[House Report 107-532]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-532
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     




                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


                       APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                        [to accompany h.r. 5010]

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS




 June 25, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-348                    WASHINGTON : 2002



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Bill Totals......................................................     1
Accrual Funding of Retirement Costs and Post-Retirement Health 
  Benefits.......................................................     4
Committee Budget Review Process..................................     4
Major Recommendations in the Committee Bill......................     4
Committee Recommendations by Major Category......................     7
    Active Military Personnel....................................     7
    Guard and Reserve............................................     7
    Operation and Maintenance....................................     7
    Procurement..................................................     7
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation...................     8
Forces to be Supported...........................................     8
    Department of the Army.......................................     8
    Department of the Navy.......................................     9
    Department of the Air Force..................................    10
TITLE I. MILITARY PERSONNEL......................................    11
    Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel 
      Appropriations.............................................    12
    Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 
      2003.......................................................    12
    Adjustments to Military Personnel Account....................    13
        End Strength Adjustments.................................    13
        Program Growth...........................................    13
        Selective Reenlistment Bonus.............................    13
        Unobligated Military Personnel Balances..................    14
        Academy Study............................................    14
        Full-Time Support Strengths..............................    15
    Military Personnel, Army.....................................    16
    Military Personnel, Navy.....................................    18
    Military Personnel, Marine Corps.............................    20
    Military Personnel, Air Force................................    22
    Reserve Personnel, Army......................................    24
        Realignment of Funds.....................................    26
    Reserve Personnel, Navy......................................    26
    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps..............................    28
    Reserve Personnel, Air Force.................................    30
    National Guard Personnel, Army...............................    32
    National Guard Personnel, Air Force..........................    34
TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..............................    37
    Operation and Maintenance Overview...........................    39
        Recommendations to Address Shortfalls....................    39
        Military Training........................................    40
        Civilian Pay.............................................    41
        Government Purchase and Travel Cards.....................    41
        Ultralightweight Camouflage Nets.........................    42
        Strong and Ready Families................................    43
        Contingency Operations Questionable Expenditures.........    43
        Study of African Americans in the Armed Services.........    43
        Firefighting and Emergency Response at DoD Installations.    44
        Unobligated Balances.....................................    44
        Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data..........    44
        Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings.................    45
        0-1 Reprogramming Approval Requirement...................    46
        Classified Annex.........................................    46
    Operation and Maintenance, Army..............................    46
        Online Technology Training Program.......................    50
        Camera Assisted Monitoring System--CAMS..................    50
        Worker Safety Demonstration Program......................    50
        Recruiting and Advertising...............................    50
    Operation and Maintenance, Navy..............................    51
        Center for Defense Technology and Education for the 
          Military Services (CDTEMS).............................    55
        Space and Naval Warfare Information Technology Center 
          (SITC).................................................    55
        Improved Engineering Design Process......................    56
    Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps......................    56
        Depot Maintenance--Radars................................    58
        Training and Support Facilities..........................    58
    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.........................    58
        CONUS Combat Air Patrol (CAP)............................    63
        Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) Platform.................    63
        Fairchild Air Force Base Museum Property.................    63
    Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide......................    64
        Armed Forces Information Service.........................    67
        George AFB...............................................    68
        Norton AFB...............................................    68
        GAVRT Project Expansion..................................    68
        Lewis Center for Educational Research....................    68
        Legacy...................................................    68
        DLAMP....................................................    68
        Office of the Secretary of Defense.......................    68
        Connecticut Consortium for Aviation Technology (CCAT)....    68
        Charles Melvin Price Support Center......................    68
        Child Care and Family Assistance Programs................    69
        Family Advocacy Programs.................................    69
    Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve......................    69
    Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve......................    71
        Grissom ARB Navy Reserve Center..........................    73
    Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve..............    73
    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.................    75
    Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard...............    77
        Joint Training and Experimentation Project...............    79
        Missouri Army National Guard.............................    79
        Massachusetts Military Reservation.......................    79
    Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard................    79
        Missouri Air National Guard..............................    82
        Key Field, Mississippi...................................    82
    Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund................    82
    United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces..........    82
    Environmental Restoration, Army..............................    83
    Environmental Restoration, Navy..............................    83
    Environmental Restoration, Air Force.........................    83
    Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide......................    83
    Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites.......    83
        Mount Umunhum............................................    84
    Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid...............    84
    Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction.........................    84
    Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense.....    84
    Defense Emergency Response Fund..............................    84
TITLE III. PROCUREMENT...........................................    87
    Estimates and Appropriations Summary.........................    87
        Special Interest Items...................................    89
        Classified Annex.........................................    89
        Army Large Scale Contract Review.........................    89
    Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................    89
        UH-60L Blackhawk Flight Simulator........................    92
        CH-47F Upgrade Program Restructure.......................    92
    Missile Procurement, Army....................................    95
    Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.....    99
    Procurement of Ammunition, Army..............................   103
        Program Executive Officer for Ammunition.................   107
        Cancellation of Wide Area Munition (WAM) Program.........   107
    Other Procurement, Army......................................   110
        Up-Armored HMMWVs........................................   119
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................   124
        CH-60S Common Cockpit Multi-Year Procurement.............   128
        Tactical Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance 
          (ISR)..................................................   128
    Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................   130
    Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.............   134
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................   138
        CVN-77 Integrated Warfare System (IWS)...................   141
        SSGN Acquisition Strategy................................   142
        DDG-51 Composite Structures..............................   143
    Other Procurement, Navy......................................   145
    Procurement, Marine Corps....................................   156
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................   163
        F-22 Raptor..............................................   167
        Incremental Funding of the C-17..........................   168
        Predator B Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV).................   168
        Global Hawk High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial 
          Vehicle (HAEUAV).......................................   169
        E-8 Joint Stars..........................................   169
    Missile Procurement, Air Force...............................   172
    Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.........................   176
    Other Procurement, Air Force.................................   180
    Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................   187
        Technical Assistance Program.............................   192
        Advanced Seal Delivery System............................   192
        Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency.......................   192
        Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3)....................   192
    National Guard and Reserve Equipment.........................   196
    Defense Production Act Purchases.............................   196
    Information Technology.......................................   196
        Transfers from the Defense Emergency Response Fund.......   198
        Navy Marine Corps Intranet...............................   198
        Information Technology Budget Exhibits...................   199
        Information Technology Network Consolidation.............   200
        GIG Bandwidth Expansion..................................   200
        Integration Software Technology..........................   200
        Defense Integrated Military Human Resource System........   200
        Command and Control Systems..............................   201
        Army Information Systems.................................   201
        Information Assurance....................................   201
        Space and Naval Warfare Information Technology Center 
          (SITC).................................................   201
        Courseware for IT Managers...............................   201
        Army Knowledge Online....................................   202
        USMC Continuity of Operations Plan.......................   202
        Configuration Management Information Systems.............   202
        Reserve Component Automated System (RCAS)................   202
        Financial Management Modernization Pilots................   203
TITLE IV. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION.............   205
    Estimates and Appropriation Summary..........................   205
        Special Interest Items...................................   207
        Classified Annex.........................................   207
        Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Road Map...................   207
        Future Testing Requirements..............................   207
        Network Centric-Warfare..................................   208
        Evolutionary Acquisition and Spiral Development..........   209
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army.............   210
        Crusader.................................................   237
        Comanche.................................................   240
        Brilliant Anti-Armor Technology (BAT) and BAT P3I 
          Submunition Program....................................   241
        Army MEMS Technology Development Acceleration............   241
        Future Combat System Materials Technology................   241
        Proposed Transfer of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-
          3) and Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) to 
          the Army...............................................   242
        Pseudo folliculitis Barbe (PFB)..........................   242
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy.............   246
        Navy Venture Organization................................   262
        Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System (AIEWS)....   262
        Nonlinear Dynamics Stochastic Resonance..................   263
        Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aerial 
          Vehicles (UAV).........................................   263
        Vertical Take-Off and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial 
          Vehicle-Rescission.....................................   264
        Open/Converged Architecture for Naval Fires Network......   264
        Tactical Control System (TCS) and the Joint Operational 
          Test Bed (JOTBS).......................................   264
        Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM)/Quickbolt.   265
        Bone Marrow Registry.....................................   265
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force........   269
        Bioreactor Environmental Initiative......................   285
        Global Hawk High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial 
          Vehicle (HAEUAV).......................................   285
        Network-Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT)...........   285
        Transformational Wideband MILSATCOM......................   286
        SBIRS High...............................................   286
        MILSTAR..................................................   286
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide.....   291
        Chemical and Biological Defense Program Homeland Security 
          Initiative.............................................   306
        Historically Black and Hispanic Serving Institutions 
          Science................................................   306
        Technical Studies, Support and Analyses..................   306
        Portable Radiation Search Tool...........................   306
        Polymer Based Chemical and Biological Sensors............   306
        Micro Electrical Mechanical Systems (MEMS) for Rolling 
          Element Bearings.......................................   307
        Laser Additive Manufacturing Initiative..................   307
        Engineered Pathogen Identification and Countermeasure 
          Program................................................   307
        Blast Resistant Construction Evaluation Program..........   307
        Active Sensors for Components Development for Advanced 
          Tactical Systems.......................................   307
        Spin Electronics.........................................   307
        USNR Information Infrastructure Continuity of Operations.   308
        Challenge Program........................................   308
        Missile Defense Overview.................................   308
        Sea Based Terminal.......................................   308
        Sea Based Boost/Space Based Kinetic Energy...............   309
        Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)...............   309
        Patriot Advanced Capability--3 (PAC-3)...................   309
        Theater High Altitude Area Defense.......................   310
        Russian-American Observation Satellites Program (RAMOS)..   310
        SPY-1 Solid State Radar..................................   310
        Missile Defense Reporting and Reprogramming Requirements.   310
        Advanced Tactical Laser Advanced Concept Technology 
          Demonstration (ACTD)...................................   310
        Underwater Systems Advanced Development..................   311
        Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency.......................   311
    Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense.....................   315
        Information Assurance Testing............................   317
TITLE V. REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS..........................   319
    Defense Working Capital Funds................................   319
    National Defense Sealift Fund................................   319
        Maritime Preposition Force (Future)--MPF(F)..............   319
        Strategic Sealift Capacity...............................   319
        T-5 Tanker Buyout........................................   320
TITLE VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS...................   320
    Defense Health Program.......................................   321
        Reprogramming............................................   321
        Military Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) Optimization...   321
        Defense Health Program Underexecution....................   321
        Healthcare Quality Initiatives Review Panel..............   322
        Shared BL-3 Biocontainment Research Facility.............   322
        American University of Beirut............................   322
        North Chicago Veterans Administration Medical Center and 
          Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois..................   322
        Environmental Medical Unit...............................   323
        Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Early Detection Research.....   323
        Army Peer-Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research..............   323
    Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army..............   324
        Access Road Engineering Studies..........................   324
    Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense.......   327
        Southern Command Reconnaissance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 
          (UAV) Counter-Drug Initiative..........................   327
        National Guard State Plans...............................   327
        Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft....................   328
        T-AGOS...................................................   328
        Classified Annex.........................................   328
    Office of the Inspector General..............................   328
TITLE VII. RELATED AGENCIES......................................   331
    National Foreign Intelligence Program........................   331
        Introduction.............................................   331
        Classified Annex.........................................   331
    Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System 
      Fund.......................................................   331
    Intelligence Community Management Account....................   332
    Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and 
      Environmental Restoration Fund.............................   332
    National Security Education Trust Fund.......................   332
TITLE VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................   333
    Definition of Program, Project and Activity..................   333
    Center for Military Recruitment Assessment and Veterans 
      Employment.................................................   334
    Navy Marine Corps Intranet...................................   334
    Pentagon Reconstruction......................................   334
TITLE IX. COUNTER-TERRORISM AND DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS 
  DESTRUCTION....................................................   335
    Counter-Terrorism and Operational Response Transfer Fund.....   335
    Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction.........................   335
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS..................   337
    Changes in the Application of Existing Law...................   337
        Appropriations Language..................................   337
        General Provisions.......................................   339
    Appropriations Not Authorized by Law.........................   342
    Transfer of Funds............................................   343
    Rescissions..................................................   344
    Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives........   344
    Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)........   344
    Constitutional Authority.....................................   345
    Comparison with the Budget Resolution........................   345
    Five-Year Outlay Projections.................................   345
    Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments..........   346
    Additional Views.............................................   359

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-532

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



 
            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003

                                _______
                                

 June 25, 2002.--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. 5010]

    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, 2003.

                              Bill Totals

    Appropriations for most military functions of the 
Department of Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill 
for the fiscal year 2003. 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 2003 budget request for 
activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Bill totals $366,794,095,000 in new budget (obligational) 
authority. This total includes $10,000,000,000 requested as a 
contingency amount relating to the ongoing war on terrorism. 
Under the President's budget, these funds were proposed to be 
appropriated in a lump sum, and would be made available to the 
extent specified in subsequent official budget requests by the 
President to Congress. The Committee notes that the 
Administration has yet to provide any specific request or 
budget justification for these funds. Pending receipt of any 
such request or budget amendment, the Committee has deferred 
action on this $10,000,000,000 appropriation.
    Putting aside the amounts requested for this contingency 
fund, the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request for 
activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Bill totals $356,794,095,000 in new budget (obligational) 
authority. The amounts recommended by the Committee in the 
accompanying bill total $354,712,914,000 in new budget 
authority. This is $2,081,181,000 below the budget estimate 
($12,081,181,000 if the $10,000,000,000 contingency fund is 
included), and $33,843,567,000 above the sums made available 
for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The fiscal year 2003 budget request was adjusted to not include 
$3,412,561,000, the proposed cost to cover the accrued cost related to 
retirement benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and 
retiree health benefits for all civilian employees.


Accrual Funding of Retirement Costs and Post-Retirement Health Benefits

    The President's budget included a legislative proposal 
under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Government 
Reform to charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal 
year 2003, the fully accrued costs related to retirement 
benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and 
retiree health benefits for all civilian employees. The budget 
request also included an additional dollar amount in each 
affected discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.
    Without a discussion of the merits of this legislative 
proposal, the Committee has reduced the dollar amounts of the 
President's request shown in the ``Comparative Statement of New 
Budget Authority'' and other tables in this report to exclude 
the accrual funding proposal. The Committee makes this 
recommendation because the disposition of the legislative 
proposal is unclear at this time. Should the proposal be 
adopted by Congress and enacted into law, the Committee will 
make appropriate adjustments.
    The Committee further notes that administration proposals 
requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of 
Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate 
schedules apart from the regular appropriation requests. Should 
such a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally 
modifying the President's appropriation request for 
discretionary funding is then transmitted to the Congress.
    The Committee is concerned that this practice, which has 
worked effectively for both Congress and past administrations, 
was not followed for this accrual funding proposal. In this 
case, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) decided to 
include accrual amounts in the original discretionary 
appropriations language request. These amounts are based on 
legislation that has yet to be considered and approved by the 
appropriate committees of Congress. This led to numerous 
misunderstandings both inside and outside of Congress of what 
was the ``true'' President's budget request. The Committee 
believes that, in the future, OMB should follow long-
established procedures with respect to discretionary spending 
proposals that require legislative action.

                    Committee Budget Review Process

    During its review of the fiscal year 2003 budget request, 
the Subcommittee on Defense held a total of eight hearings 
during the period of February 2002 to June 2002. Testimony 
received by the Subcommittee totaled 824 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.

              Major Recommendations in the Committee Bill

    Ballistic Missile Defense.--The Committee bill provides 
$7.4 billion for ballistic missile defense, $74 million less 
than the President requested. This includes full funding for 
the Ground based midcourse program and the Block 2004 test bed. 
In addition, the Committee has provided additional funding to 
support near term theater missile defense, including adding $64 
million for the Arrow program and $95 million for the PATRIOT 
Advanced Capability-3. Reductions were taken primarily from the 
Sea Based Terminal program, a legacy of the terminated Navy 
area program; the RAMOS cooperative program, for which there is 
no signed agreement; and the Airborne Laser.
    Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities.--The 
Committee bill fully supports intelligence-related programs 
including funds requested for anti-terrorism activities.
    The Committee has also supported the Administration's 
request for additional research on and acquisition of unmanned 
aerial vehicles. The Committee has fully supported the Air 
Force and Navy development efforts associated with the Global 
Hawk UAV, including additional funds to implement the Air 
Force's plan for overall program cost reductions. The Committee 
has also included funds for the acquisition of additional 
Predator B systems as well as an I-GNAT system for the Army to 
begin concept of operations testing for its objective Tactical 
UAV system.
    Military Personnel and Defense Health Program.--The 
Committee bill fully funds the proposed pay raise of 4.1 
percent for military personnel and targeted pay raises of up to 
6.5 percent for mid-grade officers and noncommissioned 
officers. In addition it supports the budget request to 
continue to reduce service members' out-of-pocket housing 
expenses from 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent in fiscal year 2003. 
The Committee bill recommends a reduction of $354 million to 
the budget request for the Defense Health Program (DHP) due to 
reduced demand forecasts for services provided by the DHP. The 
Committee bill also increases military-related medical research 
and other initiatives by over $600 million.
    Readiness Accounts.--The Committee bill fully supports the 
Department's request for training and readiness funding. It 
provides full funding for proposed increases in land forces 
training, tank training miles and the Air Force and Navy Flying 
Hour Program, as well as ship operations. The Committee bill 
also supports a $1.8 billion increase in funding for base 
support operations and for sustainment, modernization and 
restoration of real property. The Committee bill also provides 
$400 million over the budget request for individual soldier and 
marine equipment, unit tactical equipment, training and support 
facilities, renovation of barracks and dining facilities, depot 
maintenance and other readiness and training items.
    Strategic Mobility.--The Committee bill fully supports the 
Administration's request to meet our military's strategic 
mobility requirements. This includes $3.7 billion for the 
procurement of 12 C-17 transports, including language directing 
the Air Force to fully fund the acquisition of 15 C-17s in 
fiscal year 2004; approval of the Administration's request for 
multiyear authority to acquire 40 CC-130Js and 24 KC-130Js; and 
finally, $89 million for the reengining of 3 additional KC-135E 
tankers.
    Crusader.--The Committee bill approves the Administration's 
recommendation to terminate the Crusader program and to realign 
fiscal year 2003 funding to accelerate Army development of a 
number of precision munitions and related technologies. The 
Committee bill also provides an increase of $173,000,000 over 
the amended budget for the follow-on Objective Force-Indirect 
Fire system, in order to ensure that such a system can be 
delivered no later than fiscal year 2008.
    Shipbuilding.--The Committee bill supports the budget 
request for all major shipbuilding programs requested by the 
Department, with the exception of the LHD-8, while recommending 
some minor reductions due to program execution issues. The 
Committee bill has also provided a net addition of $250 million 
to the budget request for the CVN-77 aircraft carrier program 
to restore warfighting capability improvements that had been 
deferred by the Navy.
    Space Programs.--The Committee has recommended a number of 
reductions to DoD Space programs due to fact of life schedule 
delays, unwarranted cost growth and under-execution to include 
reductions of: $95 million to AEHF Advanced Procurement, $80 
million to Wideband Communications, $100 million to the Titan 
heavy lift launcher, and $70 million to the Space Based 
Infrared System (SBIRS)--High program.
    Chemical/Biological Programs.--The Committee bill has fully 
funded the President's budget request for the Chemical and 
Biological Defense Program to include $420,000,000 for a 
homeland security initiative. This proposal would fund the 
establishment of a Center for Biological Counterterrorism at 
the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command, the 
establishment and deployment of a fully operational biological 
surveillance system in the National Capital Region and one 
other urban location, and an initial operational surveillance 
capability in 2 additional urban areas.
    In addition, the Committee has supported funding to 
demonstrate and provide effective protection from chemical and 
biological agent attack at various military installations 
across the nation. The ``CONUS Pilot Protection Project'' will 
procure an integrated suite of highly effective chemical and 
biological sensors and support equipment to be installed and 
demonstrated at nine installations during fiscal year 2003.
    Defense Transformation.--The Committee has supported and 
accelerated the transformational objectives of the Department 
by:
    (a) Increasing funding for Advanced Concept Technology 
Demonstrations and Quick Reaction Special Projects to speed up 
the transition of tools for the warfighter from concept and 
design to operational prototypes in the field.
    (b) Providing funding to expand the bandwidth capacity of 
the Global Information Grid to 10 gigabytes, transforming the 
way information and intelligence can be gathered and shared by 
the national security community.
    (c) Directing the Department of the Navy to examine the 
benefits of adopting commercial venture capital practices for 
the more rapid inclusion of cutting edge technologies in major 
Navy system acquisition programs.

              Committee Recommendations by Major Category


                       ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL

    The Committee recommends a total of $79,168,541,000 for 
active military personnel, a decrease of $687,224,000 below the 
budget request. The Committee supports the budget request which 
proposed a 4.1 percent pay raise for military personnel 
effective January 1, 2003, and targeted pay raises of up to 6.5 
percent for mid-grade officers and noncommissioned officers. 
The Committee also agrees with the authorized end strength as 
requested in the President's budget.

                           GUARD AND RESERVE

    The Committee recommends a total of $14,256,293,000 a 
decrease of $135,800,000 below the budget request for Guard and 
Reserve personnel. The Committee has also included funds for 
the proposed 4.1 percent pay raise. The Committee agrees with 
the authorized end strength as requested in the President's 
budget for the Selected Reserve.

                       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 $114,780,366,000, a net increase 
of $9,732,722,000 above the fiscal year 2002 appropriated 
amount. The Committee has supported improvements in funding for 
tactical flying hour programs, land forces training, ship 
operations, depot maintenance, base support operations, and 
maintenance and repair of real property. The Committee has 
added to the budget request a number of items critical to the 
welfare and readiness of service members, and also items 
contributing to the management efficiency of the services. 
Finally, the Committee recommends reductions from the budget 
request as a result of fact of life changes and management 
actions the Department of Defense should undertake to improve 
its operations.

                              PROCUREMENT

    The Committee recommends $70,285,272,000 for programs 
funded in title III procurement accounts.
    Major programs funded in the bill include:
    $242,561,000 for 16 UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopters.
    $387,061,000 for CH-47 Cargo Helicopter Modifications.
    $865,781,000 for Apache Longbow Advanced Procurement.
    $223,052,000 for 1478 Javelin missiles.
    $457,053,000 for Bradley Fighting Vehicle Base Sustainment.
    $772,031,000 for Interim Armored Vehicles.
    $376,268,000 for M1 Abrams Upgrades.
    $681,373,000 for Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles.
    $3,076,233,000 for 44 F/A-18 E/F Fighter aircraft.
    $1,025,660,000 for 11 MV-22 aircraft.
    $279,155,000 for 15 MH-60S helicopters.
    $267,851,000 for 5 E-2C Hawkeye Early Warning aircraft.
    $585,916,000 for 12 Trident II ballistic missiles.
    $664,820,000 for Tomahawk Missiles.
    $250,000,000 for the CVN-77 Integrated Warfare System.
    $1,490,652,000 for 1 New Attack Submarine.
    $2,273,002,000 for DDG-51 Destroyers.
    $596,492,000 for 1 LPD-17 Amphibious Assault Ship.
    $4,090,434,000 for 23 F-22 Fighter aircraft.
    $2,694,140,000 for 12 C-17 Airlift aircraft.
    $3,665,454,000 for ammunition for all services.
    $536,670,000 for Missile Defense Agency programs.

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

    The Committee recommends $57,754,286,000 for programs 
funded in Title IV Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 
accounts. Major Programs funded in the bill include:
    $885,508,000 for the DD-(X) development program.
    $420,109,000 for V-22 development.
    $3,471,168,000 for development of the Joint Strike Fighter.
    $844,783,000 for Advanced EHF Military Satellite 
Communications.
    $627,266,000 for F-22 Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development.
    $265,327,000 for B-2 Bomber Technology Upgrades.
    $744,927,000 for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)--
High.
    $354,743,000 for Endurance Unmanned Vehicles
    $6,820,786,000 for Missile Defense Agency programs.

                         Forces To Be Supported


                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

    The fiscal year 2003 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--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       2001            2002            2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Divisions: \1\
    Airborne....................................................               1               1               1
    Air Assault.................................................               1               1               1
    Light.......................................................               2           \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...........................................               1           \2\ 1               1
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................               3               3               3
                                                                 ===============================================
Active duty military personnel, end strength (Thousands)........             480             480             480
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 a
  location TBD) within them.

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

    The fiscal year 2003 budget supports battle forces totaling 
308 ships at the end of fiscal year 2003, including 18 
strategic submarines, 12 aircraft carriers, 237 other battle 
force ships, 1,628 Navy/Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 696 
Undergraduate Training aircraft, 460 Fleet Air Training 
aircraft, 349 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 408 Reserve aircraft, 
and 453 in the pipeline.
    A summary of the major forces follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal Year--
                                  --------------------------------------
                                       2001         2002         2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Forces.................           18           18           18
    Submarines...................           18           18           18
SLBM Launchers...................          432          432          432
General Purpose..................          258          257          249
    Aircraft Carriers............           12           12           12
    Surface Combatants...........          108          108          102
    Submarines (Attack)..........           55           54           54
    Amphibious Warfare Ships.....           38           38           37
    Combat Logistics Ships.......           34           34           33
    Mine Warfare.................           11           11           11
Support Forces...................           25           25           25
    Mobile Logistics Ships.......            2            2            2
    Support Ships................           23           23           23
Mobilization Category A (Reserve)           15           15           16
    Surface Combatants...........            8            8           11
    Amphibious Ships.............            1            1            0
    Mine Warfare.................            6            6            5
      Total Ships, Battle Force..          316          315          308
      Total Local Defense/Misc             177          166          165
       Force.....................
Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces......          137          140          141
Coastal Defense..................           13           13           13
Mobilization Category B..........           10           10           10
    Surface Combatants...........            0            0            0
    Mine Warfare Ships...........           10           10           10
    Support Ships................            0            0            0
Naval Aircraft:
    Primary Authorized (Plus             4,272        4,260        4,276
     Pipe).......................
    Authorized Pipeline..........          477          465          453
    Tactical/ASW Aircraft........        1,622        1,621        1,628
    Fleet Air Training...........          460          474          460
    Fleet Air Support............          358          344          349
    Training (Undergraduate).....          683          691          696
    Reserve......................          411          403          408
Naval Personnel:
    Active:
        Navy.....................      377,810      376,000      375,700
        Marine Corps.............      172,934      172,600      175,000
    Reserve:
        Navy.....................       87,913       86,300       87,800
            SELRES/Drilling             73,341       71,489       73,228
             Reserve.............
            Full-time Support....       14,572       14,811       14,572
        Marine Corps.............       39,810       39,558       39,558
            SELRES...............       37,542       37,297       37,297
            Full-time Support....        2,268        2,261        2,261
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

    The fiscal year 2003 Air Force budget is designed to 
support active, guard, and reserve forces, including 86 combat 
coded fighter and attack squadrons and 9 combat coded strategic 
bomber squadrons. The Minuteman, Peacekeeper and ICBM forces 
stand at 588 launch facilities and 533 missile boosters. The 
budget also supports our critical airlift mission, including 22 
active duty airlift squadrons. To accomplish the Air Force 
mission, the 2003 budget supports 358,800 Total Force 
endstrength.
    A summary of the major forces follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--
                                  --------------------------------------
                                       2001         2002         2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF Fighter and Attack Squadrons           88           88           86
 (Active, ANG, AFRC)*............
    Active.......................           46           46           45
    ANG..........................           37           37           36
    AFRC.........................            5            5            5
Strategic Bomber Squadrons                   9            9            8
 (Active)........................
Strategic Bomber Squadrons (ANG &            3            3            1
 AFRC)...........................
Flight Test Units (DT and OT                11           11           11
 units w/assigned jets)..........
    Fighter......................            8            8            8
    Bomber.......................            3            3            3
ICBM Operational Launch                    605          605          588
 Facilities/Control Centers......
ICBM Missile Inventory...........          550          550          533
                                  ======================================
USAF Airlift Squadrons (Active):
    Strategic Airlift Squadrons..           11           12           12
    Tactical Airlift Squadrons...           10           10           10
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total Airlift Squadrons....           21           22           22
                                  ======================================
      Total Active Inventory.....        6,282        5,903        5,851
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Number of Fighter and Bomber Squadrons reflect combat-coded (CC)
  units only; i.e., no training or test units.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    FY2001 Col
           Endstrength              FY2002 PB    FY2002 PB    FY2003 PB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Duty......................      353,571      358,800      359,000
Reserve Component................      183,354      183,100      182,200
Air National Guard...............      108,485      108,400      106,600
Air Force Reserve................       74,869       74,700       75,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

  Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations

    The President's fiscal year 2003 budget request continues 
to make military personnel its first priority through increased 
funding for military pay, housing allowances and overall 
quality of life programs.
    The budget request proposed a 4.1 percent across the board 
pay raise, effective January 1, 2003 for all service members. 
In addition, the budget request also proposed targeted pay 
raises of up to 6.5 percent for mid-grade officers and 
noncommissioned officers. This increase is on top of the 
average 6.9 percent basic pay increase that went into effect in 
January 2002. Fiscal year 2003 will be the fourth year the pay 
structure for military personnel is being revised to address 
pay shortfalls in grades that are experiencing significant 
retention issues, and also to improve the pay of military 
personnel compared to private sector pay.
    The budget request includes funding for Basic Allowance for 
Housing (BAH) in order to continue to reduce the service 
members' out-of-pocket housing expenses from 11.3 percent to 
7.5 percent in fiscal year 2003. The Committee supports the 
enhancements to military pay and increased housing benefits for 
fiscal year 2003.

   SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003




Fiscal year 2002......................................   $82,056,651,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    94,247,858,000
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................    93,424,834,000
Change from budget request............................      -823,024,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$93,424,834,000 for the Military Personnel accounts. The 
recommendation is an increase of $11,368,183,000 above the 
$82,056,651,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2002. 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.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Change from
                           Account                                  Budget       Recommendation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
    Army.....................................................      $27,079,392       26,832,217         -247,175
    Navy.....................................................       22,074,901       21,874,395         -200,506
    Marine Corps.............................................        8,558,887        8,504,172          -54,715
    Air Force................................................       22,142,585       21,957,757         -184,828
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Active.......................................       79,855,765       79,168,541         -687,244
                                                              ==================================================
Reserve Personnel:
    Army.....................................................        3,398,555        3,373,455          -25,100
    Navy.....................................................        1,927,152        1,897,352          -29,800
    Marine Corps.............................................          557,883          553,983           -3,900
    Air Force................................................        1,243,904        1,236,904           -7,000
National Guard Personnel:
    Army.....................................................        5,128,988        5,070,188          -58,800
    Air Force................................................        2,135,611        2,124,411          -11,200
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Guard and Reserve............................       14,392,093       14,256,293         -135,800
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, Title I.........................................       94,247,858       93,424,834         -823,024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fiscal year 2003 budget request includes an increase of 
approximately 2,300 end strength for the active forces and a 
slight increase of 100 end strength for the selected reserve 
over fiscal year 2002 authorized levels.
    The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted 
in the tables below.

                      OVERALL ACTIVE END STRENGTH




Fiscal year 2002 estimate.............................         1,387,400
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................         1,389,700
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................         1,389,700
    Compared with Fiscal year 2002....................            +2,300
    Compared with Fiscal year 2003 budget request.....               -0-


                 OVERALL SELECTED RESERVE END STRENGTH




Fiscal year 2002 estimate.............................           864,658
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................           864,558
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation.......................           864,558
    Compared with Fiscal year 2002....................              -100
    Compared with Fiscal year 2003 budget request.....               -0-



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Fiscal year 2003--
                                                  FY 2002     --------------------------------------------------
                                                  estimate                                         Change from
                                                                Budget request   Recommendation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Forces (end strength):
    Army....................................          480,000          480,000          480,000  ...............
    Navy....................................          376,000          375,700          375,700  ...............
    Marine Corps............................          172,600          175,000          175,000  ...............
    Air Force...............................          358,800          359,000          359,000  ...............
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Active Force...................        1,387,400        1,389,700        1,389,700  ...............
                                             ===================================================================
Guard and Reserve (end strength):
    Army Reserve............................          205,000          205,000          205,000  ...............
    Navy Reserve............................           87,000           87,800           87,800  ...............
    Marine Corps Reserve....................           39,558           39,558           39,558  ...............
    Air Force Reserve.......................           74,700           75,600           75,600  ...............
    Army National Guard.....................          350,000          350,000          350,000  ...............
    Air National Guard......................          108,400          106,600          106,600  ...............
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Guard and Reserve..............          864,658          864,558          864,558  ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Adjustments to Military Personnel Account


                                OVERVIEW

                        END STRENGTH ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommends appropriations necessary to 
support the military personnel end strength levels proposed in 
the President's budget request. This action is recommended 
without prejudice as it pertains to the question of increasing 
active duty personnel strength to the higher levels contained 
in the House-passed Department of Defense Authorization bill.
    The Committee takes this position in light of the 
considerable uncertainty regarding the funding needed in fiscal 
year 2003 to finance the military personnel accounts, in large 
measure because of ongoing operations in Afghanistan and 
elsewhere. The DoD is likely to incur additional unbudgeted 
personnel-related costs necessary to prosecute the Global War 
on Terrorism, from actions such as the stop-loss program and 
the continued mobilization of Guard and Reserve personnel. The 
Committee also is aware of ongoing internal Department of 
Defense studies focusing on realignment of military workloads 
and functions, which may result in more personnel being made 
available for essential missions, but could be costly to 
implement.
    In light of these unresolved policy questions regarding end 
strength levels, and the uncertainty of overall funding 
requirements, the Committee believes it best to await further 
resolution of these issues, and for the Department of Defense 
to submit a supplemental appropriations request or 
reprogramming action as necessary to address any additional 
fiscal year 2003 military personnel-related funding needs once 
these requirements are solidified.

