurement for 15 aircraft to be procured in fiscal year 2002.
The Committee recommends $207,800,000, a net decrease of
$59,000,000. Subsequent to submission of the budget, the Air
Force identified a budgeting error and requested the Committee
increase C-17 advance procurement by $41,000,000 offset by a
like decrease to the C-17 full funding line-item, a ``net
zero'' transfer. The Committee recommendation includes this
transfer.
In addition, the Committee recommendation includes a
reduction of $100,000,000 based on revised Air Force advance
procurement estimates. The C-17 program is in the midst of a
seven year multiyear contract. Although the contract requires
15 aircraft be bought in fiscal year 2001, the Air Force
budgeted for only 12 based on the assumption that the British
would acquire 3 aircraft. As the budget was submitted to
Congress, the British had not decided to acquire these
aircraft, forcing the Air Force and contractor to evaluate
options to minimize the impact of lower quantities of aircraft
on the multiyear contract. The Air Force and contractor found
that by accelerating contract award dates and manipulating
payment schedules, the multiyear contract could be maintained
at the budgeted quantities. However, these actions also have
the effect of reducing the requirement for advance procurement.
The Committee recommendation adjusts the amount of advance
procurement based on a detailed advance procurement analysis
provided by the Air Force.

F-15 modifications

The Air Force requested $258,247,000 for F-15
modifications. The Committee recommends $305,647,000, an
increase of $47,400,000. Of this amount, $26,400,000 is only
for integration of BOL IR countermeasures on Air National Guard
aircraft and $21,000,000 is only for additional fighter
datalink modifications. The F-15 fighter datalink is an example
of an information age modification that provides tremendous
capability at an inexpensive price. This $230,000 per aircraft
modification to the F-15C recently completed independent
operational testing and was found to make the F-15C four times
better in air-to-air combat (in terms of kill ratios) while
providing a 30 percent increase in survivability--all this
without the aid of stealth or supercruise. Despite this, the
Air Force continues to fail to fund this inexpensive upgrade
for 75 combat coded F-15s. Consequently, the Committee finds it
must once again provide additional funds to ensure all combat
coded F-15s benefit from this highly leveraging modification.

f-16 modifications

The Committee observes that the Senate defense
appropriations report on H.R. 2521 (S. Rept. 102-154) stated,
``the Committee directs that F-16 aircraft scheduled to be
delivered to the Air Force during fiscal year 1992 be turned
over to those Air National Guard F-16 units which served in
Operational Desert Storm.'' The Committee further observes that
the statement of managers accompanying the appropriations
conference report on H.R. 2521 (H. Rept. 102-328) stated, ``The
Committee of Conference directs the Air Force to initiate,
immediately in the first quarter of fiscal year 1992, the
modernization process for those Air National Guard F-16 units
that deployed to Operation Desert Storm, in priority over any
non-deploying unit, leading to equipping these deploying units
with updated F-16 aircraft. Units with the Close Air Support
(CAS) mission will be equipped with Block 30 aircraft.'' The
Committee notes that the Air Force complied with the conference
direction by providing Block 30 aircraft to the 174th Fighter
Wing. Subsequently, however, the Air Force reversed this action
by replacing the Block 30 aircraft with less capable Block 25
aircraft.
The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
provide F-16 Block 40 aircraft, or later model F-16 aircraft,
to Air National Guard units deployed to Operation Desert Storm
no later than first quarter fiscal 2002. Section 8110 of the
Committee bill prohibits obligation of funds for F-16
modifications pending submission of a report by the Secretary
of the Air Force detailing the plan to assign these aircraft as
discussed above.

miscellaneous production charges

The Air Force requested $398,474,000 for Miscellaneous
Production Charges. The Committee recommends $363,553,000, a
reduction of $34,921,000. Two years ago, the Navy initiated a
next generation infrared targeting pod program called ATFLIR
and, according to the Air Force, invited the Air Force to
participate as a joint partner. The Air Force declined at that
time. Now, the Air Force plans to procure its own next
generation targeting pod, a potential billion dollar program.
Though the Air Force's requirements for a next generation pod
are similar to the Navy's, the planned acquisition strategy
could lead the service to procure a completely different pod.
The Committee is disappointed that the Navy and Air Force
cannot work more closely together to develop joint solutions to
meet similar requirements. Joint programs reduce costs through
higher production rates, greater commonality in software
development, stand-up of single vs. multiple depots, and more
efficient spares procurements and management as well as
numerous other efficiencies. To ensure joint commonality in
DoD's next generation targeting pods, the Committee directs the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Undersecretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and the Commander in
Chief of the Joint Forces Command to review the Department's
plans to acquire next generation targeting pods (including pods
that would be procured by Guard and Reserve components) to
ensure the requirements and acquisition approach appropriately
promote joint commonality. The Committee directs the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology, and the Commander in Chief of the
Joint Forces Command to report its findings and the steps taken
to promote joint commonality to the congressional defense
committees no later than February 15, 2001. The Committee fully
supports Air Force acquisition of a next generation targeting
pod, but will not stand by and accept another lost opportunity
for joint commonality. Accordingly, the Committee recommends no
funds for an Air Force Advanced Targeting Pod until these
issues are resolved and the report directed above is submitted.

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $2,211,407,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 3,061,715,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 2,893,529,000
Change from budget request............................ -168,186,000

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

Committee Recommendations

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommendation request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ- 42,308 11,508 -30,800
BALLISTIC....................
Defer Peacekeeper items... ........... .............. -30,800
JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON......... 90,828 76,012 -14,816
Decrease anti-armor ........... .............. -28,160
variant quantity to 20 (-
80)......................
Increase baseline variant ........... .............. +13,344
quantity to 154 (+80)....
MISSILE SPARES--REPAIR PARTS.. 44,026 42,354 -1,672
Defer Peacekeeper spares.. ........... .............. -1,672
GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE).... 196,937 162,596 -34,341
Amended budget submission. ........... .............. -34,341
Program reduction......... ........... .............. -10,000
GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) (AP- 13,404 17,404 +4,000
CY)..........................
Amended budget submission. ........... .............. +4,000
EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH 287,996 275,996 -12,000
(SPACE)......................
Program reduction......... ........... .............. -12,000
MEDIUM LAUNCH VEHICLE (SPACE). 55,939 43,081 -12,858
Savings from delayed GPS ........... .............. -12,858
launches (GAO)...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $442,537,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 638,808,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 638,808,000
Change from budget request............................ ................

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

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $7,146,157,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 7,699,127,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 7,778,997,000
Change from budget request............................ +79,870,000

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

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommendation request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........................................ 8,616 18,616 +10,000
T-7 bulldozers, excavators, and 2.5 ton front end loaders for ........... .............. +10,000
ANG RED HORSE units..........................................
INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIP........................................... 5,530 36,730 +31,200
Senior Scout.................................................. ........... .............. +8,200
Eagle Vision IV............................................... ........... .............. +5,000
Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection Device..... ........... .............. +8,000
Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment.............. ........... .............. +10,000
AIR TRAFFIC CTRL/LAND SYS (ATCALS)................................ 0 6,000 +6,000
Air National Guard fixed air traffic control radar............ ........... .............. +6,000
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM.......................................... 58,663 52,663 -6,000
DASR test problems............................................ ........... .............. -6,000
THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENT............................... 15,431 14,997 -434
Reduced requirements for ruggedized computers................. ........... .............. -434
WEATHER OBSERV/FORECAST........................................... 33,515 28,115 -5,400
Small Tactical Terminals schedule slip........................ ........... .............. -5,400
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING EQUIP................................... 74,771 84,771 +10,000
Spares Information System..................................... ........... .............. +10,000
COMBAT TRAINING RANGES............................................ 26,003 31,003 +5,000
Force Operational Readiness and Combat Effectiveness ........... .............. +5,000
Simulation (FORCES) for ANG..................................
NAVSTAR GPS SPACE................................................. 9,112 2,212 -6,900
Savings from combining 2 contracts into 1..................... ........... .............. -3,800
Air Force rephase of alternate station funding................ ........... .............. -3,100
MILSATCOM SPACE................................................... 53,027 35,127 -17,900
SMART T--program delays....................................... ........... .............. -9,000
GBS Receivers--program delays in broadcast system............. ........... .............. -4,000
Premature procurement of CCS-Consolidated equipment. Program ........... .............. -4,900
just starting development....................................
TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT............................................ 101,222 98,722 -2,500
Reduced laser range finders based on additional units bought ........... .............. -2,500
in 2000......................................................
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........................................ 6,744 10,744 +4,000
Lightweight Environmentally Sealed Parachute Assembly (LESPA) ........... .............. +4,000
for C-130, C-141, C-5, and KC-135............................
MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP................................ 15,118 25,118 +10,000
Supply Asset Tracking System.................................. ........... .............. +10,000
FLOODLIGHTS....................................................... 10,718 14,718 +4,000
MEANPALS...................................................... ........... .............. +4,000
BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT........................................... 15,171 22,171 +7,000
Hazardous Gas Detection....................................... ........... .............. +3,000
Ultimate building machines for Air Force and Air National ........... .............. +1,000
Guard civil engineering units................................
Master Crane.................................................. ........... .............. +3,000
DARP RC-135....................................................... 12,785 27,985 +15,200
COMBAT SENT-Install RWR+Calibration Van....................... ........... .............. +4,700
RIVET JOINT-Mission Trainer (EFETS)........................... ........... .............. +10,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

next generation small loader

The Air Force requested $24,144,000 for procurement of next
generation small loaders. The Committee recommends $11,544,000,
a reduction of $12,600,000. Both competitors for the Next
Generation Small Loader are foreign companies that have entered
into licensing agreements with U.S. companies to produce the
loaders. Low rate production begins with 13 units in fiscal
year 2000 followed by 34 units in fiscal year 2001. Should the
selected U.S. company encounter difficulty in the production
transition between foreign contractor and a new production
line, production delays and potential technical problems with
the loaders could result. The Committee believes it is
appropriate to allow adequate time to validate a new production
line and adequately test the loaders before significantly
ramping up production in fiscal year 2001. Accordingly, the
Committee recommends deferring 21 loaders to fiscal year 2002
resulting in a decrease of $12,600,000 to the budget request.

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $2,249,566,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 2,275,308,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 2,303,136,000
Change from budget request............................ +27,828,000

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

Committee Recommendations

explanation of project level changes

[In thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Change from
request Recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD.......... 64,872 116,672 +51,800
High Performance Computing ........... ........... +48,000
Modernization [Note:
Within this amount,
$1,000,000 is only for
the Army High Performance
Computing Research
Center.].................
Mentor Protege............ ........... ........... +3,000
Information Assurance: ........... ........... +800
JCOATS-IO................
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM........ 19,399 32,399 +13,000
DEFENSE SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.... 82,863 87,863 +5,000
Electronic Commerce ........... ........... +5,000
Resource Centers.........
AUTOMATIC DOCUMENT CONVERSION 0 20,000 +20,000
SYSTEM.......................
ADVANCED SEAL DELIVERY SYSTEM. 25,500 28,800 +3,300
Design Enhancements....... ........... ........... +3,300
SOF ORDNANCE ACQUISITION...... 25,978 31,978 +6,000
Sniper Detection System... ........... ........... +6,000
SOF INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS...... 32,309 35,309 +3,000
Portable Intelligence ........... ........... +3,000
Collection and Relay
Capability...............
SOF SMALL ARMS & WEAPONS...... 11,829 33,449 +21,620
Body Armor Load Carriage ........... ........... +5,000
System...................
Modular Integrated ........... ........... +4,620
Communications Helmet....
Special Operations ........... ........... +12,000
Peculiar Modification to
the M-4 Carbine..........
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT....... 14,376 18,876 +4,500
Low Profile Night Vision ........... ........... +4,500
Goggles..................
INDIVIDUAL PROTECTION......... 108,725 111,725 +3,000
MEU E-NBC Capability Sets. ........... ........... +3,000
DECONTAMINATION............... 12,195 13,195 +1,000
M291 Decontamination Kit.. ........... ........... +1,000
COLLECTIVE PROTECTION......... 36,179 37,179 +1,000
M49 Filter................ ........... ........... +1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $150,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... ................
Committee recommendation.............................. ................
Change from budget request............................ ................

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

Committee Recommendations

In all accounts throughout the bill, the Committee
recommends a total of $2,452,551,000 for procurement of
National Guard and Reserve equipment, a net increase of
$622,651,000 above the budget request. Consistent with the
budget request and the House-passed National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 (H.R. 4205), the
Committee recommends no funding in the Procurement, National
Guard and Reserve Equipment account.

DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $3,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... ................
Committee recommendation.............................. 3,000,000
Change from budget request............................ +3,000,000

The Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. App. 2061, et seq.)
authorizes the use of Federal funds to correct industrial
resource shortfalls and promote critical technology items which
are essential to the national defense.

Microwave Power Tubes

The Committee recommends an increase of $3,000,000 only for
microwave power tubes. Microwave power tubes generate and
amplify microwave energy for applications in radar, electronic
warfare, and telecommunications systems. These devices are
currently used in over 150 deployed weapon systems. 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. Therefore it is
recommended that the Department continue efforts to maintain
and improve the supplier base for microwave power tubes.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The Department requested $19,994,906,000 for Information
Technology. The Committee recommends $20,245,256,000, an
increase of $250,350,000 as explained below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Operation and Maintenance, Army:
Information Assurance: IT Training and Education.... 3,000
JMEANS--NDU......................................... 3,000
Distance Learning--CCCE............................. 1,500
Armor Officers Distance Learning.................... 1,500
Supercomputing Work................................. 6,000
Defense Joint Accounting System..................... -14,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy:
Information Assurance: IT Training and Education.... 3,000
JMEANS--NWC......................................... 2,000
Information Technology Center....................... 7,000
Configuration Management Information System......... 15,000
Trident Sonar Manual Conversion..................... 3,000
Defense Joint Accounting System..................... -7,000
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps:
Information Assurance: IT Training and Education.... 3,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:
Information Assurance: IT Training and Education.... 3,000
IT Workforce Training--Aeronautical Systems Center.. 2,000
JMEANS--AWC......................................... 2,000
Defense Joint Accounting System..................... -7,000
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:
Information Assurance: IT Training and Education.... 3,000
Automated Document Conversion....................... 20,000
Information Assurance: JCOATS-IO.................... 1,600
Information Assurance: Critical Infrastructure
Protection........................................ 10,300
Defense Joint Accounting System..................... -13,500
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard:
NG Fiber Optics Study............................... 5,000
Other Procurement, Army:
Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection
Device............................................ 8,000
Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment.... 13,000
Pentagon IM&T program slip.......................... -48,150
Ammunition AIT...................................... 5,000
NG Distance Learning Courseware..................... 4,000
Reserve Component Automation System................. 8,000
JEDMICS Encryption.................................. 12,000
Other Procurement, Navy:
Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection
Device............................................ 8,000
Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment.... 12,000
Procurement, Marine Corps:
Common End User Computer Package.................... 2,000
Other Procurement, Air Force:
Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection
Device............................................ 8,000
Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment.... 10,000
Spares Information System........................... 10,000
Supply Asset Tracking System........................ 10,000
Procurement, Defense-Wide:
Information Assurance: JCOATS-IO.................... 800
Automated Document Conversion....................... 20,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:
STRICOM-Online Contract Document Mgmt............... 2,000
Information Assurance: PKI.......................... 4,500
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy:
Advanced Distributed Learning....................... 10,000
ITC--Human Resource Enterprise Strategy............. 8,000
Information Assurance: PKI.......................... 8,600
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force:
Information Assurance: PKI.......................... 5,500
Information Assurance: Coordinated Distributed
Attack Detection.................................. 10,000
Information Assurance: Adaptive information
protection........................................ 2,000
IMDS................................................ 5,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-
Wide:
Information Assurance: Basic Research (6.1)......... 3,000
Joint Service Education and Training................ 3,500
DLA Web Based Tracking.............................. 1,500
Information Assurance: JCOATS-IO.................... 9,700
ASD(C3I) Global Infrastructure Data Capture Init.... 21,000
Information Assurance: Project Condor............... 20,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total +250,350

information assurance and computer network security

As discussed earlier in this report, the Committee
recommends providing an additional $150,000,000 over the budget
request to address the most critical information assurance and
computer security requirements identified by DoD. The Committee
expects that the Department will issue guidance to ensure that
these funds are used in a coordinated manner to support the
Department's overall information assurance strategy.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT

Reports by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD
IG) and the General Accounting Office (GAO) confirm that the
Department of Defense continues to have difficulty managing its
information technology programs. The Committee believes that
the basic policies and procedures necessary for sound oversight
and program management are clearly outlined in the Clinger-
Cohen Act of 1996 and in supporting regulations. Last year, the
Committee explained in detail its concerns with the
Department's oversight process and made clear that compliance
with the Clinger-Cohen Act would be a prerequisite for funding
any information technology initiative. It is in that light that
the Committee raises the following two issues.

DEFENSE JOINT ACCOUNTING SYSTEM (DJAS)

Last year, when DJAS was submitted for Milestone I
approval, the DoD IG and the Office of Program Analysis and
Evaluation (PA&E) issued warnings about the program's readiness
for Milestone I approval and about dramatic changes in its
scope, cost and duration. In addition, both the Air Force and
the Navy withdrew from this ``joint'' program. Despite these
obvious warnings, the Department's Information Technology
oversight body (the IT OIPT) gave DJAS Milestone I and II
approval, without having a meeting to review the program.
The Congress explicitly rejected this approval as
inconsistent with the intent of the Clinger-Cohen Act and
directed the Department to conduct a proper Milestone review to
determine if this program should continue. The Committee
understands that the program has continued to move forward
without a proper Milestone review and that the program is still
not compliant with the Clinger-Cohen Act. The Committee has
therefore removed all funding for this program in fiscal year
2001 and directs that this program be terminated.

