[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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--
                                  --------------------------------------
                                       1999         2000         2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Divisions: \1\
    Airborne.....................            1            1            1
    Air Assault..................            1            1            1
    Light........................       (-)1/1        \1\ 2            2
    Infantry.....................            0            0            0
    Mechanized...................            4            4            4
    Armored......................            2            2            2
                                  --------------------------------------
        Total....................           10           10           10
                                  ======================================
Non-division Combat units:
    Armored Cavalry Regiments....            3            3            3
    Separate Brigades............            0        \2\ 1            1
                                  --------------------------------------
        Total....................            3            3            4
                                  ======================================
Active duty military personnel,            480          480          480
 end strength (Thousands)........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Separate brigade is aligned to one of the light divisions.
\2\ Selected Divisions will have the Interim Brigade Combat Teams (2
  brigades undergoing transformation at Ft. Lewis, WA) within them.

                         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]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget     Committee   Change from
                                     request    recommended    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMY TACTICAL MSL SYS (ATACMS)--        15,044      102,044      +87,000
 SYS SUM.........................
    Procure 100 ATACMS Block I     ...........  ...........      +77,000
     missiles....................
    Block IV Unitary Warhead.....  ...........  ...........      +10,000
ATACMS BLKII SYSTEM SUMMARY......      230,334       80,000     -150,334
    Technical issues with seeker   ...........  ...........     -150,334
     (Note: Additional funds are
     provided in PE 0604786A for
     the development of a P3I
     seeker).....................
MULTI PURPOSE INDV MUN (AP-CY)...        3,547            0       -3,547
    Technical issues with system.  ...........  ...........       -3,547
STINGER MODS.....................       21,838       33,338      +11,500
    Stinger Block I modifications  ...........  ...........      +11,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 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]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget     Committee   Change from
                                     request    recommended    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEMITRAILER FB BB/CONT TRANS 22 1/      12,135        5,035       -7,100
 2 T.............................
    Program slip.................  ...........  ...........       -7,100
HI MOB MULTI-PURP WHLD VEH             110,746      125,046      +14,300
 (HMMWV).........................
    Transformation: Additional     ...........  ...........       +9,300
     HMMWV's.....................
    Army Reserve: Additional       ...........  ...........       +5,000
     HMMWV's.....................
FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH          438,256      475,556      +37,300
 (FMTV)..........................
    National Guard: Additional     ...........  ...........      +35,000
     FMTVs.......................
    Army Reserves: Additional      ...........  ...........       +2,300
     FMTV's (5 ton)..............
FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED                 14,830       16,030       +1,200
 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT..........
    Army Reserve: Firetruck HEMTT  ...........  ...........       +1,200
FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES      166,119      191,119      +25,000
 (FHTV)..........................
    M3 CROP......................  ...........  ...........      +10,000
    Movement Tracking System.....  ...........  ...........      +15,000
TRUCK, TRACTOR, LINE HAUL, M915/        42,989       44,589       +1,600
 M916............................
    Army Reserve: Additional       ...........  ...........       +1,600
     M915A3 Tractors.............
MODIFICATION OF IN SV EQUIP......       28,910       36,910       +8,000
    A8020 fuel injection test      ...........  ...........       +8,000
     stand.......................
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (TAC          1,853        2,853       +1,000
 VEH)............................
    TRU-Hitches..................  ...........  ...........       +1,000
COMBAT IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM....       13,096       18,096       +5,000
    Battlefield Combat ID........  ...........  ...........       +5,000
SHF TERM.........................       38,307       14,307      -24,000
    Schedule delay...............  ...........  ...........      -24,000
SAT TERM, EMUT (SPACE)...........        3,475       13,475      +10,000
    SPITFIRE terminals...........  ...........  ...........      +10,000
SMART-T (SPACE)..................       48,594       32,094      -16,500
    Schedule slip................  ...........  ...........      -16,500
GLOBAL BRDCST SVC-GBS............        9,286            0       -9,286
    Schedule slip................  ...........  ...........       -9,286
ARMY DATA DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM           32,675       66,875      +34,200
 (DATA RADIO)....................
    Army Transformation: EPLRS...  ...........  ...........      +24,200
    National Guard: EPLRS........  ...........  ...........      +10,000
SINCGARS FAMILY..................       18,340       51,840      +33,500
    Army Transformation: SINCGARS  ...........  ...........      +10,000
    National Guard: SINCGARS.....  ...........  ...........      +20,000
    Transformation: FHMUX........  ...........  ...........       +3,500
CUS MOD PROGRAM (WIN T/T)........      113,951      122,951       +9,000
    TS-21 Blackjack (AN/UXC-10)..  ...........  ...........       +9,000
SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM COMM/        4,374       19,374      +15,000
 ELECTRONICS.....................
    Observer Controller            ...........  ...........      +15,000
     Communications System (OCCS)
     (Note: The upgrades to the
     OCCS should be JTRS
     compliant and should support
     both the FORSCOM/TRADOC land
     mobile radio requirements at
     the NTC)....................
INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY             54,374       75,374      +21,000
 PROGRAM-ISSP....................
    Information Assurance:         ...........  ...........       +8,000
