[Senate Report 107-62]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 155
107th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 107-62
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
REPORT
[to accompany s. 1416]
on
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL
STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
September 12, 2001.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-056 WASHINGTON : 2001
______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202)512-1800 Fax: (202)512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
(107th Congress, 1st Session)
CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JOHN WARNER, Virginia
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MAX CLELAND, Georgia BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JACK REED, Rhode Island RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
BILL NELSON, Florida WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
David S. Lyles, Staff Director
Les Brownlee, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Purpose of the Bill.............................................. 1
Committee overview and recommendations........................... 2
Fiscal year 2002 budget request.............................. 3
Committee review and recommendations......................... 4
Improving the compensation and quality of life of U.S. forces
and their families......................................... 4
Increasing military pay.................................. 5
Increasing the basic allowance for housing............... 5
Expanding education benefits for military families....... 5
Improving military facilities and family housing......... 5
Improving defense health care............................ 6
Sustaining the readiness of U.S. forces...................... 6
Improving the readiness of aviation forces............... 6
Training improvements.................................... 6
Improving the readiness of naval forces.................. 6
Improving the readiness of the bomber force.............. 7
Reductions in strategic nuclear forces................... 7
Improving the readiness of space launch facilities....... 8
Improving the readiness of the Guard and Reserve......... 8
Transforming U.S. forces..................................... 8
Modernization............................................ 8
Developing revolutionary military capabilities........... 9
Sustaining Army transformation........................... 9
Transforming naval forces................................ 10
Unmanned vehicle initiatives............................. 10
Improving the capability of U.S. forces to meet
nontraditional threats..................................... 11
Combating terrorism initiative........................... 11
Combating proliferation of weapons of mass destruction... 13
Other initiatives to meet nontraditional threats......... 13
Ballistic missile defense................................ 13
Improving the efficiency of DOD programs and operations...... 15
Base realignment and closure............................. 16
Service contracts........................................ 16
Acquisition reform....................................... 17
Making better use of modernization funding............... 17
Financial management systems............................. 17
Explanation of funding summary................................... 18
Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations................. 27
Title I--Procurement............................................. 27
Explanation of tables........................................ 27
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 27
Chemical agents and munitions destruction, Defense (sec.
106)................................................... 27
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 28
Army Aircraft............................................ 48
UH-60 Black Hawk..................................... 48
TH-67 training helicopter............................ 48
AH-64 Apache modifications........................... 48
CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications (multiyear
program)........................................... 48
CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications (multiyear
program) (advanced procurement).................... 49
Longbow.............................................. 49
Avionics support equipment........................... 49
Army Missiles............................................ 49
STINGER system summary............................... 49
Line of sight anti-tank system summary............... 50
Multiple launch rocket system........................ 50
Army tactical missile system--system summary......... 50
AVENGER modifications................................ 50
Tube-launched, optically tracked, wire command-link
guided, improved target acquisition system
modifications...................................... 51
Multiple launch rocket system modifications.......... 51
Army Ammunition.......................................... 51
Remote area denial artillery munition................ 51
Artillery ammunition................................. 51
Anti-personnel obstacle breaching system............. 52
Other Army Procurement................................... 52
Heavy expanded mobile tactical truck extended service
program............................................ 52
Super high frequency terminals....................... 52
Secure enroute communications package................ 52
Army data distribution system (data radio)........... 53
Area common user system modifications program........ 53
Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle procurement......... 53
Long range advanced scout surveillance system........ 54
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 54
Virginia class submarine program (sec. 121).............. 76
Multiyear procurement authority for F/A-18E/F aircraft
engines (sec. 122)..................................... 76
V-22 Osprey aircraft (sec. 123).......................... 76
Other Navy Programs.......................................... 80
Navy Aircraft............................................ 80
Integrated defensive electronic countermeasures...... 80
Navy joint primary aircraft training system.......... 80
EA-6B aircraft ALQ-99 band 9/10 transmitters......... 81
EA-6B aircraft structural modifications.............. 81
AV-8B precision targeting pod........................ 82
P-3 aircraft modifications........................... 82
Navy Weapons............................................. 83
Hellfire missiles.................................... 83
Weapons industrial facilities........................ 83
Close-in weapons system modifications................ 83
Gun mount modifications.............................. 84
Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion......................... 84
Trident submarine conversion......................... 84
Other Navy Procurement....................................... 85
AN/WSN-7B inertial navigation system................. 85
Ship integrated condition assessment system.......... 86
Ship engineering control and surveillance system..... 86
High resolution side-scan sonar for detecting sea
mines.............................................. 86
Tactical communications onboard trainer.............. 87
AN/BPS-15H integration into tactical integrated
digital system..................................... 87
AN/SPS-73(V) surface search radar.................... 87
Sonobuoys............................................ 87
SPQ-9B radar......................................... 88
NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system................. 88
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 88
Multiyear procurement authority for C-17 aircraft (sec
131)................................................... 102
Other Air Force Programs..................................... 102
Air Force Aircraft....................................... 102
C-130J............................................... 102
Predator unmanned aerial vehicle..................... 103
B-52................................................. 103
F-15 aircraft modifications.......................... 103
F-16 aircraft modifications.......................... 104
C-17 simulator....................................... 104
Joint surveillance target attack radar system........ 105
Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program.............. 105
Air Force Missiles....................................... 105
Minuteman III modifications.......................... 105
Peacekeeper Ballistic Missile........................ 106
Wideband gapfiller satellites........................ 106
Other Air Force Procurement.............................. 106
Base information infrastructure...................... 106
Spacelift range systems.............................. 106
Night vision goggles................................. 107
Spacetrack........................................... 107
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 107
Extension of pilot program on sales of manufactured
articles and services of certain Army industrial
facilities (sec. 141).................................. 113
Defense-Wide Programs.................................... 113
CV-22 procurement.................................... 113
Multiband intra/inter team radio procurement......... 113
Advanced lightweight grenade launcher................ 113
Special operations peculiar M4A1 carbine modification
procurement........................................ 114
Chemical-biological individual protective equipment.. 114
Chemical-biological protective shelters.............. 114
Defense Production Act................................... 115
Laser additive manufacturing initiative.............. 115
Other Items of Interest...................................... 115
Acquisition programs at the National Imagery and Mapping
Agency................................................. 115
Acquisition programs at the National Security Agency..... 116
Air Force C-130 roadmap.................................. 119
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer procurement................ 119
Ejection seats for training aircraft..................... 120
Family of medium tactical vehicles A1 Production and
Competitive Rebuy...................................... 120
Mobility requirements for fiscal year 2005............... 121
Multi-cellular geocomposite containment units............ 121
USS Cole damage control lessons learned.................. 122
Explanation of tables........................................ 123
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 123
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions and
Limitations................................................ 125
F-22 aircraft program (sec. 211)......................... 125
C-5 aircraft reliability enhancement and reengining (sec.
212)................................................... 125
Review of alternatives to the V-22 Osprey aircraft (sec.
213)................................................... 126
Joint biological defense program (sec. 214).............. 126
Subtitle C--Missile Defense.................................. 126
Ballistic missile defenses............................... 126
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty........................ 127
Ballistic missile defense funding........................ 129
Presidential certification and expedited congressional
approval process for certain uses of ballistic missile
defense funds (sec. 221)............................... 131
Program elements and procurement budget displays for
ballistic missile defense (sec. 222)................... 132
Ballistic missile defense research and development
program baseline document (sec. 223)................... 133
Annual program plan for ballistic missile defense
research and development program (sec. 224)............ 133
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 134
Technology transition initiative (sec. 231).............. 134
Communication of safety concerns between operational
testing and evaluation officials and program managers
(sec. 232)............................................. 135
Additional Matters of Interest............................... 135
Army..................................................... 135
Composite materials basic research................... 146
Advanced materials research for future combat systems 146
Compact kinetic energy missile....................... 146
Commercially-based tactical truck.................... 146
Tungsten alloy penetrator............................ 147
Coolers for portable military applications........... 147
Ground vehicle batteries............................. 147
Wireless technology testbed.......................... 148
Geosciences and atmospheric research................. 148
Arthropod-borne infectious disease control........... 148
Personal navigation for the objective force warrior.. 148
Unmanned aerial vehicle wideband radio frequency
network............................................ 148
Combat vehicle technology development and support.... 149
Mobile parts hospital................................ 149
Army technology for environmental enhancements....... 149
Plasma energy pyrolysis system....................... 149
Comanche............................................. 149
Javelin.............................................. 150
Movement tracking system............................. 150
Night vision systems engineering development......... 150
BAT brilliant anti-armor submunition................. 150
Programwide activities............................... 150
Combat vehicle improvement programs.................. 151
Aircraft modifications/product improvement program... 151
Aircraft engine component improvement program........ 151
Rapid acquisition program for transformation......... 152
Information operations training...................... 152
Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle development......... 153
Navy..................................................... 153
Navy research and development budget justification
material........................................... 167
Marine mammal research............................... 169
Ocean observing program.............................. 169
Integrated biological and chemical defense technology
platform........................................... 169
Data fusion.......................................... 169
Advanced personal communicator....................... 169
Bioenvironmental hazards research.................... 170
Nanotechnology research.............................. 170
Training immersion facility.......................... 170
Electronics research for naval applications.......... 170
Ship service fuel cell technology trainer............ 171
Advanced composite modular ship hulls................ 171
DDG-51 class rudder improvement...................... 171
Laser welding and cutting for ship manufacturing..... 172
Technology demonstration for future ship systems..... 172
Ocean modeling research for mine and expeditionary
warfare............................................ 172
Deployable joint command and control................. 172
Electromechanical actuators.......................... 173
Submarine composite sail............................. 173
Neutralization of facility threats................... 173
Urban operations environment research................ 174
Ship-based missile fire support for ashore forces.... 174
Budget technical adjustment.......................... 175
Aircrew systems development.......................... 175
Power node control centers........................... 175
Shipboard personnel tracking and location system..... 175
Aegis operational readiness test system.............. 176
Joint air-to-surface standoff missile................ 176
Standard missile advanced optical correlator......... 176
Submarine antenna technology improvement............. 176
Submarine tactical information management............ 177
Navy common command and decision system.............. 177
Submarine combat systems modernization............... 177
Infrared search and track............................ 177
NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system................. 178
Navy single integrated human resources strategy...... 178
Budget technical adjustment.......................... 179
Supply chain best practices.......................... 179
Nanotechnology for consequence management............ 179
Strategic submarine and weapons system support....... 179
Joint helmet mounted cueing system................... 179
MK-48 advanced capability torpedo development........ 180
Marine Corps communications systems.................. 180
Vertical takeoff and landing tactical unmanned aerial
vehicle development................................ 181
Modeling and simulation.............................. 181
Air Force................................................ 181
Aerospace materials manufacturing and research....... 192
Information protection and authentication............ 192
Aluminum aerostructures.............................. 192
Fly-by-light actuators............................... 192
B-2 Spirit........................................... 193
Precision location and identification program........ 193
Panoramic night vision goggles....................... 194
Joint Strike Fighter................................. 194
Evolved expendable launch vehicle.................... 196
squadrons............................................ 196
research............................................. 197
Spacelift range system............................... 197
Dragon U-2........................................... 197
Global Hawk high-altitude endurance unmanned aerial
vehicle............................................ 197
Spacetrack........................................... 198
NUDET detection system............................... 198
KC-135 research and development...................... 199
Defense-Wide............................................. 200
Ballistic missile defense funding adjustments........ 213
Boost defense segment................................ 213
Space-based kinetic kill......................... 213
Sea-based boost.................................. 213
Space-based laser................................ 213
Airborne laser................................... 213
Midcourse defense segment............................ 214
Navy theater-wide................................ 214
Ground-based midcourse system.................... 216
2004 testbed testing............................. 216
Sensors segment...................................... 216
Space-based infra-red system, low component...... 216
Terminal segment..................................... 217
Theater high altitude area defense............... 217
Arrow............................................ 218
Terminal defense segment program operations...... 218
Ballistic missile defense system..................... 219
Ballistic missile defense advanced technology........ 219
Thermionic technology............................ 219
Magdalena Ridge Observatory...................... 220
Short-range missile defense...................... 220
Tactical high energy laser....................... 220
Software defined radio........................... 220
Patriot air and missile defense.................. 220
Aerostat design and manufacturing................ 221
Advanced research center......................... 221
Space and missile defense battle lab............. 221
Airborne infrared surveillance system............ 221
Liquid fueled target program..................... 222
Bottom anti-reflective coatings for circuit
boards......................................... 222
Ultra-flat planarization technology.............. 222
Atmospheric interceptor technology............... 222
National nanotechnology initiative................... 222
Nanotechnology research and development.............. 224
Three-dimensional microelectronics................... 224
Radiation hardened electronics....................... 224
Combating nontraditional and asymmetric threats...... 225
Combating Terrorism Technology Support Working Group. 225
Chemical and Biological Defense Program.............. 225
Naval unmanned combat air vehicle.................... 227
Complex systems design............................... 227
Competitiveness sustainment initiative............... 227
Unmanned ground combat vehicle....................... 228
Environmental security technology certification
program............................................ 228
Budget technical adjustments......................... 229
Regional pilot program for infrastructure protection. 229
Broadcast-request imagery technology experiment...... 229
Intelligent spatial technologies for smart maps...... 230
Budget technical adjustments......................... 230
CV-22 research and development....................... 230
Digital imagery systems.............................. 231
Other Items of Interest...................................... 231
Air Force science & technology planning and investments.. 231
Defense/Industry fuel cell partnership................... 232
Navy shipbuilding requirements and transformation........ 232
Networking and information technology research and
development............................................ 234
Reusable Launch Vehicles................................. 234
Review of mine countermeasures plans and programs........ 235
Track conversion system for lightweight wheeled vehicles. 236
Title III--Operation and Maintenance............................. 237
Explanation of tables........................................ 237
Summary of National Defense Authorization for FY 2000........ 237
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 276
Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 303).................. 276
Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit
dependents of members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 304).... 276
Amount for impact aid for children with severe
disabilities (sec. 305)................................ 276
Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions......................... 276
Establishment in environmental restoration accounts of
sub-accounts for unexploded ordnance and other related
constituents (sec. 311)................................ 276
Assessment of environmental remediation of unexploded
ordnance and related constituents (sec. 312)........... 276
Department of Defense energy efficiency program (sec.
313)................................................... 277
Extension of pilot program for the sale of air pollution
emission reduction incentives (sec. 314)............... 277
Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for
certain response costs in connection with Hooper Sands
Site, South Berwick, Maine (sec. 315).................. 278
Conformity of surety authority under environmental
restoration program with surety authority under
Superfund (sec. 316)................................... 278
Procurement of alternative fueled and hybrid electric
light duty trucks (sec. 317)........................... 278
Subtitle C--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities.......................................... 279
Rebate agreements with producers of foods provided under
the special supplemental food program (sec. 321)....... 279
Reimbursement for use of commissary facilities by
military departments for purposes other than commissary
sales (sec. 322)....................................... 279
Public releases of commercially valuable information of
commissary stores (sec. 323)........................... 279
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 280
Codification of authority for Department of Defense
support for counterdrug activities of other agencies
(sec. 331)............................................. 280
Exclusion of certain expenditures from limitation on
private sector performance of depot-level maintenance
(sec. 332)............................................. 280
Repair, restoration, and preservation of Lafayette
Escadrille Memorial, Marnes la-Coquette, France (sec.
333)................................................... 280
Implementation of the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract
(sec. 334)............................................. 281
Additional Matters of Interest............................... 281
Battlefield mobility enhancement program................. 281
Civilian underexecution.................................. 282
Corrosion prevention..................................... 282
Foreign currency fluctuation............................. 283
Personal gear for servicemembers......................... 283
Army..................................................... 283
Objective force task force........................... 283
Interim brigade combat team training................. 283
Army installation security........................... 284
Navy..................................................... 284
Surface ship depot maintenance....................... 284
Mk-45 gun overhauls.................................. 284
Shipyard apprentice program.......................... 284
Navy explosive detectors............................. 284
Surf Eagle for the Naval Oceanographic Office........ 285
Marine Corps............................................. 285
USMC initial issue................................... 285
USMC depot maintenance............................... 285
Air Force................................................ 286
Spacelift range facilities........................... 286
Civil Air Patrol..................................... 286
Defense-Wide............................................. 286
Special operations combating terrorism training...... 286
Commercial imagery to support military requirements.. 287
Information security scholarship program............. 287
Defense information services agency.................. 288
Washington Headquarters Services..................... 288
Guard and Reserve Components............................. 288
B-1B Lancer bomber................................... 288
Miscellaneous Additional Items of Interest............... 289
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities......... 289
Kaho'olawe Island trust fund......................... 289
Cultural and historic activities..................... 289
Fuel savings......................................... 289
Other Items of Interest...................................... 290
Common access cards...................................... 290
Defense Environmental Security Corporate Information
Management Program..................................... 290
Environmental compliance funding......................... 291
Factors affecting military training practices............ 291
Movement of household goods.............................. 292
Rocky Mountain Arsenal................................... 292
Ship disposal project.................................... 292
Shipyard maintenance..................................... 293
St. Louis Army Ammunition Plant.......................... 294
Use of advanced battery systems for energy storage....... 294
Winter Harbor, Maine..................................... 294
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations...................... 295
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 295
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)............... 295
Authorized daily average active duty strength for Navy
enlisted members in pay grade E-8 (sec. 402)........... 295
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 295
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............ 295
End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of
the reserves (sec. 412)................................ 296
End strengths for military technicians (dual status)
(sec. 413)............................................. 296
Fiscal Year 2002 limitation on non-dual status
technicians (sec. 414)................................. 297
Limitations on numbers of reserve personnel serving on
active duty or full-time national guard duty in certain
grades for administration of reserve components (sec.
415)................................................... 297
Strength and grade limitation accounting for reserve
component members on active duty in support of a
contingency operation (sec. 416)....................... 297
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 298
Authorization of appropriations for military personnel
(sec. 421)............................................. 298
Title V--Military Personnel Policy............................... 298
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 298
General officer positions (sec. 501)..................... 298
Reduction of time-in-grade requirement for eligibility
for promotion of first lieutenants and lieutenants
(junior grade) (sec. 502).............................. 298
Promotion of officers to the grade of captain in the
Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps or to the grade of
lieutenant in the Navy without selection board action
(sec. 503)............................................. 298
Authority to adjust date of rank (sec. 504).............. 298
Extension of deferments of retirement or separation for
medical reasons (sec. 505)............................. 299
Exemption from administrative limitations of retired
members ordered to active duty as defense and service
attaches (sec. 506).................................... 299
Certifications of satisfactory performance for
retirements of officers in grades above major general
and rear admiral (sec. 507)............................ 299
Effective date of mandatory separation or retirement of
regular officer delayed by a suspension of certain law
under emergency authority of the President (sec. 508).. 299
Detail and grade of officer in charge of the United
States Navy Band (sec. 509)............................ 300
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Personnel Policy............... 300
Reauthorization and expansion of temporary waiver of the
requirement for a baccalaureate degree for promotion of
certain reserve officers of the Army (sec. 511)........ 300
Status list of reserve officers on active duty for a
period of three years or less (sec. 512)............... 300
Equal treatment of reserves and full-time active duty
members for purposes of managing deployments of
personnel (sec. 513)................................... 300
Modification of physical examination requirements for
members of the Individual Ready Reserve (sec. 514)..... 300
Members of reserve components afflicted while remaining
overnight at duty station within commuting distance of
home (sec. 515)........................................ 301
Retirement of reserve personnel without request (sec.
516)................................................... 301
Space-required travel by reserves on military aircraft
(sec. 517)............................................. 301
Subtitle C--Education and Training........................... 301
Improved benefits under the Army College First program
(sec. 531)............................................. 301
Repeal of limitation on number of Junior Officers'
Training Corps......................................... 302
Acceptance of fellowships, scholarships, or grants for
legal education of officers participating in the Funded
Legal Education Program (sec. 533)..................... 302
Grant of degree by Defense Language Institute Foreign
Language Center (sec. 534)............................. 302
Authority for the Marine Corps University to award the
degree of master of strategic studies (sec. 535)....... 302
Foreign persons attending the service academies (sec.
536)................................................... 302
Expansion of financial assistance program for health-care
professionals in reserve components to include students
in programs of education leading to initial degree in
medicine or dentistry (sec. 537)....................... 303
Pilot program for Department of Veterans Affairs support
for graduate medical education and training of medical
personnel of the armed forces (sec. 538)............... 303
Transfer of entitlement to educational assistance under
Montgomery GI Bill by members of the armed forces with
critical military skills (sec. 539).................... 303
Subtitle D--Decorations, Awards and Commendations............ 304
Authority for award of the Medal of Honor to Humbert R.
Versace for valor during the Vietnam War (sec. 551).... 304
Review regarding award of medal of honor to certain
Jewish American war veterans (sec. 552)................ 304
Issuance of duplicate and replacement medals of honor
(sec. 553)............................................. 304
Waiver of time limitations for award of certain
decorations to certain persons (sec. 554).............. 305
Sense of the Senate on issuance of Korea Defense Service
Medal (sec. 555)....................................... 305
Subtitle E--Funeral Honors Duty.............................. 305
Active duty end strength exclusion for reserves on active
duty or full-time National Guard duty for funeral
honors duty (sec. 561)................................. 305
Participation of retirees in funeral honors details (sec.
562)................................................... 305
Benefits and protections for members in a funeral honors
duty status (sec. 563)................................. 305
Military leave for civilian employees serving as military
members of funeral honors detail (sec. 564)............ 305
Subtitle F--Uniformed Services Overseas Voting............... 306
Sense of the Senate regarding the importance of voting by
members of the uniformed services (sec. 571)........... 306
Uniform nondiscriminatory voting standards for
administration of elections under State and local
election systems (sec. 572)............................ 306
Guarantee of residence for military personnel (sec. 573). 306
Extension of registration and balloting rights for absent
uniformed services voters to State and local elections
(sec. 574)............................................. 306
Use of single application as a simultaneous absentee
voter registration application and absentee ballot
application (sec. 575)................................. 306
Use of single application for absentee ballots for all
Federal elections (sec. 576)........................... 307
Electronic voting demonstration program (sec. 577)....... 307
Federal voting assistance program (sec. 578)............. 307
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 307
Persons authorized to be included in surveys of military
families regarding federal programs (sec. 581)......... 307
Correction and extension of certain Army recruiting pilot
program authorities (sec. 582)......................... 308
Offense of drunken operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or
vessel under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec.
583)................................................... 308
Authority of civilian employees to act as notaries (sec.
584)................................................... 308
Review of actions of selection boards (sec. 585)......... 308
Acceptance of voluntary legal assistance for the civil
affairs of members and former members of the uniformed
services and their dependents (sec. 586)............... 309
Extension of Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence
(sec. 587)............................................. 309
Transportation to annual meeting of next-of-kin of
persons unaccounted for from conflicts after World War
II (sec. 588).......................................... 309
Other Items of Interest...................................... 309
National Guard members of funeral honors detail.......... 309
Notification to service members regarding adverse
information............................................ 310
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits.............. 311
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 311
Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2002 (sec. 601).... 311
Basic pay rate for certain reserve commissioned officers
with prior service as an enlisted member or warrant
officer (sec. 602)..................................... 311
Reserve component compensation for distributed learning
activities performed as inactive-duty training (sec.
603)................................................... 311
Clarifications for transition to reformed basic allowance
for subsistence (sec. 604)............................. 311
Increase in Basic Allowance for Housing in the United
States (sec. 605)...................................... 311
Clarification of eligibility for supplemental subsistence
allowance (sec. 606)................................... 312
Correction of limitation on additional uniform allowance
for officers (sec. 607)................................ 312
Payment for unused leave in excess of 60 days accrued by
members of reserve components on active duty for one
year or less (sec. 608)................................ 312
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special Incentive Pays............... 312
Extension of certain bonuses and special pay authorities
for reserve forces (sec. 611).......................... 312
Extension of certain bonuses and special pay authorities
for nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and
nurse anesthetists (sec. 612).......................... 313
Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for
nuclear officers (sec. 613)............................ 313
Extension of authorities relating to payment of other
bonuses and special pays (sec. 614).................... 313
Hazardous duty pay for members of maritime visit, board,
search, and seizure teams (sec. 615)................... 313
Submarine duty incentive pay rates (sec. 616)............ 313
Career sea pay (sec. 617)................................ 313
Modification of eligibility requirements for Individual
Ready Reserve bonus for re-enlistment, enlistment, or
extension of enlistment (sec. 618)..................... 314
Accession bonus for officers in critical skills (sec.
619)................................................... 314
Modification of the nurse officer candidate accession
program restriction on students attending civilian
educational institutions with Senior Reserve Officers
Training programs (sec. 620)........................... 314
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 314
Eligibility for temporary housing allowance while in
travel or leave status between permanent duty stations
(sec. 631)............................................. 314
Eligibility for payment of subsistence expenses
associated with occupancy of temporary lodging incident
to reporting to first permanent duty station (sec. 632) 314
Eligibility for dislocation allowance (sec. 633)......... 315
Allowance for dislocation for the convenience of the
government at home station (sec. 634).................. 315
Travel and transportation allowances for family members
to attend the burial of a deceased member of the
uniformed services (sec. 635).......................... 315
Family separation allowance for members electing
unaccompanied tour by reason of health limitations of
dependents (sec. 636).................................. 315
Funded student travel for foreign study under an
education program approved by a United States school
(sec. 637)............................................. 315
Transportation or storage of privately owned vehicles on
change of permanent station (sec. 638)................. 316
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Retirement and Survivor
Benefits................................................... 316
Payment of retired pay and compensation to disabled
military retirees (sec. 651)........................... 316
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 316
Education savings plan for reenlistments and extensions
of service in critical specialties (sec. 661).......... 316
Commissary benefits for new members of the Ready Reserve
(sec. 662)............................................. 317
Authorization of transitional compensation and commissary
and exchange benefits for dependents of commissioned
officers of the Public Health Service and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who are
separated for dependent abuse (sec. 663)............... 317
Title VII--Health Care........................................... 319
Subtitle A--TRICARE Benefits Modernization................... 319
Requirement for integration of benefits (sec. 701)....... 319
Domiciliary and custodial care (sec. 702)................ 319
Long-term care (sec. 703)................................ 319
Extended benefits for disabled beneficiaries (sec. 704).. 319
Conforming repeals (sec. 705)............................ 319
Effective date (sec. 706)................................ 319
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 320
Repeal of requirement for periodic screenings and
examinations and related care for members of Army
reserve units scheduled for early deployment (sec. 711) 320
Clarification of eligibility for reimbursement of travel
expenses of adult accompanying patient in travel for
specialty care (sec. 712).............................. 320
TRICARE program limitations on payment rates for
institutional health care providers and on balance
billing by institutional and non-institutional health
care providers (sec. 713).............................. 320
Two-year extension of health care management
demonstration program (sec. 714)....................... 320
Study of health care coverage of members of the Selected
Reserve (sec. 715)..................................... 320
Study of adequacy and quality of health care provided to
women under the Defense Health Program (sec. 716)...... 321
Pilot program for Department of Veterans Affairs support
for Department of Defense in the performance of
separation physical examinations (sec. 717)............ 321
Other Items of Interest...................................... 321
Defense Health Program simplification of claims
processing procedures and communications............... 321
Electronic medical records............................... 321
Funding the Defense Health Program....................... 322
HIV/AIDS Oral Fluids Testing Pilot Program............... 322
Immunization against Hepatitis B......................... 323
Trauma and medical care.................................. 323
Use of clinical decision support information tools....... 323
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management and
Related Matters................................................ 325
Subtitle A--Procurement Management and Administration........ 325
Management of procurements of services (sec. 801)........ 325
Savings goals for procurements of services (sec. 802).... 325
Competition requirement for purchases pursuant to
multiple award contracts (sec. 803).................... 327
Risk reduction at initiation of major defense acquisition
program (sec. 804)..................................... 328
Follow-on production contracts for products developed
pursuant to prototype projects (sec. 805).............. 329
Subtitle B--Defense Acquisition and Support Workforce........ 329
Report on implementation of recommendations of the
Acquisition 2005 Task Force (sec. 811)................. 329
Moratorium on reduction of defense acquisition and
support workforce (sec. 812)........................... 330
Revision of acquisition workforce qualifications (sec.
813)................................................... 330
Applicability of competition requirements to purchases
from a required source (sec. 821)...................... 330
Consolidation of contract requirements (sec. 822)........ 331
Codification and continuation of Mentor-Protege Program
as permanent program (sec. 823)........................ 332
Subtitle D--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities
Procedures, and Related Mattters........................... 333
Amendments to conform with administrative changes in
acquisition phase and milestone terminology and to make
related adjustments in certain requirements applicable
at milestone transition points (sec. 831).............. 333
Inapplicability of limitation to small purchases of
miniature or instrument ball or roller bearings under
certain circumstances (sec. 832)....................... 333
Other Items of Interest...................................... 334
Continuity of service in critical acquisition positions.. 334
Direct payment of subcontractors......................... 334
Internal controls on the use of credit cards............. 335
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management...... 337
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness (sec. 901)................................... 337
Responsibility of Under Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition of space launch vehicles and space launch
services (sec. 902).................................... 337
Sense of Congress regarding the selection of officers for
assignment as the Commander in Chief, United States
Transportation Command (sec. 903)...................... 337
Organizational realignment for Navy Director for
Expeditionary Warfare (sec. 904)....................... 338
Revised requirements for content of annual report on
joint warfighting experimentation (sec. 905)........... 338
Suspension of reorganization engineering and technical
authority policy within the Naval Sea Systems Command
(sec. 906)............................................. 338
Conforming amendments relating to change of name of Air
Mobility Command (sec. 907)............................ 340
Title X--General Provisions...................................... 341
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 341
Transfer authority (sec. 1001)........................... 341
Reduction in certain authorizations of appropriations for
management efficiencies (sec. 1002).................... 341
Authorization of supplemental appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 (sec. 1003).................................. 341
United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets
in fiscal year 2002 (sec. 1004)........................ 341
Clarification of applicability of interest penalties for
late payment of interim payments due under contracts
for services (sec. 1005)............................... 342
Reliability of Department of Defense financial statements
(sec. 1006)............................................ 342
Senior Financial Management Oversight Council and
financial feeder systems compliance process (sec. 1007) 343
Combating terrorism readiness initiatives fund for
combatant commands (sec. 1008)......................... 343
Subtitle B--Strategic Forces................................. 343
Repeal of limitation on retirement or dismantlement of
strategic nuclear delivery systems (sec. 1011)......... 343
Bomber force structure (sec. 1012)....................... 344
Additional element for revised Nuclear Posture Review
(sec. 1013)............................................ 345
Subtitle C--Reporting Requirements........................... 345
Information and recommendations on congressional
reporting requirements applicable to the Department of
Defense (sec. 1021).................................... 345
Report on combating terrorism (sec. 1022)................ 346
Revised requirement for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to advise Secretary of Defense on the assignment
of roles and missions to the armed forces (sec. 1023).. 346
Revision of deadline for annual report on commercial and
industrial activities (sec. 1024)...................... 346
Production and acquisition of vaccines for defense
against biological warfare agents (sec. 1025).......... 347
Extension of times for Commission on the Future of the
United States Aerospace Industry to report and to
terminate (sec. 1026).................................. 348
Subtitle D--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................... 348
Amendment of Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991
(sec. 1041)............................................ 348
Definitions (sec. 1042).................................. 348
Revision of authority establishing the Armed Forces
Retirement Home (sec. 1043)............................ 348
Chief Operating Officer (sec. 1044)...................... 349
Residents of Retirement Home (sec. 1045)................. 349
Local boards of trustees (sec. 1046)..................... 349
Directors, Deputy Directors, and staff of facilities
(sec. 1047)............................................ 349
Disposition of effects of deceased persons and unclaimed
property (sec. 1048)................................... 349
Transitional provisions (sec. 1049)...................... 350
Conforming and clerical amendments and repeals of
obsolete provisions (sec. 1050)........................ 350
Amendments of other laws (sec. 1051)..................... 350
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 350
Requirement to conduct certain previously authorized
educational programs for children and youth (sec. 1061) 350
Authority to ensure demilitarization of significant
military equipment formerly owned by the Department of
Defense (sec. 1062).................................... 350
Conveyances of equipment and related materials loaned to
state and local governments as assistance for emergency
response to a use or threatened use of a weapon of mass
destruction (sec. 1063)................................ 351
Authority to pay gratuity to members of the Armed Forces
and civilian employees of the United States for slave
labor performed for Japan during World War II (sec.
1064).................................................. 352
Retention of travel promotional items (sec. 1065)........ 352
Other Items of Interest...................................... 352
Comptroller General report on policies and plans
regarding the preparedness of military installations
for incidents involving weapons of mass destruction.... 352
Department of Defense management reform initiatives...... 353
GAO report on advanced SEAL delivery system program...... 353
GAO Reports on National Reconnaissance Office and
National Imagery and Mapping Agency Commissions........ 354
Military child care programs............................. 354
Military spouse employment............................... 355
Professional development and training of financial
management personnel................................... 355
Reach Out and Read Program............................... 355
Secondary Education Transition Study..................... 355
Title XI--Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Policy........ 357
Subtitle A--Intelligence Personnel........................... 357
Authority to increase maximum number of positions in the
Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service (sec.
1101).................................................. 357
Continued applicability of certain civil service
protections for employees integrated into the National
Imagery and Mapping Agency from the Defense Mapping
Agency (sec. 1102)..................................... 357
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Retirement................... 357
Federal employment retirement credit for non-appropriated
fund instrumentality service (sec. 1111)............... 357
Improved portability of retirement coverage for employees
moving between civil service employment and employment
by non-appropriated fund instrumentalities (sec. 1112). 357
Repeal of fiscal year 2003 limitation on exercise of
voluntary separation incentive pay authority and
voluntary early retirement authority (sec. 1113)....... 358
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 358
Housing allowance for the chaplain for the corps of
cadets at the United States Military Academy (sec.
1121).................................................. 358
Study of adequacy of compensation provided for teachers
in the Department of Defense overseas dependents'
schools (sec. 1122).................................... 358
Pilot program for payment of retraining expenses incurred
by employers of persons involuntarily separated from
employment by the Department of Defense (sec. 1123).... 358
Title XII--Matters Relating to Other Nations..................... 359
Subtitle A--Cooperative Threat Reduction with States of the
Former Soviet Union........................................ 359
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs
and funds (sec. 1201).................................. 359
Funding allocations (sec. 1202).......................... 359
Chemical weapons destruction (sec. 1203)................. 359
Management of Cooperative Threat Reduction program and
funds (sec. 1204)...................................... 360
Additional matter in annual report on activities and
assistance under the Cooperative Threat Reduction
programs. (Sec. 1205).................................. 360
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 361
Support of United Nations-sponsored efforts to inspect
and monitor Iraqi weapons activities (sec. 1211)....... 361
Cooperative research and development projects with NATO
and other countries (sec. 1212)........................ 361
International cooperative agreements on use of ranges and
other facilities for testing of defense equipment (sec.
1213).................................................. 361
Clarification of authority to furnish nuclear test
monitoring equipment to foreign governments (sec. 1214) 361
Participation of government contractors in chemical
weapons inspections at United States Government
facilities under the Chemical Weapons Convention (sec.
1215).................................................. 361
Authority to transfer naval vessels to certain foreign
countries (sec. 1216).................................. 362
Title XIII--Contingent Authorization of Appropriations........... 363
Authorization of appropriations contingent on increased
allocation of new budget authority (sec. 1301)......... 363
Reductions (sec. 1302)................................... 364
Reference to Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
Fiscal Year 2002 (sec. 1303)........................... 364
Division B--Military Construction Authorizations................. 364
Explanation of funding table................................. 364
Summary of FY 2002 Military Construction Authorizations
(in Thousands of Dollars).............................. 366
Fiscal Year 2002 Authorization of Appropriations for
Military Construction.................................. 367
Title XXI--Army.................................................. 365
Summary...................................................... 365
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2101)................................... 365
Family housing (sec. 2102)............................... 365
Improvement to military family housing units (sec. 2103). 365
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)........ 365
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2001 projects (sec. 2105)......................... 365
Title XXII--Navy................................................. 385
Summary...................................................... 385
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2201)................................... 385
Family housing (sec. 2202)............................... 385
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 385
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)........ 385
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2001 project (sec. 2205).......................... 385
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2000 project (sec. 2206).......................... 386
Other Items of Interest...................................... 386
Planning and design, Navy................................ 386
Unspecified minor construction, Navy..................... 386
Title XXIII--Air Force........................................... 387
Summary...................................................... 387
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2301)................................... 387
Family housing (sec. 2302)............................... 387
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 387
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec.2304).... 387
Modification of authority to carry out fiscal year 2001
project (sec. 2305).................................... 387
Other Items of Interest...................................... 388
Planning and design, Air Force........................... 388
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies..................................... 389
Summary...................................................... 389
Authorized Defense Agency construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2401)....................... 389
Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)................. 389
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec.
2403).................................................. 389
Cancellation of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2001 projects (sec. 2404)......................... 390
Cancellation of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2001 project (sec. 2405).......................... 390
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2000 projects (sec. 2406)......................... 390
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 1999 projects (sec. 2407)......................... 391
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 1995 project (sec. 2408).......................... 391
Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program........................................................ 393
Summary...................................................... 393
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2501)................................... 393
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)........ 393
Title XXVI--Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities.................. 395
Summary...................................................... 395
Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2601)....................... 395
Other Items of Interest...................................... 395
Report on requirement for Regional Training Institute.... 395
Title XXVII--Expiration and Extension of Authorizations.......... 397
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law (sec. 2701)........................... 397
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1999
projects (sec. 2702)................................... 397
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1998
projects (sec. 2703)................................... 397
Effective date (sec. 2704)............................... 397
Title XXVIII--General Provisions................................. 397
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 397
Increase in thresholds for certain unspecified minor
military construction projects (sec. 2801)............. 397
Unforseen environmental hazard remediation as basis for
authorized cost variations for military construction
and family housing construction projects (sec. 2802)... 398
Repeal of requirement for annual reports to Congress on
military construction and military family housing
activities (sec. 2803)................................. 398
Authority available for lease of property and facilities
under alternative authority for acquisition and
improvement of military housing (sec. 2804)............ 398
Funds for housing allowances of members assigned to
military family housing under alternative authority for
acquisition and improvement of military housing (sec.
2805).................................................. 398
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 399
Availability of proceeds from sales of Department of
Defense property when the installation where the
property sold is closed (sec. 2811).................... 399
Pilot efficient facilities initiative (sec. 2812)........ 399
Demonstration program on reduction in long-term facility
maintenance costs (sec. 2813).......................... 399
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances................................. 400
Land conveyance, Engineer Proving Ground, Fort Belvoir,
Virginia (sec. 2821)................................... 400
Modification of authority for conveyance of Naval
Computer and Telecommunications Station, Cutler, Maine
(sec. 2822)............................................ 400
Land transfer and conveyance, Naval Security Group
Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine (sec. 2823)............. 400
Conveyance of segment of Loring Petroleum Pipeline, Maine
and related easements (sec. 2824)...................... 401
Land conveyance, petroleum terminal serving former Loring
Air Force Base and Bangor Air National Guard Base,
Maine (sec. 2825)...................................... 401
Land conveyance, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant,
Toledo, Ohio (sec. 2826)............................... 401
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 402
Development of United States Army Heritage and Education
Center at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania (sec. 2841).. 402
Limitation on availability of funds for renovation of the
Pentagon Reservation (sec. 2842)....................... 402
Naming of Patricia C. Lamar Army National Guard Readiness
Center, Oxford, Mississippi (sec. 2843)................ 402
Other Items of Interest...................................... 403
Competition in military housing privatization............ 403
Military unaccompanied housing privatization............. 403
Land acquisition moratorium.............................. 403
Review of need for military land withdrawals in Nevada... 404
Title XXIX--Defense Base Closure and Realignment................. 405
Subtitle A--Modifications of 1990 Base Closure Law........... 405
Modifications of 1990 base closure law (secs. 2901-2904). 405
Subtitle B--Modification of 1988 Base Closure Law............ 407
Modification of 1988 base closure law (sec. 2911)........ 407
Other Items of Interest...................................... 407
Economic development conveyances......................... 407
Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
and Other Authorization........................................ 409
Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs...... 409
Atomic Energy Defense Activities......................... 409
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 410
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)..... 433
Weapons activities................................... 433
Directed stockpile work.......................... 433
Campaigns........................................ 433
Readiness in technical base and facilities....... 435
Defense nuclear nonproliferation................. 436
Nonproliferation and verification research and
development.................................... 436
International nuclear safety and cooperation..... 437
Highly enriched uranium transparency
implementation................................. 437
Arms control and nonproliferation................ 437
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention......... 440
Nuclear Cities Initiative........................ 441
Spent Fuel Activities in Kazakhstan.............. 442
International Materials Protection Control and
Accounting..................................... 442
Russian surplus fissile materials disposition.... 443
U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition....... 444
Secure Transportation Asset.......................... 444
Safeguards and security.............................. 444
Facilities and infrastructure........................ 444
Office of Administrator and program direction........ 444
Defense Environmental restoration and waste management
(sec. 3102)............................................ 445
Closure projects..................................... 445
Site and project completion.......................... 445
Post-2006 Completion................................. 445
Science and technology............................... 446
Other Defense Activities (sec. 3103)..................... 446
Security and Emergency Operations.................... 446
Worker and community transition...................... 446
Defense Environmental management privatization (sec.
3104).................................................. 446
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal (sec. 3105)............... 447
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions..................... 447
Reprogramming (sec. 3121)................................ 447
Limits on minor construction projects (sec. 3122)........ 447
Limits on construction projects (sec. 3123).............. 447
Fund transfer authority (sec. 3124)...................... 448
Authority for conceptual and construction design (sec.
3125).................................................. 448
Authority for emergency planning, design, and
construction activities (sec. 3126).................... 448
Funds available for all national security programs of the
Department of Energy (sec. 3127)....................... 448
Availability of funds (sec. 3128)........................ 448
Transfers of defense environmental management funds (sec.
3129).................................................. 449
Transfer of weapons activities funds (sec. 3130)......... 449
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 449
Limitation on availability of funds for weapons
activities for facilities and infrastructure (sec.
3131).................................................. 449
Limitation on availability of funds for other defense
activities for national security programs
administrative support (sec. 3132)..................... 450
Nuclear Cities Initiative (sec. 3133).................... 451
Construction of Department of Energy operations office
complex. (sec. 3134)................................... 451
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Management of National
Nuclear Security Administration............................ 452
Establishment of position of deputy administrator for
nuclear security (sec. 3141)........................... 452
Responsibility for national security laboratories and
weapons production facilities of Deputy Administrator
of National Security Administration for Defense
Programs (sec. 3142)................................... 452
Clarification of status within the Department of Energy
of Administration and contractor personnel of the
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3143)... 452
Modification of authority of Administrator for Nuclear
Security to establish scientific, engineering and
technical positions (sec. 3144)........................ 453
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 453
Improvements to Energy employees occupational illness
compensation program (sec. 3151)....................... 453
Department of Energy counterintelligence polygraph
program (sec. 3152).................................... 455
One-year extension of authority of Department of Energy
to pay voluntary separation incentive payments (sec.
3153).................................................. 455
Additional objective for Department of Energy defense
nuclear facilities work force restructuring plan (sec.
3154).................................................. 456
Modification of date of report of panel to assess the
reliability, safety, and security of the United States
nuclear stockpile (sec. 3155).......................... 456
Reports on achievement of milestones for National
Ignition Facility (sec. 3156).......................... 456
Support for public education in the vicinity of Los
Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3157)..... 456
Improvements to Corral Hollow Road, Livermore, California
(sec. 3158)............................................ 457
Subtitle F--Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge............. 457
Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (sec.
3171-3181)............................................. 457
Other Items of Interest...................................... 459
Fissile material disposition............................. 459
Office of Engineering and Construction Management........ 461
Alternative dispute resolution........................... 461
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board............. 463
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3201)...... 463
TITLE XXXIII--National Defense Stockpile......................... 465
National defense stockpile (secs. 3301-3304)............. 465
TITLE XXXIV--Naval Petroleum Reserves............................ 467
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 3401).............. 467
Legislative Requirements......................................... 467
Departmental Recommendations................................. 467
Committee Action............................................. 467
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.................... 467
Regulatory Impact............................................ 468
Changes in Existing Law...................................... 468
Minority Views of Senators John W. Warner, Storm Thurmond, Bob
Smith, James M. Inhofe, Rick Santorum, Pat Roberts, Wayne
Allard, Tim Hutchinson, Jeff Sessions, Susan M. Collins, and
Jim Bunning.................................................... 469
Minority Views of Senator Bob Smith.............................. 475
Minority Views of Senator Wayne Allard........................... 477
Minority Views of Senator Jim Bunning............................ 479
Calendar No. 155
107th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 107-62
======================================================================
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL
STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
_______
September 12, 2001.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Levin, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1416]
The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill to authorize appropriations during the fiscal
year 2002 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such
fiscal year for the armed forces, and for other purposes, and
recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
This bill would:
(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b)
research, development, test and evaluation, (c)
operation and maintenance and the revolving and
management funds of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2002;
(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each
military active duty component of the armed forces for
fiscal year 2002;
(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the armed forces for fiscal year 2002;
(4) impose certain reporting requirements;
(5) impose certain limitations with regard to
specific procurement and research, development, test
and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide
certain additional legislative authority, and make
certain changes to existing law;
(6) authorize appropriations for military
construction programs of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2002; and
(7) authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2002.
Committee overview and recommendations
The U.S. military is the most capable fighting force in the
world. From Europe to the Persian Gulf to the Korean peninsula,
the presence of U.S. military forces and their contributions to
regional peace and security reassure our allies and deter our
adversaries. U.S. forces have excelled in every mission
assigned to them, including the 1999 NATO air campaign over
Kosovo and ongoing enforcement of the no-fly zones over Iraq;
humanitarian operations from Central America to Africa; and
peacekeeping operations from the Balkans to East Timor. The
U.S. Armed Forces remain the standard against which all
militaries are measured; they are without peer today and will
remain so for the foreseeable future.
Notwithstanding the international stability and security
that U.S. military forces provide, there are significant
national security challenges that could threaten our national
interests. These include:
Development and proliferation of nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons, and the means to
deliver them, especially the potential for
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or
weapons-usable material from Russia;
Cross-border aggression in regions that are
important to U.S. national security, particularly the
Persian Gulf region and East Asia;
Internal conflicts, such as civil wars or
regimes that oppress their own people, that can
threaten U.S. national interests and the interests of
our allies by creating regional instability or drawing
in other countries;
Transnational threats such as international
terrorism, illegal drug trafficking and organized
crime;
Asymmetric, unconventional threats and
tactics such ascyberwarfare and terrorism involving
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons; and
Humanitarian crises caused by the failure of
a nation's civil structure or natural disasters such as
floods or famine.
In the face of these threats, the United States must
maintain ready and versatile military forces capable of
conducting the full spectrum of military operations--from
deterring and defeating large-scale, cross-border aggression,
to participating in smaller-scale contingencies, to dealing
with terrorism and drug trafficking. Moreover, U.S. forces must
be capable of conducting these operations either unilaterally
or as part of a coalition.
U.S. military forces are meeting this challenge today
because of important and lasting improvements in the capability
of all of the military services made in prior years. Guided by
the Chairman of the Joint Chief's Joint Vision 2010 and Joint
Vision 2020, each of the military services is harnessing
revolutionary advances in information and communications
technology in an intensive and far-reaching effort to transform
their capabilities. Today, each of the military services is
more lethal, more maneuverable, more versatile, and has greater
situational awareness on the battlefield than at any time in
history.
At the same time, each of the military services continues
to face challenges that, if not addressed, threaten to
undermine their ability to carry out their current missions and
to meet future threats. The readiness of front-line forces--
such as those on the Korean peninsula and in the Persian Gulf
region--remains high, but the readiness of some of our non-
deployed forces and our support establishment is not where it
should be. Although every service except the Air Force is
meeting its recruiting and retention goals--helped by the joint
efforts of Congress and the Defense Department in recent years
to improve compensation and quality of life--attracting and
retaining high-quality personnel continues to be difficult.
Finally, funding for the modernization of our forces continues
to lag behind funding for quality of life and near-term
readiness and operations.
Today's armed forces are capable and ready to help keep the
peace, deter traditional and nontraditional threats to our
security and our vital interests around the world, and win any
major conflict decisively. Working together, Congress and the
Executive branch must build on the considerable strengths of
our military forces and their record of success by preserving a
high quality of life for U.S. forces and their families,
sustaining readiness, and transforming the armed forces to meet
the threats and challenges of tomorrow.
Fiscal year 2002 budget request
The Bush Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget request
for national security activities of $343.5 billion represents
an increase of $32.9 billion, or 10 percent, over the fiscal
year 2001 level. The committee's review of the request was
complicated by the fact that the new administration did not
submit its fiscal year 2002 defense budget request to the
Congress until June 27, and that request did not include any
details beyond fiscal year 2002.
When the committee approved the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, the administration had
not completed a National Security Strategy, a National Military
Strategy, or a Future Years Defense Program. The Defense
Department was concluding work on the Quadrennial Defense
Review, but this review is not due to be completed until the
end of September. As a result, the committee's review and
evaluation of the fiscal year 2002 budget request was conducted
without the ability to consider the administration's national
security strategy or its priorities for the future of our armed
forces.
The uncertainty over the future direction of the
administration's defense program has been further complicated
by the overall budget situation. The Budget Resolution adopted
by the Congress in May of this year included $325.1 billion in
budget authority for the national defense function in fiscal
year 2002, the amount requested by the Bush Administration in
its initial budget blueprint in February. Subsequent to the
adoption of the Budget Resolution, the administration requested
an additional $18.4 billion for national defense for fiscal
year 2002. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified
before the committee that an additional $18.3 billion will be
required in fiscal year 2003 to sustain the proposed fiscal
year 2002 budget level.
Under the terms of the Budget Resolution, the Chairman of
the Senate Budget Committee can increase the level of funding
in the Budget Resolution for national defense for fiscal year
2002 to accommodate the $18.4 billion increase proposed by the
administration, as long as the increase does not reduce the on-
budget surplus below the level of the Medicare Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund surplus. However, as the August 2001
revised economic estimate from the Congressional Budget Office
indicated, increasing national defense spending in fiscal years
2002 or 2003 above the level included in the Budget Resolution
cannot be sustained within the current estimate of the budget
surplus without spending money from the Medicare Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund surplus and probably the Social Security
Trust Fund surplus.