NAVY MARINE CORPS INTRANET

The Navy Marine Corps Intranet is a new initiative that
involves contracting out for the full range of the Department's
information technology services (such as lifecycle replacement
of computers and infrastructure, software updates and help desk
support). At the cost of several billion dollars over the next
five years, it would be the Department's single largest
information technology initiative. However, this proposal was
not included in the Department's fiscal year 2001 budget.
The Committee has been supportive of efforts by the
military services that seek innovative solutions, and it is out
of a desire to encourage such innovation that the Committee is
willing to consider this program outside the normal budget
process.
As with all information technology initiatives, the Navy
must demonstrate that NMCI is compliant with the Clinger-Cohen
Act and that it has a sound business case for making this
investment. This information is currently unavailable. However,
the Navy has agreed to provide this and other relevant
information, per a March 8, 2000 Memorandum of Agreement with
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command,
Control, Communications and Intelligence. The Committee is
pleased that ASD(C3I) and the Navy have agreed to this
oversight procedure. The Committee will therefore withhold
judgment until that information is available and ASD(C3I) has
conducted a proper review. The Committee encourages the Navy
and ASD(C3I) to work together to ensure that the review process
is both thorough and timely.

information security lessons learned

In its April 10th report to Congress the Department
outlines the ``lessons learned from the Year 2000 effort and
their applicability to information management and information
security.'' Among the key lessons learned was the importance of
functional end-to-end testing, CINC operational evaluations,
contingency plans, continuity of operation plans, a centralized
system database, performance measures and timely audits. The
report's bottom line is ``Senior leadership must remain engaged
in information technology management'' if these lessons learned
are to be effectively implemented.
The Committee requests that the Department of Defense
provide a report, no later that November 15, 2000, outlining
its efforts in implementing these lessons learned. In
particular, this report should address the following questions:
1) How will the Department ensure continued senior level
management involvement? In particular, what will be the
management forum and who be the participants?
2) What performance measures are being used to track a
system or service's preparedness for a cyber attack?
3) How are cyber attacks being integrated into CINC
operational evaluations?
4) What guidance has been issued to ensure that contingency
plans and continuity of operation plans are maintained and
updated for a cyber attack?
5) What functional or end-to-end tests are planned to
examine a system's vulnerability to a cyber attack?
6) How will information assurance audits be integrated into
this effort?

army high performance computing research center

The Committee recognizes the unique value of the Army High
Performance Computing Research Center (AHPCRC). The Center's
high performance computing systems are used heavily by DoD's
science and technology community. AHPCRC researchers have made
significant contributions to computational science and defense
technology. In addition, the Center's outreach and educational
programs have proven valuable to the Army.
To ensure that the Center is adequately funded, the
Committee has added $9,750,000 to funds already budgeted for a
total of $11,507,000 for the Center's activities. Of these
funds, $6,000,000 is only for the use, operation and
maintenance of the Center's high performance computing systems
and networks; $1,500,000 is only for staff scientist services
to support Army research activities; $1,100,000 is only for
technology exchange programs with Army laboratories, outreach
and education programs, and management activities of the
research program and center, including publications, seminars
and workshops; and $2,907,000 is only for basic research at the
Center's academic partner institutions.

information technology center

The Committee recommends $7,000,000 in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy and $8,000,000 in Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Navy only for continuing the human resources
enterprise strategy in accordance with past Committee
direction. These funds shall be provided to the Navy's Program
Executive Office for Information Technology (PEO/IT) for its
enterprise software development Information Technology Center
(ITC).

national guard bureau fiber optic study

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only to continue the
feasibility study and engineering design of a Nationwide
Dedicated Fiber Optic Network (NDFON) for the National Guard.
The Committee directs ASD(C3I) to ensure this network makes
maximum use of DISA networks and is consistent with the
Department's information architecture and policies.

global infrastructure data capture program

The Committee recommends $21,000,000 for the Global
Infrastructure Data Capture Program (GIDC) under the ASD(C3I)
for the acquisition and digital conversion of critical
engineering and infrastructure data, including related systems
and technical information.
TITLE IV

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

The fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense research,
development, test and evaluation budget request totals
$37,862,401,000. The accompanying bill recommends
$40,170,230,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of
$2,307,829,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget estimate and
is $2,564,670,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 2000.
The table below summarizes the budget estimate and the
Committee's recommendations.

RDTE, Army................................................... 5,260,346 6,025,057 +764,711
RDTE, Navy................................................... 8,476,677 9,222,927 +746,250
RDTE, Air Force.............................................. 13,685,576 13,760,689 +75,113
RDTE, Defense-Wide........................................... 10,238,242 10,918,997 +680,755
Developmental Test and Evaluation............................ ............... ............... ...............
Operational Test and Evaluation.............................. 201,560 242,560 +41,000
--------------------------------------------------
Grand total, RDTE...................................... 37,862,401 40,170,230 +2,307,829
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS

classified programs

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

anti-armor weapons master plan

In the statement of the managers accompanying the
conference report on the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 1999, the DoD was directed to provide an Anti-Armor
Weapons Master Plan with the fiscal year 2000 budget request.
The plan, which was delivered five months late, did not address
the concerns outlined in the statement. Therefore, the fiscal
year 2000 statement of the managers directed the Secretary of
Defense provide an in-depth analysis of Anti-Armor weapons with
the fiscal year 2001 budget submission. Four months after the
budget submission, the Committee has still not received the
analysis. The DoD has not requested an extension or given an
explanation for not delivering the plan on time. As a result,
the Committee has recommended reductions to several anti-armor
weapon systems.

tactical radios

The Committee directs that no more than 25 percent of the
funds appropriated for 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 meet interoperability
requirements, is not duplicative of other developmental efforts
and is fully funded in the budget.

NETWORKING OF INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, RECONNAISSANCE ASSETS

The Committee has heard a number of theoretical discussions
about how to better exploit the unique capabilities of
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and
possibly national platforms, by ``networking'' these assets to
provide a more complete intelligence picture for tactical
commanders. While the Navy has provided some discussion of its
Network Centric Warfare concept, the Committee is concerned
that none of the Services have a strategy to achieve
``networked'' intelligence from the various ISR and national
platforms. Furthermore, without a networked approach, it
remains unclear to the Committee if the intelligence currently
gathered with these platforms can be properly and timely
exploited and disseminated to the tactical commander, which
calls into question the wisdom of simply buying more of the
same ``un-networked'' assets. It is possible that funds could
be better spent procuring items that fulfill a requirement to
tie together what is already in the inventory in order to more
effectively provide the tactical commanders with critical
information.
Therefore, the Committee directs that each Service provide
a report no later than September 30, 2001, on its strategy to
network ISR platforms. The Committee is most interested in
whether each Service has a goal for such networking, a strategy
to implement that goal, and a specific plan for procuring or
developing what is needed to execute the strategy. Considering
the necessity of multi-Service warfare, it would be senseless
to propose a networked ISR system which would not provide the
tactical commander with the ability to access all necessary
information. Therefore, coordination of these reports is
essential and required.

joint ejection seat program

The Office of the Secretary of Defense has done a poor job
of responding to the concerns in the Committee's fiscal year
2000 report (House Report 106-244) and the direction contained
in the conference report accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2000. The Committee understands that the
Department agrees with the objectives of the joint ejection
seat program initiated by this Committee last year, and agrees
that the program is essential to address serious safety
concerns about military pilots and their ability to
successfully survive emergency ejections from disabled
aircraft. Yet, no funds were included in the fiscal year 2001
budget to continue this initiative, no response has been
provided to the reporting requirements in last year's
conference report, and the Department still chose to budget a
stand-alone K-36 ejection seat program outside the framework of
the joint program (even though K-36 is one of the candidates
being considered for the joint program). The Committee further
understands that a memorandum of agreement between the Navy and
the Air Force concerning operation of the joint program has not
been consummated, and also, is concerned that the staffing and
decision-making in the program to date is not joint at all, but
rather is being driven by a single service. The Committee views
the joint ejection seat initiative as vital to providing a
safer and more cost-effective seat for the Joint Strike
Fighter, where about 3,000 new aircraft are envisioned, yet
there is no evidence that the Department has connected this
program to the Joint Strike Fighter in a meaningful way.
The Committee directs that no contract award for the joint
ejection seat program using funds provided in fiscal year 2000
be made until the Secretary of Defense resolves all of the
above issues and submits a report to the congressional defense
committees explaining how this was done and submits a program
plan for the Joint Ejection Seat Program as required by last
year's conference report. None of the funds in fiscal years
2000 or 2001 may be obligated until the Secretaries of the Navy
and Air Force certify to the congressional defense committees
that a joint program office and supporting mechanism is in
place to manage the program in a manner which fairly meets both
services' requirements. None of the funds provided in this Act
for the Joint Strike Fighter, or in technology base program
elements which support tactical aircraft, may be used for
development of an ejection seat other than those being
developed in the Joint Ejection Seat Program. The Committee has
included bill language under the heading ``Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'' to prohibit the
use of any seat other than one developed under the joint
ejection seat program for the Joint Strike Fighter. The
Committee directs that these limitations be included on DD Form
1414 for fiscal year 2001.
The fiscal year 2001 budget requests a total of $12,689,000
for the K-36 development program as a stand alone effort. The
Committee specifically denies this request with prejudice,
which shall be noted on DD Form 1414 for fiscal year 2001.
Instead, the Committee recommends a total of $24,289,000 in the
Navy and in the Air Force only for the Joint Ejection Seat
Program which is the proper venue for competitive consideration
of the K-36 proposal. The Committee reiterates that the
objective of the Joint Ejection Seat Program is to completely
qualify at least two modern and safe ejection seats for the
Joint Strike Fighter and other future tactical aircraft
applications.

discoverer ii

The Air Force, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
and the National Reconnaissance Office collectively requested
$130,000,000 for the Discoverer II satellite technology
demonstration program. The Committee recommends no funding, a
decrease of $130,000,000. The fiscal year 2000 Defense
Appropriations Act provided sufficient funding for the
Discoverer II program to conclude the phase I studies and
analysis portion of the program along with related risk
reduction efforts. With phase I now funded to completion, the
Committee recommends that the Discoverer II program be
terminated.
The Committee makes this recommendation for the following
reasons: (1) Discoverer II has no documented requirement or
concept of operations; (2) the cost of the engineering and
manufacturing development phase of the program, which the
program office estimates at $702 million and which will in all
likelihood exceed $1 billion, is of a magnitude ordinarily
associated with the development of fully operational satellites
and therefore unaffordable given the limited operational
benefits of a technology demonstration program; (3) the
Department has conducted no trade-off analysis between
Discoverer II and other systems and processes that could
deliver ground moving target indication data to warfighters;
and, (4) the Department has failed to analyze the impact a
Discoverer II constellation would have on an already overtaxed
imagery processing, exploitation and dissemination system.
Even if successful, there is no guarantee the Air Force
could ever build, launch, operate and maintain a Discoverer II
constellation without a substantial top line increase to its
budget. By some estimates the cost of a fully functional
Discoverer II constellation could reach $25 billion. In the
face of other severe shortfalls in space and aircraft
modernization the Committee concludes that Discoverer II is of
low priority and recommends its termination.
The Committee discusses its recommendation more fully in
the classified annex to this report.

USE OF SPECIAL ACCESS-LIKE SECURITY MEASURES TO PROTECT BUSINESS
SENSITIVE INFORMATION

The Committee continues to be concerned that DoD is using
security measures similar to those used for Special Access
Programs (SAPs) to protect information associated with non-
SAPs. Although DoD has made progress in this area with respect
to non-SAP classified activities, the Committee notes that SAP-
like security measures are being used to protect contractor
proprietary and competition sensitive information. The
Committee is especially concerned because it appears that SAP-
like security measures are applied inconsistently among
programs with no clear DoD-wide policy or procedures for
sharing information with Congress. In a number of instances,
these security measures have needlessly complicated
congressional oversight and review of program activities. The
Committee notes that DoD's Office of Inspector General has made
similar observations with regard to the Air Force's Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) (Report number D-2000-070,
dated December 30, 1999) and recommended that DoD form a
working group to develop guidance for security measures to
protect business sensitive information. The Committee directs
the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to
review DoD's guidance for using security measures to protect
business sensitive information, develop additional guidance as
necessary (including streamlined procedures for providing
information to Congress), and submit a report detailing the
action taken to the congressional defense committees no later
than November 1, 2000.

BUDGETING FOR OPERATIONAL TEST

The Committee is concerned that the Military Departments
are not adequately budgeting for operational testing. The
Committee understands that severely constrained operational
test budgets are forcing the Services' operational test
communities to focus reporting only on the highest profile
programs with small and medium sized programs proceeding into
production without formal reporting from the operational test
community. The Committee believes that this situation must be
corrected and fully expects the Military Departments to budget
adequately to ensure all programs benefit from an appropriate
level of independent operational testing.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $5,266,601,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 5,260,346,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 6,025,057,000
Change from budget request............................ +764,711,000