     Network Intrusion Detection
     Device......................
    Information Assurance: Secure  ...........  ...........      +13,000
     Terminal Equipment..........
PENTAGON INFORMATION MGT AND            65,412       17,262      -48,150
 TELECOM.........................
    Program slip.................  ...........  ...........      -48,150
PROPHET GROUND (TIARA)...........        9,571       12,571       +3,000
    Procurement of 5 systems for   ...........  ...........       +3,000
     high priority CONUS units...
TACTICAL EXPLOITATION OF NATIONAL       12,853        8,353       -4,500
 CAPABILITIES....................
    Discoverer II................  ...........  ...........       -4,500
SHORTSTOP........................            0       20,000      +20,000
    Shortstop (NOTE: The           ...........  ...........      +20,000
     Committee encourages the
     Army to fund Shortstop in
     future budget submissions)..
FAAD GBS.........................       24,188       27,188       +3,000
    Air Defense Alerting system    ...........  ...........       +3,000
     for Medium Brigade..........
NIGHT VISION DEVICES.............       34,146       59,546      +25,400
    Miniature Eyesafe Laser        ...........  ...........       +5,000
     Infrared Observation Set....
    AN/PVS-7 goggles.............  ...........  ...........      +12,000
    25mm image intensification     ...........  ...........       +8,400
     tubes.......................
MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS)....       22,935       31,025       +8,090
    Army Transformation: ABCS      ...........  ...........       +8,090
     integration.................
STAMIS TACTICAL COMPUTERS               40,015       40,015            0
 (STACOMP).......................
STANDARD INTEGRATED CMD POST            35,971       47,471      +11,500
 SYSTEM..........................
    Army Transformation: SICPS...  ...........  ...........      +11,500
AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP..      172,051      181,051       +9,000
    NG Distance Learning           ...........  ...........       +4,000
     Courseware..................
    Ammunition AIT...............  ...........  ...........       +5,000
RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION            91,495       99,495       +8,000
 SYSTEM (RCAS)...................
    Additional funds.............  ...........  ...........       +8,000
GEN SMK MECH:MTRZD DUAL PURP M56.       11,369       15,369       +4,000
    M56 Smoke generator..........  ...........  ...........       +4,000
RIBBON BRIDGE....................       15,669       29,169      +13,500
    Army Reserve: ribbon bridges.  ...........  ...........      +13,500
KIT, STANDARD TELEOPERATING......          688       10,688      +10,000
    Vehicle Teleoperation kits...  ...........  ...........      +10,000
LAUNDRIES, SHOWERS AND LATRINES..       12,580       17,080       +4,500
    Laundry Advanced System......  ...........  ...........       +4,500
DISTRIBUTION SYS, PET & WATER....            0        3,000       +3,000
    Lightweight tactical water     ...........  ...........       +3,000
     purifier....................
COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL...........       31,567       37,767       +6,200
    Portable Low-Power Blood       ...........  ...........       +2,200
     Cooling and Storage Devices.
    Rapid Intravenous Infusion     ...........  ...........       +4,000
     Pump........................
ROLLER, VIBRATORY, SELF-PROPELLED        4,671       11,671       +7,000
 (CCE)...........................
    Army Reserves: additional      ...........  ...........       +4,000
     systems.....................
    Additional systems...........  ...........  ...........       +3,000
HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR..............        8,282       10,582       +2,300
    Army Reserve: additional       ...........  ...........       +2,300
     systems.....................
DEPLOYABLE UNIVERSAL COMBAT EARTH       14,146       24,346      +10,200
 MOVERS..........................
    28 additional DEUCES.........  ...........  ...........      +10,200
CONST EQUIP SLEP.................        1,986       16,986      +15,000
    Service Life Extension         ...........  ...........      +10,000
     Program of Reserve Component
     commercial construction
     equipment...................
    Extend Service Life of         ...........  ...........       +5,000
     Commercial Construction
     Equipment in the XVIII
     Airborne Corps..............
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (CONST        2,635        6,635       +4,000
 EQUIP)..........................
    National Guard: Ultimate       ...........  ...........       +2,000
     Building Machines...........
    Ultimate Building Machines...  ...........  ...........       +2,000
SMALL TUG........................            0        9,000       +9,000
    3 tugs.......................  ...........  ...........       +9,000
FLOATING CRANES..................            0       15,000      +15,000
    Floating crane barges........  ...........  ...........      +15,000
GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP..       85,886       90,886       +5,000
    3000 2KW military tactical     ...........  ...........       +5,000
     generators..................
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MHE).        1,231        3,731       +2,500
    Laser leveling equipment.....  ...........  ...........       +2,500
CTC INSTRUMENTATION SUPPORT......       81,845       93,945      +12,100
    MOUT.........................  ...........  ...........       +3,600
    Targetry electronics for the   ...........  ...........       +3,500
     Multi-purpose Range Complex-
     Heavy.......................
    DFIRST for National Guard      ...........  ...........       +5,000
     Installation #21A95.........
TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM......       91,937      104,937      +13,000
    National Guard: engagement     ...........  ...........       +8,000
     skills trainer..............
    Laser Markmanship Training     ...........  ...........       +5,000
     System......................
CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER....       81,160            0      -81,160
    Test unfunded................  ...........  ...........      -81,160
MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT        28,008       31,008       +3,000
 (OPA-3).........................
    Laser Leveling equipment.....  ...........  ...........       +3,000
PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH)....        2,367        8,367       +6,000
    Plasma Energy Pyrolysis        ...........  ...........       +6,000
     System (PEPS)...............
ARMY TRANSFORMATION: OTHER                   0            0     +200,000
 SUPPORT EQUIP...................
    Procures support equipment     ...........  ...........     +200,000
     for the 2nd IBCT............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