Our national security programs depend on defense
budgetsthat are sustainable. The committee believes that in order to
avoid dangerous instability in the defense budget in the future, the
administration must provide a clear fiscal plan for meeting and
sustaining our national security needs.
Committee review and recommendations
Following the submission of the President's amended fiscal
year 2002 budget request on June 27, the committee conducted a
total of 14 hearings on the request. During the course of these
hearings, the committee identified five priorities to guide its
actions in developing the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2002:
Continuing the improvements in the
compensation and quality of life of the men and women
of the armed forces and their families;
Sustaining the readiness of the military
services to carry out their assigned missions;
Encouraging the transformation of the
military services to lighter, more lethal and more
capable forces;
Improving the capability of the armed forces
to meet nontraditional threats, including terrorism and
unconventional means of delivering weapons of mass
destruction; and
Improving the efficiency of DOD programs and
operations.
The committee's actions in each of these areas is summarized
below and discussed in greater detail throughout this report.
Improving the compensation and quality of life of U.S. forces and their
families
Ensuring U.S. military personnel and their families receive
the compensation and quality of life they deserve remains the
committee's highest priority. Congressional efforts in recent
years have made significant improvements to military pay and
quality of life. This year, the committee adds more than $700
million to the budget request to improve compensation and
quality of life, including additional funds to reduce service
members' out-of-pocket housing costs, to increase higher
education opportunities, and to provide personal gear to
improve the safety and comfort of U.S. forces in the field.
Increasing military pay
The committee bill would authorize the administration's
proposal to increase military pay in fiscal year 2002.
Effective January 1, 2002, every service member would receive a
pay raise of at least five percent, and personnel in certain
pay grades would receive targeted pay raises ranging between
six and 10 percent, the largest increase in military pay since
1982. This is the third consecutive year that the committee has
authorized a significant pay raise for military personnel above
the rate of inflation.
Increasing the basic allowance for housing
In January 2000, then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen
proposed an initiative to close the gap between the Basic
Allowance for Housing (BAH) for service members and their
families living off-base and the actual cost of off-base
housing. Congress approved that initiative in the fiscal year
2001 budget with a plan to eliminate this gap entirely by 2005.
The committee believes that more can be done to alleviate the
housing expenses borne by military personnel and families
living off-base. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $232.0 million to accelerate the Department's
current plan, eliminating all out-of-pocket housing costs for
service members and their families by 2003, two years earlier
than planned by the Defense Department.
Expanding education benefits for military families
The committee bill would authorize $50.0 million for new
initiatives to retain personnel with critical skills by
expanding educational opportunities for them and their
families. Many personnel leave military service for more
lucrative private sector opportunities in order to better
provide for the education of family members. Therefore, the
committee recommends a provision to allow personnel with
critical skills to transfer up to 18 months of unused education
benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill to family members in
return for a commitment to serve for four more years, and
recommends an authorization of $30.0 million for this new
program in fiscal year 2002. In addition, the committee
recommends an authorization of $20.0 million for an education
savings plan in which service members would be provided U.S.
savings bonds with attendant tax advantages if used for
educational purposes in return for a commitment to serve at
least six additional years of active-duty service in a critical
specialty.
Improving military facilities and family housing
The committee continues to support efforts to improve the
facilities in which our military personnel work and the housing
in which they and their families live. The committee
commendsthe Department of Defense for the increased emphasis on
investment in military construction and family housing in the fiscal
year 2002 budget request. The $10.0 billion requested represents a 10
percent increase over the fiscal year 2001 level.
The committee bill would authorize $451.2 million above the
budget request to make further improvements in military
facilities, including projects to enhance mission performance
of military units; build additional housing for families and
unaccompanied personnel; purchase key tracts of land around
military installations to reduce future encroachment problems
between military activities and surrounding civilian areas; and
fund legally binding cleanup requirements at facilities closed
by previous rounds of base closure.
Improving defense health care
The committee supports the budget request of $17.9 billion
for the Defense Health Program, which represents a significant
increase for the program to meet rising costs of medical care
and increased benefits for military retirees.
Sustaining the readiness of U.S. forces
Throughout the last decade, the committee provided
significant resources to maintain the readiness of U.S. forces.
The committee welcomed the $10.4 billion increase in the fiscal
year 2002 budget request for the Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) accounts of the active and reserve component forces that
support readiness. However, the committee believes that more
can be done to address continuing readiness challenges posed by
such problems as aging equipment and shortfalls in
modifications of existing systems and therefore adds more than
$1 billion to the budget request for new readiness initiatives.
Improving the readiness of aviation forces
The committee recommends increased funding to improve the
readiness of our aviation forces, including nearly $240.0
million to address shortfalls in Army aviation. This additional
funding includes $102.5 million to procure 10 UH-60 Black Hawk
helicopters, the Army's primary utility helicopter and the Army
National Guard's highest unfunded priority, and $58.8 million
for upgrades to the Apache, the Army's heavy attack helicopter
and the highest recapitalization priority on the Army's list of
unfunded requirements.
The committee also recommends $121.4 million to upgrade
engines and reduce maintenance costs in the F-16, the Air
Force's primary, multi-role fighter, and in the F-15, the Air
Force's current air supremacy fighter; $54.0 million to buy
newer, digital jamming equipment and for wing modifications to
improve the Navy's EA-6B electronic warfare fleet; and $21.1
million for maintenance trainers to give C-17 aircraft support
crews the training they need without leaving their home
stations.
Training improvements
Committee initiatives to improve readiness include
increases in funding to improve the training of new pilots. The
committee recommends an additional $44.6 million for the Navy
to continue modernizing the T-6A Joint Primary Aircraft
Training System (JPATS) fleet, the training aircraft used by
the Air Force and Navy, and $34.1 million to procure 21
additional TH-67 training helicopters for the Army.
Improving the readiness of naval forces
In addition to fully approving the budget request for a
number of major modernization programs described elsewhere, the
committee recommends several initiatives to improve the
readiness of U.S. naval forces, including an increase of $98.8
million for maintenance of surface ships and Navy and Marine
Corps equipment. The committee also authorizes increases of
$40.9 million above the budget request for ship navigation,
monitoring and training upgrades to increase capabilities and
reduce operations and sustainment costs, and $20.0 million for
the sonobuoys that Navy personnel need to remain proficient in
anti-submarine warfare.
Improving the readiness of the bomber force
Under current plans for Air Force bombers, the Defense
Department will rely on the existing fleet of B-2s, B-52s and
B-1Bs for another 40 years. Therefore, the Air Force and the
Defense Department must sustain a program of aggressive
upgrades, modernization, and maintenance for the existing
bomber fleet. Although the budget request contains funds for
upgrades to each type of bomber, the requested funds for the B-
2 are not enough to continue upgrade programs begun in previous
years; the funds for the B-52 do not maintain previous upgrade
schedules; and the funds for the B-1B upgrades are available
only as a result of the decision to retire 33 of the 126 B-1Bs.
The committee recommends an additional $125.0 million in
upgrades for the B-2 and B-52 bombers and supports the funds
included in the budget request for B-1B upgrades.
The committee is especially troubled by the decision of the
Air Force to retire 33 B-1B bombers and to consolidate the
remaining B-1Bs in the active Air Force, thereby removing
allbombers from the National Guard. This decision was made without a
full analysis of the costs and benefits of the consolidation and before
the completion of broader defense strategy reviews. The committee
recommends a provision that would restrict the use of any funds
available to the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2002 from being
used to retire any B-1Bs or to remove any B-1Bs from the National Guard
until such time as certain reports and studies are completed. In
addition, the committee provided $164.0 million to maintain the B-1Bs
in the Air National Guard.
Reductions in strategic nuclear forces
The committee bill includes funding and a provision that
will allow for significant reductions in strategic nuclear
forces. First, the committee authorizes an increase of $12.2
million to allow the Air Force to buy the equipment necessary
to retire the Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile.
Second--and key to the ability of the Air Force to retire the
Peacekeeper and the ability of the United States to move
forward with additional reductions in strategic nuclear
delivery systems and warheads--the committee supports the
administration's request to repeal section 1302 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, which has
prevented any meaningful reductions in strategic nuclear forces
by limiting the retirement of strategic nuclear delivery
vehicles.
Section 1302 of the Act required the Defense Department to
maintain U.S. nuclear forces at levels agreed to under the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) until START II
entered into force. With the delay in START II entry into
force, this required the United States to maintain a nuclear
force structure significantly greater than was necessary under
any post-Cold War requirement. Repeal of section 1302 will
allow the resumption of nuclear force structure reductions,
moving the United States toward lower levels contemplated under
START III and below and being considered by the administration.
Improving the readiness of space launch facilities
Maintaining the ability to operate range and space launch
facilities safely and efficiently is essential as the United
States becomes increasingly reliant on space and space systems
for command, control, and communications. Improving the East
and West Coast range and space launch facilities, which operate
largely with thirty-year-old technology, was the Air Force's
highest unfunded priority in fiscal year 2002. To improve the
capabilities of these ranges and facilities, the committee
recommends an increase of $53.9 million to improve operational
safety and for improved automated scheduling that will allow
faster launch turnaround times.
Improving the readiness of the Guard and Reserve
The committee bill includes recommendations to strengthen
the National Guard and Reserve Components so they can continue
to make critical contributions to our armed forces during times
of peace and conflict. Ensuring adequate numbers of full-time
guardsmen and reservists is one of the top readiness issues of
the reserves. To achieve the minimally acceptable levels of
manning, the Army has developed an incremental plan to increase
full-time manning over 11 years. The budget request did not
increase Army Guard and Reserve full-time manning for fiscal
year 2002, the first year of the Army plan. Therefore, the
committee bill would authorize $54.7 million to increase full-
time manning in the Army reserve components.
In addition, the committee recommends increases of $8.4
million to upgrade F-15s with data links and other equipment,
allowing the Air National Guard to deploy and operate more
effectively with active component squadrons.
Transforming U.S. forces
The committee supports the Defense Department's efforts,
guided by the Chairman of the Joint Chief's Joint Vision 2020,
to transform the U.S. Armed Forces into the lighter, more
lethal and more flexible force required to meet the missions of
the 21st Century. The committee believes that harnessing new
doctrine and technologies--especially unmanned vehicles and
network centric forces that exploit information superiority--
must remain a top priority for the armed forces and therefore
adds more than $800 million to the budget request for new
transformation initiatives.
Modernization
The fiscal year 2002 budget request proposed to decrease
spending on upgrades to existing weapons systems and
procurement of new systems by $500.0 million below the fiscal
year 2001 enacted level. Significant funding increases for
modernization and transformation were deferred pending
completion of the Secretary of Defense's defense review and the
Quadrennial Defense Review and will instead be reflected in the
budget request for fiscal year 2003.
However, the committee notes that the uncertain budget
situation raises doubt that funds required for a significant
and sustained transformation of U.S. forces will be available
in the future without major reductions to current defense
programs. The committee urges the administration to address
this situation witha clear and sustainable modernization
program.
The committee bill would authorize the requested amount for
a number of major modernization programs, including development
and procurement of new tactical fighter aircraft--$3.2 billion
for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and $3.9 billion for the F-22
Raptor--and $3.5 billion for the purchase of 15 C-17 strategic
airlift aircraft. To sustain Navy modernization, the committee
authorizes $3.0 billion for three DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class
destroyers, $2.3 billion for one SSN-774 Virginia class attack
submarine, and $370.8 million for one T-AKE auxiliary cargo and
ammunition ship. To sustain Army modernization, the committee
authorizes $662.6 million for production of the interim armored
vehicle, $590.2 million for upgrades to the M-1 Abrams tank,
and $467.4 million to procure medium tactical vehicles to
replace the Army's aging fleet of medium trucks.
Developing revolutionary military capabilities
The ability of the U.S. military to transform itself with
revolutionary capabilities demands robust investments today in
a wide range of technologies. The fiscal year 2002 budget
request for defense science and technology programs was short
of the administration's stated three percent goal for defense
science and technology investments.
To address this shortfall, the committee recommends
increases of more than $200 million for defense science and
technology. In addition to science and technology designed to
support other committee priorities described elsewhere--such as
readiness and ensuring U.S. forces can meet nontraditional
threats--the additional funding authorized by the committee
would focus new resources on advanced materials and
manufacturing technologies ($40.7 million), on programs aimed
at developing next-generation network centric warfare
capabilities ($27.5 million), and on research into
nanotechnologies that will enable advances in critical defense
electronics, sensors, and communications systems ($12.0
million).
The committee also recommends a provision to facilitate the
rapid transition of new technologies from science and
technology programs into acquisition programs and the field.
Building on similar successful initiatives within the Defense
Department, the provision would direct the Secretary of Defense
to designate a senior defense official to act as an advocate
for technology transition; to establish a fund to carry out
jointly-funded technology transition projects with the military
services; and to develop outreach programs and new corporate
agreements to facilitate the rapid transition of cutting-edge
technologies into defense acquisition programs.
Sustaining Army transformation
The committee continues to support the effort initiated by
Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki in 1999 to transform
the Army into a lighter and more lethal, survivable and
tactically mobile force capable of meeting the full spectrum of
defense challenges. Despite increasing funding for this
transformation in recent years, the committee remains concerned
about the Army's ability to fund modernization of the existing
legacy force to maintain current operational readiness, field
an interim force capability, and conduct the robust research
and development effort needed to create a lighter, more mobile
Objective Force by fiscal year 2010. Excluding funding for
programs transferred to the Army from the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization, the fiscal year 2002 budget request would
actually decrease Army procurement in real terms by $630.0
million from the fiscal year 2001 level. The committee
recommendations would add more than $185 million to the Army's
transformation programs.
To support the Army's interim force, the committee bill
would authorize $3.7 million above the budget request to fund
training shortfalls for the new Interim Brigade Combat Teams
(IBCTs). The committee believes that the development and
fielding of the Objective Force must remain the top priority of
the Army's transformation. Toward that end, the committee bill
would authorize $43.1 million to support transformation to the
Objective Force, fully funding all the Objective Force
priorities on the Army's list of unfunded requirements in
fiscal year 2002.
The committee also supports the Army's transformation
efforts by recommending increased funding above the
administration's request to integrate revolutionary
technologies into future ground and air vehicles and infantry
systems, including an increase of $62.5 million in science and
technology programs to improve the lethality, efficiency and
affordability of Army systems, and an increase of $28.3 million
to develop an improved communications suite for the Comanche
helicopter. The committee bill authorized $20.0 million to
accelerate the application of quieter and more fuel efficient
hybrid electric drive technologies for future ground combat
vehicles.
Transforming naval forces
The administration's budget request proposed
decommissioning and scrapping two of the four Trident strategic
missile submarines that might otherwise be modified to carry
Tomahawk cruise missiles. Given the increasing reliance of U.S.
forces on Tomahawk missiles in military operations, the
committee believes that the Navy should retain the option of
converting all foursubmarines, and recommends an increase of
$307.0 million to preserve this option. To assist Navy efforts to
modernize the submarine fleet with new capabilities, the committee
recommends an increase of $27.0 million to accelerate development and
fielding of a common combat control system for all attack and ballistic
missile submarines.
The committee approves the budget request of $643.5 million
for the DD-21 land attack destroyer, which has the potential to
provide new capabilities in support of land forces ashore and
prevent potential opponents from using anti-access strategies
to thwart U.S. objectives. The DD-21 land attack destroyer also
holds the potential to reduce crew size by roughly 75 percent,
greatly reducing the number of personnel exposed to hostile
action and the demand for recruiting and retaining personnel.
Unmanned vehicle initiatives
The committee continues to support the development and
fielding of unmanned combat systems--aerial vehicles and ground
vehicles--designed to increase warfighting capabilities and
reduce the risk to military personnel. Last year, the committee
directed the DOD to aggressively develop and field unmanned
combat systems in the air and on the ground so that within 10
years, one-third of U.S. operational deep strike aircraft would
be unmanned, and within 15 years, one-third of our ground
combat vehicles would be unmanned. The committee authorized an
additional $200.0 million for this purpose in fiscal year 2001.
This year, the committee builds on that initiative by
recommending an increase of more than $80 million to fund
various high-priority efforts identified by the military
services to develop and field unmanned vehicles. This
additional funding includes $16.0 million to improve the Air
Force's Global Hawk UAV with signals intelligence capabilities;
$11.0 million to accelerate the development of unmanned ground
combat vehicles; and $9.0 million to accelerate work on the
Navy variant of the uninhabited combat air vehicle (UCAV-N).
The committee also recommends increased funding to accelerate
the fielding of enhanced UAV capabilities, including increases
of $16.2 million to upgrade sensors on Army Shadow UAVs; $7.0
million to accelerate the use of UAVs for chemical and
biological agent sensing; and $6.0 million for increased
procurement of Air Force Predator UAVs.
Improving the capability of U.S. forces to meet nontraditional threats
U.S. military forces must be prepared to deal effectively
with nontraditional threats, including terrorism,
unconventional means of delivering weapons of mass destruction
(WMD), the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons, the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States
and cyber-attacks on critical military infrastructure. Toward
that end, the committee recommends increases of more than $600
million for new initiatives to improve the capabilities of U.S.
forces against these threats.
Combating terrorism initiative
The committee welcomed the administration's budget request
of $5.6 billion--an increase of $1.0 billion over fiscal year
2001--to continue improving the ability of U.S. forces to deter
and defend against the growing terrorist threat. Nevertheless,
more can be done in several critical areas, including
antiterrorism/force protection, counterterrorism training, and
research and development to protect U.S. forces against WMD
attacks and to help them support domestic efforts to manage the
deadly consequences of terrorist attacks using these weapons on
U.S. soil.
The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities has
spent a great deal of time analyzing the military's ability to
meet these challenges. Despite consistent increases in funding
in recent years to defend U.S. forces from potential WMD
attacks, General Thomas Schwartz, Commander in Chief, U.S.
Forces Korea, testified before the committee that ``We believe
force protection funding shortfalls will be significant for the
fiscal year 2002, and we need your help to ensure our American
personnel are properly protected.''
To address some of these shortfalls, the committee's
Combating Terrorism Initiative includes an increase of $217.2
million to improve the ability of U.S. forces to deter and
defend against terrorism. Approximately half of the funding
increases in the committee's initiative--$109.2 million--would
support research and development aimed at detecting, defending
against, and responding to the use of weapons of mass
destruction. $43.2 million is included for research into the
detection of biological and chemical weapons, and $52.0 million
is included for research into the detection, identification and
measurement of WMD agents.
The other half of the additional funding in the committee's
Combating Terrorism Initiative--$108.0 million--would increase
the ability of U.S. forces to deter, and U.S. installations to
defend against, terrorist attack. The budget request left the
Army with a shortfall for installation security--the Army's
second highest unfunded priority in fiscal year 2002. The
committee bill would authorize an increase of $77.7 million for
minimum antiterrorism requirements at Army installations in
Europe and Asia. The committee bill would also add $13.0
millionfor Navy procurement of handheld explosive detectors to
protect deployed vessels and research into cutting-edge standoff
detection and defeat of conventional explosives, an urgent requirement
identified in the aftermath of the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole.
In addition, the committee's initiative adds $10.0 million
to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's Combating
Terrorism Readiness Initiative Fund to help fund high-priority
needs identified by the combatant commanders to defend against
rapidly emerging vulnerabilities and terrorist threats. Because
the budget request also left U.S. Special Operations Command
with a $14.3 million shortfall for counterterrorism training,
the committee's initiative includes the funds to ensure special
operations forces have the highest proficiency in critical
capabilities to thwart terrorist threats.
By improving the ability of U.S. forces to deter and defend
against terrorist attacks involving biological and chemical
weapons, the committee's Combating Terrorism Initiative also
would enhance the military's ability to assist federal, state
and local authorities in mitigating the consequences of a
terrorist attack on U.S. soil involving these weapons of mass
destruction. In testimony before the Emerging Threats
Subcommittee, DOD officials highlighted the need for stronger
DOD management and oversight of the Weapons of Mass
Destruction--Civil Support Teams, teams of National Guard
personnel who are specially trained and equipped to deploy and
assess suspected biological, chemical, nuclear or radiological
events in support of local authorities. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed
report to the Congress outlining the Department's policy and
plans for assisting civilian authorities in consequence
management, including the role of these National Guard teams.
Finally, while the Department has made some progress in
improving and coordinating its policies, programs and budget
for combating terrorism, the committee believes that the
Department can more clearly delineate its mission and
responsibilities in this arena and better leverage defense
resources to combat terrorism. The committee urges the
Department to develop a coherent strategy and to prioritize its
policies, plans and procedures for deterring, defending
against, and managing the consequences of terrorism at home and
abroad.
Combating proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
Earlier this year, in A Report Card on the Department of
Energy's Nonproliferation Programs with Russia, a bipartisan
task force chaired by former Senator Howard Baker and former
White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler concluded that ``The most
urgent unmet national security threat to the United States
today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or
weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to
terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American
troops abroad or citizens at home.''
The committee believes that the Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) program--which has helped to successfully
destroy or dismantle more than 5,000 nuclear warheads and more
than 1,000 nuclear missiles in the former Soviet Union--is
critical to continuing to reduce the threats posed by offensive
nuclear weapons, their delivery systems, and related materials.
In addition to authorizing the budget request of $403.0
million for the CTR program, the committee recommends an
increase of $56.8 million over the budget request for
Department of Energy programs to prevent the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and related-expertise. Of this
amount, $15.0 million would support the Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention program to help prevent Russian and
other scientists from the former Soviet Union from exporting
their knowledge of weapons of mass destruction to countries of
concern. Another $14.5 million would support the Nuclear Cities
Initiative to help find new, non-weapons jobs for displaced
Russian nuclear complex workers and to assist the Russian
Federation in reducing the size of its nuclear weapons complex.
Other initiatives to meet nontraditional threats
The committee recommends a number of initiatives to improve
the ability of U.S. forces to meet nontraditional threats
through improvements in weapons systems, sensors and defensive
systems. The committee bill includes increases of $96.0 million
to improve the ability of P-3 surveillance aircraft to
contribute to future missions in shallow coastal waters; $44.0
million for night-time air warfare to improve the ability of
Navy and Marine Corps AV-8B harrier aircraft to employ
precision-guided munitions and to finish development of
panoramic night vision goggles for the Air Force; and $42.0
million to accelerate electronic warfare programs and to
improve the defenses of combat aircraft.
To help the Navy and Marine Corps defend against the
unconventional threat of small boats such as that used in the
attack on the USS Cole, the committee recommends $20.0 million
for the procurement of Hellfire missiles and $15.0 million for
Close-in Weapons System upgrades. Finally, the committee
recommends an increase of $15.0 million for an infrared search
and track system to help the Navy identify incoming cruise
missiles and $18.0 million for modifications to NULKA decoys.
Ballistic missile defense
Ballistic missile defense was one of the most critical
issues faced by the committee this year, and the committee's
views and recommendations in this area are described in greater
detail elsewhere in this report. The committee recommends
authorization of $7.0 billion for ballistic missile defense
programs for fiscal year 2002, an increase of 37 percent
compared to the fiscal year 2001 level.
Ballistic missile threats come in two distinct categories:
theater ballistic missiles that threaten U.S. forces abroad and
allies, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that
directly threaten U.S. territory. Theater ballistic missiles
have long threatened forward deployed U.S. forces; countries
such as North Korea, Iraq, Iran, China, Syria and Libya possess
such missiles, most of which are capable of carrying chemical
or biological weapons.
Given the real and growing threat of theater ballistic
missiles to U.S. forces abroad and allies, the committee
supports development and deployment of improved theater missile
defense systems as soon as possible after rigorous testing has
proven these systems to be operationally effective. Toward that
end, the committee approved an increase of $625.7 million, or
30 percent, over the fiscal year 2001 funding level for theater
missile defense systems such as Patriot Advanced Capability
(PAC-3) and Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and
added $76.0 million for upgrades to the joint U.S.-Israeli
Arrow program.
The number of potential adversaries with operational ICBMs
is far smaller than those with theater ballistic missiles.
Although Russia has roughly 1,000 ICBMs, the Cold War is over
and the United States and Russia have agreed not to target
their missiles at each other. China has a small arsenal of
about 20 ICBMs which do not have warheads and fuel installed on
a daily basis. This force is expected to be modernized and
expanded in the coming years. North Korea is developing an ICBM
capable of reaching the United States, although it has
voluntarily suspended its long-range missile flight test
program for the time being. Other potential adversaries, such
as Iran, may also develop ICBMs in the future, particularly
with assistance from other nations.
Given the potential, longer-term ICBM threat to the United
States from such countries, the committee continues to support
an aggressive research, development and testing program for
defenses against ICBMs--i.e., national missile defense (NMD) ``
to give the United States the option to deploy such a system,
provided four criteria are met: (1) the threat should warrant
deployment; (2) the system should be demonstrated through
realistic testing to be operationally effective; (3) the cost
should be weighed against other critical defense needs; and (4)
the deployment should make the United States more secure,
taking into account the actions of other nations.
The administration has said it intends to develop a
national missile defense system aimed at limited missile
threats from nations such as North Korea. To support national
missile defense, the committee approved an increase of $1.1
billion, or 20 percent, over the fiscal year 2001 funding level
for national missile defense, including funding for a new
midcourse test bed.
However, the committee is concerned about (1) the lack of
clarity regarding potential conflicts between the Department's
missile defense testing schedule and the ABM Treaty; (2) the
administration's proposal for the greatest funding increase in
response to one of the least likely threats to the United
States--a long-range ballistic missile attack; and (3) the lack
of specific plans for expenditure of missile defense funding.
Moreover, the administration appears determined to withdraw
from the ABM Treaty if a testing activity conflicts with it.
The committee made repeated efforts to obtain information from
the Defense Department as to whether any NMD testing activities
funded in the bill conflict with the ABM Treaty, and was
assured that such a determination would be forthcoming and that
Congress would have that information before having to decide
whether to authorize expenditures for such activities. That
information has not been forwarded to the committee.
Therefore, the committee recommends that expenditures for
any missile defense activities in fiscal year 2002 that would
conflict with the ABM Treaty, as determined by the President,
should be conditioned upon Congress specifically voting to
approve such expenditures, under expedited procedures. This
provision does not limit the President's power to withdraw from
the ABM Treaty. The Supreme Court has determined that the
question of whether the President can withdraw from a treaty
without Senate approval is a political, non-judiciable issue.
However, Congress has the exclusive power to authorize and
appropriate funds. If Congress approves funds for activities
that would conflict with a treaty, and if such activities
ultimately leave the United States less secure, Congress would
bear joint responsibility for the consequences.
The administration requested $8.3 billion for ballistic
missile defense programs, a $3.0 billion, or 57 percent,
increase in missile defense funding over the fiscal year 2001
level. This increase far exceeds the 10 percent increase for
the Department of Defense as a whole, even though the Joint
Chiefs of Staff believe that ballistic missiles are the least
likely means of delivering a weapon of mass destruction to the
United States. While reducing funding in other critical defense
areas, such as modernization, the administration proposes the
greatest funding increase in response to the least likely
threat. Therefore, while approving a substantial funding
increase of 37 percent for ballistic missile defense compared
to the fiscal year 2001 level,the committee has identified a
significant portion of the proposed missile defense funding increase
($1.3 billion) that is poorly justified and would better be used to
meet more pressing defense needs.
Improving the efficiency of DOD programs and operations
Despite many years of management reform efforts, the
Department of Defense continues to waste billions of dollars
annually operating excess and unneeded infrastructure, using
antiquated financial management systems, adhering to
inefficient approaches in the acquisition of weapons systems,
and giving insufficient attention to the management of
contracts for services. The Secretary of Defense testified that
the Department should be able to achieve five percent savings
across the board through management improvements. The committee
agrees that the Department should be able to save billions of
dollars through improved efficiency of defense operations and
programs, and recommends a number of provisions to assist the
Department in this effort.
Base realignment and closure
The committee recommends an important and long-needed step
to improve the efficiency of defense operations and the
effectiveness of military forces by authorizing an additional
round of base realignment and closure (BRAC) in fiscal year
2003. Our top civilian and uniformed military leaders have
requested this authority from the Congress for the last five
years, and the committee believes that the arguments for
allowing the closure of additional facilities are clear and
compelling: the Department has excess facilities, closing bases
saves money, and the military services have higher priority
uses that could be funded with those savings.
The savings from past BRAC actions are significant. The
General Accounting Office reported in July 2001 that, ``audits
of BRAC financial records have shown that BRAC has enabled DOD
to save billions of dollars.'' According to the Department of
Defense, previous base closure rounds are already saving $6.0
billion a year.
The committee also believes that the reshaping of our base
structure is essential to the full implementation of the
Quadrennial Defense Review and the successful transformation of
U.S. forces.
Service contracts
The committee believes that the Defense Department can more
effectively manage the $50.0 billion it spends annually on the
procurement of services such as administrative and management
support. Despite repeated criticism from the General Accounting
Office (GAO), the DOD Inspector General (DOD IG), and this
committee, the Department has failed to compete requirements
for the delivery of services, has barely begun to implement
requirements for performance-based services contracting, and
does not even appear to have considered instituting best
commercial practices such as centralizing key functions,
improving personnel skills and capabilities, conducting
spending analyses, rationalizing supplier bases, and expanding
the use of cross-functional, commodity-based teams. The GAO and
the DOD IG have found that managers in the Defense Department
failed to compete services work on up to three-quarters of the
cases they examined. Moreover, the Department has failed to
provide its acquisition professionals with the training and
guidance needed to manage the Department's service contracts in
a cost-effective manner.
The committee recommends several provisions to improve the
management of service contracts that, if fully implemented,
should save the Department billions of dollars annually. To
promote the use of best commercial practices, the committee
recommends requiring the Department to establish a management
structure for services contracts, establish a data collection
system to provide key information for management decisions, and
institute a system of program reviews for larger contracts that
is comparable to the system already in place for major weapons
systems. Other committee recommendations would achieve savings
by establishing annual savings goals for services contracts and
strengthening competition requirements for the award of task
orders for services under multiple award contracts.
Acquisition reform
The committee recommends a number of initiatives to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department's
acquisition system. To help shorten the acquisition cycle for
weapons systems, the committee recommends requiring the
Department to reduce program risk prior to initiating a major
defense acquisition program. To ensure the Department has
sufficient staff to manage requirements in a cost-effective
manner, the committee recommends a moratorium on further cuts
in the acquisition workforce. Finally, the committee would
authorize the Department to utilize competitive, cost saving
methods to purchase products available from Federal Prison
Industries (FPI).
Making better use of modernization funding
The committee recommends adjustments to two
majoracquisition programs that will not require the level of funding
requested in the budget request. The committee remains concerned about
the ability of the Marine Corps and the Air Force to meet the
requirements established for the V-22 tilt-rotor Osprey aircraft, and
agrees with the Panel to Review the V-22 Program that production should
be kept to a minimum sustaining rate in order to minimize the number of
aircraft requiring retrofit at a later date. Therefore, the committee
recommends a reduction of $592.3 million to the V-22 program,
transferring these funds to other high priority defense programs.
The committee also concluded that the budget request for
the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program included excess funds
for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) but no
funding to sustain the two competing contractor teams until a
source selection decision is made and implemented. That
decision, originally scheduled for October 2001, is supposed to
decide which of the two competing contractor teams will
continue on with the EMD phase of the program. However, based
on likely delays in the Defense Department's strategy review
and in completing the range of tasks required in the
Quadrennial Defense Review, it appears that the EMD program
will not be launched on time. Therefore, the committee
recommends a net reduction of $247.2 million to the JSF
program, transferring these funds to other high priority
defense programs.
Financial management systems
The committee recommends several provisions to address the
Defense Department's seriously deficient financial management
systems and its continuing inability to produce reliable
financial information or auditable financial statements. The
committee bill would authorize the Department to redirect
resources from its efforts to prepare and audit financial
statements to improving financial management systems, policies,
and procedures. The committee also recommends the establishment
of a management process through which the Department should be
able to address problems with the reliability of its financial
systems and data.
During his nomination hearing, the Secretary of Defense
assured the committee that improving the Department's financial
management systems ``will certainly be among the top
priorities'' of his tenure. The committee is convinced that
even with the dedicated support of the Secretary of Defense,
strong management attention will be required to produce the
reliable and timely information needed to make sound resource
decisions. The committee's recommendations are designed to
hasten the achievement of that goal.
Explanation of funding summary
The administration's amended budget request for the
national defense function of the federal budget for fiscal year
2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was
$343.3 billion, of which $260.1 billion was for programs that
require specific funding authorization.
The following table summarizes both the direct
authorizations and equivalent budget authority levels for
fiscal year 2002 defense programs. The columns relating to the
authorization request do not include funding for the following
items: pay and benefits for military personnel, military
construction authorizations provided in prior years; and other
small portions of the defense budget that are not within the
jurisdiction of this committee or that do not require an annual
authorization.
Funding for all programs in the national defense function
is reflected in the columns related to the budget authority
request and the total budget authority implication of the
authorizations in this bill. The committee recommends funding
for national defense programs totaling $343.3 billion in budget
authority, which is consistent with the level requested by the
administration in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
The funding level recommended by the committee exceeds the
budget authority level for the national defense function
included in the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal
Year 2002 by $18.4 billion, the additional amount requested by
the President in his amended budget request for fiscal year
2002 on June 27, 2001.
Section 217 of the Budget Resolution allows the Chairman of
the Senate Budget Committee to increase the funding level for
the national defense budget function if the President submits a
budget amendment requesting additional resources for national
defense and the Armed Services or Appropriations Committee
reports a bill providing additional resources for defense above
those contained in the Budget Resolution. However, the Budget
Resolution prohibits an increase in defense spending that would
reduce the on-budget surplus below the level of the Medicare
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund surplus.
Since the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee had not
made a determination pursuant to section 217 at the time the
committee ordered this bill reported, the committee has
included a series of provisions in title XIII of the bill,
which are described in more detail elsewhere in this report,
that would reduce the total amount authorized to be
appropriated in this act if the full amount of the increase
requested by the President is not approved.
The funding summary table that follows shows the full
amount of the authorizations in this bill and does not reflect
the impact of the potential reductions provided for in title
XIII.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Explanation of tables
The following tables provide the program-level detailed
guidance for the funding authorized in Title I of the Act. The
tables also display the funding requested by the administration
in the fiscal year 2002 budget request for procurement programs
and indicate those programs for which the committee either
increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in the past,
the administration may not exceed the authorized amounts (as
set forth in the table or, if unchanged from the administration
request, as set forth in the Department of Defense's budget
justification documents) without a reprogramming action in
accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in the
report, funding changes to the budget request are made without
prejudice.
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Chemical agents and munitions destruction, Defense (sec. 106)
The budget request for the Army included $1.2 billion for
the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction (CAMD) program:
$200.4 million for research and development; $789.0 million for
operations and maintenance; and $164.2 million for procurement.
The request also included $187.5 million for military
construction described elsewhere in this report. These funds
were requested in an Army account, contrary to the requirements
of current law.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the level of funding requested, although in the account
required by law: Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Defense. This level of funding would permit the chemical
demilitarization program to proceed with all its component
parts toward the deadline for the safe and effective
destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile under the
Chemical Weapons Convention.
Section 1521(f) of title 50, United States Code, requires
that funds for this program shall not be included in the budget
accounts for any military department. The committee is
disappointed that funds for this program have been included in
the Army budget accounts, despite the statutory requirement to
the contrary. The committee expects the Department of Defense
to comply with this requirement and fund the Chemical Agents
and Munitions Destruction program accordingly. The committee
recommends a provision that would provide funding for chemical
demilitarization in a Department of Defense budget account.
In May 2001, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics designated the chemical
demilitarization program as an Acquisition Category-1D program,
which means it must be reviewed by the Defense Acquisition
Board and approved by the Under Secretary. The committee
strongly supports the chemical demilitarization program and
commends the Department for increasing the level of oversight
by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which should help
streamline program decision making and management.
The Department is conducting a defense-wide review of the
chemical demilitarization program, including all its
components: chemical stockpile disposal; the non-stockpile
materiel program, alternative technologies and approaches; the
assembled chemical weapons assessment; and the chemical
stockpile emergency preparedness program. The review is
expected to conclude in the fall of 2001, with recommendations
for how to proceed with demilitarizing the remaining stockpile
sites. The committee directs the Department to provide the
results of this review to the congressional defense committees
when it is completed.
SUBTITLE B--ARMY PROGRAMS
Army Aircraft
UH-60 Black Hawk
The budget request included $174.5 million for 12 UH-60L
Black Hawk helicopters and eight medical evacuation mission
equipment package modifications. The most recent Army aviation
modernization plan identifies an outstanding requirement for an
additional 240 Black Hawks. The committee recommends an
increase of $102.5 million for 10 additional UH-60L helicopters
to be fielded in accordance with Army priorities, a total
authorization of $277.0 million.
TH-67 training helicopter
The budget request included no funding for TH-67
helicopters for aviation training. The Army aviation
modernization plan establishes a requirement of 175 TH-67
aircraft until fiscal year 2014, when the requirement rises to
195, and then levels out at 210 the following year when the
last of the OH-58 helicopters in the training base is retired.
The committee notes that the Army is only 21 TH-67 helicopters
short of the 175 requirement. These remaining 21 aircraft are
essential for the Army's transition to Flight School XXI and to
the planned divestiture of a large number of the UH-1 and OH-58
A/C aircraft currently in use at the Army Aviation Center
Flight School. The committee recommends an authorization of
$34.1 million for the 21 TH-67 helicopters needed to fulfill
the Army's requirement for training helicopters through fiscal
year 2014.
AH-64 Apache modifications
The budget request included $38.5 million for AH-64 Apache
modifications. Retrofit of the AH-64A Apaches is the second
highest priority in the recapitalization category of the Army's
list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. This will
be accomplished through recapitalization by spares. The
committee recommends an increase of $11.8 million to address
that shortfall, a total authorization of $50.3 million.
CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications (multiyear program)
The budget request included $277.5 million for CH-47 cargo
helicopter modifications, including $121.0 million for the CH-
47F Improved Cargo Helicopter (ICH) upgrade program. This
program extends CH-47F airframe service life, introduces an
open electronic architecture, and reduces operations and
support costs. The fiscal year 2001 budget request forecasted
the inclusion of funding to upgrade 11 CH-47D aircraft to the
CH-47F version in the fiscal year 2002 budget request. However,
the fiscal year 2002 budget request included no funding for
aircraft conversion because of a program restructuring
necessitated, in part, by an increase in production
facilitization costs.
The committee is concerned with the Army's deferral of the
CH-47F upgrade program, which will force the Army to continue
to sustain and rely upon an aging CH-47D helicopter. The
committee notes that the revised program plans to induct eight
aircraft for conversion to CH-47F in fiscal year 2003. The
committee expects the Army to fully execute the $121.0 million
in the revised fiscal year 2002 ICH program, including $32.0
million for production engineering of a new, ``lean'' forward
cabin, $51.0 million for initial production facilitization, and
the remainder for training materials, avionics upgrades,
program management and other associated program costs. The
committee believes that it is essential to begin the upgrade
program no later than fiscal year 2003.
CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications (multiyear program) (advanced
procurement)
The budget request included $17.7 million for CH-47 cargo
helicopter modifications advanced procurement. The CH-47 cargo
helicopter modifications advanced procurement funds the
delivery of long lead time avionics and airframe components for
the Improved Cargo Helicopter (ICH) upgrade program. Because of
program delays, the Army failed to execute the $26.0 million
authorized for advanced procurement of long lead items
authorized in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
The committee notes that the $17.7 million in the fiscal
year 2002 budget request would fund the procurement of long
lead items for eight CH-47D helicopters to be inducted into the
CH-47F ICH upgrade program in fiscal year 2003. The committee
expects the Army to fully execute that funding and begin the
upgrade program no later than fiscal year 2003.
Longbow
The budget request included $918.1 million for Apache
Longbow upgrades. Increasing the number of critically short
components in the pool of retrofit parts for Apache Longbow
helicopters is the highest priority in the recapitalization
category of the Army's list of unfunded requirements for fiscal
year 2002. The Army intends to apply these parts to AH-64A
aircraft on the Longbow re-manufacture line, or as a post-
fielding retrofit to those previously re-manufactured AH-64D
Apache Longbow. The committee recommends an increase of $47.0
million for this purpose, a total authorization of $965.1
million.
Avionics support equipment
The budget request included $7.5 million for Aviators'
Night Vision Imaging System (ANVIS), AN/AVS-6 goggles. The
increased capability provided by the improved version of the
AN/AVS-6 goggle yields enhanced mission performance and safety
of flight over what is now possible using currently fielded
systems. The committee supports fielding the improved version
as quickly as possible, and recommends an increase of $2.5
million for that purpose, a total authorization of $10.0
million.
Army Missiles
STINGER system summary
The budget request included $45.9 million for Stinger
missiles, an increase of nearly $23.0 million over last year's
estimate for the fiscal year 2002 budget. The committee does
not believe that such a large increase is warranted, and that a
portion of this funding can therefore be shifted from this
legacy system to higher priority requirements on the Army's
list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The
committee recommends maintaining Stinger production at that
earlier estimate, a decrease of $22.5 million, a total
authorization of $23.4 million.
Line of sight anti-tank system summary
The budget request included $11.4 million for the Line of
Sight Anti-Tank (LOSAT) system, which provides highly lethal,
accurate missile fire against heavy armor and field
fortifications at ranges exceeding tank main gun range. The
request included funding for long lead items for the 2004
production of missiles, which can be deferred for a year. The
committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million, a total
authorization of $9.4 million.
Multiple launch rocket system
The budget request included $148.3 million for Multiple
Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS). The committee recognizes the
importance of upgrading MLRS launchers to enable them to fire
the advanced Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) munitions.
The upgrade also reduces ready-to-fire and reload times,
reduces operational costs and increases launcher and crew
survivability. The Army is short of the number of upgraded
M270A1 launchers needed to meet its objective for the active
Army and National Guard battalions of the heavy counter-attack
corps. The committee notes that the Army has included two
battalions of upgraded MLRS launchers on its list of unfunded
requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends an
increase of $36.0 million for one additional M270A1 MLRS
battalion to be fielded according to Army priorities.
The committee also notes a 58 percent increase in the
budget request from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level for
engineering services. The committee believes that such an
increase has been inadequately justified and is not warranted.
The committee recommends a decrease of $10.3 million in
engineering services, a total authorization of $174.0 million.
Army tactical missile system--system summary
The budget request included $34.3 million for the Army
tactical missile system (ATACMS). The June 2001 developmental
test of the ATACMS BAT brilliant anti-armor submuntion was
unsuccessful, requiring another developmental test prior to the
initial operational test and evaluation. The committee
recommends a decrease of $9.0 million in ATACMS Block 1A
procurement to fund the additional testing of the ATACMS BAT, a
total authorization of $25.3 million.
AVENGER modifications
The budget request included $18.0 million for Avenger
modifications, a 166 percent increase from the fiscal year 2001
appropriated level. The committee does not believe that such an
increase is warranted and can be sustained in future years of
the defense program. Therefore, a portion of this funding can
be shifted from this legacy system to higher priority programs
on the Army's list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year
2002. The committee recommends a decrease of $6.1 million, for
a total authorization of $11.9 million.
Tube-launched, optically tracked, wire command-link guided, improved
target acquisition system modifications
The budget request included $96.2 million for Tube-
launched, Optically tracked, Wire command-link guided, Improved
Target Acquisition System modifications, a 50 percent increase
from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level. The committee
does not believe that such an increase is warranted and can be
sustained in future years of the defense program. Therefore, a
portion of the funding can be shifted from this legacy system
to higher priority programs on the Army's list of unfunded
requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends a
decrease of $35.4 million, a total authorization of $60.8
million.
Multiple launch rocket system modifications
The budget request included $23.6 million for Multiple
Launch Rocket System modifications, a 44 percent increase from
the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level. The committee does not
believe that such an increase is warranted and can be sustained
in future years of the defense program. Therefore, a portion of
the funding can be shifted from this legacy system to higher
priority requirements on the Army's list of unfunded
requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends a
decrease of $3.0 million, a total authorization of $20.6
million.
Army Ammunition
Remote area denial artillery munition
The committee understands that the Army is awaiting a
decision by the Secretary of Defense on whether to continue
with the Remote Area Denial Artillery Munition (RADAM) program.
The RADAM delivers both anti-personnel and anti-tank mines, and
is designed to allow for remote laying of minefields. The
budget request included $48.2 million to procure 104 RADAM
rounds, and the Army notes that an additional $27.4 million in
fiscal year 2001 funds is currently being withheld pending the
Secretary's decision.
The committee believes that the combination of fiscal year
2001 funds, along with a reduced amount of fiscal year 2002
funds, will be sufficient to maintain a robust production
capability should the Secretary decide favorably on the RADAM
program. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of
$20.8 million, to maintain funding at the fiscal year 2001
level.
Artillery ammunition
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million
($10.0 million for the Army and $10.0 million for the Marine
Corps) to procure additional 155mm M795 High Explosive rounds.
These funds will mitigate training and war reserve shortfalls
and achieve economies of scale, resulting in more cost-
effective procurement.
Anti-personnel obstacle breaching system
The budget request included $9.4 million for the Anti-
Personnel Obstacle Breaching System (APOBS), a two-man system
used to breach a cleared path through minefields and wire
obstacles. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million
to purchase additional APOBS, allowing earlier fielding and
training for a larger number of Army light units.
Other Army Procurement
Heavy expanded mobile tactical truck extended service program
The budget request included $31.3 million for the Heavy
Expanded Mobile Tactical Truck (HEMTT) extended service
program. Funding is included to complete the HEMTT requirement
for fielding to the third Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT).
However, other major equipment requirements for the third IBCT,
such as the interim armored vehicles (IAV), will not be funded
until fiscal year 2003, and will not be produced until calendar
years 2004 and 2005. The committee believes the funding for the
third IBCT HEMTTs can be deferred until fiscal year 2003, and
the fielding schedule aligned with that of the IAVs. The
committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million, a total
authorization of $26.3 million.
Super high frequency terminals
The budget request included $17.0 million to purchase super
high frequency (SHF) terminals.
The Army had been acquiring systems under a program called
the tri-band SHF tactical satellite terminal (STAR-T). The Army
terminated this contract in June 2001 because of poor
contractor performance. Since then, the Army has indicated that
they would like to buy some commercially available satellite
terminal, even if that system does not meet requirements. The
committee would support the Army's use of a spiral development
approach for meeting requirements. However, the Army appears to
be laying out a plan to spend the available funds on interim
systems that may not provide the spiral migration path they
seek.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $17.0
million and directs the Army to propose a plan for meeting
these requirements in the fiscal year 2003 budget request based
on a more fully formed assessment of the available alternatives
and the best capability migration path.
Secure enroute communications package
The budget request included $2.5 million in Army
communications and electronics, modification of in-service
equipment. These funds would begin purchases of a so-called
secure enroute communications package--improved (SECOMP-I).
SECOMP-I is a lightweight, compact communication system that is
designed to roll on and roll off aircraft, and use radio
systems existing on the aircraft. The system can also be used
early during a deployment to support early arriving forces and
their operations. Block I of the SECOMP-I system provides for
voice and limited data communications.
The Army plans to field a Block II version of the system
that would also provide a robust enroute mission planning and
rehearsal system capability, including a flying local area
network between command and subordinate troop carrying
aircraft. The committee believes that accelerated fielding of
the Block II capability would be important for supporting
future, short-notice deployments that could face the Army.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $13.1
million to pay for non-recurring engineering on the Block II
system, flying local area network antenna modifications for
aircraft and accelerated fielding of Block I systems.
The committee is aware that U.S. Special Operations Command
(SOCOM) has already developed similar command and control
systems that include enroute planning and rehearsal
capabilities. Additionally, SOCOM and the Air Force have also
completed extensive research and engineering efforts to
configure C-17 and C-130 aircraft to accept these roll on/roll
off packages and have modified several aircraft to accept them.
The Air Force and SOCOM are considering a plan to modify the
entire C-17 fleet. The committee urges the Assistant Secretary
of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence),
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics) and the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Acquisition) to review the SOCOM/Air Force program to avoid
possible duplication of effort and to ensure maximum
interoperability of command and control systems.
Army data distribution system (data radio)
The budget request included $46.3 million for the Enhanced
Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) and the EPLRS Net
Manager System. EPLRS is the critical mobile data radio
required to establish the Army's wireless Tactical Internet.
More than $100.0 million in funding for additional EPLRS to
digitize the force is a priority on the Army's list of unfunded
requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends an
increase of $10.0 million for additional EPLRS, a total
authorization of $56.3 million.
Area common user system modifications program
The budget request included $113.1 million for
modifications to the Area Common User System (ACUS) to upgrade
echelons above corps communications networks. This program
supports the downsizing of ACUS legacy systems through the
procurement and fielding of the Single Shelter Switch (SSS) and
High Mobility Digital Group Multiplexer assemblage (HMDA)
systems. Unfortunately, the budget request funded no SSSs or
HMDAs, leaving the Army well short of its requirements for
these systems. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase
of $40.0 million for the procurement of additional SSS and HMDA
systems, a total authorization of $153.1 million.
Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle procurement
The budget request included $84.3 million in Other
Procurement, Army to buy tactical unmanned aerial vehicle
(TUAV) systems.
The Army has been buying TUAV systems in a low rate initial
production (LRIP), pending completion of operational testing
this year. The Army intends to upgrade some of the TUAV systems
and payloads for the full rate production version of the system
to a so-called ``Block II configuration,'' based on development
and testing results since the Army began buying these LRIP
systems.
The committee believes that it would be much more efficient
for the Army to operate, support and train for using a single
TUAV system configuration. Therefore, the committee recommends
an increase of $16.2 million to upgrade LRIP TUAV systems,
including their sensor payloads, data links, and avionics
suites, to the Block II configuration.
Long range advanced scout surveillance system
The budget request included $44.5 million for the Long
Range Advanced Scout Surveillance System (LRAS3). Procuring the
Commander's Remote Display for LRAS3, which allows scout
observers and vehicle commanders to view the same sight
picture, is a high priority in the Objective Force category of
the Army's list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.6 million for the
Commander's Remote Display, a total authorization of $46.1
million.