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

Committee Recommendations

explanation of project level changes

[In thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH 54,365 55,365 +1,000
CENTERS.........................
Science-based regulatory ........... ........... +1,000
compliance study (Note: The
additional $1,000,000 is
only for a science based
regulatory compliance study
which will conduct risk
assessments and strategies
to meet federal regulatory
compliance for chemical
demilitarization activities.
The Committee is concerned
with the impact of chemical
demilitarization sites on
the environment, and
specifically on agricultural
crops. The Committee directs
that the funds be used to
expand outreach to Federal,
state and local governments,
by providing risk analysis
to these entities. The
Committee recommends that
this project include
partnerships with such
agencies, such as the
National Center for
Toxicological Research.)....
Army High Performance ........... ........... [610]
Computing Research Center
(Note: No less than $610,000
is only for the Army High
Performance Computing
Research Center. Additional
information is provided in
the IT section of this
report).....................
MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY............. 11,557 15,557 +4,000
Amorphous metal kinetic ........... ........... +4,000
energy penetrator...........
SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC 20,722 24,722 +4,000
SURVIVABILITY...................
Passive millimeter wave ........... ........... +4,000
camera......................
MISSILE TECHNOLOGY............... 47,183 69,183 +22,000
Acceleration of development ........... ........... +8,000
and testing for tactical
missile components..........
Aero-optics evaluation center ........... ........... +5,500
Low cost guidance and ........... ........... +6,000
navigation unit.............
Enhanced SCRAMJET mixing..... ........... ........... +2,500
ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY...... 993 7,993 +7,000
Minature detection devices ........... ........... +3,000
and analysis methods for
lightweight low power
sensors and isotope
identification techniques...
Zeus laser ordnance ........... ........... +4,000
neutralization..............
MODELING AND SIMULATION 30,479 32,479 +2,000
TECHNOLOGY......................
STRICOM--Online contract ........... ........... +2,000
document management.........
COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE 63,589 68,589 +5,000
TECHNOLOGY......................
Smart truck.................. ........... ........... +2,000
(Note: Only for the
integration of the voice
interactive device into the
smart truck's voice
activated central processing
computer)
Advanced tactical ........... ........... +3,000
transportation technology
initiative (Note: Only for
advanced vehicle
technologies in
collaboration with the
National Automotive Command)
WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY. 33,761 48,761 +15,000
Multi-role future combat ........... ........... +4,000
system armaments system.....
Single crystal tungsten alloy ........... ........... +8,000
penetrators.................
Low cost course correction ........... ........... +3,000
technology for conventional
ammunition and rockets......
ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES 23,869 40,969 +17,100
Logistics fuel reformer ........... ........... +3,000
technology..................
``AA'' Zinc air battery for ........... ........... +1,900
military applications (Note:
Additional funds are
provided in PE 0708045A)....
Improved high rate alkaline ........... ........... +1,200
cell........................
Rechargeable cylindrical cell ........... ........... +1,600
systems.....................
Low cost reusable alkaline ........... ........... +500
manganese-zinc technology...
Phase III of intelligent ........... ........... +6,900
power control for sheltered
systems and vehicles........
Extrusion of polymer ........... ........... +2,000
electrolytes and polymer
multilaminate materials.....
NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY.......... 20,465 25,465 +5,000
Combustion-driven eyesafe ........... ........... +5,000
self powered laser..........
COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS.............. 12,386 17,786 +5,400
Nonlinear acoustic mine ........... ........... +1,400
detection...................
Acoustic mine detection...... ........... ........... +4,000
HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 15,786 19,486 +3,700
TECHNOLOGY......................
Medical errors reduction ........... ........... +3,700
research (MED TEAMS)........
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY. 13,994 54,494 +40,500
Sustainable green ........... ........... +7,000
manufacturing...............
Range Safe demonstration ........... ........... +5,000
program (TACOM-ARDEC).......
Army's Heavy Metals Office ........... ........... +6,000
initiative..................
Proton Exchange Membrane ........... ........... +5,000
(PEM) fuel cell
demonstration...............
(Note: To demonstrate
domestically produced
residential PEM fuel cells
in military facilities)
Demanufacturing of electronic ........... ........... +12,500
equipment for reuse and
recycling (DEER2)...........
Technologies to reduce non- ........... ........... +5,000
hazardous waste (Note:
Leverage DEER2 Program).....
MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY.. 42,344 47,344 +5,000
Fuel cell development (Note: ........... ........... +5,000
Only for the fuel cell test
and evaluation operations at
the Department of Defense
Fuel Cell Test and
Evaluation Center in support
of ongoing fuel cell
development and life-cycle
cost reduction).............
WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY............ 24,659 28,159 +3,500
Combat feeding (Note: Only ........... ........... +2,500
for core technologies that
address Joint Vision 2010,
thus improving
responsiveness and ensuring
sustainability of DoD combat
feeding technologies.
Selected participants must
have experience in
production of combat
rations, a history of
performance supporting DoD
objectives, and will produce
rations that meet the
requirements of regulatory
agencies for shelf stable
products in quantities
sufficient for laboratory
tests)......................
Affordable guided airdrop ........... ........... +1,000
system......................
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY............... 75,729 98,729 +23,000
Comprehensive breast cancer ........... ........... +7,000
clinical care project [Note:
The Committee supports
continuation of a public/
private effort, in
coordination with a rural
medical center and a not-for-
profit medical foundation,
to provide a program in
breast care risk assessment,
diagnosis, treatment, and
research for the Department
of Defense. The program
shall be a coordinated
effort among Walter Reed
Army Medical Center,
National Naval Medical
Center, an appropriate non-
profit medical foundation,
and a rural primary health
care center, with funding
management accomplished by
the Uniformed Services
University of the Health
Sciences.]..................
Emergency hypothermia for ........... ........... +3,000
advanced combat casualty and
delayed resuscitation.......
IMED tools................... ........... ........... +6,000
Minimally invasive research ........... ........... +2,000
[Note: Only to continue
research into the
development of minimally
invasive surgical procedures
for the brain, spinal cord,
and spine under DAMD 17-99-1-
9022.]......................
Real-time heart rate ........... ........... +5,000
variability.................
WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY... 15,469 17,469 +2,000
Metrology.................... ........... ........... +2,000
MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY...... 16,512 254,192 +237,680
Advanced cancer detection.... ........... ........... +3,500
Integrative Medicine Distance- ........... ........... +1,000
learning Program [Note: Only
to develop a distance-
learning partnership in
integrative medicine between
educational organizations
and U.S. military personnel,
including doctors, nurses
and other health
professionals who, for
various reasons, are unable
to attend a resident program
of integrative medicine
education. This partnership
shall include at least one
party with background in
both distance-learning and
training of doctors, nurses
and other health
professionals in the fields
of complementary and
alternative medicine.]......
Artificial hip ........... ........... +4,000
(Volumetrically Controlled
Manufacturing)..............
Biosensor research [Note: The ........... ........... +4,000
Committee recommends
$4,000,000 only for
cooperative efforts with
federal and non-federal
organizations to support the
location, identification,
assessment, integration and
development of advanced
technologies for the remote
monitoring, biosensoring and
analysis of both normal and
abnormal metabolic
conditions.]................
Blood safety [Note: The ........... ........... +7,500
Committee recommends
$7,500,000 only for improved
blood products and safety in
systems compatible with
military field use.]........
Cancer Center of Excellence.. ........... ........... +1,000
SEATreat cancer technology ........... ........... +3,000
[Note: The Committee
recommends $3,000,000 only
for a minimally invasive
photodynamic therapy system
of incorporating real-time
tumor visualization and
precision dose monitoring
for both skin and cervical
cancer treatments.].........
Center for Aging Eye......... ........... ........... +3,000
Chronic fatigue.............. ........... ........... +3,000
Cervical cancer vaccine ........... ........... +3,000
research....................
Chronic disease.............. ........... ........... +5,500
Diabetes project (Joslin).... ........... ........... +7,000
DREAMS....................... ........... ........... +10,000
Echocardiogram............... ........... ........... +4,000
Epidermolysis Bullosa........ ........... ........... +3,000
Gallo Alcoholism Research.... ........... ........... +7,000
Gallo Cancer Center.......... ........... ........... +4,000
HIV research................. ........... ........... +15,000
Diabetes project (Pittsburgh) ........... ........... +7,000
Laser vision correction...... ........... ........... +6,000
Ligament healing............. ........... ........... +3,000
LSTAT........................ ........... ........... +4,000
Lung cancer detection (CT ........... ........... +7,500
Scan).......................
Lung Cancer Research--M.D. ........... ........... +6,000
Anderson Center.............
Medical free electron laser.. ........... ........... 3,500
Minimally invasive therapy... ........... ........... +15,000
Molecular Genetics and ........... ........... +8,000
Musculoskeletal Research
Program [Note: The Committee
recommends $8,000,000 only
to continue the Army
Molecular Genetics and
Musculoskeletal Research
Program.]...................
MRI.......................... ........... ........... +1,000
National Medical Testbed..... ........... ........... +15,000
Neurofibromatosis research... ........... ........... +17,000
Neurotoxin exposure treatment ........... ........... +15,000
Nutrition research........... ........... ........... +3,760
Ovarian cancer research...... ........... ........... +10,000
Polynitroxylated hemoglobin ........... ........... +6,000
[Note: $6,000,000 to
continue the development of
polynitroxylated hemoglobin
as an oxygen-carrying red
cell substitute for combat
casualty care.].............
Pulse medical instruments.... ........... ........... +420
Synchrotron-based scanning ........... ........... +7,000
research [Note: The
Committee recommends
$7,000,000 only to continue
the Army synchrotron-based
scanning research technology
for treatment of large field
tumors, including breast and
lung cancers.]..............
Tissue repair................ ........... ........... +3,000
Secure telemedicine ........... ........... +3,000
technology..................
Wound healing................ ........... ........... +2,000
Virtual retinal display ........... ........... +6,000
technology..................
Molecular and cellular ........... ........... [600]
bioengineering research
[Note: From within available
funds, $600,000 is only for
cellular and macromolecular
structures research
including integration of the
geometry and topography of
biological complexes as
revealed by electron
microscopy, x-ray
crystallography, magnetic
resonance spectroscopy and
computational analysis.]....
WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED 29,738 59,738 +30,000
TECHNOLOGY......................
Multi-role future combat ........... ........... +10,000
system armaments system.....
Precision guided mortar ........... ........... +8,000
munition....................
Viking indirect fire module.. ........... ........... +7,000
SMAW-D--concept demonstration ........... ........... +5,000
testing of confined space
propulsion system...........
COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE 148,114 162,114 +14,000
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.............
Future Combat System (Note: ........... ........... +46,000
Within the additional amount
provided by the Committee,
the Army should conduct
research on advanced
engines, such as the turbo
fuel cell engine)...........
Future Scout and Cavalry ........... ........... -69,000
System......................
National Automotive Center-- ........... ........... +3,000
university innovative
research....................
Composite armored vehicle.... ........... ........... +4,000
Mobile parts hospital........ ........... ........... +10,000
Advanced tactical ........... ........... +3,000
transportation technology
initiative..................
Combat vehicle and automotive ........... ........... +8,000
technology (Note: Only for a
technology transfer center
to scale up and transfer
weight reduction
technologies to combat
vehicles)...................
IMPACT (Note: Only to ........... ........... +4,000
continue Project IMPACT
research into vehicle and
truck weight reduction,
corrosion control, vehicle
design and manufacturing
architectures using
lightweight steel)..........
Silicon carbide research..... ........... ........... +5,000
COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS 21,505 28,505 +7,000
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.............
Big Crow Program Office ........... ........... +3,000
Support.....................
Intelligence analysis ........... ........... +4,000
advanced tool set...........
MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 3,072 6,072 +3,000
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.............
Aircrew coordination training ........... ........... +3,000
EW TECHNOLOGY.................... 15,359 20,359 +5,000
Shortstop.................... ........... ........... +5,000
NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. 33,341 46,141 +12,800
Helmet mounted infrared ........... ........... +3,800
sensor (vision technology)..
Backpack UAV for brigade- ........... ........... +9,000
combat tests (BUSTER).......
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY 1,616 11,116 +9,500
DEVELOPMENT.....................
Corrosion measurement and ........... ........... +9,500
control project.............
ARMY MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS 12,573 28,173 +15,600
INTEGRATION (DEM/VAL)...........
Full dimensional ........... ........... +9,000
visualization software......
Aero acoustic instrumentation ........... ........... +2,500
Family of systems simulator.. ........... ........... +4,100
TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 30,139 50,139 +20,000
AMMUNITION......................
XM-1007...................... ........... ........... +20,000
ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT SYSTEM 118,139 268,139 +150,000
(ATAS)..........................
MAV RDTE Shortfalls.......... ........... ........... +150,000
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY 4,897 14,897 +10,000
DEM/VAL.........................
Commercialization of ........... ........... +10,000
technology to lower defense
costs.......................
WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--ADV DEV... 28,679 36,179 +7,500
Objective crew served weapon. ........... ........... +7,500
MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV......... 15,259 15,509 +250
Portable Low-Power Blood ........... ........... +250
Cooling and Storage Devices.
TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE 0 300 +300
(TUGV)..........................
Viking platform engineering ........... ........... +300
analysis, including M1......
TACTICAL EXPLOITATION OF NATIONAL 57,419 43,419 -14,000
CAPABILITIES--EMD...............
Semi-Automated imagery ........... ........... +3,000
processor...................
Discoverer II................ ........... ........... -17,000
BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR SUBMUNITION 96,102 101,102 +5,000
(BAT)...........................
P31 Seeker for BAT (Note: ........... ........... +5,000
Funds are only for a follow-
on seeker for ATACMS-BAT)...
JOINT SURVEILLANCE/TARGET ATTACK 17,898 26,898 +9,000
RADAR SYSTEM....................
COTS technology insertion ........... ........... +9,000
common ground station (Note:
Within the budget request,
$4,000,000 is only for the
remaining SIP-3 engineering/
retrofit efforts and UAV
connectivity for SCDL)......
AVIATION--ENG DEV................ 7,104 12,104 +5,000
Advanced integrated helmet ........... ........... +5,000
system......................
WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--ENG DEV... 22,505 30,505 +8,000
M2HB .50 caliber quick change ........... ........... +1,500
barrel......................
Small arms fire control ........... ........... +2,500
system......................
120MM Short Range Practice ........... ........... +4,000
cartridge...................
SENSE AND DESTROY ARMAMENT 52,848 0 -52,848
MISSILE--ENG DEV................
SADARM P31................... ........... ........... -21,043
XM982........................ ........... ........... -31,805
ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL 33,420 39,420 +6,000
HARDWARE & SOFTWARE.............
Next generation command and ........... ........... +6,000
control system (Note: Only
for the integration of the
Army's Advanced Warfare
Environment's commercial
technology solution and
architecture into the Army's
legacy and emerging command
and control systems)........
THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT..... 13,901 16,101 +2,200
Next generation anti-tank ........... ........... +2,200
guided missile program (XM-
ATGM).......................
CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM. 15,410 15,410 0
Mounted maneuver battlespace ........... ........... [5,000]
lab.........................
ARMY TEST RANGES AND FACILITIES.. 119,657 129,657 +10,000
White Sands missile range ........... ........... +10,000
test instrumentation........
ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 33,156 37,256 +4,100
INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS.....
Advanced comprehensive ........... ........... +4,100
engineering simulator and
missile planning tool.......
SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS. 27,248 34,748 +7,500
Information operations/ ........... ........... +7,500
Vulnerability analysis......
DOD HIGH ENERGY LASER TEST 14,521 35,521 21,000
FACILITY........................
HELSTF....................... ........... ........... +3,000
Solid state laser program ........... ........... +18,000
(Note: Of the funds for
Solid State Laser no less
than $5,000,000 is only for
industrially-developed solid
state laser diode arrays and
no less than $3,000,000 is
only for optooelectronics)..
TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES. 25,749 30,499 +3,750
Army High Performance ........... ........... (1,147)
Computing Research Center...
Army High Performance ........... ........... +3,750
Computing Research Center
(Note: No less than
$4,897,000 is only for the
Army High Performance
Computing Research Center.
Additional information is
provided in the IT section).
MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, 11,276 14,776 +3,500
EFFECTIVENESS AND SAEFTY........
Cyrofracture anti-personnel ........... ........... +3,500
mine disposal system........
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE......... 0 3,000 +3,000
Natural gas boilers.......... ........... ........... +3,000
DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS AGAINST 0 3,000 +3,000
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCT........
National Terrorism ........... ........... +3,000
Preparedness Institute......
COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT 99,423 112,823 +13,400
PROGRAMS........................
Field emission display ........... ........... +5,900
program.....................
AN/VVR-1 upgrade............. ........... ........... +4,000
M1 track development program. ........... ........... +3,500
AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT 95,829 97,829 +2,000
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS............
Guardrail tactical integrated ........... ........... +2,000
broadcast system............
AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 2,929 7.929 +5,000
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.............
Full authority digital engine ........... ........... +3,000
control.....................
Variable displacement vane ........... ........... +2,000
pump & liquid-or-light end
air boost pump equipped fuel
delivery unit...............
DIGITIZATION..................... 29,671 31,671 +2,000
Digitization: Ft. Hood....... ........... ........... +2,000
FORCE TWENTY-ONE (XXI), 6,021 0 -6,021
WARFIGHTING RAPID ACQUISITION...
Termination.................. ........... ........... -6,021
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY 8,140 20,440 +12,300
PROGRAM.........................
Information Assurance: PKI... ........... ........... +4,500
National Ground Intelligence ........... ........... +3,800
Center/National
Collaborative Environment...
National Ground Intelligence ........... ........... +4,000
Center/FIRES project........
END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 57,906 81,906 +24,000
ACTIVITIES......................
TIME......................... ........... ........... +4,000
Optics manufacturing......... ........... ........... +3,000
``AA'' zinc air batteries for ........... ........... +2,000
military applications (Note:
additional funds are
provided in PE 0602705A)....
Munitions manufacturing...... ........... ........... +15,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

The Committee is concerned that the Army's current concept
of operations for its Tactical UAV (TUAV) appears shortsighted
by not addressing future UAV requirements. The Army has not
adequately addressed requirements for such things as longer
range and more versatile payload options. Therefore, the
Committee directs the Army to submit a report by June 15, 2001,
which identifies UAV requirements not met by the TUAV and its
plan for meeting those requirements.

RDT&E Management Support

RAND ARROYO CENTER

The Army requested $19,872,000 for the Rand Arroyo Center,
the Committee recommends the budget request. Of the budgeted
amount, $1,000,000 is only for the Center for Naval Analyses to
conduct a study of Army acquisition practices as discussed
elsewhere in this report.

EXCALIBUR (XM-982)

The Army requested $31,805,000 for the development of the
Excalibur (XM-982) 155mm artillery round. The Committee
recommends no funding. The Excalibur development program, which
began in 1998, was to have cost approximately $50 million and
be completed in 45 months. Today, the Army estimates that
Excalibur will spend 87 months, or seven years, in development,
and cost over $135 million dollars. Additionally, the Committee
believes that the Excalibur artillery round is not synchronized
with the Army plan for fielding the Interim Brigades. Given the
excessive cost growth, schedule delay and the fact that the
Excalibur round fielding will not be in sync with the Interim
Brigades, the Committee recommends no funds.
Although the Committee terminates the Excalibur program,
the requirement for an improved artillery projectile still
exists. The Committee directs the Army to provide, no later
than July 10, 2000, a report that outlines alternatives for
meeting the Army's 155mm improved artillery projectile
requirement. The report is to include capabilities, estimated
development cost, production cost, and the schedule for each
alternative. The Committee directs that the Army consider the
Trajectory Correctable Munition as one of the alternatives.

Program Recommended

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the
following in fiscal year 2001:

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $9,110,326,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 8,476,677,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 9,222,927,000
Change from budget request............................ +746,250,000