                             Program Growth

    The Committee recommends a decrease of $186,810,000 to the 
budget request for the following programs due to program 
growth. A reduction to these compensation programs would 
maintain these programs at last year's level of funding.

                         [Dollars in thousands]

Unemployment Compensation...............................        -$27,910
Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program....................         -49,000
$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus..................................         -28,700
Critical Skills Accession Bonus.........................         -18,300
Critical Skills Retention Bonus.........................         -38,900
Enlistment Bonus Program................................         -24,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................        -186,810

                      SELECTIVE REENLISTMENT BONUS

    The Committee recommends a decrease of $49,000,000 to 
reduce the Army and Navy Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) 
program for initial payments based on a General Accounting 
Office (GAO) review of the Services' budget requests and the 
recent trends in SRB program obligations and expenditures.
    The Services rely on the SRB program to encourage enlisted 
service members in critical occupations to remain in the 
military. Following DoD's downsizing in the early and mid 
1990s, the services increasingly relied on the SRB program to 
help retain servicemembers in an expanding range of 
occupations. Since the program guidance for the SRB program was 
rescinded in 1996, and is still not available, the Services' 
administer their own programs with limited OSD oversight.
    Recently, concerns have been raised that the program has 
grown beyond its original intent. It appears the program is now 
being applied broadly to address aggregate retention problems, 
rather than targeting critical military specialties that impact 
readiness. For example, in fiscal year 2002, the Navy and Air 
Force expect to provide bonuses to 43 and 51 percent of their 
reenlistees, respectively.
    Overall, the cost of the SRB program has increased 
significantly, with the services' budget requests rising from 
$247,000,000 for fiscal year 1996 to over $750,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2003, an increase of over 200 percent. Part of this 
increase is the result of the services over executing their 
programs. By spending more than was requested, the services 
incurred higher than expected commitments to make anniversary 
payments in future years, which in turn has raised the overall 
cost of the program.
    The Committee believes that with limited OSD guidance and 
oversight of this program, a reassessment of the program is 
warranted to ensure it is being managed efficiently. The 
Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 
Committee by March 31, 2003 on (1) the effectiveness of the SRB 
program in correcting retention shortfalls in critical 
occupations, (2) its replacement program guidance, and how that 
guidance will ensure that the program targets only critical 
specialties that impact readiness, (3) the steps DoD will take 
to match program execution with appropriated funding, (4) an 
evaluation of the process the services use to administer the 
program, and (5) the advantages and disadvantages of paying 
bonuses as a single lump sum payment.
    The Committee directs the Comptroller General to review and 
assess the DoD report and to report the results of that 
assessment to the Committee not later than June 1, 2003.

                UNOBLIGATED MILITARY PERSONNEL BALANCES

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $145,000,000 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 large 
unexpended balances, the Committee believes that the fiscal 
year 2003 military personnel budget request is overstated and 
can be reduced.

                             ACADEMY STUDY

    The Committee is aware of recent studies that have 
illustrated a number of troubling trends at the military 
service academies. Most recently, studies by the Air Force 
Personnel Center and the Air Force Academy have shown 
significant increases in admissions of cadets below academic 
minimums and equally significant increases in admissions of 
recruited athletes, with those below academic minimums less 
likely to graduate, become pilots, have technical degrees, or 
become senior leaders. Data also suggests cause for concern 
with admissions from the preparatory schools. The Committee 
believes that the ``whole person'' admissions criteria should 
not be a substitute for graduating highly qualified future 
leaders.
    The Committee directs the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
to review DoD's oversight of its military service academies and 
preparatory schools, including strategic plans and the metrics 
used to track and assess academy performance and results; 
produce the results of internal academy and personnel center 
studies conducted regarding academy admission trends, quality 
issues, and morale; conduct an independent analysis of how 
groups of academy students differ in their admission criteria 
or waivers, performance and treatment at the academy, and in 
their military career progression; and, conduct a survey of 
student and faculty perceptions of various aspects of student 
life at the academies. The report shall be submitted to the 
Committee on Appropriations by March 31, 2003.

                      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 strengths in all categories totaled 
149,406 in fiscal year 2002. The fiscal year 2003 budget 
request is 149,877 end strength. The following table summarizes 
Guard and Reserve full-time support end strengths:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  FY 2002                                          Change from
                                                  estimate      Budget request   Recommendation      request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve:
    AGR.....................................           13,406           13,588           14,070             +482
    Technicians.............................            7,344            7,344            7,594             +250
Navy Reserve: TAR...........................           14,811           14,572           14,572  ...............
Marine Corps Reserve: AR....................            2,261            2,261            2,261  ...............
Air Force Reserve:
    AGR.....................................            1,437            1,498            1,498  ...............
    Technicians.............................            9,819            9,911            9,911  ...............
Army National Guard:
    AGR.....................................           23,698           23,768           24,562             +794
    Technicians.............................           25,215           25,215           25,702             +487
Air National Guard:
    AGR.....................................           11,591           11,697           11,697  ...............
    Technicians.............................           22,772           22,845           22,845  ...............
Total:
    AGR/TAR.................................           67,204           67,384           68,660           +1,276
    Technicians.............................           65,150           65,315           66,052             +737
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................   $23,752,384,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    27,079,392,000
Committee recommendation..............................    26,832,217,000
Change from budget request............................      -247,175,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$26,832,217,000 for Military Personnel, Army. The 
recommendation is an increase of $3,079,833,000 above the 
$23,752,384,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted 
    Personnel:
    800  Basic Pay/CT-FP DERF Transfer--CINC Protective 
      Services Detail...................................             963
    825  Retired Pay Accrual/CT-FP DERF--Transfer CINC 
      Protective Services Detail........................             264
    1100  Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses...............         -24,000
    1100  Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses...         -26,000
    1200  Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus.........          -2,900
    1250  Social Security Tax/CT-FP DERF--Transfer CINC 
      Protective Services Detail........................              73
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
    2450  Unemployment Benefits.........................          -5,375
    2600  Special Compensation for Severely Disabled 
      Retirees..........................................         -20,200
Other Adjustments:
    2770  Legislative Proposals Not Adopted.............          -9,300
    2780  DHP Accrual Reestimate........................        -110,700
    2790  Unobligated Balances..........................         -50,000

                        MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................   $19,551,484,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    22,074,901,000
Committee recommendation..............................    21,874,395,000
Change from budget request............................      -200,506,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$21,874,395,000 for Military Personnel, Navy. The 
recommendation is an increase of $2,322,911,000 above the 
$19,551,484,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Pay and Allowances of Officers:
    3400  Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus.........          -4,500
Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted 
    Personnel:
    3900  Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonus.....         -23,000
    4000  Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus.........         -17,400
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
    5250  Unemployment Benefits.........................          -6,773
    5420  Special Compensation for Severely Disabled 
      Retirees..........................................         -10,433
Other Adjustments:
    5590  Legislative Proposals Not Adopted.............          -3,000
    5600  DHP Accrual Reestimate........................         -85,400
    5610  Unobligated Balances..........................         -50,000

                    MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $7,345,340,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     8,558,887,000
Committee recommendation..............................     8,504,172,000
Change from budget request............................       -54,715,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,504,172,000 
for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an 
increase of $1,158,832,000 above the $7,345,340,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Pay and Allowances of Officers:
    6200  Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus.........            -900
Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted 
    Personnel:
    6400  Basic Pay/CT-FP DERF Transfer--CINC Security 
      Force Personnel...................................             600
    6800  Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus.........          -2,200
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
    7900  Unemployment Benefits.........................          -9,015
    8040  Special Compensation for Severely Disabled 
      Retirees..........................................          -2,900
Other Adjustments:
    8250  Legislative Proposals Not Adopted.............            -300
    8260  DHP Accrual Reestimate........................         -40,000

                     MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................   $19,724,014,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    22,142,585,000
Committee recommendation..............................    21,957,757,000
Change from budget request............................      -184,828,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$21,959,757,000 for Military Personnel, Air Force. The 
recommendation is an increase of $2,233,743,000 above the 
$19,724,014,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Pay and Allowances of Officers:
    8750  Special Pays/High Deployment Per Diem 
      Allowances........................................            -383
    8750  Special Pays/Critical Skills Accession Bonus..         -18,300
    8750  Special Pays/Critical Skills Retention Bonus..         -38,900
    8850  Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus.........            -800
Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted 
    Personnel:
    9350  Special Pays/High Deployment Per Diem 
      Allowances........................................          -1,898
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
    10700  Unemployment Benefits........................          -6,747
    10840  Special Compensation for Severely Disabled 
      Retirees..........................................         -20,400
Other Adjustments:
    11070  Legislative Proposals Not Adopted............         -14,600
    11080  DHP Accrual Reestimate.......................         -82,800

                        RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $2,670,197,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     3,398,555,000
Committee recommendation..............................     3,373,455,000
Change from budget request............................       -25,100,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,373,455,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase 
of $703,258,000 above the $2,670,197,000 appropriated for 
fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Unit and Individual Training:
    11250  Pay Group A Training/Realignment to BA 2.....          -7,500
    11250  Pay Group A Training/Annual Training 
      Participation Rates...............................         -37,500
Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:
    11700  Special Training/Realignment from BA 1.......           7,500
    11750  Administration and Support/CT-FP DERF 
      Transfer--Threat Force Protection Condition Bravo.          31,000
    11750  Administration and Support/CT-FP DERF 
      Transfer--Transfer to Other Procurement, Army.....         -10,000
Other Adjustments:
    11980  Additional Full-Time Support.................          11,500
    11990  DHP Accrual Reestimate.......................         -20,100

                          REALIGNMENT OF FUNDS

    The Committee recommends that $7,500,000 of Budget Activity 
one funds for ``Reserve Personnel, Army'' be realigned to 
Budget Activity two programs based on a General Accounting 
Office review which determined that annual training obligations 
contained costs for schools and special training.

                        RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $1,654,523,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,927,152,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,897,352,000
Change from budget request............................       -29,800,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,897,352,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase 
of $242,829,000 above the $1,654,523,000 appropriated for 
fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:
    12850 Legislative Proposals Not Adopted.............            -100
    12860 DHP Accrual Reestimate........................          -9,700
    12870 Unobligated Balances..........................         -20,000

                    RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $471,200,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       557,883,000
Committee recommendation..............................       553,983,000
Change from budget request............................        -3,900,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $553,983,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an 
increase of $82,783,000 above the $471,200,000 appropriated for 
fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


    The adjustment to the budget activities for Reserve 
Personnel, Marine Corps is shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:
    13740 DHP Accrual Reestimate........................          -3,900

                      RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $1,061,160,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,243,904,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,236,904,000
Change from budget request............................        -7,000,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,236,904,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an 
increase of $175,744,000 above the $1,061,160,000 appropriated 
for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


    The adjustment to the budget activities for Reserve 
Personnel, Air Force is shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:
    14610 DHP Accrual Reestimate........................          -7,000

                     NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $4,041,695,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     5,128,988,000
Committee recommendation..............................     5,070,188,000
Change from budget request............................       -58,800,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,070,188,000 
for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an 
increase of $1,028,493,000 above the $4,041,695,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Unit and Individual Training:
    14800  Pay Group A Training/Annual Training 
      Participation Rates...............................         -18,000
    14800  Pay Group A Training/Support Costs...........         -10,000
Other Adjustments:
    15390  Additional Full-Time Support.................          28,400
    15400  DHP Accrual Reestimate.......................         -34,200
    15410  Unobligated Balances.........................         -25,000

                  NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $1,784,654,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     2,135,611,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,124,411,000
Change from budget request............................       -11,200,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,124,411,000 
for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is 
an increase of $339,757,000 above the $1,784,654,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


    The adjustment to the budget activities for National Guard 
Personnel, Air Force is shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:
    16120  DHP Accrual Reestimate.......................         -11,200
                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

    The fiscal year 2003 budget request for programs funded in 
Title II of the Committee bill, Operation and Maintenance, is 
$131,676,367,000 in new budget authority, which is an increase 
of $26,628,723,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal 
year 2002.
    The accompanying bill recommends $114,780,366,000 for 
fiscal year 2003, which is an increase of $9,732,722,000 above 
the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002. These 
appropriations finance the costs of operating and maintaining 
the Armed Forces, including the reserve components and related 
support activities of the Department of Defense (DoD), except 
military personnel costs. Included are pay for civilians, 
services for maintenance of equipment and facilities, fuel, 
supplies, and spare parts for weapons and equipment. Financial 
requirements are influenced by many factors, including force 
levels such as the number of aircraft squadrons, Army and 
Marine Corps divisions, installations, military personnel 
strength and deployments, rates of operational activity, and 
the quantity and complexity of equipment such as aircraft, 
ships, missiles and tanks in operation.
    The table below summarizes the Committee's recommendations.
    
    
                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW

    The Administration's budget request represents an increase 
of more than $26,000,000,000 over the fiscal year 2002 
appropriated level in Title II, Operation and Maintenance. 
However, after removing from the discussion those funds 
requested for supporting the continuation of the War Against 
Terrorism, and inflation, the normalized presentation shows 
there is very little real increase. The requested funding would 
sustain flying hour programs at approximately the fiscal year 
2002 level, increase Army and Marine Corps ground forces 
training slightly, and increase ship depot maintenance to over 
95 percent of requirement. Requested funding for base 
operations, and sustainment, restoration and modernization of 
real property assets supports program growth of over 
$1,800,000,000 and guards against the need to potentially 
divert critical mission readiness funds to support 
infrastructure readiness. Substantial amounts in the services' 
base operating accounts were requested to continue improvement 
in facilities security, based on anti-terrorism and force 
protection assessments.
    In Title II of the bill, the Committee has fully supported 
the requested anti-terrorism and force protection funding. The 
Committee fully supports the Administration's requested 
increases in land forces training, ship depot maintenance, 
sustainment of real property, and professional development and 
education of military and civilian members of the Department of 
Defense. The Committee also has supported fully, much needed 
improvements in family support programs, addressing long 
standing deficiencies that have become more acute with the 
prosecution of the War on Terrorism.
    The Administration requested $19,460,616,000 in the Defense 
Emergency Response Fund to support efforts by the Department of 
Defense to respond to, or protect against, acts or threatened 
acts of terrorism against the United States. Of that amount, 
$10,000,000,000 would only be available if a subsequent 
official budget request, designating the amount of the request 
as essential to respond or protect against acts or threatened 
acts of terrorism, is transmitted by the President to the 
Congress. As explained elsewhere in this report, the 
Administration has yet to submit any specific request or budget 
justification for these funds. Pending receipt of any such 
request or budget amendment, the Committee has deferred action 
on this $10,000,000,000, appropriation.
    As regards the remaining $9,460,616,000 requested in the 
Defense Emergency Response Fund, budget justification materials 
identified the specific programs, as well as line items and 
appropriations accounts, to which the Department planned to 
transfer funds for obligation. Therefore, rather than provide 
funding for these items in the Defense Emergency Response Fund, 
appropriations for those items and amounts approved by the 
Committee are found in the appropriations accounts and line 
items identified by the Department.

                 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS SHORTFALLS

    Despite the positive trend in operation and maintenance 
funding requested for fiscal year 2003, testimony by the 
services' leadership and briefings by key staff members 
indicate that serious shortfalls remain. The funding requested 
for fiscal year 2003 will not address many critical funding 
shortfalls in areas such as facilities restoration and 
modernization, training enablers, aging equipment, spare parts, 
communications and computers. Funding for ship depot 
maintenance has been improved, but remains less than the full 
requirement. Army depot maintenance is rated at only 72 percent 
of requirement and the Air Force assesses depot maintenance as 
84 percent funded.
    The Committee has provided over $400,000,000 in additional 
operating account funding to assist in addressing many of the 
Department's shortfalls, including increases for individual 
soldier and marine field equipment, small all terrain vehicles, 
general purpose tents, training and support facilities, 
barracks and dining facilities renovation, civilian workforce 
safety, educational programs and distance learning, anti-
corrosion programs to extend the service life of vehicles and 
equipment, weapons systems depot maintenance, and 
apprenticeship programs to ensure a stable depot workforce in 
the future
    As has been the practice in the past, the Committee has 
identified spending that does not directly support readiness 
and has moved those funds to accounts that more directly 
support readiness goals.

                           MILITARY TRAINING

    The people of America expect our military forces to 
demonstrate combat readiness in order to deter aggression by 
potential adversaries, and when called, to fight and win the 
Nation's wars. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines 
deserve to be armed with the best weapons, and provided the 
best logistical support possible. But achieving the fullest 
potential combat capability depends in large part on tough, 
realistic training. The extent to which training facilities are 
the proper size, to permit the full spectrum of training 
activities and environments, with state-of-the-art data 
collection and diagnostics routinely available, directly 
impacts the ability of military units to achieve and maintain 
readiness for combat.
    In April 2002, the General Accounting Office reported on a 
variety of constraints to meeting training requirements faced 
by non-CONUS combat units. The GAO reported that units have the 
most difficulty in meeting training requirements for maneuver, 
live fire events, and night and low altitude flying. The report 
noted that units employ workarounds to adjust training events 
for constraints that are encountered, but that such workarounds 
can result in practicing tactics that would be less than 
optimal in actual combat. Additionally, units that are based in 
locations remote from larger and better equipped training areas 
must deploy more often, at additional cost, and involving more 
time away from home station and family, than for units with 
access to quality training facilities at home station. The GAO 
report also noted that a fragmented approach to negotiating 
acceptable training parameters with civil authorities could 
result in one military service agreeing, without coordination, 
to training limitations that may be completely unacceptable to 
another service.
    The Committee appreciates the work accomplished by the 
General Accounting Office in its study of non-CONUS training 
facilities and training limitations, and believes that an 
expanded effort, addressing the full spectrum of military 
training requirements and facilities, worldwide, is needed. The 
Committee bill includes a general provision that directs the 
Secretary of Defense to establish an advisory committee to 
provide a report on the status of training facilities for 
activities ranging from basic training to joint and combined 
forces operations, to the congressional defense committees not 
later than July 31, 2003. The report shall address such matters 
as training facility accessibility, limitations and 
restrictions on training, and the impacts of growing commercial 
and residential development. The report shall detail DoD 
procedures to achieve efficiencies, retain access to needed 
training facilities, and ensure coordination between military 
services, regional military commands, and international 
training partners. The report shall detail the coordination and 
cooperation between military officials and local civilian 
officials in balancing the requirements of quality military 
training and the concerns of the communities impacted by such 
training. Specific instances of non-availability of adequate 
training facilities and the performance of the readiness 
reporting systems in identifying such situations should be 
included. The report should address the adequacy of both active 
and reserve component training facilities, and should address 
requirements, opportunities, and impediments to expanding 
training facilities and improving access to those facilities.

                              CIVILIAN PAY

    The Committee has fully funded the budget request for a 2.6 
percent pay increase for civilian employees of the Department 
of Defense. The Committee understands that the Department of 
Defense may implement an increase in pay that is greater than 
2.6 percent, and directs that any increase above 2.6 percent 
will be accommodated within funds available to the DoD.

                  GOVERNMENT PURCHASE AND TRAVEL CARDS

    In its report accompanying the fiscal year 2002 defense 
appropriations bill, the Committee expressed serious concerns 
about the management of the Department of Defense Purchase Card 
program. In July 2001 testimony before Congress, the General 
Accounting Office identified numerous internal control 
weaknesses in the Purchase Card Program based on reviews in two 
Navy Department organizations, including: (1) policies 
governing the issuance of purchase cards were ineffective, 
leading to proliferation of card holders; (2) employees were 
not sufficiently trained on the use of the purchase card, and 
employees did not follow established procedures; (3) 
approximately 2,600 account numbers were compromised, a partial 
list was found at a college library, and at least 30 accounts 
received fraudulent charges; (4) internal reviews and audits 
were ineffective; (5) efforts to maximize rebates were 
ineffective; (6) easily pilfered items that were acquired using 
purchase cards were often missing from organizational property 
records; and (7) many items were purchased for personal use, 
including laptop computers, clothing, an air conditioner and 
jewelry.
    The Committee was most concerned that supervisors who were 
responsible for reviewing and certifying that purchases made 
with the card were for proper purposes, in many cases failed to 
fulfill their responsibilities, thus allowing unnecessary and 
fraudulent purchases.
    In March of 2002, the General Accounting Office testified 
before Congress regarding follow-up work to determine if the 
appropriate corrections had been made in the administration of 
the Purchase Card Program. The General Accounting Office 
concluded that internal controls in the Navy organizations 
reviewed continued to be ineffective. The GAO reported a 
cultural resistance to change in the internal control 
environment, and that card holders and supervisors continued to 
rationalize questionable purchases.
    The Committee notes that the Department of Defense has had 
similar difficulties in managing its Travel Card Program, 
forcing the banks that provide the travel cards to write off 
tens of millions of dollars in bad debts by service members.
    The Committee is dismayed by the slow response within the 
Department of Defense to such serious instances of waste, abuse 
and mismanagement. Following the General Accounting Office's 
March 2002 testimony, the Department of Defense announced the 
formation of a task force that would examine credit card 
management deficiencies. The DoD effort would pursue and punish 
wrong doers and identify needed administrative and possibly 
legislative remedies. Considering the sums of money involved 
and the huge number of DoD purchase/travel card-holders, this 
involvement by senior management is long overdue. The Committee 
is hopeful that subsequent reviews of the DoD purchase and 
travel card programs will indicate that proper management 
controls are in place and functioning.
    The accompanying bill includes a general provision that 
reduces the total amount available in Operation and Maintenance 
by $97,000,000 to reflect savings due to improved management 
and supervision of DoD purchase and travel card programs. 
Additionally, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees not 
later than March 31, 2003 which details policy and procedural 
changes that have been implemented, including the Departments 
method of ensuring and evaluating compliance with regulations 
governing the purchase and travel card programs.

                    ULTRALIGHTWEIGHT CAMOUFLAGE NETS

    The fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act, Public Law 
107-117, included a general provision to clarify the use of 
operation and maintenance funds to purchase ultralightweight 
camouflage systems as unit spares in order to hasten 
modernizing the inventory of camouflage screens to state-of-
the-art protection standards. The authority was contingent on 
certification by the Secretary of the Army, that compared to 
the screening system that could then be purchased with 
operation and maintenance funds, the ultralightweight 
camouflage system is technically superior against multi-
spectral threat sensors; less costly per unit; and provides 
improved overall force protection. In May 2002 the Secretary of 
the Army provided that certification. The accompanying bill 
includes a general provision making permanent the authority for 
the use of operation and maintenance funds of the Armed Forces 
for the purchase of ultralightweight camouflage net systems as 
unit spares.

                       STRONG AND READY FAMILIES

    The Committee appreciates the strong support provided to 
the Armed Forces of the United States by military families. 
Leaders and supervisors throughout the military recognize this 
fact as well and make every effort to support military 
families. The military chaplains in all branches of our armed 
forces strive to assist military families as those families 
face the challenges inherent in military life, including 
frequent relocations, and frequent absences of the military 
member due to training or combat deployment. Chaplains have 
developed programs to assist military families to grow 
stronger. However, military staff judge advocates have 
indicated that current guidelines, regulations and laws do not 
establish clear authority for the use of appropriated funds to 
pay for soldiers and immediate family members meals, lodging, 
transportation, conference or retreat fees, training materials 
and supplies while participating voluntarily, in command 
sponsored--chaplain lead training, retreats, and conferences. 
The accompanying bill includes a general provision that 
clarifies the legal ambiguity surrounding the use of 
appropriated funds in supporting military chaplains programs 
for strong and ready families.

            CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS QUESTIONABLE EXPENDITURES

    The Committee is committed to providing the necessary 
funding for contingency operations that the military forces of 
the United States are directed to undertake. In order to ensure 
all required funds are available to the armed forces, the 
Committee relies on information provided by the administration, 
both in estimating resources required, and in evaluating the 
adequacy of provided funding as operations are executed. In May 
2002 the General Accounting Office reported, based on an 
analysis of costs claimed by selected Army and Air Force units 
during fiscal years 2000 and 2001, that while most contingency 
operations expenditures were appropriate, over $100,000,000 
were spent on questionable items that were not incremental 
costs of operations, for equipment that was already available 
in theater, and for frivolous items including cappuccino 
machines, golf memberships, and decorator furniture.
    The Committee appreciates that the services are working 
aggressively to ensure that contingency operations cost reports 
are accurate and that duplicative and frivolous expenses are 
avoided. In recognition of improved contingency cost 
allocation, the Committee has reduced funding available in 
Title II as follows:

                       [In thousands of dollars]

Army....................................................         $50,000
Air Force...............................................          50,000

            STUDY OF AFRICAN AMERICANS IN THE ARMED SERVICES

    The Committee recognizes the contributions that African 
Americans have made to the defense of our Nation from before 
revolutionary times to the present. The Committee believes 
however, that a single exhaustive study, detailing specific 
aspects of African Americans in the military has yet to be 
produced. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees not 
later than June 30, 2003 to accurately depict the role of 
African Americans throughout the various branches of the 
military. The comprehensive study should explore such issues as 
recruitment, branch participation, awards and decorations, 
military rank, treatment of African American enlistees, and 
promotions.

        FIREFIGHTING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE AT DOD INSTALLATIONS

    The Committee is concerned that the level of fire and 
emergency response protection at domestic military 
installations may not meet minimum safety standards for 
staffing, equipment and training. Substantial shortcomings are 
outlined in the Department of Defense Fire and Emergency 
Services Strategic Plan that has been submitted to the 
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Safety and Occupational 
Health. The Committee believes the security of our military 
bases is an essential component of both defense and homeland 
security, and directs the Deputy Under Secretary for 
Installations and Environment to assure that adequate resources 
are provided to implement the Strategic Plan and bring 
installations into compliance with minimum fire protection 
standards, including Department of Defense Instruction 6055.6.

                          UNOBLIGATED BALANCES

    The Committee has adjusted amounts available in service and 
Defense-Wide operation and maintenance accounts for fiscal year 
2003 to allow for the impact of amounts left unobligated in 
operation and maintenance accounts at the end of prior fiscal 
years and the effect of such underobligations on estimated 
future requirements. The Committee has reduced funding for 
unobligated balances as follows.

                       [In thousands of dollars]

Army....................................................         $50,000
Navy....................................................          82,000
Marine Corps............................................           8,000
Air Force...............................................          33,000
Defense-Wide............................................          25,000

            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 
Operation and Maintenance 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 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 the 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 DD1414 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 operation 
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 Skill and Advance 
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.

                 0-1 REPROGRAMMING APPROVAL REQUIREMENT

    The Committee is concerned about the Department's efforts 
to undermine Congressional intent with regard to specific 
program reductions taken in the Committee's report. While the 
Committee does not object to the Department's common practice 
of below threshold reprogramming to address pricing increases 
(such as fuel, inflation, foreign currency, etc.) and emerging 
requirements, the Committee does object when the Department 
restores funding to programs that have been specifically 
reduced by Congress as shown in annual Committee reports. The 
Committee directs that all funding reductions to programs and 
activities in Operation and Maintenance appropriations, other 
than those related to pricing, are made with prejudice and 
shall be so shown on DD Form 1414 for fiscal year 2003 and 
subsequent fiscal years for Operation and Maintenance 
appropriations. Increases to such programs and activities may 
be requested from the congressional defense committees subject 
to normal prior approval reprogramming procedures.

                            CLASSIFIED ANNEX

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

                    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation.......................    $22,335,074,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request......................     23,961,173,000
Committee recommendation.............................     23,942,768,000
Change from budget request...........................        -18,405,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$23,942,768,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army. The 
recommendation is an increase of $1,607,694,000 above the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    250  All Terrain Military Utility Vehicles..........           4,100
    250  Hydration on the Move System, Including Chem/
      Bio Sys...........................................           2,000
    250  Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment 
      (MOLLE)...........................................           6,000
    250  Modular General Purpose Tent System (MGPTS)....           2,000
    450  Camera Assisted Monitoring System (CAMS).......           8,000
    550  Continuity of Operations DERF--Alt Nat Cmd Ctr.          44,000
    550  Continuity of Operations DERF--CONUS Support...           2,000
    550  CT/FP DERF--Physical Security Equipment........          76,900
    550  CT/FP DERF--Physical Security Equipment trans 
      to OPA............................................         -76,900
    550  ITAM Program at Army NTC.......................           1,500
    550  Corrosion Prevention and Control Program at 
      Corpus Christi Army Depot and Fort Hood...........           3,000
    550  Daggett Airport Fire Station...................           1,000
    750  Training and Support Facilities--Continue Road 
      and Facilities Improvements at NTC, Fort Irwin....           7,000
    800  Airborne Barracks--Ft. Benning, Georgia........           4,000
    850  CT/FP DERF--Personnel..........................           9,400
    950  Nuclear Posture Review DERF--Info Systems Sec..          15,000
Budget Activity 3:
    1850  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Army Lang Pgm 
      TIARA.............................................          19,500
    1850  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Contr Linguists 
      TIARA.............................................           9,400
    1850  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Contract 
      Linguists Interrogation...........................           5,000
    1850  Military Police Multijurisdictional 
      Counterdrug Task Force Training (MCTFT) Joint 
      Training..........................................           2,000
    1900  Air Battle Captain Program....................           2,000
    2000  Defense Language Institute (DLI) LangNet......           1,000
    2050  DoD Monterey Bay Center Furniture and Equip...           1,000
    2100  Restoration and Modernization of Dining 
      Facilities........................................           4,500
    2350  Online Technology Training Pilot Program......           1,000
    2450  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--PE0135197........           2,300
Budget Activity 4:
    2650  Continuity of Operations DERF--CONUS Support..           2,000
    2650  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Battle Space 
      Character.........................................           2,000
    2650  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Sec & Invest Acts          10,000
    2650  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Sec and Invest 
      Acts..............................................           1,000
    2750  Servicewide Transportation....................         -18,000
    2800  Pulse Technology--Army Battery Management 
      Program...........................................           4,500
    2850  Automatic Identification Technology/Radio 
      Frequency Identification (AIT/RFID) Program at 
      Sierra Army Depot.................................           2,000
    2850  Electronic Maintenance System (EMS)/Point-to-
      Point Wiring and Signal Tracing...................           2,000
    2850  Logistics and Technology Program..............           1,000
    3000  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Critical 
      Infrastructure Protection.........................             600
    3000  Administration................................         -17,000
    3050  Continuity of Operations DERF--CONUS Support..           5,000
    3050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Collaboration 
      Planning/Enablers.................................           2,500
    3050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--CONUS Support....             500
    3050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Info Syst Sec 
      Program...........................................           4,600
    3050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Info Syst Sec 
      Program...........................................           1,700
    3050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Info Syst Sec 
      Program...........................................           1,500
    3050  Servicewide Communications....................         -22,000
    3050  Army Information Systems......................          -6,000
    3050  Army Enterprise Architecture..................          -6,000
    3050  C4 Requirements for PACOM--Transfer to 
      procurement.......................................          -6,000
    3100  Manpower Management...........................         -10,000
    3150  Chaplain--Building Strong and Ready Families 
      Program...........................................           1,000
    3200  Other Service Support.........................         -10,000
    3350  Worker Safety Pilot Program expansion at Fort 
      Bragg, NC and Watervilet, NY......................           5,000
    3400  Army Chapel Renovation Matching Funds Program.           4,000
Undistributed:
    3710  Classified Programs Undistributed DERF........           5,994
    3720  Memorial Events...............................             800
    3930  Travel of Persons.............................         -14,000
    3940  TRADOC Transformation.........................         -15,000
    3950  FECA Surcharge................................          -8,799
    3960  Unobligated Balance...........................         -50,000
    3970  CONOPS Costs..................................         -50,000

                   ONLINE TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 only for 
the Army to procure commercial off-the-shelf web-based 
technology training software.

                CAMERA ASSISTED MONITORING SYSTEM (CAMS)

    The Committee commends the Army for use of CAMS (Camera 
Assisted Monitoring System) to support security efforts within 
the Army, and recommends an additional $8,000,000 for the Army 
Material Command only for CAMS. The Committee also believes 
that the application of the proven, cost-effective CAMS 
technology will enhance the capabilities of deployed forces to 
conduct peacekeeping and other global contingency operations.

                  WORKER SAFETY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

    The Committee understands that the Army has identified 
installations with high incidences of worker injuries that 
could benefit immediately from the contractor services being 
provided at Ft. Bragg and Watervliet Arsenal as part of DoD's 
Worker Safety Demonstration Program. The Committee therefore 
recommends an additional $5,000,000 in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army, to be used at installations selected by the 
Army to provide the following contractor services:
    --a safety assessment at the selected installations to 
determine the level of safety management systems in place.
    --development of a training program and data system to 
assist the development of a cultural change with respect to 
safety.

                       RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING

    The Committee continues to support the Army's recruiting 
and advertising campaign to ensure the Army achieves its 
recruiting goals. The Committee directs that no less than 
$9,000,000 of the total funds provided in this Act for Army 
advertising efforts in Operation and Maintenance, Army be used 
to maintain existing production efforts directed toward certain 
audiences, including Hispanic recruits.