SUBTITLE C--NAVY PROGRAMS
Virginia class submarine program (sec. 121)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 123(b)(1) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The provision would
authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into contracts for
the procurement of material in economic order quantities, when
cost savings are achievable, for up to seven Virginia-class
submarines. This authority would apply to boats to be procured
during the period from fiscal years 2003 through 2007.
Multiyear procurement authority for F/A-18E/F aircraft engines (sec.
122)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
authority for the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a
multiyear contract for the procurement of F/A-18E/F engines.
The budget request included $3.2 billion to continue buying
F/A-18E/F aircraft under a multiyear procurement program.
The Navy has not requested authority to enter into any
multiyear contracts to buy the engines for these
aircraft.Nevertheless, the Navy has informed the committee that the
Department would be able to save money by expanding the multiyear
contacting approach to cover the engines. The Navy estimates that it
could save roughly $40 million over the next five years by acquiring
the engine under a multiyear contract. Since it is clear that the Navy
will be buying the F/A-18E/F aircraft in any case, the committee
believes that the Congress should provide the Secretary of the Navy
authority to obtain these savings. The committee believes that, if the
Navy chooses to proceed on this matter, the Navy and the contractor
should work to achieve even greater savings than the current estimates.
V-22 Osprey aircraft (sec. 123)
The budget request included a proposal to restructure the
V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft program to implement recommendations
from the Panel to Review the V-22 Program. To implement this
restructured program, the budget request included:
(1) $546.7 million in PE 64363N for continued
development of the V-22, including:
(a) $318.3 million to continue logistics,
flight testing, and flight testing support,
address correction of deficiencies, and provide
funding for cost overruns in the Marine Corps
(MV-22) and the Special Operations Command (CV-
22) variants;
(b) $103.2 million to: continue CV-22
development efforts; provide engine support and
repair of spare parts for CV-22 flight testing;
complete CV-22 software development efforts;
continue radar development testing for the CV-
22; and conduct CV-22 initial operational
testing and evaluation (IOT&E);
(c) $25.2 million for Navy field and other
support activities; and
(d) $100.0 million to continue the
development of two CV-22 aircraft for IOT&E.
(2) $1.3 billion in Aircraft Procurement, Navy,
including:
(a) $1.0 billion for buying aircraft;
(b) $48.4 million for advance procurement;
(c) $35.0 million for aircraft modifications;
and
(d) $232.9 million for spare parts.
(3) $136.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force, for the Special Operations Command (SOCOM),
including:
(a) $95.1 million for buying aircraft;
(b) $15.0 million for advance procurement;
and
(c) $26.4 million for spare parts.
The budget request also included funds in the Special
Operations Command budget for CV-22-related activities. These
funds are addressed elsewhere in this report.
The committee remains very concerned about how the Marine
Corps and the Air Force are going to meet the requirements
established for the V-22 program. Recognizing these
requirements, the Congress had been providing strong support to
the V-22 program.
However, two aircraft were lost during calendar year 2000,
costing the lives of 23 Marines, and raising significant issues
about the efficacy of the program.
There were other concerns about the program even before the
second accident. The latter accident occurred after the Navy
operational testers had completed the required operational test
and evaluation. The program office was seeking a decision to
proceed to full-rate production in early December 2000, but the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) had raised
concerns about the aircraft's demonstrated operational
suitability. These concerns caused the Assistant Secretary of
the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) to delay a
final decision on full-rate production, during which time the
second aircraft and crew were lost.
As a result of these accidents, the Secretary of Defense
commissioned a review by a panel of experts of all aspects of
the V-22 program. That group, called the Panel to Review the V-
22 Program, conducted a review over several months. Earlier
this year, the committee heard testimony from the Panel on its
report. The Panel recommended that the Department, ``Proceed
with the V-22 Program, but temporarily reduce production to a
minimum sustaining level to provide funds for a Development
Maturity Phase, and keep to a minimum the number of aircraft
requiring retrofit.'' The Panel's report made a number of
other, more detailed recommendations.
While the Panel was conducting its review, allegations of
falsification of maintenance data were lodged against members
of the Marine Corps. The Secretary of Defense, in part at the
suggestion of the committee leadership, charged the Department
of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) with investigating these
allegations. The DOD IG has provided his report to the
Commandant, who has referred some individuals for disciplinary
procedures under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The
committee will follow the disposition of these cases.
The Department, in the request for supplemental
appropriations for fiscal year 2001, proposed a major shift of
funds from production to research and development activities to
respond to the Panel's recommendations. The V-22 program office
has developed several versions of a plan to implement the
Panel's recommendations and to proceed with the program.
However, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics) (USD (AT&L)) has not made a decision
about how orwhether to proceed with the V-22 program.
The committee has received interim reports from the program
office, pending a decision by the Under Secretary. The
committee understands that these are necessarily preliminary,
but there are a number of conclusions that may be drawn now:
(1) The contractor team has informed the government
that the costs for producing V-22 aircraft in fiscal
year 2001 have increased.
(2) The program office has concluded they may only be
able to afford to buy 10 aircraft with the funds that
were thought to be sufficient to buy 11 aircraft in
fiscal year 2001. Affording even this quantity,
however, means that the program office would have to
shift some portion of the fiscal year 2001 spare parts
funds from their intended purpose to buy the tenth
aircraft.
(3) The program office suggests that, if Congress
were to withhold funding for two CV-22 aircraft for
beginning IOT&E, there are a number of other possible
uses of some of those funds within the program,
including:
(a) $46.0 million to invest in various cost
reduction initiatives that would yield a return
ratio of 14:1, and would be applicable to both
the MV-22 and the CV-22 production effort;
(b) $25.0 million to continue funding of
spares unique to the CV-22 EMD aircraft, and
support an avionics lab effort; and
(c) $10.0 million to fund cost reduction
initiatives for CV-22-unique components of the
suite of integrated radio frequency
countermeasures (SIRFC).
The committee recognizes the importance of fielding
replacements for the helicopter fleets that the Marine Corps
(CH-46) and SOCOM (MH-53) are now operating. The committee
recommends a provision and additional funding elsewhere in this
report to ensure that a full range of alternatives would have
been reviewed and the Department would be ready to move forward
in case the USD (AT&L) were to decide against proceeding with
the V-22 program.
Nevertheless, the committee believes that the V-22 program
should not move forward more rapidly than can be justified by
actual progress in solving the problems identified by the
Panel, and resolving uncertainties about operational
effectiveness and operational suitability identified by the
DOT&E.
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the V-22 program remain at the minimum sustaining
production rate until the Secretary of Defense determines that
successful operational testing has demonstrated that: (1)
solutions to the problems in the reliability of hydraulics
system components and flight control software are adequate to
achieve low risk for aircrews and passengers in operational
conditions; (2) the V-22 aircraft can achieve sufficient
reliability and maintainability levels such that the
operational availability of the aircraft will achieve the level
required for fleet aircraft; (3) the V-22 aircraft will be
operationally effective in operations when employed with other
V-22 aircraft, and when V-22 aircraft are employed in
operations with other types of aircraft; and (4) V-22 aircraft
can be operated effectively in spite of the downwash effects
inherent in this aircraft.
Documentation submitted by the Navy supporting the fiscal
year 2001 budget request estimated that four aircraft would be
the minimum sustaining rate (MSR) for production. This year,
the Navy has raised the estimated MSR level to 12 aircraft.
The committee agrees with the Panel that production should
be kept to a minimum sustaining rate in order to minimize the
number of aircraft requiring retrofit. The committee believes
that reducing production in fiscal year 2002 to the previous
MSR level of four aircraft would be too severe an action.
However, the committee does not understand why the new MSR has
been raised to a level of 12, when the contractor team
delivered nine aircraft during calendar year 2000.
The committee also agrees with the Panel that more robust
funding of spares and support equipment is warranted if the
program moves forward. However, providing spare parts funding
in fiscal year 2002 at the same level as that supporting
procurement of 11 aircraft in fiscal year 2001 should be
adequate to support nine aircraft in fiscal year 2002.
Finally, the committee agrees with the sentiment expressed
in the statement of managers to accompany the conference report
on the Fiscal Year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.
Rept. 107-138) regarding the CV-22 portion of the program. The
managers concluded that, ``The conferees remain supportive of
the goals of the Special Operations Command concerning the CV-
22, but believe that all issues with the program restructure
need to be resolved before acquisition of CV-22 test articles
is warranted.''
Therefore, the committee recommends a series of adjustments
to the funding in the budget request:
(1) for the research and development effort, the
committee recommends approving all activities, except
acquisition of two CV-22 aircraft for IOT&E (a
reduction of $100.0 million);
(2) for the procurement for the Marine Corps, the
committee recommends:
(a) approving production of nine aircraft in
fiscal year 2002 (a reduction of $226.7
million);
(b) approving the same funding level for
spares as that level funded for 11 aircraft in
the fiscal year2001 budget, as adjusted by the
Fiscal Year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act (a reduction of $99.0
million); and
(c) approving the budget request for advance
procurement and aircraft modifications.
(3) for procurement for the Air Force, the committee
recommends no funding (a reduction of $136.5 million).
The committee is troubled by the potential actions being
recommended by the program for executing the fiscal year 2001
program. Shifting funds from the spare parts account to buy a
tenth aircraft would appear to violate one of the primary
recommendations of the Panel. It certainly would forego the
opportunity of investing fiscal year 2001 resources immediately
in seeking the cost reductions that should be at the top of the
program's list of priorities. Therefore, the committee
recommends that the Department use the fiscal year 2001 V-22
funds that might have gone to build a tenth aircraft instead to
pursue the cost reduction initiatives and CV-22 spares and
avionics lab efforts.
OTHER NAVY PROGRAMS
Navy Aircraft
Integrated defensive electronic countermeasures
The budget request included $3.1 billion for the
procurement of 48 F/A-18E/F aircraft, of which $52.1 million
would be to buy integrated defensive electronic countermeasures
(IDECM) radio frequency countermeasures (RFCM) systems, also
known as the AN/ALQ-214. The Navy plan supported by the budget
involves outfitting new F/A-18E/F aircraft with only two IDECM
RFCM sets of equipment for every three new aircraft. Such a
situation will cause Navy wings to ``cross-deck'' equipment to
ensure that deployed carrier air wings have full complements of
equipment. This situation could cause at least two problems:
(1) non-deployed squadrons will not have enough equipment with
which to train; and (2) these squadrons will be cannibalizing
aircraft to move the IDECM RFCM equipment among those aircraft.
The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for
the procurement of additional IDECM RFCM equipment for F/A-18E/
F aircraft.
Navy joint primary aircraft training system
The budget request included no funding for continued Navy
procurement of the joint primary aircraft training system
(JPATS) to support Navy training requirements. The Navy has
been a partner in this joint program with the Air Force,
although the Air Force began buying the aircraft five years
before the Navy. Air Force long-term plans depended on the
Navy's continued participation in the program. For the past two
years, the Navy has procured these aircraft, 36 of which will
be forming the initial cadre of primary trainers for the Navy.
The Navy had planned to buy 24 JPATS aircraft in fiscal
year 2002. The Navy has now decided that its existing trainer,
the T-34C, has sufficient service life remaining to allow the
Navy to delay any additional JPATS procurement until later in
the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).
The committee is concerned that the Navy is willing to take
such a course of action in a joint program, where its actions
obviously force the Air Force to absorb greater costs than the
Air Force had planned upon. Additionally, the committee
believes that the improved aircrew survivability offered by the
ejection seat-equipped JPATS aircraft is an important factor
warranting continued purchases of the trainer by the Navy.
The committee recommends an increase of $44.6 million to
buy 10 JPATS aircraft for the Navy. Continued purchases by the
Navy would mean fielding a more efficient and safer primary
aircraft training system. It would also, along with the planned
Air Force buy, permit the contractor to maintain a level
production effort and keep Air Force unit costs at a more
reasonable level.
The committee also recognizes that the Navy's elimination
of funding in fiscal year 2002 has caused the Air Force to face
higher costs for the airplanes it intends to buy. The Air Force
has indicated that the loss of the 24 aircraft from the Navy
buy would imply a cost increase in fiscal year 2002 of $5.8
million for the Air Force program.
Therefore, the committee also recommends a transfer of $3.4
million from the Aircraft Procurement, Navy account to the
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force account to compensate the Air
Force for the increased overhead that the Air Force will face
as a result of the Navy's late decision to interrupt purchases
in fiscal year 2002. The $3.4 million reduction is a general
reduction to the account, but shall not be assessed against
either the JPATS program or any other addition made in the
authorization or appropriations legislation.
EA-6B aircraft ALQ-99 band 9/10 transmitters
The budget request included $137.6 million for
modifications of the EA-6B aircraft, but requested no funds to
buy additional ALQ-99 band 9/10 transmitters.
The Navy would use additional ALQ-99 band 9/10 transmitters
to replace older band 9 transmitters. The ALQ-99 Band 9/
10transmitter uses digital electronics. The older band 9 transmitters
employ analog technology that is much less reliable. The newer band 9/
10 transmitters would also extend the frequency coverage available
compared to the band 9 transmitters. The Navy needs the expanded
frequency ranges and capabilities of the ALQ-99 band 9/10 transmitters
to counter the electronic protection techniques used in a wide variety
of threat systems.
The Navy informs the committee that an additional $38.0
million would allow them to finish buying all of the ALQ-99
band 9/10 transmitters they need before the contractor closes
the production line.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $38.0
million to buy EA-6B aircraft ALQ-99 Band 9/10 transmitters.
EA-6B aircraft structural modifications
The budget request included $137.6 million for
modifications of the EA-6B aircraft, including $49.2 million
for structural modifications and improvements.
The Navy has determined, through recent fatigue life
inspection of EA-6B aircraft, that they need to buy and install
additional wing center section replacements. Until these
modifications are completed, 51 of the fleet of 124 aircraft
will be subject to restricted flight operations.
The Navy has developed another airframe change, called
``AFC-805,'' that would reduce the fleet maintenance burden by
eliminating the need for more frequent inspection of certain
areas of the wing center sections.
Finally, the Navy has identified a need to: (1) conduct
expanded metallurgical fatigue analysis; and (2) conduct a
study of the outer wing panel area of the aircraft, build a
prototype replacement section and test it. These activities
should help the Navy prevent a recurrence of flight
restrictions on the aircraft such as are being experienced in
the wing center section situation.
The committee recommends an additional $16.0 million to
build and install two additional wing center sections,
accelerate installation of AFC-805 kits, conduct fatigue
analysis and complete the outer wing sections activities.
AV-8B precision targeting pod
The budget request included $49.5 million for modifications
to the AV-8B aircraft, but included no funding for precision
targeting pods, called Litening II pods. The Marine Corps began
acquisition of these pods to provide the AV-8B with the ability
to use precision-guided weapons. Although no funds were
included in the amended budget request, the Marine Corps has
identified buying additional Litening II pods as a high
priority item to complete the outfitting of all Marine Corps
AV-8B squadrons with this capability.
The committee recommends an increase of $36.0 million for
the procurement of Litening II targeting pods, a total
authorization in AV-8B aircraft modifications of $85.5 million.
P-3 aircraft modifications
The budget request included $113.2 million for
modifications to the P-3 aircraft. Within that total, the
budget request included $34.5 million for the procurement and
the installation of update III block upgrade kits, $72.4
million for the procurement of four anti-surface warfare
improvement program (AIP) kits, and no funding to modify P-3
aircraft to make them compliant with the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) requirements for unrestricted
access to international airspace. The Navy calls this last
modification the communications, navigation and surveillance/
air traffic management (CNS/ATM) modification.
The P-3 update III block upgrade, also know as the block
modification upgrade program (BMUP), includes modern processing
systems for the mission computer and acoustics sensors to
achieve a common P-3C configuration with improved performance.
Completing this modification will also help the Navy achieve
savings by reducing the number of older system configurations
that demand higher operating and support costs. Having made the
BMUP upgrade is also a necessary condition for modifying the
aircraft in the AIP program, discussed below. The committee
recommends an increase of $27.0 million for the procurement of
additional BMUP kit components.
The AIP modification has greatly expanded the capabilities
of the P-3 aircraft, giving it particular capability to operate
against surface targets in coastal regions. These upgrades
include better ability to provide standoff surveillance and
targeting. The AIP program makes these aircraft very attractive
to fleet and battle group commanders to supplement the
capabilities offered by other high demand, low density (HD/LD)
forces. The committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million
for the procurement of four additional AIP kits for the P-3
aircraft.
CNS/ATM modifications are required to provide capability to
operate within international airspace. Having upgraded global
positioning system (GPS) navigation systems is one requirement.
Another requirement is achieving instrument landing system
frequency modulation (ILS FM) immunity. The mandate for ILS FM
immunity became effective in Europe on January 1, 2001. P-
3aircraft are frequently required to operate in international airspace
and could find those operations encumbered by a lack of compliance with
ICAO standards. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million to procure and install additional CNS/ATM upgrades.
In total, the committee recommends an increase of $96.0
million for P-3 modifications, a total authorization of $209.2
million.
Navy Weapons
Hellfire missiles
The budget request included no funding for the procurement
of AGM-114K Hellfire missiles. The Department of the Navy uses
Hellfire missiles as a primary attack weapon for both the
Marine Corps AH-1W attack helicopter and the Navy SH-60
helicopter. The committee understands that the fiscal year 2001
Hellfire inventory is only 56.3 percent of the inventory
objective. Although no funds were included in the budget
request, the Marine Corps has identified buying additional
Hellfire missiles as a high priority item to mitigate against
further erosion in the inventory level from training
expenditures and from retirements due to shelf life
expirations.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for
the procurement of AGM-114K Hellfire missiles.
Weapons industrial facilities
The budget request included $17.2 million for various
activities at government-owned, contractor-operated weapons
industrial facilities. The committee recommends an increase of
$20.0 million to accelerate the facilities restoration program
at the Allegany Ballistics Laboratory in accordance with a
request from the Department of the Navy.
Close-in weapons system modifications
The budget request included $40.5 million for modifications
to the Close-in Weapons System (CIWS) for surface ship self-
defense. The basic CIWS is an effective weapon for defense
against anti-ship cruise missiles. An upgrade, called the
``Block 1B'' modification, enhances these capabilities,
improves the reliability of the system, and expands the target
set to include other threats, such as that posed by small
boats.
Because of the importance of providing these capabilities
to the fleet, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million for procurement and installation of Block 1B
modifications in CIWS mounts.
Gun mount modifications
The budget request included $5.7 million in gun mount
modifications, including $2.4 million for the procurement and
installation of modifications to surface ship five inch, 54
caliber gun mounts. The five inch gun provides the only gun
fire support from the sea for the Marine Corps and comprises a
part of the layered, ship self-defense system.
The five inch gun mount modification program provides gun
safety updates, shock hardens the gun and mount for future
munitions, modifies five inch, 54 caliber guns to 62 caliber,
and develops a rotatable pool of gun mounts for the cruiser
conversion and ship overhaul programs.
Additional funding would help prevent a break in production
for procurement of modification kits for the cruiser conversion
program and allow continuation of other ordnance alterations.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million for the five inch gun mount modifications program.
Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion
Trident submarine conversion
The budget request included a proposal to begin conversion
work on two of four Trident submarines that would otherwise be
retired under the Department of Defense's plan to reduce the
Trident ballistic missile submarine force from the current
level of 18 boats to a new level of 14 boats. To implement this
plan, the budget request included $30.0 million in PE 63559N
for design effort on the conversion and $86.4 million in
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for advance procurement items
for converting two boats.
Under the administration's plan, the other two Trident
submarines would be inactivated and scrapped. The budget
request also included $17.0 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Navy to begin inactivations of two of four Trident
submarines.
This program would convert Trident nuclear ballistic
missile submarines (SSBN) to a nuclear guided missile submarine
(SSGN). The SSGN conversion would add the capability to carry
up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles per submarine, and would
provide additional capability to carry special operations force
(SOF) personnel and their unique equipment.
The committee has been concerned about attack submarine
(SSN) forces levels for some time. The study of SSN force
structure requirements conducted by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff(JCS) evaluated requirements of the combatant commanders in chief
(CINCs). That study concluded that a submarine force structure below 55
SSNs in 2015 would be insufficient to meet war fighting requirements
and that 68 SSNs would be necessary by 2015 to meet all the CINCs' and
national intelligence community's highest operational and collection
requirements. The study focused on intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) requirements of the CINCs and also concluded that
18 Virginia-class submarines would be required in the 2015 time frame
to counter the future threat.
The Navy has indicated that a Trident SSGN could perform
some missions allocated to attack submarines, including perhaps
some ISR missions. However, the Navy does not believe that a
Trident SSGN could perform all of the missions assigned to
attack submarines. Nevertheless, the committee believes that
having the four Trident SSGNs available would provide the Navy
more flexibility in scheduling operations of the rest of the
SSN fleet.
The more obvious contribution that a Trident SSGN could
make would be in providing significant numbers of Tomahawk
missiles on station. That would permit them to support theater
commanders' requirements for on-call Tomahawk strike capability
under the so-called ``Global Naval Force Presence Policy,'' or
GNFPP. Today, the Navy meets this GNFPP requirement primarily
by sending to the theater attack submarines, cruisers and
destroyers that can carry Tomahawk missiles. These ships and
submarines are normally deployed with an aircraft carrier as a
carrier battle group (CVBG). The GNFPP allocates the available
CVBGs, amphibious ready groups, and Tomahawk land attack cruise
missiles in response to war fighting CINC requirements. A
notional CVBG of two cruisers, two Arleigh Burke-class
destroyers, at least one Tomahawk-capable Spruance-class
destroyer, and two attack submarines have the capability, in
theory, to carry and launch about 500 missiles. Most
frequently, however, the destroyers and cruisers would carry a
larger percentage of anti-air missiles than Tomahawk cruise
missiles. In contrast, one SSGN would be capable of carrying
154 tomahawk missiles. The committee believes that supporting
the SSGN conversion program for all four boats may permit the
Navy to meet CINC war fighting requirements that are presently
not met, while providing additional flexibility for deployment
of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines.
The budget request, however, would lead to eliminating two
of these four boats from the SSGN conversion program. The Navy
has testified that the low levels of nuclear fuel remaining in
two of the four Trident SSBNs require that the decision be made
in fiscal year 2002 either to: (1) induct them into a refueling
program; or (2) inactivate and scrap them.
The committee does not believe that the Navy should miss
this opportunity to convert half of the SSBNs that will be
available for the SSGN conversion program. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $324.0 million, including:
$34.0 million in PE 63559N to accelerate SSGN design
activities; $178.0 million in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
for additional advance procurement to support SSGN conversion
for the first two boats; and $112.0 million in Other
Procurement, Navy to buy a nuclear reactor core for the first
of the two extra SSGN conversions. The committee also
recommends a reduction in Operation and Maintenance, Navy of
$17.0 million to reflect the fact that the Navy would not
inactivate the four Trident boats as planned.
Other Navy Procurement
AN/WSN-7B inertial navigation system
The budget request included $45.9 million for other
navigation equipment, including $4.7 million for procurement of
the AN/WSN-7 ring laser gyro navigators for surface ships and
submarines to replace three aging navigation systems and to
provide equipment commonality between surface combatants,
submarines and aircraft carriers. The AN/WSN-7B ring laser
gyrocompass replaces the aging AN/WSN-2 stabilized gyrocompass.
The AN/WSN-7 and AN/WSN-7B provide continuous updates of a
ship's position, velocity, and attitude (roll, pitch, and
heading), which is critical for network centric warfare,
including ship self-defense and mine warfare. Use of these
systems reduces the annual operating costs of the navigation
system by approximately 90 percent and results in improved
systems performance. The Navy can use accelerated procurement
and installation of the AN/WSN-7B systems to enhance the combat
capability of ships and submarines while reaping substantial
savings in maintenance costs.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0
million for procurement and installation of AN/WSN-7B ring
laser gyro gyrocompass systems.
Ship integrated condition assessment system
The budget request included no funds for procurement of
integrated condition assessment systems (ICAS) for surface
ships. An ICAS system remotely monitors the operating
parameters of machinery throughout a ship, analyzes the
collected data and alerts operators to potential performance
problems. ICAS has the potential to: (1) reduce the hours
required to measure, analyze and report machinery operations;
(2) reduce total operatingcosts; and (3) improve operational
availability. ICAS has been installed in a number of surface ships and
is performing well.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.3 million for
procurement and installation of ICAS in surface ships.
Ship engineering control and surveillance system
The budget request did not include funds for procurement of
a ship engineering control and surveillance system (ECSS). The
ECSS is a ship-wide system that provides engineering machinery
and damage control information to the battle organization
through the command, control, and communications system. Using
ECSS should result in reducing the workload on ships' crews
during high stress operations. This use should also allow the
crews to focus attention on other, more critical operations of
the ships.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.6
million for procurement and installation of ECSS in ships.
High resolution side-scan sonar for detecting sea mines
The budget request included no funds for procurement of a
high resolution sonar for detecting sea mines. On numerous
occasions, the committee has received testimony that detection,
classification and destruction of sea mines is a critical
warfare area. Commercial sonars are available that could
immediately enhance the Navy's ability to detect and classify
mines. The Navy has used these sonars in the past to search the
ocean floor and is familiar with their operation and support.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for
procurement, installation and support of a side-scanning sonar
in a forward deployed mine countermeasures ship to conduct
peacetime surveys and to meet the critical mine warfare
requirement to detect and classify mines.
Tactical communications onboard trainer
The budget request included no funds for a tactical
communications onboard trainer for the battle force tactical
training (BFTT) system. The BFTT system provides battle groups
and amphibious ready groups the capability to train as a group
using onboard stimulators and simulators embedded in the ships'
equipment. However, the BFTT does not include the capability to
conduct tactical communications data link (Link-4, Link-11, and
Link-16) training. Tactical communications are key to
implementing network centric warfare and to enhancing the self-
defense capabilities of ships. Using them effectively during
conflicts requires that the Navy be able to train more
realistically in peacetime.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million for the procurement and installation of tactical
communications capabilities into the BFTT system.
AN/BPS-15H integration into tactical integrated digital system
The budget request did not include funds for integrating
information from the AN/BPS-15H navigation radar into the
tactical integrated digital system (TIDS) for submarines.
The AN/BPS-15H radar is a commercial off-the-shelf radar
used by submarines to provide navigation, safety and target
information. The AN/BPS-15H radar reduces the total operating
cost of submarine navigation radars while improving
performance. AN/BPS-15H navigation and radar information is key
to enhancing the operational capability and navigation safety.
The TIDS distributes information collected by sensors to
key operating and control positions throughout the submarine.
Unfortunately, there are a number of submarines that do not
have the capability to pass information seamlessly from the AN/
BPS-15H to the TIDS.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million to integrate BPS-15H radars with TIDS.
AN/SPS-73(V) surface search radar
The budget request included $1.1 million to procure and
install AN/SPS-73(V) surface search radar systems to replace a
number of aging radars on surface ships with a single radar.
The AN/SPS-73(V) is a commercial, off-the-shelf radar that
provides surface ships with a reliable, lower maintenance, and
lower life-cycle cost surface search radar system. The Navy
needs to continue buying these radars at a higher rate to
ensure that the fleet will achieve the full potential savings
in support costs and will reduce demands on maintenance
personnel.
The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million for
the procurement and installation of AN/SPS-73(V) surface search
radar systems.
Sonobuoys
The budget request included $57.9 million for procurement
of various sonobuoys. These funds would be sufficient to buy
roughly 74,000 sonobuoys, well short of replacing the sonobuoys
that are needed to support annual peacetime training
requirements. Faced with such a situation, the Navy would be
faced with two poor alternatives: (1) curtailing training, with
an attendant adverse effect on personnel readiness; or (2)
continuing training and accepting a reduction in war reserve
assets, making the force less ready to operate at required
higher rates in a conflict. The committee finds either
alternative unacceptable.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million for sonobuoys, a total authorization of $77.9 million.
SPQ-9B radar
The budget request included $17.9 million in gun fire
control equipment, including $12.8 million for procurement of
SPQ-9B radars. The SPQ-9B provides surface ships a gunfire
control radar that also enhances ship self-defense
capabilities. Developing and fielding a solid state transmitter
has the potential to reduce life cycle costs and improve
performance of this radar.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million to design, build, test and integrate a solid state
transmitter into the SPQ-9B radar.
NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system
The budget request included $27.5 million for anti-ship
missile decoy systems, including $14.7 million for procuring 49
new NULKA decoys. The budget request did not include any funds
for ordnance alterations for NULKA decoys already bought.
The Navy needs to buy additional NULKA decoys to ensure
fleet installations remain on a reasonable schedule, keep
production rates above the minimum sustaining level, and
achieve more reasonable unit production costs.
The Navy has also developed an electromagnetic
compatibility modification to the existing NULKA payload that
would permit the NULKA to operate without interference in the
presence of newer, more advanced friendly radar systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million for
the NULKA procurement program, including $12.0 million to
purchase additional decoys, and $2.0 million to modify existing
NULKA payloads with the electromagnetic compatibility
modification.
SUBTITLE D--AIR FORCE PROGRAMS
Multiyear procurement authority for C-17 aircraft (sec 131)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
authority for the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into a
multiyear contract, in accordance with the provisions of title
10, United States Code, for the procurement of up to 60 C-17
aircraft.
The Air Force has informed the committee that the service
is evaluating a potential initiative known as the commercial
application of military airlift aircraft (CAMAA). The committee
believes that this could be an innovative solution to a portion
of our strategic airlift requirements. However, there are
several issues involved about which the Committee would require
more specific information before adopting a position on this
initiative. Such issues include: (1) whether the DOD wants to
buy, and can afford to buy, sufficient aircraft for the Air
Force inventory to make a commercial purchase financially
attractive to commercial operators; (2) what combination of
U.S. government inducements might be required to make such an
initiative financially attractive to commercial operators; (3)
whether DOD cargo that currently travels by organic airlift
would have to be diverted to provide cargo that would subsidize
commercial carriers' C-17 operations; (4) whether the aircraft
can be certified by the Federal Aviation Administration without
munitions list restrictions; (5) what level of risk will be
borne by the U.S. government, the commercial carriers and by
the C-17 contractor; (6) what is the business case for the
commercial carriers; and (7) what is the business case for the
U.S. government.
The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would
provide for a thorough review of the issues and answers to
these questions before making a formal request to implement any
CAMAA proposal.
The committee is aware that there may be other limitations
on implementing any multiyear program, such as the requirements
imposed by section 8145 of Department of Defense Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (HR 106-371). The provision
recommended by the committee would not relieve the Air Force of
the responsibility of complying with such limitations.
OTHER AIR FORCE PROGRAMS
Air Force Aircraft
C-130J
The budget request included $221.8 million for the
procurement of two C-130J-30 combat delivery aircraft, and
included $13.6 million for the procurement of a fuselage
training device.
The Air Force has indicated that, if additional funds were
to be made available in fiscal year 2002, they would purchase
an additional C-130J for establishing an organic training
activity.The committee believes that it would be beneficial to
accelerate the establishment of the unit to train C-130J aircrew and
maintenance personnel. The committee recommends an increase of $81.0
million for the procurement of one C-130J, including $9.0 million for
spares and support equipment.
The Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for the C-130J also
indicates the need for additional maintenance training devices.
The committee supports the acceleration of procurement of
maintenance training devices to accelerate the initiation of
organic maintenance training for the Air Force, consistent with
the purchase of an additional aircraft in fiscal year 2002.
Therefore, the committee also recommends an increase of
$18.0 million for the procurement of C-130J maintenance
training devices.
Predator unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request included $19.6 million to procure six
Predator unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
As with any air vehicle, the Air Force expects to lose some
number of these UAVs each year to mishaps. Current production
is slated to replace any UAVs lost to such attrition. Air Force
officials have informed the committee that they expect
attrition losses to exceed the current production rate, and
that roughly two more aircraft per year would be needed to stay
even.
The Predator UAV systems have been in high demand from the
combatant commanders. These officers and their staffs have
repeatedly stressed to the committee the high priority of
having enough of these UAVs available. Any shortages due to
buying too few air vehicles to replace attrition losses would
impinge the Air Force's ability to support these commanders.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million to buy two additional Predator air vehicles to provide
greater assurance that the Air Force has enough vehicles to
absorb peacetime attrition without cutting deployed forces.
B-52
The budget request included $3.5 million in procurement for
the B-52 bomber. The committee recommends an additional $51.0
million for the Electronic Countermeasure Improvement (ECMI)
program, for a total authorization of $54.5 million in B-52
modifications. The ECMI will upgrade the current ALQ-172
electronic countermeasure system, improving situational
awareness and adding the ability to do rapid in-flight
reprogramming to counter threat changes. The additional funds
will allow the Air Force to complete the buy of the ECMI kits
necessary to upgrade the B-52 fleet.
F-15 aircraft modifications
The budget request included $212.2 million for
modifications to the F-15 aircraft, including $24.4 million for
the F100-PW-220E engine upgrade program. This program modifies
F100-PW-100/-200 engines to the F100-PW-220E configuration.
This modification will make these engines equivalent to the new
production F100-PW-220E engine.
This upgrade would significantly improve the reliability
and maintainability of the engine, and has already reduced the
unscheduled engine removal rate by 35 percent. The committee
believes that these upgrades are important to reduce the
demands on aircrew maintenance personnel.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million for additional F-15 F100-PW-220E engine upgrades, a
total authorization of $237.2 million for F-15 aircraft
modifications.
The Air Force currently operates the F-15s in almost two
dozen configurations of F-15A/B/C/D/E aircraft. These multiple
configurations complicate managing and supporting the force.
The Air Force has been and will be spending several hundred
million dollars per year on making upgrades to the existing F-
15 fleet. The committee believes that the Air Force should
consider consolidating some or all of these efforts within a
potential block upgrade program. Such an effort should focus,
in priority order, on reducing threats to the aircrews,
improving readiness, reducing demands for operating and support
expenditures and providing upgraded combat capability. The
committee directs the Air Force to provide an analysis of such
an approach with the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget
request.
F-16 aircraft modifications
The budget request included $232.0 million for
modifications to the F-16 aircraft, but included no funding for
continuing a program to replace engines of block 42 F-16
aircraft with the F100-PW-229 engine. This re-engining program
will enable Air National Guard units flying the block 42 F-16
aircraft to have comparable speed, thrust, and maneuverability
with other F-16 aircraft, allowing full integration into the
Expeditionary Air Force structure. Such a modification would
also increase the reliability and maintainability of these
aircraft.
The committee recommends an increase of $88.0 million for
F100-PW-229 engines for block 42 F-16 aircraft, a total
authorization of $320.0 million in F-16 aircraft modifications.
C-17 simulator
The budget request included $139.3 million for
modifications to the C-17 aircraft, but included no funding for
several efforts: (1) buying a training evaluation performance
training set (TEPATS); (2) upgrading trainers to maintain the
same configuration as newer operating aircraft (called ``block
concurrency upgrades''); and (3) buying a combined aircraft
engine trainer and engine cowling trainer.
With C-17 aircraft being assigned to additional operating
locations, there is a requirement to provide adequate training
for support and maintenance crews. Absent training devices of
the correct type, the Air Force would have to conduct training
on actual aircraft, or send personnel on temporary duty to
locations that do have the training devices. If training
devices are available, but are not in the proper configuration,
the training administered can be incomplete or ineffective.
To correct these potential problems, the committee
recommends an overall increase of $21.1 million for C-17
aircraft modifications, a total authorization of $160.4
million, as follows:
(1) an increase of $9.8 million for the procurement
of a C-17 TEPATS;
(2) an increase of $2.1 million for the procurement
of C-17 aircraft trainer block concurrency upgrades;
and
(3) an increase of $9.2 million for the procurement
of a C-17 aircraft combined aircraft engine trainer and
engine cowling trainer.
Joint surveillance target attack radar system
The budget request included $83.0 million of procurement
funding for modifications to the E-8 joint surveillance target
attack radar system (JSTARS) aircraft, and $147.9 million in PE
27581F for JSTARS-related research and development projects.
Of the procurement modifications request, $5.7 million was
included for the procurement and installation of satellite
communication (SATCOM) kits. The committee has been notified
that delays in the development of the government-furnished
SATCOM kits have negated the requirement for procurement
funding, but established a need for continued research and
development funding.
Of the procurement modifications request, $25.3 million was
requested for so-called ``vanguard'' reliability and
maintainability upgrades for the aircraft and prime mission
equipment. The Air Force notified the committee that,
subsequent to the delivery of the fiscal year 2002 budget
request, the cost estimates for the higher priority global air
traffic management (GATM) efforts in the integration of GATM-
compliant radios has made this planned integration impossible
without additional research and development funds.
The committee recommends a transfer of $11.5 million from
JSTARS aircraft procurement modifications to PE 27581F for
JSTARS systems development, including $5.7 million for SATCOM
kit development and $5.8 million for GATM radio integration
efforts.
Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program
The budget request included $90.3 million for support
equipment for the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program
(DARP), but no funding for the procurement of spare parts to
support operational deployment of a preplanned product
improvement for the U-2 aircraft Senior Year electro-optic
reconnaissance system (SYERS). This new sensor is a high
resolution sensor capable of collecting image information in
multiple bands of the spectrum.
This SYERS P3I sensor system completed operational testing
in 2000 and is scheduled to deploy later this year. The
committee believes that the Air Force needs to buy spare parts
for this SYERS P3I system to ensure a high likelihood of the
system's availability for deployed U-2 activities.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million for the procurement of additional U-2 SYERS spares
equipment, a total authorization of $93.3 million in DARP
support equipment.
Air Force Missiles
Minuteman III modifications
The budget request included $552.7 million in missile
procurement Air Force for modifications to the Minuteman III
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. The committee recommends an
additional $4.2 million for replacement emergency batteries.
Peacekeeper Ballistic Missile
The budget request included $5.1 million for the
Peacekeeper (M-X) ballistic missile.
The committee recommends an increase of $12.2 million to
fund long lead equipment items to support retirement of the
Peacekeeper missile.
Wideband gapfiller satellites
The budget request included $13.4 million for the wideband
gapfiller satellites. The committee recommends an additional
$32.6 million in advance procurement to exercise unfunded
optionson the wideband gapfiller satellite contract to buy
three additional satellites to increase the number of satellites on
orbit from three to six. These three additional satellites will allow
the Air Force to maintain global wideband communications coverage and
to meet both training and operational wideband communications needs.
This will also ensure that there is an on orbit backup capability for
the satellite system. Additionally, this was included on the Air Force
list of unfunded priorities.
The committee prohibits obligation of the additional funds
until such time as the Secretary of the Air Force submits to
the congressional defense committees a report explaining how
the balance of the cost of the three additional satellites will
be funded in the Future Years Defense Program.
Other Air Force Procurement
Base information infrastructure
The budget request included $154.1 million for the
procurement and installation of base information infrastructure
improvements. Within this category, the Air Force provides
upgrades for the combat information transport system (CITS),
including its subsets: (1) information transport system (ITS);
(2) network management system; (3) voice switching system; and
(4) telecommunications management system.
The Air Force has determined that ITS improvements will
have direct effect on war fighting and contingency support. The
Air Force has appropriately placed a high priority on providing
enhancements to the ITS portion of the CITS program. This
priority is based on the assessment that the current
infrastructure is inadequate to support information-intensive
command and control systems supporting military operations.
The committee recommends an increase of $28.7 million for
accelerating procurement and installation of fiber optic
communications upgrades within the ITS upgrade effort.
Spacelift range systems
The budget request included $132.8 million in Other
Procurement, Air Force for spacelift range systems to support
sustainment and modernization of launch facilities. The
committee recommends an increase of $17.6 million to support
improved operational safety and to modernize or eliminate older
systems and equipment.
Improving the safety and long-term viability of the East
and West Coast space ranges at Vandenberg Air Force Base,
California, and at Cape Canaveral/Patrick Air Force Base,
Florida, is the number one priority on the Air Force list of
unfunded priorities. The committee recommends a total increase
for spacelift ranges of $53.9 million for procurement, research
and development, and operations and maintenance accounts.
The additional $17.6 million recommended by the committee
would support efforts to transform the ranges from an analog
environment to a digital environment, and move from manual
scheduling to electronic scheduling of launches and other
activities. In addition, the additional funds would begin to
restore some additional modernization activities to their
original schedule. These activities were supposed to have been
completed by 2004 under phase IIA of the Range Standardization
and Automation plan but have slipped to 2006. The Air Force
believes that the plan can get substantially back on schedule
with the additional provided.
Night vision goggles
The budget request included $3.3 million for the
procurement of night vision goggles (NVGs) for aircrew,
maintenance, and security personnel. The committee supports the
Air Force plan to transition to the newer, panoramic NVGs
(PNVGs), and has recommended additional authorization for PNVG
development elsewhere in this report.
In the meantime, the Air Force has indicated that
additional funds would allow them to upgrade older versions of
NVGs in the field, and to buy additional test sets. Such an
effort would provide near-term upgrades to those operating with
older, less capable NVGs. It would also hedge against the
possibility that the PNVG program might not be able to deliver
volume production as soon as the Air Force would prefer.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for
the procurement of additional NVG upgrades and test sets, for a
total authorization of $7.3 million.
Spacetrack
The budget request included $8.8 million in Other
Procurement, Air Force, for the Spacetrack for Ground-Based
Electro-Optical Space Surveillance Sustainment (GEODSS)
cameras. This amount should have included $3.6 million for
initial spares to support the GEODSS sustainment program. These
funds were inadvertently included for Spacetrack research and
development in PE 35901F. The committee recommends an increase
of $3.6 to enable the Air Force to carry out the procurement of
the initial spares, and a corresponding decrease in the
research, development, testing and evaluation Air Force
account.
SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS
Extension of pilot program on sales of manufactured articles and
services of certain Army industrial facilities (sec. 141)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
pilot program for the sale of manufactured articles and
services from Army industrial facilities enacted in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85). The Inspector General audit of this program
mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000 also recommended extension of this pilot program.
Defense-Wide Programs
CV-22 procurement
The budget request included $28.2 million for procurement
of Special Operations Forces (SOF) peculiar equipment and
engineering support for the CV-22, the SOF variant of the V-22
Osprey. However, the Air Force subsequently decided to delay
fielding of the CV-22 to reflect the restructuring of the
overall MV/CV-22 program into a phased return to flight and
fleet introduction. As a result, the fiscal year 2002
procurement funding request is in excess of requirements. The
committee recommends a decrease of $28.2 million in the Special
Operations Force CV-22 SOF Modification procurement account.
Multiband intra/inter team radio procurement
The budget request included $4.7 million for procurement of
AN/PRC-148 Multiband Inter/Intra Team Radios (MBITRs) for
Special Operations Forces (SOF). The MBITR provides SOF teams
with the ability to communicate on multiple frequencies
utilizing a single handheld radio. It replaces the existing
system of numerous less capable, legacy handheld radios that
are increasingly costly to maintain and repair. Procurement of
additional MBITRs would significantly improve the operational
conditions for SOF elements, significantly reducing the combat
load of individual operators. The committee also notes that the
Special Operations Command identified procurement of 1,609
MBITRs to fully outfit SOF components as its highest priority
unfunded requirement for fiscal year 2002. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $14.4 million to the
Special Operations Force Communications Equipment and
Electronics procurement account for purchase of additional AN/
PRC-148 Multiband Inter/Intra Team Radios (MBITRs).
Advanced lightweight grenade launcher
The budget request included $6.9 million for the Special
Operations Forces Small Arms and Weapons procurement account,
but did not include funding for Advanced Lightweight Grenade
Launcher (ALGL) systems for the Special Operations Command
(SOCOM). The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million
to the Special Operations Forces Small Arms and Weapons
procurement account to purchase additional Advanced Lightweight
Grenade Launcher (ALGL) systems, which provide first-round-hit
capability on lightly armored vehicles at ranges beyond 1500
meters. The ALGL procurement would provide special forces
operators with an improved 40mm weapon system capability
consisting of a lightweight 40 mm grenade launcher, day/night
fire control, and mount (ground and vehicle). The system--a
Special Operations Command unfunded priority for fiscal year
2002--would replace one that is twice as heavy, non-man
portable, and less accurate.
Special operations peculiar M4A1 carbine modification procurement
The budget request included $1.8 million in the Special
Operations Force (SOF) Small Arms and Weapons procurement
account in order to purchase mini-night vision sights. These
night vision sights are a component in the Special Operations
Peculiar M4A1 Carbine Modifications (SOPMOD) kit, which allows
the operator to tailor the configuration of the M4A1 carbine to
the assigned mission and operational environment, including day
and night conditions and various target ranges. The M4A1
carbine accessory kit also includes items such as a day scope,
quick attach/detach grenade launcher, forward handgrip,
infrared laser aiming light/illuminator, visible aiming light,
flashlight, suppressor, close quarters battle sight, and rail
interface system. The SOPMOD increases the combat firepower of
the SOF operator, and therefore enhances operator lethality,
safety, and survivability. This procurement constitutes a
fiscal year 2002 unfunded requirement for the Special
Operations Command (SOCOM), and was the highest unfunded
requirement for SOCOM for fiscal year 2001. The committee
authorized additional funding for fiscal year 2001, and
continues to support accelerating procurement of the kits.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million
to the SOF Small Arms and Weapons procurement account for
procurement of SOPMOD kits.
Chemical-biological individual protective equipment
The budget request included $114.3 million in
theProcurement, Defense-Wide account for individual protection against
chemical and biological warfare. Of this amount, $1.8 million was
proposed for procurement of decontamination items for Navy individual
protective gear, including the M291 Skin Decontaminating Kit, the most
efficient, proven and safe method for military personnel to remove
toxic chemical agents from their skin. They are used by all military
services and by civilian personnel responsible for responding to
terrorist attacks. There is a serious depletion of the national
inventory of these kits. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million to procure additional M291 decontamination kits.
The budget request did not include funds for procurement of
M49 filters for chemical-biological defense individual
protective gear. Given the growing risk of chemical attacks, it
is important to maintain an adequate supply of these filters.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for the
procurement of additional M49 filters.
Chemical-biological protective shelters
The budget request included $15.7 million for procurement
of 32 Chemical Biological Protective Shelter systems in the
Collective Protection portion of the Chemical-Biological
Defense Program under Defense-Wide procurement. The Chemical
Biological Protective Shelter (CBPS) is being procured to
satisfy an urgent need for medical and other battlefield
functions requiring personnel to work without individual
protective clothing and masks. The CBPS is replacing the
obsolete M-51 chemical shelter system in order to provide a
highly mobile, self-contained collective protection system that
can provide a contamination-free work area for medical
treatment in a chemically or biologically contaminated zone.
The committee recommends an addition of $7.0 million to
procure additional Chemical Biological Protective Shelters to
help satisfy this urgent need in a timely manner.
Defense Production Act
Laser additive manufacturing initiative
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
94903D to develop laser additive manufacturing technologies to
produce high performance military and commercial titanium
components. These technologies can help reduce weapon systems
costs, speed production of critical components, and reduce the
environmental impact of manufacturing processes. The committee
directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in
the award of contracts and other agreements under this program.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Acquisition programs at the National Imagery and Mapping Agency
The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command,
Control, Communications, and Intelligence) (ASD (C3I)), and the
Community Management Staff (CMS) required the National Imagery
and Mapping Agency (NIMA) to conduct a rigorous ``re-
baselining'' effort over most of the last year. This action
proved to be very useful, as it revealed serious deficiencies
in the NIMA's preparedness to task, receive, and exploit data
from the Future Imagery Architecture (FIA) being developed by
the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The re-baselining
effort also produced a credible measurement of what the NIMA's
capabilities will be under current plans and funding. This
assessment shows that the NIMA's capabilities fall far short of
threshold requirements in the key performance parameters.
The committee believes that the development of the FIA
requirements, viewed in comparison to other such development
processes, was a very productive effort. However, the horizon
may have been set too narrowly only on the collection aspects
of the problem. In hindsight, the problems that would be facing
the NIMA, responsible for other parts of the information chain,
are daunting.
To ensure that the NIMA will be ready to task and handle
data from FIA at first launch, hundreds of millions of dollars
had to be shifted from NIMA's modernization budget mostly to
modify legacy systems for tasking, workflow management, and
data transfer. These modernization funds originally had been
intended to develop newer, more modern systems and capabilities
for these functions. While it is unfortunate that scarce
investment funds were devoted to modifying legacy systems with
only a limited future. In this case, however, no other course
was possible because of the pressure of the FIA schedule.
The root cause of the disconnect is that the NRO was given
permission to begin the FIA acquisition program before any
serious thought was given to the requirements, cost, and
schedule of the associated ground architecture for tasking,
exploiting, and disseminating data from the satellites. What is
more, once the costs of the ground requirements and
architecture were defined, neither the Defense Department nor
the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) was prepared to
sacrifice other programs and activities to pay the bill. As a
result, the NRO is presently on a course to field a high-
capacity collection capability mated to a low-performance
ground infrastructure.
This is a lesson that must not be repeated or forgotten. On
future programs to acquire such programs as FIA, the committee
insists that the requirements trade-off process consider
thecomplete picture, not just the more narrow question of the
collection instrument. That means that no NRO satellite program should
be approved to enter acquisition until the JROC and MRB have approved a
set of requirements for end-to-end system performance (i.e., ground and
space segments together), and cost and schedule estimates to meet those
requirements have been prepared by the NRO and its mission partner or
other appropriate organization and presented to the DCI, Secretary of
Defense, and Congress.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the
Director of Central Intelligence to ensure that this policy is
reflected in the acquisition policies of OSD, CMS, and the NRO.
Acquisition programs at the National Security Agency
The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal year 2001 and the Intelligence Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 directed the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence) (ASD
(C3I)), the Director of Central Intelligence's (DCI) Senior
Acquisition Executive (SAE), and the Director of National
Security Agency (NSA) to establish a disciplined acquisition
strategy for the NSA's modernization program, with strong
oversight mechanisms, but also tailored to the special needs of
information technology and signals intelligence. These Acts
also directed the DCI's SAE to review and report on the NSA's
progress in developing a competent enterprise-wide systems
engineering organization to guide its critical acquisition
alternatives.
The DCI's SAE has provided very valuable analyses and
judgments about the NSA's acquisition problems, but the
response of the NSA, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD), and the Community Management Staff (CMS) has otherwise
been disappointing.
The SAE has demonstrated that the NSA still lacks a
requirements process and a viable enterprise-wide systems
engineering capability. Since the SAE reported her findings,
the NSA established a small systems engineering organization
under the Chief Technology Officer by contracting sole-source
to the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. No
aspect of this arrangement provides reassurance that the NSA
management understands the nature or magnitude of the
deficiency that the SAE has identified.