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

Committee Recommendations

explanation of project level changes

[In thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIR AND SURFACE LAUNCHED WEAPONS 37,966 52,966 +15,000
TECHNOLOGY......................
Pulse detonation engine ........... ........... +4,000
technology..................
Free electron laser upgrade.. ........... ........... +5,000
Solid fuel RAMJET............ ........... ........... +6,000
SHIP, SUBMARINE & LOGISTICS 44,563 47,563 +3,000
TECHNOLOGY......................
Three dimensional printing ........... ........... +3,000
metalworking technology.....
COMMUNICATIONS, COMMAND AND 79,905 91,905 +12,000
CONTROL, INTELLIGENCE...........
Center for Communications and ........... ........... +10,000
Networking Technologies.....
Optoelectric high definition ........... ........... +2,000
camera prototypes...........
HUMAN SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY.......... 30,939 38,139 +7,200
Biological hazard detection ........... ........... +5,000
system......................
Marine Fire Training Center ........... ........... +2,200
at the Marine and
Environmental Research and
Training Station (MERTS)....
MATERIALS, ELECTRONICS AND 68,076 92,026 +23,950
COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY.............
Wood composite technology.... ........... ........... +2,000
Silicon carbide semiconductor ........... ........... +5,000
material....................
Defense productivity software ........... ........... +3,200
initiative..................
Ceramic and carbon based ........... ........... +3,000
composites for use in
strategic missiles and
hypersonic vehicles.........
Aerospace Materials ........... ........... +4,000
Technology Consortium.......
Environmentally sound ship ........... ........... +1,250
program.....................
Hybrid fiberoptic wireless ........... ........... +2.500
communications..............
Battlespace information ........... ........... +3,000
display technology
initiative development
demonstration...............
UNDERSEA WARFARE SURVEILLANCE 52,488 53,388 +900
TECHNOLOGY......................
Lithium carbon monofluoride ........... ........... +900
ion cells for battery
applications................
OCEANOGRAPHIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 60,320 68,070 +7,750
TECHNOLOGY......................
Chemical, optical and ........... ........... +6,000
physical sensor systems for
mine countermeasures........
South Florida Ocean ........... ........... +1,750
Measurement Center..........
UNDERSEA WARFARE WEAPONRY 35,028 37,028 +2,000
TECHNOLOGY......................
Undersea warfare ........... ........... +2000
microelectromechanical
systems (MEMS)..............
DUAL USE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 10,067 11,067 +1,000
PROGRAM.........................
NAVAIR technology ........... ........... +1,000
commercialization initiative
AIR SYSTEMS AND WEAPONS ADVANCED 39,667 54,667 +15,000
TECHNOLOGY......................
Aircraft affordability ........... ........... +3,500
project DP-2................
IHPTET....................... ........... ........... +1,000
Integrated hypersonic ........... ........... +2,500
aeromechanics tool program
(IHAT)......................
Eye safe LADAR............... ........... ........... +8,000
SURFACE SHIP & SUBMARINE HM&E 37,432 68,232 +30,800
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.............
Superconducting DC motor..... ........... ........... +10,000
Portable hybrid electric ........... ........... +3,000
power systems...............
Virtual testbed for ........... ........... +3,000
reconfiguring ships.........
Electromagnetic propulsion ........... ........... +4,000
systems.....................
Ship service fuel cell....... ........... ........... +2,800
Project M.................... ........... ........... +4,000
Advanced waterjet propulsor ........... ........... +4,000
(AWJ-21)....................
MARINE CORPS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 54,749 61,249 +6,500
DEMONSTRATION (ATD).............
C3RP......................... ........... ........... +1,500
Spike Urban Warfare System... ........... ........... +5,000
MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT.............. 10,110 94,110 +84,000
National Bone Marrow Program. ........... ........... +34,000
Coronary/Prostate Disease ........... ........... +6,000
Reversal....................
Disaster Management and ........... ........... +5,000
Humanitarian Assistance.....
Medical Readiness Technology ........... ........... +9,000
[Note: Only for continuation
of the medical readiness
technology initiatives to
verify and validate
telemedicine's clinical
impact afloat and ashore,
and to integrate crucial
medical data transfer system
for operations in a joint
environment.]...............
Naval Blood Research ........... ........... +4,000
Laboratory..................
Optical Imaging of Brain..... ........... ........... +4,000
Post-Polio Syndrome.......... ........... ........... +3,000
RobotEyes [Note: Only to ........... ........... +1,000
integrate RobotEyes optical
sensing system with
prosthesis devices to
improve opportunities for
disabled/handicapped service
members to remain on active
duty.]......................
Rural Health [Note: Includes ........... ........... +8,700
first responder emergency
communications and
telerehabilitation.]........
Rural Health Deployed ........... ........... +2,300
Military Patient Records....
Vectored Vaccine Research ........... ........... +4,000
[Note: The Committee
recommends $4,000,000 only
to develop NTVS for non-
invasive vaccination at the
surface of the skin.].......
Teleradiology [Note: The ........... ........... +3,000
Committee recommends
$3,000,000 only for
teleradiation and
mammography imaging.].......
MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING 26,988 42,988 +16,000
ADV TECH DEV....................
Advanced Distributed Learning ........... ........... +10,000
(Note: Funds are only to
continue efforts to
standardize distributed
learning courseware.).......
WARCON (Note: Funding is only ........... ........... +6,000
for the continuation of the
Distributed Simulation
Warfighting Concepts to
Future Ship Design (WARCON)
program to develop and
implement an integrated
acquisition environment
architecture.)..............
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND 24,002 39,002 +15,000
LOGISTICS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY...
Depleted Uranium Emulsion- ........... ........... +8,000
based Stabilization
Technologies [Note: only for
field demonstration of this
range maintenance technology
at China Lake Naval Air
Weapons Station and other
facilities.]................
Resource Preservation ........... ........... +4,000
Initiative..................
Aviation depot maintenance ........... ........... +3,000
technology demonstration at
NADEP Jacksonville..........
NAVY TECHNICAL INFORMATION 49,506 49,506 ...........
PRESENTATION SYSTEM.............
[Note: Up to $2,000,000 is
only for the continuation of
the Center for Defense
Technology and Education at
the Naval post-graduate
school.]
UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED 58,296 62,296 +4,000
TECHNOLOGY......................
Advanced technology ........... ........... +4,000
demonstration to prototype a
multi-function hull-mounted
sonar.......................
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION... 76,333 79,533 +3,200
Vectored thrust ducted ........... ........... +3,200
propeller...................
C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY........... 29,673 35,673 +6,000
Dominant battlespace command ........... ........... +6,000
initiative..................
ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.......... 19,680 24,680 +5,000
Stochastic Resonance and ........... ........... +5,000
BEARTRAP Initiatives........
TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE. 1,956 2,356 +400
Spares procurement for ........... ........... +400
Predator UAV under Navy
testing authority...........
SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE 97,929 99,429 +1,500
COUNTERMEASURES.................
UUV Center of Excellence at ........... ........... +1,500
NUWC........................
SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE..... ........... 11,000 +11,000
Anti-torpedo all-up round.... ........... ........... +6,000
Ship-towed tripwire sensor... ........... ........... +3,000
Distributed Engineering ........... ........... +2,000
Center......................
CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT...... 148,952 152,952 +4,000
ASW tactical decision aids-- ........... ........... +4,000
integrating software/
prototype fielding..........
SHIPBOARD SYSTEM COMPONENT 244,437 254,437 +10,000
DEVELOPMENT.....................
Permanent magnet motor....... ........... ........... +10,000
ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM 113,269 129,769 +16,500
DEVELOPMENT.....................
Conformal acoustic velocity ........... ........... +5,000
sonar (CAVES)...............
Common Towed Array........... ........... ........... +8,000
High performance brush ........... ........... +3,500
technology..................
SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN..... 162 5,162 +5,000
Human integration information ........... ........... +5,000
system in the Automated
Maintenance Environment.....
COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION........ 32,966 65,966 +33,000
Optically multiplexed ........... ........... +3,000
wideband radar beamformer...
Common command and decision ........... ........... +30,000
functions for theater air
and missile defense.........
CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS........... 28,619 30,619 +2,000
Demonstration/validation and ........... ........... +2,000
production of
environmentally safe
energetic materials.........
MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES.... 137,981 144,281 +6,300
Advanced radio antenna ........... ........... +6,300
interface unit..............
MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/ 23,216 25,216 +2,000
SUPPORT SYSTEM..................
Advanced modeling and ........... ........... +2,000
simulation for the USMC
integrated infantry combat
system program..............
JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 13,131 14,681 +1,550
DEVELOPMENT.....................
Remote ordnance ........... ........... +1,550
neutralization system (RONS)
COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT........... 119,257 179,257 +60,000
[Note: Only for DII-COE ........... ........... +60,000
compliance, data analysis
for large networks, multi-
level secure operations, CEC
network node expansion,
airborne antennae
improvements and planar
array production.]..........
NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM.............. 4,942 7,942 +3,000
Proton exchange membrane ........... ........... +3,000
(PEM) fuel cells [Note: Only
to demonstrate domestically
produced PEM fuel cells at
the Marine Corps Air Ground
Combat Center.].............
NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY....... ........... 11,000 +11,000
Virtual systems ........... ........... +6,000
implementation program......
Rapid retargeting logistics ........... ........... +5,000
technology..................
LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY........... 143,044 146,044 +3,000
Naval Fires Network ........... ........... +3,000
Demonstrator and Tactical
Dissemination Module........
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)--DEM/ 131,566 206,566 +75,000
VAL.............................
Additional risk reduction and ........... ........... +75,000
flight test [Note: The
Committee designates the
Joint Strike Fighter as an
item of special
congressional interest.]....
SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE 34,100 38,100 +4,000
(SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINE.......
Navy Collaborative integrated ........... ........... +4,000
information technology
initiative..................
OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT........... 24,393 38,393 +14,000
Upgrade ship ground station ........... ........... +4,000
at NAWCAD to a ship and air
integration facility........
CH-60S airborne mine ........... ........... +10,000
countermeasures [Note: Only
for continued systems
engineering development of
the CH-60S carriage, stream,
tow, and recovery system.]..
STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT............ 95,814 103,814 +8,000
Joint services metrology ........... ........... +5,000
program.....................
Calibration and measurement ........... ........... +3,000
technology for reduced crew
size........................
MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE 69,946 79,946 +10,000
DEVELOPMENT.....................
ATIRCM/CMWS integration on ........... ........... +5,000
the SH-60R..................
TADIRCM...................... ........... ........... +5,000
P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM........ 2,906 8,906 +6,000
APS-137B(V)5 radar........... ........... ........... +6,000
TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM.......... 57,817 60,817 +3,000
Ocean surveillance ........... ........... +3,000
information system (OSIS-
OED)........................
AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT..... 17,466 34,466 +17,000
Joint helmet mounted queuing ........... ........... +7,000
system......................
Modular flight helmet/ ........... ........... +6,000
Advanced visionics helmet
system/Helicopter integrated
life support system (HAILSS)
K-36 ejection seat........... ........... ........... -6,439
Joint ejection seat program.. ........... ........... +10,439
EW DEVELOPMENT................... 97,281 133,781 +36,500
Spray cooling technology for ........... ........... +8,500
EA-6B ICAP III program......
Location of GPS system ........... ........... +6,000
jammers (LOCO GPSI).........
EA-6B Link-16 connectivity... ........... ........... +15,000
Integrated defensive ........... ........... +7,000
electronic countermeasures
(IDECM).....................
SC-21 TOTAL SHIP SYSTEM 305,274 257,274 -48,000
ENGINEERING.....................
Development cost growth...... ........... ........... -50,000
Power node control centers... ........... ........... +2,000
AIRBORNE MCM..................... 47,312 50,312 +3,000
Remote technical assistance ........... ........... +3,000
support to deploying MCM
ships.......................
SSN-688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION 34,801 62,801 +28,000
Advanced food-service ........... ........... +3,000
technology..................
Multi-purpose processor (MPP) ........... ........... +25,000
SBIR follow-on for advanced
processing builds...........
NEW DESIGN SSN................... 207,091 212,091 +5,000
MPP-SBIR follow-on for ........... ........... +5,000
technology insertion and
refresh for Virginia SSN
combat system...............
SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM 20,492 26,492 +6,000
Integration of advanced ........... ........... +6,000
tactical software, AN/UYQ-70
and other off the shelf
products into backfit
submarine combat control
systems.....................
SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/LIVE FIRE 62,204 72,204 +10,000
T&E.............................
Littoral support fast patrol ........... ........... +10,000
craft.......................
NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES. 3,291 28,291 +25,000
AN/UYQ-70 [Note: Only to ........... ........... +25,000
develop and implement
technology refresh
capabilities to incorporate
into future AN/UYQ-70
workstation production
across surface, submarine,
and air platforms.].........
JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION..... 26,151 29,151 +3,000
DAMASK component packaging... ........... ........... +3,000
MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT.............. 5,273 27,273 +22,000
Bone Marrow Transplant ........... ........... +4,000
Technology [Note: The
Committee recommends
$4,000,000 only for the
unrelated donor marrow
transplantation clinical
trials of graft
engineering.]...............
Dental Research.............. ........... ........... +6,000
High Resolution Digital ........... ........... +4,000
Mammography.................
Mobile Integrated Diagnostic ........... ........... +2,000
and Data Analysis System
(MIDDAS)....................
Voice Interactive Device ........... ........... +6,000
[Note: Only for continued
modification, demonstration,
and validation of the Naval
voice interactive device as
a tool for medical personnel
on-board ships or in the
field to facilitate the
collection, processing,
storing, and forwarding of
critical medical data for
treating combat casualties.]
DISTRIBUTED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.. 20,710 35,710 +15,000
ADS-P3I for alternative power ........... ........... +9,500
source (FDS-C)..............
ADS-risk mitigation/ ........... ........... +5,500
processing software.........
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)--EMD.. 295,962 145,962 -150,000
EMD deferment [Note: The ........... ........... -150,000
Committee designates the
Joint Strike Fighter as an
item of special
congressional interest.]....
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 15,259 23,259 +8,000
DEVELOPMENT.....................
Human Resources Enterprise ........... ........... +8,000
Strategy....................
MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT............. 40,707 44,707 +4,000
Acquisition/installation of ........... ........... +4,000
refurbished SPS-48E radar
systems for test and
evaluation support..........
STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT-- 8,056 6,056 -2,000
NAVY............................
Freeze to fiscal year 2000 ........... ........... -2,000
level.......................
TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES... 949 10,949 +10,000
Supply Chain Management...... ........... ........... +4,000
Commercialization of Advanced ........... ........... +6,000
Technology (CAT) program
[Note: only to establish the
CAT program at the Space and
Naval Warfare Systems
Center.]....................
SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE 12,694 7,694 -5,000
SUPPORT.........................
Lower priority TENCAP ........... ........... -5,000
projects....................
MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT 8,091 14,891 +6,800
Consequence Management ........... ........... +6,800
Information System..........
STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM 42,687 54,687 +12,000
SUPPORT.........................
Radiation hardened technology ........... ........... +10,000
computer aided design
program.....................
Alternate pendulous ........... ........... +2,000
integrating gyro
accelerometer and
Hemispherical resonator gyro
development.................
E-2 SQUADRONS.................... 18,698 37,698 +19,000
E-2/C-2 eight blade composite ........... ........... +8,000
propeller...................
E-2C Middleware Technology ........... ........... +5,000
and Advanced Processing
Builds......................
NCW development, test and ........... ........... +6,000
evaluation in support of
Naval Fires Network Demo....
INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM... 16,928 27,928 +11,000
Web Centric Warfare (WeCAN) ........... ........... +5,000
technology expansion to
other warfare areas and
domains.....................
ASW Combat Systems ........... ........... +6,000
Integration--onboard signal
processor development.......
CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS 27,059 34,559 +7,500
DEVELOPMENT.....................
Battleforce tactical trainer ........... ........... +7,500
[Note: Only for the
continuation of the current
upgrade of the BFTT system
to a Windows-NT/PC based
system to improve the
interfaces to other ship and
shore based systems.].......
HARM IMPROVEMENT................. 21,355 46,355 +25,000
AARGM........................ ........... ........... +25,000
MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS 96,153 107,153 +11,000
SYSTEMS.........................
MEWSS P3I.................... ........... ........... +5,000
Combined Arms Command and ........... ........... +6,000
Control Training Upgrade
(CACTUS) [Note: Only for the
upgrade of the USMC training
facilities to implement the
Joint Simulation System for
use in the Marine force's
CACTUS].....................
MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/ 22,124 39,424 +17,300
SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS.........
Expeditionary indirect fire ........... ........... +17,300
general support weapon
system......................
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY 21,530 30,130 +8,600
PROGRAM.........................
Information Assurance: PKI... ........... ........... +8,600
TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES 113,052 129,052 +16,000
MSAG for Tactical Control ........... ........... +10,000
System (TCS)................
Navy joint operational ........... ........... +5,000
testbed for UAVs............
Navy UAV display system to ........... ........... +1,000
combine data retrieved from
multiple UAVs into a network
AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEM... 4,759 15,759 +11,000
Upgrade Storyfinder/Landmark ........... ........... +6,000
systems with SEI............
EP-3 upgrade/weight reduction ........... ........... +5,000
study; redesign of common
electronic receivers/tuners;
development, design, and
flight test of new
lightweight equipment racks.
MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS.... 27,479 65,079 +37,600
Sensor upgrade on special ........... ........... +2,600
project aircraft............
Ongoing SHARP development ........... ........... +18,000
efforts.....................
Acquisition and test of small ........... ........... +9,000
SAR for potential SHARP P31.
Lens development for longer ........... ........... +5,000
stand-off range.............
Advanced focal plane array ........... ........... +3,000
for increased sensor
reliability.................
MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT.. 9,106 12,106 +3,000
C41SR modeling and simulation ........... ........... +3,000
INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.......... 59,626 69,626 +10,000
Program increase............. ........... ........... +10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DD-21 Next Generation Surface Combatant

The Navy requested $305,274,000 for continued ship systems
engineering for the DD-21 surface combatant program. The
Committee recommends $257,274,000, a decrease of $48,000,000.
The Committee remains supportive of this program but has
substantial reservations concerning the Navy's current
acquisition strategy for the DD-21. In the name of innovation
and in a departure from all previous new ship design and
development programs, the Navy has elected to give the
industrial teams competing for the DD-21 considerable latitude
in determining the ship's overall design and incorporation of
subsystems--the theory being that the contractors are free to
propose ``best value'' solutions to the Navy's operational
requirements as long as certain key performance parameters are
met. While this approach is commendable in many ways, it leaves
open several questions which have yet to be addressed in an
adequate manner by the Navy. The questions are as follows:
Applicability of other Navy technology programs to the DD-
21 program.--The Office of Naval Research maintains a robust
program for surface ship technologies which are being developed
in the name of the DD-21 program. By some estimates there are
26 technology demonstration projects totaling over $600,000,000
in the fiscal year 2001 budget request which claim relevance to
the DD-21 program. There is no guarantee, however, that any of
these technologies will find their way onto the DD-21 platform
since the development teams are free to choose any technologies
they want without input or insight from the Navy. If this is
the case, then it raises the question of whether all these
technology demonstrations are truly necessary.
Unique Integrated Logistics Support.--The DD-21 will be the
first Navy ship to have a full service contractor. A full
service contractor has the opportunity to provide all
maintenance and support services for the ship class during its
life cycle. The division of these support services between the
ultimate contractor and Navy support systems is an issue to be
proposed by the competing design teams as part of their concept
designs. The Committee is concerned that a full service
contractor may make decisions on logistics support of the DD-21
that will limit the Navy's options when making ship operation
and management decisions. In the worst case the Navy may be
forced to carry two different shore infrastructures for
integrated logistics support: a traditional track for legacy
ships and a separate track for the DD-21. Additionally, this
approach may create unintended conflicts between the Navy's
legacy supply organization and industry.
Interoperability.--The DD-21 must have the ability to
interact, coordinate, and share information with other ships
and units in a joint task force. Its primary mission of land
attack requires it to work with U.S. Marine Corps and Army
ground forces as well as with Allied forces. It will also be
expected to operate as part of a carrier battle group. It is
the Committee's understanding that the fleet can never attain
total system integration if there is a divergence in the
hardware and software that contractors are installing on the
DD-21 and what the Navy is installing on other ships. The DD-21
program is proposing to use commercial off the shelf equipment
and components to a greater degree than the Navy has on prior
ships. Again, the Committee is concerned that due to the unique
nature of the DD-21 acquisition strategy, the Navy is not
giving any direction or suggestions to the DD-21 design teams
that would reduce the risk of interoperability problems with
the rest of the fleet or other services.
Finally, the Committee's greatest concern is that the DD-21
acquisition strategy is precluding the use of innovative
technologies from small companies in the design of the ship. It
is troublesome that major design decisions for critical
subsystems on the DD-21 are being locked in without the benefit
of an open consideration of the broadest array of technologies
possible. The Committee believes that in the name of
innovation, the Navy may actually be discouraging its practice.
The Committee therefore directs the Navy to prepare a
report which addresses these issues, as well as the following
questions concerning the DD-21 acquisition strategy:
(1) What is the proper role of the Navy in ensuring new
technology from the widest range of vendors is given fair
consideration in the DD-21 source selection process?
(2) What mechanism or process is in place to introduce new
technology that isn't developed directly by present DD-21
design team members?
(3) How does the Navy differentiate between technology that
impacts the ship's initial design and requires an early
milestone decision, and technology that can be incorporated in
mid or late stages of design?
(4) What is the optimal method for instilling competition
among technical approaches without incurring unacceptable cost
growth?
The report should be submitted to the congressional defense
committees no later than March 15, 2001.

Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP)

The Committee has provided a total of $17,000,000 for risk
reduction and P3I initiatives for the SHARP program. The risk
reduction efforts are financed with an additional $5,000,000 to
develop/upgrade the sensor to an 18-inch lens and integrate an
existing dual-band sensor into the TARPS pod and $3,000,000 to
develop an advanced focal plane array with moving target
indicator (MTI) for a smaller electo-optical framing camera
size. The Committee has also provided $9,000,000 for the
acquisition and evaluation of a small synthetic aperture radar
(SAR) within the TARPS-CD program as a potential P3I for the
SHARP program. The Naval Research Lab is directed to continue
funding other ongoing projects in electro-optical framing at no
less than the funding level of fiscal year 2000.
The Committee has also provided $18,000,000 in additional
funds for the SHARP program to maintain its current and very
aggressive deployment schedule. DD Form 1414 shall show this as
a special congressional interest item.