        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]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
                                  request    recommendation    request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-17 (MYP)....................    2,211,923      2,185,823       -26,100
    AF requested transfer to C- ...........  ..............      -41,000
     17 AP....................
    Simulator.................  ...........  ..............      +14,900
C-130J........................      208,051        208,051             0
    Note: Funds provided are    ...........  ..............            0
     only for procurement of
     two C-130J aircraft for
     firefighting units in the
     ANG and for C-130J
     associated support
     requirements.............
E-8C..........................      260,610        250,610       -10,000
    Prior year pricing          ...........  ..............      -10,000
     experience...............
E-8C (AP-CY)..................            0         40,000       +40,000
    Advance Procurement for A/  ...........  ..............      +40,000
     C 16.....................
PREDATOR UAV..................       22,078         32,078       +10,000
    Upgrade the current ground  ...........  ..............      +10,000
     stations, integrate the
     capability to control
     multiple UAVs
     simultaneously, improve
     reliability and
     maintainability, and
     procure necessary air
     vehicles.................
B-2A..........................       21,723         24,723        +3,000
    EGBU-28...................  ...........  ..............       +3,000
B-52..........................        8,425         20,425       +12,000
    Electronic countermeasures  ...........  ..............      +12,000
     and situational awareness
A-10..........................       33,891         37,891        +4,000
    Integrated flight and fire  ...........  ..............       +4,000
     control computer.........
T-3 (EFS) AIRCRAFT............        1,949              0        -1,949
    Funds no longer required..  ...........  ..............       -1,949
C-130.........................       91,524         94,524        +3,000
    Aluminum Mesh tank Liner    ...........  ..............       +3,000
     System...................
C-135.........................      328,232        380,232       +52,000
    KC-135R reengine..........  ...........  ..............      +52,000
DARP..........................      165,540        180,276       +14,736
    RIVET JOINT transfer......  ...........  ..............       +5,077
    U-2 transfer..............  ...........  ..............      -18,341
    RC-135 RIVET JOINT aircrew  ...........  ..............      +22,000
     (AMPd) trainer...........
    Installation of TAWS on     ...........  ..............       +6,000
     RIVET JOINT..............
OTHER AIRCRAFT................       28,214         38,214       +10,000
    SADL for ANG A-10, C-130,   ...........  ..............      +10,000
     KC-135...................
F-16 POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT..       25,464         37,464       +12,000
    IAIS......................  ...........  ..............      +12,000
WAR CONSUMABLES...............       43,015         53,015       +10,000
    ALE-50 Towed Decoys.......  ...........  ..............      +10,000
DARP..........................       98,410        136,674       +38,264
    Procurement of a two-seat   ...........  ..............      +14,000
     U-2 trainer..............
    U-2 SYERS spares..........  ...........  ..............       +3,000
    1st Production LBSS/HBSS    ...........  ..............       +8,000
     JSAF unit for U-2........
    RIVET JOINT transfer......  ...........  ..............       -5,077
    U-2 transfer..............  ...........  ..............      +18,341
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  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.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Committee       Change from
                                                                Budget request    recommended        request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Recapitulation

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

    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.

                     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

    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.

                       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.

                                