                    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................   $26,876,636,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    28,697,235,000
Committee recommendation..............................    29,121,836,000
Change from budget request............................       424,601,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$29,121,836,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The 
recommendation is an increase of $2,245,200,000 above the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1:
    4500  Sea Sparrow Test Set Upgrade..................           5,000
    4600  Computer Automatic Tester and Radar 
      Communication Automatic Test Equipment (CAT/
      RADCOM)...........................................         -10,000
    4900  Continuity of Operations DERF--Various........           5,000
    4900  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Cryptologic 
      Direct Support....................................           2,000
    5050  Apprentice, Engineering Technician and CO-OP 
      Program Naval Undersea Warfare Center Keyport.....           2,000
    5050  Apprentice, Engineering Technician and CO-OP 
      Program IMF Bangor................................             700
    5050  Improved Engineering Design Process...........           8,000
    5500  Continuity of Operations DERF--Office of Navy 
      Intelligence Data Backup..........................           2,000
    5500  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Various..........           2,000
    5500  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--classified.......           1,000
    5500   Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Analysts........           3,000
    5500  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--SCI GCCS I3......           3,800
    5500  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--GENSER GCCS I3...           5,400
    5500  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--JDIS/LOCE/CENTRIX           5,300
    5500  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--CMMA.............           1,500
    5500  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--CMMA.............          22,500
    5500  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--JWICS 
      Connectivity......................................           5,500
    5550  Manual Reverse Osmosis Desalinator Testing, 
      Repair and Replacement............................           1,000
    5550  Central Command Deployable HQ Spares & Tech 
      Supt..............................................           4,500
    5850  CT/FP DERF--Strat Security Forces & 
      Technicians.......................................           7,000
    5950  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Pioneer..........           6,000
    5950  Mark 45 Gun, 5'' Depot Overhauls..............           3,000
    6210  CT/FP DERF--Site Improvement..................         219,200
    6210  Homeland Security.............................           2,500
    6210  NAS North Island Facility Renovation Project..           3,000
    6220  CT/FP DERF--Security Forces and Technicians...         143,096
    6220  CT/FP DERF--Law Enforcement...................          32,573
    6220  CT/FP DERF--Management and Planning...........           1,712
    6220  CT/FP DERF--Shipyard Security Forces and Tech.          28,000
    6220  Homeland Security DERF--Base Support Services.          38,500
    6220  Critical Asset Vulnerability Assessment, Navy 
      Region NW.........................................           1,500
    6220  Northwest Environmental Resource Center.......           6,000
    6220  Combating Terrorism Data Base Sys (CDTS) 
      Remote Data Repository............................           2,000
Budget Activity 2:
    6500  Ex-Oriskany Ship Disposal Project.............           4,000
    6600  Homeland Security--Medical Operations.........           4,000
Budget Activity 3:
    7000  ROTC Unit Operating Costs.....................           2,000
    7200  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Pre-deploy 
      Training..........................................           1,000
    7200  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Imagery Training 
      Init..............................................           1,000
    7350  Center for Defense Technology and Education 
      for the Military Services (CDTEMS)................           1,500
    7350  CNET Distance Learning........................           4,000
    7350  Prototype System for Embedded Training and 
      Performance Supt--CNET............................           1,000
    7350  Navy Learning Network Program CNET............           3,000
    7600  Continuing Education Distance Learning........           1,860
    7700  Naval Sea Cadet Corps.........................           1,000
    7820  CT/FP DERF--Site Improvement..................          42,000
    7830  CT/FP DERF--Security Forces and Tech..........           1,500
    7830  Fire Fighter Protective Eqpt Maint Pilot, 
      Puget Sound Fed Fire Dept, NW Region..............             500
Budget Activity 4:
    8000  CT/FP DERF--HQ Management and Planning........           1,600
    8000  Administration................................          -6,000
    8250  Continuity of Opns DERF--Various/ONI Data 
      Backup............................................           7,000
    8250  CT/FP DERF--HQ Management and Planning........           3,920
    8250  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Computer Network 
      Def...............................................           3,800
    8250  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Enclave Boundary.           1,200
    8250  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Intrusion 
      Detection.........................................           1,140
    8250  Servicewide Communications....................         -12,000
    8500  Servicewide Transportation....................          -1,000
    8550  Planning, Engineering and Design..............         -15,000
    8550  Stainless Steel Sanitary Space System.........           3,500
    8600  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Acquisition and 
      PM................................................          11,000
    8600  Acquisition and Program Management............         -16,000
    8600  Space and Naval Warfare Info Tech Center 
      (SITC)............................................           3,000
    8650  Air Systems Support...........................         -16,000
    8650 Configuration Management Info System (CMIS)....           4,000
    8700  Advanced Technical Information Support........           2,900
    8800  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Carryon 
      Cryptologic Sys...................................             500
    9000  Continuity of Operations DERF--Various/Navy 
      Criminal Investigations...........................           2,000
    9000  CT/FP DERF--Intel Security & Invest Matters...           3,500
    9000  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--HUMINT...........           3,700
    9000  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Counter 
      Surveillance and Law Enforcement..................           5,000
    9220  CT/FP DERF--Site Improvement..................          13,000
    9230  NAS Jacksonville and NAS Mayport Anti-
      Corrosion Init....................................           2,000
Undistributed:
    9280  Classified Programs Undistributed DERF........          13,064
    9390  Travel of Persons.............................          -9,000
    9400  Legislative Proposals Not Adopted.............          -2,100
    9410  Non-NMCI IT Savings...........................        -120,000
    9420  FECA Surcharge................................         -14,764
    9440  Unobligated Balance...........................         -82,000

 CENTER FOR DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION FOR THE MILITARY SERVICES 
                                (CDTEMS)

    The Committee recommends an additional $1,500,000 in 
Operation and Maintenance, Navy only for the Naval Postgraduate 
School Center for Defense Education and Technology for the 
Military Services. CDTEMS is transforming education for 
military officers so they are significantly better prepared to 
meet future military challenges. The three institutes created 
by CDTEMS--Information Superiority and Innovation, Defense 
Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Virtual Environments and 
Simulation--are on the cutting edge of subsystems integration, 
streamlining the acquisition process, and designing 
requirements for total ship integration.

      SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER (SITC)

    The Committee has provided an additional $3,000,000 in 
Operation and Maintenance, Navy, only for operational support 
and infrastructure needs at the SITC. The Committee directs the 
Department of the Navy to conduct enterprise level 
reengineering and web-enabling of legacy systems, and portal 
integration efforts at the SITC.

                  IMPROVED ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS

    The Committee recommends an additional $8,000,000 only for 
the Department of the Navy to demonstrate the Improved 
Engineering Design Process using the Advanced Digital Logistics 
Integrated Data Capture and Analysis (ADLIDCA) system.

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $2,931,934,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     3,310,542,000
Committee recommendation..............................     3,579,359,000
Change from budget request............................      +268,817,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,579,359,000 
for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation 
is an increase of $647,425,000 above the amount appropriated 
for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    10050  Continuity of Operations DERF--Continuity of 
      Intel.............................................           1,000
    10050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Interim Small 
      Unit Remote Sensor (I-SURSS)......................             700
    10050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Tactical Remote 
      Sensor System (TRSS)..............................           1,000
    10050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Technical 
      Control and Analysis Center (TCAC)................             500
    10050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Radio 
      Reconnaissance Equipment Program..................             200
    10050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Topographic 
      Production Capability.............................             700
    10050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--MCIA Analytic 
      Supt..............................................           2,400
    10050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--TEG.............           1,000
    10050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--TROJAN Lite.....           1,500
    10050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--ISR.............           2,900
    10050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--FLAMES/CESAS....           2,000
    10050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Computer Network 
      Def...............................................           2,000
    10050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Secure Wireless.             800
    10050  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Deployed 
      Security Interdiction Devices.....................             700
    10050  Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Eqpt 
      (MOLLE)...........................................           5,000
    10050  Modular General Purpose Tent System (MGPTS)..           2,000
    10150  Depot Maintenance of Radar Systems...........           5,000
    10200  CT/FP DERF--Physical Security Equipment......         228,000
    10200  CT/FP DERF--CINC AT/FP Staffs................           3,200
    10200  CT/FP DERF--Physical Security Upgrades.......          10,000
    10200  Training and Support Facilities..............          16,500
Budget Activity 4:
    11800  Continuity of Operations DERF--Site R........           1,000
Undistributed:
    11980  Travel of Persons............................         -10,000
    11990  FECA Surcharge...............................          -1,283
    12000  Unobligated Balance..........................          -8,000

                       DEPOT MAINTENANCE--RADARS

    The Committee is aware of the continuing backlog of 
executable but unfunded depot maintenance requirements for 
critical radar systems. The Committee recommends an additional 
$5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps only for 
depot level maintenance of radar systems.

                    TRAINING AND SUPPORT FACILITIES

    The Committee recommends an additional $16,500,000 in 
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps of which $12,000,000 is 
provided only for mission critical requirements at the Marine 
Air-Ground Task Force Training Center, and $4,500,000 is 
provided only for the seismic retrofit of buildings at Barstow 
Marine Corps Logistics Base.

                  OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................   $26,026,789,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    26,772,768,000
Committee recommendation..............................    27,587,959,000
Change from budget request............................      +815,191,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$27,587,959,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. The 
recommendation is an increase of $1,561,170,000 above the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    12600  CONUS Combat Air Patrol DERF--CAP............       1,200,000
    12600  CONUS Combat Air Patrol DERF--Changed Alert 
      Posture...........................................        -678,000
    12600  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles DERF--Predator O&M..           9,000
    12600  F-16 Distributed Mission Training System.....          10,000
    12700  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Computer Network 
      Def...............................................           3,500
    12850  CT/FP DERF--AEF Force Prot Certification Tng.          10,200
    12850  CT/FP DERF--WMD 1st Responder................          46,000
    12900  CT/FP DERF--AT/FP Facilities Upgrades........          99,585
    12900  Wright-Patterson AFB Dormitory Renovation....           2,500
    13000  CT/FP DERF--Geo Reach/Geo Base...............          25,800
    13000  Nucler Posture Review DERF--Info Warfare 
      Support...........................................           5,000
    13000  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Defense Recon 
      Supt..............................................          68,630
    13000  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Defense Recon 
      Trans.............................................         -68,600
    13100  Continuity of Ops DERF--Nat'l Abn Cmd Ctr....          10,000
    13100  Continuity of Ops DERF--Aircraft Comms Mods..           3,600
    13100  Continuity of Ops DERF--Helicopter Support, 
      National Capital Region...........................             700
    13100  Continuity of Ops DERF--Comms Sys Operators 
      Tng...............................................             500
    13100  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Commercial 
      Imagery...........................................           2,000
    13200  CT/FP DERF--CENTCOM PSD and Forward HQ.......             700
    13200  CT/FP DERF--CINC AT/FP Staff.................           5,500
    13200  Nuclear Posture Review DERF--Mgt HQ STRATCOM.           1,250
    13200  Nuclear Posture Review DERF--Info Warfare 
      Supt..............................................           4,000
    13200  Nuclear Posture Review DERF--Tactical 
      Deception.........................................           1,000
    13200  Nuclear Posture Review DERF--Mgt HQ STRATCOM.           1,000
    13200  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Critical 
      Infrastructure Protection.........................             400
    13200  Management Supt for Air Force Battle Labs....           5,000
    13250  Continuity of Ops DERF--Combat Air Intel Sys.           2,300
    13250  Continuity of Ops DERF--Special Purpose Comms           2,000
    13250  Continuity of Ops DERF--Tactical Info Program           5,000
    13250  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--SEP classified..           1,200
    13250  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--DCGS 
      Architecture......................................           3,000
    13250  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Integrated 
      Broadcast Service.................................             100
    13250  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--IBS Smart Pull 
      Tech..............................................             100
    13550  Continuity of Ops DERF--Recon Supt Activities          10,000
Budget Activity 2:
    13900  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Critical 
      Infrastructure Protection.........................           1,800
    14050  CT/FP DERF--AEF Force Protection 
      Certification Training............................           4,800
    14050  CT/FP DERF--WMD 1st Responder................          21,850
    14050  Combined Air Crew System Tester (CAST).......           5,000
    14100  CT/FP DERF--AT/FP Facility Upgrades..........          57,254
Budget Activity 3:
    14500  CT/FP DERF--AT/FP Facility Upgrades..........          16,341
    14800  CT/FP DERF--WMD 1st Responder................           1,150
Budget Activity 4:
    15450  Servicewide Transportation...................          -2,000
    15500  CT/FP DERF--AEF Force Protection 
      Certification Tng.................................           2,900
    15500  CT/FP DERF--WMD 1st Responder................           4,600
    15550  CT/FP DERF--AT/FP Facilities Upgrades........           3,976
    15650  Administration...............................          -7,000
    15700  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Modernization, 
      Sustainment and Dev...............................           4,900
    15700  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Modernization, 
      Sustainment and Dev...............................           1,700
    15700  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Intrusion Detect 
      Sys...............................................           1,500
    15700  Servicewide Communications...................          -9,000
    15750  Personnel Programs...........................          -5,000
    15950  Other Servicewide Activities.................         -16,500
    16100  William Lehman Aviation Center...............             750
    16150  NAIC Foreign Materials Facility..............           1,000
    16150  Conformable Lithography System AFIT Wright-
      Patterson AFB.....................................           1,000
    16250  Nuclear Posture Review DERF--Security and 
      Investigative Activities..........................           2,000
    16250  Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Def Security 
      Serv..............................................           5,000
Undistributed:
    16410  Classified Programs DERF--Undistributed......          17,422
    16540  Travel of Persons............................         -15,000
    16580  FECA Surcharge...............................          -8,717
    16590  Aeronautical System Center Enterprise 
      Infostructure Prototype...........................           6,500
    16600  Threat Representation and Validation (TR&V)..           1,000
    16610  Classified NAIC Operationalizing MASINT......           4,500
    16620  Information Assurance Initiative for Air 
      Force Materiel Command............................           1,500
    16630  Unobligated Balances.........................         -33,000
    16640  CONOPS Costs.................................         -50,000

                     CONUS COMBAT AIR PATROL (CAP)

    The protective Continental United States (CONUS) Combat Air 
Patrol (CAP) initially provided twenty-four hours per day, 
seven days per week patrol over Washington, DC, New York City 
and certain other key geographic sites. The amount estimated to 
continue the CONUS CAP in the DERF account was $1,200,000,000. 
Adjustments in the execution of the CONUS CAP flying hour 
program requirements, including strip alert capabilities, have 
significantly reduced the cost estimate for the CONUS CAP. The 
revised estimate for the CONUS CAP is $522,000,000. The 
Committee has provided that amount directly in Operation and 
Maintenance, Air Force.

                COMBAT SEARCH AND RESCUE (CSAR) PLATFORM

    The accompanying bill provides that of the funds made 
available in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, not less 
than $2,000,000 shall be made available for the deployment of 
Air Force active duty and Reserve CSAR air crews to the United 
Kingdom to participate in an Interfly program to train, 
operate, evaluate and exchange operational techniques and 
procedures on the EH101. The Air Force has identified mission 
deficiencies with the current CSAR platform for future 
requirements, which include mission reaction time, inadequate 
range, insufficient cabin space, poor survivability, 
insufficient situational awareness, and inadequate adverse 
weather capability. Following the Interfly program, the 
Secretary of the Air Force shall report to the congressional 
defense committees on the suitability of this aircraft as the 
future CSAR platform.

                FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE MUSEUM PROPERTY

    The Committee is aware of the closing of the Fairchild Air 
Force Base Heritage Museum and the request to transfer 
artifacts to the Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture (MAC). 
Whenever possible, the Committee believes that the utmost 
consideration should be given to the preservation of local 
historical interests when the Department of Defense closes 
museums. Within existing statute and regulation, the Secretary 
of the Air Force is directed to exercise maximum discretion in 
order to maintain a historically significant collection of 
artifacts in Spokane, Washington.

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................   $12,773,270,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    14,169,258,000
Committee recommendation..............................    14,850,377,000
Change from budget request............................      +681,119,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$14,850,377,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. 
The recommendation is an increase of $2,077,107,000 from the 
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    17050  TJS--Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiative 
      Fund (Transfer from DERF).........................         +12,000
    17050  TJS--JCS Exercise Program....................         -10,937
    17100  SOCOM--Hydration on the Move (CamelBak)......          +1,000
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    17400  Classified Programs..........................          -6,869
    17460  DAU--DCMS/IT Organizational Composition 
      Research..........................................          +1,000
    17460  DAU--Distance Learning and Performance.......          +3,500
    17480  DHRA--DLAMP..................................         -19,155
    17480  DHRA--JRAP...................................         -24,250
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide 
    Activities:
    17750  Civil Military Program--Challenge Program....          +2,500
    17775  Classified Program (Transfer from DERF)......        +137,770
    17775  Classified Program (Change to DERF)..........        +143,208
    17775  Classified Programs..........................        +100,008
    17850  DFAS--Financial Operations (Transfer from 
      DERF).............................................          +5,900
    17850  DFAS--Financial Operations (Transfer from 
      DERF).............................................            +500
    17875  DHRA--Critical Infrastructure Protection 
      (Transfer from DERF)..............................            +500
    17875  DHRA--Civilian Personnel Data System.........         -20,000
    17900  DISA--Secure Voice Teleconferencing System 
      (Transfer from DERF)..............................          +2,500
    17900  DISA--Defense Conferencing Enhancement 
      Program (Transfer from DERF)......................          +8,900
    17900  DISA--DISA Continuity of Operations (Transfer 
      from DERF)........................................          +2,500
    17900  DISA--Bandwidth Expansion (Transfer from 
      DERF).............................................          +7,600
    17900  DISA--Information Assurance (Transfer from 
      DERF).............................................            +500
    17900  DISA--On-site administrators for primary 
      sites (Transfer from DERF)........................          +3,400
    17900  DISA--IA, Intell/Coalition Encrp (CWAN) 
      (Transfer from DERF)..............................          +5,000
    17900  DISA--IA, Intell/Coalition Encrp (CFBL) 
      (Transfer from DERF)..............................          +1,600
    17900  DISA--IA Computer Network Defense (Transfer 
      from DERF)........................................          +3,500
    17900  DISA--On-site administrators for primary 
      sites (Transfer from DERF)........................          +3,000
    17900  DISA--White House Communications (Transfer 
      from DERF)........................................          +3,000
    17900  DISA--Wireless Priority Service Program......         -37,000
    19725  DLA--Critical Infrastructure Protection 
      (Transfer from DERF)..............................            +600
    17925  DLA--Information Technology Network 
      Consolidation.....................................         -10,000
    18300  DODEA--Enhanced Force Protection (Transfer 
      from DERF)........................................         +24,200
    18300  DODEA--GAVRT Project Expansion...............          +3,000
    18300  DODEA--Lewis Center for Educational Research.          +4,050
    18300  DODEA--Family Support Services...............          +6,000
    18050  DSS--Critical Infrastructure Protection 
      (Transfer from DERF)..............................            +500
    18075  DTRA--Chemical & Biological Defense 
      Capabilities Assessment...........................          +1,000
    18075  DTRA--Unconventional Nuclear Threat..........         +40,000
    18100  OEA--George AFB..............................          +2,500
    18100  OEA--Norton AFB..............................          +3,000
    18100  OEA--Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal.........          +5,000
    18100  OEA--Philadelphia Naval Business Center......          +7,000
    18100  OEA--Cecil Field.............................          +5,000
    18100  OEA--Charles Melvin Price Support Center.....          +2,000
    18100  OEA--East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment 
      Commission Pilot..................................          +1,000
    18100  OEA--CCAT....................................          +4,000
    18100  OEA--Hunters Point NSY.......................          +2,000
    18125  OSD--OSD Continuity of Operations (COOP) 
      (Transfer from DERF)..............................         +18,000
    18125  OSD--NCR COOP (Transfer from DERF)...........         +10,500
    18125  OSD--NICP Reserve Support (Transfer from 
      DERF).............................................          +4,000
    18125  OSD--NICP Reserve Support (Transfer from 
      DERF).............................................          +4,000
    18125  OSD--Hard and Deeply Buried Targets (Transfer 
      from DERF)........................................          +3,050
    18125  OSD--CIP--Biological Agent Security (Transfer 
      from DERF)........................................          +2,000
    18125  OSD--CIP--Nuclear Security Command and 
      Control (Transfer from DERF)......................            +400
    18125  OSD--CIP Technology & Consequence Management 
      (Transfer from DERF)..............................          +6,600
    18125  OSD--Information Operations (Transfer from 
      DERF).............................................         +25,000
    18125  OSD--Concept Plan (Transfer from DERF).......         +10,000
    18125  OSD--Information Operations (Transfer from 
      DERF).............................................         +32,000
    18125  OSD--Information Operations (Transfer from 
      DERF).............................................          +1,500
    18125  OSD--Information Operations (Transfer from 
      DERF).............................................          +6,000
    18125  OSD--Horizontal Fusion Analysis (Transfer 
      from DERF)........................................          +2,000
    18125  OSD--CENTRIX (Transfer from DERF)............         +14,000
    18125  OSD--Classified (Transfer from DERF).........          +9,500
    18125  OSD--Classified Programs (Change to DERF)....         +52,600
    18125  OSD--Program Growth..........................         -15,000
    18125  OSD--Management Headquarters.................         -11,100
    18125  OSD--Information Technology Network 
      Consolidation.....................................         -10,000
    18125  OSD--Legacy System Under-execution...........          -1,000
    18125  OSD--Legacy--CSS Alabama.....................            +600
    18125  OSD--Middle East Regional Security Issues 
      Program...........................................          +1,500
    18125  OSD--ADUSD (MPP&R) Wearable Computers--
      Existing Program..................................          +4,000
    18125  OSD--Commercial Technologies for Maintenance 
      Activities (CTMA).................................          +7,000
    18125  OSD--Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network 
      Feasibility Study.................................          +2,500
    18150  SOCOM--Combat Development Activities 
      (Transfer to DERF)................................          +7,000
    18150  SOCOM--Combat Development Activities--
      Classified (Change to DERF).......................         +16,000
    18200  TJS--Critical Infrastructure Protection 
      (Transfer from DERF)..............................            +300
    18200  TJS--CINC for Homeland Security (Transfer 
      from DERF)........................................         +41,000
    18200  TJS--Other Combating Terrorism Initiatives 
      (Transfer from DERF)..............................          +1,459
    18200  TJS--Vulnerability Assessments, AT/FP 
      requirements (Transfer from DERF).................            +400
    18200  TJS--Program Growth..........................         -12,000
    18200  TJS--Counter Terrorism Analysis Method for 
      Adaptive Threats..................................          +1,000
    18200  TJS--NDU XXI.................................          +4,000
    18225  WHS--Classified Program (Transfer from DERF).         +28,000
    18225  WHS--Information Technology Network 
      Consolidation.....................................         -10,000
Undistributed:
    19010  Impact Aid...................................         +35,000
    19110  Travel Savings...............................         -11,260
    19210  FECA Reduction...............................          -6,455
    19220  Unobligated Balance..........................         -25,000

                    ARMED FORCES INFORMATION SERVICE

    The Committee directs the Armed Forces Information Service 
to provide to any Member of Congress or staff requesting 
access, the same remote access capability (from access points 
without ``.gov'' or ``.mil'' domains) currently available to 
DoD employees to the web-based Current News service.

                               GEORGE AFB

    The Committee recommends an additional $2,500,000 in 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for the structural 
improvements of leasable buildings at the former George AFB.

                               NORTON AFB

    The Committee recommends an additional $3,000,000 in 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for rehabilitation 
and structural repairs of leasable buildings at the former 
Norton AFB.

                        GAVRT PROJECT EXPANSION

    The Committee recommends an additional $3,000,000 in 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for the 
rehabilitation of an additional GAVRT antenna.

                 LEWIS CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

    The Committee has included an additional $4,050,000 in 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the Lewis Center 
for Educational Research for staffing, curriculum development, 
research, coordination and logistical support to enhance DoD 
teacher training.

                                  CCAT

    The Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 in 
Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for technology 
and related economic/community adjustment activities to 
establish and implement the Connecticut Consortium for Aviation 
Technology.

                  CHARLES MELVIN PRICE SUPPORT CENTER

    The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 in 
Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for 
rehabilitation and structural repairs and upgrades at the 
former Charles Melvin Price Support Center.

                                 LEGACY

    Within available funds, the Committee strongly encourages 
the Department to consider restoration of Lincoln Cottage on 
the grounds of the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, 
DC.

                                 DLAMP

    The Committee continues to be concerned about the Defense 
Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP). During fiscal year 
2002, the Department has attempted to restructure the DLAMP. 
However, the final outcome of the restructure is still very 
unclear and the full costs of the program are currently 
undefined. Additionally, the Committee is troubled that the 
DLAMP is paying for a 201 room hotel and conference complex in 
Southbridge, Massachusetts that it is not using. The Committee 
has adjusted funding for DLAMP accordingly.

                   OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

    The Committee recommends a reduction in the number of 
personnel located within the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
(OSD). This reduction is based on the Secretary's own 
initiative to reduce the number of headquarters personnel. 
While the fiscal year 2003 budget for management headquarters 
reflects a Defense-wide civilian personnel reduction, the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense was not included in the 
reduction. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced funding for 
management headquarters civilians within the OSD.

               CHILD CARE AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

    The Committee recommends an increase of $6,000,000 above 
the budget request for Child Care and the Employee Assistance 
Program (EAP). The Department is providing child care for 
Reservists called to duty, and offering extended operating 
hours at child development centers to support personnel working 
longer hours. In addition, the EAP program provides family 
support services to all Reserve component forces. The 
additional funds will help support the increased child care and 
family demands for those deployed in support of Operation 
Enduring Freedom.

                        FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAMS

    The Committee is aware of the recent Navy ruling against 
using Operation and Maintenance funds to augment support of the 
Family Advocacy Programs that are centrally funded with 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide appropriations. The 
Committee's intent in funding the core family programs 
centrally with OSD is to ensure consistent oversight and 
management of the family programs. The Committee believes that 
the Services should be allowed to supplement these programs 
with Operation and Maintenance funds in order to tailor their 
programs to meet their unique requirements.

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $1,771,246,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,880,110,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,976,710,000
Change from budget request............................       +96,600,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,976,710,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation 
is an increase of $205,464,000 above the $1,771,246,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


    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/
      Controlled Humidity Preservation..................           4,000
    19650  Land Forces System Readiness/Homeland 
      Security DERF Transfer--Enhanced Secure 
      Communications....................................           5,900
    19650  Land Forces System Readiness/Homeland 
      Security DERF Transfer--Enhanced Secure 
      Communications....................................          25,600
    19680  Base Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Access 
      Control Program...................................          33,800
    19680  Base Support/Homeland Security DERF 
      Transfer--Enhanced Secure Communications..........          30,700
    19680  Base Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--
      Installation Security.............................           2,900
    19680  Base Support/DERF Transfer to Other 
      Procurement, Army.................................         -16,700
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide 
    Activities:
    19990  Servicewide Communications/Homeland Security 
      DERF Transfer--Enhanced Secure Communications.....           2,400
Other Adjustments:
    20160  Additional Military Technicians..............           8,000

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $1,003,690,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,159,734,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,239,309,000
Change from budget request............................       +79,575,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,239,309,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation 
is an increase of $235,619,000 above the $1,003,690,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    21200  Aircraft Depot Maintenance...................           5,000
    22030  Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and 
      Modernization/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Physical 
      Security Site Improvement.........................          68,777
    22030  Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and 
      Modernization/Grissom Navy Reserve Center 
      Renovation........................................             550
    22040  Base Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Management 
      and Planning......................................              61
    22040  Base Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Management 
      and Planning......................................             187
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide 
    Activities:
    22350  Servicewide Communications/DERF Transfer--
      Continuity of Operations..........................           5,000

                    GRISSOM ARB NAVY RESERVE CENTER

    The Committee recommends an increase of $550,000 above the 
budget request in operation and maintenance Sustainment, 
Restoration and Modernization funds only for renovation of a 
Navy Reserve Center building at Grissom Air Reserve Base, 
Indiana, in order to meet security and operational 
requirements.

            OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $144,023,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       185,532,000
Committee recommendation..............................       189,532,000
Change from budget request............................        +4,000,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $189,532,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The 
recommendation is an increase of $45,509,000 above the 
$144,023,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


    The adjustment to the budget activities for Operation and 
maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve is shown below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:
    24200  Initial Issue................................           4,000

              OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $2,024,866,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     2,135,452,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,165,604,000
Change from budget request............................       +30,152,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,165,604,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The 
recommendation is an increase of $140,738,000 above the 
$2,024,866,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    24970  Depot Maintenance............................           5,000
    25000  Base Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--WMD First 
      Responders Program................................          14,950
    25050  Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and 
      Modernization/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Facility 
      Upgrades..........................................           6,202
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide 
    Activities:
    25300  Administration/Command Server Consolidation..           4,000

             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $3,768,058,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     4,049,567,000
Committee recommendation..............................     4,231,967,000
Change from budget request............................      +182,400,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,231,967,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard. The 
recommendation is an increase of $463,909,000 above the 
$3,768,058,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    26360  Azure Blue Cannon Bore Cleaning System.......           1,000
    26420  Base Operations Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--
      Physical Security Equipment.......................         350,000
    26420  Base Operations Support/Homeland Security 
      DERF Transfer--Long-Haul Communications...........          86,200
    26420  Base Operations Support/Homeland Security 
      DERF Transfer--General Communications.............          48,500
    26420  Base Operations Support/DERF Transfer to 
      Other Procurement, Army...........................        -340,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide 
    Activities:
    26680  Information Management/Interoperable 
      Automation Continuity of Operations...............           1,000
Other Adjustments:
    26820  Angel Gate Academy...........................           2,000
    26830  National Emergency and Disaster Information 
      Center............................................           3,000
    26890  Joint Training and Experimentation Program...           4,000
    26940  Rural Access to Broadband Technology.........           2,500
    26960  Additional Military Technicians..............          11,300
    26970  National Guard Global Education Project......             500
    26980  All Terrain Military Utility Vehicle.........           3,100
    26990  Northeast Center for Homeland Security 
      Feasibility Study.................................           1,500
    27000  Courseware to Educate IT Managers............           2,000
    27010  Information Assurance........................           1,500
    27030  WMD Response Element Advanced Laboratory 
      Integrated Training and Indoctrination............           2,000
    27050  Cold Weather Clothing........................             300
    27060  Louisiana NG Terrorism Training..............           2,000

               JOINT TRAINING AND EXPERIMENTATION PROJECT

    The Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 above 
the budget request only to continue the California National 
Guard Joint Training and Experimentation Project.

                      MISSOURI ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

    The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 above the 
budget request only for cold weather clothing for the 135th 
Signal Battalion of the Army National Guard stationed in St. 
Joseph, Missouri.

                   MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION

    The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 above 
the budget request only for the development of a master plan 
and feasibility study for the Northeast Center for Homeland 
Security at the Massachusetts Military Reservation.

             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $3,988,961,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     4,062,445,000
Committee recommendation..............................     4,113,010,000
Change from budget request............................       +50,565,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,113,010,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard. The 
recommendation is an increase of $124,049,000 above the 
$3,988,961,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    27800  Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration and 
      Modernization/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Facility 
      Upgrades..........................................          38,015
    27800  Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration and 
      Modernization/Key Field Facility Renovation.......           2,000
    27850  Depot Maintenance............................           5,000
Other Adjustments:
    28160  National Guard State Partnership Program.....           1,000
    28170  Project Alert................................           2,750
    28250  Surveying Training Systems...................           1,000
    28260  Instrument Landing System at Rickenbacker ANG 
      Base..............................................             500
    28270  Cold Weather Clothing........................             300

                      MISSOURI AIR NATIONAL GUARD

    The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 above the 
budget request only for cold weather clothing for the 139th 
Airlift Wing of the Air National Guard stationed in St. Joseph, 
Missouri.

                         KEY FIELD, MISSISSIPPI

    The Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 above 
the budget request in operation and maintenance Sustainment, 
Restoration, and Modernization funds only for repair of the 
operations and training facility at Key Field in Meridian, 
Mississippi.

             OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       $50,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        50,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................  ................
Change from budget request............................       -50,000,000


    The Committee has fully funded the Administrations request 
for support of ongoing DoD operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. 
These operations are no longer contingency events, and such 
continuing operations have been funded in the regular 
appropriations accounts lines as requested by the 
Administration. As these operations are now accounted for in 
the budget development process, contingency funds are not 
needed and the Committee has reallocated $50,000,000 from the 
Overseas Contingency Operations Fund to more urgent priorities.

          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        $9,096,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................         9,614,000
Committee recommendation..............................         9,614,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,614,000 for 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The 
recommendation is an increase of $518,000 from the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 2002.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $389,800,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       395,900,000
Committee recommendation..............................       395,900,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $395,900,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an 
increase of $6,100,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal 
year 2002.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $257,517,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       256,948,000
Committee recommendation..............................       256,948,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $256,948,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is a 
decrease of $569,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal 
year 2002.

                  ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $385,437,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       389,773,000
Committee recommendation..............................       389,773,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $389,773,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is 
an increase of $4,336,000 from the amount appropriated in 
fiscal year 2002.

                ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       $23,492,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        23,498,000
Committee recommendation..............................        23,498,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,498,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide. The recommendation 
is an increase of $6,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal 
year 2002.

         ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $222,255,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       212,102,000
Committee recommendation..............................       212,102,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $212,102,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $10,153,000 from the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 2002.

                             MOUNT UMUNHUM

    The Committee encourages the Department to consider Mount 
Umunhum in San Jose, California for funding under the Formally 
Used Defense Site (FUDS) program

             OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       $49,700,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        58,400,000
Committee recommendation..............................        58,400,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $58,400,000 
for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The 
recommendation is an increase of $8,700,000 from the amount 
appropriated in fiscal year 2002.

                  FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $403,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       416,700,000
Committee recommendation..............................       416,700,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    This appropriation funds the Former Soviet Union Threat 
Reduction activities of the Department of Defense.
    The President's budget requested $416,700,000 for this 
activity in Title II. Funding for this appropriation has been 
transferred from Title IX of the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense 
Appropriations Act.

        SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL SPORTING COMPETITIONS, DEFENSE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       $15,800,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        19,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................        19,000,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    This appropriation funds the Support for International 
Sporting Competitions, Defense for logistical and security 
support for international sporting competitions (including pay 
and non-travel related allowances only for members of the 
Reserve Components of the Armed Forces called or ordered to 
active duty in connection with providing such support). These 
funds are to remain available until expended, in order to 
provide support for future events.