Network Centric Warfare (NCW)

The Committee believes that existing and emerging
technologies could be used to enhance the dissemination of
intelligence data through the networking of various
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) and
national platforms. The Committee directs the Navy to pursue a
study of technologies that would benefit the goal of Network
Centric Warfare.
Additionally, the Committee has provided a total of
$9,000,000 for NCW and a Naval Fires Network Demonstration. The
Committee believes these funds should be used in conjunction to
develop the Naval Fires Network Demonstrator, test the tactical
dissemination of intelligence for Time Critical Strike
Capabilities on-board the E-2C, and refine the NCW concept of
operations.

Navy, Marine Corps Imagery Processing Exploitation

The Committee understands the need for close
interoperability between the Navy and the Marine Corps in the
area of precision targeting, imagery exploitation and
amphibious operations. The Committee recognizes that the
schedules of related service intelligence programs present an
opportunity for greater coordination in this area, and
recommends that the Services consolidate their efforts into one
coordinated plan to ensure ground exploitation and precision
targeting interoperability.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)

The Committee is concerned that the Navy's current plans
for use of UAVs appear disjointed. Multiple organizations are
developing multiple plans and requirements with what appears to
be little internal communication about these plans and
requirements. The Navy's recent UAV studies contract, in
conjunction with its recently announced contract for a VTOL
UAV, presents a confusing picture of the Navy's intentions.
Furthermore, despite obvious interest and continual
questioning on the part of the Committee, the Navy has not
responded with information which outlines its objectives or
plans with respect to UAVs. While recent risk reduction
contracts for the ``multi-role endurance unmanned aerial
vehicle'' are for studies of how a UAV could potentially be
employed, this type of activity has not been clearly
articulated to the Committee. It is difficult for the Committee
to help the Navy meet its UAV requirements when they have not
been presented.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Navy to submit a
report by December 15, 2000, which addresses all of its plans
for unmanned aerial vehicles. At a minimum, the report should
address: (1) all identified requirements; (2) requirements that
remain un-met with the current UAV contracts, especially any
requirement for support of deep-strike operations; and, (3) a
description of the roles and responsibilities of the various
organizations within the Navy which claim jurisdiction over UAV
programs. The Navy should consider more centralized management
of the various UAV programs to ensure a coordinated approach to
meeting requirements.

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 230,000 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 4,000,000 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 2001 Defense Appropriations Act.

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $13,674,537,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 13,685,576,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 13,760,689,000
Change from budget request............................ +75,113,000

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

Committee Recommendations

explanation of project level changes

[In thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommendation request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES..... 206,149 216,149 +10,000
Sacramento Peak ........... .............. (600)
Observatory..............
Chabot Observatory........ ........... .............. +2,000
Astronomical Active Optics ........... .............. +4,000
Coal based advanced ........... .............. +4,000
thermally stable jet fuel
MATERIALS..................... 72,815 83,515 +10,700
IR detectors, RF and power ........... .............. +2,000
electronics..............
Special Aerospace ........... .............. +5,200
Materials and
Manufacturing Processes..
Thermal Management for ........... .............. +2,500
Space Structures.........
Advanced Physical Vapor ........... .............. +1,000
Transport Growth Process.
AEROSPACE FLIGHT DYNAMICS..... 48,775 52,315 +3,540
Weapons systems logistics, ........... .............. +3,540
deployed base systems
technology, and force
protection...............
HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED 62,619 63,019 +400
RESEARCH.....................
Altitude protection....... ........... .............. +400
AEROSPACE PROPULSION.......... 116,262 118,262 +2,000
Lithium Ion Battery....... ........... .............. +2,000
AEROSPACE SENSORS............. 65,644 69,644 +4,000
3D non-volatile memory.... ........... .............. +4,000
HYPERSONIC TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM. 0 5,000 +5,000
Hypersonic electric power ........... .............. +5,000
system...................
SPACE TECHNOLOGY.............. 57,687 61,687 +4,000
Terabit................... ........... .............. +4,000
COMMAND CONTROL AND 78,749 90,549 +11,800
COMMUNICATIONS...............
Simulation Based ........... .............. +11,800
Acquisition..............
ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON 21,678 48,928 +27,250
SYSTEMS......................
Aging aircraft............ ........... .............. +10,000
National Composite P4A ........... .............. +3,000
Initiative...............
Advanced Low Observable ........... .............. +6,000
Coatings.................
Special Aerospace ........... .............. +5,250
Materials and
Manufacturing Processes..
National Center for ........... .............. +3,000
Industrial
Competitiveness..........
AEROSPACE PROPULSION 34,440 35,440 +1,000
SUBSYSTEMS INTEGRATION.......
IHPTET.................... ........... .............. +1,000
ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS.... 28,311 44,811 +16,500
IDAL IR simulator and RF ........... .............. +6,000
and IR integration.......
National Radar Signature ........... .............. +10,500
Production and Research
Capability (RCAS)........
FLIGHT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY..... 2,445 7,645 +5,200
Weapons systems logistics, ........... .............. +5,200
deployed base systems
technology, and force
protection...............
AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER 41,964 45,464 +3,500
TECHNOLOGY...................
(Note: $3 million is only ........... .............. +3,000
to establish a next
generation aerospace
research initiative
through the investigation
of a broad range of
science and technologies
which integrates private
research centers involved
in both aeronautic and
space research with major
research universities and
technical colleges, small
businesses and
manufacturers in support
of aerospace and engine
propulsion capabilities,
to improve the nation's
aerospace research,
development, and
manufacturing base and
address the growing
shortfall within the
aerospace specialized
technological workforce).
Vectored Thrust Ducted ........... .............. +500
Propeller Compound
Helicopter demonstration
for combat rescue........
CREW SYSTEMS AND PERSONNEL 12,479 19,479 +7,000
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY........
High Brightness Helmet ........... .............. +7,000
Display..................
FLIGHT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY 13,184 18,184 +5,000
INTEGRATION..................
Trans-Atmospheric ........... .............. +5,000
Aerospace Plane (TAAP)
study by ASC.............
ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY.. 25,882 27,882 +2,000
IDAL Coherent C3NI Signal ........... .............. +2,000
Simulations..............
SPACE AND MISSILE ROCKET 24,283 28,283 +4,000
PROPULSION...................
Pulse detonation engine... ........... .............. +4,000
BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY.. 0 23,000 +23,000
GPS Range Safety.......... ........... .............. +23,000
ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY 97,327 60,087 -37,240
Discoverer II............. ........... .............. -54,240
Miniature Satellite Threat ........... .............. +3,000
Reporting System (MSTRS).
Satellite survivability... ........... .............. +4,000
Scorpius.................. ........... .............. +10,000
ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY... 33,371 42,371 +9,000
High Resolution Space ........... .............. +9,000
Object Imaging...........
SPACE-BASED LASER............. 63,216 35,000 -28,216
Program reduction......... ........... .............. -28,216
INFORMATION OPERATIONS 991 0 -991
TECHNOLOGY...................
Transfer funds to 0303140F ........... .............. -991
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER.......... 129,538 204,538 +75,000
Risk reduction and flight ........... .............. +75,000
testing..................
INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE 24,488 15,788 -8,700
(DEM/VAL)....................
Integrated Broadcast ........... .............. -8,700
System...................
AIR FORCE/NATIONAL PROGRAM 3,370 1,370 -2,000
COOPERATION (AFNPC)..........
Duplication of effort..... ........... .............. -2,000
INTEGRATED AVIONICS PLANNING 712 0 -712
AND DEVELOPMENT..............
Program reduction......... ........... .............. -712
B-1B.......................... 168,122 158,122 -10,000
IDECM delays.............. ........... .............. -10,000
B-2 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY BOMBER 48,313 145,313 +97,000
500lb JDAM integration.... ........... .............. +56,000
Inflight replanning....... ........... .............. +11,000
EGBU-28................... ........... .............. +25,000
EHF risk reduction........ ........... .............. +5,000
EW DEVELOPMENT................ 58,198 56,298 -1,900
CMWS--Air Force withdrawal ........... .............. -19,800
from program. Prior year
funds shall be used to
support the joint program
through FY 2001..........
MALD...................... ........... .............. +3,000
PLAID for ALR-69.......... ........... .............. +14,900
MILSTAR LDR/MDR SATELLITE 236,841 241,841 +5,000
COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE).......
Integrated Satellite ........... .............. +5,000
Communications Control...
ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT. 8,876 25,876 +17,000
Cast Ductile Bomb......... ........... .............. +2,000
Miniature Munitions ........... .............. +15,000
Capability...............
AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT.......... 668 0 -668
Program reduction......... ........... .............. -668
JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION.. 1,157 26,157 +25,000
500lb JDAM................ ........... .............. +25,000
LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS.......... 14,758 26,358 +11,600
K-36 ejection seat........ ........... .............. -6,250
Joint ejection seats ........... .............. +13,850
program..................
Standardized cockpit and ........... .............. +4,000
crew seats...............
COMBAT TRAINING RANGES........ 12,559 16,559 +4,000
ADOSM..................... ........... .............. +4,000
INTEGRATED COMMAND & CONTROL 214 0 -214
APPLICATIONS (IC2A)..........
Program reduction......... ........... .............. -214
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER EMD...... 299,540 149,540 -150,000
Defer EMD................. ........... .............. -150,000
RDT&E FOR AGING AIRCRAFT...... 14,204 29,204 +15,000
Aging aircraft............ ........... .............. +3,000
Aging landing gear life ........... .............. +12,000
extension................
TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.... 191 0 -191
Program reduction......... ........... .............. -191
MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.......... 54,057 68,807 +14,750
Laser Induced Surface ........... .............. +2,000
Improvement (LISI).......
X-15 test stand at Edwards ........... .............. +250
AFB......................
Multi-axis thrust stand at ........... .............. +5,000
Edwards AFB..............
Eglin range improvements.. ........... .............. +7,500
INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & 28,238 33,238 +5,000
EVALUATION...................
AFOTEC.................... ........... .............. +5,000
F-16 SQUADRONS................ 124,903 133,903 +9,000
SAR for TARS podded ........... .............. +9,000
reconnaissance system....
F-15E SQUADRONS............... 61,260 68,860 +7,600
BOL IR.................... ........... .............. +7,600
AF TENCAP..................... 9,826 16,826 +7,000
Hyperspectral research on ........... .............. +4,000
Predator UAV.............
Hyperspectral research on ........... .............. +3,000
high altitude
reconnaissance platforms.
COMPASS CALL.................. 5,834 25,834 +20,000
Signal analysis subsystem. ........... .............. +10,000
SPEAR..................... ........... .............. +10,000
JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF 120,281 113,281 -7,000
MISSILE (JASSM)..............
Defer pre-production ........... .............. -7,000
operational test units
per GAO recommendation...
JOINT SURVEILLANCE AND TARGET 144,118 151,318 +7,200
ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM..........
GATM...................... ........... .............. +7,200
USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION.. 17,624 18,624 +1,000
STORM..................... ........... .............. +1,000
WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 3,874 8,874 +5,000
CENTERS......................
Theater Air Command and ........... .............. +5,000
Control Simulation
Facility (TACCSF)........
INFORMATION WARFARE SUPPORT... 1 0 -1
Program reduction......... ........... .............. -1
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY 7,212 25,703 +18,491
PROGRAM......................
Transfer from 0603690F.... ........... .............. +991
Information Assurance: ........... .............. +2,000
System protection through
exploration of adaptive
information protection
technology using and
modifying COTS technology
Information Assurance: ........... .............. +10,000
CDAD.....................
Information Assurance: PKI ........... .............. +5,500
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) 200 0 -200
PLAN.........................
Program reduction......... ........... .............. -200
TACTICAL TERMINAL............. 238 0 -238
Program reduction......... ........... .............. -238
DEFENSE RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT 45,149 38,049 -7,100
ACTIVITIES (SPACE)...........
Reduction taken against ........... .............. -7,100
projects that duplicate
TENCAP...................
NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING 250,197 261,097 +10,900
SYSTEM (SPACE AND CONTROL)...
Amended budget submission. ........... .............. +10,900
SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) 53,654 85,154 +31,500
Modernization of Edwards ........... .............. +12,600
AFB test stand 1D........
Extended Range Concept ........... .............. +1,600
Requirements Analysis....
Flight Termination System ........... .............. +700
Requirements.............
Design of Space Launch Ops ........... .............. +5,500
Complex at Vandenberg,
AFB......................
Activation of Edwards AFB ........... .............. +11,100
test stand 2A for rocket
component tests..........
DRAGON U-2 (JMIP)............. 27,546 31,546 +4,000
SYERS polarization project ........... .............. +4,000
ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL 109,215 128,215 +19,000
VEHICLES.....................
Replacement of EO/IR ........... .............. +12,000
sensors on existing
Global Hawk UAV..........
Development of dual band ........... .............. +7,000
sensor capabilities and
precision target location
AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 136,913 143,913 +7,000
SYSTEMS......................
Wideband integrated common ........... .............. +7,000
data link................
DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND 21,330 25,830 +4,500
SYSTEMS......................
Eagle Vision IV........... ........... .............. +4,500
NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM (SPACE) 17,088 12,088 -5,000
Program reduction......... ........... .............. -5,000
SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES..... 1,109 2,109 +1,000
Universal Biological ........... .............. +1,000
Sensor...................
AFSOC Aircrew Orientation ........... .............. +600
and Screening............
Develop methodology for ........... .............. +400
approving medications for
use by aircrew...........
DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF).... 1,515 4,515 +3,000
Metrology................. ........... .............. +3,000
INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS....... 53,082 57,582 +4,500
Special Aerospace ........... .............. +4,500
Materials and
Manufacturing Processes..
SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT... 32,258 42,258 +10,000
Advanced Engine Simulation ........... .............. +2,500
and Optimization Program.
Aircraft and Systems ........... .............. +2,500
Support Infrastructure...
IMDS...................... ........... .............. +5,000
COMPUTER RESOURCES SUPPORT 2,356 7,356 +5,000
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CRSIP)..
NPLACE.................... ........... .............. +4,000
Air Resource Rapid ........... .............. +1,000
Reapplication Tools......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

radiation hardened electronics

The Committee commends the Department of Defense for the
establishment of the Radiation Hardened Oversight Council and
for the initiatives recently taken to assure the availability
of radiation hardened microelectronics components. These
components are essential to meet the Department's unique
requirements and are crucial to the success of current and
future national security systems. The investment strategy
directed by the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics will assure adequate funding to meet
science & technology and producibility needs from fiscal year
2000 through fiscal year 2005. It is imperative that this
strategy is executed with the full cooperation and
participation of the Services and Agencies involved.
Not later than April 1, 2001, and annually thereafter, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a report on
the implementation of the Radiation Hardened Electronics
Investment Strategy as directed by the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. The report
will describe the degree of participation in the strategy by
the Services and Agencies involved and the impact of the
strategy on the availability of radiation hardened electronics
components needed to satisfy the Department's integrated and
prioritized requirements for national security systems.

air traffic control, approach, and landing system

The Air Force budgeted $18,093,000 for the air traffic
control, approach, and landing system. The Committee recommends
$58,093,000, an increase of $40,000,000 only for development of
the mobile air traffic control system. The Air National Guard
operates tactical deployable air traffic control systems
developed in the 1950s, which provide 65 percent of the total
Air Force radar approach control capability for wartime and
contingency support. These units are no longer supportable and
require cannibalization and extensive maintenance to keep
wartime-tasked units at least marginally operational. There are
no fully operational radars in the Air National Guard due to
age of equipment and lack of parts. The Congress added funds in
fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to address this urgent requirement,
but the Air Force did nothing with these funds. The Air Force
proposes a new development program for both active and Guard
mobile air traffic control systems, which unfortunately does
not result in fielding equipment to Guard units on a timely
basis. The additional $40,000,000 recommended by the Committee
consists of $10,000,000 only to accelerate the development of
the mobile air traffic control system and $30,000,000 only to
procure test asset/contingency mobile air traffic control
systems at no less than three Air National Guard locations
selected by the Director of the Air National Guard. The test
assets are intended to be the first three systems delivered to
the government under the development program, and should be
used by Guard units to assist in further development of the
objective system. The Committee directs that none of the funds
in this Act for development of mobile air traffic control
systems for the Air Force and the Air National Guard may be
obligated until the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve
Affairs certifies to the congressional defense committees that
the development program meets schedule and performance
requirements of Air National Guard units and that the first
three systems will be fielded only to Guard units as test
assets under the development program. The Committee further
directs that all funds provided for development of the mobile
air traffic control system are of special interest, and shall
be so designated on DD Form 1414. Reprogramming request FY 99-
012PA is hereby denied, and $8,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 and
$2,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 other procurement funds are
proposed for rescission elsewhere in the bill.

high altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (hae uav)--global hawk

The Committee directs the Air Force to submit by March 15,
2001, a report which addresses its plan for acquiring the
Global Hawk UAV. The report should address: (1) the cost of the
program through the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP); (2) the
schedule for development and acquisition; (3) the total number
of air vehicles scheduled for acquisition; (4) the overall cost
of the program; and, (5) the potential of the air vehicle to
exceed the $10 million cost cap previously imposed by the
Department.

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $9,256,705,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 10,238,242,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 10,918,997,000
Change from budget request............................ +680,755,000

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

Committee Recommendations

explanation of project level changes

[In thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Change from
request Recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES........ 90,415 100,415 +10,000
Spin Electronics [Note: The ........... ........... +10,000
Committee has transferred
$10,000,000 from PE
601103D8Z from the
Nanotechnology Initiative.
The Committee recommends
$10,000,000 only to
strengthen the spin
electronics programs.]......
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES.. 253,627 289,627 +36,000
Advanced Power and Energy ........... ........... +1,000
Program.....................
Multi-disciplinary ........... ........... +3,000
atmospheric and hydrologic
research....................
Computational Neuroscience... ........... ........... +1,000
National Security Training ........... ........... +1,000
[Note: $1,000,000 is only
for an educational program
to encourage non-traditional
and minority students to
enter national security and
foreign policy careers
through a new training
partnership between the
Department of Defense, a
Hispanic Serving Institution
located in an empowerment
zone, and one or more
institutions of higher
education that have
expertise in international
affairs. This program would
be focused on a continuum of
education and support for
successful students at two-
year colleges to continue
their studies at higher
levels in order to expand
the pools of minority groups
for leadership roles in the
Department of Defense.].....