With respect to oversight, OSD and CMS have been very
active in oversight of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency
(NIMA), whose problems and challenges mirror those of the NSA
in important respects. However, this does not appear to have
been the case with the NSA. The committee believes that
oversight of the NSA must be every bit as thorough and involved
as what has been the case with the NIMA, since the seriousness
of the NSA's problems warrants it.
In addition to these deficiencies, the committee is
concerned the NSA has only just begun to plan for the
integration of the various elements of its nascent
modernization effort, such as Trailblazer, cryptologic mission
management (CMM), customer relations management (CRM), etc.,
with each other. Unfortunately, the NSA appears to have no
plans or processes in place to integrate these programs with
its information technology infrastructure and myriad collection
and access-enabling programs.
Further, the NSA is spending very large sums annually on
hundreds of in-house development activities. Unfortunately, the
leadership at the NSA cannot say how or even whether these
activities contribute to its modernization needs, or if they
do, how they translate into its acquisition plans, such as they
are. In fact, as a rule, the NSA lacks the most basic
information on these development activities, such as schedules,
milestones, development costs, and life-cycle costs. Thus, it
is impossible to know what capabilities the NSA could have by
the end of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) at planned
funding levels, much less what its modernization funding
requirements overall might be.
The NSA has clearly made great strides in seeking to
transform itself in many areas. However, the NSA appears to
have made only modest progress in the area most important to
its future: acquiring the technical ability to operate
effectively against the emerging global network. The NSA has
long known that packet-switched computer-to-computer
communications over an integrated global network would someday
overwhelm traditional circuit-switched communications. The
Director of the NSA testified before Congress this year that
the crossover point has already occurred and that the NSA still
has only rudimentary capabilities to process packet-switched
data. While funding constraints could have contributed to this
failure, it is clear that management problems at the NSA also
hindered success. It follows that more money now, without
further reform, will not succeed either.
In light of these problems, the committee directs that OSD
and CMS conduct a ``baselining'' of the NSA that mirrors the
successful and productive effort performed at the NIMA in the
current fiscal year. The elements of this baseline review are
discussed below.
The NSA must create a rational requirements process and
produce a prioritized requirements baseline, approved by the
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and Mission
Requirements Board (MRB), with measurable key performance
parameters (KPPs). The NSA's capabilities at the end of the
FYDPunder current budgets, and all current programs and plans,
should be assessed objectively against those KPPs, as was done for the
NIMA.
This requirements baseline should also be the basis for
competitive contract awards for the acquisition of Trailblazer
and CMM. Until this requirements baseline is established, the
committee can see no reason to proceed at full speed to
acquisition in these and other programs. However, OSD, CMS, and
the NSA must ensure that these programs proceed to the next
appropriate pre-acquisition phase to sustain momentum and to
keep industry expertise intact. The committee emphasizes
strongly that this requirements baseline should be structured
to support a spiral-development approach to major elements of
the modernization program, such as Trailblazer and CMM.
The NSA must also produce for OSD and CMS review a
rationalized, integrated schedule and requirements allocation
for all the major elements of its modernization effort (e.g.,
Trailblazer, CMM, CRM, information technology infrastructure,
and access programs). The baselining effort must also produce a
systems integration strategy across the entire reference model,
including:
(1) a road map of how mission applications will be
integrated into the Trailblazer framework from multiple
vendors under the direction of a Trailblazer prime
contractor; and
(2) how Trailblazer will be integrated with the other
modernization programs, the information technology
infrastructure, and the collection programs.
The committee directs that the NSA develop plans for OSD
and CMS review that would call for turning over most or all of
the systems integration job to a single industry team; options
include granting total systems performance responsibility
(TSPR) or a prime integration contractor (PIC) role to the
winner of the Trailblazer competitive acquisition, or to the
winner of a separate competition.
The committee directs further that the NSA create a
detailed plan for OSD and CMS to subordinate the interim
Trailblazer program under the Objective Trailblazer program
upon contract award. On this note, the committee observes that
the Objective Trailblazer program should be able to produce
operational capabilities as quickly and more effectively as the
interim program once the Objective Trailblazer program is
restructured to allow the contractor to pursue disciplined
spiral development.
The committee believes that the NSA should rescind its
direction that the competing teams for the Objective
Trailblazer program must incorporate elements of the Interim
Trailblazer effort. The contractors should be free to propose
what they believe makes the most sense. Interim Trailblazer
achievements will be evaluated as part of an Analysis of
Alternatives process.
The NSA must produce for OSD and CMS review a detailed
audit of all the hundreds of ongoing development activities and
programs within the Agency. OSD and CMS must be convinced that
these programs translate into the NSA's objective architecture,
are meeting a valid requirement, and have documented program
plans, cost estimates, schedules, milestones, and interface
standards and specifications; otherwise, they should be
modified or canceled, and funding transferred to more
productive activities.
The NSA must produce for OSD and CMS a detailed plan and
schedule to establish a rigorous ``make-versus-buy'' decision
process for all the NSA acquisition activities.
The NSA must produce a plan acceptable to OSD and the DCI's
SAE for enterprise-wide systems engineering. The committee
believes that most of the funds requested for enterprise-wide
systems engineering should be applied to the SIGINT
Directorate's efforts to guide the development activities
covered by the reference model.
Upon completion of these tasks, the committee expects that
OSD, CMS, and the NSA will provide detailed briefings and
reports, as appropriate, to the congressional defense and
intelligence committees.
If these tasks are not completed by December 1, 2002, the
committee directs that the NSA's modernization effort
immediately be designated a major defense acquisition program,
with milestone decision authority residing with the Under
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics),
and subjected to semiannual Defense Acquisition Board program
reviews until initial operational capability (IOC) is achieved.
Air Force C-130 roadmap
The Air Force has developed a long-range plan for
modernizing its fleet of tactical airlift aircraft. The Air
Force uses this plan, called the ``C-130 Roadmap,'' to assist
their planning and budgeting to modernize the existing force,
and deploy new production aircraft that will replace those
older aircraft that would be too costly to upgrade.
The committee supports methodical analysis and planning
that considers the needs of the service, the condition of the
aircraft to be replaced, concerns about having to operate mixed
types of aircraft, and whether adequate support equipment and
facilities are properly phased to accommodate the deployment.
The committee supports implementation of the C-130 Roadmap,
dated July 20, 2001, recently submitted to the Congress, and
encourages the Air Force to use a similar approach with other
aircraft systems that it is modernizing.
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer procurement
The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 expressed the sense of Congress that the
Secretary of the Navy should procure Arleigh Burke-class
destroyers at the most economical rate of procurement of three
per year in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The budget request
included $2.9 billion for three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers
in fiscal year 2002, the economic rate suggested by Congress.
The committee recommends authorization of the amended budget
request.
The Navy updated the ``Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) Class
Industrial Base Study of 1993'' in November 2000 and again on
August 16, 2001. Navy witnesses testified that the updated
analysis, among other things, concluded that: (1) ``both of the
destroyer shipbuilders will have to book unprecedented amounts
of additional, non-U.S. Navy work in order to maintain their
workforces during the transition from DDG-51 to DD-21
production''; and (2) ``the risks of the destroyer transition
are not confined to the'' destroyer ``shipbuilding industrial
base. Second tier suppliers of shipboard equipment used on
destroyers and other warships will also be affected . . . These
effects could range from higher unit costs . . . to a corporate
decision to scale back or stop production.''
The committee agrees with the assessment that the destroyer
industrial base is at risk unless three destroyers are built
each year or unless the destroyer shipbuilders attain
significant other work beyond their historic level. Therefore,
the committee reiterates that the Secretary of the Navy should
include procurement of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in
the fiscal year 2003 budget request to attain an economic rate
of production and consider options for maintaining and
transitioning the industrial base, including second tier
suppliers, to DD-21 production.
Ejection seats for training aircraft
The committee is aware that the ejection seats currently
employed in the Air Force T-38 advanced jet training aircraft
do not offer full flight envelope escape for individuals in the
anthropometric population accepted for flight training. The
committee requests the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a
report, with the fiscal year 2003 budget request, that outlines
any Air Force plan to acquire new ejection seats for its T-38
aircraft. The report should detail how the Air Force is
accommodating the anthropometric population of its pilots-in-
training should no such plan exist.
Family of medium tactical vehicles A1 Production and Competitive Rebuy
The committee is encouraged by the Army's response to
congressional concerns regarding the Family of Medium Tactical
Vehicles (FMTV) program, which is designed to replace an aging
fleet of medium trucks found in the Army today. The Army
restructured the program in accordance with congressional
direction to conduct a fair and open competition to select one
winning contractor. The Army further restructured the program
to increase the reliability testing associated with the
Competitive Rebuy (CR) selection process, designed to replace
the FMTV A1 model truck with an improved version, called the
FMTV CR model.
The committee is interested in the production and fielding
of FMTV CR trucks as quickly as possible, consistent with sound
acquisition procedures and testing. However, the committee is
concerned with the inherent risk in the program schedule. As
the program is currently structured, any slip in the seven-
month competitive evaluation test phase may contribute to a
possible break in production during the transition from the
FMTV current production contract to the FMTV Competitive Rebuy
production contract. The committee intends to review the
results of the testing after the completion of the competition
in March 2003 to determine whether an adjustment of the
schedule is warranted.
Further, to preclude such a break in production, the
committee will monitor the Army's plans for production
verification testing and the transition from FMTV A1 to FMTV CR
production and fielding and will work with the Army to ensure
that any necessary program actions are undertaken in time to
affect fiscal year 2004 production.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report
to the congressional defense committees on the results of the
competitive evaluation test phase and FMTV CR production plans
not later than thirty days after the source selection decision
for the FMTV Competitive Rebuy.
Mobility requirements for fiscal year 2005
The committee concurs with the findings of the Mobility
Requirements Study 2005 (MRS-05) which concluded that
additional airlift is required to carry out the national
security strategy considered by the study. However, the
committee acknowledges that the study will have to be updated.
At a minimum, the analysis needs to be adjusted to reflect the
significant changes that are foreshadowed by transformation of
the Army. There is also a distinct possibility that a revised
national security strategy and the Department of Defense's
pending strategy review could significantly alter the force
structure or levels from those assumed in the study.
Unfortunately, the Air Force has not submitted the study
addressing the set of so-called ``Oversize-Outsize'' cargo
requirements that would assist Congress in evaluating the
options for improving strategic airlift. The committee also
notes that the analysis of the joint logistics over-the-shore
(JLOTS) in MRS-05 was not comprehensive enough to determine the
requirement for future capabilities. The Commander in Chief,
U.S. Transportation Command (CINC TRANSCOM) testified before
the committee that ``four of the last five'' JLOTS exercises
were canceled and that he continues ``to be concerned about our
JLOTS capabilities.'' The committee concurs with CINC TRANSCOM
that regional CINCs should include JLOTS scenarios in their
exercise programs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of Naval
Operations and the Chief of Staff of the Army to review and,
where possible, avail themselves of opportunities to apply,
commercial transportation logistics over-the-shore research and
development to solving this military problem.
Multi-cellular geocomposite containment units
The committee is aware that the military services and other
agencies of the Department of Defense have tested and used
multi-cellular geocomposite containment units as modern gabions
for both troop protection and environmental disaster response.
These multi-cellular structures are made of hexagonal double
twisted wire mesh, reinforced with vertical steel rods and
internally lined with a geotextile sleeve. They can be rapidly
filled with dirt to create perimeter walls with dual use
applications, such as aircraft and fuel point revetments and
other troop protection structures as the Army has done in the
Balkans, or for flood control or containment of environmental
hazards in disaster response contingencies.
These containment units would appear to have great utility,
and would be more cost-effective, more efficient, less manpower
intensive, and would have fewer environmental consequences than
using sandbags--the primary alternative. While there may be
situations where the use of sandbags would be more appropriate,
the committee believes that the services and agencies of the
Department of Defense should be prepared to quickly deploy
these containment units when troop protection or disaster
response requirements dictate. The committee realizes that
these containment units can be purchased through the General
Services Administration as needed, but believes that the
Department of Defense should stockpile a certain amount for
quick deployment, just as is currently done for sandbags.
The committee directs the Department of Defense to evaluate
its use of these containment units and report the results to
the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2002. At a
minimum, this report should include a description of where
these containment units are currently in use, testing completed
to date and scheduled for the future, anticipated future uses,
stockpile requirements, and projected future funding for that
purpose.
USS Cole damage control lessons learned
The Navy conducted a review of the ship construction and
damage control equipment, actions, and capabilities of ships as
part of the investigation of the attack on the USS Cole and the
study to learn lessons from that incident. The investigation
and the subsequent Navy analysis suggested that the Department
should take a number of actions to field equipment as soon as
feasible to address the issues of emergency power, flooding
control and de-watering, emergency breathing, information
management, emergency communications, smoke clearance and
treatment and evacuation of casualties. The Navy has informed
the committee that it is implementing these recommendations.
The committee concurs with the recommendations of the
Navy's ``lessons learned'' analysis and supports the early
fielding of these improvements. In order to ensure continued
attention to correcting these important deficiencies, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide:
(1) battery powered, long distance emergency
communications capability to all units before they
deploy overseas; and
(2) self-contained emergency breathing apparatus to
all vessels during their next scheduled selected
restricted availability.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Explanation of tables
The following tables provide the program-level detailed
guidance for the funding authorized in title II of this Act.
The tables also display the funding requested by the
administration in the fiscal year 2002 budget request for
research, development, test and evaluation programs and
indicate those programs for which the committee either
increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in the past,
the administration may not exceed the authorized amounts (as
set forth in the tables or, if unchanged from the
administration request, as set forth in the Department of
Defense's budget justification documents) without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
Unless noted in the report, funding changes to the budget
request are made without prejudice.
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SUBTITLE B--PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS
F-22 aircraft program (sec. 211)
The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
the legislative cost cap for engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD) for the F-22 program.
The Air Force has testified that delays in F-22 EMD and in
developmental testing have caused the schedule for operational
test and evaluation to slip by roughly nine months from the
dates predicted last year. There have been a number of reasons
for these delays, many of which are to be expected in such an
ambitious development effort. Nevertheless, as the date for
operational testing slips, this will cost money that would
cause the F-22 program to exceed the EMD cost cap. The Air
force has asked for relief from the EMD cost cap.
The committee has repeatedly expressed concern about the
potential effects of diminishing test content that have been
reflected in successive Air Force budget requests. For this
reason, in section 131 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000, the Congress insisted that the
Secretary of Defense certify the adequacy of the EMD test plan
before the Air Force would be permitted to award a low rate
initial production contract.
The committee has also relied on the independent advice of
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) in
determining the adequacy of the F-22 test program. The DOT&E
Acting Director testified this year that the Air Force would
not be ready to enter operational testing on the original
schedule. He also recommended that Congress eliminate the EMD
cost cap to ensure that there would be adequate developmental
testing for the Air Force and for the Defense Department to
have high confidence that the F-22 would be successful in
operational testing.
The committee believes that it would be irresponsible to
ignore the possibility that, just short of completing
development on an important and expensive program, the
pressures of a legislative cost cap would eliminate or truncate
rigorous testing, the very activity needed to ensure that the
program is ready to be fielded.
C-5 aircraft reliability enhancement and reengining (sec. 212)
The budget request included $227.0 million in research and
development for C-5 airlift aircraft, including $216.9 million
for the reliability enhancement and reengining program (RERP).
Last year, the engineering and manufacturing development
(EMD) plan encompassed developing upgrade kits for two
aircraft, with both of the kits slated for C-5B aircraft. The
committee has been concerned that the Air Force is focusing
upgrade efforts on the newer C-5B aircraft in an attempt to
optimize operational readiness rates in the near-term, with
severe effects on the overall airlift force readiness in the
immediate future. In the Senate report accompanying S. 2549 (S.
Rept. 106-292), the committee gave the Air Force direction in
two areas:
(1) the Secretary of the Air Force was required to
submit a report containing analysis to support the Air
Force's recommendation on the sequence of C-5 aircraft
upgrades based on the lift requirements in the mobility
requirements study-2005 (MRS-05); and
(2) the EMD kit development efforts for two aircraft
should be for one C-5A and one C-5B.
The Air Force submitted the required report on April 5,
2001. The report included two sections, one dealing with the
specific questions in the original Senate report, and another
section providing the analysis of alternatives (AoA) of
potential improvements to strategic airlift capability prepared
by the Institute for Defense Analyses. The AoA concluded that,
``the $5 billion required for the upgrades in Alt 6'' (i.e.,
upgrades for all C-5A and C-5B aircraft) ``more than pays for
itself in reduced operating costs over the 40-year period
examined.''
Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Air Force now intends
to include four C-5B aircraft in the RERP EMD program and no C-
5A aircraft. The Air Force has clearly chosen not to comply
with the committee's direction on including one C-5A aircraft
in the EMD program at this time.
Therefore, the committee is recommending a provision that
would require the Air Force to include an equal number of C-5A
and C-5B kits in the RERP EMD program.
Review of alternatives to the V-22 Osprey aircraft (sec. 213)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics) (USD (AT&L)) conduct a review of potential
alternatives for the V-22 program. The committee has supported
the V-22 program in the past, and has recommended substantial
funding for continuing the program in the fiscal year 2002
budget.
Modernizing the Marine Corps medium lift helicopter (CH-46)
and the Special Operations Command aircraft (MH-53) is an
important requirement. The committee believes that it would be
prudent to conduct a thorough review of alternative systems
that the Department might procure to meet these requirements if
theDepartment decides not to continue the V-22 program.
The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
64262N for this purpose.
Joint biological defense program (sec. 214)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 217(a) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 to define permissible
obligations and to identify reports to be delivered to the
Congress for fiscal year 2002 for the anthrax vaccine
procurement program. The committee notes that continuing
program oversight and funding visibility are necessary due to
remaining challenges associated with the procurement of the
vaccine for the biological warfare agent anthrax.
SUBTITLE C--MISSILE DEFENSE
Ballistic missile defenses
Ballistic missile defense was one of the most critical
issues the committee faced this year. Ballistic missile threats
come in two distinct categories: theater ballistic missiles
that threaten U.S. forces and allies abroad, and
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that directly
threaten U.S. territory.
Theater ballistic missiles have long threatened forward
deployed U.S. forces; countries such as North Korea, Iran,
Iraq, China, Syria and Libya possess such missiles, most of
which are capable of carrying chemical or biological weapons.
The threat of theater ballistic missiles is real and growing,
and the committee believes that development and deployment of
improved theater missile defense systems should occur as soon
as possible. Deployment should occur, however, only after
rigorous testing has proven the systems to be operationally
effective. Past experience has shown that attempting to deploy
early ``contingency capabilities'' prior to adequate testing
can actually delay missile defense programs for years and
result in significant cost increases.
The number of potential adversaries with operational ICBMs
is far smaller than those with theater ballistic missiles.
Although Russia has roughly 1,000 ICBMs, the Cold War is over
and the United States and Russia have agreed not to target
their missiles at each other. China has a small arsenal of
about 20 ICBMs that do not have warheads and fuel installed on
a daily basis. This force is expected to be modernized and
expanded in the coming years. North Korea is developing an ICBM
capable of reaching the United States, although it has
voluntarily suspended its long-range missile flight test
program for the time being. Other potential adversaries, such
as Iran, may also eventually develop ICBMs, facilitated by
assistance from other nations.
The administration has said it intends to develop a missile
defense system aimed at limited missile threats from nations
such as North Korea. Given the potential, longer-term ICBM
threat to the United States from countries such as North Korea,
the committee continues to support an aggressive research,
development and testing program for defenses against ICBMs,
i.e., national missile defense. This will give the United
States the option to deploy such a system if the situation
warrants. The following four criteria have been and should
continue to be applied prior to a national missile defense
deployment:
(1) the threat should warrant deployment;
(2) the system should be demonstrated through
realistic testing to be operationally effective;
(3) the cost should be weighed against other critical
defense needs; and
(4) the deployment should make the United States more
secure, taking into account the actions of other
nations.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
The National Missile Defense Act of 1999 included a
statement that it is U.S. policy to deploy an effective limited
national missile defense as soon as technologically possible.
The Act also stated that it is the policy of the United States
to ``seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear
forces.'' Russia has threatened to cease adhering to existing
nuclear arms reduction treaty obligations or to add new
warheads to its nuclear arsenal if the United States
unilaterally abrogates or withdraws from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) Treaty. Hence, if the United States were to
abrogate or withdraw from the ABM Treaty, it could preclude
further negotiated reductions, and thus conflict with the
National Missile Defense Act of 1999.
The committee is hopeful that the ABM Treaty can be
modified or replaced with a new mutually agreed strategic
framework with Russia to permit a limited deployment of missile
defenses while preserving strategic stability. Fortunately, the
administration has adequate time to explore options with
Russia. The Department of Defense has requested only Research,
Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for
national missile defense for fiscal year 2002 because the
technology is not yet mature enough to go into production, and
the basic architecture for such a system is still uncertain.
Moreover, at this time the ABM Treaty is not an obstacle to
continued development or testing of a missile defense system.
OnJuly 19, 2001, Philip Coyle, former Department of Defense
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, testified to the committee
that because of the early technological level of national missile
defense, and because the ABM Treaty permits considerable testing, there
is no reason to conduct tests in the near future that would conflict
with the ABM Treaty. ``Since additional test ranges can be established
under the ABM Treaty,'' Mr. Coyle testified, ``the treaty is not now an
obstacle to proper development and testing of a National Missile
Defense system. Development of an effective NMD network, even one with
only a limited capability to intercept and destroy long-range missiles,
will take a decade or more. This is for simple technical and budgetary
reasons. In the near-term, the ABM Treaty hinders neither development
nor testing.''
The administration has been vague and inconsistent
regarding potential conflicts between the ABM Treaty and the
missile defense testing schedule. On June 13, 2001, Lieutenant
General Ronald Kadish, Director of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization, briefed the committee on the Department
of Defense missile defense strategy review. General Kadish told
the committee that as far as he knew at the time, the missile
defense program proposal that resulted from the review did not
include any activities that would violate the ABM Treaty in
fiscal year 2002. On June 28, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld told the committee he ``didn't know'' if any ballistic
missile defense activities in fiscal year 2002 would conflict
with the ABM Treaty.
The administration prepared a policy paper in early July
that stated, ``as we have informed our allies and Russia, we
expect our RDT&E efforts will conflict with the ABM Treaty
limitations in a matter of months, not years.'' On July 12,
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz testified to the
committee that ``one or more aspects'' of the missile defense
testing program ``will inevitably bump up against treaty
restrictions. Such an event is likely to occur in months rather
than in years. It is not possible to know with certainty
whether it will occur in the coming year.'' He also stated that
``bump up against'' is different than ``conflict with.'' These
inconsistencies and uncertainties on such a critical issue as
whether proposed missile defense activities, using funds
requested for fiscal year 2002, would conflict with a treaty
leave Congress without important, clear and unambiguous
information.
No country can have a veto over U.S. defense decisions. But
the reactions of other countries to the possible withdrawal of
the United States from the ABM Treaty should be considered and
weighed in determining whether such withdrawal would leave the
United States more secure. As noted above, unilateral U.S.
withdrawal from the ABM Treaty could lead Russia to stop
dismantling nuclear weapons, and to retain or eventually
increase its multiple warheads on long-range missiles. It also
could lead other nations to speed the deployment or increase
the number of their long-range nuclear missiles.
All these activities would result in more nuclear warheads
on the territory of other nations and could lead to an
increased risk of theft or proliferation of such warheads or
their materials to rogue states or terrorists. A bipartisan
task force chaired by former Senate Majority Leader Howard
Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler stated in its
January 2001 report that ``the most urgent unmet national
security threat to the U.S. today is the danger that weapons of
mass destruction . . . could be stolen and sold to terrorists
or hostile nation states and used against American troops
abroad or citizens at home.''
Finally, in response to unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the
ABM Treaty, Russia and China would produce, deploy and probably
sell missile defense countermeasures and decoys to our
potential adversaries. A spiraling competition in
countermeasures and counter-countermeasures would then ensue.
This provision does not limit the President's power to
withdraw from the ABM Treaty. The Supreme Court has determined
that the question of whether the President can withdraw from a
treaty without Senate approval is a political, non-judiciable
issue. However, Congress has the exclusive power to authorize
and appropriate funds. If Congress approves funds for
activities that would conflict with a treaty, and if such
activities ultimately leave the United States less secure,
Congress would bear joint responsibility for the consequences.
Therefore, the committee recommends that expenditures for any
missile defense activities that would conflict with the ABM
Treaty, as determined by the President, should be conditioned
upon Congress specifically voting to approve such expenditures,
under expedited procedures.
Ballistic missile defense funding
The administration has requested $8.3 billion for ballistic
missile defense programs for fiscal year 2002, a $3.0 billion,
or 57 percent, increase in missile defense funding over the
fiscal year 2001 level. This increase far exceeds the 10
percent increase for the Department of Defense as a whole. This
funding was proposed for missile defense despite reduced
funding for needs in other defense areas, such as
modernization. As noted elsewhere in this report, in spite of
the large increase in funding requested for the Defense
Department in fiscal year 2002, overall funding for
modernization in the budget request is actually below the
fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
The increased funding for national missile defense was also
proposed even though a ballistic missile attack on the United
States is the least likely threat to our country, according to
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Intelligence Community.
Intelligence officials have stated that there are far more
accurate and cheaper means of delivering a weapon of mass
destruction: e.g., by truck, ship or suitcase. Unlike a
ballistic missile, these means of delivery would not leave a
``return address'' which the United States could easily
identify and immediately and devastatingly retaliate against.
The committee has also been informed that the number one North
Korean goal is regime survival, but if North Korea used a
nuclear missile against the United States, it would be promptly
destroyed, regime and all. Nevertheless the Department of
Defense has proposed the greatest funding increase in response
to this highly unlikely threat to our security--an attack by a
rogue nation on the United States with a long-range missile.
Despite the large proposed funding increase, the Department
of Defense has been extremely vague about its plans for missile
defenses. No specific multi-year plan has been proposed.
Rather, the Department expects to decide how to proceed with
missile defense as it goes along. As Deputy Secretary of
Defense Wolfowitz told the committee on July 17, 2001:
``...when you're doing a development, by definition you're
feeling your way. You do one test to see where you go with the
next test.'' General Kadish told the committee on July 12,
2001: ``I cannot tell you today exactly what the [national
missile defense] system will look like 15, 10 or even 5 years
from now.'' These are inadequate justifications for the
expenditure of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.
In its budget request, the Defense Department proposed
aggregating nearly two dozen existing, well-defined missile
defense activities into six large, amorphous programs with
unclear goals and insufficient program structure, creating
ambiguity where previously there was clarity. Yet clarity is
required to spend billions of dollars of missile defense
funding wisely and effectively. Congress must know what
activities and programs will be executed with the authorized
missile defense funding. Congress needs to know the general and
specific plans for expenditure of missile defense funding, as
well as the objectives and projected outyear costs of programs
that are begun now.
The committee has identified a significant portion of the
proposed missile defense funding increase ($1.3 billion) that
is poorly justified and would be better used elsewhere in the
Department. Furthermore, the committee recommends a provision
that would require the Department of Defense to prepare a
missile defense baseline document and an annual R&D plan, to be
updated and submitted with the budget request, following the
Department's annual missile defense review. These documents
would contain a comprehensive cost, schedule, and testing
baseline and program plan of the type required by other major
defense programs. This will help ensure that Congress can
perform its required oversight function in this important area.
Presidential certification and expedited congressional approval process
for certain uses of ballistic missile defense funds (sec. 221)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
obligation or expenditure of funds authorized for ballistic
missile defense for any activity that would be inconsistent
with the requirements of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty, as determined by the President, if: (1) the ABM Treaty
has been modified or replaced by another agreement that would
permit such activity, or (2) Congress has enacted a joint
resolution specifically authorizing the obligation or
expenditure in accordance with expedited procedures, following
a presidential certification.
In testimony before the committee, administration witnesses
stated that planned or proposed ballistic missile defense
activities of the Department of Defense (DOD) might pose a
conflict with the ABM Treaty ``within months, not years.'' The
witnesses identified three specific activities that could pose
such a conflict in the coming months. Other proposed activities
are also under review for treaty compliance. However, while
saying it is determined to proceed with tests that violate the
treaty as developments unfold, the DOD has not reached a
conclusion as to whether the activities for which it seeks
funding would be in conflict with the ABM Treaty.
The committee believes that before authorizing funds for an
activity that could result in unilateral withdrawal from a
treaty that has allowed nuclear arms reductions and promoted
stability, Congress should make a clear and informed choice
based on an understanding of the circumstances at the time the
activities are proposed. No such understanding exists now.
Under the provision recommended by the committee, a joint
resolution approving the expenditure of funds for activities
inconsistent with the ABM Treaty would be considered by
Congress pursuant to the expedited procedures specified in
paragraphs (3) through (8) of section 8066(c) of the Department
of Defense Appropriations Act, 1985, as contained in section
101(h) of Public Law 98-473, 98 Stat. 1936 (except that the
resolution would be referred to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives and
that 20 hours of floor time would be provided for debate on the
resolution).
Under these expedited procedures, such a resolution would
be considered within 30 days, without the possibility of
filibuster or delay, and would be approved or disapproved by
majority vote in each House. The procedures specify that the
two Committees on Armed Services would have 15 days to consider
the resolution. If the measure were not reported in that time,
the committees would be discharged from further consideration
of the resolution. The resolution would be placed directly on
the calendar and it would be in order for any Member of the
respective House to move to proceed to its consideration at any
time. The motion to proceed would not be debatable, could not
be laid aside to take up other business, and would not be
subject to any motions. Debate on the resolution would be
limited to not more than 20 hours, equally divided, with no
amendments or motions (including motions to proceed to other
business) in order. A resolution approved by one House would
not be referred to committee in the other House, and would be
subject to the same expedited floor procedures described above.
This provision would ensure that Congress has an
opportunity to vote specifically on whether to authorize the
obligation or expenditure of funds for activities that would be
in conflict with the ABM Treaty. Given that the ABM Treaty
permits withdrawal of a party six months after giving
notification, the 30-day limit for this process leading to such
a congressional vote would not delay the national missile
defense program, unless Congress votes not to permit funding of
the inconsistent activities. The vote would take place within
the six-month window prior to any withdrawal once the
administration provides the required certification and
notification of its intent to carry out activities inconsistent
with the ABM Treaty.
Program elements and procurement budget displays for ballistic missile
defense (sec. 222)
The budget request for ballistic missile defense proposed a
significant change in the program element structure of the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). Instead of some
20 program elements, including Major Defense Acquisition
Programs for the core ballistic missile defense programs
required by section 223 of title 10, United States Code, the
budget request proposed six new major program elements for $7.0
billion of research and development funding. Within these six
elements there would be considerable flexibility to transfer
funding without prior congressional approval. The committee is
concerned that the proposed program element structure would
make it more difficult for Congress to exercise required
oversight of ballistic missile defense programs and activities.
The budget request also proposed to transfer to the
relevant military departments three theater ballistic missile
defense programs, while transferring to the BMDO three programs
that were previously within, or partially funded by, the Air
Force. Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) and the Medium
Extended Area Defense System (MEADS) would be transferred to
the Army, and the Navy Area Defense program would be
transferred to the Navy. The Airborne Laser (ABL) program, the
Space-Based Laser (SBL) program, and the Space-Based Infrared
System-Low Component (SBIRS-Low) would all be transferred into
the BMDO. These proposed changes would require a change to
section 224 of title 10, United States Code.
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 223 of title 10, United States Code, and repeal section
224 of title 10. The provision would establish the six major
program elements proposed by the Department and set forth
certain additional information required to be included in each
program element with the budget justification materials
submitted to Congress with each annual budget request. The
provision would provide the Secretary of Defense with
authority, under defined circumstances, to vary the amounts of
funding within each program element, pending notification to
Congress and after a period of 15 days.
This provision is intended to allow restructuring of the
Department's missile defense program in the manner proposed by
the Secretary of Defense, while ensuring that Congress receives
the level of information needed to perform oversight of the
BMDO's programs and activities and that funds authorized and
appropriated for those programs are spent in a manner
consistent with congressional intent.
Ballistic missile defense research and development program baseline
document (sec. 223)
The budget request proposed a substantially expanded
research, development and test program for ballistic missile
defense for fiscal year 2002. However, the budget request did
not include a plan or schedule for the revised research and
development program.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a baseline document for the
ballistic missile defense research and development program for
the Future Years Defense Program submitted with the budget
request by February 2002.
The baseline document would include a statement of
objectives for the program, including the intended standards
for achieving the stated objectives. It would also include an
explanation of the technology or technologies to be pursued for
each established missile defense program and class of
systemsidentified in the budget request, including the research and
development objectives, cost baseline and testing baseline for each
technology. The provision would require that the baseline document be
updated and submitted annually to Congress for the period fiscal years
2003-2010.
Annual program plan for ballistic missile defense research and
development program (sec. 224)
The budget request did not include a detailed plan for
ballistic missile defense research and development activities.
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit, with the baseline document and
with each annual update of the baseline document described
previously, an annual plan providing details on the proposed
program of research and development for that fiscal year and
the following two fiscal years.
The annual plan would include detailed information about
the planned expenditures and schedule for the program and each
major activity included in the program plan, including
procurement, military construction, and research and
development activities. It would also include a preliminary
assessment of whether the funding and activities proposed are
consistent with current United States treaty obligations.
The provision would also require the submission, within 60
days of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2002, of an interim program plan covering the
planned activities for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. No more than
25 percent of the funds authorized for the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO) for fiscal year 2002 would be
available for obligation or expenditure until the interim
program plan is submitted. No more than 50 percent of the
funding authorized for the BMDO would be available until the
submission of the baseline document and the annual plan.
The provision would require that research, development,
test and evaluation (RDT&E) activities of the BMDO be conducted
in accordance with the program plan. The Secretary of Defense
would be permitted to modify the plan at any time, after
providing appropriate notice to the congressional defense
committees.
SUBTITLE D--OTHER MATTERS
Technology transition initiative (sec. 231)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to carry out a technology transition
initiative to facilitate the rapid transition of new
technologies from science and technology programs of the
Department of Defense (DOD) into acquisition programs for the
production of the technologies.
The Senate report accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (S. Rept. 106-292)
required the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics to report to the congressional defense
committees on alternative approaches to ensuring that
successful research initiatives are fielded in a timely manner.
The Under Secretary's June, 2001 report points out a number of
obstacles to the successful transition of new technologies into
production. For example, the report states:
A key reason why technology transition is difficult
is because it requires the collaboration of three
diverse groups of individuals--researchers, acquisition
program managers, and military users. Each group has a
vital and unique mission that leads to different
cultural perspectives when transition is required. . .
. Effective transition requires these communities to
work together as a team, which is frequently a
difficult issue.
The report points to a number of promising initiatives
initiated by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) and the military services to address these issues. For
example: (1) DARPA frequently teams with a military service to
jointly fund a technology for the service, in some cases even
establishing a joint service-DARPA program office; (2) the Navy
has established a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) with the
responsibility to serve as the senior advocate for the movement
of technology; and (3) the Army has established a Warfighter
Rapid Acquisition Program (WRAP) to address the gap in funding
resulting from the time necessary to plan, program, budget and
receive appropriations for the procurement of a new technology.
The provision recommended by the committee would build on
these successful initiatives by requiring the Secretary to: (1)
designate a senior official to serve as a senior advocate for
technology transition, comparable to the Navy's CTO; (2)
develop memoranda of agreement, joint funding agreements, and
other cooperative arrangements for the transition of
technologies into production, similar to those initiated by
DARPA; and (3) establish a technology transition fund, similar
to the Army's WRAP program, to carry out jointly-funded
technology transition projects with the military services.
The committee directs each of the military services to
designate a senior official to serve as a senior advocate for
technology transition within the military service and to work
with the DOD Technology Transition Initiative Manager
designated pursuant to this provision. The senior technology
transition advocates in the military services should work to
identify andtransition both technologies that are developed
within the DOD science and technology programs and technologies that
are developed in the private sector.
In particular, the committee believes that the military
services should establish outreach programs to reach out to the
small, non-traditional suppliers that produce much of today's
rapidly evolving, cutting-edge technology. These outreach
programs would facilitate the rapid insertion of cutting edge
technologies developed by high-tech, small businesses into DOD
acquisition programs. The military departments should also
consider the use of third-party partners, who can help create
and maintain contacts and relationships with the appropriate
high-tech communities.
Communication of safety concerns between operational testing and
evaluation officials and program managers (sec. 232)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to ensure that
safety concerns developed during operational test and
evaluation are made available to system program managers.
The committee supports the independence of the operational
test agencies in conducting the initial operational test and
evaluation for weapons systems prior to a decision to enter
full rate production. This independent assessment is critical
in determining the effectiveness and suitability of the system
for its intended purpose, as well as its survivability and
vulnerability, or lethality, as appropriate.
However, the committee is aware that, in certain cases,
this independence in conducting the evaluation has been applied
in a manner that places unreasonable limitations on the
exchange of information during the course of the operational
evaluation. Factual data, including failure items and modes of
failure, have in some cases not been made available to the
developing agency in an accurate or timely manner, as revealed
in testimony before the committee in the case of a catastrophic
airborne hydraulic failure on the V-22 aircraft. Under the
provision recommended by the committee, the developing agency
should have no influence over the conduct or results of the
operational test and evaluation simply by receiving factual
data. In fact, the developing agency could possibly continue
trend analyses that may be useful in system development and
system safety determinations.
The committee believes that this provision should lead, at
a minimum, to a concise, consistent, and unambiguous policy
that will give developing agencies visibility of factual data
produced during operational test and evaluation, while not
allowing the developmental agency any influence in the outcome
of those evaluations.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS OF INTEREST
Army
Composite materials basic research
The budget request included $69.1 million in PE 61104A for
multi-disciplinary basic research in university and industry
research centers. The committee recommends an increase of
$750,000 for basic research into lightweight multi-functional
composite armor to support Army transformation goals.
Advanced materials research for future combat systems
The budget request included $13.8 million in PE 62105A for
applied research in Materials Technology. The committee
recommends an increase of $6.0 million for materials research
that can contribute to the development of future combat
systems. Of this amount, $4.0 million is to be used for
advanced materials processing research in nanomaterials,
polymer composites, metals, and ceramics and $2.0 million is to
be used for the development and transition of emerging
multifunctional materials, development of new simulation tools
for rapid design, and technology insertion activities.
Compact kinetic energy missile
The budget request included $40.1 million in PE 62303A for
applied research in missile technology. The committee
recognizes the lethality capability that the smaller, lighter
compact kinetic energy missile can provide to future combat
systems. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million
for continuing efforts to incorporate enabling technologies in
the next generation of tactical missiles, especially the
compact kinetic energy missile. The committee also recommends
an increase of $2.0 million for development of miniaturized
inertial measurement units to provide precision navigational
capabilities for the compact kinetic energy missile. The
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be
used in the award of contracts and other agreements under this
program.
Commercially-based tactical truck
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE
62601A for an accelerated development program for hybrid
platforms under the National Automotive Center (NAC)
Commercially Based Tactical Truck (COMBATT) program, which is
part of the Army 21st Century Truck program. The NAC has been
working under a cost-shared program with industry to develop a
commercial vehicle that could replace a portion of the existing
High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) fleet. Work
to date has focused on mobility, durability, and electronic
enhancements tocommercially available trucks. Under Phase I of
the COMBATT program, modifications were made to an existing HMMWV to
enhance its safety, increase reliability, and enhance performance with
state-of-the-art electronics.
Advancements in alternative propulsion technologies and the
integration of these technologies into future Army fleet
vehicles is a critical ingredient for success of the Army's
transformation. Hybrid technology offers tremendous potential
to reduce fuel consumption and provide greater mobility and
agility in military operations. Under phase II of the COMBATT
program, ongoing work in fiscal year 2001 is focused on
developing and testing hybrid platforms that will offer the
potential to reduce significantly fuel consumption and provide
increased agility and mobility in operation.
The $20.0 million recommended by the committee would enable
the NAC to initiate phase III of the COMBATT program. This
phase will include continued research and development, design,
and performance and endurance testing of hybrid platforms.
Under phase III, hybrid prototypes will be developed and a
total of 18 commercial vehicles will be procured.
If hybrid technology proves to be successful in meeting
military needs, as many as 50,000 to 100,000 hybrid trucks
could be required to replace or augment the existing HMMWV
fleet of 100,000 vehicles. To provide a basis for future
decisions in this area, the committee directs the NAC to
prepare a road map for further development and production of
hybrid trucks. The road map should include an assessment of
what additional development or testing would be required to
move forward with rapid large-scale production of these
vehicles and should include an estimate of the funding and time
required to complete the job.
Tungsten alloy penetrator
The budget request included $35.5 million in PE 62624A for
applied research on weapons and munitions technology. The
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the
development of affordable processes to manufacture tungsten
kinetic energy penetrators for advanced munitions. The
committee notes the possibility of replacing depleted uranium
penetrators with potentially less environmentally-dangerous
tungsten penetrators without reducing the lethality of
munitions.
Coolers for portable military applications
The budget request included $27.8 million in PE 62705A for
electronics and electronic devices. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.0 million for research on man-portable cooling
systems that will cool soldiers in nuclear, biological, and
chemical (NBC) protective gear and potentially generate power
for future Objective Warrior technologies including navigation,
communications, and computing equipment. The committee directs
that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award
of contracts and other agreements under this program.
Ground vehicle batteries
The budget request included $27.8 million in PE 62705A for
applied research electronics and electronic devices. The
committee notes the need for advanced battery technologies to
support requirements of critical ground systems, especially
during silent watch missions. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $1.5 million to develop battery and
charger systems to replace lead acid battery systems. The
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be
used in the award of contracts and other agreements under this
program.
Wireless technology testbed
The budget request included $24.3 million in PE 62782A for
Command, Control, and Communications Technology. The committee
recommends an increase of $1.0 million for the development of a
testbed to evaluate commercial wireless technologies for
specific military applications so that the military can better
leverage technology advancements made by the civilian
telecommunications industry. The committee directs that all
applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of
contracts and other agreements under this program.
Geosciences and atmospheric research
The budget request included $42.9 million in PE 62784A for
Military Engineering Technology. The committee recommends an
increase of $3.0 million for research in the environmental
sciences, including hydrometeorology, climatology, and remote
sensing data fusion techniques. The committee recognizes that
this research can contribute to tactical weather technologies
and improve weather intelligence and situational awareness for
mission planning and execution.
Arthropod-borne infectious disease control
The budget request included $82.5 million in PE 62787A for
Medical Technology. The committee is concerned about the
potential effects of arthropod-borne infectious diseases such
as malaria, dengue fever, Lyme disease, and West Nile virus, as
wellas the effect these diseases could have on readiness in
overseas deployments. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million for research to establish the molecular basis for vaccines to
prevent disease transmission by ticks and mosquitos. The committee
directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award
of contracts and other agreements under this program.
Personal navigation for the objective force warrior
The budget request included $60.3 million in PE 63001A for
Warfighter Advanced Technology. The committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million to develop microelectromechanical
systems (MEMS)-based combination inertial navigation system and
global positioning system (INS/GPS) precision location
information systems to support soldiers operating in urban
environments. The committee directs that all applicable
competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts and
other agreements under this program.
Unmanned aerial vehicle wideband radio frequency network
The budget request included $44.8 million in PE 63003A for
Aviation Advanced Technology. The committee recommends an
increase of $3.0 million to develop data links for unmanned
aerial vehicles. These capabilities will promote implementation
of network centric warfare concepts and enhance the use of
unmanned vehicles to provide battlefield commanders with
improved situational awareness. The committee directs that all
applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of
contracts and other agreements under this program.
Combat vehicle technology development and support
The budget request included $193.9 million for Combat
Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology. The committee
recommends an increase of $10.0 million for research and
development on advanced combat vehicle technologies to support
the goals of Army transformation.
Of this amount, $5.0 million would be used for research
into lightweight steels, vehicle weight and cost reduction,
corrosion control, and vehicle architecture optimization. The
committee notes that novel light truck architectures combined
with advanced structural materials could reduce vehicle weight
without degrading performance or increasing costs, and could
support the Army's transformation into a lighter, more lethal,
survivable and tactically mobile force.
In addition, the committee recommends that $5.0 million be
used for the expansion of the use of standardized product data
sets in Army ground vehicle design and life cycle support
activities to ensure timely delivery of replacement parts and
to reduce vehicle life cycle costs.
Mobile parts hospital
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
63005A for the continuation of the Army's effort to develop a
self-contained, mobile manufacturing center that can produce
spare parts at the point of need. In developing the program,
consideration should be given to possible partnership with
academic institutions with demonstrated expertise in systems
engineering and manufacturing. The committee directs that cost
sharing be used to the maximum extent practicable.
Army technology for environmental enhancements
The budget request included $7.5 million in PE 63779A for
environmental quality technology demonstrations and validation.
The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million for the
implementation of the Managing Army Technologies for
Environmental Enhancement (MANATEE) program.
Plasma energy pyrolysis system
The budget request included $7.5 million in PE 63779A for
Environmental Quality Technology Demonstration and Validation.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for
industrial-scale systems for the destruction of hazardous
wastes at Army facilities using plasma energy pyrolysis
technologies.
Comanche
The budget request included $787.9 million for development
and operational testing of the RAH-66 Comanche. The Comanche
program requires a communications suite that is compatible with
air and ground components in a joint environment. To meet this
requirement, the Comanche Program Office had intended to
leverage the development of satellite communications and Link
16 capabilities and miniaturized avionics by the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) program. However, delays in the JSF program
require the Army to develop those capabilities to support
Comanche fielding. This is the highest priority in the
modernization category of the Army's list of unfunded
requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends an
increase of $28.3 million for a communications suite for the
Comanche, a total authorization of $816.2 million.
Javelin
The budget request included $492,000 in PE 64611A for
Counter Active Protection System (CAPS) countermeasures
software. Additional software modifications and the
installation of attachment points and electrical connections
needed to incorporate CAPS into the Javelin missile are high
priorities on the Army's list of unfunded requirements for
fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends an increase of $5.2
million for this purpose, a total authorization of $5.7
million.
Movement tracking system
The budget request included no funding in PE 64622A for the
Movement Tracking System. Developing the ability of the
Movement Tracking System to interface with other command and
control systems, such as the Army Battle Command System and the
Global Combat Support System-Army, is a priority on the Army's
list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The
committee recommends an authorization of $3.0 million for this
purpose.
Night vision systems engineering development
The budget request included $16.4 million in PE 64710A for
the development of night vision systems. The Army has begun a
program to identify, test, evaluate and fully develop a new
night vision goggle to eliminate some of the shortcomings of
the current AN/PVS-7 goggle. The Army has funded development of
the direct view version of the Enhanced Night Vision Goggle,
but has not allocated funding to follow up on the funding
provided by Congress in fiscal year 2001 to continue the
development of the electronic version. The committee recommends
an increase of $2.0 million for this purpose, a total
authorization of $18.4 million.
BAT brilliant anti-armor submunition
The budget request included $123.9 million in PE 64768A for
development of the BAT brilliant anti-armor submunition for the
Army Tactical Missile System, including $23.4 million for
testing. The June 2001 BAT developmental test was unsuccessful,
requiring another developmental test prior to the initial
operational test and evaluation. The committee recommends an
increase of $9.0 million for additional BAT testing, a total
authorization of $132.9 million.
Programwide activities
The budget request included $69.1 million in PE 65801A for
management support activities. The Army has undertaken the
extremely complex task of transforming the force to meet
emerging threats while maintaining current readiness to deter
and defeat the threats of today. The committee commends the
Army for chartering a task force to integrate and coordinate
the myriad efforts required to ensure a successful
transformation to the Objective Force. The Task Force is the
first priority in the Objective Force category of the Army's
list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The
committee recommends an increase of $18.8 million for the
Objective Force Task Force, a total authorization of $87.9
million.
Combat vehicle improvement programs
The budget request included $195.6 million in PE 23735A for
combat vehicle improvement programs, including $12.6 million
for ground combat vehicle horizontal technology integration
efforts. Accelerating the development of advanced propulsion
hybrid electric drive for combat vehicle platforms is a high
priority on the Army's list of unfunded requirements for fiscal
year 2002. The committee supports the Army in this initiative
and recommends an increase of $20.0 million for hybrid electric
drive development, a total authorization of $215.6 million.
Aircraft modifications/product improvement program
The budget request included $143.6 million in PE 23744A for
aircraft modifications and product improvements, including
$25.9 million for the Aerial Common Sensor (ACS). Risk
reduction efforts for the Aerial Common Sensor are a high
priority in the Objective Force category of the Army's list of
unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee
believes that transforming to the Objective Force must be among
the Army's highest priorities and recommends an increase of
$21.5 million for ACS:
(1) $9.0 million for additional communications
intelligence and electronics intelligence sensor
packages to support ACS developmental and operational
testing;
(2) $2.5 million for a risk reduction initiative that
provides for the tailoring of existing system models
and simulation data bases to provide a more realistic
virtual environment for Milestone I and II decisions;
and
(3) $10.0 million for purchase, vice leasing, of ACS
aircraft for research and development efforts. The
total authorization is $165.1 million.
Aircraft engine component improvement program
The budget request included $13.0 million in PE 23752A to
develop, test and qualify improvements to aircraft engine
components, but included no funding to continue the work funded
in fiscal year 2001 to further develop the Universal Full
Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) and the Liquid-Or-
Light-End (LOLA) Air Boost Pump.
The Universal FADEC will be applicable to all current and
future Army turbine engines, significantly reducing procurement
costs while enhancing engine and aircraft operability. The Army
estimates that qualifying and installing the FADEC will result
in cost savings exceeding $100.0 million. More importantly, it
will greatly increase the safety of Army aviators through
reduced pilot workload.
Similarly, installing the LOLA boost pump will increase the
safety of Army aviators by preventing potential engine flame-
outs and onboard or post-crash fires. Cost savings are
estimated at $13.0 million for every $1.0 million invested.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million to continue the development and qualification of an
Universal FADEC, and an increase of $2.0 million to develop the
LOLA, a total authorization of $23.0 million.