                    DEFENSE EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation......................      $3,395,600,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.....................      19,460,616,000
Committee recommendation............................                   0
Change from budget request..........................     -19,460,616,000


    For activities funded in the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, the Administration requested 
$19,460,616,000 in the Defense Emergency Response Fund to 
support efforts by the Department of Defense to respond to, or 
protect against, acts or threatened acts of terrorism against 
the United States. Of that amount, $10,000,000,000 would only 
be available if a subsequent official budget request, 
designating the amount of the request as essential to respond 
or protect against acts or threatened acts of terrorism, is 
transmitted by the President to the Congress. As explained 
elsewhere in this report, the Administration has yet to submit 
any specific request or budget justification for these funds. 
Pending receipt of any such request or budget amendment, the 
Committee has deferred action on this $10,000,000,000 
appropriation.
    As regards the remaining $9,460,616,000 requested in the 
Defense Emergency Response Fund, budget justification materials 
identified the specific programs, as well as line items and 
appropriations accounts, to which the Department planned to 
transfer funds for obligation. Therefore, rather than provide 
funding for these items in the Defense Emergency Response Fund, 
appropriations for those items and amounts approved by the 
Committee are found in the appropriations accounts and line 
items identified by the Department.

                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                  ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY

    The fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense procurement 
budget request totals $67,220,034,000. The accompanying bill 
recommends $70,285,272,000. The total amount recommended is an 
increase of $3,065,238,000 above the fiscal year 2003 budget 
estimate and is $9,420,324,000 above the total provided in 
fiscal year 2002. 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 items in paragraphs using 
the phrase ``only for'' or ``only to'' in this report are 
congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for 
Reprogramming (DD 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 ANNEX

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

                    ARMY LARGE SCALE CONTRACT REVIEW

    Given some of the contractual problems that have occurred 
during large program contracts in previous years, the Committee 
believes that large scale contracts should be reviewed by 
competent outside counsel.

                       AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $1,984,391,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     2,061,027,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,214,369,000
Change from budget request............................      +153,342,000


    This appropriation finances acquisition of tactical and 
utility airplanes and helicopters, including associated 
electronics, electric warfare of in-service aircraft, ground 
support equipment, components and parts such as spare engines, 
transmission 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]


                   UH-60L BLACKHAWK FLIGHT SIMULATOR

    The budget request contains $153,361,000 for the 
procurement of 12 UH-60L Blackhawk utility helicopters for the 
Army National Guard (ARNG), but includes no funds for a UH-60L 
full motion simulator. The Blackhawk is the Army's primary 
utility helicopter for air assault, general support and aero 
medical evacuation missions. The Committee is aware that the 
national command authority's rapid reaction force 18th Airborne 
Corps has a requirement for one additional UH-60L Blackhawk 
full motion simulator and that this simulator is not planned to 
be budgeted for until fiscal year 2005. However, aviation units 
from this Corps are currently deployed in support of Operation 
Enduring Freedom and must maintain the highest levels of 
readiness and training as a rotational alert force. 
Accordingly, the Committee recommends an additional $15 million 
for one UH-60L Blackhawk full motion simulator for the 18th 
Airborne Corps.

                   CH-47F UPGRADE PROGRAM RESTRUCTURE

    The bill provides an additional $45,000,000 to the budget 
request of $382,061,000 to support the restructuring of the CH-
47F helicopter upgrade program. The CH-47F Chinook helicopter 
will be the main heavy lift helicopter of the Future Combat 
System and the Objective Force. Upgrading the CH-47 `D' model 
to an `F' model will extend airframe life by at least 20 years, 
replace the analog cockpit with a digital cockpit, modernize 
communications and navigation equipment, reduce vibration, and 
reduce aircraft tear down and build-up for strategic airlift by 
65 percent.
    Given the critical importance of this helicopter to the 
Army, the Committee believes this program should receive top 
budgetary priority in which the entire fleet of 465 helicopters 
should be upgraded instead of only 72 percent of the Army fleet 
(337 helicopters) under the current plan. The Committee also 
believes the current procurement strategy should be 
restructured to obtain more cost-effective production rates for 
this aircraft, from the current planned rate of 36 helicopters 
per fiscal year to 48 per year, which the Committee believes 
could save over $1,000,000 per helicopter.
    The current upgrade plan also presents many operational 
difficulties for the Army that should be avoided. For instance, 
under the current plan, the 128 CH-47 `D' models that would not 
be upgraded would be assigned to National Guard and Reserve 
units for call-up on an as needed basis. Pilots of `D' models 
will not be qualified to fly `F' models without additional, 
costly, and time-consuming training. By having both active and 
reserve pilots qualified on one model, mobilization of Guard 
and Reserve units will be seamless. One common aircraft will 
also greatly reduce the Army's logistics burden and save 
considerable sums for a common set of spare parts, and 
standardized system fixes that apply to the whole fleet. In 
addition, all CH-47F models will have a digital as opposed to 
analog cockpit, which will allow interoperability within and 
across the services and enable the use of tranformational 
technolgies.
    The additional $45,000,000 is intended to faciliate the 
transition to the most economically efficient program of at 
least 48 helicopters per year once full production is 
initiated. The bill provides that these funds may only be 
committed if the Secretary of the Army certifies to the 
congressional defense committees, not later than June 30, 2004, 
that the program has been restructured to upgrade all CH-47 
aircraft in the Army fleet.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


                       MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $1,079,330,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,642,296,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,112,772,000
Change from budget request............................      -529,524,000


    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]


                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


        PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $2,193,746,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     2,248,558,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,248,358,000
Change from budget request............................          -200,000


    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]


                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


                    PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $1,200,465,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,159,426,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,207,560,000
Change from budget request............................       +48,134,000


    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]


                PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR AMMUNITION

    The Committee commends the Army for establishing a Program 
Executive Officer (PEO) for Ammunition as part of its larger 
effort to streamline its acquisition organization and 
processes. Ammunition represents perhaps the most critical 
component of an effective Army, providing needed lethality for 
our soldiers in the field. However, for decades the Army's 
ammunition management system was fragmented and inefficient. 
Repeated studies, as well as this Committee, have recognized 
the need to substantively reform the ammunition management 
process; to manage it as a major acquisition system with a 
single manager responsible for all programmatic and fiscal 
control. The Committee strongly encourages the Army to continue 
moving forward with the expeditious implementation of a PEO for 
Ammunition.

            CANCELLATION OF WIDE AREA MUNITION (WAM) PROGRAM

    The Committee recommends no additional funds to continue 
development or procurement of the Wide Area Munition and 
directs that this program be cancelled. The WAM and Advanced 
WAM, a smart, autonomous top attack anti-tank/anti-vehicle 
munition, was developed as a Cold War weapon to counter massed 
Soviet armor. It is theoretically supposed to use acoustic and 
seismic sensors in its ground platform to detect vehicles, 
classify potential targets, and then automatically launch an 
infrared detecting submunition or ``sublet'' over the top of 
the selected target. Even though this munition has been in 
development since 1986 and over $330,000,000 has been expended 
for its development, the Army has yet to demonstrate the 
ability to satisfy even minimally acceptable operational 
performance requirements.
    According to the Department of Defense Inspector General, 
the key WAM performance parameters for range, engagement of 
heavy wheeled targets, and success rate in conditions of rain 
and snow have yet to be demonstrated. Key performance 
characteristics that have not been met include: tactical 
engagement of any of the designated targets at maximum range, 
engagement of multiple targets in any environment or a single 
target on other than level ground, and engagement of non-tank 
targets (e.g., wheeled vehicles) in any environment at any 
range. The self-destruct function, a key safety and operational 
feature, has yet to be demonstrated. Additionally, operational 
tests have been conducted with non-production representative 
munitions and inert warheads in contravention of Army test 
policy.
    The Army has also been unable to come close to achieving 
WAM cost targets of $11,110 per unit. Under a low rate 
production contract, the Army procured over 100 WAM systems at 
a cost of over $200,000 apiece under a conditional material 
release for the 82nd Airborne Division. Even if the Army 
achieves its inventory objective of more than 33,000 munitions, 
it would miss the unit cost objective by a factor of five. With 
a dwindling target set, less than successful acquisition 
milestone achievements and high unit cost, the Committee 
believes the remaining $230,000,000 programmed for WAM 
acquisition in the future years should be applied to upgrading 
the remaining 28 percent of the CH-47 helicopter fleet that is 
not currently in the Army upgrade plan.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


                        OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $4,183,736,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     5,168,453,000
Committee recommendation..............................     6,017,380,000
Change from budget request............................      +848,927,000


    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 
systems; (b) communications and electronics equipment of all 
types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile strategic and 
tactical communication equipment; (c) other support equipment, 
generators and power units, material handling equipment, 
medical support equipment, special equipment for user testing, 
and non-system training devices. In each of these activities, 
funds are also included for the modification of in-service 
equipment, investment spares and repair parts, and production 
base support.

                       Committee Recommendations


                  EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

                       [In thousands of Dollars]


                           UP-ARMORED HMMWVS

    The Committee notes that the M1114 Up-armored High Mobility 
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) is a key program for U.S. 
armed forces. This vehicle has repeatedly demonstrated its 
ability to protect U.S. personnel in hostile environments such 
as Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. 
Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the Army request 
funds for fiscal year 2004, and subsequent years, to support an 
annual fielding rate of 720 vehicles per year with the 
objective of complete fielding to Army forces by fiscal year 
2008.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


                       AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $7,938,143,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     8,203,955,000
Committee recommendation..............................     8,682,655,000
Change from budget request............................      +478,700,000


    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]


              CH-60S COMMON COCKPIT MULTI-YEAR PROCUREMENT

    The Committee notes that the CH-60S helicopter is being 
procured under two separate acquisition plans. The basic air 
vehicle is being procured under a cost effective multi-year 
contract, while the CH-60S cockpit avionics and other 
components are being procured on an annual basis. The Navy may 
be able to realize additional costs savings through a multi-
year procurement of the aircraft cockpit equipment as well. The 
Committee urges the Department of the Navy to thoroughly 
examine the business case for multi-year procurement of the MH-
60S helicopter cockpits and if warranted by the analysis, 
submit a request for multi- year procurement of said cockpits 
as part of the fiscal year 2004 budget request.

      TACTICAL INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE (ISR)

    The Committee understands that the Navy may be considering 
a plan to terminate its long-standing tactical aircraft 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) program. 
The Navy's concerns about the value of the product to the 
overall mission planning process, as well as its ability to 
fund future program requirements, has generated an interest in 
terminating a number of tactical ISR programs after fiscal year 
2003, particularly the F/A-18E/F Shared Reconnaissance Pod 
(SHARP).
    The Committee would not agree with such a recommendation 
and remains committed to the necessity of continuing ISR 
missions conducted by tactical aircraft. The Committee believes 
that the Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP), when it is 
deployed, will provide a unique opportunity for sharing of ISR 
data, a critical component of network centric warfare. The cost 
savings for terminating this particular program cannot outweigh 
the important contributions for expanding the availability of 
``high demand/low density'' ISR collection and distribution 
sensors and platforms.
    Therefore, the Committee directs the Navy to continue 
funding the Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP) in the fiscal 
year 2004 and future years budgets. Should the Navy determine 
that other tactical ISR sensors do not provide sufficient value 
to mission planners or are of significantly high maintenance 
costs, the Committee would certainly consider a termination 
proposal for these systems.

                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


                       WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $1,429,592,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,832,617,000
Committee recommendation..............................     2,384,617,000
Change from budget request............................      +552,000,000


    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]


                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


            PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $461,399,000
Fiscal Year 2003 budget request.......................     1,015,152,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,167,130,000
Change from Budget Request............................      +151,978,000


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

                        Committee Recommendation


                         PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

                       [In thousands of dollars]


                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


                   SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $9,490,039,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     8,191,194,000
Committee recommendation..............................     8,127,694,000
Change from budget request............................       -63,500,000


    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]


                 CVN-77 INTEGRATED WARFARE SYSTEM (IWS)

    The CVN-77 is to be the last Nimitz-class carrier acquired 
and operated by the Navy before transitioning to the CVN(X) 
next generation aircraft carrier class. As originally 
envisioned, the CVN-77 was to be a bridge to the future as one 
of three transformational carriers designed to evolve the Navy 
towards more modern ship designs. It was to have an integrated 
warfare system (IWS) featuring a new phased array radar being 
developed by the DD-21 program, enhanced self defense 
capabilities, advanced displays, programmable communications 
suites, and open system architectures to provide an easily 
upgradable base for future technology insertion and product 
improvement efforts. With the termination of the DD-21 program 
and restructure as the DD-(X), it became apparent that the 
existing development schedules for the Multi-function radar 
(MFR) and Volume Search Radar (VSR) systems would no longer 
meet the construction schedule requirements of the CVN-77. The 
Navy had a modern technological alternative available in the 
form of a derivative of the AEGIS SPY-1 Radar coupled with the 
MFR, but instead chose to replace the MFR/VSR systems with 
legacy rotating radar equipment originally developed over 30 
years ago and currently out of production. Additionally, in an 
effort to not create prior year shipbuilding costs for the CVN-
77, the Navy chose to delete a substantial amount of the 
technology improvement work that was to be accomplished in the 
IWS. Instead of the previously cited warfighting capability 
improvements that were to be fielded on the CVN-77, the Navy 
has decided to launch the last Nimitz class carrier into the 
21st century with vintage radars, basic self-defense 
capabilities, isolated decision centers, non-integrated 
displays, generation old computer processors and stove-piped 
communications systems. This decision not only deprives the 
fleet of significant warfighting improvements that could be 
obtained today, but in the Committee's belief, unnecessarily 
increases the technological risk and total cost to the CVN(X) 
program, thus negating any short term cost savings benefit 
derived from severely limiting the CVN-77 IWS development 
effort. The Committee is also concerned that under the Navy 
proposal, it is not apparent where legacy radar systems would 
be obtained for reconditioning and installation on the CVN-77, 
or what the impact would be to other Navy shipbuilding programs 
that could potentially receive these assets. It is also 
apparent that the Navy has not adequately factored in the costs 
of maintaining out of production parts for the legacy systems 
they had hoped to use on the CVN-77. Finally, the Committee 
believes that the presently proposed ``flexible island'' design 
change would generate unnecessary costs and that it would be 
actually more efficient to design a flexible island that 
accommodates the change of one phased array radar system to 
another, rather than from a rotating to a phased array radar 
system.
    The Navy is to be applauded for it's recent sensitivity 
towards and management of prior year shipbuilding costs. The 
Secretary's efforts to bring long needed discipline to this 
fiscal practice is appreciated and supported by the Committee. 
However, the Committee believes that in the case of the CVN-77 
IWS, the most cost effective course is to include as much 
warfighting capability on the ship as possible today, not at a 
post launch availability date far beyond present budgetary 
horizons. The Committee therefore has provided an additional 
$250,000,000 over the fiscal year 2003 budget request for the 
CVN-77 only to reinstate the original work content of the IWS 
contract. It is the Committee's sense that the Navy should 
pursue a phased array radar solution for the CVN-77, whether it 
is a variant of the AEGIS SPY-1 radar or an acceleration of the 
MFR/VSR system to be installed on the DD-X.
    The Committee also strictly prohibits the obligation of any 
funds in the fiscal year 2003 budget request for the 
development of a CVN-77 IWS contract data package that does not 
include a phased array radar system, enhanced self defense 
capability, advanced display systems and an open system 
architecture configured to optimize future technology insertion 
and product improvement upgrades. Elsewhere in this report the 
Committee has recommended a reduction of $25,000,000 for 
development of the CVN(X) contract data package as premature, 
until the Navy clearly establishes a coherent risk reduction 
path from the CVN-77 to the CVN(X). The Department of the Navy 
is directed to provide a report to the House Appropriations 
Committee no later than February 15, 2003 which details the new 
acquisition strategy for the CVN-77 IWS to include a detailed 
discussion of the reinstated program's, cost, schedule, and 
technical and contractual milestones.

                       SSGN ACQUISITION STRATEGY

    The Committee remains strongly supportive of the effort to 
convert and modernize four SSBN nuclear missile submarines to 
perform tactical and surveillance missions. The Committee is 
convinced that these assets which were otherwise to be retired, 
will prove to be a vital capability for the Navy in future 
contingencies.
    One of the compelling features of this program was the 
relatively straight-forward and cost-effective process of 
converting existing submarines to be capable of carrying up to 
150 Tomahawk missiles. The economic and operational benefits of 
carrying out this conversion for 4 vice 2 boats as proposed by 
the Navy became apparent to Congress during the fiscal year 
2002 defense budget cycle. Accordingly, additional funding was 
provided to initiate a 4 boat program in fiscal year 2002. The 
Navy is to be commended for identifying funding in its future 
years defense program to ensure that a 4 boat SSGN capability 
becomes a reality. The Committee has concerns, however, that 
the Navy maybe pursuing an unnecessarily complex acquisition 
strategy for the SSGN program which could affect its future 
affordability. The Committee believes that it is imperative 
that the SSGN program be managed to ensure that cost and 
schedule goals are achieved.
    The SSGN conversion program is comprised of standard 
submarine refueling and overhaul activities, but also includes 
elements of a new design and a first time installation of new 
equipment. It will also necessarily involve system integration 
efforts and design/installation interfacing. The Committee 
urges the Navy to optimize the proven historical capabilities 
of public and private shipyards, as well as look to other 
successful design/build processes and other conversion programs 
for SSBN such as the recent conversions to the D-5 missile, as 
it goes forward with an acquisition strategy for the SSGN 
program. The Committee therefore directs the Navy to submit a 
report to the Appropriations Committee no later February 15, 
2003 on the overall acquisition strategy for the SSGN program 
to include consideration of a prime systems integrator for all 
design, manufacturing, and conversion activities for the SSGN 
program and an arrangement that maximizes the utilization of 
available skilled workforces and infrastructure at each public 
shipyard to include the minimization of crew transfers and 
maximization of production learning curves.

                      DDG-51 COMPOSITE STRUCTURES

    The Committee directs the Department of the Navy to conduct 
an analysis of the cost and performance effectiveness of 
including composite louvers in the baseline design for DDG-51 
class ships under the current multi-year buy beginning with 
ships appropriated in fiscal year 2002. If warranted by the 
analysis, the Committee urges the Navy to begin budget and 
acquisition planning to procure and install composite louvers 
on present and future flights of DDG-51 ships starting with the 
post-delivery availability of ships scheduled for delivery in 
2003 and 2004. The Navy is directed to provide a report on its 
analysis to the House Appropriations Committee no later than 
February 15, 2003.

                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


                        OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $4,270,976,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     4,347,024,000
Committee recommendation..............................     4,631,299,000
Change from budget request............................      +284,275,000


    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]


                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


                       PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $995,442,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,288,383,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,369,383,000
Change from budget request............................       +81,000,000


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

                       Committee Recommendations


                  EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

                       [In thousands of dollars]


                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


                    AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................   $10,567,038,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    12,067,405,000
Committee recommendation..............................    12,492,730,000
Change from budget request............................      +425,325,000


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

                       Committee Recommendations


                  EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

                       [In thousands of dollars]


                              F-22 RAPTOR

    Since the submission of the fiscal year 2002 President's 
budget, the total program cost of the F-22 Raptor has increased 
by $5,957,000,000. The expected start date for Dedicated 
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (DIOT&E) has formally 
slipped by eight months even after 31 percent of the test 
points remaining before DIOT&E were dropped or deferred. In 
production, aircraft 4008 and 4009 were delivered, on average, 
12 months behind schedule.
    Despite these schedule delays, the fiscal year 2003 budget 
request recommends increasing the production of F-22s from 13 
planes in fiscal year 2002 to 23 planes in fiscal year 2003. 
Because of the risk of costly retrofits, increasing the number 
of planes purchased before the completion of operational 
testing adds significant risk, and potentially significant 
cost, to the program. Overlapping operational testing and 
developmental testing further increases program risk. The DoD 
Directive 5000 series recommends that the number of planes 
purchased in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) be held below 
10 percent of the total production quantity. The Air Force's 
current proposal for the F-22 would purchase in LRIP one-third 
of its total production quantity.
    If the F-22 program stays on its latest schedule and begins 
DIOT&E in April of 2003, 17 percent of its total buy will be 
ordered before DIOT&E even begins. However, over the nine month 
period from June of last year to March of this year, the Air 
Force projected it would ``burn down'' about 3,000 flight 
science test points. In execution, the Air Force actually 
``burned down'' less than half that many. At this rate of 
progress, the General Accounting Office estimates that the Air 
Force will be ready to begin DIOT&E in March of 2004. The Air 
Force will have ordered 25 percent of the total F-22 production 
goal by then.
    The Committee is willing to increase the production of F-22 
aircraft as the budget proposes, provided the Secretary of 
Defense has fully evaluated these risks. The bill includes a 
provision requiring that, prior to ordering more than 16 
additional F-22 aircraft, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics submits to the 
congressional defense committees a cost-benefit analysis 
comparing the cost advantages of increasing aircraft production 
at this time to the potential cost of retrofiting production 
aircraft once operational test and evaluation has been 
completed. The bill also requires that the Under Secretary 
certify to the Congress that the costs of retrofits for fixes 
discovered during developmental and operational testing will be 
absorbed within the current projected total program cost. 
Finally, the language directs the Under Secretary to certify 
that the proposed production rate is the lowest risk and lowest 
cost solution, or else to submit to the Congress a revised 
production plan.
    The Committee is concerned that the lack of stability in 
the Department's estimates of the F-22 program's costs and 
schedule may have other negative consequences for the long term 
cost of the program. The Committee therefore recommends fencing 
the funds available for the producability improvement program 
in order to ensure that this critical long term cost reduction 
effort is not cut in order to cover additional cost growth.
    The Committee approves the F-22 procurement budget request 
of $4,621,068,000 in full and recommends bill language to 
accomplish these objectives.

                    INCREMENTAL FUNDING OF THE C-17

    The Air Force has adopted a budgeting approach for the C-17 
that delays the need to request $1,500,000,000 in budget 
authority until 2007 and 2008. Instead of following the 
traditional method of requesting funding equal to the cost of 
the planes being built, the Air Force has matched its funding 
request to when payments are due to the contractor. The Air 
Force calls this change ``transformation''. The proper term is 
incremental funding and it is inconsistent with DoD fiscal 
policy. Although the planes are delivered on the same schedule 
and at the same cost under either approach, incremental funding 
allows programs to push off onto future years costs that should 
be covered now.
    Last year, when the Congress was considering multiyear 
procurement authority for the C-17, the Air Force sought bill 
language specifically authorizing this new approach. The 
Congress approved the multiyear, but denied the Air Force's 
request for special authority. Nevertheless, the Air Force 
proceeded with the incremental funding and reinterpreted the 
regulations as permitting this approach. For example, while the 
DoD Financial Management Regulations (FMR) define Advance 
Procurement as being for ``long leadtime items'', the Air Force 
believes that this can be interpreted to apply to any component 
of the aircraft or even to final assembly. While the FMR calls 
for advance procurement to be ``relatively low'' compared to 
the cost of the end item, the Air Force proposal would, in some 
cases, fund half of the cost of the airplane with advanced 
procurement. The Air Force position is not consistent with any 
reasonable interpretation of the FMR.
    Therefore, the Committee has included bill language 
requiring that the fiscal year 2003 C-17 Advance Procurement be 
used to support the acquisition in fiscal year 2004 of 15 C-17 
aircraft (the planned production rate) and directs the Air 
Force to include the funds to complete the purchase of those 15 
C-17s in its 2004 budget submission.
    The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) to restructure the outyear funding for the C-17 
program to bring it into compliance with the proper use of 
advance procurement as defined in the FMR. The Committee is 
fully supportive of the C-17 program and the multiyear 
procurement of 60 additional airplanes and directs that these 
changes be implemented in a manner that would not adversely 
affect the cost or delivery of these planes.

                PREDATOR B UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV)

    The Predator UAV continues to demonstrate its versatility 
in meeting the deployed operational requirements of the 
warfighting CINCs. Its reliability and combat mission successes 
have provided significant opportunities in a number of military 
operations.
    With the increased use of UAVs to support ongoing 
operations, the roles and missions of the Predator UAV system 
are quickly expanding. The need for greater stand-off 
reconnaissance, targeting and variable weapons delivery 
capability will continue to drive the requirement for upgrades 
to existing systems and the development of new systems.
    The Predator B UAV, which is operational today, has the 
ability to meet a large number of the future reconnaissance, 
targeting, and weapons delivery requirements. Unfortunately, 
the fiscal year 2003 budget request does not include a request 
for the procurement of additional Predator B aircraft. 
Therefore, the Committee has provided an increase of 
$26,000,000 for the Air Force to acquire six additional 
Predator B prop jet aircraft, including spare parts, to augment 
the current inventory of aircraft.
    The Committee believes that the Predator B UAV may well 
satisfy reconnaissance, targeting and weapons delivery 
requirements of the Navy. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
Air Force and the Navy to establish a Joint Program Office for 
the Predator B. This Joint Program Office would manage the 
development of requirements, program management, acquisition 
support, testing and training.

  GLOBAL HAWK HIGH ALTITUDE ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (HAEUAV)

    The fiscal year 2003 budget request included $41,000,000 
for advance procurement for the Global Hawk High Altitude 
Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, the Committee recommends 
$32,625,000, a reduction of $8,375,000.
    The Committee makes this recommendation due to the 
availability of funds in fiscal year 2002 for advance 
procurement for four aircraft that will be procured in fiscal 
year 2003 although only three aircraft were included in the 
2003 budget request. When consideration is given to the 
appropriation for advance procurement in fiscal year 2002 and 
the Committee's recommendation for 2003, the Air Force has 
sufficient funds for both the 2002 and 2003 advance procurement 
requirement.

                            E-8 JOINT STARS

    The President's budget requests $279,268,000 for one 
additional E-8C JOINT STARS. This would bring the Department's 
inventory to 17 airplanes. However, the Department has not 
requested any funding for the advanced procurement of an 18th 
aircraft, nor has it provided the funds that would be required 
to shutdown the production line. The Committee therefore 
directs the Department to decide whether or not they want 
another JOINT STARS and to submit a reprogramming providing the 
funding needed to implement that decision.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


                     MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $2,989,524,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     3,575,162,000
Committee recommendation..............................     3,185,439,000
Change from budget request............................      -389,723,000


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

                       Committee Recommendations


                  EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

                       [In thousands of dollars]


                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


                  PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $866,644,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,133,864,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,290,764,000
Change from budget request............................      +156,900,000


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

                       Committee Recommendations


                  EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

                       [In thousands of dollars]


                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


                      OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $8,085,863,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    10,523,946,000
Committee recommendation..............................    10,622,660,000
Change from budget request............................       +98,714,000


    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 operational forces, and 
ground support equipment for weapon systems and supporting 
structure.

                       Committee Recommendations


                  EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

                       [In thousands of dollars]


                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


                       PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $2,389,490,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     2,688,515,000
Committee recommendation..............................     3,457,405,000
Change from budget request............................      +768,890,000


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

                       Committee Recommendations


                  EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

                       [In thousands of dollars]


                      TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

    The Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the Department of 
Defense Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business to execute 
the DoD Technical Assistance Program. This program provides 
critical training and technical assistance services to minority 
institutions to help them more effectively compete for 
Department of Defense funding opportunities.

                     ADVANCED SEAL DELIVERY SYSTEM

    The Special Operations Command requested $21,804,000 for 
procurement of the Advanced Sea, Air, Land (SEAL) Delivery 
System (ASDS) and $34,730,000 in advanced procurement for a 
second ASDS. The Committee recommends $23,504,000 for 
procurement, of which $12,000,000 is recommended to procure 
Lithium Ion Polymer Batteries, and no funds for advanced 
procurement.
    The ASDS is a manned combatant mini-submarine used for the 
clandestine delivery of Special Operations Forces personnel and 
weapons and will provide an important improvement over the 
current SEAL delivery system. The first ASDS has encountered 
significant cost and schedule problems and there are important 
unresolved issues identified last year by the Committee which 
continue to require more RDT&E funding. Since the budget was 
submitted, the Special Operations Command has wisely decided to 
restructure this program and is delaying the procurement of the 
second ASDS until the technical problems have been resolved. 
The Committee recommends additional funding above the budget 
request for the ASDS in the RDT&E program addressed elsewhere 
in this report.

                   DEFENSE IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY

    Funds for the Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency have been 
transferred to the National Foreign Intelligence Program in an 
effort to improve appropriations oversight and management 
efficiency. Further details are addressed in a classified annex 
accompanying this report.

                 PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY--3 (PAC-3)

    The President's budget request includes $471,670,000 for 
the procurement of 72 PAC-3 missiles in Missile Procurement, 
Army. The Committee recommends moving these funds to 
Procurement, Defense-Wide and providing an increase of 
$65,000,000 only for the procurement of 24 additional missiles 
in 2003, the acquisition of long lead items for 72 missiles in 
2004 or some combination of the above. The Committee further 
directs that these funds are available only to support a budget 
request for 144 missiles in 2004.
    Last year, the Administration requested funds to upgrade 
the facilities that produce the PAC-3 so that by 2004 the 
facility could support a production rate of 12 missiles per 
month and by 2006 a production rate of 20 missiles per month. 
The Congress supported the Administration's request and 
directed the Department to begin producing these additional 
missiles as soon as possible. This year the Department of 
Defense proposes to transfer the program from the Missile 
Defense Agency to the Army, but with only enough funds to buy 6 
missiles per month in 2004 and increasing to only 12 missiles 
per month in 2006. At this production rate, the Army would not 
be able to achieve its inventory objective until 2019. Given 
the Administration's commitment to missile defense, the 
Committee is disappointed that the Department would transfer 
this program to the Army with such a significant shortfall. The 
Committee believes that theater missile defense is too high a 
priority to be transferred in this way. Therefore the Committee 
recommends moving procurement funding for the PAC-3 back to 
Procurement, Defense-Wide and directs that the Department not 
transfer the PAC-3 procurement program to the Army until it has 
included enough funds in the Program Objective Memorandum for 
this program to support a production rate of 20 missiles per 
month and a total purchase of at least 2,200 missiles.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


                  NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $699,130,000
Fiscal year 2003 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

    The budget request includes $2,603,597,000 to equip 
National Guard and Reserve units in Procurement accounts for 
each of the Armed Services and no funding in National Guard and 
Reserve Equipment. The Committee is aware of the indispensable 
contributions members of the Guard and the Reserves make to our 
national security and has added $222,880,000 in additional 
funding above the request within the regular appropriation 
accounts to allow them to more adequately perform their 
missions. These missions continue to grow in scope as the 
Department uses Guard and Reserve forces to help deal with 
increased foreign deployments and to respond to terrorists 
threats to our homeland security. The Committee has amended 
bill language proposed in the budget for these purposes to 
insure that not less than the amounts identified are provided 
to the National Guard and Reserve components.

                    DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       $40,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        73,057,000
Committee recommendation..............................        73,057,000
Change from request...................................  ................


    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. The Department requested 
$73,057,000 for Defense Production Act Purchases in fiscal year 
2003. The Committee recommends $73,057,000, the amount of the 
budget request.