Defense Commercialization ........... ........... +4,000
Research Initiative.........
Electro-Magnetic Nanopulse... ........... ........... +2,500
MEMS......................... ........... ........... +1,500
MEMS for Rolling Element ........... ........... +1,500
Bearings....................
MEMS sensors for ........... ........... +9,500
Radionuclides Detection and
Ordnance Monitoring [Note:
The Committee recommends
$9,500,000 only for
Radionuclides Detection and
Ordnance Monitoring.].......
Quantum-Dot Cellular Automata ........... ........... +4,000
Nanoscience and Technology
Research....................
Remote Sensing............... ........... ........... +6,000
Technology Insertion ........... ........... +2,000
Demonstration (SEI).........
Desert Environmental ........... ........... +4,000
Research: [Note: The
Committee recommends an
increase of $4,000,000 only
for a University based GIS
program using sensor
technology, line distance
sampling, and spatial
analysis techniques to
monitor desert tortoise
population related to
potential expansion of the
Fort Irwin National Training
Center.]....................
Spin Electronics [Note: The ........... ........... -10,000
Committee transfers
$10,000,000 from the
Nanotechnology Initiative to
PE 601103E for Spin
electronics programs.]......
Bioengineering/Nanotechnology ........... ........... +5,000
Research [Note: Only to
establish a program to
develop interdisciplinary
research and development for
bioengineering in advanced
medicine, based on
nanotechnology and the new
synthetic capabilities
afforded by molecular self-
assembly such as the
synthesis of mushroom
nanostructures and DNA-like
ribbon nanostructures and
the discovery of key
features of the self-
assembly of the cell's
cytoskeleton, to address
medical problems of concern
for national security such
as improved treatment for
battlefield wounds and
better defense against
biological warfare.]........
INFORMATION ASSURANCE............ ........... ........... +3,000
DEF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO 9,859 19,859 +10,000
STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH..
Program Increase............. ........... ........... +10,000
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE 33,197 40,197 +7,000
PROGRAM.........................
Chemical Agent Detection..... ........... ........... +7,000
SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES--APPLIED 37,747 50,247 +12,500
RESEARCH........................
Wide band Gap Electronics.... ........... ........... +10,000
Bottom Anti-Reflective ........... ........... +2,500
Coatings....................
MEDICAL FREE ELECTRON LASER...... 15,029 25,029 +10,000
Program increase............. ........... ........... +10,000
HISPANIC SERVING INSTITUTIONS.... ........... 5,000 +5,000
Hispanic Serving Institutions ........... ........... +5,000
[Note: The Committee
recommends $5,000,000 only
for Hispanic Serving
Institutions.]..............
COMPUTING SYSTEMS AND 376,592 335,592 -41,000
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY.......
Reuse Technology (RTAP)...... ........... ........... +4,000
Program reduction due to ........... ........... -45,000
program growth..............
EXTENSIBLE INFORMATION SYSTEMS... 69,282 49,282 -20,000
Program reduction due to ........... ........... -20,000
program growth..............
BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE....... 162,064 166,564 +4,500
Biological and Chemical ........... ........... +10,000
Terrorism Response and
Training [Note: The
Committee recommends
$10,000,000 only for the
continuation of a joint
biological and chemical
terrorism response training
program.]...................
Biological and Chemical ........... ........... +7,000
Terrorism Response and
Training [Note: The
Committee recommends
$7,000,000 only for the
continuation of a joint
biological and chemical
terrorism response training
program.]...................
Asymmetrical protocols for ........... ........... +4,000
biological warfare defense..
Desalination Research........ ........... ........... +3,500
Program reduction due to ........... ........... -20,000
program growth..............
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE 73,600 75,600 +2,000
PROGRAM.........................
Improved Detection of WMD.... ........... ........... +2,000
INTEGRATED COMMAND AND CONTROL 31,761 38,761 +7,000
TECHNOLOGY......................
High Definition Systems...... ........... ........... +7,000
MATERIALS AND ELECTRONICS 249,812 259,312 +9,500
TECHNOLOGY......................
Materials in Sensors and ........... ........... +9,500
Actuators Technology [Note:
The Committee recommends
$9,500,000 only for
continuation of the
Materials in Sensors and
Actuators technology.]......
NUCLEAR SUSTAINMENT & 230,928 225,428 -5,500
COUNTERPROLIFERATION
TECHNOLOGIES....................
Thermionics.................. ........... ........... +5,000
Discrete Particle Methods.... ........... ........... +3,500
Program reduction due to ........... ........... -14,000
program growth..............
EXPLOSIVES DEMILITARIZATION 8,964 23,164 +14,200
TECHNOLOGY......................
Advanced Cutting Technology.. ........... ........... +1,200
Contained Detonation......... ........... ........... +10,000
Hydrothermal Oxidation [Note: ........... ........... +3,000
The Committee recommends
$3,000,000 only for
Hydrothermal Oxidation of
Energetics.]................
COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY 41,307 48,307 +7,000
SUPPORT.........................
Blast Mitigation [Note: Only ........... ........... +4,000
for blast mitigation
testing.]...................
Facial Recognition........... ........... ........... +3,000
SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES--ADVANCED 93,249 123,249 +30,000
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT..........
Atmospheric Interceptor ........... ........... +15,000
Technology..................
Excalibur.................... ........... ........... +15,000
SPACE BASED LASERS (SBL)......... 74,537 58,000 -16,537
Space Based Laser............ ........... ........... -16,537
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE 46,594 49,344 +2,750
PROGRAM--ADVANCED DEV...........
Chemical and Biological ........... ........... +2,000
Defense Research............
Small Unit Biological ........... ........... +750
Detector [Note: The
Committee recommends
$750,000 only for the Marine
Corps Small Unit Biological
Detector program for
continuation of an industry-
based development program
for microfluidic devices for
chemical and biological
agents detection and
analysis.]..................
Anthrax Vaccine [Note: The ........... ........... [1,000]
Committee recommends
$1,000,000 from within
available funds only to
accelerate the development
of a second generation
anthrax vaccine at the U.S.
Army Medical Research
Institute of Infectious
Diseases.]..................
SPECIAL TECHNICAL SUPPORT........ 10,777 14,777 +4,000
Complex Systems Design/MULTI ........... ........... +4,000
VIEW--Data Standards for
Integrated Digital
Environment (DSIDE).........
ARMS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY.......... 52,930 69,930 +17,000
Basic and Applied Research to ........... ........... +6,000
Support Nuclear Monitoring
[Note: Of the amount
provided ($6,000,000 in the
request plus the increase of
$6,000,000) for peer
reviewed basic and applied
research to support
operational nuclear test
monitoring requirements:
$4,000,000 is only for
applied explosion seismology
research and; $8,000,000 is
only for basic research.]...
Continuation of an Industry- ........... ........... +6,000
Based Research Program
[Note: The Committee
recommends $6,000,000 only
for innovative technologies
and equipment, as part of
the effort to ensure
compliance with arms control
treaties, which is only to
be used for the continuation
of an industry based
research program for
developing systems using
advances in solid nuclear
detectors, processing
electronics, analysis
software, and chemical
detection and identification
technology.]................
Nuclear Weapons Effects...... ........... ........... +5,000
GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY 23,082 47,382 +24,300
DEMONSTRATIONS..................
Complementary Metal Oxide ........... ........... +3,500
Semiconductor Retrofits
(CMOS)......................
Computer Assisted Technology ........... ........... +4,000
Transfer (CATT).............
Air Logistics................ ........... ........... +300
Gate Array Reverse ........... ........... +3,000
Engineering.................
Multiple Soft Core ........... ........... +4,000
Integration.................
Si28 Super Lattice Research ........... ........... +3,000
Project.....................
Systems Simulation of ........... ........... +3,500
Electronically Compressed
Function....................
Competitive Sustainment ........... ........... +3,000
Demonstration Program.......
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 51,357 57,357 +6,000
PROGRAM.........................
Toxic Chemical Cleanup ........... ........... +3,000
Criteria....................
Environmental clean-up ........... ........... +3,000
workers safety [Note: Only
to continue the research and
demonstration program
devoted to health and safety
issues of environmental
clean-up and shipyard
workers.]...................
COOPERATIVE DOD/VA MEDICAL 0 1,000 +1,000
RESEARCH........................
Review of Biopsies........... ........... 1,000 +1,000
ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES 191,800 211,800 +20,000
Center for Advanced ........... ........... +4,000
Microstructures (CAMD)......
MEMS for Deep Silicon Etch ........... ........... +8,000
Technology [Note: The
Committee recommends an
increase of $8,000,000 only
for the completion of the
deep silicon etch technology
MEMS project at the Army
Research Laboratory.].......
Laser Plasma Point Source X- ........... ........... +5,000
ray Lithography.............
Advanced Lithography ........... ........... +3,000
Demonstration...............
ADVANCED CONCEPT TECHNOLOGY 116,425 116,425 ...........
DEMONSTRATIONS..................
WMD Consequence Management ........... [5,200] ...........
[Note: The Committee
recommends $5,200,000 from
within available funds only
to prepare a WMD Consequence
Management program for bases
and stations in conjunction
with the National Terrorism
Preparedness Institute at
the Southwest Public Safety
Institute to include a pilot
program at a base under the
Commander in Chief, Pacific
Command.]...................
SENSOR AND GUIDANCE TECHNOLOGY... 182,225 149,125 -33,100
Large Millimeter Telescope... ........... ........... +4,000
Discoverer II................ ........... ........... -40,100
Radar Vision Technology...... ........... ........... +3,000
PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT...... 35,108 26,107 -9,001
Reduction for program growth. ........... ........... -9,001
ADVANCED SENSOR APPLICATIONS 15,534 24,534 +9,000
PROGRAM.........................
Component Development for ........... ........... +5,000
Active Sensors..............
Solid State Technology....... ........... ........... +4,000
NAVY THEATER WIDE MISSILE DEFENSE 382,671 512,671 +130,000
SYSTEM..........................
Accelerate Program........... ........... ........... +80,000
Radar Competition............ ........... ........... +50,000
MEADS CONCEPTS--DEM/VAL.......... 63,175 53,475 -9,700
Reduction for Program Growth. ........... ........... -9,700
BMD TECHNICAL OPERATIONS......... 270,718 292,718 +22,000
Liquid Surrogate Targets..... ........... ........... +3,000
Optical Data/Sensor Fusion... ........... ........... +4,000
Wide Bandwidth Technology.... ........... ........... +15,000
JOINT SERVICE EDUCATION AND 0 3,500 +3,500
TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
[Note: At the OSD Joint ADL co-
laboratory.]....................
JOINT ROBOTICS PROGRAM--EMD...... 11,553 16,553 +5,000
Vehicle Teleoperation........ ........... ........... +5,000
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 12,000 13,500 +1,500
DEVELOPMENT.....................
DLA Web Based Tracking....... ........... ........... +1,500
GENERAL SUPPORT TO C3I........... 3,769 34,469 +30,700
Information Assurance: JCOATS- ........... ........... +9,700
IO..........................
ASD (C3I) Global ........... ........... +21,000
Infrastructure Data Capture
Initiative [Note: Only for
the acquisition and digital
conversion of critical
engineering and
infrastructure data.].......
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY 290,771 322,771 +32,000
PROGRAM.........................
Information Assurance: ........... ........... +20,000
Project Condor..............
Projection of vital data..... ........... ........... +12,000
DEFENSE IMAGERY AND MAPPING 74,975 103,975 +29,000
PROGRAM.........................
Exploitation of moving ........... ........... +2,000
targets.....................
EDGE Viewer Upgrade.......... ........... ........... +4,000
EDGE Viewer--visualization ........... ........... +4,000
and bomb blast for force
protection..................
GEOSAR....................... ........... ........... +15,000
Automated Document Conversion ........... ........... +4,000
for NIMA libraries..........
INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.......... 7,090 9,090 +2,000
Metalcasting Technology...... ........... ........... +2,000
SPECIAL OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY 7,360 10,360 +3,000
DEVELOPMENT.....................
Special Operations Mobile ........... ........... +3,000
Robotic Vehicle.............
SPECIAL OPERATIONS TACTICAL 133,520 156,620 +23,100
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.............
Tri-Band Antenna Signal ........... ........... +5,100
Combiner....................
Multi-Mode, Multi-band ........... ........... +6,000
Personal Communications
System and Remote Trunking
System......................
Leading EDGE................. ........... ........... +5,000
Autonomous Landing Guidance ........... ........... +6,000
System Technology...........
Littoral Warfare Craft/ ........... ........... +1,000
Surface planing wet
submersible boat............
SPECIAL OPERATIONS INTELLIGENCE 3,022 9,022 +6,000
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.............
Tactical video system........ ........... ........... +2,000
Joint Threat Warning System.. ........... ........... +4,000
SOF OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS..... 87,071 95,071 +8,000
Small Combatant Craft........ ........... ........... +8,000
CCDOTT [Note: $15,000,000 is only ........... ........... [15,000]
for the Center for Commercial
Deployment of Transportation
Technologies from within funds
available for RDT&E, Defense-
Wide.]..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

arms control technology

The proliferation of nuclear weapons continues to be one of
the most serious threats facing the U.S. today. A cornerstone
of a strong nuclear proliferation deterrent is an effective
U.S. operational monitoring capability. Developing such a
capability requires a sustained and robust seismic research
program. The Committee directs that $12,000,000 shall be
available only for peer-reviewed basic and applied seismic
research specifically to address validated Air Force
operational nuclear test monitoring requirements. Of this
amount, $4,000,000 shall be available only for peer-reviewed
applied seismic research and $8,000,000 shall be available only
for peer-reviewed basic seismic research.
The Committee also directs the Department to vigorously
pursue transition of the research results into operations. The
Committee further directs the Department 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, 2000, a detailed report to the
Committee on the plan for obligating these funds.

high performance computing program

The Committee remains very concerned about the health of
the DoD's High-Performance Computing Modernization Program
(HPCMP). This program is essential to DoD efforts to develop
technologically superior weapons, warfighting capabilities, and
related systems. However, the program has fallen behind in its
primary mission to procure high performance computing hardware
for DoD production activities. Due to procurement shortfalls,
DoD lags behind industry, the Department of Energy, and the
National Science Foundation in supercomputing technology--
eroding DoD's ability to address its most technologically
challenging projects. As a step toward correcting this problem,
the Committee has added $48,000,000 only for the procurement of
high performance computing hardware, and strongly urges DoD to
address the procurement shortfalls in the fiscal year 2002
budget.

National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA)

Still-Image Compression Standard

The Committee directs NIMA to take the lead in developing
an integrated plan for transitioning imagery infrastructures to
fully exploit the opportunities provided by the soon to be
ratified Still-Image Compression Standard JPEG-2000.

Competitive Practices

The Committee anticipates that NIMA will pursue all avenues
of fair and open competition for the acquisition of technology,
goods and services.

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $265,957,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... ................
Committee recommendation.............................. ................
Change from budget request............................ ................

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

Committee Recommendations

The Committee recommends no funds, as proposed in the
budget.

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $31,434,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 201,560,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 242,560,000
Change from budget request............................ +41,000,000

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

Committee Recommendations

explanation of project level changes

[In thousands of dollars]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Change from
request Recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION 121,401 147,401 +26,000
INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CT).....
Magdalena Ridge.............. ........... ........... +7,000
Roadway Simulator............ ........... ........... +12,000
Silent Sentry................ ........... ........... +7,000
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION.. 17,172 22,172 +5,000
Increase program for ........... ........... +5,000
improvement of tests........
LIVE FIRE TESTING................ 9,712 19,712 +10,000
Live Fire Testing............ ........... ........... +10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

operational test and evaluation, defense

The Department requested $201,560,000 for Operational Test
and Evaluation, Defense. The Committee recommends $242,560,000,
an increase of $41,000,000.

Program Recommended

The total recommended in the bill will provide the
following program in fiscal year 2001.

[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Change from
Budget request recommended request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Test & Eval, Defense--RDT&E Management Support:
Central Test and Evaluation Investment Development....... 121,401 147,401 +26,000
Operational Test and Evaluation.......................... 17,172 22,172 +5,000
Live Fire Testing........................................ 9,712 19,712 +10,000
Development Test and Evaluation.......................... 53,275 53,275 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total, Operational Test & Eval, Defense................ 201,560 242,560 +41,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE V

REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $90,344,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 916,276,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 916,276,000
Change from budget request............................ ................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $916,276,000
for the Defense Working Capital Funds, the amount proposed in
the budget. The recommendation is an increase of $825,932,000
above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000. The
Committee notes that the increase proposed in the budget
realigns funding needed to support the Defense Commissary
system.

NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $717,200,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 388,158,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 400,658,000
Change from budget request............................ +12,500,000

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.