Rapid acquisition program for transformation
The budget request included $23.59 million in PE 23761A for
the Rapid Acquisition Program for Transformation (RAPT). The
committee supports this program's goal of rapidly fielding
proven technologies to soldiers as quickly as possible using a
streamlined acquisition process and believes that the program
has successfully saved significant time and dollars. The
committee notes that 23 of the 25 initiatives approved by the
Congress since fiscal year 1997 have been fielded, that the
General Accounting Office's recommendations for improvements to
the process have been implemented, and that the Air Force has
initiated a very similar program based upon the observed
success of the Army program.
The committee recommends the transfer of funding from the
RAPT program element to the program elements supporting the
systems chosen by the Army for entry into the program for
fiscal year 2002 as follows:
(1) $6.0 million in PE 63639A for XM 1028 Cartridge;
(2) $1.2 million in PE 64804A for Unit Water Pod
(CAMEL);
(3) $1.0 million in PE 64804A for Load Handling
System Compatible Water Tankrack (HIPPO);
(4) $1.3 million in PE 64328A for Project D
(Classified Program);
(5) $4.4 million in PE 64818A for Information
Dissemination Management--Tactical (IDM-T);
(6) $2.7 million in PE 64713A for Authorized Stockage
List Mobility System (ASLMS);
(7) $2.2 million in PE 64710A for Digital
Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target Acquisition
System (DRSTA);
(8) $1.0 million in PE 33141A and $0.3 million in
Other Procurement Army, budget line 104, for the Future
Finance System; and
(9) $3.5 million in Other Procurement Army, budget
line 33, for Global Positioning System (GPS) capability
in the Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System
(SINCGARS).
Information operations training
The budget request included $8.3 million in PE 33140A for
the Information Systems Security Program. The committee notes
the critical need for training of officers in information
security technologies and operations, especially as the
military moves toward more joint, network centric operations.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million
to supplement the training of officers in Information
Operations to better integrate efforts to protect the force's
command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) and other capabilities,
attack adversary C4ISR and respond to potentially hostile
C4ISR.
Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle development
The budget request included $38.2 million in PE 35204A to
develop tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV) systems,
including $16.4 million to continue development of advanced
payloads.
The Army proposed to use the advanced payloads funding to
evaluate the maturity of various technology efforts and pursue
those that might lead to an employable TUAV capability. The
Army would also use these funds to transition technologies that
could directly support the Army's Objective Force capabilities.
The Army has identified needed payloads as those that would
contribute to missions such as countermine, counter camouflage,
and counter weapons of mass destruction.
The Army has informed the committee of two opportunities
for exploring new payloads. One opportunity would involve
repackaging a laser light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor
that was demonstrated in the rapid terrain visualization (RTV)
advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD). The RTV ACTD
effort demonstrated acquiring high-resolution digital
terrainelevation data in support of war fighter exercises. The Army
estimates that, with an additional $5.0 million, they would be able to
repackage this sensor and make it ready for employment on the TUAV.
The second initiative would involve demonstrating a
potential TUAV attack capability. This demonstration would
investigate employing a brilliant anti-tank (BAT) munition on a
surrogate vehicle, an existing Hunter UAV. The Army has
estimated that this effort would entail spending an additional
$1.0 million in fiscal year 2002.
The committee believes that these would be important
activities for supporting objective force capabilities and
should proceed as quickly as is prudent. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 35204A
to support these additional tasks in fiscal year 2002.
Navy
Navy research and development budget justification material
The budget justification materials provided to Congress are
required by the Department of Defense (DOD) Financial
Management Regulation (DOD 7000.14-R) to include, at a minimum,
the following information:
(1) clear and concise exhibits;
(2) project justification for each project that has
funding greater than $1.0 million;
(3) new starts within the project;
(4) the military requirements the project is being
designed to meet;
(5) total funding, schedule, and technical changes
since the previous budget submission;
(6) related efforts by appropriation, budget
activity, line item and program element/line number;
(7) justification narratives for the past year, the
current year, and the budget year;
(8) total funding in the narratives that matches
total funding in the program element; and
(9) if program element restructuring and project
realignment diminish the value of cumulative resource
information for the past year, explanation of the
program elements that were restructured and realigned.
The Navy's fiscal year 2002 research and development budget
justification did not comply with the DOD Financial Management
Regulation and was insufficient for the committee to determine
the status of past year and current year programs. In addition,
the justification materials did not provide the information
summarized in the items (1) through (9) for the fiscal year
2002 budget request.
Upon discovering that the amended budget request
justification materials provided neither the DOD required
information nor a coherent track of prior, current, and future
years funding, the committee requested additional explanatory
information from the Navy. The Navy provided some additional
information that made it apparent that a number of programs
previously funded were not accounted for and previous
investments were not carried forward.
Of particular concern was the Navy's request to combine
program elements into a lesser number of program elements. The
Navy has completed a two-year effort to restructure the science
and technology planning process and realigned the science and
technology (S&T) funding under a new set of program elements.
Although the committee has been generally supportive of
realignments to streamline the management of the S&T process,
this proposed program element realignment would result in the
loss of visibility for a number of key efforts that have been
robustly funded in previous Navy budget requests and closely
scrutinized by this committee. The committee notes that the Air
Force has proposed a realignment of its S&T program elements
that did not cause this loss of visibility and is accompanied
by adequate budget justification material.
The committee considers program element organization vital
to focus key efforts throughout the budget planning and
execution cycle and is unwilling to relinquish oversight
responsibilities by combining a number of program elements into
larger, less focused efforts for which the service provides
inadequate budget justification material.
In addition, the committee is concerned with a statement by
a senior Navy official which indicated that the fiscal year
2002 and subsequent budget requests would not include research
and development to correct fleet problem areas. However, a
survey of Pacific and Atlantic fleet type commanders revealed
that there are a number of current fleet operational issues
that require research and development to correct, including
some that relate directly to force protection ``lesson
learned'' from the USS Cole incident.
The committee believes that funding technologies for future
concepts must be balanced with correcting current and future
fleet known deficiencies. Therefore, the committee directs the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and
Acquisition) (ASN (RD&A)) to report, no later than January 31,
2002, to the congressional defense committees, a plan that
focuses on transition of S&T products into operational systems.
In addition, the committee recommends restoring the program
element structure included in previous budget requests. The
committee directs the ASN (RD&A) to provide the defense
committees of Congress, no later than 30 days after passage of
the Senate authorization of the budget request, and prior to
the execution of any funds authorized by this Act, an amended
justification of estimates for budget activities 1-3 in the
research, development, test & evaluation accounts. This amended
justification will include clear accounting for all programs
funded in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 and the migration of
programs and funding levels in new program elements proposed in
fiscal year 2002.
The Secretary of the Navy is directed to provide, in future
budget requests, the information to Congress as required by the
DOD Financial Management Regulation.
The following program elements requested in the amended
budget request are authorized as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
PE Project Number/Title request recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
62123N............. Force Protection 117,072 0
Advanced Technology.
62111N............. Surface/Aerospace 0 44,092
Surveillance & Weapons
Technology.
Missile Defense and ........... (33,804)
Directed Energy.
Navy Air Vehicle ........... (10,288)
Technology.
62121N............. Surface Ship Technology. 0 56,064
62234N............. Materials and Radio 0 14,278
Frequency/Electro-
optics/Infrared
Electronics Technology.
62633N............. Undersea Warfare Weapons 0 2,638
Technology.
62747N............. Undersea Warfare Applied 76,510 0
Research.
62633N............. Undersea Warfare Weapons 0 60,941
Technology.
62314N............. Undersea Surveillance 0 15,569
and Weapons Technology.
63123N............. Force Protection 85,297 0
Advanced Technology.
63508N............. Surface Ship and Sub 0 66,658
HM&E Advanced
Technology.
R2224/Automation to 0 (1,000)
Reduce Manning.
Advanced Electrical 0 (16,800)
Systems.
Advanced Coating 0 (9,358)
Systems, Machinery
Flanking/heavy truss.
Dynamic and Passive 0 (2,000)
Magazine Protection.
Advanced Damage 0 (1,000)
Countermeasures.
Near Field De-amping.... 0 (1,200)
Ship Surveillance & 0 (8,100)
Protection.
Electronic Building 0 (7,200)
Blocks.
Ship hull design for AOE- 0 (20,000)
10 class & MPF (Future).
63792N............. Air Systems & Weapons 0 18,639
Advanced Technology
Transition.
R0466 Advanced Avionics 0 (3,586)
Subsystems.
W2014 Integrated High 0 (7,534)
Performance Turbine
Engine Technology.
R0477 Weapons Advanced 0 (7,519)
Technology.
--------------------------
Total............. 278,879 278,879
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine mammal research
The budget request included $389.8 million in PE 61153N for
Defense Research Sciences. The committee notes the recent
finding of the National Research Council that there is an
inadequacy of knowledge of how marine mammals react to natural
and human-made sound. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $1.0 million for basic research on the effects of
military and commercial operations, especially the generation
of low frequency sound, on the behavior of marine mammals. The
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be
used in the award of contracts and other agreements under this
program.
Ocean observing program
The budget request included $389.8 million in PE 61153N for
Defense Research Sciences. The committee recommends an
additional $8.0 million for basic research to establish an
integrated, sustained ocean observing system to support safe
navigation, maritime operations, and characterization of
environmental conditions for training exercises.
Integrated biological and chemical defense technology platform
The budget request included $66.3 million in PE 62114N for
Power Projection Applied Research. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.0 million for development of a network that
links harmful agent sensors with appropriate medical,
government, and military officials. These efforts are part of
the committee's thrust in developing technologies to address
terrorist threats, particularly those involving the use of
weapons of mass destruction. The committee directs that all
applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of
contracts and other agreements under this program.
Data fusion
The committee recommends an increase in PE 62232N of $5.0
million for the development of a dedicated data fusion
processor and its algorithms which will lead to the ability to
fuse hyperspectral and panchromatic data. Data fusion
technology is critical for warfighters to make use of the full
capabilities of advanced battlefield sensors and achieve the
potential of network centric warfare, which is designed to
integrate information systems, weapons systems and decision-
makers.
Advanced personal communicator
The budget request included $83.6 million in PE 62235N for
Common Picture Applied Research to develop technologies to
improve situational awareness for the warfighter. The committee
recommends an increase of $3.0 million for the development of
handheld software radio technology to emulate multiple diverse
wireless devices in accordance with military requirements. This
technology can allow military personnel to communicate with
numerous radios and other wireless devices in support of
concepts of network centric operations.
Bioenvironmental hazards research
The budget request included $71.3 million in PE 63236N for
Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research. The committee
continues to be concerned that there is insufficient
understanding of the full impact and hazards to humans,
animals, and plants from the use of biological agents. The
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for
bioenvironmental hazards research, including the development of
biosensors and biomarkers.
Nanotechnology research
The committee recognizes the revolutionary capabilities
that the application of nanoscience and nanotechnology can have
on future Naval operations. As part of the Department's
participation in the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the
committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in naval
research into this burgeoning scientific field.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
62271N for nanotechnology research to support Future Naval
Capabilities. Of this amount, $3.0 million would be used for
research into highly multi-functional nanoscale sensors that
combine sensing, processing, computation, and communications
functions; and $1.0 million would be used for research to
characterize the properties of wide bandgap semiconductor
nanomaterials.
The committee also recommends an increase of $4.0 million
in PE 62236N for research on the development of biosensor
nanotechnology to sense low, sublethal concentrations of
biological agents at long ranges.
Training immersion facility
The budget request included $71.3 million in PE 62236N for
Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research. The committee
recognizes the potential of exploiting advances in virtual
reality technologies to develop more realistic training
environments for warfighters. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.0 million to initiate development of a modeling,
simulation and training immersion facility and to carry out
research in immersive training technologies.
Electronics research for naval applications
The budget request included $62.1 million in PE 62271N for
applied research in radio frequency systems. The committee
recommends an increase of $8.0 million for applied research in
electronics that will enable future naval technologies,
especially those required to support network centric
operations. Of this amount, $3.0 million would be used for
developing semiconductor and superconducting technology to
produce a flexible digital waveform generator for future RF
systems; and $2.5 million would be used for research on wide
bandgap semiconductor materials and devices for application in
advanced power electronics, communications, and sensor systems.
The committee also recommends an increase of $2.5 million for
research on high brightness electron sources for vacuum
electronics applications. The committee directs that all
applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of
contracts or other agreements under these programs and that
cost sharing be used to the maximum extent practicable.
Both solid state and vacuum electronics are critical
defensetechnologies and are integral to the performance of
numerous current and future military systems. The committee recognizes
the importance of a balanced research investment in radio frequency
electronics and directs the Department of Defense to ensure that the
variety of technologies within this area continue to receive adequate
funding to exploit new discoveries and the evolution of past research.
Ship service fuel cell technology trainer
The committee supports the development of energy efficient
and environmentally sound power plants for future use on Naval
vessels and recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63508N
for the establishment of a ship service fuel cell technology
trainer.
Advanced composite modular ship hulls
The budget request included no funds for advanced composite
modular hull research, development, test and evaluation. The
Navy intends to increase the use of composite construction
materials in future Navy ships. Constructing composite hull
sections and connecting them to form a hull module would be a
building block toward increasing the knowledge base for ship
construction using composites. Composites have the potential to
increase ship self-defense capabilities by enabling a wider
range of hull design options. In addition, embedding sensors in
composites has the potential to reduce life cycle costs by
reducing maintenance requirements.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in PE 63508N for construction and testing of advanced
composite modular ship hull sections.
DDG-51 class rudder improvement
The budget request included no funds to initiate a
corrective design action for the excessive corrosion the Navy
has been experiencing on the rudders of DDG-51-class
destroyers. Rudder corrosion is causing unexpected increases in
cost and schedule for DDG-51 ship maintenance availabilities.
Any such increase directly leads to reduced operational
availability.
Using composites for construction, and applying a design
modification to reshape a section of the rudder, have the
potential to: (1) solve the excessive corrosion problems; (2)
reduce cost and schedule delays in maintenance; and (3)
increase operational availability.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in PE 63508N for DDG-51-class composite rudder design
and testing.
Laser welding and cutting for ship manufacturing
The budget request included no funds for the optimized
laser manufacturing program in PE 63508N. Improvements in laser
welding and cutting technology have the potential to reduce the
cost of manufacturing the smaller components required to build
ships that require more precision than large sheets of steel or
aluminum. The current process that cuts small components out of
I-beams creates an amount of useless scrap and is not precise.
More effective use of laser welding and cutting has the
potential to reduce the scrap and cut precise parts by cutting
components from sheets of metal instead of I-beams. Therefore,
the committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE
63508N to continue and complete an initiative started in fiscal
year 2001 for demonstration and qualification of laser welding
and cutting technologies.
Technology demonstration for future ship systems
The budget request included no funds in PE 63508N for a
focused effort to demonstrate specific technologies in a
shipboard environment. Such demonstrations could help mitigate
risk in fielding new capabilities for future Navy ships.
The committee believes that there are a number of maturing
technologies that would benefit from shipboard testing prior to
being included in ship designs. These maturing technologies
include electric waste systems, electronic generators using
wind as the motive force, electronic valve controls, wearable
computer technology, gas plasma antennas, embedded sensor
systems, and power electronic building blocks. These
technologies have the potential to lower total operating costs,
reduce maintenance requirements, and improve operational
effectiveness of future Navy ships.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million in PE 63508N for at-sea demonstrations of the maturing
technologies listed above.
Ocean modeling research for mine and expeditionary warfare
The budget request included $48.3 million in PE 63782N for
various mine and expeditionary warfare advanced technology
efforts, including ocean modeling and simulation to provide
concept-based assessment for organic mine countermeasures. The
Navy established a limited network of sensors for ocean
modeling and simulation to collect key information including
current and eddy flow, bottom contour and content, thermal
layer behavior,and cold water phenomena. The Navy needs
additional sensors to provide effective undersea and expeditionary
warfare environmental information in the form of situational awareness
predictions for regional commanders in chief (CINCs) and tactical
commanders.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.7
million in PE 63782N to expand the network of sensors and
continue ocean modeling research.
Deployable joint command and control
The budget request included $50.0 million in PE 63237N for
a new start effort to develop a future command center. The
single page of budget justification material indicates that the
Department would use these funds to create a prototype command
center, provide manning during the testing phase, keep it ready
to deploy in case of contingencies, and turn the prototype over
to the unified commands when the next iteration of a command
center is ready for testing.
There is no indication that the effort involves utilizing
ongoing efforts and funding from the other services' programs
to support this activity. Nevertheless, the committee considers
this goal reasonable, but questions whether the Department
could effectively use this amount of money on such a new start
activity.
The committee recommends a reduction of $20.0 million in PE
63237N and directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide more
thorough budget justification material in future budget
requests, consistent with direction the committee is
recommending elsewhere in this report.
Electromechanical actuators
The budget request included no funds for continuing a small
business innovation research (SBIR) initiative to replace
maintenance-intensive, hydraulic valve actuators with
electromechanical actuators. The SBIR program demonstrated the
potential for electromechanical actuators to increase
reliability, decrease maintenance, and reduce total operating
costs for ships and submarines.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.9
million in PE 63561N to continue the SBIR initiative to replace
hydraulic actuators with electromechanical actuators.
Submarine composite sail
The budget request included no funding for development of
composite material components for a submarine's sail area. A
composite sail has the potential to improve operational
performance while reducing total operating costs of future
submarines. An effort to develop and test a composite sail is
consistent with the technology insertion approach of the
Virginia-class submarine program. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63561N for
development of an advanced submarine composite sail.
Neutralization of facility threats
The budget request included $26.0 million in PE 63635M for
Marine Corps ground combat supporting arms systems. The
committee is concerned that technologies to neutralize and
destroy threats posed by chemical and biological weapons have
not been integrated into operational systems. The committee
recommends an increase of $2.0 million for environmental
testing, concept-of-operations development, and research and
development to rapidly field operational systems utilizing
nanotechnologies that are capable of clearing facilities of
chemical and biological agent contamination. The committee
directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in
the award of contracts and other agreements under this program.
Urban operations environment research
The budget request included $26.0 million in PE 63635M for
Marine Corps ground combat supporting arms systems. The
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for
assessment, analysis, and development of environmental
remediation capabilities to support the use of nonlethal
weapons to minimize environmental effects. The committee
directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in
the award of contracts and other agreements under this program.
Ship-based missile fire support for ashore forces
The budget request included $34.5 million in PE 63795N for
the land attack standard missile (LASM) and no funding for the
advanced land attack missile (ALAM). In addition, the budget
request included no procurement funding for LASM.
Congress supported the Navy's requests in fiscal years 1999
through 2001 for rapid development and fielding of an interim
land attack missile system to provide fire support for Marines
ashore. LASM, the interim system proposed by the Navy, was
purported to be a low risk, minimum cost system that would
refurbish and reuse standard missile (SM-2) Block II and III
missiles already in the Navy inventory. In addition, the system
was supposed to be an interim step to provide fire
supportcapability while the Navy completed an analysis of alternatives
to determine what ALAM option would meet the Marine Corps requirements
for fire support.
The Navy has completed the analysis of alternatives, but
has not funded development of the ALAM, the objective fire
support missile system. The committee recognizes that the
former Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics) (USD(AT&L)) had approved the Navy's plan to move
forward with the LASM program, but only on the condition that
the ALAM program move forward as well. If the current USD(AT&L)
has made a decision to truncate the ALAM effort, such a
decision has not been conveyed to the committee.
In addition, the LASM program has been experiencing
development delays and cost increases. These delays have
resulted in the Navy canceling the fiscal year 2002 procurement
and delaying the fiscal year 2003 initial operating capability
(IOC) of LASM to a later fiscal year. It is not apparent
whether or not the Department of Defense intends to complete
development, testing, and fielding of LASM because there is no
Future Years Defense Program for Congress to review. In
addition, given the LASM program delay, increased development
cost, delayed IOC, and completion of the ALAM analysis of
alternatives, it is prudent to reassess the requirement, cost,
schedule, and war fighting impact of continuing the LASM
development.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $19.5
million in PE 63795N for land attack missile development.
Further, the committee directs the USD(AT&L) to review the
Navy's plan to provide fire support for the Marine Corps, and
to report to the congressional defense committees no later than
December 1, 2001 on his recommendations regarding the plan.
Budget technical adjustment
The budget request included $25.6 million in PE 63216N for
aviation survivability activities. The Navy informed the
committee that the intended request for this program element
was $7.5 million. The amount requested in that line included
$18.0 million that should have been requested in PE 64272N for
the tactical aircraft directed infrared countermeasure
(TADIRCM) program.
The committee recommends adjusting the two budget lines to
correct this error.
Aircrew systems development
The budget request included $7.7 million in PE 64264N for
aircrew systems development, but included no funding for
developing the Navy's integrated common display helmet concept.
This modular helmet concept would be based around a common
inner helmet, which would provide basic life support functions.
The Navy would attach other, mission-specific equipment to the
common inner helmet, such as night vision and target cueing
systems. Such a common helmet approach could help reduce stress
on aircrews and make it easier for the Navy to field newer
technologies more efficiently.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
64264N for the development and flight evaluation of the Navy
common display helmet, a total authorization of $13.7 million
for aircrew systems development.
Power node control centers
The budget request included no funds for the continued
development of power node control centers (PNCC). PNCCs
integrate shipboard power functions, including conversion,
switching, distribution, and protection. The technology is
applicable to all ship classes, and will be a building block as
the Navy transitions to an all electric ship.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in PE 64300N to install, test and evaluate PNCCs.
Shipboard personnel tracking and location system
The budget request included no funds in PE 64300N for
shipboard personnel tracking and location technologies. The
Navy has indicated that one of their challenges to reduced
manning on ships is to know where personnel are located within
the ship. A system that provides personnel location and status
could be crucial in making critical damage control and ``search
and rescue'' decisions.
The Navy had previously begun to explore the possibility of
using ultra wideband (UWB) radio frequency technology to solve
the challenge of providing personnel location information
aboard ships. Systems that employ UWB technology have the
potential to provide precision tracking, better performance in
multi-path environments, and lower power requirements compared
to traditional radio frequency technologies.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million in PE 63400N to build upon previous research for a
shipboard personnel tracking and location system using UWB
technology.
Aegis operational readiness test system
The budget request included $0.3 million in PE 64307N to
continue design efforts for a replacement for the
Aegisoperational readiness test system. This system provides real time
analysis and testing which enables operators to maximize performance of
both the Aegis radar and the MK 99 missile fire control system. The
present testing system is based upon a legacy desktop computer. The
fact that this computer is no longer in production raises serious
concerns about the Navy's ability to support this test system over the
long-term.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million in PE 64307N for development and operational tests for
an Aegis operational readiness replacement.
Joint air-to-surface standoff missile
The budget request included $1.9 million in PE 64312N for
continued Navy unique testing for the joint air-to-surface
standoff missile (JASSM). Carrier operability is one of the key
performance parameters against which the JASSM program is being
measured.
Although the Navy has not programmed any funds to integrate
JASSM on a particular aircraft, there are several Navy
candidate platforms for the missile once the Air Force
completes the development phase. JASSM offers the potential of
improved performance and lower cost than alternative weapons
that the Navy could employ. The committee believes the missile
has reached a maturity level sufficient to begin serious
integration tasks on Navy platforms, particularly the F/A-18E/
F.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.1 million in PE
64312N to begin JASSM integration efforts on the F/A-18E/F, for
a total authorization of $10.0 million.
Standard missile advanced optical correlator
The budget request included no funds for the standard
missile advanced optical correlator. Using optical correlation
enhances the ability to recognize and track targets. This
enhanced ability translates into significantly better
performance of ship self-defense systems.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in PE 64366N for continued development of an optical
correlator to improve the standard missile performance.
Submarine antenna technology improvement
The budget request included $43.7 million in submarine
systems development, including $2.9 million for various
submarine integrated antenna systems developments.
Participating fully in the Navy's new efforts to implement
network centric warfare requires that ships have higher data
rate communications than are currently available on submarines.
The Navy has developed a preliminary design of a modification
to a current mast antenna system that could help submarines
achieve the objective of increasing connectivity across all
submarine missions.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.3 million to
develop an engineering change proposal package to upgrade ultra
high frequency (UHF) antenna systems to provide the required
higher data rate communications.
Submarine tactical information management
The budget request included $43.7 million in PE 64503N to
develop and improve systems to increase the operational
effectiveness of submarine system equipment. The program to
field the multi-purpose processor (MPP) and advance processor
build (APB) have been successful in upgrading submarine sonar
information processing capabilities.
A small business innovation research (SBIR) phase III
program demonstrated that a similar process has potential to
improve the information processing within a submarine's control
center. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$10.0 million in PE 64503N for an SBIR phase III follow-on to
apply the MPP and APB process to improve submarine tactical
control information.
Navy common command and decision system
The budget request included $5.4 million in PE 64518N for
development of a common command and decision computer program
for the Aegis weapon system and the ship self defense system
(SSDS) MK 2. A common computer program for these systems has
the potential to reduce life cycle costs, improve inter-
operability among systems and ease the introduction of new
capabilities by eliminating redundant and conflicting
processing.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in PE 64518N for continued development of the common
command and decision system.
Submarine combat systems modernization
The budget request included $29.2 million in PE 64562N to
develop and integrate software upgrades to integrate improved
weapons capabilities within the various submarine combat
control systems (CCSs). This program also develops improvements
to submarine hardware which has become increasingly difficult
and costly to maintain.
The thrust of the CCS improvement program is the
fleetintroduction of an improved CCS system within which the Navy will
converge multiple submarine combat system developments into a single
effort to minimize submarine life cycle costs. Current plans include
converging CCS systems for the SSN-688-class, the SSN-688I-class and
the SSBN-726-class. Additional funding would allow the Navy to
accelerate the upgrade of the Seawolf-class combat control systems and
achieve fleet commonality by as much as 36 months earlier than planned.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $27.0
million in PE 64562N to achieve commonality in combat control
systems sooner among all the various submarine classes and
configurations within those classes.
Infrared search and track
The budget request included $52.2 million for ship self-
defense development in PE 64755N, including $2.7 million for
continued development of an infrared search and track (IRST)
system for use aboard Navy vessels.
Such an IRST system has demonstrated high potential for
improving a ship's ability to detect anti-ship cruise missiles
in the presence of environmental and geographical conditions
that degrade radar system performance. The amended budget would
not provide sufficient funds to continue the IRST program along
a reasonable development path, leading to robust field testing.
In fact, the committee is concerned that the Navy schedule and
funding for the IRST development effort would fail to field any
capability in the fleet for the foreseeable future.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million for the IRST program to: (1) conduct robust field
testing; (2) integrate IRST electronics into standard Navy
consoles; and (3) begin integrating the IRST capability into
combat systems.
NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system
The budget request included in $41.7 million for ship self-
defense-soft kill systems development in PE 64757N, including
$0.5 million to develop a capability for radar systems to cue
the launch of the NULKA decoy to defeat anti-ship missiles
(ASMs).
The Navy has identified a series of three potential
improvements in the NULKA payload that are required to deal
with emerging threats:
(1) an improved payload that would provide radio
frequency coverage of more than one band of the
spectrum to deal with anti-ship missiles;
(2) an improved capability to prevent loss of the
technology through reverse engineering, by developing
anti-tamper capability for the NULKA payload; and
(3) an improved guidance and propulsion system to
allow more precise positioning of the decoy during
operations.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for
the NULKA development program to develop an enhanced payload,
pursue anti-tamper technologies and develop an improved
guidance and propulsion system.
Navy single integrated human resources strategy
The budget request included $49.3 million in PE 65013N for
information technology development. The Navy has been
designated as the lead agency for a program to develop and
manage software that will be used by all services to
consolidate pay and personnel reporting systems. This program
is called the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources
System (DIMHRS). The budget request also included $47.2 million
in PE 65014N for DIHMRS development.
The Navy needs to continue development of upgrades to Navy
legacy systems that will provide input data to the DIMHRS. The
committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 65013N to
support business process re-engineering of Navy legacy systems
in support of the overall DIMHRS program.
Budget technical adjustment
The budget request included $120.6 million in PE 64215N for
standards development. The Navy informed the committee that the
intended request for standards development was $66.7 million.
The amount requested in that line included $53.8 million that
should have been requested in PE 65500N for the multi-mission
maritime aircraft (MMA) program.
The committee recommends adjusting the two budget lines to
correct this error.
Supply chain best practices
The budget request included $1.0 million in PE 65804N to
reduce life-cycle costs for technical information services by
fostering relationships between industry and the Navy. The Navy
requires the services of a number of information systems to
ensure ships, submarines, and aircraft receive supplies and
repair parts. The industry and Navy have identified a number of
electronic commerce and technical information initiatives that
have the potential to reduce the cost of supplies and repair
parts while improving response times for fleet requests.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0
million in PE 65804N to develop and field supply chain
bestpractices which have the potential to reduce support costs and
improve responsiveness of the total supply system.
Nanotechnology for consequence management
The budget request included $9.6 million in PE 65873M for
Marine Corps program wide support. The committee recognizes an
urgent need for consequence management (including
decontamination and neutralization) as well as protection from
the effects of weaponized chemical and biological agents.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.2 million
to develop, test and field nanoparticle-based countermeasures,
decontamination agents, and protection technologies for
chemical and biological threats. The committee directs that all
applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of
contracts and other agreements under this program.
Strategic submarine and weapons system support
The budget request included $43.3 million for strategic
submarine and weapons systems support. The committee continues
to support research and development efforts to develop low cost
materials for ballistic missile reentry systems. The committee
directs that $2.0 million shall be available for the
continuation of this effort.
Joint helmet mounted cueing system
The budget request included $253.3 million in PE 24136N for
operational systems development of the F/A-18 series of
aircraft, including $136.6 million for F/A-18 improvements. The
budget request supports finishing integration tasks for
outfitting the F/A-18E/F aircraft with the joint helmet mounted
cueing system (JHMCS). The budget request, however, included no
funding for integrating the JHMCS into the F/A-18C/D aircraft.
The JHMCS system, when combined with the new AIM-9X air-to-
air missile, has the potential to offer significant qualitative
advantage to our aircraft in air-to-air combat. The JHMCS
system also has the potential to enhance flexibility for air
crews in cueing weapons and sensors in the stressful air-to-
ground tactical environment.
The Marine Corps has indicated that an additional $27.0
million would permit the Department of the Navy to complete
integrating JHMCS into the F/A-18C/D. This would be
particularly important to the Marine Corps, since the Marine
Corps will not be operating the F/A-18E/F aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $27.0
million in PE 24136N for integration of JHMCS on the F/A-18C/D
aircraft, a total authorization of $280.3 million.
MK-48 advanced capability torpedo development
The budget request included $17.1 million in PE 25632N to
develop improvements for the MK-48 advanced capability (ADCAP)
heavyweight torpedo. The Navy has begun applying a new
approach, called the advanced processor build (APB) program, to
torpedo upgrade programs. The Navy found that this approach has
worked very successfully in achieving upgraded submarine sonar
information processing capabilities.
The committee believes that, with additional funding, the
Navy could avail itself of additional opportunities to use the
APB process. Such opportunities should include developing,
evaluating and implementing science and technology algorithms
from Navy laboratories, university laboratories, and small
businesses. This would be a particularly important opportunity,
since the Navy needs to improve torpedo capability to operate
in harsh conditions in shallower water operations. The
committee also understands that the fleets have identified a
number of requirements that remain unmet, but that the Navy
might be able to meet using such an expanded process.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in PE 25632N to apply more widely the APB process to
improve MK-48 ADCAP capabilities.
Marine Corps communications systems
The budget request included $104.8 million for the
operational systems development of Marine Corps communications
systems in PE 26313M, of which $9.9 million was for the
development of a unit operations center (UOC). The Marine Corps
believes that the UOC will be the cornerstone of ground command
and control. That view is based on an assessment that the UOC
will enhance the Marine Corps' ability to fight and win in
future conflicts by providing the command element with an
integrated facility and components. The Marine Corps has
identified extra funds to provide additional risk reduction
funding for the engineering and manufacturing development
effort for the UOC as a high priority requirement.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million to accelerate the UOC development effort.
Vertical takeoff and landing tactical unmanned aerial vehicle
development
The budget request included $66.3 million in PE 35204N
todevelop tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV) systems, including
$48.2 million to continue development of a vertical takeoff and landing
tactical UAV (VTUAV).
The Navy proposed to use these funds to continue VTUAV
development activities, including:
(1) continue contractor engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD) design, fabrication and testing;
(2) continue testing and engineering, logistics and
integration support activities; and
(3) complete developmental testing and begin
operational test and evaluation (OT&E).
The Navy has informed the committee that there have been
unforeseen changes in the scope of work in the VTUAV EMD
effort. Absent additional funding in fiscal year 2002, the
VTUAV program could be delayed in order to afford additional
software effort. The Navy informs the committee that it would
use additional funds to complete these tasks and to perform
risk reduction testing.
The committee believes that fielding the capability that is
promised by the VTUAV program is important, and should proceed
as quickly as is prudent. Therefore, the committee recommends
an increase of $11.0 million in PE 35204N to enable the Navy to
complete the additional software tasks and conduct risk
reduction testing.
Modeling and simulation
The budget request included $7.8 million in PE 38601N for
Navy modeling and simulation development activities. The Navy
has been using modeling and simulation to provide important
information to make certain acquisition and program decisions,
which thereby reduces the research, development, test and
evaluation costs for Navy programs. The Navy has found that
they are able to eliminate a number of acquisition and program
possibilities using computer simulation based on validated
models. Narrowing the range of possibilities has yielded proven
cost savings.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0
million in PE 38601N to continue enhancements to, and usage of,
computer modeling and simulation in Navy research and
development activities.
Air Force
Aerospace materials manufacturing and research
The budget request included $77.2 million in PE 62102F for
applied research in materials and processing technologies to
improve performance and reduce life cycle costs of current and
future air force systems. It is critical that the United States
metals industry maintains strong research efforts in order to
remain globally competitive and have the capability to meet
future defense aerospace requirements. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $16.5 million in funding in this
area, reflecting a dual concern of the need for research to
address materials issues associated with aging aircraft and
high operational tempos, as well as the need for new materials
technologies to support the development of future air force
systems, including space-based systems and unmanned vehicles.
Of this amount, $5.0 million would be used for improvements in
the manufacturing of speciality aerospace materials; $7.5
million for the development of titanium matrix composites
technology for transition to aerospace applications; $1.5
million for research on environmentally-sound corrosion
coatings for military and commercial aircraft; and $2.5 million
for the development and application of a high power, tunable,
ultraviolet laser processing tool for the fabrication of micro-
engineered components.
Information protection and authentication
The budget request included $61.7 million in PE 62702F for
Command, Control, and Communications. The committee recommends
an increase of $3.0 million for applied research toward
securing national security information through techniques
including steganography and digital watermarking. The committee
directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in
the award of contracts and other agreements under this program.
Aluminum aerostructures
The budget request included $32.7 million in PE 63112F for
advanced materials for weapon systems. The committee notes the
need for a materials research portfolio that balances efforts
in all types of aerospace materials, including composites,
ceramics, and metals. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million for research on the use of aluminum
aerostructures for aerospace components, which improve
processing technologies and reduce installment and life cycle
costs.
Fly-by-light actuators
The budget request included $26.3 million in PE 63211F for
aerospace technology development and demonstration. This
program element reflects a realignment by the Department under
which the program element now includes those projects that had
previously been in the flight vehicle technology integration
program.
The committee is aware of continuing advances in flight
control systems, with fiber optic cabling having the potential
to offer significant weight and performance advantages over
conventional hydraulic systems. These advantages would be
particularly significant in vehicles like unmanned combat air
vehicles (UCAVs), where every pound of saved platform weight
equates to an additional pound of payload or additional
endurance.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
63211F for the demonstration of a light-controlled flight
actuator with potential UCAV application, a total authorization
of $30.3 million.
B-2 Spirit
The budget request included $155.0 million in PE 64240F for
the B-2 bomber. The committee recommends an additional $74.0
million in upgrades for the B-2 bomber. Of this amount the
committee recommends an additional $63.0 million to continue
the Link-16/CID/IFR integration effort, and $11.0 million for
other upgrades and improvements, for a total authorization of
$229.0 million.
The Link-16 mission management system is the primary method
of tactical information exchange, cooperative identification
(friend or foe), and position reporting in the tactical
theater. This upgrade satisfies the B-2 requirement for two-way
line-of-sight jam-resistant digital data link communications.
In addition, this upgrade will allow the B-2 to be fully
integrated into the joint command, control, and communications
network and increases the flexibility of the B-2 and the crew's
situation awareness. All Air Force platforms must have Link-16
by 2005. This was included on the Air Force list of unfunded
priorities.
The committee also recommends an additional $11.0 million
to address a number of shortfalls in the B-2 program including
$2.9 million for hand-held holographic radar guns to ensure
that repairs to the low observable coatings do not change the
radar signature of the B-2. The remaining $8.1 million is
available to address requirements identified on the Air Force
list of unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2002 for the B-2.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
and the Air Force are not adequately supporting the aging
bomber fleet. Under current assumptions the fleet of B-2, B-52
and B-1B bombers will remain in the inventory until 2037 and
beyond. In order to reach this extraordinary goal and be able
to continue to rely on the performance capabilities
demonstrated in Operation ALLIED FORCE, the Air Force must
sustain an aggressive bomber upgrade effort.
Precision location and identification program
The budget request included $41.3 million in PE 64270F for
electronic warfare development, including $1.8 million for
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) for the
precision location and identification (PLAID) program. The
PLAID program is intended to lead to modernization of several
families of radar warning receivers.
Under the current schedule, the Air Force would begin
production of PLAID-derivative hardware in fiscal year 2003.
The PLAID program has not completed development of the geo-
location capability, one of the key performance parameters for
the PLAID program. The Air Force would prefer to conduct
activities, including flight test demonstrations, that would
lead to reducing the risk of successfully completing the PLAID
program. However, the budget request provided no funding for
this activity.
The committee recommends an increase of $13.3 million in PE
64270F to fund options to the EMD contract that would provide
PLAID performance enhancements, including risk reduction flight
test activities, that would lead to having higher confidence of
successfully completing the PLAID EMD program.
Panoramic night vision goggles
The budget request included $4.6 million in PE 64706F for
life support systems, but included no funding for panoramic
night vision goggles (PNVGs). The Air Force has informed the
committee that the tremendous improvement in field-of-view
offered by PNVGs will greatly improve situational awareness,
reduce aircrew spatial disorientation, and enable quicker, more
accurate target identification. The improvements directly
translate to greatly enhanced aircrew safety. The Air Force
needs an additional $8.0 million in fiscal year 2002 to
complete development and qualification of the basic PNVGs,
leading to a transition to production in fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
64706F to complete development and qualification of the basic
PNVGs.
Joint Strike Fighter
The budget request included $767.3 million in PE 64800N and
$769.5 million in PE 64800F for the Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF)program. These funds would be used to begin the engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the JSF program. This
transition to EMD would be preceded by selection of a single contractor
team, a winner-take-all approach for at least the EMD portion of the
program. The budget request included no funds in either PE 63800N or PE
63800F to continue any JSF concept demonstration activities leading to
EMD.
The purpose of the JSF program is to provide an affordable
replacement strike fighter aircraft for major portions of the
fleets of the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps. The Air
Force variant will be a conventional takeoff and landing
aircraft (called CTOL), the Navy variant will be aircraft
carrier capable (called CV), and the Marine Corps variant will
be capable of short takeoff and vertical landing (called
STOVL). Central to the whole JSF program is achieving an
affordable option for these modernization efforts. Commonality
within this family of aircraft is crucial to keeping the
overall tactical aviation modernization program affordable.
Leading up to the source selection decision, each
contractor team was required to fly concept demonstration
aircraft to prove that they could achieve, for each of the
three variants: (1) commonality; and (2) required performance
levels.
When the committee reviewed the program last year, the
program had been scheduled to enter EMD at the middle of fiscal
year 2001. It was clear to the committee that the final phase
of testing for the STOVL concept demonstrator aircraft was far
enough behind schedule that the Department of Defense (DOD)
could not, and should not, make a final decision on the source
selection as had been scheduled.
The two contractor teams have only recently completed their
flying demonstrations. The committee understands that the two
teams achieved the objectives that the program office set for
them during this phase of the testing program. The program
office believes that the two teams are ready to make their
final proposals to the Department on a schedule that would
permit DOD to make a decision on the winning team in October.
DOD officials claim that they will be ready to make a
decision in October. However, the ability of the DOD to make
this decision in October is far from certain, given its recent
experience with other major acquisition programs:
(1) In February 2001, the F-22 program had met all of
the exit criteria established to measure whether the
program should move to low rate initial production
(LRIP). However, DOD officials have informed the
committee that it was not until August 2001 that the
Air Force received approval to move to LRIP by the
Defense Acquisition Board (DAB).
(2) The Navy had originally planned to award a major
contract for the next generation land attack destroyer,
called DD-21, in April 2001. Additional discussions
between the Navy and the contractor teams on their
proposals had taken longer than planned. Thereafter,
the Navy had been ready to make a decision in June
2001. Just before the Navy was ready to proceed, DOD
leadership initiated a study of the Navy's shipbuilding
plan between now and about 2030. Now the decision on
the DD-21 program seems to have been postponed, with no
indication when the program might go forward.
By law, the DOD must submit to Congress the results of the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) by September 30, 2001. The
committee had expected that major questions of future force
structure, transformation path(s) forward, and choices among
major investment and modernization alternatives would have been
completed as part of the QDR. Central to any discussion of
modernization and affordability of the military departments is
the subject of tactical aviation modernization.
However, recent statements by senior DOD officials have
indicated that many of these answers may be deferred until the
submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget, or later. The
committee understands that a number of major acquisition
programs, including the JSF program, are to be studied further
as a result of direction in an internal planning document
called the Defense Planning Guidance.
The JSF program manager believes that he needs to complete
the source selection and start EMD to ensure that the program
will be able to achieve first flight of the CTOL and STOVL
version of the aircraft and make a JSF LRIP decision in fiscal
year 2006. This assumes completion of first flights in March
2006. The program could delay this decision by a couple of
months and still make the decision during fiscal year 2006.
Certainly, the JSF program should not be launched with no
margin for error in the schedule. Nevertheless, the fact that
the Department could delay a decision without affecting the
initial operational capability (IOC) of the JSF indicates that
this will likely be the outcome.
The committee believes that, under these circumstances, the
Department is not likely to make a decision on the JSF program
or its future in accordance with the current schedule.
Therefore, the committee recommends a net reduction of $247.2
million, evenly divided between the Navy and Air Force
accounts, representing a two-month delay in an EMD decision.
The committee recommends adding $30.0 million each to PE 63800N
and PE 63800F to keep the two platform contractor teams, an
engine contractor team and the program office together pending
a transition to EMD. The committee also recommends a reduction
of $153.6 million each to PE 64800N and PE 64800F.
The committee has not changed its view about the
importanceof the JSF program, or about the need to modernize our
aviation forces. However, the committee, believes that it would be
inappropriate to leave a portion of the JSF EMD funds unused when other
programs could make better use of the funds. Funds in the EMD program
lines would likewise be unavailable to the program until a decision is
made. This situation could require the contractor teams to invest
private funds in the program pending a decision, a situation that the
committee has consistently opposed. The recommendation involves
shifting funds to PE 63800N and PE 63800F sufficient to support program
office and contractor team activities until a decision is made.
Evolved expendable launch vehicle
The budget request included $320.3 million for the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The committee
continues to support the development of composite materials
manufacturing and processing technologies for space launch
structures, such as payload fittings and fairings, to improve
the performance and lower the cost of U.S. space launch. The
committee directs that of the funds available for EELV, $3.8
million shall be available for composite materials
manufacturing.
F-15E squadrons
The budget request included $101.4 million in PE 27134F for
continued operational systems development of the F-15 aircraft,
but included no funds to begin F-15 integration tasks that
would lead to replacing aging identification friend or foe
(IFF) equipment.
The current IFF systems are exhibiting high failure rates
and are becoming an increasingly difficult burden on aircraft
maintenance crews. The Air Force believes that there are
commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) non-developmental items
available to replace the current IFF system. However, there are
a number of integration and testing tasks that the Air Force
will need to complete before they will be ready to purchase new
IFF systems for the F-15.
The Air Force estimates that it will not be able to buy
spare parts for the current systems starting in fiscal year
2004. The Air Force needs to begin necessary integration tasks
in fiscal year 2002 to be ready to begin production and
installation of a new system in fiscal year 2004.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.4
million in PE 27134F to integrate and test a replacement for
the current F-15 IFF system.
Cyber security research
The budget request included $7.9 million in PE 33140F for
information systems security. The committee notes the critical
role that this type of research will play in combating future
asymmetric threats, including global cyber-terrorist threats.
The committee further notes the lead role that the Air Force
and its research laboratories and systems centers play in
developing the technologies to detect and combat cyber threats.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for
research on computer system vulnerabilities and threats,
including intrusion detection, identification of mailicous
code, cyber forensics, damage assessment, and vulnerability
analyses.
Spacelift range system
The budget request included $65.1 million in PE 35182F for
Air Force spacelift range systems. The committee recommends an
increase of $18.0 million to improve range safety and
operations by reducing reliance on antiquated and manpower
intensive systems and eliminating potential launch delays.
Making the improvements is the Air Force's highest priority on
its list of unfunded priorities in fiscal year 2002.
As part of its Range Standardization and Automation
project, the Air Force is moving from analog to digital
telemetry. The increase recommended by the committee would help
accelerate this transition and restore the project to its
original 2004 schedule. In addition, this increase would
accelerate work on electronic range scheduling and video
surveillance systems. These systems will allow faster, more
accurate launch scheduling and faster launch turnaround times,
which will make the ranges and facilities available to more
users. These upgrades will allow the ranges to operate more
efficiently and reduce user costs.
Dragon U-2
The budget request included $32.8 million in PE 35202F for
continued operational systems development of the U-2
reconnaissance aircraft, but included no funding for the
continued polarimetric preplanned product improvement program
for the Senior Year electro-optic reconnaissance system
(SYERS). This system is designed to defeat potential enemy
camouflage, concealment, and deception techniques. The
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 35202F
to provide an operational demonstration of the polarimetric
preplanned product improvement version of SYERS on the U-2
aircraft, a total authorization of $36.8 million.
Global Hawk high-altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request included $190.2 million in PE 35205F for
operational systems development of endurance unmanned aerial
vehicle (EUAV) systems, of which $184.2 million is for
engineering and manufacturing development of the RQ-4A Global
Hawk high-altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (HAE UAV).
The Global Hawk spiral development plan has been designed
to improve the vehicle to carry imagery and signals
intelligence (SIGINT) sensors that would match the capability
provided by the U-2 aircraft and its sensors. The committee is
encouraged by the recent Defense Department decision to
accelerate the development and fielding of the Global Hawk.
Under this new plan, the Air Force would begin producing
newer air vehicles in fiscal year 2003. These vehicles would
provide more electrical generating capability, greater cooling
ability, and larger payloads. The plan would also have the Air
Force begin integrating the high band subsystem (HBSS) of the
joint signals intelligence architecture family (JSAF) into the
improved Global Hawk during fiscal year 2003.
The committee understands that conducting a demonstration
of this capability could reduce the risk of such an integration
effort and yield a better understanding of future concepts of
operations. Although some have suggested that such a
demonstration might be conducted overseas to support a regional
combatant commander, the committee believes otherwise. The Air
Force should conduct such a demonstration under controlled test
situations using ranges within the continental United States.
Such a demonstration, with more readily verifiable results,
could lead to accelerated fielding of improved SIGINT
capability.
The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE
35205F to: (1) begin integration of JSAF-HBSS into an existing
Global Hawk HAE UAV; and (2) conduct a test to demonstrate the
potential contributions of a Global Hawk carrying a SIGINT
payload. If this demonstration were to prove successful, the
committee expects that the results would serve as the basis for
developing a validated requirement for a SIGINT payload for
Global Hawk.
Spacetrack
The budget request included $32.6 million in PE 35910F for
the Air Force for space surveillance survivability and space
control. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million
to modernize the space surveillance network and a decrease of
$3.6 million that was included in the Spacetrack research and
development budget request that should have been included in
the procurement budget request. The $3.6 million is moved to
Spacetrack procurement to purchase initial spares to support
upgrades to the Ground Based Electro-Optical Deep Space
Surveillance Sustainment (GEODSS). Thus, the committee
recommends $37.0 million in PE 35910F.
The space surveillance network involves 31 optical, radar
and passive radio frequency sensors world-wide to track objects
in space, to notify U.S. forces of satellite flyovers, to
provide satellite attack warnings and to improve situational
awareness in space. The additional $8.0 million funds full
power operations of the Cobra Dane radar facility consistent
with the Space Surveillance task force recommendations and
begins the small aperture telescope augmentation procurement
for the GEODSS camera.
NUDET detection system
The budget request included $18.8 million in PE 35913F for
the NUDET detection system. The committee recommends an
additional $12.8 million to ensure the NUDET detection system
is incorporated in the first Global Positioning System (GPS)
block IIF satellite, to retain the ability to process the
signals from the gamma neutron sensors on the Defense Support
Program (DSP) early warning satellites, and to ensure follow-on
gamma neutron sensors are available. This item was included on
the Air Force's list of unfunded priorities for fiscal year
2002.
The NUDET detection system provides the capability to
detect, locate, and report nuclear detonations on a global
basis in near real time. The sensors that make up the NUDET
system include optical, x-ray, electromagnetic pulse, and
dosimeter sensors. Currently, NUDET sensors fly on both GPS and
the DSP satellites. The DSP satellite system will be replaced
by new early warning satellites. During the transition period
from DSP to the new satellites, the new control system that
will be responsible for controlling the new early warning
satellites will also control DSP through the end of its life.
Without the increase recommended by the committee the new
control system will not have the capability to receive the
information provided by the NUDET sensors current on DSP
satellites.
KC-135 research and development
The budget request included $5.4 million in PE 41218F for
conducting research and development supporting the KC-135
strategic tanker fleet, including $3.0 million for KC-135
replacement analysis of alternatives (AoA).
The Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command,
testified before the committee this year on a number of
transportation priorities. Among the analyses that he mentioned
in his testimony were two efforts relating to the strategic
tanker fleet: (1) the Tanker Requirements Study 2005; and (2)
anEconomic Service Life Study.