                         INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

    The Department requested $17,909,943,000 for Information 
Technology. The Committee recommends $17,664,945,000 a decrease 
of $244,998,000 as explained below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Operation and Maintenance, Army:
    C4 Requirements for PACOM--Transfer to procurement..          -6,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy:
    CMIS................................................           4,000
    SPAWAR IT Center....................................           3,000
    Non-NMCI Information Technology.....................        -120,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:
    ASC Enterprise InfoStructure Prototype..............           6,500
    AFMC/SC Information Assurance Initiative............           1,500
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:
    Civilian Personnel Data System......................         -20,000
    DLA, Information Technology Network Consolidation...         -10,000
    DSMC/IT Organizational Composition Research.........           1,000
    OSD, Information Technology Network Consolidation...         -10,000
    DISA, Wireless Priority Service.....................         -37,000
    Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network Feasibility 
      Study.............................................           2,500
    ADUSD (MPP&R) Wearable Computers [Note: Only for the 
      existing program and initial deployment.].........           4,000
    Counter Terrorism Analysis Methods for Adaptive 
      Threats...........................................           1,000
    WHS, Information Technology Network Consolidation...         -10,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve:
    Command Server Consolidation........................           4,000
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard:
    Courseware to Educate IT Managers...................           2,000
    Information Assurance [Note: Only for a 
      collaborative information assurance effort with 
      SEI.].............................................           1,500
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard:
    National Guard Global Education Project.............             500
    Project Alert.......................................           2,750
    Interoperable Automation Continuity of Operations...           1,000
Other Procurement, Army:
    Information Systems reduction.......................         -41,000
    C4 Requirements for PACOM...........................           6,000
    Global Combat Support System........................         -10,000
    Army Knowledge Online...............................           5,000
    National Guard Courseware Development...............           3,000
    Automated Maintenance Records Technology............           4,500
Other Procurement, Navy:
    USNR Information Infrastructure COOP................           3,000
    JEDMICS Security Solution...........................           7,000
    JEDMICS Type 1 Network Security Solution............           7,000
    USMC Continuity of Operations.......................           7,000
Other Procurement, Air Force:
    REMIS...............................................           2,500
    Point of Maintenance Initiative.....................           1,500
Procurement, Defense-Wide:
    OSD Information Technology Consolidation............          -2,000
    WHS Information Technology Consolidation............          -2,000
    Bandwidth Expansion Contract Cost Savings...........         -25,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:
    Global Combat Support System........................         -20,000
    Armament Systems Network IA Center..................           4,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy:
    Deployable Joint Command and Control................         -39,772
    Web Centric Network Warfare.........................           8,000
    JEDMICS.............................................           3,000
    SPAWAR Information Technology Center................           6,000
    Distance Learning IT Center.........................          15,000
    CAST Upgrade--CACCTUS Intelligent Tutor System......           4,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force:
    Global Combat Support System........................          -6,000
    Financial Management Information Systems Development         -21,326
    Enterprise Data Warehouse...........................           4,000
    Information Management for Crisis Response..........           6,000
    World Infrastructure Support Environment............           6,000
    ILIAD...............................................           3,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-
    Wide:
    Center for Computer Security........................             300
    National Guard Multi-Media Security Technology......           2,500
    Data Standards for the Integrated Digital 
      Environment.......................................           1,000
    DMS Data Warehouse Solution.........................           1,000
    Advanced Distributed Learning Prototypes............           4,000
    Standard Procurement System.........................          -2,500
    Financial Management System Improvement [Transfer to 
      Defense Working Capital Fund].....................         -60,000
    Protection of Vital Data............................           8,000
    Computer Science and Internet Security Degree 
      Program...........................................             750
    Global Infrastructure Data Capture..................           9,000
    Joint Analytical Model Improvement Program..........          -4,000
    Global Command and Control System Review............          -8,700
    Picket Fence........................................           2,000
    SOF Integrated Command and Control System...........           4,000

           TRANSFERS FROM THE DEFENSE EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND

    In addition to the amounts indicated above, $3,554,800,000 
has been transferred from amounts requested in the Defense 
Emergency Response Fund as explained below:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

CINC Homeland Security..................................        $215,000
White House Communications..............................           3,000
Continuity of Operations--DoD...........................         534,000
Virtual Pentagon........................................         214,000
Security, Communications & Information Operations.......       2,588,800

                       NAVY MARINE CORPS INTRANET

    The Committee agrees with the Navy's intent of 
transitioning to an Enterprise Architecture with its Navy 
Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI); however, the Committee is 
concerned over the Navy's consideration of the significant 
legacy applications challenge and the pace at which the Navy is 
seeking to proceed. The NMCI program has been unstable since 
its inception in fiscal year 1999 because of the Navy's 
decision to circumvent the requirements of the Clinger-Cohen 
Act and other DoD acquisition guidelines. The designation of a 
single command authority to oversee program management pursuant 
to Public Law enacted last year has been a driving force in 
getting the program back on track.
    Unfortunately, while significant progress has been made in 
establishing the beginnings of the network, the initial rollout 
has demonstrated not only the magnitude of this undertaking, 
but the previously unforeseen challenges it presents. The 
Committee has heard repeatedly from the Navy, the contractor, 
and the claimants that failure to identify the existence of 
tens of thousands of legacy applications, and how or whether 
they could operate on the network, has severely inhibited 
transitioning. If unneeded applications are not phased out, 
those remaining for tactical operations and other uses must be: 
(1) made secure in order to be accommodated on the NMCI 
network, or (2) handled separately on a terminal outside of 
NMCI. The Committee is concerned that this problem has limited 
the current state of the networks capabilities to such a degree 
that the system has significantly impacted operations. At one 
test center the dependence on legacy applications which are not 
currently on NMCI is so fundamental that more than fifty 
percent of the workstations require more than one computer--an 
NMCI terminal and a legacy terminal. It is evident at the test 
site that seats have not been ``cut over'' but merely cut in 
half. While this problem exists, the Navy has proceeded with 
additional seat orders for additional locations, creating the 
potential for this crisis to grow exponentially.
    The Committee believes strongly that for NMCI to ultimately 
succeed, progress must be at a more moderately measured pace 
and with far greater emphasis on understanding the networks 
capabilities and limitations. Customer test and evaluation has 
been performed by the contractor to the satisfaction of the 
Department so as to permit the order of an additional 100,000 
seats. However, the Committee is greatly concerned about the 
relevancy of the testing to the realistic operational 
environment of the Navy, the independence of the testing, and 
the sufficiency of the NMCI workstation sample tested. While 
the contractor testing report concludes that the system is 
ready for widespread deployment, excerpts from the report are 
indicative of this questionable conclusion and clearly 
demonstrate the shortcomings of the testing. The report states 
that ``Some business processes were not well defined for the 
testers, limiting the effectiveness of the scenario; other 
business was not fully represented in the test site population, 
rendering an end-to-end look impossible. Still other business 
processes were straightforward but did result in complicated, 
extensive test procedures with numerous steps, and many 
business processes required a combination of NMCI and legacy 
applications, making an end-to-end test wholly on the NMCI 
system problematic at best''. If the NMCI cannot be adequately 
tested, then the very results upon which the inadequate tests 
are based must be questioned. While independent operational 
test and evaluation is now planned for June 2003, it will not 
occur until over 75 percent or approximately 310,000 of the 
411,000 NMCI seats have been ordered and at which time an 
estimated 100,000 seats will have been fully transitioned to 
the network. If the history of this program is any indication, 
significant problems are likely to be discovered when the 
system is subjected to rigorous operational test and 
evaluation. Any solutions will have to be deployed to a far 
greater population on the network, and at greater cost, than if 
this testing occurred earlier in the fielding of the system.
    The Committee notes that authorization has been proposed in 
other legislation to extend the contract for NMCI with the 
contractor an additional two years to address delays in 
transitioning seats to the NMCI environment. This additional 
time allows a unique opportunity for the program to evaluate 
its current status, initiate a comprehensive effort to address 
legacy applications at sites where seats have been transitioned 
and undergo additional testing. The Committee believes it would 
be most beneficial for the Navy and NMCI if additional seat 
orders were delayed as part of this contract extension pending 
independent operational test and evaluation. Therefore, the 
Committee has included a general provision that prohibits the 
Navy from ordering additional seats above the current 160,000 
authorized by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and 
requires that operational test and evaluation be conducted once 
there has been a full transition of not less than 20,000 
workstations to the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet and the network 
is robust enough so as to perform adequate testing. The 
Committee believes that the delay in seat orders that will 
result will also provide the Navy and the contractor much 
needed time to address the legacy application problems which 
will arise from the order of the first 160,000 seats. 
Furthermore, the Committee expects that like the Marine Corps, 
by limiting equipment refreshment and using smart lease 
arrangements as systems prepare to convert to NMCI, the Navy 
will achieve savings until seat orders are resumed. 
Accordingly, the Committee has reduced the funding request for 
non-NMCI information technology.

                 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUDGET EXHIBITS

    The Committee directs that in preparing the IT Capital 
Investment Exhibit (IT-300s) for major programs, information 
provided in the exhibit include the following; (1) The total 
amount of funds, by program element or sub activity group, 
appropriated and obligated for prior fiscal years; (2) A 
specific breakout of such information for the two preceding 
fiscal years, and an estimate for the current fiscal year; and 
(3) Funds, by program element or sub activity group, for the 
budget request.

              INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY NETWORK CONSOLIDATION

    The Committee believes that the Department of Defense must 
be more effective in eliminating unneeded legacy systems and 
consolidating the large number of disparate networks that are 
maintained. The Committee would cite the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, the Washington Headquarters Service and 
the Defense Logistics Agency as examples of organizations that 
could achieve significant savings through better efforts in 
this regard. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced information 
technology funding for these organizations due to savings from 
anticipated consolidation.

                        GIG BANDWIDTH EXPANSION

    The Committee strongly supports the proposal to expand 
bandwidth on the Global Information Grid to 10 gigabytes for 
certain mission critical bases and installations both in the 
United States and OCONUS. However, the Committee believes that 
with the current state of the telecommunications market the 
Defense Information Systems Agency will be in a strong position 
to contract for this enormous undertaking at increased savings 
to the government and the taxpayer than estimated at the time 
the request was submitted. Accordingly, the Committee has 
reduced the request for the Global Information Grid bandwidth 
expansion in anticipation of these contract savings.

                    INTEGRATION SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY

    As information systems have become increasingly complex, 
acquisition officials should take steps to enable systems to 
communicate better with each other to realize much of their 
untapped value. The Committee recommends that officials should 
give every consideration to available integration software 
technology where enterprise architecture and tools can be used 
to accomplish integration across disparate systems, software 
applications, and databases, particularly where that technology 
is already incorporated in the software applications to be 
integrated, instead of costly customization to integrate 
systems by manual software coding. The Committee recommends 
that acquisition strategies should include evaluation of 
potential savings through the use of such tools.

           DEFENSE INTEGRATED MILITARY HUMAN RESOURCE SYSTEM

    The Committee is extremely concerned about coordination 
between the Navy, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 
and the Defense Human Resources Agency in the joint development 
and implementation of this single integrated personnel and pay 
system. The three organizations submitted three separate budget 
exhibits with little or no coordination among them and with 
incorrect funding justification in one. While the program has 
received a substantial increase in the Future Year Defense 
Plan, the Committee will find it difficult to continue to 
support increases in the program until the three organizations 
demonstrate greater coordination and ability to meet milestone 
schedules.

                      COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS

    The budget request included $39,772,000 for Navy Deployable 
Joint Command and Control (DJC2) and $15,604,000 for the 
Defense Information Systems Agency's Global Command and Control 
System (GCCS). The Committee has provided no funding for Navy 
DJC2, and reduced funding for GCCS by $8,700,000. The Committee 
is concerned about the proliferation of command and control 
systems throughout the services. While existing systems serve 
an essential role in our military, the continued research and 
development of these systems lacks coordination. Funding has 
been requested for DJC2 as the potential follow on to GCCS, 
while additional development funds are also being requested for 
the GCCS. The Committee has provided no funding for DJC2, and 
limited funds for GCCS only to ongoing programs until more 
information is provided by the Department of Defense as to the 
direction and future of these two command and control systems.

                        ARMY INFORMATION SYSTEMS

    The budget request included $279,000,000 for Army 
Information Systems, an increase of $114,000,000 over the 
fiscal year 2002 level, or 69 percent. The Committee notes that 
if fully funded, this request would equal 224 percent growth 
since fiscal year 2001. In addition, $250,000,000 has been 
requested and funded in this bill for the Defense Emergency 
Response Fund for activities funded in this account. The 
Committee has transferred $6,000,000 in Operation and 
Maintenance funding requested for C4 requirements for U.S. 
Pacific Command (PACOM) to this account and reduced funding by 
$41,000,000. The Committee expects that the requirements for 
PACOM will be addressed within the funds made available.

                         INFORMATION ASSURANCE

    The Committee has included $1,500,000 for a collaborative 
information assurance effort with the Software Engineering 
Institute.

      SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER (SITC)

    The Committee has provided $3,000,000 in Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy, and $6,000,000 in Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation, Navy, only for continuing development, 
integration, fielding, and maintenance at the SITC. The 
Committee encourages the Department of the Navy to fully 
utilize all the capabilities of the SITC to conduct enterprise 
level reengineering and web-enabling of the legacy systems, and 
portal integration efforts.

                       COURSEWARE FOR IT MANAGERS

    The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the development 
and delivery of courses of instruction in information systems, 
information security, mobile computing, and geographical 
information systems. The courseware will be used to educate 
defense information technology managers in collaborative 
working groups using an advanced distance learning system with 
high-end computing workstations.

                         ARMY KNOWLEDGE ONLINE

    The Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 for Army 
Knowledge Online. Funding is provided to implement the Data 
Storage Infrastructure, including a synchronous replication 
capability that mirrors data to a remote location in real time 
so outages do not impact mission critical operations required 
during a natural or man-made disaster.

                   USMC CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLAN

    The Committee recommends $7,000,000 in Other Procurement, 
Marine Corps, for data storage infrastructure to provide remote 
site mirroring of information to facilitate protection, 
recovery and guaranteed availability of critical data sources.

              CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS

    The Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 for the 
Configuration Management Information Systems (CMIS) to support 
continued assembly of the CMIS database with the additional 
Type/Model/Series data required to support the Maintenance 
Planning effort and process. The maintenance planning activity 
in this up-tempo operations environment is of critical 
importance to the warfighter and is of the utmost significance 
in conducting safe and successful missions.

          RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATED SYSTEM PROGRAM GUIDANCE

    The Committee has strongly supported the Reserve Component 
Automated System (RCAS) for many years. More than ten years ago 
the Committee directed that the management of existing RCAS 
programs be moved from the Army to the National Guard Bureau 
due to continuing management difficulties. The Committee is 
pleased with the progress that RCAS has made under the auspices 
of the National Guard Bureau and continues to support this 
direction. The Committee directs the centralized management of 
this critical capability continue under the Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau. The Committee notes that funding has 
been programmed for fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2007 
to assure that this support continues and that the long-
deferred renovation of the equipment provided by RCAS begins. 
The Committee fully supports this funding in fiscal year 2003 
through fiscal year 2007 and directs that both the procurement 
and the operation and maintenance RCAS funds be allocated in 
their entirety to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau only 
for the centralized system management of RCAS capabilities. 
Moreover, the Committee anticipates the National Guard Bureau 
will extend and expand the scope of RCAS capabilities to meet 
all of its information and communication needs in the future, 
especially in light of the efforts to safeguard our homeland 
while continuing support of the vital military missions of the 
Guard.

               FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PILOTS

    The Committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
proceed with the implementation of pilot programs on financial 
management modernization in order to perform real time tests 
and applications, and identify potential challenges and 
problems that need to be factored into the design and 
implementation of the planned financial management enterprise 
system.
                                TITLE IV

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

                  ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

    The fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense research, 
development, test and evaluation budget request totals 
$53,702,299,000. The accompanying bill recommends 
$57,754,286,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of 
$4,051,987,000 above the fiscal year 2003 budget estimate and 
is $8,832,645,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 2002. 
The table below summarizes the budget estimate and the 
Committee's recommendations.


                         SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS

    Items for which additional funds have been provided as 
shown in the project level tables or items in paragraphs using 
the phrase ``only for'' or ``only to'' in this report are 
congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for 
Reprogramming (DD 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 ANNEX

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

                 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) ROAD MAP

    The Committee is aware that there are a variety of 
recommendations for how best to use unmanned aerial vehicles 
(UAVs). The Committee is encouraged by the number of missions 
which the Services have identified that could be accomplished 
by UAVs, suggesting that the concept of unmanned vehicles has 
finally caught the imagination of the leadership within the 
Department of Defense.
    The Committee is, however, concerned that the growing 
enthusiasm may well lead to a situation in which there is no 
clear path toward the future of UAVs. The Committee does not 
believe that transfer of missions to UAVs should be executed 
without thorough review and comprehensive planning.
    Therefore, the Committee directs that each Service submit a 
report by March 1, 2003 that provides an updated ``UAV 
roadmap.'' This report should address how the Service will 
pursue the employment of current UAVs, as well as its future 
plans for the development of UAVs in support of both the ISR 
and attack missions.

                      FUTURE TESTING REQUIREMENTS

    The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2003 budget 
request for several of the research, development, test and 
evaluation appropriations, includes large increases in both 
personnel and facilities expenses at Department of Defense test 
ranges. In the same appropriations, there are budget increases 
to support an expansion in modeling and simulation capabilities 
for applicability to testing. Budget increases for these dual 
and potentially competing methods for testing leads the 
Committee to believe that there is little coordination on how 
best to address future integrated testing requirements.
    While the Committee fully supports the requirements for 
testing and has repeatedly emphasized that the Services must 
conduct a rigorous program of testing weapons systems in the 
course of development, it is possible that this can be 
accomplished with a better mix of range time and modeling and 
simulation techniques. The Committee believes that by more 
effectively addressing how best to invest in both test ranges 
and modeling and simulation, the Department could enhance and 
make more efficient, the testing process.
    The Secretary of Defense is requested to provide a report, 
not later than May 1, 2003, to the House Appropriations 
Committee that would address these issues. The report should 
provide an analysis of the capabilities of the test ranges 
(including potential investment in new equipment) and the 
capabilities of modeling and simulation techniques, recommend a 
more effective mix of these two methods of testing, and propose 
a five-year plan of integrated investment for both ranges and 
modeling and simulation techniques.

                        NETWORK CENTRIC-WARFARE

    The Committee believes that the overall interests of the 
Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community would be 
best served by quickly moving to a network-centric environment. 
The Committee believes that significant benefits would accrue 
from this move including: a more effective use of the data 
currently being collected; a more efficient or effective use of 
current and planned platforms; an ability to better use and 
protect resources--both human and financial; and, the unifying 
means required for transforming our Forces.

Network-Centric Warfare Programs

    The Services have initiated a number of programs designed 
to move toward a network-centric solution for sharing of 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data. The 
overall goal of these programs is to provide for timely 
exploitation and dissemination of ISR data to the tactical 
commanders.
    The Committee has been supportive of these programs but 
understands that it is difficult for ``network solutions'' to 
compete with the acquisition of additional platforms. The 
Services, while lending voice to the need for a network-centric 
warfare approach, have been able to provide only limited 
funding for their network-centric projects in the fiscal year 
2003 budget request. Therefore, the Committee has provided an 
additional $28,000,000 for specific projects already included 
in the President's budget request, to continue the development 
and deployment of these projects.
    The backbone of the Department's efforts to enhance data 
dissemination as part of its network-centric approach is the 
Army Distributed Common Ground Station (DCGS). The Committee 
has provided an additional $10,000,000 for this program in the 
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army appropriation. 
The Committee directs the Army use these funds to continue 
planned upgrades to and deployments of the system, especially 
those systems supporting the U.S. Central Command.
    The Navy's Naval Fires Network (NFN) project is funded in 
the Land Attack Technology program in the Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy appropriation. The 
Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 for this 
program. The Committee directs that the Navy use these funds to 
continue architecture design, study and initiate a design for a 
Joint Fires Center, improve training devices, support major 
Fleet exercises, and incorporate the UAV Tactical Control 
System functionality into the NFN system.
    The Air Force Network Centric Collaborative Targeting 
(NCCT) project is funded in the Manned Reconnaissance program 
in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 
appropriation. The Committee has provided an additional 
$8,000,000 for this program. The Committee directs the Air 
Force to use these funds to support NCCT efforts in connection 
with the multi-mission command and control aircraft (MC2A) 
project and continue development and deployment of the system.

Data Management

    To advance a network-centric environment with all of its 
attendant advantages, the Committee recognizes the need for 
several key capabilities, which would be implemented within the 
Department's Global Information Grid:
    1. There must be a network that users trust and on which 
they can depend. The inherent design and implementation of the 
network must significantly reduce or eliminate long-standing 
impediments to widespread use. Most importantly, the network 
must have sufficient bandwidth to support on-demand low latency 
access to data and must incorporate appropriate assurance 
measures.
    2. Tools must be provided to support the use of data to 
create situational awareness and enable users to properly 
evaluate the information. These tools must support access to 
raw and processed data and information sources, must include 
capabilities for creating the most current ``picture'' for a 
user on-demand, and allow for collaboration with other users 
on-demand, and again, without regard for time and place.
    3. Key to a net-centric environment is data. Mechanisms and 
processes must be in place to enable data and information 
collectors and creators to post and maintain data and 
information as authoritative sources. Users must trust the data 
and have the capability to pull it on demand from these 
authoritative sources. The approach to data and information 
must allow for migration by current systems, intuitive search 
and retrieval methods, compatibility with the tools described 
above, and appropriate security provisions.
    The Committee directs the Chief Information Officer of the 
Department of Defense to develop an approach to ensure data 
that can be used for all sources and users. The CIO should 
submit a report to the Committee by February 15, 2003, that 
would describe how best to resolve the issues associated with 
``trusted data.''

            EVOLUTIONARY ACQUISITION AND SPIRAL DEVELOPMENT

    While the Committee is supportive of the Department's 
efforts in pursuing evolutionary acquisition and spiral 
development, it has found that many programs lack a clear 
understanding of these terms and how they affect program 
management. The Services have used the terms ``evolutionary 
acquisition'' and ``spiral development'' interchangeably, 
interpreted the terms in non-standard ways, and have 
potentially applied the terms inappropriately to systems 
currently under development.
    According to the DoD Directive 5000 series, `Evolutionary 
Acquisition' is the process of developing and testing an 
initial, military useful capability (Block 1) while planning 
for subsequent development of increments of additional 
capability (Blocks 2, 3 and beyond). This is distinct from 
`Spiral Development', which is an iterative process for 
refining requirements within an increment or block. Neither of 
these approaches provides an automatic waiver from existing DoD 
regulations.
    The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) to ensure that budget justification material uses 
these terms correctly and that project descriptions identify 
when programs using this approach have been given a waiver from 
any DoD 5000 series requirement.

            RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $7,106,074,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     6,820,333,000
Committee recommendation..............................     7,447,160,000
Change from budget request............................      +626,827,000


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

                       Committee Recommendations


                  EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

                       [In thousands of dollars]


                                CRUSADER

    On May 29, 2002, the Administration proposed an amendment 
to the fiscal year 2003 budget request reflecting the decision 
to terminate the Crusader artillery system program. The budget 
amendment also proposed reallocating the $475,609,000 
originally proposed in the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget 
for the Crusader program to accelerate development of a next 
generation Objective Force--Indirect Fire artillery system, and 
to accelerate development of precision cannon projectiles and 
rocket systems.
    Despite the work of the last 8 years costing roughly $2 
billion to develop the Crusader system, the Administration has 
concluded that the nature and role of artillery support should 
change in the future due to a ``different strategic context,'' 
and that the Army should place greater emphasis on precision 
and mobility. The Committee is troubled by many aspects of the 
process which resulted in this decision, in particular the 
apparent failure to fully consult with the senior Army military 
leadership as final recommendations were being devised.
    In this case, the Department has chosen to accept the risk 
of giving up a superior rate of fire (an increase from 3 rounds 
per minute to 10-12 rounds per minute) and range (from 30 kms 
to 40 kms) in return for acceleration of other technologies 
that offer the potential of greater accuracy and deployability. 
The Committee notes that this new approach accepts more risk 
for American ground forces if the planned improvements in 
precision munitions do not come to fruition. However, the 
Committee also recognizes that the Army's own transformation 
plan centering on the Future Combat System (FCS) of the 
Objective Force does not include the Crusader system. Since the 
Army has moved up planned fielding of the initial variants of 
the FCS to the 2008 timeframe, the overlap between the planned 
2008 first unit equipped (FUE) date of the Crusader and the new 
FCS timetable make the Crusader obsolete by the Army's own 
definition. Accordingly, with some degree of trepidation over 
the risk inherent in this new plan, the Committee approves the 
Administration's recommendation to terminate the Crusader 
program.
    With the acknowledged gaps in the Army's heavy artillery 
firepower compared to potential adversaries and the termination 
of the Crusader system, the Committee believes that the 
Department must turn expeditiously to developing new indirect 
fire systems to ensure that the Army will have sufficient 
firepower to support the Objective Force in the 2008 timeframe. 
The Committee is aware that the Crusader program achieved major 
technological advances to meet the Army's indirect fire 
requirements, and firmly believes that these technologies must 
be retained and integrated into emerging Objective Force 
platforms. Examples include a liquid cooled cannon, ammunition 
autoloader mechanism, digital fire control and targeting 
computers, and a glass cockpit. In addition, simulation and 
design facilities and a cadre of highly skilled engineers and 
technical personnel have been assembled during the development 
of the Crusader program which cannot be fully replaced if this 
team is disassembled. In the Committee's view, the technical 
team and facilities should be retained to further develop an 
organic indirect fire cannon artillery system for the Army's 
Objective Force.
    The budget amendment provides $195,500,000 to migrate 
Crusader-based technologies to support Objective Force--
Indirect Fire requirements. Despite this funding, the Committee 
recognizes and agrees with the prevailing view that the 
migration of Crusader technologies will not succeed in the 
absence of a suitable platform to support both the physical 
demands of the cannon, and to meet Army Objective Force 
mobility requirements. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a 
total of $368,500,000, for Objective Force--Indirect Fire, an 
increase of $173,000,000 above the budget amendment, to provide 
for integrating cannon technologies with a suitable platform, 
and munitions, and to ensure that such a system can be 
delivered not later than fiscal year 2008.
    The bill contains a general provision, Sec. 8121, which 
earmarks Army research and development funds for the foregoing 
purposes, and provides that the Army shall enter into a 
standard acquisition contract (that is subject to the 
availability of appropriated funds in this and future years) to 
leverage technologies developed with the $2,400,000,000 
invested in fiscal year 2002 and prior years under the Crusader 
program, the Future Scout and Cavalry System program, the 
Composite Armored Vehicle program, and other Army development 
programs in order to develop and field a Non-Line of Sight 
(NLOS) Objective Force artillery system and Resupply Vehicle 
variants of the Future Combat System by 2008. The Committee 
strongly recommends that any contract the Army enters into for 
this purpose be consistent with the following guidelines, and 
provide for:
          --Maturation of key Crusader designs and technologies 
        to permit timely transfer to variants of the Future 
        Combat System;
          --Full development and testing of a Non-Line of Sight 
        Objective Force artillery system and Resupply Vehicle 
        systems, including mission equipment (such as 
        armaments, ammunition handling, crew compartment, 
        survivability suite, accuracy suite) and major 
        assemblies (such as chassis, drive train, suspension, 
        vehicle electronics, and software);
          --Minimization of contract termination costs; and
          --Full coordination and synchronization with parallel 
        Army Future Combat System Concept and Technology 
        Development efforts to ensure commonality of critical 
        component parts and systems for all Future Combat 
        System platform variants.
    The Committee is also aware that the Army has assembled a 
program management staff responsible for developing artillery 
systems. The Committee expects that this office will lead the 
effort to migrate Crusader technologies, and to develop the 
Objective Force artillery system. The Committee expects that 
this office will work in close coordination with the Army 
Future Combat System program manager. Accordingly, the 
Committee has aligned funding for the migration of Crusader 
technologies to the Objective Force within the current 
artillery systems--demonstration/validation program line. The 
Committee directs that the Army establish a new project within 
this program to reflect both the termination of Crusader, and 
the inception of NLOS.
    In addition to technologies developed in the Crusader 
program, the Committee supports accelerating the development of 
a range of precision munitions and related technologies. For 
this purpose, the Committee recommends a total of $305,109,000, 
of which $280,109,000 is to accelerate systems as proposed in 
the fiscal year 2003 budget amendment, $15,000,000 is to 
accelerate the high-g MEMS precision guidance effort as 
described elsewhere in this report, and $10,000,000 is to 
conduct an evaluation of the Future Scout and Cavalry Vehicle 
prototypes. The table below summarizes these recommendations.

                        (In thousands of dollars)

Netfires System Technology..............................          57,000
Netfires C4ISR Technology...............................          57,509
Precision Guided Mortar Munition (PGMM).................          10,800
Excalibur Artillery Projectile..........................          48,300
Paladin upgrades........................................           7,500
Guided MLRS Unitary.....................................          45,000
HIMARS Product Improvement..............................          10,000
Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS)..           4,000
Combat Vehicle Improvement Program (ACCE)...............          28,600
TUAV--Target Location Error.............................          11,400
MEMS Technology Development Acceleration................          15,000
Future Scout and Cavalry Vehicle demonstration..........          10,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................         305,109

    The table below provides a summary of the Committee's 
recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 budget amendment.

                                        CRUSADER BUDGET AMENDMENT SUMMARY
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Budget
                                                 amendment     FY 2003 amended     Committee       Change from
                                                  changes       budget request    recommended        request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artillery Systems--Dem/Val PE 0603854A:              -246,465            5,200          373,700          368,500
 Crusader termination and migration of
 cannon technologies, and platform and
 munitions integration......................
    Objective Force--Indirect Fires.........  ...............  ...............  ...............          195,500
    Technology Integration..................  ...............  ...............  ...............          173,000
Armored Systems Modernization PE 0604645A...          310,009          369,869          174,369         -195,500
    Netfire System Technology...............           57,000  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Netfire C4ISR Technology................           57,509  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Objective Force--Indirect Fires.........          195,500  ...............  ...............         -195,500
Weapons and Munitions Adv Dev PE 0603802A:             10,800           38,561           38,561  ...............
 Includes Precision Guided Mortar Munition
 (PGMM).....................................
Excalibur/TCM PE 0604814A: Includes                    48,300          119,188          119,188                0
 Excalibur artillery projectile development.
Artillery Systems EMD PE 0604854A...........         -221,644           29,732           29,732                0
    Crusader Termination....................         -229,144  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Paladin Upgrades........................            7,500  ...............  ...............  ...............
MLRS Product Improvement Program PE                    55,000          112,825          112,825                0
 0603778A: Includes Guided MLRS Unitary and
 HIMARS.....................................
Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data                  4,000           42,161           42,161                0
 System (AFATDS) PE 0203726A................
Combat Vehicle Improvement Program 0203735A:           28,600           83,065           83,065                0
 Includes Abrams engine program (ACCE)......
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles PE                   11,400           57,879           57,879                0
 0305204A: Includes TUAV--Tareget Location
 Error......................................
      Subtotal--Budget Amendment reductions.         -475,609  ...............  ...............  ...............
      Subtotal--Budget Amendment increases..          475,609  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................                0          858,480        1,031,480          173,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMANCHE PROGRAM

    The Committee notes that the RAH-66 Comanche has been under 
development for almost two decades at a cost of over 
$6,000,000,000 to date. It has just completed its sixth major 
program restructuring in almost 20 years. The Committee is 
greatly concerned that this program appears to be another on 
the growing list of Army acquisition programs that has 
experienced cost growth, schedule delays and requirements 
creep, without achieving any level of operational capability. 
The Committee notes that the integration of communication and 
reconnaissance, auto-targeting and weaponry has simply added to 
the delays and cost, proving to be a far greater technical 
challenge than initially anticipated. The Committee now 
understands that yet further modifications will be necessary 
beyond Block II (engine improvement) to achieve the rate of 
ascent requirements originally specified. The history of this 
program raises anew the question of whether the Army 
acquisition process is capable of managing and delivering major 
new combat systems.
    The Committee is deeply concerned that the Comanche program 
is not delivering its intended product after years of delay and 
numerous missed deadlines. The Committee's full support for 
this program is now in jeopardy unless the Army can show marked 
progress over the next fiscal year. The Committee strongly 
encourages the Army to begin reviewing potential low cost 
alternatives to supplant an intermediary solution to the 
reconnaissance and attack requirements originally developed for 
Comanche.

 BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR TECHNOLOGY (BAT) AND BAT P3I SUBMUNITION PROGRAM

    The Committee notes that the Brilliant Anti-Armor (BAT) 
Submunition has been under development for almost two decades 
at a cost of nearly $1,900,000,000 to date. The Committee is 
greatly concerned that this system appears to be another on the 
growing list of precision smart munitions that under-perform 
against Army requirements while costing 5 to 10 times more per 
round than was predicted. First conceived as a Cold War weapon 
to counter massed Soviet armor in the Fulda Gap, the BAT 
submunition is envisioned to be a smart, autonomous top attack 
anti-armor munition, intended to provide deep attack 
interdiction against armored combat vehicles. The BAT P3I is 
expected to deliver enhanced target acquisition capability and 
an improved warhead.
    The results of BAT operational tests have been mixed, and 
two low rate production contracts combined with a lengthy pre-
planned product improvement (P3I) have yet to provide the Army 
with a reliable smart submunition. The Committee notes that the 
addition of a millimeter wave and infrared (IR) seeker has 
simply added to the complexity and cost, proving to be a far 
greater technical challenge than initially anticipated. The 
Committee now understands that yet further modifications are 
necessary (automatic target recognition) to achieve the level 
of effectiveness intended against moving or stationary armed 
combat vehicles, hot or cold stationary targets, surface-to-
surface missile transporter erector launchers, and multiple 
rocket launchers.
    The current cost of a BAT submunition is over $200,000 per 
unit. The current cost of a BAT P3I submunition is approaching 
$400,000 per unit. The intended delivery system for the BAT and 
BAT P3I submunitions is the Army Tactical Missile System 
(ATACMS). The ATACMS Block II missile will carry 13 BAT 
submunitions, and its current per unit cost is approximately 
$1.5 million. Even if the Army is able to increase its 
inventory objectives, BAT unit cost will still be $100,000.
    Given the present and predicted unit cost, the dwindling 
target set, and a technology that still requires greater 
maturation at the concept level despite the investment of 
$1,900,000,000, the Committee has reduced the Army research and 
development budget request for BAT and BAT P3I from 
$190,293,000 to $38,100,000 to return this system to the 
science and technology base for further development. Funds 
shall be used only to continue seeker integration and necessary 
testing activities.

             ARMY MEMS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ACCELERATION

    The Committee recommends an additional $15,000,000 to 
continue an initiative to accelerate joint Army-Navy efforts to 
drive down the cost of precision guided munitions, including 
both missiles and cannon-fired projectiles, by developing a 
much cheaper inertial guidance system using high-g MEMS 
technology and producing an anti-jam, ``ultra-deeply-coupled 
GPS/INS hardware/software system'' to better blend the GPS and 
INS data. This has great potential to lower costs of precision-
guided weapons of all types and to counter GPS jamming. The 
Committee notes that this is the second year of a substantial 
increase over the budget request for this high value program. 
Given the renewed emphasis on precision guided munitions for 
the Army, the Committee expects this program to be robustly 
funded in the fiscal year 2004 DoD budget request, and in the 
Future Years' Defense Program (FYDP).

               FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY

    The Committee notes that the Army has committed to a 
significant acceleration of the Future Combat System. A 
critical aspect of the program's success will be the 
development of new materials technologies to address both the 
weight and survivability. Accordingly, the Committee recommends 
that $4,000,000 of the funds made available in Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Army be available for the 
Advanced Materials Processing (AMP) for Future Combat Systems 
initiative to employ new technologies and materials for the 
Army.

 PROPOSED TRANSFER OF PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY-3 (PAC-3) AND MEDIUM 
            EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM (MEADS) TO THE ARMY

    The President's budget request proposed transferring the 
PAC-3 and MEADS systems to the Army. On further review, the 
Administration has recommended keeping the research, 
development, test and evaluation portions of these programs 
with the Missile Defense Agency. The Committee supports that 
recommendation and has returned these funds to the Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide account.