Ready Reserve Force

The Defense Department requested $258,000,000 for the Ready
Reserve Force. The Committee recommends $270,500,000, an
increase of $12,500,000. The additional funding provided by the
Committee is 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 the Massachusetts Maritime Academy cadets.
TITLE VI

OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $11,154,617,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 11,600,429,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 12,143,029,000
Change from budget request............................ +542,600,000

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

special interest items

Committee Recommendations

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Change from
request Recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance........ 11,244,543 11,525,143 +280,600
--------------------------------------
Government Computer-Based ........... [10,000] 0
Patient Records.............
Medicare Eligible Health ........... 2,000 +2,000
Options.....................
Claims Processing Initiative. ........... 3,600 +3,600
Military Treatment Facilities ........... 134,000 +134,000
Optimization................
Reimbursement for Travel ........... 15,000 +15,000
Expenses....................
Reduced Catastrophic Cap..... ........... 32,000 +32,000
TRICARE Senior Pharmacy...... ........... 94,000 +94,000
======================================
Research and Development......... 65,880 327,880 +262,000
--------------------------------------
Head Injury Program.......... ........... 2,000 +2,000
Joint U.S.-Norwegian ........... 4,000 +4,000
Telemedicine................
Cancer Research [Note: Only ........... 6,000 +6,000
for cancer research in the
integrated areas of signal
transduction, growth control
and differentiation,
molecular carcineogensis and
DNA repair, cancer genetics
and gene therapy, and cancer
invasion and angiogensis.]..
Army Peer-Reviewed Breast ........... 175,000 +175,000
Cancer Research Program.....
Army Peer-Reviewed Prostate ........... 75,000 +75,000
Cancer Research Program.....
======================================
Procurement...................... 290,006 290,006 0
======================================
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........ 11,244,543 11,525,143 +280,600
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT......... 65,880 327,880 +262,000
PROCUREMENT...................... 290,006 290,006 0
--------------------------------------
Total...................... 11,600,429 12,143,029 +542,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

tricare improvements

The Committee recommends increases over the budget request
totaling $280,600,000 to support several initiatives to improve
the TRICARE health care program. Consistent with action taken
in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2001 (H.R. 4205), these include additional funds to
optimize the use of Military Treatment Facilities (MTF) and
improve TRICARE business practices ($134,000,000); funding for
the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy program ($94,000,000); a reduction
in the catastrophic cap for retired TRICARE beneficiaries
($32,000,000); reimbursement of certain travel payments for
patients who have a referral more than 100 miles away from
their primary health care facility ($15,000,000); improved
claims processing ($3,600,000); and an in-depth study on health
care options for Medicare-eligible military retirees
($2,000,000).
These initiatives should improve the TRICARE benefit for
all military families by improving access and quality of care.
In particular, the funding to optimize MTF usage and business
practices should lead to improved access for both active duty
and retired military families. Within the $134,000,000
recommended for this initiative, the Committee directs that
$85,500,000 be used to provide additional support staff to
primary care providers in the military direct care system, in
accordance with the House-passed authorization legislation.
In addition to these initiatives, by funding the authorized
TRICARE Senior Pharmacy program, the Committee bill would
provide all Medicare-eligible military retirees with access to
prescription drugs through various access points, including the
national mail order pharmacy; network and out-of-network
pharmacies; and military pharmacies. As a consequence, this
should alleviate the disparity in benefit between those
military retirees over the age of 65 who have access to
pharmaceuticals because they have access to a military
treatment facility (or one that was recently closed), and those
who do not.

transfer of defense health program funds

The Committee directs that any funding made available for
the Defense Health Program, as well as any other Department of
Defense activity, shall not be transferred to another agency
pursuant to Section 109 of Public Law 103-317 unless a prior
approval reprogramming for any such transfer has been submitted
to and approved by the congressional defense committees.

anthrax vaccine program

The Committee concurs with the findings of the Institute of
Medicine interim report on the anthrax vaccine and directs the
Secretary of Defense to: immediately submit all relevant
research on the safety and efficacy of the anthrax vaccine to
peer-reviewed scientific journals for publication; make this
research available to the general public through the AVIP
website; and establish a statistically significant active long-
term monitoring program to document the relative safety of the
vaccine. The Committee is also concerned by continuing
financial difficulties and irregularities identified by the
Inspector General and the Defense Contract Audit Agency and
directs the Department to expeditiously implement adequate
accounting measures.
The Committee is concerned by reports that the Department
may seek additional extraordinary contractual relief, beyond
the $24.1 million granted in 1999. The risk exposure of the
Government as the principal creditor is already at a maximum
level and the contractor already pledged all of its property,
plant and equipment as collateral when contractual relief was
granted. Therefore the Secretary is directed to notify the
Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed
Services 30 days prior to seeking further extraordinary
contractual relief under P.L. 85-804.
The Committee supports the ongoing work by the US Army
Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases to develop a
second generation anthrax vaccine that promises to be
significantly more effective and induce fewer adverse
reactions. Accordingly, within available funds, the Committee
directs that $1 million be made available only to accelerate
the development of this vaccine. The Department is directed to
report to the Committee on Appropriations, by December 30,
2000, on its plans to significantly accelerate the availability
of this new vaccine as well as any additional unfunded
requirement associated with this goal.

chiropractic demonstration program

The Committee endorses the recently concluded Department
study that demonstrated that chiropractic care resulted in
higher levels of patient satisfaction, superior outcomes, fewer
hospital stays, and an increase in readiness due to a large
reduction in lost duty days. The Committee accepts the cost
analysis of the Oversight Advisory Committee, and concludes
that the integration of chiropractic care on a direct access
and full scope of services basis will increase readiness and
retention and produce a net dollar savings for the Department.

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $1,029,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 1,003,500,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 927,100,000
Change from budget request............................ -76,400,000

Committee Recommendations

The Army requested $1,003,500,000 for Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction, Army. The Committee recommends
$927,100,000, a decrease of $76,400,000. The Committee directs
that none of the reduction may be applied against the Assembled
Chemical Weapons Assessment program.

Program Recommended

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the
following in fiscal year 2001:

[In Thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
request recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chem Agents & Munitions
Destruction, Army:
Chem Demilitarization--O&M... 607,200 607,200 0
Chem Demilitarization--PROC.. 121,900 105,700 -16,200
Chem Demilitarization--RDTE.. 274,000 214,200 -60,200
--------------------------------------
Total, Chem Agents & 1,003,500 927,100 -76,400
Munitions Destruction,
Army......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $847,800,000
Fiscal year 2001 request.............................. 836,300,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 812,200,000
Change from the budget request........................ -24,100,000

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

Committee Recommendations

The Department of Defense requested $836,300,000 for Drug
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee
recommends $812,200,000, a reduction of $24,100,000.

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Caper Focus............................................. +6,000
Puerto Rico ROTHR security.............................. +1,200
Southwest Border Fence.................................. +6,000
Southwest Border States Information System.............. +6,000
Multi-Jurisdictional Counter-drug Task Force............ +4,000
Lake County HIDTA....................................... +1,000
Appalachian HIDTA....................................... +3,600
National Interagency Civil-Military Institute........... +2,000
Tethered Aerostat....................................... +10,000
National Counter-narcotics Training Center (Hammer)..... +4,000
Young Marines........................................... +1,500
Air National Guard Fighter Operations................... -5,000
Special Operations Forces Patrol Coastal................ -3,000
GBEGO-Mexico............................................ -3,000
Carribean support....................................... -3,000
T-AGOS Support.......................................... -14,000
DoD Support to Plan Colombia............................ -41,400

DOD SUPPORT TO PLAN COLOMBIA

The budget request included $41,400,000 for Department of
Defense Support to Plan Colombia. The Committee supports the
Department's participation in Plan Colombia and recommended
funding the fiscal year 2001 request in the Fiscal Year 2000
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 3908) which
passed the House on March 30, 2000.

Tethered Aerostat Radar System

The budget request included $32,089,000 to operate and
modernize the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS). The
Committee recommends $42,089,000, an increase of $10,000,000.
The Committee has also recommended additional funding for TARS
operations under Air Force Operation and maintenance as
discussed elsewhere in this report.
The US Customs Service, the North American Aerospace
Defense Command, and the US Southern Command share the joint
requirement for critical low-altitude radar surveillance of the
Caribbean, the Gulf coast and Southwestern approaches into US
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. The Committee is aware
that the US Customs Service and the US Air Force have differing
views on the TARS operation and modernization program which is
the responsibility of the Air Force.
The Committee, therefore, directs that DD Form 1414
designate the total amount of funds in all Department of
Defense appropriations for the operation and upgrade of the
Tethered Aerostat Radar System as an item of special
Congressional interest and restricts obligation of funds to no
more that 50 percent of the amount provided in this act until
the following report and joint certification have been
submitted.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of the Treasury to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on the status of the Tethered
Aerostat Radar System, and to jointly certify that (1) the
President's Budget for fiscal year 2002 and the accompanying
five year budget plan fully meet the operational and
modernization requirements of the US Customs Service, the US
Southern Command, and the North American Defense Command for
counter-drug and continental air defense missions and (2) the
management responsibility and corresponding funding have been
allocated to the Department of Defense and to the Department of
the Treasury in a manner which best facilitates the mission-
effectiveness of the system.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $137,544,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 147,545,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 147,545,000
Change from budget request............................ ................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $147,545,000
for the Office of the Inspector General, the amount proposed in
the budget. The recommendation is an increase of $10,001,000
above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
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 fully comply with the
recommendations and directions in the classified annex
accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Defense Appropriations bill.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $209,100,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 216,000,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 216,000,000
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 Recommendations

The Committee recommends $216,000,000 for the Central
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Systems Fund
(CIARDS). The recommendation is the same as the budget request
and $6,900,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year
2000.

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $158,015,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 137,631,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 224,181,000
Change from budget request............................ +86,550,000

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

Committee Recommendations

The budget included a request of $137,631,000 for the
Intelligence Community Management Account. The Committee
recommends $224,181,000, an increase of $86,550,000 above the
request and $66,166,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal
year 2000. Of the amount appropriated under this heading,
$33,100,000 is for transfer to the Department of Justice for
operations at the National Drug Intelligence Center. Details of
adjustments to this account are included in the classfied annex
accompanying this report.

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

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $35,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 25,000,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 25,000,000
Change from budget request............................ ................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000
for the Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation,
and Environmental Restoration Fund, the amount proposed in the
budget. The recommendation is a decrease of $10,000,000 below
the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.

NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND

Fiscal year 2000 appropriation........................ $8,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request....................... 6,950,000
Committee recommendation.............................. 6,950,000
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 Recommendations

The Committee recommends $6,950,000 for the National
Security Education Trust Fund. The recommendation is the same
as the budget request and $1,050,000 less than the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
TITLE VIII

GENERAL PROVISIONS

The accompanying bill includes 118 general provisions. Most
of these provisions were included in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000 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, 2001, the accompanying House and Senate Committee reports,
the conference report and the 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 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.

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 2001 bill,
which might be interpreted as changing existing 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 the amount provided for transfer to
the National Park Service for infrastructure repair
improvements at Fort Baker. Language has been deleted
concerning recovery of costs associated with environmental
restoration at government-owned, contractor-operated
facilities; for demolition and removal of Military Traffic
Management Command facilities; and concerning the transfer of
funds to the Presidential Commission on Holocaust Assets.
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; and which changes the amount earmarked
for the William Lehman Aviation Center.
Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'' which changes the amount available for emergency
and extraordinary expenses; changes the amount earmarked for
security locks, and changes the amount that the Secretary of
Defense may transfer to other accounts in this bill for
purposes of classified activities. Language has also been
deleted concerning funds for intelligence activities.
Language has been amended in ``Overseas Contingency
Operations Transfer Fund'' which allows for additional transfer
authority to the military personnel, procurement, and research,
development, test and evaluation accounts.
Language has been deleted in ``Former Soviet Union Threat
Reduction'' which earmarked $25,000,000 for dismantling and
disposal of nuclear submarines.
Language has been included in ``Aircraft Procurement,
Army'' which earmarks funds for Army Reserve UH-60 aircraft.
Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Army''
which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement, and the number of vehicles required for physical
security of personnel.
Language has been deleted in ``Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy'' concerning specific program-level appropriations; and
incremental funding authority for the LHD-1 Amphibious Assault
Ship.
Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Navy''
which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement; adds language for the procurement of a passenger
vehicle required for physical security of personnel, and limits
the purchase cost of the vehicle.
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; adds language for the procurement of a
passenger vehicle required for the physical security of
personnel, and limits the purchase cost of the vehicle.
Language has been amended in ``Procurement, Defense-Wide''
which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for
replacement and the number of passenger vehicles required for
physical security of personnel; and deletes language providing
funds for electronic commerce resource centers.
The appropriations paragraph for the ``National Guard and
Reserve Equipment'' account has been deleted which provided
funds for Guard and Reserve equipment.
Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Navy'' concerning Intercooled Recuperated Gas
Turbine engine technology.
Language has been amended in ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Air Force'' prohibiting the development of an
ejection seat for the Joint Strike Fighter other than that
which is under development in the Joint Ejection Seat Program.
Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test
and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' which earmarks funds for
ballistic missile defense programs.
The appropriations paragraph for ``Developmental Test and
Evaluation, Defense'' has been deleted which provided funds for
the Director, Test and Evaluation.
Language has been included in ``Operational Test and
Evaluation, Defense'' which makes funds available for the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to develop policy
guidance and conduct other oversight functions.
Language has been amended in ``Defense Working Capital
Funds'' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles
for replacement.
Language has been included in ``Defense Health Program''
which earmarks $10,000,000 for HIV educational activities
undertaken in connection with U.S. military training conducted
in African nations.
Language has been deleted in ``Drug Interdiction and
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' which earmarks funds for
transfer to ``Military Construction, Air Force'' in support of
the U.S. Southern Command.
Language has been amended in ``Intelligence Community
Management Account'' which transfers $33,100,000 to the
Department of Justice.

General Provisions

Section 8005 has been amended which increases the level of
general transfer authority for the Department of Defense.
Section 8008 has been amended to delete language providing
multi-year procurement authority for Longbow Apache, the
Javelin missile, F/A-18 E/F, C-17 and F-16; and adds multi-year
authority for Bradley fighting vehicles, DDG-51 destroyers, UH-
60 and CH-60 aircraft.
Section 8017 has been amended with regard to applicability
to persons with disabilities.
Section 8031 has been amended to change the number of staff
years that may be funded for defense studies and analysis by
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers.
Section 8053 has been amended to delete language earmarking
funds for a building demolition project.
Section 8054 has been amended to include language which
rescinds funds from the following programs:

(Rescissions)
Revised Economic Estimates:
2000 Appropriations:
Aircraft Procurement, Army: Inflation Savings... $7,000,000
Missile Procurement, Army: Inflation Savings.... 6,000,000
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat
Vehicles, Army: Inflation Savings............. 7,000,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Army: Inflation
Savings....................................... 5,000,000
Other Procurement, Army: Inflation Savings...... 16,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: Inflation
Savings....................................... 32,700,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force: Inflation
Savings....................................... 5,500,000
Other Procurement, Air Force: Inflation Savings. 6,400,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Army: Inflation Savings....................... 19,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air
Force: Inflation Savings...................... 42,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Defense-Wide: Inflation Savings............... 33,900,000
Program-specific Reductions:
1998 Appropriations:
Under the heading, Shipbuilding and Conversion,
Navy: SSN-21 attack submarine program......... 74,000,000
1999 Appropriations:
Other Procurement, Army: R2000 Engine Flush
System........................................ 3,000,000
Weapons Procurement, Navy: Tomahawk............. 22,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: JSTARS
(Contract savings)............................ 12,300,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force: CALCM (Contract
Savings)...................................... 20,000,000
Other Procurement, Air Force: RAPCON
(Restructuring program)....................... 8,000,000
2000 Appropriations:
Missile Procurement, Army: Javelin (Schedule
slip)......................................... 150,000,000
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat
Vehicles, Army: Command and Control Vehicle
(Termination)................................. 60,000,000
Other Procurement, Army: SMART-T (Schedule slip) 29,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy: F/A-18 E/F cost
savings....................................... 6,500,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force: AMRAAM (Budget
error)........................................ 6,192,000
Other Procurement, Air Force:
SMART-T (Schedule slip)..................... 12,000,000
RAPCON (Restructuring program).............. 2,000,000
DCGS Communications Segment Upgrade......... 6,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,
Army:
WRAP (Unobligated balance).................. 10,000,000
Breacher (Program terminated)............... 42,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air
Force: C-130 (Schedule slip).................. 30,000,000
Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund:
Unused Balance................................ 17,000,000

Section 8058 has been amended to substitute the phrase
``Combatant Commands'' in place of ``Unified and Specified
Commands'' concerning reimbursement for Reserve Intelligence
Personnel.
Section 8060 has been amended to delete language concerning
secure secretarial offices, support facilities, and the subway
entrance to the Pentagon.
Section 8085 has been included which reduces funds
available for several operation and maintenance accounts by
$800,000,000 to reflect working capital fund cash balance and
rate stabilization adjustments.
Section 8087 has been amended to delete language concerning
foreign built cranes, and to add language modifying Buy
American requirements.
Section 8089 has been amended to add language to reassess
the structure and content of the managed care support contract
program.
Section 8092 has been amended which reduces funds available
for military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts
by a total of $537,600,000 due to favorable foreign currency
fluctuations.
Section 8094 has been amended to revise the amounts
earmarked to maintain a total inventory of 94 B-52 aircraft.
Section 8095 has been amended to delete language requiring
a DOD Inspector General report on funding for the maintenance
of flag officer quarters.
Section 8096 has been amended to delete language which
prohibited the obligation of funds for the Line-of-Sight Anti-
Tank program, and deletes funds earmarked for the Air Directed
Surface to Air Missile.
Section 8099 has been amended to revise the limitation on
expenditure of funds for information technology systems and to
make the provision applicable to the current fiscal year.
Section 8104 has been amended to provide $5,000,000 to
evaluate a standards and performance based academic model at
DoD schools.
Section 8106 has been amended which requires the Secretary
of Defense to report by March 15, 2001 on health care contract
liabilities.
Section 8107 has been included which supports civil
requirements associated with the Global Positioning System.
Section 8108 has been included which makes $115,000,000 of
the funds available in ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide'' available until expended, and allows the Secretary of
Defense to transfer such funds to other federal activities.
Section 8109 has been included which reduces funds
available for military personnel and operation and maintenance
accounts by a total of $463,400,000 due to balances available
in the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuation, Defense'' account.
Section 8110 has been included which prohibits funds for
aircraft modifications until the Secretary of the Air Force
submits a report on Air National Guard F-16 aircraft.
Section 8111 has been included which requires a report on
work-related illnesses resulting from exposure to beryllium or
beryllium alloys.
Section 8112 has been included which earmarks funds from
``Operation and Maintenance, Army'' for security enhancements
to the heliport which supports the National Training Center.
Section 8113 has been included which extends the authority
for an equipment center demonstration program.
Section 8114 has been included, which transfers $15,000,000
appropriated in fiscal year 2000 under ``Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Army'' for the Grizzly breacher
mineclearing program to ``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked
Combat Vehicles, Army'' for Wolverine heavy assault bridge
program; and directs the Army to obligate $97,000,000 from
within available fiscal year 2000 funds for ``Procurement of
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'' for the procurement
of Wolverine heavy assault bridges.
Section 8115 has been included which makes the obligation
of fiscal year 2001 appropriations for equipment for a second
interim brigade combat team contingent on certain Secretary of
Defense and Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
certifications.
Section 8116 has been included which requires completion of
certain testing of the F-22 aircraft prior to low-rate initial
production.
Section 8117 has been included which amends existing cost
caps for the F-22 aircraft program.
Section 8118 has been included which requires certain
reports on the Joint Strike Fighter program, and places
limitations on the obligation of funds for the program.

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
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
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. 8104.
Sec. 8022.