The Tanker Requirements Study 2005 is a companion to the
Mobility Requirements Study-2005 (MRS-05), a study that was
required to be submitted to the Congress by section 1034 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
The Air Force has informed the committee that the KC-135
Economic Service Life Study consisted of studies for structure,
systems, and component support as well as cost benefit analyses
to support an AOA. The Air Force says that this AOA would
address a replacement for the KC-135 based on economic decision
points and requirements for the tanker fleet.
The services are operating aircraft fleets that are
increasing in terms of average age. Each of the services has
indicated that supporting this aging population is causing
exorbitant annual increases in operation and maintenance
funding. One of the aircraft categories cited most frequently
is the strategic tanker fleet, consisting primarily of KC-135
tankers. Air Force officials cite anecdotal evidence of very
much longer programmed depot maintenance (PDM) cycle times as
evidence of the problem.
A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
called into question this generally-accepted assertion that the
aging aircraft fleet is absorbing an accelerating portion of
the budget. There have also been indications that at least part
of the problem contributing to increased KC-135 PDM cycle times
is maintenance management policy. There have been reports that
aircraft will be parked awaiting maintenance and that those
``parked'' days are then charged to the PDM overhead.
The committee believes that there are increases associated
with supporting aging aircraft. However, despite repeated
attempts to get the Air Force to provide the Tanker
Requirements Study 2005 and the Economic Service Life Study,
the Air Force has refused.
The committee cannot agree to support new initiatives such
as this one when the service is unwilling to respond to a
legitimate request for information. Therefore, the committee
recommends a decrease of $3.0 million in PE 41218F for the
follow-on tanker study activities.
Defense-Wide
Ballistic missile defense funding adjustments
The committee's adjustments to the funding request for
ballistic missile defense programs are discussed below.
Boost defense segment
The budget request included $685.4 million in PE 63883C for
boost phase defense programs, of which $20.0 million was for
Space-Based Kinetic Kill, $50.0 million was for Sea-Based
Boost, $170.0 million was for Space-Based Laser, $410.0 million
was for Airborne Laser, and $35.4 million was for systems
engineering and integration and program operations.
Space-based kinetic kill
The budget request included $20.0 million in PE 63883C to
begin concept of operations, concept definition and experiment
design work on a Space-Based Kinetic Kill program. The
committee believes that $20.0 million is a large amount to
spend on such preliminary design activities. Therefore, the
committee recommends a maximum of $5.0 million for Space-Based
Kinetic concept definition.
Sea-based boost
The budget request included $50.0 million in PE 63883C for
a new initiative intended to develop and test a new, fast
booster design and conduct concept development and assessment
of sea-based boost-phase intercept alternatives. However, the
committee understands that the design of the new booster does
not yet exist, and that the Navy has not been involved in the
conceptual design process. Boost-phase technology is extremely
challenging, and since boost-phase hardware does not yet exist,
it is unlikely that actual tests of such hardware would be
warranted or possible in the first year of such an initiative.
Therefore, the committee recommends a maximum of $10.0 million
for sea-based boost concept definition, and urges the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) to involve the Navy in sea-
based boost concept development before proceeding further.
Space-based laser
The budget request included $170.0 million in PE 63883C to
continue and accelerate development of a Space-Based Laser.
This program aims to conduct a technology demonstration
experiment in fiscal year 2012. However, since the program is
more than twelveyears away from the first technology
demonstration, the committee does not consider such acceleration
warranted. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $28.0
million, the amount added for program acceleration.
Airborne laser
The budget request included $410.0 million in PE 63883C for
Airborne Laser (ABL). The request included funding for
procurement of long-lead materials for a full-power ABL
demonstration as early as 2008. The committee is concerned that
procurement of long-lead materials for a demonstration over six
years away is premature. Half-power ABL testing is not
scheduled until fiscal year 2003, and prior to the results of
those tests, the performance of the half-power ABL will not be
known. Furthermore, even if the half-power ABL tests are
successful, the program still must demonstrate the ability to
scale the laser components up to the full-power system. The
program is currently struggling to overcome concerns over the
laser system's weight, which, if not controlled, will diminish
the viability of the full-power ABL. Therefore, the committee
recommends a decrease of $10.0 million, the cost of the long-
lead materials for the full-power ABL aircraft.
The budget request also included significant funding for
spare parts procurement for the ABL test aircraft. However, the
committee believes that funding of spare parts is not warranted
for a program at this early stage of development. Therefore,
the committee recommends a reduction of $70.0 million for the
cost of the spare parts and other support activities not
directly related to the fiscal year 2003 ABL test program.
Midcourse defense segment
The budget request included $3.9 billion in PE 63882C for
the Midcourse Defense Segment, of which $3.2 billion was for
the ground-based midcourse system (the former National Missile
Defense program), $596.0 million was for Navy Theater-Wide
(Sea-based Midcourse), $44.0 million was for Systems
Engineering and Integration, and $69.8 million was for Program
Operations.
Navy theater-wide
The budget request included $596.0 million in PE 63882C for
the Navy Theater-Wide program. Of this funding, $100.0 million
was to initiate procurement of extra interceptors to support a
possible ``contingency deployment'' of the system in 2004. The
proposed interceptor procurement would start prior to the
completion of the ambitious series of intercept tests of the
system, planned for fiscal year 2002. Moreover, problems with
the Navy Theater-Wide interceptor divert system, which is
critical to the interceptor's ability to hit a target, call
into question the reliability and affordability of the
interceptor design. Therefore, the committee believes it would
be unwise to procure extra interceptors at this time, and
recommends a reduction of $100.0 million for that purpose.
The budget request included $60.0 million for concept
definition for the Navy Theater-Wide program. It is not clear
to the committee why this much funding is required for concept
definition work. Therefore, the committee recommends a
reduction of $50.0 million for Navy Theater-Wide concept
definition.
The budget request included $177.0 million for Block II
risk reduction efforts, including funds for both S-band and X-
band radar technology. The committee is encouraged that the
Department of Defense is funding radar technology work for the
Navy Theater-Wide program, but is concerned that the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) has not yet decided which
radar technology is best suited for ballistic missile defense.
In a briefing provided to the committee in February 2001,
Rear Admiral John Morgan, BMDO Deputy for Acquisition Strategy,
stated that the BMDO recommended X-band radar technology for
Navy Theater-Wide. In a briefing to the committee on July 27,
2001, Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, Director of the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, stated that ``we have
not changed our point of view over the value of X-band''
because ``in order to do the countermeasure problem you are
going to need the kind of fine discrimination capability
afforded by the X-band.''
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $87.0
million for Navy Theater-Wide radar risk reduction efforts. The
committee urges the BMDO to focus the remaining $90.0 million
on the radar technology that the BMDO determines is best suited
for ballistic missile defense.
The budget request included $260.0 million for Aegis Leap
Intercept (ALI) testing of the Block I Navy Theater-Wide
interceptor in fiscal year 2002. The committee is encouraged by
the strong testing focus, but is concerned about the large
increase in the funding for the ALI test program--almost double
what was planned last year for fiscal year 2002. A total of
five flight tests are planned in 2002 alone. This is a large
number for any ballistic missile defense program--more than any
other such program has achieved in a single year. Furthermore,
the Block I interceptor has had developmental problems that
have called into question the reliability and producibility of
the interceptor's divert system, which is critical to the
missile's ability to hit a target. As such, the likelihood of
successfully conducting all five planned flight tests in fiscal
year 2002 seems remote. Therefore, the committee recommends a
reduction of$110.0 million for the Aegis Leap Interceptor
testing program.
Earlier this year, BMDO representatives briefed the
committee on the results of a BMDO-led study that determined
the optimal path to pursue for Navy Theater-Wide was to focus
efforts on the more capable Block II system. This determination
was based on concerns that the Block I system did not
adequately address the likely threat, and that the limited
planned quantities of Block I missiles added little military
value. Furthermore, the study stated that if the Block I effort
was not pursued, the Block II system could be accelerated by
two years and $3.8 billion could be saved over the life of the
program.
The results of the BMDO study are consistent with a report
issued in 1998 by an independent review panel led by General
Larry Welch, which was set up by the BMDO and the Director,
Operational Test and Evaluation to investigate ballistic
missile defense test programs. The panel's report, entitled
``Reducing Risk in Ballistic Missile Defense Test Programs,''
recommended that ballistic missile defense programs not try to
deploy minimal operational capabilities early, since
``regardless of the desire for `early' capability, this
approach is unlikely to be productive for programs of this
complexity . . . the drive for early capability is proving to
be counterproductive.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no
later than April 30, 2002 on the Department's ultimate plans
for the Navy Theater-Wide system. The report should indicate
whether the Department still plans on pursuing a Block I
variant of the system, and if so, provide technical and force
structure details on Block I and a quantitative analysis as to
the military value of Block I. The report should also specify
the planned date of deployment of the objective (Block II) Navy
Theater-Wide system, the technical characteristics of the
objective system (e.g., radar and missile type and
performance), and the total planned objective force structure
of ships and missiles. The report should also provide year-by-
year and total life cycle cost estimates for the objective
system and separate year-by-year and total life cycle costs for
any planned Block I system.
Ground-based midcourse system
The budget request included $2.4 billion in PE 63882C for
the Block 2006 Ground-Based Midcourse system, formerly known as
the National Missile Defense system. This represents a
substantial, 32 percent increase over the fiscal year 2001
level of $1.8 billion. However, the Department of Defense has
yet to commit to the Ground-Based Midcourse system as part of
the national missile defense architecture or to specify the
requirements and the schedule for the system. Given the
uncertainties in the Department's missile defense plans, the
committee recommends a reduction of $240.0 million in PE 63882C
for the Block 2006 Ground-Based Midcourse system, which still
represents a funding increase of 20 percent over last year's
level.
2004 testbed testing
The budget request included $786.5 million in PE 63882C for
the new, Block I midcourse testbed, scheduled to be completed
in 2004. Included in the request for the testbed was $98.5
million for the actual Block I test program. However, since the
testbed has not yet been constructed, substantial funding will
not be needed in fiscal year 2002 for the test program.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $90.0
million, leaving $8.5 million for Block I midcourse test
program planning.
Sensors segment
The budget request included $495.6 million in PE 63884C for
the Sensors Segment, of which $384.8 million was for Space-
Based Infra-Red System, Low Component (SBIRS-Low), $75.3
million was for the Russian-American Observation Satellite
(RAMOS) program, and $35.4 million was for Systems Engineering,
Test and Evaluation, and Program Operations.
Space-based infra-red system, low component
The budget request included $384.8 million in PE 63884C for
the SBIRS-Low program, which is being designed primarily to
support the National Missile Defense (NMD) mission by tracking
and discriminating incoming warheads from decoys during their
midcourse phase of flight. The requested funding for SBIRS-Low
would accelerate deployment of the full constellation of SBIRS-
Low satellites to fiscal year 2011.
SBIRS-Low is a large, complex system of interlinked low-
earth-orbit missile tracking satellites--a type of system never
before developed. The technical risks associated with SBIRS-Low
are not trivial, nor are the expected costs for the program,
rough estimates of which currently approach $20.0 billion. The
committee is concerned about emerging cost growth for the
SBIRS-Low system and a lack of consensus within the Department
of Defense as to what the ultimate SBIRS-Low requirements,
architecture, and design will be.
A joint BMDO/Program Analysis and Evaluation study is
currently underway to determine the contributions SBIRS-Low
could make toward the NMD mission, and whether there might be
other, more cost effective ways to obtain the tracking
anddiscrimination data SBIRS-Low is being designed to provide. The
committee directs that the Secretary of Defense submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on SBIRS-Low by March 31, 2002. This
report should contain the following:
(1) an analysis of what essential national missile
defense requirements the proposed SBIRS-Low system will
fulfill, and what alternative systems (e.g., ground-
based radars, laser radars, and/or other sensor
platforms, including the Airborne Infrared Surveillance
system (AIRS) being developed by the BMDO) could also
fulfill such requirements;
(2) a quantitative assessment of the national missile
defense system performance (e.g. threat missile leakage
probability) without SBIRS-Low or any alternative
system;
(3) a quantitative assessment of the national missile
defense system performance with SBIRS-Low and with each
alternative system;
(4) an estimate of the year-by-year costs of SBIRS-
Low, and of each alternative system, beginning with
fiscal year 2002, including all previous fiscal years
and all fiscal years through deployment of a fully
operational system;
(5) a risk assessment of SBIRS-Low, and of each
alternative system; and
(6) a qualitative assessment of the strengths and
weaknesses of SBIRS-Low and each alternative system.
The budget request included funding to award a new
``program definition extension'' contract to the two SBIRS-Low
competitors. The committee believes that such a contract
extension, as well as acceleration of the program, are both
premature pending the outcome of the study and report discussed
above. Furthermore, acceleration of the program is inadvisable
as the Department has not yet decided upon the final design of
the satellite, the overall system architecture, or the system
cost. Moreover, this could result in buying satellites before
full testing is completed, a strategy that might result in the
need to replace numerous satellites at great expense.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $96.6
million, the funding for the SBIRS-Low contract extensions.
Terminal segment
The budget request included $988.2 million in PE 63881C for
the Terminal Defense Segment, of which $909.3 million was for
the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program, $65.7
million was for the Arrow program, and $13.2 million was for
Program Operations.
Theater high altitude area defense
The budget request included $909.3 million in PE 63881C for
the THAAD program. This would fund THAAD development toward a
2006 First Unit Equipped (FUE), accelerate delivery of the
first radar, and procure 10 additional prototype missiles to
provide a ``contingency capability'' in fiscal year 2004.
However, flight testing for THAAD is not scheduled to begin
until fiscal year 2004. The committee supports the development
of THAAD as the premier land-based upper-tier theater missile
defense system, but believes that hasty procurement of a radar
and prototype missiles two years prior to beginning flight
testing is imprudent, and runs the risk of changing the focus
from a well-managed THAAD program to establishing an early
contingency capability with experimental missiles. A similar
acquisition strategy caused a series of high-profile test
failures for THAAD several years ago.
Partly as a result of the previous THAAD test problems, a
panel was set up by BMDO and the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation to investigate ballistic missile defense test
programs. The panel, led by General Larry Welch, issued a
report in early 1998 entitled ``Reducing Risk in Ballistic
Missile Defense Test Programs.'' This report concluded that the
THAAD program's ``rush-to-failure'' was caused in part by the
decision to buy operational missiles early. It stated that
aiming for an early operational capability ``compromised the
best practices for test missiles and the test program'' and
contributed to the early THAAD test failures.
Even if the 10 extra missiles function properly, the value
of these missiles in an actual conflict would be minimal, since
our potential adversaries have substantial short-range, theater
ballistic missile arsenals that could easily overwhelm such a
minimal inventory of defensive missiles.
The committee seeks to avoid a return to the failed
strategy for THAAD, and also seeks to avoid buying missiles
that are not fully tested and have doubtful military utility.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $210.0
million, the cost to accelerate the radar and procure 10 extra
prototype missiles.
Arrow
The budget request included $65.7 million in PE 63881C for
the Arrow ballistic missile defense system. The Arrow program
is the most advanced cooperative military project between the
United States and Israel, and a joint program critical to the
defense of Israel against existing and growing regional
ballistic missile threats. The Arrow system could also help
protect U.S. forces in the region during a conflict, and is
intended to be interoperable with U.S. theater missile defense
systems. It is essential thatthe Arrow program be upgraded to
cope with evolving missile threats such as Iran's Shahab-3 missile and
to be made interoperable with U.S. missile defense systems such as PAC-
3, Navy Area Defense, THAAD, and Navy Theater-Wide. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $76.0 million to continue the Arrow
System Improvement Program (ASIP) and for further joint
interoperability efforts.
Terminal defense segment program operations
The budget request included $13.9 million in PE 63881C for
terminal defense segment program operations. This funding is
separate from the funding request for THAAD and Arrow, the only
two programs currently in the terminal defense segment. Since
the committee understands that there is no work planned in
fiscal year 2002 on any other terminal defense program besides
THAAD and Arrow, it is not clear why funding is required for
general terminal defense segment program operations. Therefore,
the committee recommends a reduction of $13.9 million for this
purpose.
Ballistic missile defense system
The budget request included $779.6 million in PE 63880C for
the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System program element.
This program element funds a variety of BMDO-wide activities,
including systems engineering and architecture, battle
management, modeling and simulation, communications, and test
and evaluation. None of these activities are specifically tied
to a particular BMD program.
Most of the activities in this program element were funded
in fiscal year 2001 at significantly lower levels. It is not
clear to the committee that such substantial increases in these
BMDO-wide activities are required, especially since so much
funding was added in other program elements for similar tasks.
For example, over $800.0 million was added to the Midcourse
Segment program element for test and evaluation, systems
engineering, and modeling and simulation.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $33.0
million for BMDO-wide systems engineering and architecture, a
reduction of $49.0 million for BMDO-wide modeling and
simulation, a reduction of $55.0 million for BMDO-wide test
support, and a reduction of $67.0 million in Program-wide test
and evaluation. This reduces funding for these efforts to the
fiscal year 2001 level, plus inflation.
Ballistic missile defense advanced technology
The committee supports research and development of advanced
technology for ballistic missile defense, and is concerned that
the budget request for this work, $110.1 million in PE 63175C,
is significantly lower than the 2001 level of $186.5 million.
This is despite the large funding increase in other ballistic
missile defense program elements. For example, the budget
request increased funding for programs within PE 63882C, the
Midcourse Defense Segment by more than $1.0 billion. The
committee notes that a number of critical ballistic missile
defense technology activities could be funded by transferring
funds from lower-priority activities in PE 63882C. Specific
recommendations are listed in the following paragraphs.
Thermionic technology
Thermionic power systems use highly efficient solid-state
energy converters to transform heat directly into electricity,
enabling more efficient, lighter and more reliable electrical
power for space-based surveillance systems. The committee
recommends that, of the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $8.0
million be used for thermionic technology development.
Magdalena Ridge Observatory
The Magdalena Ridge Observatory is a facility supporting
missile defense testing at the White Sands Missile Range. The
facility will be used to provide detailed images to enhance
understanding of lethality and kill assessment during intercept
tests for national missile defense, THAAD, and PAC-3 systems.
The committee recommends that, of the funding authorized for PE
63882C, $9.0 million be used to procure three large telescopes
and adaptive optics planned for the observatory.
Short-range missile defense
The Army Space and Missile Defense Command has conducted
the Short-range missile defense With Optimal Radar Distribution
(SWORD) technology development program for almost a decade to
develop a radar capable of command guiding a hit-to-kill
missile against short-range theater ballistic missiles and
cruise missiles. Successful development of this technology
could result in cost savings for missile defense, since command
guided interceptors do not need an onboard sensor and guidance
system. The committee recommends that, of the funding
authorized for PE 63882C, $1.9 million be used for the SWORD
program.
Tactical high energy laser
The Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) program is an
important joint program between the United States and Israel to
develop a technology demonstrator to defeat short-range rocket
and artillery attacks. The THEL demonstrator is undergoing
field testing against live Katyusha rockets and artillery in
flight. The current demonstrator configuration lacks mobility
and thus deployability. Israel and the United States allocated
funding in fiscal year 2001 to initiate a joint study of a
mobile THEL (MTHEL) system. In light of past test successes and
the desire to evaluate a mobile version of the system with much
more operational utility for the United States and for Israel,
the committee recommends that, of the funding authorized for PE
63882C, $9.0 million be used for the MTHEL program.
Software defined radio
Software defined radio (SDR) is a new technology that has
the potential to solve problems of existing wireless
communications systems, improve communication performance and
reduce infrastructure and operating costs. Phases I and II of
this program have already been funded under the BMDO Small
Business Innovative Research budget. The committee recommends
that, of the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $5.0 million be
used for Phase III the Software Defined Radio program.
Patriot air and missile defense
The Patriot air and missile defense system is an important
program that requires periodic upgrades to modernize and reduce
the obsolescence of older components, while at the same time
adding to the overall system's capability through programs such
as PAC-3. The committee understands the Army is considering a
program, a Patriot ground equipment Service Life Extension
Program (SLEP), that is intended to reduce the size of Patriot
equipment, making the system more transportable, while reducing
projected obsolescence.
The committee recommends that, of the funding authorized
for PE 63882C, $7.6 million be used for Patriot ground
equipment upgrades and life extension efforts.
Aerostat design and manufacturing
The Army is developing an aerostat surveillance platform
called the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated
Netted Sensor (JLENS) system. One potential problem for JLENS
is the vulnerability of the aerostat to climatic conditions.
The Aerostat Design and Manufacturing (ADAM) Program was
created to facilitate the design and manufacture of affordable
aerostats with improved performance and continuous
availability. The committee recommends that, of the funding
authorized for PE 63882C, $3.8 million be used for the ADAM
Program.
Advanced research center
The Army Space and Missile Defense Command's Advanced
Research Center (ARC) continues to be a premier facility which
supports the nation's missile defense efforts. The ARC plans to
expand its customer testbed capability, as well as augmenting
the Integrated System Test Capability (ISTC), deemed critical
to the National Missile Defense (NMD) Program. The committee
recommends that, of the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $8.0
million be used for the ARC.
Space and missile defense battle lab
The Army Space and Missile Defense Battle Lab coordinates,
conducts and participates in space and missile defense-related
exercises, analysis efforts, and simulations for the Army and
jointly with the other military services. Current capabilities
include the Israeli testbed, which was jointly developed to
provide missile defense simulation capability to Israel. The
committee understands that the funding for the Space and
Missile Defense Battle Lab proposed in the budget request was
reduced significantly from the fiscal year 2001 level. In order
to mitigate this decrease, the committee recommends that, of
the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $11.0 million be used for
the Space and Missile Defense Battle Lab.
Airborne infrared surveillance system
The Airborne Infrared Surveillance System (AIRS) will
fulfill two ballistic missile defense missions. The first is to
gather critical infrared signature data on foreign re-entry
vehicles in their midcourse stage of flight, and the second is
to downlink fire control solutions to interceptor platforms,
such as Navy Theater-Wide. Variants of the AIRS could
eventually be placed on long-endurance, high-altitude platforms
to gather data similar to what the SBIRS-Low system will
gather, for a small fraction of the cost of SBIRS-Low. The AIRS
will be installed on a Gulfstream aircraft in early fiscal year
2002, and the BMDO plans to install it on the Global Hawk
unmanned aerial vehicle. Without additional funding, however,
the technical team supporting AIRS may have to be disbanded.
The committee recommends that, of the funding authorized for PE
63882C, $8.0 million be used for the AIRS program.
Liquid fueled target program
The BMDO is pursuing a liquid fueled booster program to
provide more threat-representative targets. Both the Scorpius
low-cost launch program and the Excalibur low-cost reusable
booster program are developing liquid fueled booster technology
that is potentially applicable to the BMDO target program.
Therefore, the committee recommends that of the funding
authorized for PE 63882C, $15.0 million be used for the
Excalibur and Scorpius concepts.
Bottom anti-reflective coatings for circuit boards
Bottom Anti-Reflective Coatings (BARC) are used for ultra
high-density circuits to reduce the feature size on circuit
boards. If the BARC program is successful, printed circuit
cards could be reduced in size by as much as 40 percent,
ultimately allowing the size and weight of computers in missile
defense components, such as interceptors, to be reduced
commensurately. The committee recommends that of the funding
authorized for PE 63882C, $2.5 million be used for BARC.
Ultra-flat planarization technology
Ultra-flat planarization technology, once developed, will
allow integrated circuits to have multiple levels of wiring
using a process more efficient than the current chemical-
mechanical process. This technology could also substantially
outperform the current process, thereby ultimately enhancing
the capacity of missile defense computing systems. The
committee recommends that of the funding authorized for PE
63882C, $7.5 million be used for ultra-flat planarization
technology.
Atmospheric interceptor technology
The Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) program
objective is to identify, develop, integrate and test promising
advanced lightweight component technology that can enhance the
performance and reduce the cost of future interceptors. The AIT
program has potential application across a number of different
ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems. Therefore, the
committee recommends that of the funding authorized for PE
63880C, the BMD System program element, $10.0 million be used
for AIT.
National nanotechnology initiative
The budget request included $240.4 million in PE 61103D8Z
for University Research Initiatives. The committee recognizes
the importance of this program in performing revolutionary
fundamental research in areas that will lead to the development
of the next generation of military capabilities. In addition,
this program provides significant support for the training of
the next generation of scientists and engineers, many of whom
will continue to work on defense research and technology
problems throughout their careers. The committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million in this program for basic research
related to the National Nanotechnology Initiative. The
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be
used in the award of contracts and other agreements under this
program.
The committee recognizes that military and civilian
investments in nanoscience and nanotechnology research and
development are fundamental to the genesis of revolutionary
military technologies. Furthermore, the committee notes the
revolutionary potential of nanoscience and nanotechnology to
transform military operations. Advances in nanoscience and
nanotechnology may lead to new and more sensitive sensors,
including portable chemical and biological agent sensors;
miniaturized electronics, providing more efficient and smaller
communications systems, information systems, navigation aids,
and computer processors; novel materials with enhanced
structural, mechanical, electrical, and optical performance;
medical technologies, including bio-nanodevices for mitigation
of threats to humans; miniaturized platforms with enhanced
reconnaissance and offensive capabilities; and novel
manufacturing technologies. These investments will also enable
the United States to maintain technological dominance in
military operations by training the next generation of
scientists and engineers, and will provide resources required
for building and sustaining the national infrastructure
supporting training and research in these fields.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative, launched in 2000,
manages a set of increased investments across a range of
disciplines and in a number of federal agencies, and will lay
the foundation for the development of the commercial and
military technologies enabled by nanosystems. The Department of
Defense, including all the armed services and the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, have made significant and
valuable investments in these areas of research and technology
development. These investments, in coordination with the
overall federal nanotechnology research and development
program, have created new innovations and technologies that
could contribute to fulfilling the requirements of warfighters
and also could provide many benefits both for the commercial
sector and for medical and scientific research. The Department
of Defense's financial commitments to the National
Nanotechnology Initiative investment strategy, in current and
future fiscal years, are important tothe long-term planning for
nanoscience and nanotechnology research. Not honoring such commitments
may compromise progress in these important research areas and
jeopardize the Department's position as a leader in this multi-agency
initiative.
The committee directs the Department of Defense to renew
its commitment to the National Nanotechnology Initiative,
including participation in the broad federal coordination
activities of the Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience,
Engineering and Technology, and to coordinate its own
investments in nanoscience and nanotechnology within the
broader federal program.
The increase for the National Nanotechnology Initiative is
one element in an overall increase of $22.7 million recommended
by the committee across the Department of Defense for basic and
applied research aimed at developing nanotechnology to meet
military needs. Other recommended increases discussed elsewhere
in this report include $4.5 million in research in Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency accounts and $13.2 million in
Navy RDT&E accounts, including significant investments to
combat future terrorist and chemical and biological agent
threats.
Nanotechnology research and development
The budget request included $358.3 million in PE 62712E for
Materials and Electronics Technology. The committee recommends
an increase of $4.5 million to this account for research in
nanoscience and nanotechnology, which are fundamental to the
genesis of revolutionary military technology and operations. Of
this amount, $1.5 million would be used for research on
nanotechnologies for the detection and destruction of chemical
weapons and an additional $3.0 million would be used for the
development of frequency-tunable nanocomposite materials for
antenna, circuit, filter, and coating applications. The
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be
used in the award of contracts and other agreements under this
program.
Three-dimensional microelectronics
The budget request included $358.3 million in PE 62712E for
applied research on materials and electronics technology. The
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the design
and fabrication of three-dimensional device structures for
novel microelectronics. This work will address device
architecture and performance issues as transistors and other
electronics get smaller and technology moves toward three-
dimensional circuits. These advances will support the
development of the next generation of miniaturized integrated
circuits for use in commercial and military systems.
Radiation hardened electronics
The budget request included $295.1 million in PE 62715BR
for applied research in nuclear sustainment and
counterproliferation technologies. The committee notes the
critical need to develop radiation hardened microelectronics
that can approach the capabilities of advanced commercial
electronics in order to the meet the requirements of many
advanced weapon systems, especially those involved in space
operations. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$3.0 million to improve the manufacturability of radiation
hardened microelectronics for large scale integrated circuit
technologies. The committee directs that all applicable
competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts and
other agreements under this program.
The committee further notes and supports the efforts of the
Secretary of Defense to include radiation hardened electronics
as part of the Department of Defense's Advanced Electronics
Initiative, a strategy for electronics technology development
to support future warfighter needs. This includes funding in
the science and technology activities of the military services
and defense agencies as well as under the authority of the
Defense Production Act. The committee directs the military
services and defense agencies to align their future investment
strategies in radiation hardened microelectronics to be
consistent with the stated Department strategy and funding plan
in order to support this critical strategic capability.
Combating nontraditional and asymmetric threats
The committee recommends an increase of $69.7 million in
investments in the fundamental science and technology necessary
to support Department of Defense activities in combating
nontraditional and asymmetric threats in the future. The
committee recommends increases of $41.0 million in Defense-Wide
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) accounts,
$3.0 million in Army RDT&E accounts, $14.2 million in Navy
RDT&E accounts, $8.0 million in Air Force RDT&E programs, and
$3.5 million in Defense-Wide Operations and Maintenance
accounts towards this initiative.
Combating Terrorism Technology Support Working Group
The committee commends the efforts of the Combating
Terrorism Technology Support Working Group (TSWG) in investing
in the scientific research, and performing the technology
development and system field testing, necessary to rapidly
field the next generation of systems to combat future terrorist
threats.
The budget request included $42.2 million in PE 63122D8Z
for Combating Terrorism Technology Support. The committee
recommends an increase of $25.0 million to fund these
activities. Of this amount, $5.0 million would be used to
supplement ongoing standoff explosive detection work by
soliciting and developing additional approaches in a rapid
prototyping mode. This investment supports the efforts of TSWG,
in the aftermath of the USS Cole, to develop standoff explosive
detection technologies to meet critical military requirements.
Additionally, $3.0 million would be used for the continued
development of real-time, lightweight, man portable aerogel-
based chemical and biological detectors; $7.0 million would be
used for blast mitigation testing, including the development of
retrofits for buildings and components, and the performance of
testing using large-scale computer simulation, testing in
controlled and repeatable laboratory environments and the
qualification of new structural designs; $8.0 million would be
used for the testing and evaluation of environmentally safe,
non-corrosive, and affordable chemical and biological agent
decontamination technologies; and $2.0 million would be used to
develop a proof of concept system for protection of critical
assets by pre-detonation of improvised explosive devices. The
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be
used in the award of contracts and other agreements under this
program.
Chemical and Biological Defense Program
The committee recognizes the threat of terrorist attack
using weapons of mass destruction (WMD), especially chemical
and biological agents, that are relatively easy to procure,
produce, and weaponize. The committee has identified a number
of priority science and technology programs that will address
critical standoff detection, sample collection and analysis,
protection, and decontamination issues that are central to
programs in chemical biological defense.
The budget request included $125.5 million in PE 62384BP
for applied research in chemical and biological defense. The
committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in this
account for applied research in protecting military personnel
and civilians in the presence of chemical or biological agents.
Of this amount, $2.0 million would be used for modeling and
testing of regenerative air filtration devices for ground
vehicles and aircraft; $1.5 million to develop a database of
biological pathogen information and bioinformatics tools to
support development of medical biological countermeasures; $1.0
million for research on the protection of the pulmonary system
from the effects of mustard gas; $2.0 million for sensors for
portable biological and chemical agent detectors; and $1.0
million for improving the capability of the Joint Forces
Command, government agencies, state and local authorities to
model chemical, biological, or radiological incidents from the
initial detection of the attack and the resultant effects
through the medical response to the incident in an integrated,
interoperable manner. The committee directs that all applicable
competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts and
other agreements under this program.
The budget request included $69.2 million in PE 63384BP for
advanced technology development in chemical and biological
defense. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million
for the Safeguard project to develop joint standoff detection
capabilities for biological and chemical agents from unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs). The funds would be used to address
systems integration and operational issues involved in putting
chemical and biological agent sensor systems on UAVs, including
sensor package payload impacts on UAV operations, on-board
information processing and communications, and utilization of
UAVs for chemical and biological agent sensing in a joint
operational environment. The committee directs that all
applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of
contracts and other agreements under this program.
The committee directs the Department to conduct a review of
technology development efforts, concepts-of-operation, and
acquisition plans to use UAVs in chemical and biological
defense and report back to the congressional defense committees
on the Department's budget plan and schedule to implement these
technologies in operational environments as part of the fiscal
year 2003 budget request.
The committee notes that the Marine Corps Systems Command
is committed to developing chemical and biological warfare
agent decontamination technologies. These advanced
decontamination technologies are an essential tool for the
Marine Corps' Chemical and Biological Incident Response Force
(CBIRF).
Decontamination of casualties, contaminated personnel, and
sensitive equipment is a fundamental CBIRF mission. For this
reason, CBIRF teams deploy with Marine Corps units worldwide
and the teams also deploy around the nation in support of
homeland defense preparedness. The committee notes the recent
CBIRF deployment in support of the January 2001 presidential
inauguration activities and pending deployment to support the
Winter Olympics.
The committee recommends that the Department continue to
support the development of chemical and biological
decontamination technologies by the Marine Corps Systems
Command through the Chemical and Biological Defense Program.
Naval unmanned combat air vehicle
The budget request included $153.7 million in PE 63285E to
develop advanced aerospace systems, including $27.0 million to
continue development of a naval unmanned combat air vehicle
(UCAV-N).
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
proposed to use these funds to:
(1) demonstrate technologies, processes, and systems
attributes that would lead to determining the
feasibility of employing UCAV-N systems from ships to
conduct maritime operations using network centric
warfare principles, including:
(a) demonstrate shipboard suitability;
(b) demonstrate robust and secure command,
control and communications; (c) explore the
full range of man-in-the-loop controls and
mission planning approaches;
(d) evaluate sensors, weapons load-out and
mission effectiveness; and
(e) demonstrate real-time targeting and
weapons delivery compatibility.
(2) initiate detailed design of a UCAV-N demonstrator
aircraft.
The committee appreciates the fact that DARPA is moving
toward achieving the goals established in section 220 of the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001. This section, based on an initiative sponsored by
this committee, established the goal that, within 10 years,
one-third of U.S. military operational deep strike aircraft
would be unmanned, and, within 15 years, one-third of all U.S.
military ground combat vehicles would be unmanned.
The committee believes that DARPA should be able to make
additional progress. The committee recommends an increase of
$9.0 million in PE 63285E to enable DARPA to make greater
progress in the UCAV-N development efforts described above.
Additional recommendations on development of unmanned ground
combat vehicles are described elsewhere in this report.
Complex systems design
The budget request included $11.0 million in PE 63704D8Z
for special technology support. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.0 million for development of non-proprietary
multi-view data standards for use in data integration during
systems engineering of complex defense systems. These standards
have the potential to improve the interoperability of computer-
based analysis tools during the life cycle of complex defense
systems.
Competitiveness sustainment initiative
The budget request included $2.0 million in PE 78011S for
the Competitiveness Sustainment Initiative. This initiative
plays an important role in the effort of the Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA) to reduce the cost of sustaining existing weapons
systems and to improve their readiness through the application
of new business practices. The committee recommends an increase
of $2.0 million in PE 78011S to fund additional projects
intended to promote effective supply partnerships and
streamlined maintenance processes. However, the committee
believes that funding for the program in future years would
more appropriately be provided through the operation and
maintenance accounts of the Department of Defense. The
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be
used in the award of contracts or other agreements under this
program and that cost sharing be used to the maximum extent
practicable.
Unmanned ground combat vehicle
The budget request included $90.0 million in PE 63764E for
future combat systems. The committee recommends an increase of
$11.0 million for research and development of Unmanned Ground
Combat Vehicles (UGCV) as part of the DARPA/Army Future Combat
Systems (FCS) program.
The committee notes that the future military requirement
for unmanned systems, including unmanned aircraft with advanced
capability, unmanned ground combat vehicles and unmanned
underwater craft, is clear. The ability of unmanned systems to
provide deep strike and high risk mission support will be
critical in future military engagements. Due to the increasing
need for this capability, the committee last year added $200.0
million to Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) -
led unmanned and robotics efforts to expand the pursuit of
technologies for fielding remotely controlled combat systems,
and established the goal that within 10 years one-third of U.S.
military operational deep strike aircraft would be unmanned and
within 15 years one-third of all U.S. military ground combat
vehicles would be unmanned.
For fiscal year 2002, the budget request included over
$250.0 million for unmanned and robotics programs. While the
committee applauds the effort made by the Department of
Defense, and in particular DARPA, to increase the budget to
support the congressionally-mandated goal for unmanned systems,
additional funding is needed in this area. Therefore, the
committee is recommending increases totaling $20.0 million for
unmanned and robotics systems, including increases for both the
Naval Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV-N) and UGCV programs.
Environmental security technology certification program
The budget request included $25.0 million in PE 63851D8Z
for the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
(ESTCP). The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million
in PE 63851D8Z to sustain efforts initiated within the ESTCP
program last year for the demonstration and validation of
viable, cost effective solutions that will help the military
departments meet the extraordinary challenge of remediating
unexploded ordnance (UXO) and related constituents at active,
inactive, closed, transferred, and transferring ranges.
The committee notes that the budget request included $20.0
million in PE 63716D8Z for advanced research on the remediation
of UXO and related constituents through the Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP). This
investment is an important step toward bringing down the cost
of addressing the Department of Defense's UXO problem, which
has been estimated at more than $100 billion. The committee
urges the Department to maintain stable funding for UXO-related
science and technology in both the SERDP program and the ESTCP
program in future years.
Budget technical adjustments
The budget request included $56.7 million in PE 65710D8Z
for classified programs for the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence) (ASD
(C3I)). The Defense Department informed the committee that the
intended request for this program element was $16.7 million.
The amount requested in that line included:
(a) $8.0 million that should have been requested in
PE 65116D8Z for general support to C3I; and
(b) $32.0 million that should have been requested in
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide for the Office
of the Secretary of Defense.
The committee recommends adjusting the budget lines to
correct this error.
Regional pilot program for infrastructure protection
The budget request included $414.8 million in PE 33140G for
the information systems security program, including a number of
programs focusing on infrastructure protection.
Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD 63) requires the
development and implementation of systems and procedures
designed to protect strategic infrastructure, critical
facilities and military, industrial and information support
services necessary to preserve critical domestic services
(e.g., air traffic control systems, petroleum refineries, power
generation facilities, pipelines, etc.), project U.S. combat
power overseas in times of conflict and sustain our military
and industrial infrastructure.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense could
undertake a regional pilot program where representative
critical facilities and military support services reside. The
program could identify opportunities for providing necessary
support for DOD operations defending against transnational
threats, information sabotage and attempts to exploit sensitive
technology or extract sensitive data.
The committee understands that the Department would need to
expend some funds to develop the appropriate defenses and
protections that could ensure the safety of our populace and
the continuous operation of critical military and industrial
facilities in the event of a terrorist attack or security
threat. The costs of repair, replacement and interruption of
such critical military and nonmilitary services would far
exceed the insurance provided by the information derived from
the design and implementation of a regional pilot program for
infrastructure protection.
Therefore, the committee recommends that, of the funds
available within the information systems security program, $5.0
million be applied to these purposes.
Broadcast-request imagery technology experiment
At the request of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM),
the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) developed a unique
capability to disseminate timely, tailored imagery products to
forward-deployed special operations elements via existing
communications architectures. This capability has been named
broadcast-request imagery technology experiment (BRITE). In
accordance with normal procedures, once developmental work on
this program was completed, NRO has transferred responsibility
for BRITE to the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) for
fielding and sustainment. NIMA has been very supportive of this
technology, but competing priorities did not allow NIMA to
include this program in the budget request.
The committee understands the funding challenges facing
NIMA, but is also concerned that a capability that has been
developed to meet an urgent operational requirement will not be
fielded in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million to PE 35102BQ to ensure timely fielding of BRITE
capability to operational elements.
Intelligent spatial technologies for smart maps
To meet implicit and derived requirements of Joint Vision
2020, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA)
initiatedseveral research and development efforts to develop
appropriate software tools to enable military operators and planners to
better use and integrate geospatial data. One such program, intelligent
spatial technologies for smart maps, has shown great promise. With
additional development, this technology could be transferred to
commercial developers where its commercial and military potential will
be fully developed and made available to military and other users at
reasonable cost. NIMA has been very supportive of this program, and has
assessed that it would have high military value. However, competing
priorities did not permit NIMA to include continued funding for
intelligent spatial technologies in the budget request.
The committee is concerned that an ongoing program
requiring continuity of funding to develop its potential has
not been recommended for continued funding.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million to PE 35102BQ to ensure continued development of this
important program.
Budget technical adjustments
The budget request included $40.0 million in PE 35191D8Z
for the technology development program. The Defense Department
informed the committee that the intended request for this
program element was $35.0 million. The amount requested in that
line included $5.0 million that should been requested in PE
35889D8Z for the joint electromagnetic technology program.
The committee recommends adjusting the two budget lines to
correct this error.
CV-22 research and development
The budget request included $101.7 million in PE 1160444BB
for research, development, test and evaluation for the CV-22,
the Special Operations Forces (SOF) variant of the V-22 Osprey.
However, the Air Force subsequently decided to delay fielding
of the CV-22 to reflect the restructuring of the overall MV/CV-
22 program into a phased return to flight and fleet
introduction. Most of the research and development planned for
fiscal year 2002 is necessary to achieve full operations
capability for the CV-22, and the committee supports a
continuation of this work. However, a portion of the fiscal
year 2002 request is no longer needed, and the committee
recommends a decrease of $1.9 million in PE 1160444BB.
Digital imagery systems
The budget request included $113.6 million in PE 64940D8Z
for the Central Test and Evaluation Investment Development
Program (CTEIP), which seeks to improve the efficiency of
management of the Department of Defense's test and evaluation
facilities, and modernize the technologies used to test the
next generation of defense systems. Given the importance of
test and evaluation activities in reducing the risks and costs
associated with new acquisition programs, the committee
recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the development and
implementation of digital video systems to replace film-based
munitions and missile test observation systems and convert test
data from analog film to digital formats. The committee directs
that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award
of contracts and other agreements under this program.
The committee also directs the Department to consider the
recommendations of the Defense Science Board's recent
evaluation of test and evaluation capabilities, as it works to
reorganize and improve the management and coordination of these
critical assets and capabilities. The committee directs the
Department to develop a budget plan and schedule for the
implementation of the Defense Science Board's recommendations,
to be submitted along with the fiscal year 2003 budget request.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Air Force science & technology planning and investments
Section 252 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 required the Secretary
of the Air Force to complete a review of the long-term
challenges and short-term objectives of the Air Force science
and technology (S&T) program. Though this review is ongoing,
the committee is encouraged by the progress reported to date.
The Air Force appears to have embraced a modified planning
process and has initiated important science and technology
strategic reviews. In addition, the Air Force has involved
high-ranking decision-makers in the process and appears to have
the concurrence of the Secretary of the Air Force on the
importance of the planning process and the science and
technology program as a whole.
The committee remains concerned, however, about the level
of investment in the Air Force science and technology program.
The science and technology base has atrophied over the past
decade and, as a result, the Air Force has possibly undermined
long-term superiority in several key technology areas. This
finding is outlined in a recent National Research Council
review, which reports that the Air Force investment in science
and technology is down by 46 percent in real dollars since
fiscal year 1989. Areas of specific concern are the investment
in air- and space-based technologies and information systems.
The committeeencourages the Secretary of the Air Force to
review the findings of the National Research Council, and take into
account their expert guidance during future priority-setting and budget
planning and programming activities.
Defense/Industry fuel cell partnership
The committee directs the National Automotive Center (NAC)
to develop a plan for the establishment of a Defense/Industry
Fuel Cell Partnership to leverage the investments of both the
military and the private sector in the area of fuel cell
technology.
Fuel cell technology is currently being developed for use
as auxiliary power units and for vehicle propulsion, both of
which offer great benefits to the Army's transformation
strategy in reducing the size of the deployed logistics
footprint and the signature of future Army platforms. Use of
fuel cell technology also offers potential for increased range
and enhanced stealth missions due to its inherent high
efficiency and quiet operation. Significant advancements have
been made in the development of fuel cell technology, but the
committee believes that more could be accomplished,
particularly if this work is done in cooperation with private
industry.
A Defense/Industry Fuel Cell Partnership offers the best
opportunity to take technology advancements in the commercial
sector and adapt them to the needs of the military. The key to
establishing such a partnership will be development of a
research plan to assess and evaluate current and future fuel
cell technologies and to assess where such technologies can
meet current and future military requirements. The committee
directs the NAC to develop the plan, in cooperation with
industry and other appropriate federal agencies, and to submit
the plan to the congressional defense committees by no later
than April 30, 2002.
Navy shipbuilding requirements and transformation
The committee is concerned that the Navy may intend to use
scarce resources for ship research and development programs
other than those that would support ships included in the long-
range shipbuilding plan delivered to Congress on June 26, 2000.
This approach is of concern because budget requests and the
result of congressional actions have not been sufficient to
procure the number of ships required to recapitalize the fleet.
Additionally complicating this situation is the fact that the
projected costs of ships have not always been within normal
estimating ranges.
Despite the Navy's having received additional resources in
the fiscal year 2002 budget, the Chief of Naval Operations has
submitted a list of fiscal year 2002 unfunded ship construction
research and development projects.
The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) established a three
star admiral position on his staff, Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs (DCNO, WR&P,
N7), as the focal point for determining Navy warfare
requirements and the possible means of meeting those
requirements. The committee has been told that all Navy
requirements are vetted through this office and that analysis
of alternatives are conducted prior to making decisions to
invest funds for research and development and procurement.
Subsequent to the establishment of the new N7 organization,
the Navy has built, leased, and entered into international
agreements for testing improvements in ship construction as
well as key technologies that should reduce the total operating
costs of ships while improving operational performance. The
Navy efforts underway include:
(1) Testing electric ship and integrated power
systems are being tested in the large-scale vehicle. In
addition, the Navy entered into an agreement with Great
Britain which resulted in the British designing their
trimaran research and development vessel to accept U.S.
integrated power systems for research and development
testing.
(2) Gathering significant data from U.S.-funded
instrumentation on the British vessel with a trimaran
hull structure.
(3) Investigating composite mast, composite submarine
sail, and modular construction of advanced hull forms
in ongoing research programs that could yield insights
into structures issues.
(4) Conducting ongoing research and development for
undersea manned and unmanned vessels and unmanned
aerial vehicles appear to accomplish many of the same
tactical missions that would be expected of a small,
manned surface combatant.
(5) Investing significant resources in cruiser
conversion, CVN-77, CVN(X), Virginia-class technology
insertion, DD-21 and smart ship programs to achieve
reduced manning and operating costs, and to foster
electric ship initiatives.
(6) Leasing in fiscal year 2001, in partnership with
the Army, a high speed vessel to explore potential
missions including:
(a) deploying and operating an expeditionary
sensor grid;
(b) providing logistics support or the Army
and Marine Corps; and
(c) operating different variants of high
speed vessels to support so-called ``street
fighter'' missions.
The committee fully supports these efforts. In particular,
the committee notes that the Army has identified a need for
additional funds to continue gathering data from the lease of a
high speed vessel in fiscal year 2002. Although the Navy
participated with the Army in this program during fiscal year
2001, the Navy did not include funds in the fiscal year 2002
budget request to continue this effort.
The committee concurs with a General Accounting Office
(GAO) report on Navy Transformation which concluded, ``the Navy
has devoted little of its experimentation effort exploring
long-term force structure and operational issues such as new
ship design concepts.'' The fact that the CNO submitted an
unfunded requirements list for fiscal year 2002 that identifies
ship design shortfalls provides further testimony to the GAO
conclusion.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Navy to focus ship
design efforts on programs that will collect the type of
information that will be needed to make decisions on future
combatant ships, the future amphibious ship (LH(X)), the future
joint command and control ship (JCC(X)), and the maritime
prepositioning force ship of the future (MPF(F)), rather than
duplicating efforts already underway.
Networking and information technology research and development
The committee notes the sustained and successful
investments by the Department of Defense, and especially the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, in High Performance
Computing and Communications research and technologies. These
investments, in coordination with the overall federal
information technology research and development program, have
created new innovations and technologies that have contributed
to fulfilling the requirements of warfighters, especially in
the areas of information security and assurance, reliable
software, networking of battlefield systems, modeling and
simulation, and the Department of Energy's Accelerated
Strategic Computing Initiative. These efforts have also
provided many benefits for the commercial sector, medical and
scientific research, and efficiency of government services.
Given the importance of these technologies in meeting the
emerging threats of the new century, and in shaping and
controlling the battlefields of the future through network
centric operations, the committee directs the Department of
Defense to continue its participation in the on-going federal
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
program, including the Interagency Working Group and the
National Coordination Office for Information Technology
Research and Development, and to coordinate its own investments
in Information Technology Research and Development within the
broader federal program.
Reusable Launch Vehicles
The committee has been concerned for a number of years
about the high cost and unreliability of launch operations. To
address these issues, since 1994, NASA and the Air Force have
shared responsibility for launch vehicle development. The Air
Force has had primary responsibility for the development of
expendable launch vehicles and has developed the Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). The EELV is intended to
provide 25 to 50 percent launch cost savings over the current
generation of launch vehicles through a low-risk, evolutionary
development approach. NASA has had primary responsibility for
development of next-generation reusable launch vehicles (RLVs).
In March 2001, NASA terminated its RLV technology demonstration
efforts, the X-33 and X-34 RLVs, and instituted a program to
explore technologies relevant to RLV development with no
commitment to a specific vehicle design. Since then, NASA and
the Air Force have also abandoned the X-37 space maneuver
vehicle effort, and have agreed not to provide funds to sustain
any of these programs.
The committee believes that an assured, rapid, on-demand,
and low-cost launch capability could be provided by RLVs and
could have significant military and civil utility. The
committee recognizes that the Air Force has a substantial
interest in the successful development of RLVs, as it is
responsible for space launch for the Department of Defense.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense
should review the 1994 agreement between NASA and the Air Force
that assigned primary responsibility for RLV and expendable
launch vehicle development, respectively. As part of this
review, the committee urges the Department of Defense to look
at the possibility of establishing a joint NASA-Air Force
program where the Air Force would have responsibility for
developing a military variant of an RLV. In the event that the
Secretary of the Air Force determines that a joint effort is
not feasible, the committee urges the Secretary to explore how
DOD would develop and pursue a an RLV program independent of
NASA.
The committee continues to believe, however, that even an
independent program should be conducted in close coordination
with NASA. The committee further directs the Secretary to
submit his findings in a report to the congressional defense
committees by May 1, 2002.