                     PSEUDOFOLLICULITIS BARBE (PFB)

    The Committee is concerned about the skin disease 
Pseudofolliculitis Barbe (PFB) and its disproportionate impacts 
on African American military personnel. The Assistant Secretary 
of Defense (Health Affairs) is directed to report to the 
Congress by February 1, 2003 ourlining a plan of action to 
initiate research into more effective treatments and control of 
this problem.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


            RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................   $11,498,506,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    12,496,065,000
Committee recommendation..............................    13,562,218,000
Change from budget request............................    +1,066,153,000


    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]


                       NAVY VENTURE ORGANIZATION

    The Department of the Navy's research and acquisition 
community historically has had great difficulty in 
transitioning innovative technologies from government research 
organizations and the commercial marketplace to active 
development and procurement programs. Due to the constraints of 
internal planning and budgeting processes, and the stifling 
legacy of ``programs of record'', new Navy systems are often 
fielded with a high degree of technological obsolescence, as 
risk averse program managers frequently decline to take 
calculated chances to incorporate the latest technological 
advances in the systems they are charged with delivering to 
warfighters. This is primarily due to the fact the Navy 
acquisition system as presently configured, provides 
significant disincentives to those who would try to accomplish 
such objectives.
    In the dynamic environment of today's global economy, 
technological advances in all fields grow at unparalleled 
rates. New products appear continuously and markets form almost 
as quickly. In such a climate it is imperative that the Navy 
create capabilities to actively scan the marketplace and 
rapidly exploit newly emerging technologies regardless of 
source, whether it be Navy labs, other governmental research 
organizations, or the commercial market.
    The Committee believes that the Navy research, development, 
and acquisition community needs to take a fresh look at how 
these technological innovations can be rapidly incorporated 
into Navy systems in all mission areas. Processes modeled after 
commercial venture capital practices or the Central 
Intelligence Agency's In-Q-Tel organization should be closely 
examined to see whether they could be applicable to help the 
Navy more rapidly introduce innovative technologies into their 
system acquisition processes. The Committee therefore directs 
the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development 
and Acquisition, and the Director of the Office of Naval 
Research to jointly prepare a report for the Committee which 
examines whether the Navy could benefit from establishing a 
pilot venture capital fund to enable program managers to take 
advantage of higher risk technology developments in a rapid 
fashion without fear of penalty to their existing programs. As 
a part of this report the Committee would expect that the 
Central Intelligence Agency's In-Q-Tel organization, and other 
existing commercial venture business models be studied for 
possible approaches to this issue. The Committee further 
directs that this report should be provided no later than April 
15, 2003.

         ADVANCED INTEGRATED ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEM (AIEWS)

    The Committee remains supportive of the original goals of 
the AIEWS program which was intended to address the Navy's 
critical operational requirement to improve surface ship self-
defense capability and replace legacy systems of limited 
capability. Since the termination of the AIEWS program due to 
cost and performance issues, the Navy has begun to formulate an 
acquisition strategy that focuses on phased upgrades to the 
present SLQ-32 electronic warfare system. The Committee notes 
that past attempts to modernize the SLQ-32 system have been 
less than successful and hopes that the Navy does not simply 
repeat past mistakes.
    It is the sense of the Committee that in any future upgrade 
to the SLQ-32 system, open system processing architectures and 
commercial off the shelf (COTS) components should be utilized 
to the fullest extent possible. The Committee therefore, 
directs the Department of the Navy to submit an acquisition 
plan to the Committees on Appropriations which details 
modernization plans for the SLQ-32 based upon these objectives 
to include strategies for periodic technology refresh and 
product improvement processes no later than January 15, 2003.

                NONLINEAR DYNAMICS STOCHASTIC RESONANCE

    The Committee has provided $3,500,000 above the request, to 
continue nonlinear dynamics stochastic resonance development 
efforts. This effort has been funded in this manner for a 
number of years to explore alternatives in support of the anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) mission. The Committee directs the Navy 
to submit a report by March 15, 2003 that describes the 
requirement for this research and the specific ways in which 
this research has been incorporated into the ASW mission.

 BROAD AREA MARITIME SURVEILLANCE (BAMS) UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV)

    The budget request included $152,000,000 for the Navy's 
Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 
(UAV) concept exploration and experimentation. As part of the 
Defense Emergency Response Fund, the Navy requested an 
additional $28,300,000 for the continued development of the 
concept of operations, the development of requirements and 
systems for the Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Electronics 
Intelligence (ELINT) missions, and the integration of necessary 
systems to provide for control of the UAV from aircraft 
carriers, large deck amphibious ships and Navy Command ships. 
The Committee has provided the funds as requested.
    The Committee believes that the efforts funded with this 
total $180,300,000, support similar Navy requirements for 
manned reconnaissance as well as similar missions and 
requirements of the other Services, especially the U.S. Air 
Force. The Committee directs the Navy to consider the 
applicability of all of its BAMS development efforts to other 
Navy systems and missions, and to share development, test, and 
other data with the other Services as appropriate.
    Despite its obvious support of the Navy's planned BAMS 
concept exploration and experimentation, the Committee is 
concerned about the lack of specificity and documentation 
provided thus far by the Navy. It appears the Navy continues to 
refine its plans for Phase I concept exploration, which is the 
basis for the fiscal year 2003 budget request, as well as the 
Phase II follow on development and testing program. Therefore, 
the Committee directs that the Navy submit, by February 1, 
2003, a detailed report on the BAMS UAV program. At a minimum, 
the Committee directs that the report address the total program 
objective, the operational requirements documentation, the 
spiral development and testing milestone plan, the 
applicability of Department of Defense acquisition regulations, 
the training and support requirements, and the basing 
strategies for the system.
    The Committee also notes that the Navy has indicated that 
despite its plan to spend $24,000,000 on two air vehicles that 
would be delivered in 2005, the Air Force has not made a firm 
commitment to that delivery schedule. The Committee directs the 
Air Force to ensure that the air vehicles and other support 
equipment necessary for the Navy to proceed with the BAMS UAV 
program, is provided in accordance with the current schedule. 
The Committee also directs the Navy and the Air Force to 
provide an explanation for the requirement to include 
$11,400,000 in Air Force program management and aircraft 
tooling costs within the $139,400,000 that the Navy has 
budgeted for the acquisition of Global Hawk.

    VERTICAL TAKE-OFF AND LANDING TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE--
                               RESCISSION

    In fiscal year 2002, Congress provided a total of 
$5,000,000 for a Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance (MPR) Study 
in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy 
appropriation for the VTUAV. The Committee has included a 
rescission of $2,000,000 from outstanding balances associated 
with this study.
    The intent of the $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 was a 
study of the concept of operations for the employment of the 
Global Hawk UAV in conjunction with other assets for MPR 
missions. Considerating the $180,300,000 fiscal year 2003 
request for a Navy version of the Global Hawk UAV for the MPR 
mission, the Committee believes that the study has been 
overtaken by events and is no longer needed.

          OPEN/CONVERGED ARCHITECTURE FOR NAVAL FIRES NETWORK

    The Committee is aware that the Navy is exploring options 
for the development of an open architecture for Naval Fires 
Network (NFN) that will provide a ``converged architecture'' to 
allow for multiple service participation. In addition, the 
Committee understands that the Navy desires to ensure 
interoperability with the other Services and is awaiting the 
outcome of two upcoming military exercises before establishing 
specific interoperability requirements. The Committee supports 
the Navy's approach and has provided $2,000,000 to support the 
design of an open architecture to support NFN.

   TACTICAL CONTROL SYSTEM (TCS) AND THE JOINT OPERATIONAL TEST BED 
                                (JOTBS)

    The Committee has provided an additional $4,500,000 for the 
Tactical Control System (TCS) for modifications necessary for 
TCS to receive sensor data from a variety of UAVs, including 
the Global Hawk. The Committee fully supports the TCS program 
and believes the Navy must fully fund this requirement in the 
future.
    The Committee has also provided an additional $7,000,000 
for the Joint Operational Test Bed (JOTBS) for enhancements 
necessary for JOTBS to accommodate multiple UAVs. Considering 
the link between JOTBS and TCS, the Committee believes that the 
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Naval Warfare (N7/N78), 
which sponsors TCS, be designated the Navy program sponsor for 
JOTBS.

        ADVANCED ANTI-RADIATION GUIDED MISSILE (AARGM)/QUICKBOLT

    The Committee supports the Navy's Advanced Anti-Radiation 
Guided Missile budget request and believes that this weapon, 
begun as a Small Business Innovative Research initiative, has 
the potential to satisfy a critical military requirement for 
lethal suppression of enemy air defenses. The Navy requested 
$48,700,000 for the AARGM program. These funds may be used to 
maintain the industrial base prior to acquisition milestone 
completion and to initiate System Development and Demonstration 
efforts after the acquisition milestone is accomplished. The 
Committee encourages the Air Force to consider participation in 
this program.

                          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 more than 300,000 DoD volunteers, and 
provides more marrow donors per week than any other donor 
center in the Nation. Earlier this year, the 1,000th service 
member donated marrow through this donor center to save a life. 
The Committee is aware of the continuing success of this 
national and international life saving program for military 
contingencies and civilian patients, which now includes 
4,600,000 potential volunteer donors, and encourages agencies 
involved in contingency planning to continue 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 2003 Defense 
Appropriations Act.

                          Program Recommended

    The total recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 2003.


         RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................   $14,669,931,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................    17,564,984,000
Committee recommendation..............................    18,639,392,000
Change from budget request............................    +1,074,408,000


    This appropriation finances 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]


                  BIOREACTOR ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVE

    The Committee recommends $2,500,000 only to continue a 
bioreactor environmental technology research and development 
initiative to treat military and industrial wastewaters and 
protect water supplies that could be attacked by biological or 
chemical terrorism.

  GLOBAL HAWK HIGH ALTITUDE ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (HAEUAV)

    The Committee is very pleased that the Air Force is 
aggressively pursuing cost reduction initiatives in an effort 
to reduce the overall cost of this system. To help the Air 
Force achieve a reduction in the overall cost of Global Hawk, 
the Committee has provided an additional $7,000,000 for 
``producability initiatives'' such as tooling enhancements and 
improvements and special test equipment.
    The Committee believes a major factor in the cost of this 
system is the development of short-term and longer-term sensor 
packages that would be integrated into the vehicle. The 
Committee believes that the development of these packages is 
crucial to the success of the Global Hawk as a system. 
Therefore, the Committee has moved funds from within the Global 
Hawk program and other research efforts into a new line called 
``Advanced Payload Development and Support,'' and has provided 
a total of $84,000,000 for this effort. It is the Committee's 
intent that within these funds, the development of the High 
Band Subsystem (HBSS) will continue at the budget request level 
of $54,000,000.
    The Committee believes that the efforts funded with this 
total $84,000,000, support similar Air Force requirements for 
manned reconnaissance as well as similar missions and 
requirements of the other Services, especially the U.S. Navy. 
The Committee directs the Air Force to consider the 
applicability of all of its Global Hawk payload development 
efforts to other Air Force systems and missions, and to share 
development, test, and other data with the other Services as 
appropriate.
    The Committee believes that the Air Force has taken into 
consideration the total cost of the system and may be 
considering an option that would adopt a concept of using 
multiple vehicles to carry different payload packages. This 
would produce the same effect as one vehicle with multiple 
sensor packages without the significant costs of integration 
and cooling and power upgrades necessary to accommodate 
multiple sensors. This approach may provide the best 
alternative for reaching the desired goal at an earlier date 
and at a reduced total cost.
    The Committee directs the Air Force to submit a report by 
May 1, 2003, that describes the total Global Hawk program 
objective, the final spiral development and testing milestone 
plan, the applicability of DoD acquisition regulations, and the 
training and support requirements.

             NETWORK-CENTRIC COLLABORATIVE TARGETING (NCCT)

    The Committee is supportive of the Air Force Network-
Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) program and has provided 
an additional $8,000,000 to advance this effort in fiscal year 
2003.
    The Committee believes that the Air Force approach must be 
consistent with the networking approaches of the Army and the 
Navy, as well as other networking approaches of the Air Force. 
Therefore, the Committee requests the Air Force submit a report 
by February 1, 2003, that describes the planned development and 
testing of the NCCT system, as well as its applicability and 
interoperability with the Army's Distributed Common Ground 
System (DCGS), the Navy's Naval Fires Network system, and the 
Air Force's ISR Battle management system.

                  TRANSFORMATIONAL WIDEBAND MILSATCOM

    The Air Force requested $195,000,000 for the 
Transformational Wideband MILSATCOM program. The Committee 
recommends $115,000,000, a decrease of $80,000,000 reflecting 
the anticipated delay of the planned 4th quarter award of the 
system definition (phase b) contract. The Committee is very 
supportive of this program, seeing it as potentially one of the 
most transformational programs funded in the budget. However, 
the current schedule is likely unexecutable given the need to 
carefully refine requirements prior to award of the phase b 
system definition contract. DoD's recent experience with the 
Advanced EHF satellite, the replacement to MILSTAR, vividly 
demonstrates the challenges associated with the requirements 
definition process, even in ``simple cases'' in which we are 
updating an existing capability. DoD's recent experience with 
SBIRS High highlights the dangers of failing to refine 
requirements prior to full development. Consequently, the 
Committee recommends a reduction of $80,000,000, reflecting the 
probability that the requirements process (as well as other 
elements of the normal acquisition process) will drive the 
planned 4th quarter 2003 award of the Transformational Wideband 
system definition contract into fiscal year 2004.

                               SBIRS HIGH

    The Air Force requested $814,927,000 for the SBIRS High 
program. The Committee recommends $744,927,000, a reduction of 
$70,000,000. In fiscal year 2002, the Air Force plans to spend 
$105,000,000 on ground system development. In fiscal year 2003, 
the Air Force plans to almost triple this amount with a request 
of $270,000,000. The Committee believes that this increase is 
not executable in a single year and that significant funds 
would carry forward into fiscal year 2004. Accordingly, the 
Committee recommends a reduction of $70,000,000, which still 
presents the Air Force with a significant challenge of doubling 
the level of effort on ground system development.

                                MILSTAR

    The Air Force requested $148,936,000 for MILSTAR. The 
Committee recommends $98,936,000, a reduction of $50,000,000. 
The Committee notes that the last MILSTAR satellite is 
currently scheduled for a November 2002 launch, but funding has 
been budgeted through September 2003. The Committee believes 
that the $148,936,000 budgeted is excessive, especially given 
the few anomalies experienced in our most recent MILSTAR launch 
in January 2002.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


        RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................   $15,415,275,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................   $16,598,863,000
Committee recommendation..............................    17,863,462,000
Change from budget request............................    +1,264,599,000


    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]


  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM HOMELAND SECURITY INITIATIVE

    The budget request includes $385 million in Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation funding for expansion of the 
Chemical and Biological Defense program to address homeland 
security. The Committee has significant concerns about the 
ability of the Department to execute such a large increase, 
particularly in areas that involve the awarding of research 
grants for biological counter-terrorism. It remains to be seen 
whether there is a large enough pool of academicians and a 
sufficient research infrastructure to absorb these resources. 
In addition, the President's proposal to establish a Department 
for Homeland Security, which would likely oversee these funds, 
creates further uncertainties.
    Despite these reservations, the Committee strongly believes 
in the need to focus increased efforts in biological counter-
terrorism and has fully funded the request. The Committee 
directs that the program provide quarterly reports on the 
execution of this funding during fiscal year 2003. These 
reports should indicate amounts executed for all elements of 
the requested increase for the CBD homeland security 
initiative.

      HISTORICALLY BLACK AND HISPANIC SERVING INSTITUTIONS SCIENCE

    The Committee has combined funding for Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities Science with funding the Committee 
has provided for Hispanic Serving Institutions under a new 
program element to be called Historically Black and Hispanic 
Serving Institutions Science. The Committee recommends 
$21,970,000 for activities under this new program, an increase 
of $8,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee directs 
that the Department combine organizational, functional and 
grant awarding activities of the two programs under one 
organization and expects the Department to submit future budget 
requests under this new program element and combined structure.

                TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSES

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $11,500,000 to the 
request for Technical Studies, Support and Analyses. As our 
nation continues to fight the war against terrorism, these 
activities must become a lower priority for the Department of 
Defense than they might otherwise have been in the past. As 
such, these resources are better spent on programs directly 
supporting the warfighter and helping in the frontline defense 
of our national security.

                     PORTABLE RADIATION SEARCH TOOL

    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for commercially 
available off the shelf nuclear detection technology to provide 
enhanced security for United States military facilities and 
United States military personnel, both domestically and abroad.

             POLYMER BASED CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SENSORS

    The Committee is supportive of the Department's efforts to 
explore potential avenues of science and technology to assure 
the rapid development and deployment of chemical and biological 
solid-state sensors having the fidelity of currently available 
laboratory instrumentation. In support of this, the Committee 
recommends $3,000,000 for the purpose of developing polymer-
based chemical and biological sensors.

MICRO ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL SYSTEMS (MEMS) FOR ROLLING ELEMENT BEARINGS

    The Committee has included $3,000,000 for Micro Electrical 
Mechanical Systems (MEMS) for the development of a one-chip 
solution for the determination of temperature, vibration, 
strain and angular rotation in a rolling element bearing.

                LASER ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING INITIATIVE

    The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Laser 
Additive Manufacturing Initiative to develop a domestic 
supplier base for military and commercial applications.

     ENGINEERED PATHOGEN IDENTIFICATION AND COUNTERMEASURE PROGRAM

    The Committee recognizes the growing potential of a future 
biological attack on our armed forces or civilian population 
and is concerned that the time required to develop, test and 
deploy an antidote can take from seven to fifteen years. A 
previously unknown pathogen can have devastating effects, as 
tragically demonstrated by the Spanish Flu pandemic that in 
1918 and 1919 killed over 20 million people worldwide. To 
continue efforts to counter the biological attack threat posed 
by engineered pathogens, the Committee recommends $7,000,000 
for the Engineered Pathogen Identification and Countermeasure 
Program formally known as Bug To Drug Identification and 
Countermeasures Program.

            BLAST RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION PROGRAM

    The Committee strongly supports the interagency program to 
develop, test, and apply advanced composite blast resistant 
technologies to United States military and civilian structures. 
Given the urgency of related national security concerns, the 
Defense Threat Reduction Agency should move expeditiously to 
complete the ongoing computer simulation and field blast 
testing already underway.

ACTIVE SENSORS FOR COMPONENTS DEVELOPMENT FOR ADVANCED TACTICAL SYSTEMS

    The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the continuation 
of the current OSDC3I research initiative for developing those 
materials necessary in the production of components for the 
active sensors aboard Advanced Tactical Systems.

                            SPIN ELECTRONICS

    The Committee is aware that DARPA's spin electronics 
program has the potential to produce a whole new generation of 
electronic devices, with performance far greater than what is 
achievable with conventional electronics. The committee is also 
aware that because spin electronics design and manufacturing 
are compatible with existing semiconductor infrastructures, it 
promises to reach maturation well ahead of other known 
nanoelectronics technology approaches, which would require new 
infrastructures. Accordingly, the Committee has transferred 
$15,000,000 from the nanotechnology related funding requested 
in PE 0601103D8Z (University Research Initiatives) and added it 
to PE 0601101E (Defense Research Sciences) to augment existing 
and planned spin electronics programs and accelerate the 
development of this important new generation of electronics 
technology.

        USNR INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS

    The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the deployment of 
a data storage infrastructure to modernize the information 
systems of the Naval Reserve Command and provide for the remote 
mirroring of information at NAVRESFOR Headquarters, to the 
NAVRESFOR Emergency Operations Center.

                           CHALLENGE PROGRAM

    The fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act provided 
$12,500,000 for the further development and rapid insertion of 
innovative SBIR technologies as competitive alternatives to 
defense acquisition program technologies and required a report 
to be submitted to the congressional defense committees 
identifying the technologies selected. The Committee notes that 
the DoD has taken no noticeable action on this program. The 
Committee directs that the DoD Office of Technology Transition 
expedite the solicitation and implementation of SBIR Phase 3 
technologies for this program and directs that a report to the 
congressional defense committees be submitted by April 15, 
2003, on plans for program implementation, expansion, and 
expected expenditure of funds. The Committee provides an 
additional $15,000,000 for expansion of the program allocating 
not more than $500,000 for program management and oversight.

                        MISSILE DEFENSE OVERVIEW

    The President's budget requested $7,430,956,000 in fiscal 
year 2003 for programs managed by the Missile Defense Agency, a 
decrease of $275,043,000 from the amount provided in fiscal 
year 2002. Although the President's budget proposed to shift 
$740,234,000 to the Army, for reasons addressed earlier in this 
report, the Committee recommends retaining all of these funds 
in the Missile Defense Agency. The Committee recommends 
$7,357,456,000 for ballistic missile defense, a decrease of 
$73,500,000 from the President's request as detailed below.

                           SEA BASED TERMINAL

    The President's budget included a request for $90,000,000 
for sea based terminal defense. The Administration has yet to 
present a final plan for how it would use these funds. In 
preliminary discussion the Department has recommended using 
some of these funds to conduct limited testing with the SM-2 
Block IV missile and to extend the capabilities of the SM-3 
missile. However, the Department terminated the Navy Area 
program because it did not believe that the SM-2 Block IV 
missile could provide a capability that was worth the cost. The 
Department has not demonstrated that this new approach would be 
an improvement. With regard to the SM-3 missile, the Department 
is still conducting preliminary tests to examine its 
performance against medium range theater ballistic missiles and 
may curtail development of this missile to pursue a larger and 
faster sea based missile. Until these basic issues are resolved 
it is premature to begin adding requirements to the system. 
Therefore, the Committee denies this request.

               SEA BASED BOOST/SPACE BASED KINETIC ENERGY

    In fiscal year 2002 the Department began examining several 
new concepts for destroying ballistic missiles to include sea 
based and space based kinetic energy solutions that would 
destroy a target in the boost stage. Despite their limited 
development, the President's budget request proposes increasing 
funding for sea-based boost from $30,601,000 to $89,639,000 and 
for space-based boost from $23,842,000 to $54,393,000, tripling 
and doubling their funding respectively. More surprisingly, the 
Missile Defense Agency has set aside $4,200,000,000 over the 
next five years to further examine just these two concepts. In 
contrast, the Missile Defense Agency was unwilling to program 
the extra $700,000,000 over the same period that would allow 
the Army to rapidly field the PAC-3, the United States 
military's only near term defense against theater ballistic 
missiles. The Committee fails to understand the Department 
enthusiasm for starting new research projects and its lack of 
enthusiasm for procuring those systems they have already 
developed. The Committee therefore recommends $69,639,000 for 
sea-based boost, and $44,393,000 for space-based boost. The 
Committee expects the Department to correct the imbalance 
between research and procurement in its next budget 
submissions.

               MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM (MEADS)

    The Administration is in the middle of a three-year multi-
national effort to develop the Medium Extended Air Defense 
System (MEADS). The Committee directs the Department not to 
enter into any follow on agreement without the prior approval 
of the congressional defense committees.

                 PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY--3 (PAC-3)

    The President's budget requested $150,819,000 for research 
and development of the PAC-3 missile. The Committee recommends 
$180,819,000, an increase of $30,000,000, only for additional 
testing in fiscal year 2003. The Committee is concerned about 
the performance of the PAC-3/PAC-2 system during operational 
testing. Although many of the problems were not related to the 
actual PAC-3 missile that was being tested, the equipment will 
be fielded as a system and needs to be successfully tested as a 
system. In addition, the Committee is concerned that decisions 
made during the preparation for these tests unnecessarily added 
risk and delay to the program, this included building only a 
limited number of targets, insufficient testing of the 
launchers before a test and failure to have additional PAC-3 
missiles in the launchers during testing.
    Because of the high priority of fielding a near-term 
theater ballistic missile defense, the Committee expects the 
Department to take the necessary steps, including using the 
targets from the terminated Navy Area program, to ensure a 
robust testing schedule. These additional tests should include 
non-engagement tests of the launcher, ripple fire engagements 
and multiple simultaneous engagements of theater ballistic 
missiles.

                   THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE

    The Committee is concerned that the testing program for the 
Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program may repeat 
the mistakes of the PAC-3 program. The Committee expects the 
Department to conduct extensive pre-intercept testing, to test 
the THAAD system with multiple missiles in the launcher and to 
take the necessary steps to ensure that enough targets and 
missiles will be available to conduct additional tests as 
needed. The Committee directs the Missile Defense Agency to 
provide a report to the congressional defense committees, no 
later than February 28, 2003 outlining the THAAD testing 
program and the additional steps it is taking to ensure a 
robust testing program. To support that effort the Committee 
recommends fully supporting the President's Budget request, 
including the request for 10 additional instrumented test 
missiles.

        RUSSIAN-AMERICAN OBSERVATION SATELLITES PROGRAM (RAMOS)

    The budget requests $69,130,000 for the Russian-American 
Observation Satellites Program. The Committee understands that 
last year the United States submitted a proposal to the Russian 
government for the implementation of this program and that the 
Russian government has yet to respond. The Committee therefore 
denies this request, but will reconsider this issue in 
conference should the two governments sign a Memorandum of 
Agreement.

                        SPY-1 SOLID STATE RADAR

    The Committee directs that the entire budget amount for the 
SPY-1 Solid State Radar is provided only for S-band 
development.

        MISSILE DEFENSE REPORTING AND REPROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS

    In the Statement of Managers accompanying the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act, 2002, the House and Senate 
conferees identified special interest projects in the missile 
defense program and agreed to specific requirements for budget 
justification material and reprogrammings. The Committee is 
pleased with the Department's compliance with that direction 
and expects the Department to continue to follow those 
guidelines in the future.

   ADVANCED TACTICAL LASER ADVANCED CONCEPT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION 
                                 (ACTD)

    The budget request includes $55,500,000 for the Special 
Operations Command (SOCOM) to begin a new SOCOM ACTD to 
demonstrate the military utility of operating an Advanced 
Tactical Laser from a C-130 aircraft. The Committee recommends 
$16,000,000, a reduction of $39,500,000. The budget 
justification materials presented to the Committee for this 
program lacked sufficient detail to justify such a large 
increase for a new effort for which the Special Operations 
requirements are still undefined; for which cost, schedule and 
performance parameters are still being developed; and for which 
insufficient funds are currently programmed in the Future Year 
Defense Program. The Committee has a long history of support 
for Special Operations Gunship development and procurement and 
has provided $161,978,000 for AC-130 gunship programs addressed 
elsewhere in this Bill.

                UNDERWATER SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT

    The budget request includes $12,151,000 to continue testing 
and product improvement efforts on the first Advanced SEAL 
Delivery System (ASDS). The Committee recommends $34,651,000 an 
increase of $22,500,000. The Committee continues to be deeply 
concerned that this program has been plagued by continuing 
acoustic and power problems and has adjusted the funding levels 
to correspond with the restructured program the Special 
Operations Command has developed. The additional funding 
provided by the Committee includes $10,300,000 to resolve 
problems with batteries, acoustics, and a valve/reservoir 
redesign. The Committee agrees to provide the funding necessary 
to implement this restructured plan based on assurances from 
the Special Operations Command that this system remains a 
critical requirement for Special Operations forces and that 
this plan will resolve the outstanding developmental issues.

                   DEFENSE IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY

    Funds for the Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency have been 
transferred to the National Foreign Intelligence Program in an 
effort to improve appropriations oversight and management 
efficiency. Further details are addressed in a classified annex 
accompanying this report.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


                OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $231,855,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       222,054,000
Committee recommendation..............................       242,054,000
Change from budget request............................       +20,000,000


    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]


                     INFORMATION ASSURANCE TESTING

    The Committee directs that each Combatant Command and 
Service ensure that robust C4ISR functionality is included 
annually within at least one of its major exercises. The 
Committee further directs that an operational evaluation of 
interoperability and information assurance be conducted during 
these exercises. The operational test community with the NSA 
and appropriate information warfare centers shall assist in the 
planning, conduct and evaluation of the interoperability and 
information assurance aspects of these exercises. The Committee 
further directs that the Director, Operational Test and 
Evaluation establish a process using OT&E of the systems on his 
oversight list and exercises conducted by Combat Commands and 
the Services to monitor the Department's on-going efforts to 
improve interoperability and information assurance. The results 
shall be included in the Director's annual report to Congress. 
The Committee has provided an additional $9,000,000 to initiate 
this effort. The Committee directs DoD to fully fund this 
effort in future budget submissions.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                     DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS




Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $1,312,986,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,499,656,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,832,956,000
Change from budget request............................      +333,300,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,832,956,000 
for the Defense Working Capital Funds. The recommendation is an 
increase of $519,370,000 above the amount appropriated for 
fiscal year 2002.

                     NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND




Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $432,408,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       934,129,000
Committee recommendation..............................       944,129,000
Change from budget request............................       +10,000,000


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

              MARITIME PREPOSITION FORCE (FUTURE)--MPF(F)

    The Committee notes that the budget request includes 
initial funding for the MPF(F) program in the five year defense 
profile. The Committee believes that the MPF(F) is a key 
transformational element in Marine Corps plans to develop the 
capability to provide highly flexible, operational and 
logistics support capability from a totally sea-based 
operation. This transformation will require material and 
personnel handling capabilities that do not exist in today's 
MPF ships, but may already be resident in the commercial marine 
industry. The Committee therefore urges the Department of the 
Navy to begin budgetary planning as rapidly as possible to fund 
a prototype program to demonstrate the availability and 
adaptability of the requisite commercial technologies necessary 
to accomplish significant risk reduction for the MPF(F) 
program. The prototype program should include but not be 
limited to an examination of the option to use an LMSR ship 
asset from the Ready Reserve Fleet as a test platform for such 
technologies.

                       STRATEGIC SEALIFT CAPACITY

    The Committee recommends an additional $10,000,000 to the 
$25,000,000 already reserved under the National Defense Sealift 
Fund appropriation account to accelerate the introduction of 
next-generation high-speed sealift ships, including ships that 
are commercially viable and militarily useful, such as FastShip 
vessels, to support the Navy's global military sealift 
requirements. This additional amount is to be subject to the 
same terms and conditions as the initial $25,000,000. The 
Committee reiterates its expectation that the Navy will work 
with other federal agencies using interagency agreements, 
economy act procedures, or other mechanisms to provide loan 
guarantees to enable United States shipbuilders to construct 
these ships.

                           T-5 TANKER BUYOUT

    The Committee approves the Military Sealift Command's (MSC) 
proposal to acquire five T-5 tanker ships presently being 
leased for worldwide fuel resupply. Additionally, the Committee 
directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, 
Development, and Acquisition to certify to the House 
Appropriations Committee that the present level of readiness 
and efficiency attained in the current operations of these 
tankers will be maintained under any new operating contract 
that is awarded as a consequence of the new acquisition 
strategy.
                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM




Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................   $18,391,194,000
Fiscal year 2003 request..............................    14,579,997,000
Committee recommendation..............................    14,600,748,000
Change from budget request............................       +20,751,000


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

                             REPROGRAMMING

    The Committee continues to harbor concerns as expressed in 
the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act 
regarding the potential diversion of funds from the DoD 
military medical treatment facilities (MTFs) to pay for 
contractor-provided medical care. To limit such transfers 
within the Defense Health Program operation and maintenance 
account, the Committee directs that the Department of Defense 
shall continue to follow prior approval reprogramming 
procedures for transfers with a cumulative value in excess of 
$25,000,000 into the Private Sector Care activity group.
    In addition, the Committee directs that the Department of 
Defense shall provide budget execution data for all of the 
operation and maintenance budget activities as well as the 
procurement and research, development, test and evaluation 
accounts of the Defense Health Program. Such budget execution 
data shall be provided quarterly to the congressional defense 
committees through the DD-COMP(M) 1002.

         MILITARY MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITY (MTF) OPTIMIZATION

    The Committee recommends $25,000,000 only for the Army 
Surgeon General to continue the optimization of military 
medical treatment facilities (MTFs) as outlined in the report 
accompanying the House version of the fiscal year 2002 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act. Of this amount, the 
Army Surgeon General may direct up to $10,000,000 to 
requirements related to maintenance and renovation of the MTFs. 
In addition, the Committee expects that the Army will include 
funds to continue this initiative in the budget request 
submitted to the Congress for fiscal year 2004 and in the 
Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).

                 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM UNDEREXECUTION

    The Committee recognizes that recent, substantial changes 
in the Defense Health Program (DHP) required DoD to prepare its 
fiscal year 2002 budget estimates based on the maximum possible 
usage levels. Such rates have not materialized and, as a 
result, the DHP will not obligate all the operation and 
maintenance funding appropriated for fiscal year 2002. 
Accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction of 
$354,000,000 to the fiscal year 2003 budget request, and 
directs the Department of Defense to use its authority to carry 
over up to two percent of its operation and maintenance funding 
from fiscal year 2002 into fiscal year 2003.

              HEALTHCARE QUALITY INITIATIVES REVIEW PANEL

    In the Fiscal Year 1998 Emergency Supplemental (PL 105-
174), this Committee chartered the DoD Healthcare Quality 
Initiatives Review Panel (HQIRP) as a Federal Advisory 
Committee ``to assess whether all reasonable measures have been 
taken to ensure that the Military Health Services System 
delivers healthcare services in accordance with consistently 
high professional standards.'' The Committee commends both the 
Panel for its report and the DoD for its implementation of some 
of the recommendations contained in the report. The Committee 
urges DoD officials to continue implementing HQIRP 
recommendations with particular attention to (1) strengthening 
the integration between DoD's Centralized Credentials Quality 
Assurance System (CCQAS) with the Department of Veterans 
Affairs' VETPRO, (2) refining the criteria used to designate 
Centers of Excellence (COE) in the military, and (3) developing 
a uniform, integrated system for evaluating cases resulting in 
claims.

              SHARED BL-3 BIOCONTAINMENT RESEARCH FACILITY

    The Committee is concerned about the shortage of BL-3 
biocontainment facilities in the U.S. that are necessary to 
fight the war on terrorism. The Committee recommends provides 
$500,000 for the Army Health Facility Planning Agency to 
perform a feasibility study to examine the requirements, 
detailed cost, critical design features, possible construction 
timetable, operating procedures, and life cycle costs to 
establish a shared U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Army 
Biosafety Level-3 research facility.