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 ............................. .................
Intelligence Community Management Account.. 33,100,000 Dept. of Justice National 33,100,000
Drug Intelligence Center.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transfers

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 $10,000,000
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 appropriation 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 ``Drug Interdiction and
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', which transfers funds to
other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense.
Ten provisions (Sections 8005, 8006, 8015, 8037, 8040,
8060, 8062, 8075, 8108, 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:

Under the heading, Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
1998/2002: SSN-21 attack submarine program.......... $74,000,000
Other Procurement, Army 1999/2001....................... 3,000,000
Weapons Procurement, Navy 1999/2001..................... 22,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001............... 12,300,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001................ 20,000,000
Other Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001.................. 8,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Army 2000/2002.................... 7,000,000
Missile Procurement, Army 2000/2002..................... 156,000,000
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
2000/2002........................................... 67,000,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Army 2000/2002............... 5,000,000
Other Procurement, Army 2000/2002....................... 45,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy 2000/2002.................... 6,500,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002............... 32,700,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002................ 11,692,000
Other Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002.................. 26,400,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 2000/
2001................................................ 71,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
2000/2001........................................... 72,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
2000/2001........................................... 33,900,000
Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund.............. 17,000,000

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 (new matter is
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):

section 8093 of the department of defense appropriations act, 2000

Sec. 8093. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise provided
for the Department of Defense in this or any other Act for any
fiscal year may be obligated or expended for design,
manufacture, or procurement of a nuclear-capable shipyard crane
from a foreign source. Subsection (a) does not apply to the
limitation in the preceding sentence.

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.

[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation-- This bill--\*\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary....................... 288,414 279,025 288,297 277,094
Mandatory........................... 216 216 216 216
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Excludes scoring of the House-passed FY 2000 supplemental bill, which would increase budget authority by
$113 million and increase outlays by $75 million.

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.

[In millions of dollars]

Budget Authority in bill...................................... 288,513
2001...................................................... 188,232
2002...................................................... 59,380
2003...................................................... 21,716
2004...................................................... 9,045
2005...................................................... 9,011

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 Rules 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

Often of the job of this Committee is to ask questions and
to question assumptions. That is especially true in a world of
limited financial resources. Last year the Committee produced a
provocative Defense bill which challenged many assumptions
underlying defense budget policy, particularly regarding
tactical fighter aircraft and in particular whether the F-22
aircraft was ready for production. This year's bill is a
disappointing return to a more business-as-usual approach. In
the context of the Congressional Republican leadership's budget
resolution, which proposes to increase defense but decimate the
operation of many other Federal agencies, this bill is not one
that I can support in its present form.

unreasonable funding levels

The President's budget proposed a hefty increase of $15.8
billion, or 5.9 percent, over the fiscal year 2000 appropriated
level for the Department of Defense. This was done to pay for
the President's military pay raise and to meet his commitment
of achieving a $60 billion annual procurement level. But his
budget balanced this hefty increase with increases for
education, national parks, law enforcement, health and safety,
environmental protection and other important non-Defense
programs. The Congressional leadership abandoned that balance
in its Budget Resolution by increasing the President's 5.9
percent increase for defense programs funded in this bill by
another $4 billion, by giving away $175 billion over five years
in tax cuts, and by making it all appear to add up by cutting
non-defense discretionary programs by $125 million below
inflation over the next five years. The folly of this approach
becomes more clear with the passage of each domestic
appropriations bill that conforms to the budget resolution.
That is demonstrated vividly in the Legislative Appropriations
bill which proposes to dramatically reduce the number of
Capitol police--an inappropriate response to the well-
documented need or increased security to the public and for
protection of the Capitol police force highlighted by the
tragic and senseless murder of two American heroes last year.
It is also demonstrated by the fact that Presidential
initiatives to strengthen education, health care, worker
training, and science are being eviscerated.
Adding $4 billion in the defense bill, beyond the hefty
$15.8 billion increase proposed by the President, appears very
much to be a case of political one-upmanship.
The President's budget fully funded the President's
military pay raise and met his commitment to an annual
procurement level of $60 billion. It proposes significant
growth in the number of F/A-18E/F, F-22, V-22, E-2, and KC-130J
aircraft, fully funds the New Attack Submarine and an aircraft
carrier, and increases many other smaller procurement and
research programs. While Committee increases in other programs
will have positive effects within the Department of Defense,
many of them will not result in a near-term improvement in
combat readiness or enhance the near-term performance of any
troops during combat. In the context of the Republican
leadership's budget resolution, the Committee needs to take a
more disciplined approach.

Reform

Last year, the Committee sent a strong message to the
Pentagon in a bipartisan and unanimous fashion that it is time
to reorient its spending priorities to meet a broader array of
military budget requirements in the 21st century. This means:
(1) paying attention to so-called ``asymmetrical'' threats like
chemical and biological terrorism, information warfare, smaller
scale urban warfare, and cruise missile defense and (2)
bolstering conventional military capabilities like airlift,
sealift, electronic jamming, intelligence and surveillance, and
communications. Although the Committee includes a $150 million
initiative for hacker-defense of DOD computer systems in this
bill, it is the lone example of where the Committee made any
follow-through on the priorities it set last year.
This Congress continues to dodge significant attempts at
reform to cut out wasteful military spending that everyone
knows is widely prevalent. The authorizing committees have
again ignored the Secretary of Defense's recommendation to
conduct additional rounds of base closures that ultimately
could save the government over $20 billion. The Congress has
apparently grown comfortable with the status quo--operating
military bases that the Defense Department readily admits add
little or nothing to our national security.
Each year the General Accounting Office conducts studies
which indicate that many other opportunities exist for large
military savings through improved management. During the last
year, the General Accounting Office has reported that:

Material financial management deficiencies identified
at DOD, taken together, represent the single largest
obstacle that must be effectively addressed to achieve
an unqualified opinion on the U.S. government's
consolidated financial statements. DOD's vast
operations (an estimated $1 trillion in assets, nearly
$1 trillion in reported liabilities, and a reported net
cost of operations of $378 billion in fiscal year 1999)
have a tremendous impact on the government's
consolidated reporting. To date, no major part of DOD
has yet been able to pass the test of an independent
audit. The lack of key controls and information not
only hampers DOD's ability to produce credible
financial statements, but impairs efforts to improve
the economy and efficiency of its operations.
For fiscal years 1996-1998, the Navy reported that it
had lost $3 billion of intransit inventory, including
some classified and sensitive items such as aircraft
guided-missile launchers, military night vision
devices, and communications equipment.
In the five years between fiscal years 1994 and 1998,
defense contractors returned about $4.6 billion in
overpayments from the Department of Defense.

The Defense Department does not need an additional $4
billion above the increase the President proposed. It could
generate an equivalent amount of buying power if it would
simply reform some of its fundamental management systems.
Unfortunately, there are no initiatives in the Committee's bill
to facilitate that objective, and we continue to throw good
money after bad.

Tactical Aviation Programs

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. Last year, the Committee
made this issue a priority in its deliberations and
recommendations. A key point the Committee raised is whether or
not the threat will emerge which justifies this level of
investment and in particular whether it warrants production of
the F-22 aircraft.
This bill largely returns to business-as-usual by
essentially ``rubber-stamping'' the Pentagon's tactical
aircraft program, and by so-doing it ignores the key strategic
policy question concerning the future of defense tactical
aircraft. The Committee's bill provides growth in the Navy's F-
18 program, allows the F-22 to enter production even though it
is not ready, and allows the Joint Strike Fighter to enter a
more advanced phase ofdevelopment whose cost is estimated to be
about $20 billion despite warnings from the General Accounting Office
that this is premature. The combination of these actions results in a
contractual quagmire from which the Pentagon and Congress will not be
able to extricate themselves. No new information has been found which
suggests that the threat to American tactical aviation is more
formidable or credible than a year ago.

f-22

This bill approves the budget request of almost $4 billion
for the F-22 program in fiscal year 2001, of which $1.4 billion
is for continued development and testing and $2.1 billion is
for production of 10 aircraft. During the past year the
Congress has discovered that: (1) F-22 flight testing has not
been conducted to the extent planned or required; (2) static
and fatigue testing are more than a year behind schedule; (3)
the Office of the Secretary of Defense estimates that F-22
production costs will be approximately $1 billion more than the
Air Force has budgeted per year; and (4) the cost of the
development program continues to increase rather than
stabilize.
The cost of the F-22 development program has doubled since
1985 to $24 billion, and only 15 percent of the testing program
has been accomplished since the engineering manufacturing
development program began in 1991. Nevertheless, the Committee
has approved the request of $2.1 billion for F-22 production--
without question.
The conference agreement last year on the F-22 aircraft
prohibits a production decision until the so-called ``block 3''
software is flight rested in an actual F-22 aircraft (rather
than in a surrogate test aircraft). That testing is not
scheduled to occur until the fall of next year, at the
earliest. It should be noted that the Air Force has to only
conduct a single flight test of the block 3 software to meet
the Congressional requirements and to allow the program to
enter low rate initial production. However, many flight test
months are actually required to determine with fidelity whether
or not the software actually works. The taxpayer should have
some reasonable confidence that the aircraft and its software
actually works, prior to entering into billions of dollars of
production contracts; in this regard, the program is no closer
to being ready to enter into production than a year ago, and
may in fact be worse off. Three caution-flags have been raised
on this program that the Committee has chosen to ignore.
(1) The Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation testified before Congress this year and provided
strong warnings that the program continues to be in trouble. He
noted that the F-22 test program is proceeding much more slowly
than in previous aircraft development programs, and even these
lagging testing schedules continue to slip over time. Over the
past three years, the F-22 has lost 49 flight test months that
could have been available for testing--a reduction of 20
percent in the available flight test months from original
plans.
To accommodate the loss of test time and to reduce test
costs, the Air Force has reduced flight test hours by 13
percent (580 flight test hours). He testified in March:

Basically, not enough of the test program has been
completed to know whether or not significant
development problems remain to be corrected.

His testimony also revealed that the current test program
does not include any operational testing under adverse
environmental conditions, especially in rain and cold weather;
the flight test aircraft cannot be flown near thunderstorms to
identify potential rain-induced problems or to gather data on
static discharge impact on the aircraft, a continuing B-2
problem. Effective fire-suppression is mandatory to achieve a
survivable aircraft design, yet the Air Force now knows that
the aircraft's vulnerable area is 30 percent higher than the
specification calls for.
(2) The Committee's own Surveys and Investigations staff
reported in March 2000 that the decision to enter production in
December 2000 is premature. Fatigue-life testing and avionics
testing are the two highest risk areas in the program. Delaying
the production decision would significantly reduce the impact
of those risks on the program while concurrently providing more
robust testing of the block 3 software. It recommended to the
Committee that the production decision not be made until the
third fatigue life test is completed, currently scheduled for
December 2001 (fiscal year 2002).
If the Committee had heeded these concerns, it would have
eliminated all F-22 production funds from this bill and saved
$2.1 billion, while also holding the Air Force's ``feet to the
fire'' to ensure that it was building aircraft that work.
(3) The General Accounting Office recently recommended
that, in order to meet industrial base concerns, the F-22 low
rate production should begin at no more than 6 aircraft per
year until development and initial operational test and
evaluation are complete. This would allow the program to avoid
significantly expanding production capacity until after
operationaltesting demonstrates the aircraft is suitable for
its intended mission. The risks of doing otherwise are: buying systems
that will require significant and costly modifications to achieve
satisfactory performance; accepting less capable systems than planned;
or deploying substandard systems to combat forces.
Had the Committee followed this modest recommendation, it
could have eliminated 4 aircraft and saved $828 million in just
this year alone.
It is highly troubling that the Committee would approve
$2.1 billion for production of 10 F-22 aircraft in fiscal year
2001 given the strong and clear warnings from three separate
and credible organizations that prove the program is not ready
to go into production. This might be understandable if F-22
were an isolated and unique anomaly in the Air Force
acquisition system, or if the threat were compelling. We know
this is not the case.
The only major weapon system the Air Force has delivered
below cost and on time during the last 20 years was its then-
highly touted B-1 bomber program. The Air Force rushed into
production for political reasons, and got a fleet of aircraft
whose performance defects were so severe that the aircraft now
have limited utility in combat because they cannot adequately
protect themselves.
The Air Force spent $4 billion on development of the Tri-
Service Standoff Attack Missile, which was subsequently
terminated due to poor cost, schedule, management, and
performance issues.
The C-17 was estimated to cost about $42 billion for 210
aircraft, but is now estimated to cost about $45 billion for
only 134 aircraft.
The B-2 development contract more than doubled from its
initial target value of $9.4 billion to $21.1 billion
currently.
Given the fact that the F-22 is clearly not ready to enter
into production, in the context of the Air Force's very poor
track record of developing its major weapon systems at the
times or costs promised, it is disturbing that the Committee
would put $2.1 billion at risk by allowing F-22 production to
go forward at this time. The nation would be better served by
investing this $2.1 billion in education, law enforcement, the
environment, or other efforts to meet our international
responsibilities and allowing the F-22 technology to mature
before we spend really big money on it.

joint strike fighter

The Joint Strike Fighter, if carried to fruition as
currently envisioned by the Department of Defense, will be the
largest program in the Pentagon's weapons-purchasing plan for
the next 20 years and perhaps in history. The cost of
developing and building almost 3,000 aircraft could be over
$200 billion.
In the early 1990s the Air Force testified that the cost
goal for the F-22 in constant dollars of that era was $35
million each. We now know that the current estimated unit cost
for the F-22 in real taxpayer dollars is $113 million, which
still is based on very optimistic assumptions. This is almost
double what today's F-15 aircraft cost.
The Joint Strike Fighter is in the same position as the F-
22 was a decade ago, and the Department of Defense is selling
the program to Congress on the assumption that unit costs will
be around between $28 to $38 million in constant dollars. The
F-22 experience makes it hard to believe such preliminary Joint
Strike Fighter unit cost estimates. If the unit costs are off,
then the program could cost much more than $200 billion!
The fiscal year 2001 budget for the Joint Strike Fighter
was premised on ending the on-going $3 billion concept
demonstration phase of the program later this year and
initiating the next phase of development known as engineering
manufacturing development on March 1, 2001 at a currently
estimated cost of about $20 billion. The Committee recommends a
three month delay (to June 1), but also allows engineering
manufacturing development to commence once certain reporting
requirements have been met.
The General Accounting Office issued a report on the Joint
Strike Fighter in May 200 which states:

Once the development phase beings, a large, fixed
investment in the form of human capital, facilities,
and materials is sunk into the program and any
significant changes will have a large, rippling effect
on cost and schedule. Beginning the engineering
manufacturing development phase when critical
technologies are at a low level of maturity serves to
significantly increase program risk and the likelihood
of schedule delays, which in turn result in increased
program costs . . . When the competing contractors
experienced design problems and cost overruns, DOD
restructured the program in a manner that will provide
less information than originally planned prior to
selecting between the two competing contractors.
Specifically, the program restructure moves away from
best commercial practices that were evident in the
original strategy, where technology was being developed
ahead of product. Instead, DOD's approach moves toward
the traditional practice of concurrently developing
technologies and products, which often raised cost-
benefit issues as a result of cost increases and
scheduledelays as problems are encountered in
technology development . . . We make a recommendation that the Joint
Strike Fighter program office adjust its currently planned engineering
and manufacturing decision date of March 2001 to allow adequate time to
mature critical technologies to acceptable maturity levels before
awarding the engineering and manufacturing development contract.

The Committee is to be congratulated for a thoughtful
recommendation in this bill to delay engineering manufacturing
development of the Joint Strike Fighter by three months.
However, the fiscally prudent course would be to eliminate the
remaining $295 million in the bill for fiscal year 2001 Joint
Strike Fighter engineering manufacturing development, and to
demand that the Department of Defense demonstrate that it has a
good understanding of the results of the $3 billion concept
demonstration program that is about to conclude, ensure that
the best acquisition strategy is in place to ensure future
competition within the aircraft industrial base, and respond to
the common-sense concerns of the General Accounting Office.
Here again, the Committee has missed an opportunity to save
$295 million and apply these funds to more urgent requirements
at home and abroad.

national missile defense

The Committee's bill recommends $1.8 billion for national
missile defense. During the past few years the Congress had a
very narrow focus on only the technology issue: ``Does it work
and how soon can we deploy it?'' The Administration, in its
upcoming negotiations with Russia, is addressing national
missile defense and the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in a
broader arms-control context aimed potentially at further
reductions to nuclear weapons.
In 1985, the Soviet Union had about 11,500 nuclear
warheads--each of which was estimated to have 20 to 30 times
the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Today, Russia has
about 5,000 such warheads. The Congress should be encouraging
further reductions in global nuclear weapons, and also
examining the need for and timing of national missile defense
within a global arms-control context.
It is disappointing that the Congress in general, and this
Committee in particular, has given the Administration $1.8
billion for national missile defense--without question. And
there are plenty of questions:
Do we have better national security through deploying
a limited national defense system or by globally reducing
nuclear weapons?
If we deploy a limited national missile defense
system, are we simply causing China to build more nuclear
missiles aimed at our country?
If we deploy a national missile defense system, do we
undermine our ability to keep our allies like Britain, France,
or Canada behind us on other key security issues down the line?
Do our proposed national missile defense interceptors
have inherent anti-satellite capability, and in ``fixing'' the
missile defense problem are we inadvertently creating a global
arms race for anti-satellite weapons?
The Committee should be commended for paying attention to
and providing leadership on tactical aviation issues. But I am
wondering why we have done nothing but ``rubber stamp'' the
budget request for national missile defense? The arms-control
issues related to national missile defense must be adequately
addressed eventually. It is my hope that in the future the
Committee and the Congress will focus on them in a thoughtful
way, and that we have a good understanding of the exact
consequences of what we are doing should the nation make the
decision to introduce a new class of weapons--national missile
defense interceptors--into the global inventory of weapons.

summary

There are many good things in the bill that I support, such
as the pay raise for the troops and improved health care
benefits for both active duty and retired personnel. The 7.4
percent increase to defense spending proposed in this bill is
excessive. If the Republican majority were not insisting on
slashing the President's future domestic requests for
strengthening education, health care, and science in order to
provide huge multiyear tax promises, an additional $4 billion
would be more defensible. But in this context, that is
extremely difficult. Unlike last year, the bill shows little
evidence of making major choices as we did last year with the
F-22.
It is politically and economically irresponsible to the
people whom we represent to lead them to believe that our non-
defense programs can sustain huge reductions without
threatening public health and safety, and the economic
prosperity on which the future of American families depends.
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 economic superpower will be
great. That will require a more balanced effort to address our
domestic and international responsibilities than the Congress
has provided in the Appropriations bills it has produced so
far. That should be the priority for additional funding.

Dave Obey.