The committee also directs the Secretary of the Air Force
to determine if there are any defense requirements for an RLV.
If the Secretary determines that there are such requirements,
then the Secretary shall describe and define the
operationalrequirements to be met by RLVs, study concepts of operations
that will support those requirements, identify key and militarily
unique RLV technologies, and plan a critical path forward for those
technologies. These requirements shall be included in the report to the
congressional defense committees due on May 1, 2002.
Review of mine countermeasures plans and programs
The Navy requested that fiscal year 2001 funds be
reprogrammed from two sources in order to fully fund a
refueling overhaul for USS Albuquerque. One of the sources of
funds was procurement funding to buy shallow water assault
breaching system (SABRE) and distributed explosive technology
(DET) systems for shallow water mine countermeasures (MCM).
Navy witnesses have testified that the systems did not perform
well in operational testing.
The committee has maintained a strong interest in these
programs and finds this change of heart troubling from several
aspects:
(1) First, the committee understands that the Navy
may have changed its mind about buying these systems
because they were being tested against a more stringent
requirement than those against which the systems were
developed.
(2) Secondly, the committee is concerned that the
original requirement for these systems, in retrospect,
may not have been drawn in a manner adequate to meet
the needs of the fleets. Given the attention the Navy
has claimed that was being paid to these programs, it
is hard for the committee to reconcile this situation
with those previous claims.
(3) Finally, since there are no near-term
alternatives available to satisfy this mission, the
committee believes that the Navy is being somewhat
short-sighted. It is hard to see why we are better off
waiting for a perfect solution some time in the future,
when we have nearly no capability now.
At a minimum, the committee believes that the Navy must
conduct a thorough review of all MCM programs and requirements
to verify that the fleet operators will stand behind all
requirements documents, and that all MCM programs are operating
under a validated set of requirements.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide
a report on this review with the submission of the fiscal year
2003 budget request.
Track conversion system for lightweight wheeled vehicles
In 1997, the Army tested a track conversion system for
lightweight wheeled vehicles at the Aberdeen Test Center,
noting several advantages, including increased soft soil
mobility, soft soil drawbar pull and reduced ground pressure,
which increased the probability of mine overpass. The test also
documented limitations in the areas of speed, steering and
other performance characteristics. The committee understands
that those limitations have been substantially corrected
through subsequent improvements to the system. The committee
directs the Army to assess those improvements to determine
whether additional testing is warranted and to report its
findings to Congress.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Explanation of tables
The following tables provide the program-level detailed
guidance for the funding authorized in title III of this Act.
The tables also display the funding requested by the
administration in the fiscal year 2002 budget request for
operations and maintenance programs and indicate those programs
for which the committee either increased or decreased the
requested amounts. As in the past, the administration may not
exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the tables or,
if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in
the Department of Defense's budget justification documents)
without a reprogramming action in accordance with established
procedures. Unless noted in the report, funding changes to the
budget request are made without prejudice.
Summary of National Defense Authorization for FY 2000
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 303)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriation of $71.4 million from the Armed Forces
Retirement Home Trust Fund for fiscal year 2002.
Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents of
members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees (sec. 304)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$35.0 million for continuation of the Department of Defense
assistance program to local educational agencies that benefit
dependents of service members and Department of Defense
civilian employees.
Amount for impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 305)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$5.0 million for continuation of the Department of Defense
assistance program to local educational agencies that benefit
dependents with severe disabilities.
SUBTITLE B--ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS
Establishment in environmental restoration accounts of sub-accounts for
unexploded ordnance and other related constituents (sec. 311)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2703 of title 10, United States Code, by inserting a
new paragraph that would designate sub-accounts for the
remediation of unexploded ordnance and other related
constituents on active ranges, sites subject to base
realignment and closure, and formerly used defense sites.
Assessment of environmental remediation of unexploded ordnance and
related constituents (sec. 312)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a comprehensive
assessment of the extent of problems with unexploded ordnance
(UXO) and related constituents at current and former DOD
facilities. This assessment would be included in the annual
environmental remediation report required by section 2706(a) of
title 10, United States Code.
The four military services have been firing ordnance on
training ranges for decades. It now appears that the cost of
addressing problems with UXO and related constituents on active
facilities, closed and closing installations, and formerly used
defense sites could run into the hundreds of billions of
dollars.
The Senate Report on the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000 required the Department to develop a
comprehensive estimate of the costs of addressing problems with
UXO and related constituents at the Department's current and
former facilities. Unfortunately, the report provided by the
Department fails to provide this information.
The provision recommended by the committee would address
this problem by placing a statutory requirement on the
Department to develop a comprehensive reliable estimate of the
costs of addressing problems with UXO and related constituents
and a roadmap for doing so.
Department of Defense energy efficiency program (sec. 313)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to carry out a program to significantly
improve the energy efficiency of the Department of Defense
(DOD) over the next 10 years.
The committee believes that energy conservation is an
essential element in addressing rising energy prices and supply
problems. The DOD has a robust energy conservation program in
place, which has already reduced the Department's energy
consumption by more than 20 percent over the last 10 years,
resulting in billions of dollars of cost avoidance.
The provision recommended by the committee would codify the
existing Department of Defense energy conservation program and
extend it through 2010. The energy efficiency goals established
by the provision would not be mandatory, but should ensure that
the Department continues to achieve reduced energy consumption
and resulting savings. DOD officials have indicated that these
goals are achievable.
The provision would also require that the Secretary pursue
a number of proven energy efficiency strategies, including: the
purchase of energy-efficient products; the use of energy
savings performance contracts and other contracts designed to
achieve energy conservation objectives; the use of life-cycle
cost analysis (including life-cycle energy costs) in making
purchases; the use of energy-efficiency audits; the use of more
energy efficient steam systems, boiler systems, and industrial
processes; and the early retirement of inefficient
equipmentwhere replacement results in lower life-cycle costs.
With regard to the purchase of energy-efficient products
for DOD facilities, the committee directs the Department to
develop and submit to the congressional defense committees, by
no later than March 1, 2002, a comprehensive plan for replacing
standard light bulbs with energy-efficient light bulbs, to the
maximum extent practicable, over a five-year period.
The information required in annual reports to the
congressional defense committees pursuant to this provision is
consistent with the information already required in annual
reports to the President on the same dates, pursuant to
Executive Order 13123. The committee expects to receive the
same information in the same format as the President. For this
reason, the reporting requirement should not impose any
additional burden on the Department.
Extension of pilot program for the sale of air pollution emission
reduction incentives (sec. 314)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority for the Department of Defense to conduct a pilot
program for the sale of air pollution emission reduction
incentives.
Section 351 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 authorized the Department to retain proceeds
from the sale of Clean Air Act emission reduction credits,
allowances, offsets, or comparable economic incentives. This
authority had enabled the Department to participate in
emissions trading pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 (Public Law 101-549). The provision recommended by the
committee would extend the authority through September 30,
2003.
Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain response
costs in connection with Hooper Sands Site, South Berwick,
Maine (sec. 315)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to reimburse the Environmental
Protection Agency for costs incurred by the agency for actions
taken pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9602, et
seq.) (CERCLA). The committee understands that activities of
the Navy are liable for these costs under CERCLA as generators
who arranged for disposal of the hazardous substances that
ended up at the site.
Conformity of surety authority under environmental restoration program
with surety authority under Superfund (sec. 316)
The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
the sunset date in section 2701 of title 10, United States
Code, making permanent the protection that this provision
provides to sureties for Defense Environmental Restoration
Program response actions. This change would conform section
2701 to a parallel surety provision in section 119 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), covering response actions under
the Superfund program, which was made permanent in 1998.
Procurement of alternative fueled and hybrid electric light duty trucks
(sec. 317)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Administrator of
General Services to ensure that only hybrid electric vehicles
are procured for the Department of Defense (DOD) fleet of light
duty trucks beginning in fiscal year 2005. This requirement
applies to those vehicles not otherwise considered ``covered''
fleet vehicles under the Energy Policy Act (EPAct). The
Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, may waive
the requirement under certain circumstances if necessary to
meet specific requirements for vehicle capabilities, to meet
applicable standards for procurement of fleet vehicles, or to
adjust to limitations on the commercial availability of hybrid
electric light duty trucks.
The provision also would require that the Secretary
coordinate with the Administrator to ensure that certain
additional requirements are met with respect to the Department
of Defense's light duty trucks that are considered part of its
``covered'' fleet vehicles under EPAct. Specifically, the
provision would require that: (1) five percent of the
``covered'' fleet vehicles acquired in fiscal years 2005 and
2006 by the DOD be either alternative fuel vehicles or hybrid
electric vehicles; and (2) 10 percent of the ``covered'' fleet
vehicles acquired in fiscal year 2007 and thereafter by the DOD
be either alternative fuel vehicles or hybrid electric
vehicles. These requirements for acquisition of alternative
fuel vehicles or hybrid electric vehicles in fiscal year 2005
and thereafter are in addition to those already required under
EPAct.
The DOD acquires approximately 22,400 new light duty
vehicles annually, approximately half of which are light duty
trucks and half are sedans. Manufacturers are expected to
produce significant quantities of hybrid electric light duty
trucks beginning in 2005. Hybrid electric vehicle technology
offers tremendous potential to reduce fuel consumption
andsignificantly increase fuel efficiency. Use of this technology in
federal fleets will help reduce petroleum costs significantly and will
assist in meeting overall targets for reduction of fuel consumption in
the Federal Government.
SUBTITLE C--COMMISSARIES AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES
Rebate agreements with producers of foods provided under the special
supplemental food program (sec. 321)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to enter into annual contracts for
rebates with producers of food products for the exclusive right
to provide food in commissary stores as supplemental food for
the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Overseas Program. The
recommended provision would allow rebates to be credited to the
appropriation available for carrying out the WIC program and
would require the use of competitive procedures to enter into
contracts for rebates.
Reimbursement for use of commissary facilities by military departments
for purposes other than commissary sales (sec. 322)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
service secretaries to reimburse the Defense Commissary Agency
for a share of the depreciated value of a commissary facility
when a military department uses, for non-commissary related
purposes, a facility previously acquired, constructed or
improved with commissary surcharge funds.
Public releases of commercially valuable information of commissary
stores (sec. 323)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to limit release to the public of
commercially valuable commissary store information and to use
competitive contracting procedures to sell commissary sales
data, customer demographic information, and information
pertaining to commissary transactions and operations. The
recommended provision would prohibit release of information in
a form that would make it possible to identify a customer. The
recommended provision would also authorize the Secretary to
sell or license the use of business programs, systems, and
applications and to release, without charge, information about
items sold in commissaries to the manufacturer of the item.
SUBTITLE D--OTHER MATTERS
Codification of authority for Department of Defense support for
counterdrug activities of other agencies (sec. 331)
The committee recognizes that with the passage of time and
several amendments over the years, it has become increasingly
difficult for Department of Defense (DOD) personnel in the
field to keep abreast of section 1004 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, which authorizes DOD
support for the counterdrug activities of any other department
or agency of the Federal Government or of any state, local or
foreign law enforcement agency. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision that would codify that section in
Chapter 18 of title 10, United States Code.
Exclusion of certain expenditures from limitation on private sector
performance of depot-level maintenance (sec. 332)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
military departments to exclude private sector depot-level
maintenance and repair performed in partnerships at Centers of
Industrial and Technical Excellence from the calculations of
public and private sector maintenance required by section 2466
of title 10, United States Code. All other provisions of
chapter 146 of title 10 would continue to apply to such
maintenance.
The committee supports the goal of increasing public-
private partnerships to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of the maintenance of military equipment and
urges the military departments to more fully utilize the
partnering authorities under section 2474 of title 10. The
authority to exclude private sector work performed in such
partnerships from the requirements of section 2466 of title 10
contained in this provision represents an additional incentive
to create such partnerships.
Repair, restoration, and preservation of Lafayette Escadrille Memorial,
Marnes la-Coquette, France (sec. 333)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a grant to the
Lafayette Escadrille Memorial Foundation, Inc. to repair and
restore the Lafayette Escadrille Memorial in Marnes la-
Coquette, France.
The committee does not intend this provision to establish a
precedent for federal funding of privately owned memorials.
However, the committee believes that in this instance a
contribution by the United States government is appropriate
inorder to honorably preserve the remains of American pilots who
volunteered to fight in World War I. The memorial has suffered severe
water damage. The committee understands that the government of France
is also contributing funds to the restoration of this memorial. The
committee expects the Lafayette Escadrille Memorial Foundation to
ensure that this memorial is maintained in the future without
additional government contributions once this restoration is
accomplished.
Implementation of the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract (sec. 334)
The budget request included $647.7 million to support
270,000 work stations for the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI)
in fiscal year 2002. Due to schedule slippage, the committee
believes that the Navy has overestimated the number of work
stations it will be able to purchase during fiscal year 2002.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $59.3 million
from Department of the Navy operation and maintenance accounts.
Additionally, the committee understands that approximately 23
percent of the fiscal year 2002 funding was requested as part
of Navy working capital fund (NWCF) operations. The committee
directs the Navy to ensure that the NWCF bears a proportionate
share of the above reduction.
The committee further understands that slower schedules
have affected the Navy's ability to fulfill requirements for
system testing established in section 814 of the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
The committee continues to believe that the NMCI program must
be tested and proven before it is fully deployed. Therefore,
the committee recommends a provision establishing an event-
driven plan for phased NMCI implementation throughout fiscal
year 2002. Under the plan, the Navy will limit contracts for
additional workstations to 15 percent of the projected steady-
state purchase pending completion of three-phased, government-
observed contractor and user testing. The Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics will then
review the results of those tests and determine whether a
second increment of work stations may be ordered. Notification
of this determination will be provided to the congressional
defense committees.
At the point at which 20,000 work stations are operational
and meeting all performance targets established in service-
level agreements, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics will make another
determination about the program's continued viability. A
favorable determination will result in the release of a third
increment of work station orders, again with notification to
the congressional defense committees. Finally, the original
evaluation of program viability included in the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 will be
conducted once 15 percent of NMCI work stations are fully
operational. Under existing law, results of these tests will be
used to make a certification to the Congress that the continued
implementation of NMCI is in the best interests of the
Department of the Navy. If at that point the testing schedule
has proceeded favorably, and the Navy determines that
additional funds will increase cost effectiveness and/or
operational efficiency, the Navy may request a reprogramming to
return the program to the originally-requested level of 270,000
work stations in fiscal year 2002.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS OF INTEREST
Battlefield mobility enhancement program
The committee recommends an increase of $9.7 million to
Army operation and maintenance accounts to enhance its
capabilities for casualty evacuation and resupply. The
committee recommends that the Army use $6.6 million of these
funds to purchase 452 M-Gators, a light-weight tactical utility
vehicle. The committee recommends that the Army National Guard
use the remaining $3.1 million to purchase 200 M-Gators and
associated training and support packages.
Civilian underexecution
The Department of Defense has consistently underexecuted
funding requested for civilian personnel. Therefore, the
committee recommends a decrease of $132.6 million, based on
past levels of underexecution. Of this amount, the committee
recommends that operation and maintenance funds be reduced by
$51.3 million for the Army, $32.6 million for the Navy, $3.6
million for the Marine Corps, $15.7 million for the Air Force,
and $29.4 million for Defense-Wide accounts.
Corrosion prevention
The committee is strongly interested in efforts to mitigate
the effects of corrosion on military equipment, facilities, and
infrastructure. All of the military services maintain
facilities and operate equipment in high-salt, wet, and desert
environments, conditions that accelerate corrosion.
Addressing this problem imposes a significant maintenance
workload on military personnel. In addition, corrosion shortens
the service life of parts, critical equipment, and
facilitiesthat are important both to military operations and to service
members' quality of life. This results in higher-than-necessary
replacement rates for many items, and thus higher costs.
The committee is aware that each of the military services
is pursuing anti-corrosion technologies and products. The
committee is concerned, however, that these efforts lack
coherence and result in inefficiency. Therefore, the committee
directs the Department of Defense to identify a single office
with overall responsibility for anti-corrosion programs. The
designated office should develop and execute an action plan to
address corrosion, and include a description of how information
and data on accepted practices and products are to be collected
and disseminated to all interested parties, especially ship and
installation commanders. The designated office shall also
develop and issue common product testing and certification
criteria. Assessments of anti-corrosion technologies shall
address product effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and
environmental impacts. Finally, the designated office shall
serve as the coordinator and joint representative for anti-
corrosion efforts in the Department of Defense's internal
resourcing process.
While the committee believes that anti-corrosion
initiatives must be rationalized and consolidated in the
future, it understands that each of the military services
continues to face current corrosion problems. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $5.4 million to Army
operation and maintenance funds to continue applications of
anti-corrosion treatments for new and existing equipment, and
to support further anti-corrosion efforts in the Pacific
theater. The committee further urges the Army to expand its
focus on equipment, to include infrastructure and facilities.
The committee also understands that technological advances
such as ambient temperature-cured glass coatings may contribute
significantly to efforts to combat corrosion and facilities
degradation. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$2.0 million to Navy operations and maintenance funds to expand
testing of these technologies.
Foreign currency fluctuation
The committee recommends a decrease of $137.9 million from
operation and maintenance funds for anticipated savings from
foreign currency fluctuations. Of this amount, the committee
recommends a reduction of $89.4 million for the Army, $15.4
million for the Navy, $1.4 million for the Marine Corps, $24.4
million for the Air Force, and $7.3 million for Defense-Wide
accounts.
Personal gear for servicemembers
The committee is concerned that the budget request would
not adequately fund personal gear for soldiers and airmen.
Sufficient funding for these programs is essential for the
safety and comfort of our service members in the field.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0
million in the operation and maintenance accounts ($10.0
million for the Army, $6.0 million for the Army Reserves, $4.0
million for the Army National Guard, and $5.0 million for the
Air National Guard) to purchase items of individual combat
clothing and equipment, including the Extended Cold Weather
Clothing System (ECWCS) and the Mobile Sleep System (MSS).
Army
Objective force task force
As stated elsewhere in this report, the committee commends
the Army for chartering a task force to integrate and
coordinate the myriad efforts required to ensure a successful
transformation to the Objective Force. The Task Force is the
first priority in the Objective Force category of the Army's
list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The
committee believes that transforming to the Objective Force
must be among the Army's highest priorities. Consistent with
actions taken elsewhere in the budget to fund the Task Force,
the committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million in
Operation and Maintenance, Army, to fund the personnel and
support requirements of the Objective Force Task Force.
Interim brigade combat team training
The committee fully supports the Army's efforts to
transform to a lighter, more rapidly-deployable force. The
development of Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) are a key
component of the Army's transformation plan, and, as new
organizations, these units have new training requirements. To
support those requirements, the committee recommends an
increase of $3.7 million to Army operations and maintenance
funds. Of these funds, $2.3 million would be spent to fund
mobile training teams, which would go to IBCT locations to
train soldiers in new tactics, techniques and procedures for
IBCT operations. The subcommittee recommends an additional $1.4
million for an IBCT Warfighter exercise at the Battle Command
Training Program. This capstone training event would allow IBCT
leaders to practice integrating IBCT and legacy forces under
unique, stressing conditions. The Army would also be able to
apply the lessonslearned from this event to future IBCT
development, accelerating and improving the process of transformation.
Army installation security
The committee recommends an increase of $77.7 million to
address force protection vulnerabilities on Army installations
in Europe and Asia. The budget request included $128.0 million
to establish entry and access control at Army installations in
the United States and abroad. However, the request left an
unfunded priority of $306.0 million, required to provide the
minimum requirements for securing overseas and domestic
installations. The $77.7 million recommended by the committee
would be used to complete the process of establishing minimum
controls (barriers, blast mitigation devices, intrusion
detection devices, vehicle registration, visitor pass control
facilities, guard shacks, vehicle inspection areas and security
personnel) at the most vulnerable Army installations overseas.
Navy
Surface ship depot maintenance
The budget request included $2.9 billion for ship depot
maintenance. This amount funded 86 percent of the requirement
for surface ships, 92 percent for carriers, and 90 percent for
submarines. The committee recommends an increase of $75.4
million to raise the funding for surface ship depot maintenance
to 90 percent of the requirement in fiscal year 2002.
Mk-45 gun overhauls
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to the
Navy's operation and maintenance account to fund overhauls for
two Mk-45 guns. These overhauls will improve the operational
availability of the Mk-45 gun weapons system and maintain
critical workforce skills in support of the Navy's Cruiser
Conversion Program.
Shipyard apprentice program
The committee is concerned about the continued vitality of
the shipyard workforce as it adjusts to downsizing and
infrastructure realignment. Therefore, the committee recommends
an increase of $4.0 million in the operation and maintenance
accounts for the Navy to support apprentice programs. These
programs allow Navy managers to hire new apprentices and other
skilled workers, ensuring the long-term health of our shipyard
workforce.
Navy explosive detectors
The budget request included $2.0 million to purchase
explosive detectors for seagoing Navy vessels. The committee
recommends an increase of $6.0 million to purchase and deploy
hand held explosive detection devices as on-board inventory
items for all carrier battle groups. The detection equipment
would use ion trap mobility spectrometer technology on board
deploying Navy vessels to screen people, mail and cargo
approaching and coming aboard ships. This additional funding
would procure at least 150 units along with the associated
training, maintenance and warranty contracts. The procurement
of these devices addresses one of the Navy's highest post-USS
Cole attack priorities for force protection. The Navy is
encouraged to explore complementing these devices with other
means of detection, including canine detection.
Surf Eagle for the Naval Oceanographic Office
The Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO) is responsible,
within the Department of Defense, for acquiring and analyzing
data on the oceans and on littoral areas. NAVOCEANO and the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) have been running a
joint program to provide geospatial products to its customers
called Surf Eagle.
The committee understands that the Navy needs to upgrade
and expand their capabilities, including expanding the ability
to perform feature extraction and developing feature
attribution tools, to increase the productivity of
oceanographic and imagery analysts. Such productivity increases
will be necessary to keep up with demand and handle the much
larger volumes of data that can be expected over the next
several years.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million for these purposes.
Marine Corps
USMC initial issue
The committee is concerned that the budget request would
not adequately fund personal items for new members of the
Marine Corps. Many of these items are important for the safety
and comfort of our Marines in the field. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in the
operation and maintenance accounts for the Marine Corps to
purchase individual combat clothing and equipment items,
including polar fleecepullovers, modular tents, ultra-light
camouflage, and combat casualty care equipment.
USMC depot maintenance
The committee remains concerned about the rising costs and
time required to repair aging equipment, trends that impede
unit readiness and strain limited resources. The budget request
included $107.8 million for depot maintenance, an amount the
committee believes is inadequate to support the maintenance
that must be performed to restore equipment readiness.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $14.4
million to depot-level maintenance for Marine Corps equipment.
The committee understands that this increase will support 90
percent of the Marine Corps' executable requirement in fiscal
year 2002.
Air Force
Spacelift range facilities
The budget request included $258.8 million for Operation
and Maintenance, Air Force for launch facilities. The committee
recommends an increase of $18.3 million to improve the safety
and operating efficiency of launch facilities at Vandenberg Air
Force Base and Cape Canaveral/Patrick Air Force Base. This is
the highest priority on the Air Force's list of unfunded
priorities for fiscal year 2002.
For several years, the Air Force has been in the process of
automating and standardizing the East and West Coast ranges.
The recommended increase would allow the Air Force to test and
integrate new systems more quickly and with less disruption to
operational activities. This would also include continuation of
the core crew concept to ensure there are sufficient launch
crews to support both all launch and range activities. The
additional funds would also support greater use of commercial
satellite communication systems.
Civil Air Patrol
The budget request included $18.3 million for the Civil Air
Patrol (CAP) Corporation, a voluntary auxiliary of the Air
Force. The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million to
Air Force operation and maintenance funds for CAP operations.
The additional funds are allocated to support the thousands of
CAP volunteers who assist their communities in search and
rescue, disaster relief, drug interdiction, humanitarian
support, and other key missions.
Defense-Wide
Special operations combating terrorism training
The budget request included funding for counterterrorism
training, but did not include full funding for enhanced
counterterrorism training, a crucial readiness requirement
ensuring that U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) are prepared
to counter terrorist threats and/or rescue hostages during
terrorist attacks. Combating terrorism through defensive means
and through counterterrorism operations is one of the primary
missions of special operations forces. The enhanced training
for such operations is geared toward providing the most
realistic potential terrorist scenarios, through elements such
as locale and enemy weaponry. Counterterrorism training
promotes operator survivability and accomplishment of future
missions. The committee regards this shortfall in funding as a
critical item in need of redress, because of its impact on
combating terrorism, and its negative impact on readiness.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $14.3
million for the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
operation and maintenance account for SOCOM's combating
terrorism training activities. This increase would bolster U.S.
efforts to combat terrorism, and it would eliminate SOCOM's
third highest unfunded requirement. The increase would remedy a
gap in SOCOM readiness that was not addressed by the budget
request.
Commercial imagery to support military requirements
The budget request included $30.0 million for purchasing
commercial imagery products in support of national needs.
The committee continues to support the use of commercial
sources to help meet the imagery requirements of United States
and coalition forces, and the geospatial requirements of the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). The committee also
continues to support the objectives of Presidential Decision
Directive--23 (PDD-23), which sought to: (1) establish the
United States as the world's leader in commercial remote
sensing; and (2) contribute to a stable, sustainable customer
base for the U.S. satellite industry.
The committee understands that the intelligence community
and the Department of Defense are developing a commercial
imagery strategy to help meet the NIMA's mapping and military
support functions. The committee strongly endorses the
development of such a strategy and believes that, to be
successful, the U.S. Government will need to become a reliable
customer of commercial imagery. To date, the objectives of PDD-
23 remain unfulfilled due to the slow pace of the U.S.
Government in articulating aclear strategy for the use of
commercial imagery, and in providing adequate funding to help sustain a
U.S. commercial base to provide those images and geospatial data.
NIMA officials have represented to the committee that there
may be opportunities for establishing stronger ties with the
private sector. They have suggested that NIMA might enter into
prototype contracts with commercial remote sensing entities to
provide commercial imagery for NIMA. Under such an approach,
NIMA would contract with one or more U.S. commercial imagery
providers to provide support to a customer or group of
customers in a particular region, as opposed to merely trying
to fill random customer orders.
The committee believes that such an approach might provide
the Department of Defense, the intelligence community,
combatant commanders and the committee the information needed
to better evaluate the value of commercial imagery, the
mechanisms needed to fully utilize the unique advantages of
commercial imagery to support military requirements, and
procedures to support in-theater tasking, receipt and
utilization of commercial imagery.
For these purposes, the committee recommends an increase of
$10.0 million above the President's budget request. The
committee understands that NIMA would want to use these funds,
along with other funds in the budget, to establish these
prototype contracts.
In the longer term, NIMA officials have suggested the
possibility of establishing an ``anchor-tenant'' business
relationship between the Department of Defense and one or more
remote sensing entities will be central to any commercial
imagery strategy. The committee understands that this may be an
attractive approach, but needs to understand more about such an
alternative before endorsing it. The committee looks forward to
hearing a more formal proposal from the administration on this
issue.
Information security scholarship program
The budget request included $1.5 million in PE 65710D8Z,
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide for
the information assurance scholarship program. This program was
established by section 922 of the Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
The committee strongly supports moving forward with this
program. Department of Defense officials have indicated that
they fully support the intent of the program to bolster the
number of, and training for, personnel in the Defense
Department's information assurance career field. The committee
believes that the Department is being too tentative in its
implementation, and that making more funds available would
result in more near-term progress.
The committee recommends an additional $3.5 million to
increase the number of grants and scholarships that the
Department will be able to implement during fiscal year 2002.
Department of Defense officials have indicated that
requesting the funds in this research and development account
was an error. The funds are more appropriately budgeted within
the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide account.
The committee agrees with this assessment. Therefore, the
committee recommends providing the funds, $5.0 million in
total, in the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide account.
Defense information services agency
The budget request included $803.1 million for the Defense
Information Systems Agency (DISA), an increase of $42.6 million
over the fiscal year 2001 level. The committee has not received
sufficient justification for the requested program growth, and
therefore recommends a decrease of $24.7 million. This decrease
will maintain DISA activities at the fiscal year 2001 level,
after accounting for $17.9 million in price increases.
Washington Headquarters Services
The budget request included $324.2 million for activities
of Washington Headquarters Services (WHS). The committee has
not received sufficient justification for the requested program
growth, and therefore recommends a decrease of $18.1 million
from the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide account for
WHS. This decrease will maintain WHS activities at the fiscal
year 2001 level, after accounting for price increases.
Guard and Reserve Components
B-1B Lancer bomber
The budget request contained no funds for the Air National
Guard for operations and maintenance for the B-1B Lancer
bomber. The budget request included $64.8 million in the Air
Force operation and maintenance for the B-1B Lancer bomber. The
committee recommends an increase of $164.8 million in Air
National Guard operation and maintenance for the B-1B Lancer
bomber and a decrease of $64.8 million in Air Force operations
and maintenance. The additional funds will allow the National
Guard to continue to maintain the B-1Bs that will remain in the
National Guard until such time as the study that would be
required by section 1012 is completed.
Miscellaneous Additional Items of Interest
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities
The budget request included $1.0 billion for drug
interdiction and other counterdrug activities of the Department
of Defense (DOD): $820.4 million in the central transfer
account; $166.8 million in the operating budgets of the
military services for authorized counterdrug operations; and
$12.5 million in the military construction account for
infrastructure improvements at the forward operating locations.
The committee recommends the following fiscal year 2002
budget for the Department's counterdrug activities.
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Operation and Maintenance
[In thousands of dollars--may not add due to rounding]
Fiscal Year 2002 Counterdrug Request.......................... $999.7
Goal 1 (Educate America's Youth).......................... 25.3
Goal 2 (Increase safety of citizens)...................... 78.5
Goal 3 (Reduce health and social costs)................... 77.7
Goal 4 (Shield America's frontiers)....................... 334.5
Goal 5 (Break drug sources of supply)..................... 304.5
Increases: National Guard Support............................. 40.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Fiscal Year 2002 Drug and Counterdrug Funding..... 1,039.7
National Guard counterdrug activities
The committee values the contribution that the National
Guard makes to the national counterdrug effort. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase in $40.0 million for the
counterdrug activities of the National Guard, including
National Guard State Plans and the National Guard Counterdrug
Schools.
Kaho'olawe Island trust fund
The budget request included $25.0 million for the
Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental
Restoration Trust Fund. The committee recommends an increase of
$35.0 million dollars to maintain the Fund's activities at
current levels.
Cultural and historic activities
The budget request included $289,000 for cultural and
historic preservation activities funded through the Legacy
Resource Management Program. The committee recommends an
increase of $8.0 million for the recovery and preservation of
sunken vessels of cultural and historic significance.
The committee is aware of a number proposals to recover and
preserve sunken vessels that have considerable cultural and
historical significance. The committee directs the Department
of Defense to use competitive procedures to select recovery and
preservation efforts for funding based on the merits of the
proposals received and the cultural and historical significance
of the vessels to be recovered and preserved.
Fuel savings
The committee believes that recent declines in fuel prices
have resulted in an overestimation of future fuel costs.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $34.8 million
to the Defense Working Capital Fund.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Common access cards
The committee is concerned with the problems that the
Department of Defense is experiencing in the deployment of the
Common Access Card (CAC). A central part of the problem appears
to be that there is no single office in the Department of
Defense that is in charge of the overall deployment of the CAC.
Several offices have significant responsibilities for elements
of the deployment and these offices tend to ``stovepipe'' in
such a way that the integration of the various efforts is far
less than optimal. As a result, the committee is very concerned
that much of the smart card functionality developed by the
Department over the previous five years may be lost.
The primary reason Congress has supported DOD smart card
development in past years has been the technology's ability to
streamline administrative processes, dramatically improve
readiness processing and provide functionality to the war-
fighter. DOD has invested significant amounts of money in
developing these applications and they should continue to be at
the forefront as DOD migrates to the CAC.
Although the committee understands that the Department of
the Navy has been designated as the lead agency for the
deployment of the CAC, its role is less than that of an
executiveagent. As a result, while the Department of the Navy
has expended considerable resources and effort in attempting to
integrate the deployment of the CAC, it lacks the kind of management
and resource authority required to manage the deployment of the CAC
effectively and efficiently. The committee believes that such authority
should be vested in the Department of the Navy so that there will be a
single office that can be held responsible for the proper deployment of
the CAC.
To build on the progress made to date and achieve the
potential that smart cards hold for the military services, the
committee urges the Department of Defense to designate the
Department of the Navy as the executive agent for the common
access card.
Defense Environmental Security Corporate Information Management Program
On May 25, 2001, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics terminated the Defense
Environmental Security Corporate Information Management System
(DESCIM) and delegated executive agent authority to the
Secretary of the Army for the 10 systems formerly associated
with the DESCIM program.
As a result of this delegation of responsibility, the
Secretary of the Army is responsible for oversight and
implementation of the next generation of Department of Defense
environmental security information technology management. For
this reason, the committee expects the Secretary of the Army
to: (1) provide guidance and establish requirements to ensure
that the next generation information technology program meets
the needs of the Department of Defense and the military
departments; (2) develop and implement a phased plan for the
program by the end of fiscal year 2002; (3) establish measures
of merit by which to evaluate the effectiveness of the program;
(4) monitor and evaluate program effectiveness; and (5)
prioritize and allocate resources to manage and execute the
program.
Environmental compliance funding
The committee has been concerned by reports that the
military departments may not have provided full funding to some
installations for high priority environmental compliance
efforts. Although it is the policy of the Department of Defense
(DOD) to fully fund environmental compliance activities if the
failure to fund those activities would leave the Department in
violation of applicable requirements of law or regulation, the
committee understands that the Department's lengthy budget
cycle may result in a failure to fund some of these essential
activities.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to review the methods by which the military departments
identify, prioritize, track, and fund environmental compliance
requirements. The Comptroller General's report to Congress
should specifically address the issue of requirements that are
identified after the initial development of budget priorities,
and should include any recommendations the Comptroller General
may have for addressing this issue.
Factors affecting military training practices
Over the last several years, the military services have had
to adjust training practices and incur added expenses to
address concerns about endangered species, critical habitats,
the marine environment, airspace management, air pollution,
unexploded ordnance, noise pollution, and the assignment of
radio frequency spectrum away from the Department of Defense
(DOD).
Witnesses at the March 20, 2001, hearing of the Readiness
Subcommittee on this issue expressed concern that the
cumulative effect of these constraints may be starting to have
an adverse impact on the military's ability to perform its
mission. For example, Major General R. L. Van Antwerp, the Army
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, testified
that: ``Our training practices bring noise, dust, expenditure
of munitions, and ground activities that can be viewed as a
nuisance and annoyance to those who have become our
neighbors.'' However, General Van Antwerp testified: ``Live-
fire training in the Army cannot be reduced without serious
degradation to readiness and the concurrent increased risk to
American soldiers.'' The result of this conflict was summarized
by Vice Admiral James F. Amerault, Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations for Fleet Readiness and Logistics, who testified:
``We are witnessing a loss of training realism. . . . Training
schedules are becoming more complex--resulting in increased
time away from home, higher training costs, and decreased
readiness.''
The committee recognizes that the underlying cause of many
of these problems--the increasing urbanization and population
of the United States--may be beyond the control of the
Department or the Congress. Moreover, the DOD environmental
program is essential to protect our forces, their families, and
military communities from environmental health and safety
hazards. The committee understands that the Department's good
faith effort to comply with applicable environmental laws and
regulations enables it to retain the confidence of the American
people that it will act as a responsible custodian of public
lands and as a good neighbor to the communities in which DOD
bases are located.
In many cases, there are likely to be constructive ways for
the DOD to comply with applicable laws and regulations with
aminimum impact on training and readiness. In other cases, it may be
possible to address military-unique issues in other ways without
adversely impacting the underlying purpose of the laws or regulations.
However, it will take hard work with regulators and impacted
communities on a case-by-case basis to achieve these solutions.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a copy of the sustainable ranges action plan being
developed by the Senior Readiness Oversight Council to address factors
affecting military readiness.
Movement of household goods
The committee supports the Department of Defense's efforts
to improve the quality of shipments of household goods for
service members. These efforts include pilot programs to
evaluate different models of providing moving services.
However, the committee is concerned that the Department is not
providing sufficient funds to complete ongoing demonstration
programs. The committee believes that these programs, when
fully executed, will provide the best information to assess
which features of the moving process are most important to
service members and their families, and to shaping the program
that ultimately will be extended to all military personnel
worldwide. Therefore, the committee directs the Department to
complete all demonstration programs that were initiated prior
to October 1, 2000 using existing funds available for household
moves.
Rocky Mountain Arsenal
The cleanup of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) is an
important priority for the State of Colorado and the Department
of the Army. The committee commends the cooperation shown by
the Army and the State in successfully disposing of six sarin
nerve gas bomblets found at RMA late in calendar year 2000. The
committee continues to strongly support the cleanup of RMA and
urges the Secretary of the Army to ensure that this critical
cleanup effort is completed in a timely and safe manner.
Ship disposal project
In 1999, the Navy initiated a competitive pilot program,
known as the ship disposal project, to assemble appropriate
data on the cost of scrapping naval vessels in an
environmentally responsible manner. Section 318 of the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
required the Department of Defense to continue to carry out the
ship disposal project during fiscal year 2001.
The committee expects the Secretary of the Navy to remain
committed to reducing and eliminating any environmental risks
posed by the Department's inactive ships, and to reduce the
size of the inactive fleet in the manner most advantageous to
the Navy. The committee directs the Secretary to continue to
evaluate the full range of options for ship disposal, taking
into consideration the environment, worker safety and health,
cost performance, schedule performance, and the benefits of
competitive contracting procedures.
Shipyard maintenance
The committee is concerned that the Navy has not managed
its ship maintenance and repair program as effectively as
possible. For example, the committee understands that the
uncertainty over whether scheduled maintenance availabilities
will actually materialize and the fluctuation of ship
maintenance workloads over the course of the fiscal year at
private sector shipyards result in costly inefficiencies. In
addition, fluctuating employment levels act as a disincentive
for workers to enter or remain in skilled trades critical to
shipyard work. The Navy has also had difficulty in accurately
determining its requirement for ship maintenance funding, which
has led to an excessive reliance on supplemental
appropriations.
The committee is also aware of proposals that might make
depot-level maintenance and repair of Navy ships less, rather
than more, efficient. These proposals include reassigning
maintenance of certain ship classes on the East Coast to Coast
Guard or other shipyards with less experience than those
shipyards currently performing this work.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense's
maintenance policy and practices must balance a complex set of
factors, including the importance of competition as a means to
improve efficiency, the need to maintain an inherent
governmental capability for ship repair, and the desirability
of conducting ship maintenance at home ports where sailors are
stationed, to lower costs and improve sailors' quality of life.
The committee directs the Navy to review its current
procedures to determine whether any improvements can be made
that would more evenly distribute the maintenance and repair
workload throughout the year. The committee further directs the
Navy to evaluate its policies for assigning ship maintenance
and repair work in public and private shipyards on both the
East and West coasts, and to apply those policies that best
meet the needs of the Navy.
If, upon completion of the review, the Navy determines that
changes are required, the Navy shall submit a report to the
congressional defense committees stating the reasons for,
andprojected savings from, any proposed changes. The report should
include an analysis of the impact of the changes on (a) the
preservation of an inherent governmental repair capability; (b)
competition between and among public and private shipyards; (c) direct
and indirect costs of ship repair and construction, including the
impact of any excess capacity created by diversion of maintenance work
into shipyards not currently performing such work; (d) quality of life
for service members; (e) the training, development, and retention of
skilled workers in both the public and private sectors; and (f) any
other relevant factors.
St. Louis Army Ammunition Plant
The committee is concerned that the site of the former St.
Louis Army Ammunition Plant remains contaminated with
exceptionally high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls. This
21-acre site has been completely vacated since 1998. The
committee is also concerned that the current condition of the
property has hindered economic development efforts. Although
the Department of the Army determined in 1989 that this site
was no longer required to support its mission, the
environmental baseline studies required to facilitate the
property's disposal remain incomplete. The committee directs
the Army to submit a report on its plans for the cleanup of
this site, including a description of any proposed schedule or
estimated cost for the cleanup, to the committee when the
Department of Defense submits the fiscal year 2003 budget
request.
Use of advanced battery systems for energy storage
The committee recommends that the Department of Defense
(DOD) evaluate the potential benefits of utilizing advanced
battery systems for energy storage at DOD facilities and
installations to reduce peak energy needs for these facilities.
Advanced battery systems currently being demonstrated by some
local utility systems could reduce the high-cost electrical
energy required during peak load periods at DOD facilities and
installations by use of less expensive energy generated and
stored by the battery system during non-peak periods. Increased
use of battery systems for energy storage could also minimize
the extent to which additional generating facilities are
required, reduce overall energy costs at DOD facilities, and
improve the overall quality of power at DOD facilities by
protecting against electrical interruptions or disturbances.
Winter Harbor, Maine
The committee is concerned that the Department of the Navy
closure of the Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA) Winter
Harbor, Maine, may have significant economic impacts for the
small surrounding communities. The committee urges the
Department of the Navy to work with the Department of the
Interior to participate in an economic transition plan for the
activity and for the areas impacted by its closure.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
SUBTITLE A--ACTIVE FORCES
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
active duty end strengths for fiscal year 2002, as shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2002
authorization request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................ 480,000 480,000 480,000
Navy........................ 372,642 376,000 376,000
Marine Corps................ 172,600 172,600 172,600
Air Force................... 357,000 358,800 358,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized daily average active duty strength for Navy enlisted members
in pay grade E-8 (sec. 402)
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
the authorized daily average of enlisted members in the pay
grade of E-8 for the Navy, consistent with the authority
already provided to the Army. The committee recognizes the need
for more senior level experience because of the shift in grade
balance that has occurred in the top enlisted ranks in the Navy
over the course of the force drawdown, increased fleet
requirements, and the impact of additional technical
responsibilities.
SUBTITLE B--RESERVE FORCES
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2002, as shown
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2002
authorization request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of 350,526 350,000 350,000
the United States..........
The Army Reserve............ 205,300 205,000 205,000
The Navy Reserve............ 88,900 87,000 87,000
The Marine Corps Reserve.... 39,558 39,558 39,558
The Air National Guard of 108,022 108,400 108,400
the United States..........
The Air Force Reserve....... 74,358 74,700 74,700
The Coast Guard Reserve..... 8,000 8,000 8,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves
(sec. 412)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2002, as
shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2002
authorization request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of 22,974 22,974 23,698
the United States..........
The Army Reserve............ 13,106 13,108 13,406
The Navy Reserve............ 14,649 14,811 14,811
The Marine Corps Reserve.... 2,261 2,261 2,261
The Air National Guard of 11,170 11,591 11,591
the United States..........
The Air Force Reserve....... 1,336 1,437 1,437
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time support has been identified as the top readiness
issue of the reserve components and directly impacts the
ability to train, administer and prepare ready units and
individuals fortransition from a peacetime to a wartime
posture. The Army developed a plan to incrementally increase the
Reserve Component Full-Time Support Program over 11 years, beginning in
fiscal year 2002, to achieve a level of full-time support manning of 90
percent for units that deploy in less than 30 days, 80 percent for
units that deploy between 30 and 75 days, 70 percent for units that
deploy between 75 and 180 days, and 65 percent for units deploying
after 180 days.
The committee is disappointed that the requested end
strength for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves
is less than required to implement this plan in fiscal year
2002. The recommended increase of 298 in the Army Reserve and
724 in the Army National Guard would bring the end strength up
to the end strength in the plan for fiscal year 2002.
End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the minimum level of dual status technician end strengths for
fiscal year 2002, as shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2002
authorization request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army Reserve............ 5,921 5,999 6,249
The Army National Guard of 23,128 23,128 23,615
the United States..........
The Air Force Reserve....... 9,785 9,818 9,818
The Air National Guard of 22,247 22,422 22,422
the United States..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time support has been identified as the top readiness
issue of the reserve components and directly impacts the
ability to train, administer and prepare ready units and
individuals for transition from a peacetime to a wartime
posture. The Army developed a plan to incrementally increase
the Reserve Component Full-Time Support Program over 11 years,
beginning in fiscal year 2002, to achieve a level of full-time
support manning of 90 percent for units that deploy in less
than 30 days, 80 percent for units that deploy between 30 and
75 days, 70 percent for units that deploy between 75 and 180
days, and 65 percent for units deploying after 180 days.
The committee is disappointed that the requested end
strength for dual status technicians is less than required to
implement this plan in fiscal year 2002. The recommended
increase of 487 dual status military technicians in the Army
Reserve and 250 dual status military technicians in the Army
National Guard would bring the end strength up to the end
strength in the plan for fiscal year 2002.
Fiscal Year 2002 limitation on non-dual status technicians (sec. 414)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
numerical limits on the number of non-dual status technicians
who may be employed in the Department of Defense as of
September 30, 2002, as shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2002
authorization request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army Reserve............ 1,195 1,095 1,095
The Army National Guard of 1,600 1,600 1,600
the United States..........
The Air Force Reserve....... 10 0 0
The Air National Guard of 326 350 350
the United States..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitations on numbers of reserve personnel serving on active duty or
full-time national guard duty in certain grades for
administration of reserve components (sec. 415)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
senior grade Active Guard and Reserve member end strengths by a
table similar to that used for Active component senior grade
officers. The table would correlate the number of senior grade
authorizations to the size of the Active Guard and Reserve
force.
Strength and grade limitation accounting for reserve component members
on active duty in support of a contingency operation (sec. 416)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to increase the limit on active duty
end strengths of members of the reserve components in pay
grades E-8, E-9, 0-4, 0-5, 0-6, and general and flag officers
by the number in those pay grades serving on active duty, with
their consent, in support of a contingency operation.
Currently, members involuntarily ordered to active duty are
exempt from end strength limitations. The recommended provision
would make no distinction between reserve members who volunteer
or are involuntarily ordered to active duty, which would make
it easier for the services to use volunteers to meet
contingency operation mission requirements.
SUBTITLE C--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Authorization of appropriations for military personnel (sec. 421)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
total of $82.4 billion to be appropriated to the Department of
Defense for military personnel, $89.6 million more than the
fiscal year 2002 budget request.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
SUBTITLE A--OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY
General officer positions (sec. 501)
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
the grade of the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau to
lieutenant general, the grades of the heads of the Nurse Corps
for the Army and the Air Force to major general and of the Navy
to rear admiral (upper half), and the grade of the Chief of
Army Veterinary Corps to brigadier general. The recommended
provision would authorize one additional Marine general above
the grade of major general and exclude an officer serving as
the Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense in
the grade of general or lieutenant general, or admiral or vice
admiral, from the limit on officers serving in that grade for
his or her service.
Reduction of time-in-grade requirement for eligibility for promotion of
first lieutenants and lieutenants (junior grade) (sec. 502)
The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the
minimum time in grade for promotion of lieutenants and
lieutenants (junior grade) from two years to 18 months.
Promotion of officers to the grade of captain in the Army, Air Force,
or Marine Corps or to the grade of lieutenant in the Navy
without selection board action (sec. 503)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the promotion of officers on the active-duty list and on the
reserve active-status list to captain in the Army, Air Force,
or Marine Corps, or to the grade of lieutenant in the Navy
without selection board action when the secretary concerned
determines that all fully qualified officers eligible for
consideration for promotion are needed in the next higher grade
to accomplish mission objectives. The recommended provision
would provide that an officer who is not promoted because the
secretary concerned determines that the officer is not fully
qualified for promotion will be treated as having failed of
selection for promotion.
Authority to adjust date of rank (sec. 504)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries to adjust dates of rank of officers in
grades 0-6 and below when the officers' promotions are delayed
because of unusual circumstances causing an unintended delay in
the processing or approval of a report of a selection board or
promotion list. The secretary concerned would be required to
report to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate the
names of the officers concerned and the reason for the changes
when dates of rank are changed to a date earlier than the date
of Senate confirmation.
This provision is intended to authorize the service
secretaries to correct problems caused by inadvertent
administrative delays in processing reports of selection boards
and promotion lists. It would apply only where the entire
report or list is unintentionally delayed.
Extension of deferments of retirement or separation for medical reasons
(sec. 505)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries to extend for an additional 30 days the
separation or retirement of members whose mandatory separation
or retirement had been deferred for medical reasons. The
recommended provision would afford members up to 30 days to
transition to civilian life.
Exemption from administrative limitations of retired members ordered to
active duty as defense and service attaches (sec. 506)
The committee recommends a provision that would exclude
retired members recalled to active duty for service as defense
or service attaches from the limitations on the number of
retired members who can be recalled to active duty and from the
time limit on the period of a recall to active duty.
Certifications of satisfactory performance for retirements of officers
in grades above major general and rear admiral (sec. 507)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to delegate authority to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness or the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to
certify to the President and to Congress that certain officers
have served satisfactorily in the grade of general, admiral,
lieutenant general, or vice admiral before authorizing
retirement in that grade. The recommended provision would
require the Secretary of Defense to act personally on cases
where there ispotentially adverse information that has not
previously been reported to the Senate in connection with a previous
appointment.
Effective date of mandatory separation or retirement of regular officer
delayed by a suspension of certain law under emergency
authority of the President (sec. 508)
The committee recommends a provision that would delay by an
additional 90 days the mandatory separation or retirement dates
of regular officers whose mandatory dates of separation or
retirement were delayed pursuant to section 12305 of title 10,
United States Code. The recommended provision would afford
members whose mandatory dates of separation or retirement were
delayed due to a suspension of law under emergency authority a
period of time to transition to civilian life following
termination of the suspension.
Detail and grade of officer in charge of the United States Navy Band
(sec. 509)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Navy to detail an officer above the grade of lieutenant as
Officer in Charge of the United States Navy Band. The officer
would serve in the grade of captain while in this position.
SUBTITLE B--RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL POLICY
Reauthorization and expansion of temporary waiver of the requirement
for a baccalaureate degree for promotion of certain reserve
officers of the Army (sec. 511)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend by
three years, to September 30, 2003, the authority of the
Secretary of the Army to waive, on a case by case basis, the
requirement for reserve officers commissioned through the Army
Officer Candidate School to possess a baccalaureate degree
before being promoted to the grade of captain.
The committee expects that the Secretary of the Army will
only grant waivers to those individuals who have demonstrated
progress toward achieving the goal of earning a baccalaureate
degree.