                     AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT

    The Committee directs the Department of Defense to 
investigate and analyze the health care and medical research 
capabilities of the American University of Beirut and, in 
consultation with the University, to prepare a report for the 
Committee no later than December 31, 2002 on the benefits of a 
cooperative effort in health care and medical research between 
the Department of Defense and the American University of 
Beirut.

    NORTH CHICAGO VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER AND NAVAL 
                    HOSPITAL, GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS

    The Committee directs that any future health care facility 
be jointly proposed and operated by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs and the United States Navy and shall be reported to 
Congress within 30 days of such proposal.

                       ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICAL UNIT

    Congress appropriated $1,650,000 for the purpose of 
conducting research on health effects of low level exposure to 
hazardous chemicals. The Committee requests a report on the 
status of this research from the US Army Medical Research 
Command by January 1, 2003.

          PEER-REVIEWED BREAST CANCER EARLY DETECTION RESEARCH

    The Committee recognizes that current research has 
questioned the efficacy of mammography as an early breast 
cancer detection tool, and has provided $10,000,000 in 
additional funds to investigate and develop new imaging 
techniques aimed at early detection of breast cancer. The 
Committee directs the administrators of this program to focus 
these funds on the development of new imaging techniques aimed 
at early detection of breast cancer.

              ARMY PEER-REVIEWED PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH

    The Committee recognizes the important contributions that 
the Army has made in the area of prostate cancer research and 
recommends that the U.S. Army Medical Command use the funds 
appropriated in the accompanying bill to continue its effort in 
research and to support clinical trials.

                       Committee Recommendations


                         DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM

                EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL ADJUSTMENTS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Committee       Change from
                                                                Budget request    recommended        request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance....................................       14,234,041       13,916,791         -317,250
    In-House Care............................................        3,999,451        4,036,201           37,750
        Madigan Army Medical Trauma Center...................  ...............  ...............            1,000
        White River Junction-Fort Ethan Allen Community Out    ...............  ...............              500
         Patient Clinic......................................
        Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program.............  ...............  ...............            3,000
        Amputee Care Center of Excellence at Walter Reed.....  ...............  ...............            3,000
        Vaccine Healthcare Center Network at Walter Reed.....  ...............  ...............            3,000
        Shared BL-3 Biocontainment Research Facility.........  ...............  ...............              500
        Optimization.........................................  ...............  ...............           25,000
        Betances Health Center (Note: Only to support the      ...............  ...............              500
         restoration of health care services at Betances
         Community Health Center (a federally qualified
         health center) lost due to the September 11
         terrorist attack)...................................
        Chiropractic Initiative..............................  ...............  ...............              750
    Private Sector Care......................................        7,159,674        6,805,674         -354,500
        TRICARE cost estimates...............................  ...............  ...............         -354,500
    Consolidated Health Care Support.........................          809,548  ...............  ...............
    Information Management...................................          666,709  ...............  ...............
    Management Activities....................................          221,786  ...............  ...............
    Education and Training...................................          350,092  ...............  ...............
    Base Operations/Communications...........................        1,081,651  ...............  ...............
Procurement..................................................          278,742          283,743            5,001
    Deployable Medical Systems (DEPMEDS) (Note: Only for the   ...............  ...............            5,001
     Army Reserve)...........................................
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation...................           67,214          400,214          333,000
    Chronic Mylogenous Leukemia Research.....................  ...............  ...............            5,000
    Comprehensive Breast Care Project (CBCP) (Note: Only for   ...............  ...............           15,000
     the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
     to continue on-going efforts among Walter Reed Army
     Medical Center, an appropriate non-profit medical
     foundation, and a rural primary health care center.)....
    Coronary and Prostate Disease Reversal Program (Note:      ...............  ...............            6,000
     Only for the Uniformed Services University of the Health
     Sciences to continue on-going effort among Walter Reed
     Army Medical Center, an appropriate non-profit medical
     foundation, and a rural primary health care center.)....
    HIV Research Program.....................................  ...............  ...............            9,000
    Hyperaric Oxygen Therapy for Cerebral Palsy..............  ...............  ...............            1,000
    Military Complementary & Alternative Medicine (Mil-Cam)..  ...............  ...............            2,000
    Neuroscience Research (Note: Only for coordinated effort   ...............  ...............            7,000
     among DOD medical treatment facilities, the Uniformed
     Services University of the Health Sciences, a primary
     healthcare center, with funding management accomplished
     by the Uniformed Services University of the Health
     Sciences.)..............................................
    Ovarian Cancer Research Program..........................  ...............  ...............           10,000
    Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Imaging Research.............  ...............  ...............           10,000
    Post-Polio Syndrome (Note: Only for a coordinated effort   ...............  ...............            4,000
     among the Uniformed Services University of the Health
     Sciences, an appropriate non-profit medical foundation,
     and a primary health care system, with funding
     management accomplished by the Uniformed Services
     University of the Health Sciences.).....................
    Periscopic Surgery Research Project......................  ...............  ...............            3,000
    Army Peer-Reviewed Prostrate Cancer Research Program.....  ...............  ...............           85,000
    Army Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program........  ...............  ...............          150,000
    Nursing Telehealth Reseach Program.......................  ...............  ...............            3,000
    Veterans Collaborative Care Model Program................  ...............  ...............            2,000
    Global HIV/AIDS Prevention...............................  ...............  ...............           10,000
    Muscular Dystrophy Research..............................  ...............  ...............            4,000
    Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) Research (Note: Only for  ...............  ...............            4,000
     Tuberous Sclerosis Complex research to better understand
     the role and function of proteins produced by the TSC1
     and TSC2 tumor suppressor genes.).......................
    U.S. Military Cancer Institute at Uniformed Services       ...............  ...............            3,000
     University of the Health Sciences.......................
Operation and Maintenance....................................       14,234,041       13,916,791         -317,250
Procurement..................................................          278,742          283,743            5,001
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation...................           67,214          400,214          333,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................................       14,579,997       14,600,748           20,751
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................    $1,105,557,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................     1,490,199,000
Committee recommendation..............................     1,490,199,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    This appropriation funds the Chemical Agents and Munitions 
Destruction activities of the Department of Army.

                    ACCESS ROAD ENGINEERING STUDIES

    Of the funds available to the Department of Defense for 
research, development, test and evaluation within the Chemical 
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army account, the Committee 
directs that $5,000,000 shall be available only to continue 
work to improve emergency access and evacuation infrastructure 
at Tooele Depot and Pine Bluff Arsenal. Of these funds, 
$2,500,000 shall be available for each facility.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following in fiscal year 2003.


         DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES DEFENSE





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $842,581,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       848,907,000
Committee recommendation..............................       859,907,000
Change from budget request............................       +11,000,000


    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 $848,907,000 for Drug 
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee 
recommends $859,907,000, an addition of $11,000,000.

                  EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

                        [In thousands of dollars]

SOUTHCOM Reconnaissance UAV Counter-drug Initiative.....         +15,100
Young Marines...........................................          +1,500
National Counter-narcotics Training Center, Hammer......          +1,000
Indiana National Guard Counter-drug Activities..........          +1,000
Nevada National Guard CD Raid Counter-drug Program......          +2,000
Tennessee National Guard Counter-drug Activities........          +1,000
Kentucky National Guard Counter-drug Activities.........          +1,000
Northeast Counter-drug Training Center..................          +8,000
Florida National Guard Counter-drug Port Initiative.....          +2,500
Southwest Border Fence..................................          +6,700
Multi-jurisdictional Counter-drug Task Force Training...          +5,000
Southwest Anti-drug Border States Initiative............          +5,000
Tethered Aerostat Radar System at Morgan City, LA.......          +4,000
C-26 Counter-drug Electro Optical Sensor Upgrades.......          +6,200
Tethered Aerostat Radar System Procurement..............          -5,000
DEA Support.............................................          -1,300
Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft...................          -9,000
Riverine Training Deployments...........................          -1,000
TAC OPS Support.........................................          -1,800
T-AGOS..................................................         -13,000
Classified..............................................         -17,900

 SOUTHERN COMMAND RECONNAISSANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) COUNTER-
                            DRUG INITIATIVE

    The Committee recommends $15,100,000 for an initiative in 
the Southern Command area of responsibility to provide unarmed 
UAVs for counter-drug missions. Intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) assets play a key role in the effort to 
halt the cultivation, production, and transportation of drugs 
in the Source zone and they are in short supply particularly 
with the demands of the DoD elsewhere in the world. There are a 
variety of UAVs which could provide ISR capability more 
economically and effectively than is present in the region 
today and the Committee urges the Commander in Chief of U.S. 
Southern Command to act expeditiously on this initiative.

                       NATIONAL GUARD STATE PLANS

    The budget request includes $167,722,000 for the National 
Guard State Plans Programs. The Committee has provided the 
requested amount and has provided an additional $33,400,000 in 
programs where it has identified specific critical shortfalls. 
The Committee is concerned that even with the additional 
resources it is providing, this program may still be 
underfunded. In fact, according to the DoD the current force 
structure of the National Guard Counter-drug State Plans 
program would have to be reduced by 385 personnel in fiscal 
year 2003 if the Congress funds it at the amount requested in 
the budget. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense and 
the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, in consultation with 
the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to 
submit a report to the defense committees not later than 60 
days after enactment of this Act which reviews the extent to 
which the National Guard is used to conduct the National Drug 
Control Strategy. This report should identify the level of 
resources required for the National Guard to meet the goals of 
the National Drug Control Policy from within the Department of 
Defense and from the other Agencies of Federal, State, and 
Local Governments which benefit from National Guard Counter-
drug participation.

                 TRANSIT ZONE MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT

    The budget request includes $9,000,000 for Transit Zone 
Maritime Patrol Aircraft to provide two turnkey, contractor-
owned, operated, and maintained aircraft for maritime 
surveillance. The Committee recommends no funding for this 
program. The Committee questions the advisability of using 
scarce DoD counter-drug resources to enter into this new 
program. This program would provide only a marginal increase in 
additional air assets in the Transit Zone which could be 
provided by existing DoD assets or the assets of other Agencies 
when the mission does not require the unique capabilities of 
the DoD.

                                 t-agos

    The budget request includes $17,445,000 to operate two T-
AGOS ships to support transit zone operations. The Committee 
recommends $4,445,000 and further recommends that these assets 
be transferred to a more useful DoD or homeland security 
mission. The once valuable T-AGOS program now provides 
diminished Counter-drug operational value due to the lack of 
Transit Zone air threats and has outlived its usefulness as a 
collection asset.

                            CLASSIFIED ANNEX

    The Committee recommendation does not reflect a reduction 
to the classified program. The Committee's recommendation 
reflects a transfer of $17,900,000 from this appropriation to 
an appropriation in support of classified activities. For 
additional information, please refer to the classified annex 
that accompanies this report.

                    OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL





Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $152,021,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       157,165,000
Committee recommendation..............................       157,165,000
Change from budget request............................  ................


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $157,165,000 
for the Office of the Inspector General. The recommendation is 
an increase of $5,144,000 above the amount appropriated for 
fiscal year 2002.
                               TITLE VII

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                 NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGARM

                              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 2003 Defense Appropriations bill.

   CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND




Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $212,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       212,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................       212,000,000
Change from budget request............................                 0


    This appropriation provides payments of benefits to 
qualified beneficiaries in accordance with the Central 
Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1965 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 $212,000,000 for the Central 
Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Systems Fund 
(CIARDS).

               INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT




Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $160,429,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................       147,754,000
Committee recommendation..............................       162,254,000
Change from budget request............................       +14,500,000


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

                       Committee Recommendations

    The Administration requested $147,754,000 for the 
Intelligence Community Management Account. The Committee 
recommends $162,254,000, an increase of $14,500,000 from the 
amount requested and $1,825,000 above the amount appropriated 
under this heading in fiscal year 2002. Of the amount 
appropriated under this heading, $34,100,000 is for transfer to 
the Department of Justice for operations at the National Drug 
Intelligence Center (NDIC). Details of adjustments to this 
account are included in the classified annex accompanying this 
report.

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




Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................       $67,500,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................        25,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................        25,000,000
Change from budget request............................                 0


    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 $42,500,000 below the amount 
appropriated for fiscal year 2002.

                 NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND




Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................        $8,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................         8,000,000
Committee recommendation..............................         8,000,000
Change from budget request............................                 0


    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 $8,000,000 for the National 
Security Education Trust Fund. The recommendation is the same 
as the request and the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
                               TITLE VIII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The accompanying bill includes 122 general provisions. Most 
of these provisions were included in the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 and many have been 
included in the Defense Appropriations Act of 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, 
2003, the accompanying House and Senate Committee reports, the 
conference report and the accompanying joint explanatory 
statement of the managers of the Committee in 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 exceptions:
    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.

   Center for Military Recruitment Assessment and Veterans Employment

    Section 8115 of the accompanying bill provides for a grant 
of $4,000,000 to the non-profit Center for Military Recruitment 
Assessment and Veterans Employment for the purpose of 
establishing a new center to improve the ability of military 
veterans to find high quality employment opportunities in the 
construction industry. The Committee believes excellent 
employment opportunities exist for military job seekers in the 
construction industry, which is expected to have a critical 
workforce shortage in the years ahead. This industry presently 
does not have a consistent way to communicate with, assess 
military training for apprenticeship placement, or to recruit 
on a systematic basis military job seekers and veterans. The 
Committee believes establishment of a service to inform and 
match military job seekers and veterans with available 
apprenticeships and training programs will benefit both 
military veterans and the construction industry. The Committee 
expects that this center will have a goal of recruiting 
approximately 500,000 men and women from the military veteran 
community over the next five years and that this center will be 
financially supported on an equal basis by a broad segment of 
the construction industry.

                       Navy Marine Corps Intranet

    A new general provision (Sec. 8118) has been included that 
prohibits the Navy from ordering additional seats above the 
current 160,000 authorized by the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, and requires that operational test and evaluation be 
conducted once there has been a full transition of not less 
than 20,000 workstations to the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet and 
the network is robust enough so as to perform adequate testing.

                        Pentagon Reconstruction

    A new general provision (Sec. 8120) has been included which 
amends Section 305(a) of the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002 
(Division B of Public Law 107-117; 115 Stat. 2300). The 
amendment adds to the provision the authority for the 
Department to transfer $305,000,000 from the Pentagon 
Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund to the Defense Emergency 
Response Fund to reimburse only for the reconstruction costs of 
the Pentagon Reservation. The Committee expects these funds be 
transferred only to the appropriate category within the Defense 
Emergency Response Fund that executes Pentagon reconstruction 
and recovery (Category 8--Pentagon Repair/Upgrade).
                                TITLE IX

   COUNTER-TERRORISM AND DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

        COUNTER-TERRORISM AND OPERATIONAL RESPONSE TRANSFER FUND




Fiscal year 2002 appropriation........................      $478,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request.......................  ................
Committee recommendation..............................  ................
Change from budget request............................  ................


                  FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION

    Funding for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction 
activities of the Department of Defense has been included in 
Title II, Operation and Maintenance.
            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 2003 bill, 
which might be interpreted as changing existing law, are as 
follows:

                        APPROPRIATIONS LANGUAGE

    Language has been deleted in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Army'' which earmarks funds for improvements at Fort Baker, and 
language has been amended which changes the amount provided for 
emergency and extraordinary expenses.
    Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Navy'' which changes the amount provided for emergency and 
extraordinary expenses.
    Language has been included in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Air Force'' which earmarks funds for Air Force aircrews to 
operate and evaluate the United Kingdom's Royal Air Force EH-
101 helicopters, and which amends language which changes the 
amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses.
    Language has been deleted in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Defense-Wide'' which earmarks funds for the Middle East 
Regional Security Issues program. Language has been included 
which earmarks funds for expenses related to certain classified 
activities and which increases the ceiling on the investment 
unit cost of items purchased with operation and maintenance 
funds.
    The appropriations account ``Overseas Contingency 
Operations Transfer Fund'' has been deleted.
    The appropriations account ``Former Soviet Union Threat 
Reduction'' was moved to title II of this bill, and language 
had been deleted which earmarks funds for the dismantling and 
disposal of nuclear submarines and submarine reactor 
components.
    Language has been included in ``Aircraft Procurement, 
Army'' which provides that not less than $225,675,000 of funds 
available shall be for the Army National Guard and Army 
Reserve, and which earmarks funds only to support a 
restructured CH-47F helicopter upgrade program.
    Language has been included in ``Missile Procurement, Army'' 
which provides that not less than $168,580,000 of funds 
available shall be for the Army National Guard and Army 
Reserve.
    Language has been included in ``Procurement of Weapons and 
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'' which provides that not less 
than $40,849,000 of funds available shall be for the Army 
National Guard and Army Reserve.
    Language has been included in ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
Army'' which provides that not less than $124,716,000 of funds 
available shall be for the Army National Guard and Army 
Reserve.
    Language has been included in ``Other Procurement, Army'' 
which provides that not less than $1,129,578,000 of funds 
available shall be for the Army National Guard and Army 
Reserve, and amends language which changes the number and price 
limitations of passenger motor vehicles required for physical 
security of personnel and the number of vehicles for 
replacement only.
    Language has been included in ``Aircraft Procurement, 
Navy'' which provides that not less than $19,644,000 of funds 
available shall be for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps 
Reserve.
    Language has been included in ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
Navy and Marine Corps'' which provides that not less than 
$18,162,000 of funds available shall be for the Navy Reserve 
and Marine Corps Reserve.
    Language has been included in ``Other Procurement, Navy'' 
which provides that not less than $19,869,000 of funds 
available shall be for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps 
Reserve, and amends language which changes the number and price 
limitations of passenger motor vehicles required for physical 
security of personnel and the number of vehicles for 
replacement only.
    Language has been included in ``Procurement, Marine Corps'' 
which provides that not less than $253,724,000 of funds 
available shall be for the Marine Corps Reserve, and amends 
language which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles 
for replacement only.
    Language has been included in ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
Force'' which provides that not less than $312,700,000 of funds 
available shall be for the Air National Guard and Air Force 
Reserve; includes language which earmarks funds only for the 
producibility improvement program related to the F-22 aircraft 
program, and provides funds for the advance procurement of 15 
C-17 aircraft.
    Language has been included in ``Procurement of Ammunition, 
Air Force'' which provides that not less than $120,200,000 of 
funds shall be available for the Air National Guard and Air 
Force Reserve.
    Language has been included in ``Other Procurement, Air 
Force'' which provides that not less than $167,600,000 of funds 
available shall be for the Air National Guard and Air Force 
Reserve, and amends language which changes the number and price 
limitations of passengers motor vehicles required for physical 
security of personnel and the number of vehicles for 
replacement only.
    Language has been included in ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' 
which amends language which changes the number of passenger 
motor vehicles purchased for replacement only.
    Language has been included in ``Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation, Navy'' concerning Special Operation Forces 
requirements for the V-22 aircraft.
    Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' which provided a waiver for the 
Missile Defense Agency.
    Language has been deleted in ``Defense Production Act 
Purchases'' which provides funding for the development of 
affordable production methods and a domestic supplier for 
military and commercial processible rigid-rod materials.
    The appropriations account ``National Guard and Reserve 
Equipment'' has been deleted.
    Language has been amended in ``Defense Working Capital 
Funds'' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles 
required for replacement only, and includes language for the 
purchase of passenger motor vehicles for the Defense Logistics 
Agency.
    Language has been amended in ``National Defense Sealift 
Fund'' which changes the amount available to finance the cost 
of constructing additional sealift capacity.
    Language has been amended in ``Defense Health Program'' 
which earmarks not less than $10,000,000 for HIV/AIDS 
prevention programs.
    Language has been included in ``Drug Interdiction and 
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' which allows for the 
transfer of funds back to the appropriation if not necessary 
for the purposes provided.
    Language has been included in ``Intelligence Community 
Management Account'' which provides document and computer 
exploitation of Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
activity associated with counter-drug, counter-terrorism, 
national security investigations and operations, and language 
has been amended that earmarks $34,100,000 for the National 
Drug Intelligence Center

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Section 8005 has been amended which increases the level of 
general transfer authority for the Department for Defense.
    Section 8008 has been amended to delete language providing 
multiyear procurement authority for UH-60 and C-17 aircraft, 
and adds multiyear authority for C-130 aircraft.
    Section 8027 has been amended which deletes language 
allowing the Department to incur obligations in anticipation of 
reimbursement from any funds available to DoD.
    Section 8029 has been amended deleting language that 
reduces the total amount appropriated in this Act for FFRDCs, 
and changes the number of staff years that may be funded for 
defense studies and analysis.
    Section 8040 has been amended to delete language exempting 
certain classified activities in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Defense-Wide'' from the investment item unit cost limitations.
    Section 8050 has been amended to include language which 
rescinds $192,932,000 from the following programs:
                                                           (Rescissions)
2002 Appropriations:
    Aircraft Procurement, Army: ATIRCM..................      $3,000,000
    Missile Procurement, Army:
        Stinger.........................................       5,150,000
        Avenger Mods....................................      10,000,000
        TOW Fire and Forget.............................      13,200,000
    Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, 
      Army: Command and Control Vehicle (C2V)...........       9,500,000
    Procurement of Ammunition, Army:
        RADAM...........................................      19,000,000
        Volcano.........................................       6,500,000
    Procurement, Marine Corps: ITV......................       4,682,000
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: B-2 EHF SATCOM.....      23,500,000
    Missile Procurement, Air Force:
        MALD............................................       8,900,000
        JSOW-B..........................................      18,000,000
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: 
      Medical Area Network Virtual Technologies (MANVT).       2,500,000
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy: 
      VTUAV.............................................       2,000,000
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air 
      Force: B-1B DSUP..................................      67,000,000

    Section 8082 has been amended which reduces funds available 
for military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts 
by $615,000,000 due to favorable foreign currency fluctuations.
    Section 8088 has been amended to include language which 
requires Chief Information Officer certification of compliance 
with Clinger-Cohen Act.
    Section 8095 has been amended which deletes an earmark 
concerning the ASIP program the cost-sharing agreement between 
the Department of Defense and the Israeli Department of 
Defense, and includes language which continues development of 
Arrow production in the United States.
    Section 8097 has been amended which reduces the amount 
available in ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for 
transfer to other activities of the Federal Government.
    Section 8099 has been amended which provides $2,000,000 for 
the Fisher House Foundation, Inc.
    Section 8100 has been amended which reduces funds available 
for operation and maintenance by $51,000,000 to reflect savings 
in advisory and assistance services.
    Section 8101 has been amended which allows for the transfer 
of $644,899,000 to fund increases in the cost of prior year 
shipbuilding programs.
    Section 8103 has been amended which reduces funds available 
for operation and maintenance by $97,000,000 due to 
improvements in the use of Government purchase cards.
    Section 8104 has been amended which makes permanent the 
authority to provide funds for the purchase of ultra 
lightweight camouflage net systems as unit spares.
    Section 8105 has been amended which makes permanent the 
authority to transfer $20,000,000 of unobligated balances in 
``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'' to a 
current year account only for the continuation of the Army 
Venture Capital Funds demonstration.
    Section 8109 has been included which allows for the 
transfer from the Defense Cooperation Account to such 
appropriations or funds of the DoD as the Secretary shall 
determine.
    Section 8110 has been included which provides authority to 
make payments into the Department of Defense Medicare Eligible 
Retiree Health Care Fund from the military personnel accounts.
    Section 8111 has been included which provides for 
congressional defense committee notification before the 
initiation of a new start program.
    Section 8112 has been included which reduces funds 
available for operation and maintenance by $470,000,000 for 
Working Capital Fund cash balance and rate stabilization 
adjustments.
    Section 8113 has been included which reduces funds 
available for operation and maintenance by $475,000,000 for 
excess funded carryover.
    Section 8114 has been included which prohibits the 
obligation of funds for the purpose of transferring the Medical 
Free Electron Laser Program for the DoD to any other government 
agency.
    Section 8115 has been included which provides for 
$4,000,000 in ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National 
Guard'' only for a grant to the Center for Military 
Recruitment, Assessment and Veterans Employment.
    Section 8116 has been included which allows operation and 
maintenance funds to be used to assist in building and 
maintaining a strong family structure.
    Section 8117 has been included which creates a ``Commission 
on Adequacy of Armed Forces Training Facilities''.
    Section 8118 has been included which places limitations on 
additional NMCI contract work stations.
    Section 8119 has been included which prohibits acquisition 
of more than 16 F-22 aircraft until a risk assessment has been 
provided to the congressional defense committees.
    Section 8120 has been included that allows for the transfer 
of funds from the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving 
Fund to the Defense Emergency Response Fund.
    Section 8121 has been included which allows for the 
termination of Crusader Artillery System and the transition to 
other artillery systems.
    Section 8122 has been included which prohibits the transfer 
of funds to any department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
United States Government established after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    The ``Counter-Terrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass 
Destruction'' appropriation has been deleted.

                  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:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Appropriations
                Agency program                   Last year of   Authorization   in last year of   Appropriations
                                                authorization       level        authorization     in this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel, Army......................          2002             (\1\)      23,752,384       26,832,217
Military Personnel, Navy......................          2002             (\1\)      19,551,484       21,874,395
Military Personnel, Marine Corps..............          2002             (\1\)       7,345,340        8,504,172
Military Personnel, Air Force.................          2002             (\1\)      19,724,014       21,957,757
Reserve Personnel, Army.......................          2002             (\1\)       2,670,197        3,373,455
Reserve Personnel, Navy.......................          2002             (\1\)       1,654,523        1,897,352
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps...............          2002             (\1\)         471,200          553,983
Reserve Personnel, Air Force..................          2002             (\1\)       1,061,160        1,236,904
National Guard Personnel, Army................          2002             (\1\)       4,041,695        5,070,188
National Guard Personnel, Air Force...........          2002             (\1\)       1,784,654        2,124,411
Operation and Maintenance, Army...............          2002       20,653,241       22,335,074       23,942,768
Operation and Maintenance, Navy...............          2002       26,461,299       26,876,636       29,121,836
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps.......          2002        2,872,524        2,931,934        3,579,359
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force..........          2002       25,598,767       26,026,789       27,587,959
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide.......          2002       11,949,586       12,773,270       14,850,377
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve.......          2002        1,824,146        1,771,246        1,976,710
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve.......          2002        1,000,050        1,003,690        1,239,309
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps                 2002          142,853          144,023          189,532
 Reserve......................................
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve..          2002        2,029,866        2,024,866        2,165,604
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard          2002        3,705,359        3,768,058        4,231,967
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard.          2002        3,967,361        3,988,961        4,113,010
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund.          2002        2,844,226           50,000                0
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed            2002            9,096            9,096            9,614
 Forces.......................................
Environmental Restoration, Army...............          2002          389,800          389,800          395,900
Environmental Restoration, Navy...............          2002          257,517          257,517          256,948
Environmental Restoration, Air Force..........          2002          385,437          385,437          389,773
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide.......          2002           23,492           23,492           23,498
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used                2002          230,255          222,255          212,102
 Defense Sites................................
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid          2002           49,700           49,700           58,400
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction..........          2002          403,000                0          416,700
Support for International Sporting                      2002           15,800           15,800           19,000
 Competitions, Defense........................
Defense Emergency Response Fund...............           n/a                0               0                0
Aircraft Procurement, Army....................          2002        2,075,372        1,984,391        2,214,369
Missile Procurement Army......................          2002        1,086,968        1,079,330        1,112,772
Procurement of Weapons & Tracked Combat                 2002        2,348,145        2,193,746        2,248,358
 Vehicles, Army...............................
Procurement of Ammunition, Army...............          2002        1,187,233        1,200,465        1,207,560
Other Procurement, Army.......................          2002        4,027,374        4,183,736        6,017,380
Aircraft Procurement, Navy....................          2002        8,323,147        7,938,143        8,682,655
Weapons Procurement, Navy.....................          2002        1,484,321        1,429,592        2,384,617
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine              2002          466,907          461,399        1,167,130
 Corps........................................
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy.............          2002        9,370,972        9,490,039        8,127,694
Other Procurement, Navy.......................          2002        4,282,471        4,270,976        4,631,299
Procurement, Marine Corps.....................          2002        1,014,637          995,442        1,369,383
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force...............          2002       10,789,167       10,567,038       12,492,730
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force..........          2002          881,844          866,644        1,290,764
Missile Procurement, Air Force................          2002        3,222,636        2,989,524        3,185,439
Other Procurement, Air Force..................          2002        8,196,021        8,085,863       10,622,660
Procurement, Defense-Wide.....................          2002        2,279,482        2,389,490        3,457,405
National Guard and Reserve Equipment..........          2002                0          699,130                0
Defense Production Act Purchases..............          2002                0           40,000           73,057
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,             2002        6,675,325        7,106,074        7,447,160
 Army.........................................
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,             2002       10,784,264       11,498,506       13,562,218
 Navy.........................................
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,             2002       14,407,187       14,669,931       18,639,392
 Air Force....................................
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation,             2002       14,372,640       15,415,275       17,863,462
 Defense-Wide.................................
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense......          2002          221,355          231,855          242,054
Defense Working Capital Funds.................          2002        1,951,986        1,312,986        1,832,956
National Defense Sealift Fund.................          2002          636,566          432,408          944,129
Defense Health Program........................          2002       17,898,969       18,391,194       14,600,748
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Army:
    Operation and maintenance.................          2002          789,020          739,020          974,238
    Procurement...............................          2002          164,158          164,158          213,278
    Research, development, test, and                    2002          200,379          202,379          302,683
     evaluation...............................
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities,          2002          820,381          842,581          859,907
 Defense......................................
Office of the Inspector General...............          2002          152,021          152,021          157,165
CIA Retirement & Disability System Fund.......          2002          212,000          212,000          212,000
Intelligence Community Management Account.....          2002          152,776          160,429          162,254
    Transfer to Dept of Justice...............          2002           27,000          (42,752)         (34,100)
Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance,                2002           25,000           67,500           25,000
 Remediation and Environmental Restoration
 Fund.........................................
National Security Education Trust Fund........          2002            8,000            8,000            8,000
Sec. 8005.....................................          2002        2,500,000       (2,000,000)      (2,500,000)
Sec. 8021.....................................          2002                0            8,000            8,000
Sec. 8035.....................................          2002           19,000           19,000           29,730
Sec. 8038.....................................          2002            3,362            3,362            1,000
Sec. 8050.....................................          2002                0         -531,475         -192,932
Sec. 8082.....................................          2002                0         -240,000         -615,000
Sec. 8087.....................................          2002                0            8,000           10,000
Sec. 8099.....................................          2002                0            1,700            2,000
Sec. 8100.....................................          2002                0       -1,650,000          -51,000
Sec. 8103.....................................          2002                0         -100,000          -97,000
Sec. 8105.....................................          2002                0                0           17,000
Sec. 8109.....................................          2002                0                0            5,000
Sec. 8112.....................................          2002                0                0         -470,000
Sec. 8113.....................................          2002                0                0         -475,000
Sec. 8115.....................................          2002                0                0            4,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FY 2003 National Defense Authorization Act authorizes $93,725,028,000 for military personnel.

                           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.

                               TRANSFERS

    Language has been included in ``Operation and Maintenance, 
Defense-Wide'' which provides for the transfer of funds 
relating to classified activities.
    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, 
Formally 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.
    Language has been included in ``Intelligence Community 
Management Account'' which provides for the transfer of funds 
to the Department of Justice for the National Drug Intelligence 
Center.
    Twelve provisions (Sections 8005, 8006, 8015, 8035, 8038, 
8059, 8070, 8097, 8101, 8105, 8109, 8120) 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.

Aircraft Procurement, Army 2002/2004....................      $3,000,000
Missile Procurement, Army 2002/2004.....................      28,350,000
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 
    2002/2004...........................................       9,500,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Army 2002/2004...............      25,500,000
Procurement, Marine Corps 2002/2004.....................       4,682,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 2002/2004...............      23,500,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force 2002/2004................      26,900,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 2002/
    2003................................................       2,500,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy 2002/
    2003................................................       2,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 
    2002/2003...........................................      67,000,000

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of 
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure 
authorizes funding:
    The Committee on Appropriations considers program 
performance, including a program's success in developing and 
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing 
funding recommendations.

         Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)

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

          Section 305 of the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

    Sec. 305. (a) During the current fiscal year, $475,000,000 
of appropriations provided in this Act shall be transferred to 
the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund only to 
reconstruct the Pentagon Reservation and for related activities 
as a result of the events of September 11, 2001. From amounts 
transferred to the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving 
Fund pursuant to the preceding sentence, not to exceed 
$305,000,000 may be transferred to the Defense Emergency 
Response Fund, but only in the amounts necessary to reimburse 
that fund (and the category of that fund designated as 
`Pentagon Repair/Upgrade') for expenses charged to that fund 
(and that category) between September 11, 2001 and January 10, 
2002, for reconstruction costs of the Pentagon Reservation. 
Funds transferred to the Defense Emergency Response Fund 
pursuant to this section shall be available only for 
reconstruction, recovery, force protection, or security 
enhancements for the Pentagon Reservation.''

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        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. This information 
follows:

                                            (In millions of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    302b allocation                      This bill \1\
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Budget authority       Outlays      Budget authority       Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary...........................           354,447           346,110           354,446           338,718
Mandatory...............................               276               275               276               275
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include fiscal year 2003 outlays from the fiscal year 2002 supplemental. These outlays are assumed
  in the allocation.

                      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.
                                                              (Millions)
Budget Authority........................................         354,722
Outlays:
    2003................................................      \1\239,277
    2004................................................          78,853
    2005................................................          24,085
    2006................................................           6,871
    2007 and beyond.....................................           4,528

\1\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          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.



                ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. NORMAN D. DICKS

                     crisis in defense procurement

    With this bill, the committee achieved the best balance of 
meeting the full range of our defense obligations that it could 
given the top line constraints imposed by the Budget Committee 
and the Republican leadership. The committee's recommendation 
of $70,285,272,000 for defense procurement is an increase of 
$9,420,324,000 over the amount approved for fiscal year 2002, 
and it is an increase of $3,065,238,000 over the President's 
budget request. However, despite the committee's best efforts, 
it has not changed the fundamental fact that the Defense 
Department procurement budget is in crisis.
    Numerous reputable studies performed in the last several 
years have affirmed this growing crisis. Even the most 
conservative analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget 
Office has found that the procurement budget needs to be 
increased to at least $94 billion in order to sustain the 
military force structure that has now been ratified in the 
Quadrennial Defense Review. Other credible outside studies have 
reached estimates of over $120 billion. DOD's own studies on 
procurement needs, performed by the individual Services and the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, show a requirement for $100-$110 
billion. The Navy has testified to Congress that it faces a 
procurement shortfall of $10 billion a year, and CBO estimates 
that including the Marine Corps this shortfall is $12 billion. 
The Air Force has told Congress of a shortfall of $14 billion, 
and the Army has a shortfall estimated by CBO at $5 billion a 
year.
    The effects of this crisis are all too visible in the 
procurement programs and in the condition of military equipment 
and service maintenance budgets. The cost and length of 
individual procurement programs have reached absurdity as buy 
quantities are reduced to minimum levels driving up unit costs. 
Drawn out procurement programs mean that average equipment ages 
are increasing rapidly. The average age of Air Force aircraft 
has increased by 24% in the last decade. Navy aircraft average 
age has increased 21% since 1990. The average age of Army 
helicopters has increased 12% since 1990. These increases have 
occurred even as force structure is reduced and the oldest 
equipment is retired. Furthermore, the current rate of 
procurement of Navy ships will lead to a fleet of only 230 
ships by 2030.
    The impact on operation and maintenance budgets is severe. 
The number of maintenance hours required for each aircraft 
flying hour is skyrocketing. For example, the Air Force had a 
293% increase in the number of maintenance hours per flying 
hour on the F-15E from 1992 to 1999. The Navy experienced a 
227% increase in the number of maintenance hours per flying 
hour on the F-14 in the same period. The direct effect is a 
dramatic increase in the Air Force budget for flying hours, 
more than 45% above inflation in the last five years. And the 
Navy's cost of Aviation Depot Level Repairables increased 68% 
between 1996 and 1999.
    The President's proposed $48 billion increase for defense 
spending contained only a $7.6 billion increase for 
procurement. That means that despite the crisis in procurement 
spending, if the committee had accepted the President's budget 
recommendation, growth in procurement funds for fiscal year 
2003 would have been slower than the growth in the overall 
defense budget. The fiscal year 2003 budget request follows the 
first Bush defense budget in which procurement was actually 
lower than the last defense budget of the Clinton 
Administration. Most important, the size of the shortfall in 
procurement funding is more than 4 times the increase proposed 
for procurement in the President's FY03 budget.
    The credibility of studies by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
CBO and the other higher estimates are strongly reinforced by a 
consideration of the historical patterns of defense spending. 
The current budget for procurement is less than half what it 
was at the peak of the Reagan years in 1985 when considered in 
constant dollars. Operations and maintenance spending, on the 
other hand, now exceeds the peak of the Reagan years even 
though our military force structure is about one-third smaller. 
As a result, procurement, which was 25% of the defense budget 
in 1980 under President Carter, and 34% in 1985, is now only 
19% of the budget. This historically low level is inadequate 
for sustaining our current force structure, let alone for 
transforming the military into a 21st Century fighting force.
    There remains one more chance this year to begin addressing 
the crisis in procurement when the Department of Defense 
requests and the committee considers the $10 billion 
contingency fund for FY03. This fund must begin the process of 
modernizing our oldest military equipment. The longer we delay 
in facing up to this problem, the greater the cost of the 
solution and the more severe the crisis in both condition and 
quantity of the systems that we ask our military to use in our 
nation's defense. We owe it to our men and women in uniform and 
to the entire nation to step up to this crisis in procurement 
and commit ourselves to provide the sustained level of 
resources that will solve it.

                                                        Norm Dicks.

           ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE MARTIN OLAV SABO

    While the bipartisan spirit with which the Committee has 
developed a wise and workable future Army artillery program 
gratifies me, I remain deeply concerned over the Defense 
Department's determination to terminate the Crusader next-
generation artillery program.
    Three Defense Secretaries, three Secretaries of the Army, 
and three Army Chiefs of Staff have testified before Congress 
that the lives of U.S. soldiers are at risk due to the Army's 
outdated artillery.
    Twelve nations outrange the Army's existing Paladin 
artillery cannon, including the so-called ``axis of evil.'' 
Twenty-eight nations are now developing artillery that will 
outperform the Paladin, which was first designed in the 1950s. 
Under the Administration's proposal to cancel Crusader, Paladin 
would continue in service until at least 2032--at which time 
its basic design will be 80 years old.
    The Army has expressed deep concern that the Paladin 
chassis cannot perform for this long, or be modified 
satisfactorily to fire the precision munitions now being 
developed that the Administration places so much faith in. 
Further, the Paladin's lack of mobility and range is a handicap 
for the Army's transformation strategy based on speed and more 
widely dispersed forces.
    The Crusader program was on track to give the U.S. one of 
the world's fastest and most accurate artillery systems in 
order to support and protect U.S. troops in battle. Its 
prototype gun and automatic reloading system has already fired 
over 6000 rounds in the Arizona desert demonstrating the 
capability of firing ten rounds a minute out to a range of 40 
kilometers compared to 30 kilometers for Paladin.
    When completed, Crusader would have moved twice as fast as 
Paladin, had three times its rate of fire, and sixty percent 
fewer crewmembers. At $10 million per system, Crusader would 
have cost less than one Blackhawk helicopter or two M1-A2 
Abrams tank upgrades.
    The Department's desire to terminate Crusader seems to stem 
from a view that artillery warfare is obsolete, and that air-
delivered precision weapons and the development of new 
precision artillery shells to be fired by Paladin are adequate 
substitutes.
    However, for certain artillery missions, such as 
suppression of enemy forces and denial of terrain, a high 
volume and rate of fire are more important than precision. Our 
soldiers also tell us of the limitations of close air support 
that have little to do with better precision--weather, timing, 
availability of aircraft, target identification, munitions 
loading and reloading, air-ground communications, smoke and 
confusion, imperfect intelligence and modern surface to air 
missiles. The Army has argued convincingly that our soldiers 
still need cannons, like Crusader, to provide lifesaving close 
support on a minute's notice, 24 hours a day, in all weather.
    In lieu of Crusader, the Department proposed to accelerate 
development of precision weapons such as Excalibur, NetFires, 
and Guided MLRS. However, that recommendation was not 
accompanied by thorough cost and capabilities analysis of these 
high-risk programs. To make matters worse, there is serious 
risk that relyingsolely on these alternatives would cost far 
more than Crusader, without providing equal capability.
    In the case of Excalibur, the physics of putting sensitive 
guidance systems in an artillery shell are extremely 
challenging, and there is no guarantee that the technical 
hurdles can be overcome. Excalibur is currently projected to 
cost $220,000 per round for the first 9,000 rounds. The Guided 
MLRS is projected to cost between $55,000-$65,000 per round. 
These costs compare to about $250 to buy a standard 155mm high 
explosive artillery round. NetFires is still in a very early 
conceptual stage of development, and the projected per unit 
cost for its munitions is roughly $125,000.
    Despite the breezy optimism we have heard that these 
technical risks and costs can be overcome, the Pentagon's 
record of fielding new technology on schedule and on budget is 
horrendous.
    Recognizing the importance of maintaining a robust Army 
artillery development program, the Committee has worked hard to 
provide more money to accelerate and transfer the best elements 
of crusader artillery technology to Objective Force Artillery 
and Resupply systems for the Future Combat System program, 
while accelerating the development of a range of compatible 
precision munitions and related technologies.
    Under this plan, the Army will develop and field, by 2008, 
a first-rate artillery system to protect U.S. combat troops. To 
achieve this goal in this short period, the Committee 
recognizes that more money and a strict program schedule will 
be required. In addition, it will be critical to retain the 
fine technical team that produce the artillery technology 
breakthroughs under the Crusader program.
    It is my hope that the Department will join the Committee 
in promoting this Non-Line of Sight artillery solution as the 
best course to transform the Army and protect American soldiers 
in combat in the near term.

                                                    Martin O. Sabo.

     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. NORMAN D. DICKS AND HON. CHET EDWARDS

                         THE GAMBLE ON CRUSADER

    The Administration's recent decision to terminate the 
Crusader artillery system is a decision fraught with risk. Risk 
that we hope will not end up costing soldiers' lives.
    The Crusader self-propelled howitzer has been under 
development for the last eight years. This program is running 
under budget and on schedule with fielding of the first new 
howitzer set for 2008. The Crusader has been considered by the 
Army to be its highest priority acquisition program, because it 
would rectify the one glaring operational weakness that 
endangers the Army's battlefield success--heavy artillery 
support.
    Currently, our Army is outgunned in heavy artillery by at 
least 12 different countries (including all 3 countries in the 
so-called ``Axis of Evil'')--a situation the Crusader would 
rectify. It is estimated that as many as 40 countries could 
soon have artillery systems that out-range the Army's current 
howitzer--the Paladin--and that 28 countries are developing 
artillery-delivered high precision munitions to complement 
these systems. Clearly, most other countries around the world 
plan on making high performance heavy artillery a mainstay of 
their military force for some time to come.
    Last month, the Administration took the highly unusual step 
of deciding to cancel the Crusader program in the middle of the 
budget cycle. This action was taken without consultation with 
the Army's military leadership, and over their strong 
substantive objection. This decision will fundamentally alter 
the role that U.S. heavy artillery will play in future battles, 
yet we have seen very little evidence of any serious analytical 
effort to support this radical departure from the Army's 
accepted doctrine.
    The Administration has essentially made a giant strategic 
bet on behalf of our land forces that the combination of future 
advances in precision cannon and rocket munitions (as 
distinguished from precision bombs and missiles) combined with 
hoped for perfection of real time target identification and 
selection technology (based on ubiquitous ``24/7'' all weather 
surveillance capabilities) will supplant the need to replace 
the Army's outdated Paladin howitzer with a system that shoots 
farther and faster.
    This decision depends upon unproven technology and unproven 
tactics--betting that more traditional lethality and combat 
overmatch capabilities can be replaced by precision and speed. 
It is a decision that--as the Army's vaunted ``Crusader talking 
points'' said--``could put soldiers' lives at risk'' if the 
Department's hypothetical assumptions about how and where 
future wars will be fought turn out to be wrong.
    What is somewhat puzzling to us in that the Army's 
artillery upgrade plan that the Secretary of Defense has now 
rejected calls for improvements in both areas--lethality and 
precision. The Army's Crusader plan that was devised in the 
last Administration and endorsed in the first two Bush 
Administration budgets called for fielding the new world-class 
Crusader howitzer by 2008 giving the U.S. Army an artillery 
system that is operationally and technologically superior to 
any artillery system in the world. The second part of the 
Army's plan was to perfect and field the GPS-guided Excalibur 
projectile to shoot from the Crusader within 3 to 5 years after 
the Crusader was in the force. The combination of Crusader and 
Excalibur would give the Army a truly devastating capability to 
support its soldiers--combining unprecedented accuracy with 
vastly superior rate of fire and range.
    The Army had a prudent and affordable plan that recognized 
the possibility that developing precision-guided cannon 
projectiles and rocket systems is a difficult task that may end 
up falling short of expectations. Contrary to popular wisdom, 
precision-guided cannon and rocket systems are not perfected 
yet. Shooting sensitive high-tech precision guidance systems 
out of cannons exerts several hundred times the G-forces 
exerted on air-delivered precision-guided bombs and missiles 
such as JDAM or Tomahawk, and the cost that contractors propose 
charging to overcome these factors is very high at the current 
time. For instance, the Army's published plans call for paying 
$222,000 per round for the first 9,417 Excalibur projectiles 
when and if they are perfected. This is 7 times greater than 
the Secretary of Defense' target price of $33,000 per round, 
and many experts question whether this target price will ever 
be achieved. It seems the Army had a very prudent plan--both 
from a warfighting perspective and from a development and cost 
risk perspective--that the Secretary of Defense summarily and 
unilaterally rejected.
    So what is the Army left with under the Administration's 
new plan? In essence, the Army will be left with the outdated 
Paladin howitzer that sits on a 40-year-old chassis design that 
has already been upgraded six different times. The Paladin of 
the future will continue to shoot standard 155mm ammunition at 
low rates of fire and at substandard ranges as well as the new 
Excalibur precision projectile if it can be perfected, if the 
Paladin chassis can be shown to withstand the additional forces 
generated by firing this new round.
    Whether the Excalibur works or not, the Administration now 
plans on keeping the Paladin in the force until 2032 when the 
Future Combat System will finally phase it out.
    The Administration explains that the risk of keeping the 
Paladin is acceptable because the greater precision and range 
of Excalibur rounds and the projected availability of fire 
support systems such as Guided MLRS and air-delivered precision 
munitions can cover the existing indirect fire support 
shortfall. Aside from the issues of bad weather, 
responsiveness, and ability to support the close fight, this 
new plan discounts many of the traditional roles of artillery 
that depend upon volume of fire over accuracy--such as fire to 
suppress enemy attacks, and cover fire to protect friendly 
troop movements or to protect sectors of a battlefield. Rate of 
fire is completely discounted as a priority under the new plan.
    It does not overstate the case to say that Army military 
leaders do not support this plan--they see too much risk. While 
the Administration points to skirmishes in Afghanistan to 
support its bet on precision, many of our military leaders 
worry about the potential major battles that could erupt in 
Korea or other theaters where mechanized forces will determine 
the outcome. A high level Defense Department official echoed 
these exact concerns just 3 months ago when discussing the 
Crusader:

          Unless we want to have no new artillery facing North 
        Korea's artillery, we need something. We have to 
        remember, it's not just a matter or fighting on 
        horseback with satellites and B-52s as we did in 
        Afghanistan. We still face Kim Jung-II in North Korea. 
        We still face Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We face others 
        who use conventional weapons and the question then 
        becomes do you want to modernize those or do you not.--
        Dov Zakheim, Comptroller, Department of Defense. 
        Comments on The News House With Jim Lehrer March 18, 
        2002.

    The Crusader decision also signals a troubling change of 
direction about how we will equip and fight our future force. 
Over the last several decades there has been a consensus that 
we should take maximum advantage of America's Scientific and 
technological strength to field military systems and devise 
military strategy and tactics to achieve decisive ``combat 
overmatch'' capabilities against any potential opponent. 
General Michael E. Ryan, former Air Force Chief of Staff, 
succinctly summed up the combat overmatch philosophy as 
follows:

          I'm not interested in fair fights. What I'm 
        interested in is a 100 to nothing score, not 51-49.

    This philosophy has proven its worth--not only does it save 
American lives on the battlefield, but it is an effective way 
to win the peace. Our vastly superior military capabilities 
cause potential adversaries to think twice before confronting 
us or our allies militarily, which contributes significantly to 
world peace and stability. This was not always the case, and we 
must continue to work at keeping this edge.
    Of all the military services, it is perhaps most important 
for the Army to continue with the philosophy of ``combat 
overmatch'' through superior technology. Unlike the Air Force 
and the Navy, we have a small Army compared to other countries. 
Currently, eight other armies in the world outnumber our Army. 
We make up for this with superior people, superior leadership, 
and superior technology, but numbers still matter if we let our 
technological edge slip.
    It is disturbing that the Defense Department seems willing 
to rest on the laurels of past administrations and go back to a 
philosophy of ``just enough,'' The Crusader would provide US 
military personnel with the best technology in the world that 
meets a know deficiency of a military service that American 
industry has shown it can deliver on time and on budget. The 
Crusader system is a state-of-the-art heavy artillery system 
that has already produced 7 new patents from its new 
technology. Over 6,000 test rounds have already been fired and 
the system is meeting or exceeding range, rate-of-fire, and 
reliability requirements by all accounts.
    It is simply hard to understand why a system that meets the 
biggest Army warfighting deficiency is being scrapped.
    If the President persists in demanding the termination of 
the Crusader, the weaknesses of the outdated Paladin (with or 
without the Excalibur projectile) make it imperative that we 
expedite the development and fielding of the Objective Force 
next generation artillery system. American soldiers do not 
deserve to continue to endure the risks of substandard 
artillery support. This deficiency must be eliminated as 
quickly as possible.
    We therefore support the Committee position of adding $173 
million to the $195 million budget request for development of 
the Objective Force artillery system in order to field a new 
system by 2008. This would accelerate the Army's old schedule 
by four to six years. This acceleration is possible only if the 
Army uses the existing Crusader engineering team and leverages 
the technology advances garnered with the Army's $2 billion 
investment that has already been spent on Crusader development.
    Following are some of the detailed answers received from 
DOD to our specific questions on the Crusader that have been 
raised in the course of this debate.
    1. How does the Crusader compare to other top foreign 
systems? Why don't we simply buy one of those systems?
    A comparison of the most advanced artillery systems in the 
global marketplace available to our allies shows why the Army 
believes the Crusader is a superior artillery system. The 
Crusader delivers more firepower is more mobile, protects its 
crew better weighs less, uses fewer crewmembers, and is the 
only system that can be fully networked on the battlefield.

                                                       COMPARISON OF MODERN SELF-PROPELLED HOWITZERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Crusader (U.S.)         Paladin (U.S.)          G6 (S. Africa)          AS90 (U.K.)         PzH2000 (Germany)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Range (km) \*\.................  40....................  30....................  30...................  37.4.................  37.4
Max Rate of Fire \*\...............  10 to 12/Minute.        4/minute for 3........  3/minute.............  6/minute for 3.......  6-8 minute for 3
                                      Indefinitely.
Crew Size (howitzer + resupply veh)  3 + 3.................  4 + 4.................  6+resupply crew......  5+resupply crew......  5+resupply crew
Curb Wt. (ton).....................  40....................  27....................  52...................  46.3.................  54+
Combat Wt. (ton)...................  50....................  32....................  55.6.................  50.7.................  60.3
Horsepower.........................  1500..................  440...................  520..................  660..................  991
Projectile Qty.....................  48....................  39....................  45...................  58...................  60
Accuracy...........................  96m @ 30km............  232m@30km.............  Unknown..............  246m@30km............  200m@km
Simultaneous rounds on target (MRSI  4-10 rounds...........  N/A...................  Unknown..............  Unknown..............  2-6 rounds
 Capability).
Highway Speed (km/hr) \*\..........  67....................  60....................  85...................  52...................  62.5
X-Country Speed (km/hr) \*\........  48....................  27....................  30...................  25...................  45
NBC Macro Protection...............  Yes...................  No....................  No...................  No...................  No
Resupply Vehicle...................  Yes/Automated.........  Yes/Manual............  No...................  No...................  No
U.S. Command & Control.............  Yes...................  Yes/Not All...........  No...................  No...................  No
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. G6 is a South African howitzer, AS90 is from the United Kingdom, and PzH2000 is German.
2. \*\ Indicates a key performance parameter (KPP). An additional KPP is the ability to automatically transfer 48 rounds from the resupply vehicle to
  the howitzer within 10.4 minutes, including maneuver time to link the vehicles--no other system can meet this requirement.
3. CEP is circular error probability.
4. MRSI is multiple round simultaneous impact capability.
5. NBC is nuclear (radiological), biological warfare, and chemical warfare crew protection.
Maximum Rate of Fire is at all deflections and quadrants using all projectile and fuse combinations.

    2. How Much Does Crusader Cost?
    A two-vehicle Crusader system (howitzer and resupply 
vehicle) could be procured for about $10.01 million (recurring 
production costs, FY 01 constant dollars) which is about 70% of 
the cost of one Army Blackhawk helicopter. In budget terms, the 
total procurement cost of $7 billion for 480 systems (another 
$4 billion is for development) is substantial in and of itself, 
but in terms of the total Defense budget the Army's planned 
average appropriation level of about $1 billion per year 
represents about one percent of the Army's annual budget, and 
about 3 tenths of one percent of the annual Defense Department 
budget. The total cost of the entire Crusader procurement is 
less than one year's worth of research for the missile defense 
program.
    3. How much are the new Excalibur and guided MLRS munitions 
expected to cost, and how does that compare to standard 155mm 
ammunition?
    Excalibur. The latest February 12, 2002 Army estimate 
pegged the future Excalibur program acquisition cost for the 
first 9,417 unitary projectiles at $222,000 per round, or a 
total cost of $2.1 billion. The Army could purchase nearly half 
of the entire Crusader fleet (209 out of 480 systems) for the 
cost of the first 10,000 rounds of Excalibur ammunition. The 
Administration's target unit cost for Excalibur unitary is 
$33,000 per round for 200,000 rounds, a seven-fold decrease 
compared to the current price, for a total cost of $6.6 
billion. In addition, the Administration plans on buying an 
additional 40,264 Excalibur senior-fused (infra-red sensing 
skeet bomblets) projectiles at $96,000 per round, for a total 
cost of $3.9 billion. The past Army track record in precision/
smart munitions programs (SADARM, MSTAR, BAT, WAM, Copperhead) 
does not support this cost reduction assumption. But assuming 
the Army can attain these ``best cost'' estimates, the cost of 
the first 200,000 rounds of Excalibur unitary and 40,000 rounds 
of Excalibur sensor-fused projectiles would cost $10.5 billion, 
more than one and half times the total cost of the Crusader 
procurement ($7 billion). If the $33,000 ``best cost'' estimate 
for Excalibur unitary cannot be reached and the price can be 
reduced by only 50% to say, $100,000 per round, the total cost 
for Excalibur unitary projectiles skyrockets to over $20 
billion in order to attain the Army's initial 200,000-unit 
inventory objective. In any case, it would require annual 
appropriations of well over $1 billion per year in order to 
finance the Excalibur production rate efficiencies used as the 
basis for the target cost estimate--something that is 
unprecedented for one type of round of Army ammunition. It is 
also expected that the Army Excalibur inventory objective over 
time would increase well above 200,000 units.
    Guided MLRS. The latest Army estimates peg the expected 
cost of Guided MLRS unitary rockets at $65,000 per unit. 
Assuming that the Army would fire a minimum of two rockets per 
target, the cheapest ``kill'' cost for a truck or a tank using 
guided MLRS would be $130,000. Each salvo of 12 MLRS rockets 
would cost $780,000 for unitary warheads (equivalent to the 
cost of 3,250 155mm projectiles).
    Non-precision 155mm HE ammunition. The Army's most recent 
purchase of M107 HE 155mm projectiles was $240 per round for 
155,000 rounds. M795 HE rounds are estimated to cost between 
$500 and $770 per round.
    Inventory. The Army has an inventory of over 4.2 million 
155mm HE rounds already paid for. There are no Excalibur 
projectiles or Guided MLRS rockets in the current inventory.
    4. The Army has the best tank, the best infantry fighting 
vehicle, and the best attack helicopter in the world. Why has 
the Army operated so long with an inferior heavy artillery 
system?
    During the late 1970's and 1980's the Army introduced new 
families of fighting systems that included the Abrams tank, 
Bradley fighting vehicle, air defense systems and helicopters 
such as Apache and Blackhawk. Due to fiscal constraints and 
diverging priorities in the mid 80's, the field artillery was 
forced to skip a generation of cannon modernization.
    During that time period, the Army developed the Multiple 
Launch Rocket System (MLRS) to satisfy its deficiency in deep 
attack and Paladin was developed as an interim solution for its 
cannon deficiencies. Consequently, Paladin was a simple product 
improvement to the old M 109 that lacked mobility, lethality, 
and survivability. Because if the limitations of the chassis, 
Paladin lacks the potential or significant product improvement.
    5. Can indirect cannon fire support missions be 
accomplished by greater investment in other systems--aircraft, 
missiles, and rockets?
    U.S. ground forces have traditionally required a mix of 
rocket, missile and cannon systems to meet their fire support 
requirements. Cannons have historically provided close support 
to the maneuver arms on a 24-hour all weather basis. Although 
the unique characteristics that made cannon systems ideal for 
this mission are becoming less distinct as the capabilities of 
precision and smart munitions are improved, several distinct 
characteristics are like to remain.
    Flexibility and responsiveness. Flexibility and 
responsiveness are probably the cannon's hallmark. The close 
combat environment demands the ability to rapidly accommodate 
change. Cannon systems are more responsive to rapidly changing 
battle conditions because they carry a readily available 
quantity and variety of munitions and can rapidly change from 
on type of munition to another as required. Cannons reload by 
individual rounds vice pods for rockets/ missiles. Rocket/
missile pods can only accommodate one type of munition at a 
time. Often, the type of rocket/missile pod loaded may not be 
the optimum munition required for the specific target. Fires 
and effects coordinators then face what can be a dilemma. They 
must either search for launchers loaded with the correct 
munition, fire the launcher loaded with the less than optimum 
munition, or direct reload. Launcher reload operations can take 
approximately 7-20 minutes, making them less than ideal in a 
time critical situation. Aircraft carry limited amounts and 
types of munitions and must land to reconfigure or replenish 
their load. Aircraft reload cycles are generally much longer 
than missile and rocket systems. Army data indicated that a 
Crusader battalion could provide 130 tons of munitions in one 
hour, and 900 rounds in close support before the first aircraft 
sorties arrives on station.
    Continuous Fires. Cannon systems are more capable of 
providing continuous fires (fires without gaps over a period of 
time) than are rocket/missile launchers and aircraft. With an 
actively cooled cannon, and fully automated rearm and resupply 
provided by Crusader resupply vehicles, the capability to 
provide continuous fires is greatly enhanced. Cannons have the 
capability to shift from target to target quickly--a matter of 
seconds in many cases. While launches do well in providing 
massed fires, there can often experience unacceptable gaps for 
reloading operation in sustaining fires.
    Employment in Proximity to Friendly Forces. Providing fires 
in close proximity to friendly forces is an essential fire 
support task in the close fight. The minimum safe distance as 
measured by bursting radius is considerably smaller for cannons 
compared to existing rocket/missile systems. Final protective 
fires and ``danger close'' missions end up placing fires 
extremely close to friendly forces. The smaller bursting radius 
of cannon munitions enables the ``echelonment of fires'' 
whereby the infantry uses a succession of cannon and mortar 
systems interchangeably to maximize the coverage of fires until 
they must be shifted or lifted.Close fires require accuracy, 
responsiveness, timely delivery, and ``controlled'' (or 
limited) effects (burst radius), to reduce risk to supported 
forces. Cannon artillery can be employed much closer to our 
forces and is an absolute necessity in the close support role 
since it can be employed in all weather, in all terrain, day or 
night. Weather can severely hamper close air support. For 
instance, during the Kosovo air campaign, 56% of sorties were 
aborted due to weather. Of those sorties executed, 33% were 
adversely affected by weather, resulting in less than half of 
the targets being effectively engaged.
    Sustainability. Accordingly to the Army, the logistical 
footprint for cannons is generally smaller than for rocket/
missile launchers based on ammunition weight and cube size.
    Cost of Munitions. Cannon munitions have historically been 
less expensive than rockets or missiles on a per-unit cost 
basis, and they provide a larger family of munitions to select 
from the deal with battlefield dynamics. Compared to the 
expected range of cost for new precision guided cannon and 
rocket munitions, the cost per round of non-precision 155mm 
cannon projectiles is cheaper on the order of 140-925 to one 
(see #3 above).
    6. Will there be a void in indirect fire support with out 
Crusader?
    Possibly. According to the requirement that was developed 
by the Army and approved by the Joint Requirements Council of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Paladin was judged to be not 
mobile enough to keep up with our mechanized force in a 
maneuver-dominated fight. The Army is also concerned that the 
Paladin's range and rate-of-fire limitations prevent it from 
providing the required counter-fire ``umbrella'' for our 
forces. In addition to the significant increase in mobility, 
range, and rate-of-fire, Crusader provides the responsive, 
continuous fires and mobility required for fast moving close 
combat operations. Its automated ammunition handling and 
resupply system combined with an actively cooled cannon provide 
accurate sustained fires where needed in the required volume. 
Crusader interoperability with Joint and all Army command and 
control networks assures that effects are delivered when 
needed; providing direct link capability to any platform on the 
battlefield.
    7. How old is Paladin and how much longer would it need to 
be in the force if Crusader is cancelled? Can Paladin be 
upgraded to meet many of the Crusader requirements?
    The M109 series howitzer design began in the mid-1950s and 
entered service in 1961. Paladin is the sixth modification to 
the M109 design--no Paladins are new howitzers. While 
maintaining virtually the same chassis, engine, transmission, 
and basic suspension, the Paladin's weight has grown by one 
third from 24 tons to 32 tons. The armament system has grown 
from a 24 caliber cannon with a range of 14 kilometers to a 39 
caliber cannon with a range of 30 kilometers.
    The Crusader was planned to remain in the force beyond 
2032. If Crusader is not available and the M109 series howitzer 
must be continued in its place, it is probable that it too 
would be in the field in 2032. This would mean that the M109 
series howitzer would be in the field 70 years after it 
initially entered service. The soldiers in 2030 could be 
fighting with the same howitzer used by their great 
grandfathers.
    The Army evaluated the prospect of improving Paladin during 
the Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis completed for 
Crusader's Milestone 1 decision and the Congressional report 
delivered in December 2000. The analysis shows that to attain 
Crusader's rate-of fire (10-12 RPM), cross country mobility 
(39-48 KPH) and firing range (40-50 KM), Paladin would require 
an automated ammunition handling system, increased horsepower, 
improved suspension, and a cooled 56 caliber cannon. Paladin 
lacks sufficient growth capacity in the chassis to allow these 
improvements. To strengthen the chassis to withstand these 
stresses would require replacing or significant design changes 
in the hull structure, hydraulics, engine, transmission and 
suspension sub-systems.
    8. Is Crusader rate of fire oversold because it can't be 
resupplied at high enough rates? What is the logistical plan to 
resupply Crusader during maximum rates of fire?
    Ammunition resupply has been an issue that has plagued 
artilleryman for years. Because Crusader has a fully automated 
resupply system, it allows a 300% improvementin resupply 
operations. The key to successfully achieving this new resupply 
requirement will be the fielding of fully automated resupply vehicles 
(RSVs) that can rearm a Crusader howitzer with 48 rounds and refuel it 
in 10 minutes--a 50% improvement. One technique employs two resupply 
vehicles (RSV's) per howitzer battery in the vicinity of the firing 
area to conduct rearming and refueling, two RSVs in hide areas with 
full loads of ammunition, and two RSVs uploading at the Logistics 
Resupply Point. Other methods may be employed, depending on the 
individual tactical situation, and considerations of distances that 
have to be traveled between the locations. The introduction of the 
wheeled RSV gives the commander enhanced flexibility to conduct 
resupply operations depending on the threat. For example, when facing a 
high counter fire threat, the commander could deploy the tracked 
resupply vehicles forward providing maximum protection for the crew 
while using the wheeled vehicles to upload and transport ammunition in 
the less vulnerable rear positions and transfer the ammunition to the 
tracked carriers. In a law counter fire threat, the commander could 
also deploy the wheeled vehicles forward maximizing through put of 
ammunition. The automatic resupply and cannon autoloader capability is 
a major technological leap forward for the Army, which has never had 
this capability before.
    9. What force structure was sacrificed in anticipation of 
fielding Crusader? Will structure be added back if Crusader is 
terminated? What will that cost?
    In anticipation of the increased firepower and productivity 
of the Crusader system, the Army reduced force structure in 
both maneuver and fire support units by 25 percent in the mid-
1990s. The Army reduced Paladin and all other cannon battalions 
from three batteries of eight howitzers (3x8) to three 
batteries of six howitzers (3x6). MLRS battalions were also 
reduced to 3 batteries of 6 launchers each (down from 8 or 9 
launchers each). at the same time, Army tactics were changed to 
take full advantage of the speed of its tanks, Bradley fighting 
vehicles, the Crusader, and other situation awareness 
capabilities, increasing the planned battle space for Army 
forces by over 200 percent. Termination of the Crusader will 
necessitate a reexamination of Army force structure, tactics, 
techniques, and procedures.
    10. What are remaining development and cost risks of the 
Crusader?
    The Army has testified that it rates the Crusader program a 
moderate to low risk for technical performance, cost, and 
schedule. The software build for Crusader is on schedule and 
within cost estimates. The range and rate-of-fire key 
performance parameters are being demonstrated with the first 
prototype vehicle at Yuma Proving Grounds and the resupply and 
mobility are on schedule for demonstration in 2002. Over 6,000 
test firings have shown the Crusader to be 142% more accurate 
to date than Paladin. Accuracy improvements come from:
          A new projectile tracking system that removes 
        meteorological errors;
          Percision pointing with electric drives;
          Thermal management
          Muzzle velocity management;
          On-board projectile weighting;
          Inertial reference unit coupled to GPS to null out 
        position errors.
    The program has been focusing significant effort on 
building the reliability of the system in order to remove 
soldiers from the technical and manual operational aspect of 
fighting a weapon system.
    11. How much does the Crusader weigh and what can carry it?
    The Crusader howitzer was redesigned several years ago to 
reduce its weight from 60 tons to 40 tons. Under the Army's 
current plan, Crusader artillery would be either prepositioned 
or moved by sea as part of a counterattack corps. If needed, 
Crusader systems could be airlifted on C-17 or C-5B aircraft. 
Deployments by airlift would most likely entail a battery of 3 
Crusader systems to meet special contingencies. Crusader 
airlift ranges would be:

                                                                Nautical
                                                                   Miles
C-17:
    2 howitzers (84 tons)......................................... 2,276
    1 howitzer and 1 resupply vehicle (w) (73 tons)............... 2,782
C-5B:
    2 howitzers (84 tons)......................................... 3,200
    1 howitzer and 1 resupply vehicle (w) (73 tons)............... 3,500

                                   Norm Dicks.
                                   Chet Edwards.

                                  