Status list of reserve officers on active duty for a period of three
years or less (sec. 512)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 641(1)(D) of title 10, United States Code, to provide
that reserve officers ordered to active duty for three years or
less would be placed on the active duty list unless their
orders to active duty specify continuation on the reserve
active-status list. The recommended provision would authorize
the service secretaries retroactively to place officers on the
active duty list or the reserve active-status list of their
service in accordance with this provision. Prior changes to
section 641(1)(D) of title 10, United States Code inadvertently
excluded a number of reserve officers on active duty for three
years or less who should properly be considered on the active
duty list.
Equal treatment of reserves and full-time active duty members for
purposes of managing deployments of personnel (sec. 513)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
definition of deployment for reservists to include performance
of duty that makes it impossible or infeasible to spend off-
duty time in the housing that the member usually occupies
during off-duty time when on garrison duty.
Modification of physical examination requirements for members of the
Individual Ready Reserve (sec. 514)
The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
the requirement that members of the Individual Ready Reserve
receive a physical examination every five years. The
recommended provision would require a physical examination as
necessary to determine the member's physical fitness for
military duty or for promotion, attendance at an armed forces'
school, or other action related to career progression.
Members of reserve components afflicted while remaining overnight at
duty station within commuting distance of home (sec. 515)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
certain benefits for members of the reserve components who
become injured or ill in the line of duty when they are
authorized to remain overnight at an inactive duty training
site that is within a reasonable commuting distance of home.
The benefits include medical and dental care for the member and
the member's dependents; eligibility for disability retirement
or separation; recovery, care, and disposition of remains;
basic pay; and compensation for inactive-duty training.
Retirement of reserve personnel without request (sec. 516)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries to transfer to the Retired Reserve,
unless the member requests not to be transferred to the Retired
Reserve, officers who are required to be removed from active
status because of failure of selection for promotion, length of
service or age, and warrant officers and enlisted members who
are required to be discharged or removed from active status
because of years of service or age.
Currently, service secretaries must remove from active
status or discharge these individuals unless they request
transfer to the Retired Reserve, in many cases resulting in a
diminished retirement benefit. This provision would require
reservists who elect not to transfer to the Retired Reserve to
make a positive election to be discharged or transferred to an
inactive status with a full understanding of the possible
economic consequences of that decision.
Space-required travel by reserves on military aircraft (sec. 517)
The committee recommends a provision that would remove
annual training duty from section 18501 of title 10, United
States Code, which authorizes space-required travel for
reservists traveling for annual training duty or inactive-duty
training. Reservists performing annual training duty are
already authorized to travel in a space-required status by
other authority.
SUBTITLE C--EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Improved benefits under the Army College First program (sec. 531)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
Army College First program by extending the period of delayed
entry from two years to 30 months and increasing the monthly
allowance to the higher of $250 or the amount of subsistence
allowance for members of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps.
Repeal of limitation on number of Junior Officers' Training Corps units
(sec. 532)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
limitation on the number of Junior Reserve Officers' Training
Corps (JROTC) units. Removal of the statutory limit on the
number of JROTC units would enable the Department of Defense to
be responsive to schools that request a JROTC unit.
Acceptance of fellowships, scholarships, or grants for legal education
of officers participating in the Funded Legal Education Program
(sec. 533)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
an officer attending law school under the Funded Legal
Education Program to accept a scholarship from the law school
or other entity. The recommended provision would require that
the officer serve consecutively the service obligations
incurred for participation in the Funded Legal Education
Program and for acceptance of the scholarship.
Grant of degree by Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
(sec. 534)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Foreign Language Center of the Defense Language Institute
to grant an Associate of Arts degree. The Secretary of
Education has endorsed the recommendation of the Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges that the Institute obtain
degree-granting status.
Authority for the Marine Corps University to award the degree of master
of strategic studies (sec. 535)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Marine Corps University to confer a degree of master of
strategic studies to graduates of the Marine Corps War College,
and the degree of master of military studies to graduates of
the Command and Staff College. The authority to award the
master of strategic studies degree cannot be exercised until
the Secretary of Education notifies the Secretary of the Navy
of a determination that the requirements for the degree are in
accordance with the requirements typically imposed for awards
of the degree of master of arts by institutions of higher
education in the United States.
Foreign persons attending the service academies (sec. 536)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries to permit 60 persons from foreign
countries to attend the service's academy at any one time. The
recommended provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense
to waive, in whole or in part, the requirement for
reimbursement of the cost of providing instruction to a foreign
cadet.
The committee expects the Department to exercise its
authority to waive reimbursement in a fiscally prudent manner,
recognizing the extraordinary value of a service academy
education. The Department should give full consideration to all
the factors concerning the ability of the foreign country to
provide partial or complete reimbursement. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to include in the
justification materials submitted with the annual budget
request an exhibit describing the number of waivers granted and
the rationale for approving the waivers in each service.
Expansion of financial assistance program for health-care professionals
in reserve components to include students in programs of
education leading to initial degree in medicine or dentistry
(sec. 537)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
payment of a financial assistance stipend to a student who has
been accepted into an accredited medical or dental school. The
recommended provision would also provide for subsequent
financial assistance to officers who have completed medical or
dental school and enter residency training in a healthcare
professions wartime skill designated by the Secretary of
Defense as critically short.
The recommended provision would allow service obligations
to be reduced to one-for-one when a physician or dentist
accepts additional financial assistance for residency training
and allows those service obligations that require a two-for-one
payback to be incurred in six-month increments.
The recommended provision would provide recruiters with a
robust incentive program to offer students in the healthcare
professions to entice them into accepting an appointment as an
officer in a reserve component of the armed forces.
Pilot program for Department of Veterans Affairs support for graduate
medical education and training of medical personnel of the
armed forces (sec. 538)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to jointly carry out a pilot program of graduate medical
education and training for medical personnel of the armed
forces in Department of Veterans Affairs' medical centers.
The committee is aware of the Department of Defense's
concern about the ability to conduct graduate medical education
in military hospitals if large numbers of retirees elect health
care treatment outside of military treatment facilities. This
pilot program would evaluate the effectiveness of conducting
graduate medical education for military personnel in Veterans
Administration facilities.
Transfer of entitlement to educational assistance under Montgomery GI
Bill by members of the armed forces with critical military
skills (sec. 539)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries to permit certain service members with
critical military skills to transfer up to 18 months of unused
basic Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits to family members. To
be eligible for this benefit, a service member must complete at
least six years of service and enter into an agreement to serve
at least four more years. Spouses could use transferred
benefits immediately, while children could use the transferred
benefits only after the service member completes 10 years of
service. The services would deposit the actuarially determined
increased cost for use of the transferred benefit into the
Department of Defense Education Fund. The recommended provision
would authorize $30.0 million for this purpose for fiscal year
2002.
All services report that they are having difficulty
retaining service members with critical skills, even with
increased retention bonuses. The committee believes that the
ability to transfer unused MGIB benefits would be a powerful
retention tool that would appeal to many of these members who
would otherwise leave the service. The small cost of the
increased use of an otherwise unused benefit is far more
economical than training new members to replace the experienced
members leaving the service. The committee encourages the
services to use a portion of the funds currently used for
bonuses for transferability of benefits under this program to
assess its effectiveness in retaining members with critical
skills.
SUBTITLE D--DECORATIONS, AWARDS AND COMMENDATIONS
Authority for award of the Medal of Honor to Humbert R. Versace for
valor during the Vietnam War (sec. 551)
The committee recommends a provision that would waive the
statutory time limits and authorize the President to award the
Medal of Honor to Humbert R. Versace for valor during the
Vietnam War.
Review regarding award of medal of honor to certain Jewish American war
veterans (sec. 552)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
service secretaries to conduct a review of Jewish American war
veterans' service records to determine whether or not a veteran
should be awarded the Medal of Honor. The recommended provision
provides for the review of the records of any Jewish American
war veteran who was previously awarded the Distinguished
Service Cross, the Navy Cross, or the Air Force Cross, and any
other Jewish American war veteran whose name is submitted,
within a one year period, to the secretary concerned by the
Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America. The
recommended provision authorizes the President to award the
Medal of Honor in accordance with the recommendation of the
service secretary.
Issuance of duplicate and replacement medals of honor (sec. 553)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries to issue a duplicate medal of honor to
medal of honor recipients. Issuance of a duplicate medal of
honor would allow recipients to place their original medal in
safe keeping or donate them to institutions for permanent
display while retaining the duplicate for other purposes. The
recommended provision would also authorize the free replacement
of certain medals stolen without fault or neglect of the
persons to whom the medals were awarded.
Waiver of time limitations for award of certain decorations to certain
persons (sec. 554)
The committee recommends a provision that would waive the
statutory time limits for award of military decorations to
certain individuals who have been recommended by the service
secretaries for these awards.
Sense of the Senate on issuance of Korea Defense Service Medal (sec.
555)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should
consider authorizing the issuance of the Korea Defense Service
Medal to individuals who served in the armed forces in the
Republic of Korea, or the waters adjacent thereto, during the
period beginning on July 28, 1954, and ending on a date
determined by the Secretary.
SUBTITLE E--FUNERAL HONORS DUTY
Active duty end strength exclusion for reserves on active duty or full-
time National Guard duty for funeral honors duty (sec. 561)
The committee recommends a provision that would exclude
from active duty end strengths members of reserve components on
active duty or full-time National Guard duty preparing for and
performing funeral honors functions.
Participation of retirees in funeral honors details (sec. 562)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military retirees to serve as a member of a funeral honors
detail. The recommended provision would authorize payment of
funeral honors duty allowance to military retirees who
volunteer to perform honors at the funeral of a veteran. The
retiree would not forfeit any retired or retainer pay,
disability compensation, or any other compensation received.
Benefits and protections for members in a funeral honors duty status
(sec. 563)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide to
members of the reserve components in a funeral honors duty
status the same benefits and protections as are provided when
they are performing inactive duty training or traveling to or
from inactive duty training.
Military leave for civilian employees serving as military members of
funeral honors detail (sec. 564)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
federal employees to take military leave from their civilian
employment to serve as military members performing funeral
honors duty.
SUBTITLE F--UNIFORMED SERVICES OVERSEAS VOTING
Sense of the Senate regarding the importance of voting by members of
the uniformed services (sec. 571)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that each administrator of a Federal,
State, or local election should be aware of the importance of
the ability of each uniformed services voter to exercise their
right to vote, and that the administrators should perform their
duties with the intent to ensure that each uniformed services
voter receives the utmost consideration and cooperation when
voting, and that each valid ballot cast by such a voter is duly
counted.
Uniform nondiscriminatory voting standards for administration of
elections under State and local election systems (sec. 572)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
States to ensure that voting systems used for Federal, State
and local elections provide overseas voters and absent
uniformed service voters with a meaningful opportunity to
exercise their voting rights as United States citizens. The
recommended provision requires States to count absentee ballots
of these voters for Federal, State and local elections if they
are submitted in a timely manner and are otherwise valid.
Guarantee of residence for military personnel (sec. 573)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
that for purposes of voting in any Federal, State of local
election, a person absent from a State pursuant to military
orders would not, solely by reason of that absence, be deemed
to have (1) lost a residence or domicile in that State, (2)
acquired a residence or domicile in another State, or (3)
become a resident in or of any other State.
Extension of registration and balloting rights for absent uniformed
services voters to State and local elections (sec. 574)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
States to permit uniformed services voters to use absentee
procedures to register and vote in State and local elections.
The recommended provision would also require States to accept
and process any otherwise valid voter registration application
from absent uniformed services voters if the application is
received not less than 30 days before the election.
Use of single application as a simultaneous absentee voter registration
application and absentee ballot application (sec. 575)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
States to accept and process the official post card form as a
simultaneous absentee voter register application and absentee
ballot application.
Use of single application for absentee ballots for all Federal
elections (sec. 576)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
States to accept and process a single absentee ballot
application from an absent uniformed services voter or overseas
voter for all general, special, primary, and runoff Federal
elections occurring during a year if the application is
received not less than 30 days before the first Federal
election occurring that year.
Electronic voting demonstration program (sec. 577)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to carry out a demonstration project under
which absent uniformed services voters would be permitted to
cast ballots through an electronic voting system in the
November, 2002, Federal election.
In the committee's view, the Federal Voting Assistance
Program's Voting Over the Internet (VOI) Pilot Project is an
important first step in assessing how to use the internet to
enhance absentee voting. This pilot demonstrated that a remote
internet registration and voting system can provide electoral
process integrity; it reduced traditional barriers to
participation in elections by absentee voters; and it provided
insight into issues that must be considered for broader use of
remote registration and voting via the internet. The committee
encourages the Department of Defense to build on the experience
gained in this groundbreaking project with a follow-on
demonstration project designed to ensure a judicious and
methodical progression from the current by-mail process to a
secure, easy-to-use, and expedient remote internet registration
and voting system.
Federal voting assistance program (sec. 578)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to promulgate regulations to ensure that
each service complies with directives implementing the Federal
Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). The recommended provision
would require the Inspector General of each of the services to
conduct an annual review of compliance with the FVAP and report
the results to the Department of Defense Inspector General, who
will report annually to Congress on the effectiveness and
compliance with the FVAP.
SUBTITLE G--OTHER MATTERS
Persons authorized to be included in surveys of military families
regarding federal programs (sec. 581)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to add family members of retirees or
surviving spouses to those who may be surveyed to determine the
effectiveness of federal programs relating to military families
and the need for new programs.
Correction and extension of certain Army recruiting pilot program
authorities (sec. 582)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army to include replacement of Army Reserve
recruiters by contract recruiters in the pilot program
involving contract recruiting initiatives. The recommended
provision would also remove the requirement that contract
recruiters operate under the military recruiter chain of
command, extends the termination date for the pilot programs to
September 30, 2007, and changes the date for the report to
Congress to February 1, 2008.
Offense of drunken operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 583)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Article 111 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C.
911) to lower the blood alcohol concentration necessary to
establish drunken operation of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or
vessel from 0.1 to 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100
milliliters of blood or 0.08 per 210 liters of breath. The
amendment would take effect on the date of enactment and would
apply to offenses committed on or after that date.
Authority of civilian employees to act as notaries (sec. 584)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
authority of civilian attorneys in military legal assistance
offices to perform notarial acts. The recommended provision
would also authorize civilian employees of a military
department or the Coast Guard who are designated by service
regulation to perform such acts while serving outside the
United States.
Review of actions of selection boards (sec. 585)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
that service members or former service members challenging the
results of selection boards or promotion boards are not
entitled torelief in a judicial proceeding unless the matter
was first considered by a special board or a special selection board,
or the secretary concerned denied such consideration. The recommended
provision would authorize the service secretaries to establish special
boards to review decisions of selection boards. Selection boards are
boards convened to recommend persons for appointment, enlistment,
reenlistment, assignment, certain promotions, or retention in the armed
forces, or for separation, retirement, or transfer to inactive status
in a reserve component. Special selection boards, already authorized in
section 628 of title 10, United States Code, would review the actions
of certain promotion boards. The recommended provision provides a
standard for judicial review of the actions of the secretary concerned,
special boards, and special selection boards, and requires the court to
remand cases for corrective action when the court determines that the
action of the board or the secretary concerned was unlawful.
The recommended provision would not deny service members or
former members access to courts concerning actions of selection
boards and promotion boards. It would provide for exhaustion of
administrative remedies prior to taking an action to court. If
the administrative process does not provide the relief
requested, the member still has access to court. If the
administrative process resolves the member's concern, there is
no need for court action. If relief is granted, the recommended
provision provides for retroactive and prospective restoration
to the same status, rights, and entitlements (less appropriate
offsets against back pay and allowances) as the person would
have had if the challenged selection board or promotion board
made the correct decision.
The recommended provision would take effect on the date of
enactment, and would apply to any proceeding pending on or
after that date without regard to whether a challenge to an
action of a selection board was initiated before, on, or after
that date. The recommended provision would not apply to any
action commenced in a court of the United States before the
date of enactment.
Acceptance of voluntary legal assistance for the civil affairs of
members and former members of the uniformed services and their
dependents (sec. 586)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries to accept voluntary legal services. The
recommended provision would treat a volunteer providing legal
services the same as an attorney on the legal staff within the
Department of Defense for defense of legal malpractice.
Extension of Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence (sec. 587)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
termination date of the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence
to April 24, 2003.
Transportation to annual meeting of next-of-kin of persons unaccounted
for from conflicts after World War II (sec. 588)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to provide transportation to and from
annual meetings sanctioned by the Department of Defense (DOD)
for the next-of-kin of persons who are unaccounted for from the
Korean conflict, the Cold War, Vietnam War era, or the Persian
Gulf War.
The committee intends that this authority would be used to
provide transportation to no more than two persons from the
family of an unaccounted for military member to attend annual
Government briefings on efforts to account for missing service
members in the same manner as DOD has provided transportation
under the Counter Insurgency Assistance (Coin Assist) Program,
and would be limited to one meeting each year.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
National Guard members of funeral honors detail
Section 1491(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code,
requires that a funeral honors detail for a deceased veteran
include at least two members of the armed forces, at least one
of whom is a member of the veteran's armed force. Members of
the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air
National Guard of the United States are members of the armed
forces even when performing in a state status. They can
participate in a funeral honors detail in either a state or
federal status, and should be considered as one of the required
members of the armed forces.
Notification to service members regarding adverse information
The committee is concerned about reports that military
personnel are not always informed in a timely manner of
administrative determinations that allegations of potentially
adverse information concerning them are substantiated. On
occasion, this results in delay or denial of favorable
personnel actions with little or no notice to the affected
service members even though the information is known to the
service and could have been made available to the members.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
promulgate regulations requiring timely notice to service
members when an allegation of potentially adverse information
concerning them is substantiated. The notification should, as a
minimum, inform the member of the nature of the potentially
adverse information, any appeal available to the member, and
whether and to what extent this determination can be considered
in future personnel actions. If a favorable personnel action is
denied or delayed because of allegations of potentially adverse
information concerning a member and the investigation is not
complete, the member should be given reasonable notice that the
personnel action will be denied or delayed and provided as much
information about the allegation as can be given, consistent
with sound investigative practices.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
SUBTITLE A--PAY AND ALLOWANCES
Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2002 (sec. 601)
The committee recommends a provision that would waive
section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, and restructure
the pay tables to provide a targeted pay raise ranging from
five percent to 10 percent, effective January 1, 2002.
Basic pay rate for certain reserve commissioned officers with prior
service as an enlisted member or warrant officer (sec. 602)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
payment at the 0-1E, 0-2E or 0-3E rate to reserve component
commissioned officers in the pay grade of 0-1, 0-2, or 0-3, who
are not on active duty, but have accumulated the equivalent of
four years of active duty service as a warrant officer or
enlisted member. These officers have gained significant similar
military experience over a longer period of time through the
nature of their part-time service. Allowing these officers to
receive this increase in pay recognizes and rewards that
experience on the same basis as officers who gained their
experience through active duty service.
Reserve component compensation for distributed learning activities
performed as inactive-duty training (sec. 603)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
compensation for members in grades E-6 and below for
distributed learning activities performed as inactive-duty
training.
Clarifications for transition to reformed basic allowance for
subsistence (sec. 604)
The committee recommends a provision that would define the
baseline for determining future rates for basic allowance for
subsistence as $233. The recommended provision would also allow
the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation,
with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a
service in the Navy, to prescribe a higher rate of basic
allowance for subsistence for enlisted members when messing
facilities of the United States are not available to them. The
recommended provision also changes the effective date for early
termination of basic allowance for subsistence transitional
authority to January 1, 2002.
Increase in Basic Allowance for Housing in the United States (sec. 605)
The committee recommends a provision that would accelerate
the current five-year plan to eliminate out-of-pocket housing
expenses by two years, increasing the Basic Allowance for
Housing so that, after September 30, 2002, it would not be less
than the median cost of adequate housing for members in that
grade and dependency status in that area. The recommended
provision would limit out-of-pocket housing expenses in fiscal
year 2002 to 7.5 percent of the median cost of adequate housing
for members in that grade and dependency status in that area
and makes $232.0 million available for this purpose.
Clarification of eligibility for supplemental subsistence allowance
(sec. 606)
The committee recommends a provision that would make a
technical correction to section 402a(b)(1) of title 37, United
States Code, to clarify that only members with dependents are
entitled to payment of the supplemental subsistence allowance
designed to remove the member's household from eligibility for
benefits under the food stamp program.
Correction of limitation on additional uniform allowance for officers
(sec. 607)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
technical correction to the additional uniform allowance for
officers enacted in section 610 of the Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. That provision
increased the one-time initial uniform allowance to $400 and
the one-time additional uniform allowance to $200. The
recommended provision would remove a limitation that the
additional uniform allowance may not be paid to an officer who
has received an initial uniform allowance of more than $200.
Payment for unused leave in excess of 60 days accrued by members of
reserve components on active duty for one year or less (sec.
608)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
payment for accrued leave in excess of the current limit of 60
days to certain members of the reserve components.
Therecommended provision applies to reservists on active duty for more
than 30 days but less than 365 days for missions other than in support
of contingency operations. Many reservists ordered to active duty for
these missions are not afforded the opportunity to use leave during the
period they are ordered to active duty and, as a result, they forfeit
accrued leave. The recommended provision is similar to authority
currently in effect for reservists serving on active duty in support of
contingency operations.
SUBTITLE B--BONUSES AND SPECIAL INCENTIVE PAYS
Extension of certain bonuses and special pay authorities for reserve
forces (sec. 611)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend,
until December 31, 2002, the authority to pay the special pay
for critically short wartime health care specialists in the
Selected Reserve, the Selected Reserve re-enlistment bonus, the
Selected Reserve enlistment bonus, the special pay for enlisted
members assigned to certain high priority units in the Selected
Reserve, the Selected Reserve affiliation bonus, the Ready
Reserve enlistment and re-enlistment bonus, and the prior
service enlistment bonus. The recommended provision would
extend, until January 1, 2003, the authority for the repayment
of education loans for certain health professionals who serve
in the Selected Reserve.
Extension of certain bonuses and special pay authorities for nurse
officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists
(sec. 612)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend,
until December 31, 2002, the authority to pay certain bonuses
and special pay for nurse officer candidates, registered
nurses, and nurse anesthetists.
Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear officers
(sec. 613)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend,
until December 31, 2002, the authority for special pay for
nuclear-qualified officers extending their period of active
service, the nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear
career annual incentive bonus.
Extension of authorities relating to payment of other bonuses and
special pays (sec. 614)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend,
until December 31, 2002, the authority to pay the aviation
officer retention bonus, the re-enlistment bonus for active
members, the bonus for enlistment for two or more years, and
the retention bonus for members with critical skills.
Hazardous duty pay for members of maritime visit, board, search, and
seizure teams (sec. 615)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
hazardous duty incentive pay for members of teams that conduct
visit, board, search, and seizure operations aboard vessels in
support of maritime interdiction operations. The recommended
provision would provide financial recognition to personnel
participating in these unusually hazardous operations.
Submarine duty incentive pay rates (sec. 616)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to adjust submarine duty incentive
pay rates up to a maximum rate of $1000 when changes are needed
to support submarine accession and retention requirements. The
recommended provision would afford greater flexibility in
responding to recruiting and retention requirements for
submarine duty.
Career sea pay (sec. 617)
The committee recommends a provision that would ensure
receipt of career sea pay by all military members, regardless
of rank, pay grade, or accrued time in service, if they are
assigned to qualifying sea duty.
Modification of eligibility requirements for Individual Ready Reserve
bonus for re-enlistment, enlistment, or extension of enlistment
(sec. 618)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
existing provisions to authorize payment of a bonus to
individuals who possess a skill that is designated as
critically short to meet wartime requirements and who agree to
enlist, reenlist or voluntarily extend an enlistment in the
Individual Ready Reserve. This would authorize payment to
service members serving in combat service support skills as
well as combat andcombat support skills.
Accession bonus for officers in critical skills (sec. 619)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
an accession bonus of up to $20,000 for persons who agree to
accept a commission as an officer and serve on active duty in a
skill designated as critical by the Secretary of Defense.
Modification of the nurse officer candidate accession program
restriction on students attending civilian educational
institutions with Senior Reserve Officers Training programs
(sec. 620)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
eligibility for financial assistance under the Nurse Officer
Candidate Accession Program to nurse officer candidates who
attend civilian educational institutions with a Senior Reserve
Officers Training Program but who are not eligible for
enrollment in that program. Current law restricts eligibility
for participation in the Nurse Officer Candidate Accession
Program to students enrolled in a nursing program at civilian
education institutions that do not have a Senior Reserve
Officers Training Program. The recommended provision would
eliminate this restriction and expand the applicant pool of
future nurse officers.
SUBTITLE C--TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES
Eligibility for temporary housing allowance while in travel or leave
status between permanent duty stations (sec. 631)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
payment of a temporary basic allowance for housing to any
service member in a leave or travel status between permanent
duty stations. Presently, only members in pay grade E-4 (4 or
more years of service) and above receive this allowance.
Eligibility for payment of subsistence expenses associated with
occupancy of temporary lodging incident to reporting to first
permanent duty station (sec. 632)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
payment of subsistence expenses to officers making their first
permanent change of station. Enlisted members are currently
entitled to payment of subsistence expenses when making their
first permanent change of station.
Eligibility for dislocation allowance (sec. 633)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
payment of a dislocation allowance to a member when the
member's dependents make an authorized move in connection with
the member's move to the first duty station. The recommended
provision would also authorize payment of a single dislocation
allowance to married service members, where both husband and
wife are members without dependents, when both move to a new
duty station and occupy government family quarters.
Allowance for dislocation for the convenience of the government at home
station (sec. 634)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
payment of a partial dislocation allowance of $500 to service
members who are ordered, for the convenience of the government,
to move into or out of military family housing at their current
duty station. The recommended provision would permit payment in
advance and would require that the amount be increased at the
same time and in the same amount as increases in basic pay.
Travel and transportation allowances for family members to attend the
burial of a deceased member of the uniformed services (sec.
635)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
allowances for family members and others to attend burial
ceremonies of deceased members of the uniformed forces who die
while on active duty or inactive duty. The recommended
provision would consolidate and standardize benefits currently
authorized in three different statutes and provide uniform
treatment of family members of personnel who die while on
active or inactive duty.
Family separation allowance for members electing unaccompanied tour by
reason of health limitations of dependents (sec. 636)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
payment of a family separation allowance to members who elect
to serve an unaccompanied tour instead of an accompanied tour,
because the member's dependents cannot accompany the member to
a permanent duty station for medical reasons certified by a
health care professional.
Funded student travel for foreign study under an education program
approved by a United States school (sec. 637)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority to pay funded student travel to dependents of members
who are stationed outside the continental United States. To
qualify, a dependent under the age of 23 who is enrolled in a
school located in the continental United States must attend a
school outside the United States as part of a school-sponsored
exchange program. The recommended provision would remedy an
inequity under existing law for those members whose dependents
are enrolled in a school in the United States but participate
in a temporary exchange program outside the United States by
reimbursing travel expenses for one annual trip.
Transportation or storage of privately owned vehicles on change of
permanent station (sec. 638)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
advance payment of vehicle storage costs in commercial
facilities. The recommended provision would also authorize
payment for shipping a privately owned vehicle between
permanent duty stations in the continental United States when
it is more advantageous and cost effective for the government
to do so.
SUBTITLE D--MATTERS RELATING TO RETIREMENT AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS
Payment of retired pay and compensation to disabled military retirees
(sec. 651)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
retired members of the armed forces who have a service
connected disability to receive military retired pay
concurrently with veterans' disability compensation.
Currently, disabled military retirees are prohibited from
concurrent receipt of military retired pay and Veterans'
Administration disability compensation. They can receive
disability compensation only if they agree to waive a portion
of their retired pay equal to the amount of disability
compensation.
The committee believes that the requirement to offset
disability compensation with a reduction in retired pay is
unfair to disabled career service members who, in effect, pay
their own disability compensation. Military retirement pay and
disability compensation were earned and awarded for entirely
different purposes. Military retired pay is awarded for a
career of service in the armed forces. Disability compensation
is awarded to compensate a veteran for injury incurred in the
line of duty. The committee believes that a veteran who has
earned retired pay and has suffered a disability should receive
compensation for both.
The allocation of mandatory spending authority provided to
the Committee on Armed Services in the Concurrent Resolution on
the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002 was not increased to
accommodate the substantial direct spending cost of this
provision. Because no direct spending offset is available to
the committee, this provision is contingent on the President
proposing, and Congress enacting, legislation that would offset
the increased monetary outlays for fiscal years 2003 through
2012.
SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS
Education savings plan for reenlistments and extensions of service in
critical specialties (sec. 661)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to purchase U.S. savings bonds with a
face value of up to $30,000 for military personnel who have
completed specified periods of active duty and enter into a
commitment to perform at least six additional years of active
duty service in a specialty designated as critical by the
Secretary. The recommended provision would authorize $20.0
million for this purpose for fiscal year 2002.
Service members in critical specialities, who agree to a
service commitment, would be provided resources that could be
applied to cover the expenses of higher education for their
families, including their spouse and children. The committee
encourages service members to use this program for educational
obligations where the increased value of the savings bond would
be exempt from federal taxes.
Commissary benefits for new members of the Ready Reserve (sec. 662)
The committee recommends a provision that would grant new
members of the Ready Reserve access to commissary stores.
Access to commissary stores would accrue at the rate of two
days for each month in which the member participates
satisfactorily in required training.
Authorization of transitional compensation and commissary and exchange
benefits for dependents of commissioned officers of the Public
Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration who are separated for dependent abuse (sec. 663)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
transitional benefits for the dependents of commissioned
officers of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration separated for dependent abuse.
The benefits would be the same as the benefits available to
dependents of members of the armed forces who are separated for
dependent abuse.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE
SUBTITLE A--TRICARE BENEFITS MODERNIZATION
Requirement for integration of benefits (sec. 701)
The committee recommends a provision that would terminate
the Individual Case Management Program and integrate the
beneficiaries of that program into the modified TRICARE
program. The recommended provision grandfathers persons who
received benefits under the Individual Case Management Program
prior to October 1, 2001.
Domiciliary and custodial care (sec. 702)
The committee recommends a provision that would define
domiciliary and custodial care in a manner that is consistent
with the definitions in most federal health plans.
Long-term care (sec. 703)
The committee recommends a provision that would align the
provision of long-term care benefits under the TRICARE program
with the benefits under Medicare. The recommended provision
would integrate these benefits with the benefits provided on a
less than a long-term basis under the TRICARE program. The
long-term care benefits include extended care services, post-
hospital extended care services, and comprehensive intermittent
home health services.
Extended benefits for disabled beneficiaries (sec. 704)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
extended benefits for certain dependents who have moderate or
severe mental retardation, a serious physical disability, or an
extraordinary physical or psychological condition. The extended
benefits would include comprehensive health care and case
management services for the dependent, and respite care for the
primary caregiver. The recommended provision would authorize
expanded home health supplies and services when medically
appropriate and when the cost is equal to or less than the cost
of similar supplies and services in a skilled nursing facility.
Conforming repeals (sec. 705)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
prior provisions of law defining custodial care and providing
for domiciliary and custodial care under the Individual Case
Management Program.
Effective date (sec. 706)
The committee recommends a provision that would make the
TRICARE Benefits Modernization provisions effective on October
1, 2001.
SUBTITLE B--OTHER MATTERS
Repeal of requirement for periodic screenings and examinations and
related care for members of Army reserve units scheduled for
early deployment (sec. 711)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
requirement to provide certain medical and dental services to
members of the Selected Reserve of the Army scheduled for
deployment within 75 days after mobilization. The recommended
provision would eliminate the requirement for an annual medical
screening, a full medical examination every two years for
members over 40 years of age, an annual dental screening, and
dental care required to meet mobilization standards.
Clarification of eligibility for reimbursement of travel expenses of
adult accompanying patient in travel for specialty care (sec.
712)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the
eligibility for coverage of travel expenses by a parent,
guardian or family member while accompanying a covered
beneficiary referred for specialty care to be received more
than 100 miles from the location of primary care. The committee
believes that when a covered beneficiary is unable to travel
alone, whether due to the beneficiary's age, physical
incapacity, or other similar condition, it is reasonable to
reimburse travel expenses incurred by the attending parent,
guardian or responsible family member.
TRICARE program limitations on payment rates for institutional health
care providers and on balance billing by institutional and non-
institutional health care providers (sec. 713)
The committee recommends a provision that would reinforce
and expedite reform of TRICARE payment methods. The recommended
provision would expedite adoption of Medicare's prospective
payments rates for nursing home care, outpatient services,
anddurable medical equipment.
Two-year extension of health care management demonstration program
(sec. 714)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend,
until December 31, 2003, the demonstration of simulation
modeling to improve health care delivery in the Defense Health
Program. This demonstration was authorized in section 733 of
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001. However, funding constraints have limited
full implementation. The committee recognizes the value of
simulation models in studying alternative health care delivery
policies, processes, organizations, and technologies and
encourages the full implementation of this demonstration
program.
Study of health care coverage of members of the Selected Reserve (sec.
715)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study of
the health care coverage of members of the Selected Reserve and
to report on cost effective options for providing health care
benefits to members of the Selected Reserve and their families.
Study of adequacy and quality of health care provided to women under
the Defense Health Program (sec. 716)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study of
the adequacy and quality of the health care provided to women
under the Defense Health Program. The study would include an
intensive review of the availability and quality of
reproductive health care services.
Pilot program for Department of Veterans Affairs support for Department
of Defense in the performance of separation physical
examinations (sec. 717)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to carry out a pilot program in which the Veterans
Administration would conduct physical examinations of members
separating from the uniformed services.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Defense Health Program simplification of claims processing procedures
and communications
The committee directs the Department of Defense to
carefully examine current processes and procedures related to
the processing, payment, and dissemination of information
related to health care delivery claims. Technological advances
hold much promise in expediting the payment of claims and
simplifying and clarifying for beneficiaries information
related to procedures and resources associated with health care
delivery. The current explanation of benefits information
provided to beneficiaries is not timely and is highly technical
and confusing. The Department is encouraged to reduce the high
cost of claims processing, improve the timeliness of payment of
claims and explanation of benefits, and simplify the
information provided to beneficiaries related to such claims
through lower cost and more automated processing that is
flexible and understandable.
Electronic medical records
The committee continues to support efforts to integrate
more fully and utilize efficiently the health care capabilities
of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans
Affairs. The committee supported the initiation of the
Government Computer-Based Patient Record (GCPR) project to
allow health care providers from the Department of Veterans
Affairs, the Department of Defense, and the Indian Health
Service to share patient information using an electronic
medical record. An April 2001 report issued by the General
Accounting Office indicated that the GCPR program lacks central
oversight and full agency commitment and that it is not moving
forward as anticipated.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives by March 31, 2002, on the
planning, development, oversight, management, scope,
objectives, and timetable for allowing health care providers to
share comprehensive patient information electronically between
the Veterans Administration and the Department of Defense. The
report should include a clear statement of an agreed upon
mission, goals, objectives, performance measures, schedule, and
financing; designation of a lead entity with clear authority to
oversee this program; and plans for privacy and security of
patient health data.
Funding the Defense Health Program
The committee recognizes the difficulty in forecasting
costsof the Defense Health Program accurately. Historically,
budget estimates for the Defense Health Program have not been adjusted
to include the health care inflation indices normally associated with
private sector health plans. These indices are much higher than the
average annual government-wide inflation factors that have been
routinely applied to medical programs. The Defense Health Program still
has to deal with the same variable factors as private health plans--the
impact of medical technology growth and intensity, medical supplies,
and cost increases in health care services.
The committee is concerned about the large variation in
estimates of costs associated with the expansion of military
retiree health benefits. While health care costs are extremely
volatile, a more reliable forecasting method is critical to
appropriate financing of this system.
The committee is pleased with recent efforts to fully fund
the Defense Health Program. The proposed fiscal year 2002
budget of $17.9 billion funds the new Medicare-eligible health
care and pharmacy benefits authorized by the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 and is
based on a 15 percent growth rate for pharmacy benefits and 12
percent growth rate for civilian purchased care. These indices
are in line with reasonable estimates in the private sector.
Funding decisions about the Defense Health Program for fiscal
year 2003 and beyond will be of paramount importance,
particularly while incorporating the Medicare-eligible retirees
into the system. The committee encourages the Department of
Defense to continue to take actions to improve funding
projection mechanisms for the Defense Health Program that take
into account the realities of the health care delivery market.
HIV/AIDS Oral Fluids Testing Pilot Program
The committee directs the Department of Defense to conduct
a pilot program utilizing a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approved oral fluids HIV/AIDS testing method. It is anticipated
that FDA approval of such a method will occur in the near
future, and the committee believes such new testing may have
merit. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives on the feasibility and desirability of
utilizing oral fluids testing for HIV/AIDS.
Immunization against Hepatitis B
Hepatitis B is a chronic, incurable, and life threatening
illness acquired through exposure to semen, blood, and saliva.
Approximately 350 million people worldwide carry the Hepatitis
B virus.
Many children in the United States receive a three-shot
series of vaccine that immunizes them for the Hepatitis B
virus. Current military policy requires vaccination of all
military healthcare personnel and active duty personnel
deployed to high risk areas.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess
whether medical readiness warrants requiring immunization of
all military personnel against the Hepatitis B virus and to
submit a report on the findings and recommendations of this
assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives by March 1, 2002. The
assessment should address the feasibility and desirability of
(1) screening all active duty members for documentation showing
they have already been immunized for the Hepatitis B virus and
(2) requiring vaccination of those who have not been immunized.
Trauma and medical care
Military medical trauma centers frequently provide medical
care to seriously injured patients. Current reimbursement rates
for care provided to patients not entitled to military medical
care for trauma and other emergency medical care are less than
the cost of providing the care. The committee directs the
Department of Defense to implement procedures using itemized
billing charges, where appropriate, to ensure proper
reimbursement for medical care provided to non-beneficiaries.
Use of clinical decision support information tools
The Department of Defense has made significant strides in
improving the quality of health care in the military health
care system through the use of computer-based technologies to
access health care information, use decision support technology
tools to facilitate diagnoses, and integrate beneficiary
surveys. The next step is to use these technologies to generate
information that will support improvements in care through the
use of applied clinical research methods to measure, evaluate,
and improve clinical outcomes and quality of care. The
committee encourages the continued integration of clinical
decision support information tools into the military health
care system.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
study on the use of clinical decision support information tools
to measure, evaluate, and improve clinical outcomes and quality
of care in the military health care system and to submit a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives on the study by March 31, 2004.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
SUBTITLE A--PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
Management of procurements of services (sec. 801)
The committee recommends a provision that would improve the
Department of Defense's management of the acquisition of
services. The committee continues to be concerned that the DOD
has not adjusted its contracting and oversight practices to
meet the increasing significance of services contracting.
The provision recommended by the committee would require
the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to establish a management oversight structure for the
acquisition of services. This structure would be designed to
provide management visibility and establish accountability for
services contracts, and to ensure that appropriate contracting
vehicles such as performance-based contracts and task orders
are used to the maximum extent practicable. Under this
provision, contracts or task orders for services that are not
performance-based would be prohibited in the absence of a
determination that exceptional circumstances justify the use of
another contracting method in the best interests of the
Department of Defense.
The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense
to establish an automated data system to help track and manage
purchases of services in excess of the simplified acquisition
threshold. The committee is concerned that there is
insufficient data available to effectively support management
decisions in determining whether the Department is choosing the
most appropriate vehicle to obtain the best price or best value
in its purchases of services. The data collection system
required by this provision is comparable to the system required
for information technology purchases under section 2225 of
Title 10, United States Code. The committee believes that the
Department should be able to use a single data collection
system to meet both requirements.
Finally, the provision would require the Department to
establish a program review structure for major services
acquisitions that is similar to the review structure already in
place for the major weapons systems acquisitions. The committee
understands that an effort to develop such a system is already
under way within the Department.
Savings goals for procurements of services (sec. 802)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
savings goals for the Department of Defense (DOD) to achieve
through the use of improved management practices for
procurements of services, including performance-based services
contracting; competition for task orders under services
contracts; and program review, spending analyses, and other
best practices commonly used in the commercial sector.
The committee believes that the Department can achieve
significant savings without any reduction in services through
effective management of its services contracts. The Secretary
of Defense has testified that the Department should be able to
achieve 5 percent savings across the board through management
improvements. At a committee hearing on July 10, 2001, each of
the three service secretaries was asked whether the Department
should be able to achieve significant savings by instituting
best commercial practices for the management of its $50.0
billion of service contracts. The Secretary of the Army
responded: ``Yes, I do. It's done all the time in the business
world.'' The secretaries of the other two military departments
agreed.
Over the last decade, the Department's expenditures for the
procurement of services have increased by 20 percent, to more
than $50.0 billion a year, while expenditures for the
procurement of weapon systems and other products have remained
flat. Unfortunately, the Department has never provided the
management attention needed to ensure that this money is well
spent.
Last year, the DOD Inspector General reviewed the
Department's $10.0 billion of annual expenditures for
professional, administrative, and management support services,
and found an almost complete failure to comply with basic
contracting requirements. Other reviews by the Inspector
General and the General Accounting Office (GAO) have revealed
that the Department has failed to complete requirements for the
delivery of services, as required by law and regulation, and
has barely begun to implement requirements for performance-
based services contracting. The GAO and the DOD Inspector
General have found that DoD managers failed to complete
services work in up to three-quarters of the cases they
examined.
At a more fundamental level, DOD has no centralized
management structure for services contracts. Rather, the award
of these contracts is dispersed throughout the Department with
little management oversight. As a result, the Department has
never conducted a comprehensive spending analysis of its
services contracts and has made little effort to leverage its
buying power, improve the performance of its services
contractors, rationalize its supplier base, or otherwise ensure
that its dollars are well spent. Moreover, the Department has
failed to provide its acquisition professionals with the
training and guidance needed to manage the Department's service
contracts in a cost-effective manner.
The GAO has informed the committee that a number of
companies in the private sector have achieved significant
savings without any reduction in services by instituting best
practices such as centralizing key functions, promoting
strategic orientation, improving personnel skills and
capabilities, conducting spending analyses, rationalizing
supplier bases, and expanding the use of cross-functional,
commodity-based teams.
The committee believes that the Department already has the
freedom to manage these contracts in a cost-effective manner.
Sec. 801 would promote the use of best commercial practices by
requiring the Department to establish a management structure
for services contracts and to institute a system of program
review for larger contracts that is comparable to the system
already in place for major weapons systems. Sec. 803 would
address management deficiencies by strengthening competition
requirements for the award of task orders for services under
multiple award contracts. These new provisions would build on
sec. 821 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001, which required the Department to
establish a preference for performance-based services
contracting, provide enhanced training in services contracting
for its acquisition personnel, and establish centers of
excellence to identify best practices in services contracting.
The provision recommended by the committee would establish
savings goals of 3 percent in fiscal year 2002, 4 percent in
fiscal year 2003, 5 percent in fiscal year 2004, and 10 percent
in fiscal year 2011.
Competition requirement for purchases pursuant to multiple award
contracts (sec. 803)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that each individual procurement of products and services in
excess of $50,000 awarded under a multiple award contract shall
be made on a competitive basis. This requirement could be
waived by a contracting officer of the Department of Defense
(DOD) under conditions specified in section 2304(c) paragraphs
1-4 of title 10, United States Code.
The committee is concerned about the failure of the
Department to comply with existing requirements to compete task
orders under multiple award contacts. Recent reports by the
Department of Defense Inspector General and the General
Accounting Office (GAO) have documented serious issues with the
Department's compliance with competition requirements and
ordering procedures in placing orders under government-wide
acquisition contracts (GWAC's), multiple agency contracts
(MAC's), and the General Service Administration's multiple
award schedule program.
The committee is also aware that the military departments
have failed to use competitive procedures to award task orders
under multiple award contracts for the performance of a variety
of environmental services. In one case, a military service
informed the committee that it has been using a process that it
called ``internal competition,'' in which task orders are
negotiated with a single contractor without providing any other
contractor with notice or an opportunity to compete. This is
not competition at all.
The committee is convinced that competitive practices have
continually proven to be in the best interest of DOD and the
taxpayers. The Department of Defense must reinforce its
management controls to ensure that the acquisition reform tools
developed over the last decade are not used to circumvent
competition. The provision recommended by the committee would
require the Department to establish such management controls
and ensure that competition actually takes place.
Risk reduction at initiation of major defense acquisition program (sec.
804)
The committee recommends a provision that would help
shorten the acquisition cycle by requiring the Department of
Defense (DOD) to reduce program risk prior to initiating a
major defense acquisition program.
For the last three years, at the direction of the
committee, the General Accounting Office (GAO), has conducted a
review comparing the Department's approach to incorporating
technology into new products to approaches successfully applied
in the private sector. The GAO found that private industry
fields new products faster and more successfully because they
make sure that new technologies have been proven in the
laboratory before they try to incorporate them into new
products. According to the GAO:
The experiences of DOD and commercial technology
development cases GAO reviewed indicate that
demonstrating a high level of maturity before new
technologies are incorporated into product development
programs puts those programs in a better position to
succeed. . . . Leading commercial firms recognize a
distinct difference between technology development and
product development; accordingly, they develop
technology before introducing it into product
development programs. They minimize risk, improve cost
and schedule outcomes, reduce cycle time, and improve
quality during product development by gaining
significant knowledge about a technology before
launching the product development.
According to the GAO, ``It is a rare program that can
proceed with a gap between product requirements and the
maturity of key technologies and still be delivered on time and
within costs.''
The DOD, however, frequently tries to move technologies to
product development programs before they are mature. According
to the GAO, the effort to field immature technologies almost
alwaysleads to schedule delays and cost increases:
[Technology development problems need to be
addressed] at a time when the product should be
undergoing design and manufacturing development. As a
result, the pace of technology advances outruns the
time to develop a weapon system and some of the more
mature components designed into a weapon system become
obsolete before the weapon is manufactured. For
example, the F-22 will have almost 600 obsolete
components by fiscal year 2000 while the aircraft is
still in development.
The provision recommended by the committee would address
this problem by requiring that critical technologies be
successfully demonstrated in a relevant environment before they
may be incorporated into a major defense acquisition program.
To ensure that the Department retains needed flexibility, the
provision authorizes the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to waive the requirement
when it is in the best interest of the Department to do so. A
separate provision (Sec. 231) would establish a technology
transition program to assist the Department in bringing
critical technologies to the required level of maturity.
Follow-on production contracts for products developed pursuant to
prototype projects (sec. 805)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Department of Defense to enter follow-on production
contracts for a limited number of items developed pursuant to
transactions (other than contracts, grants, or cooperative
agreements) on a sole-source basis. Such sole-source contracts
would be authorized only in the case of prototype projects for
which parties other than the Federal Government have provided
at least one-third of the funds. The number of items that could
be purchased on a sole source basis would be established in the
initial transaction, based on a balancing of the extent to
which parties other than the Federal Government have invested
their own funds and the interest of the Federal Government in
competition for the acquisition of the items.
SUBTITLE B--DEFENSE ACQUISITION AND SUPPORT WORKFORCE
Report on implementation of recommendations of the Acquisition 2005
Task Force (sec. 811)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to report on the implementation of the
recommendations of the Department of Defense Acquisition 2005
Task Force included in the report entitled ``Shaping the
Civilian Acquisition Workforce of the Future.''
The committee is concerned about the impact of reductions
in the acquisition workforce on the Department of Defense's
ability to manage effectively the acquisition of more than
$140.0 billion in goods and services each year. The DOD has
reduced its acquisition workforce by about 50 percent in the
last 10 years while the workload has remained essentially
constant, and even increased by some measures. Over the next
five years, the Department is projected to lose an additional
55,000 of its most experienced acquisition personnel.
The Department established the Acquisition 2005 Task Force
to address these challenges. The provision recommended by the
committee would require the Secretary to report on actions
taken to implement the recommendations of the Task Force, and
any additional actions taken by the DOD to address concerns
about the size and structure of the acquisition workforce.
The committee expects the Department to conduct a thorough
review of the personnel system to identify any enhanced
personnel flexibility that may be needed to attract and retain
quality acquisition personnel. The committee notes that section
4308 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 authorized the Department to establish an acquisition
workforce demonstration project. This authority, which enables
the Department to waive certain regulatory requirements, has
been utilized only on a small scale to date. The Department's
review should identify any steps that would enable it to make
better use of the demonstration authority.
Moratorium on reduction of defense acquisition and support workforce
(sec. 812)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
moratorium on further cuts in the acquisition workforce for
three years. The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to
waive this prohibition upon certification to Congress that any
reductions to the workforce would not negatively impact the
ability of the workforce to efficiently and effectively carry
out its legally required functions.
Twelve consecutive years of downsizing have left the
Department of Defense (DOD) with a workforce that is smaller
(by 51 percent), older (with an average age of 46.7 years),
more senior (with an average of 20.2 years of service), higher
grade, and rapidly approaching retirement. Last year, the
Department of Defense Inspector General reported that expected
acquisition workload reductions had not occurred, and as a
result many defense components now have insufficient staff to
manage requirements in a costeffective manner. Further cuts in
the acquisition workforce are likely to exacerbate this problem.
The Department has embarked upon a human resource strategic
planning effort to address acquisition workforce issues. The
committee believes that no further cuts should be made until
the strategic planning effort has been completed and the
Department is prepared to address shortcomings in the workforce
on a comprehensive basis.
Revision of acquisition workforce qualifications (sec. 813)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that the amendments made to section 1724 of title 10, United
States Code by Section 808 of the Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 apply only to
new entrants into the acquisition workforce, not to employees
who were already in the workforce prior to the enactment of the
amendments. The provision would also add a new section 1724a to
title 10, authorizing the Secretary of Defense to establish a
contracting workforce to deploy in support of contingency
operations.
SUBTITLE C--USE OF PREFERRED SOURCES
Applicability of competition requirements to purchases from a required
source (sec. 821)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 141 of title 10, United State Code, to change the
procedures the Department of Defense (DOD) uses to make
purchases from Federal Prison Industries (FPI).
The provision would permit DOD to perform market research
to determine whether products offered by private sector
companies provide a better value than FPI. If FPI offers a
product that is comparable in price, quality, and time of
delivery to the most suitable products available from the
private sector, the Department would be required to purchase
that product on a sole-source basis from FPI. If DOD determines
that the FPI product is not competitive, it would conduct a
competition in which FPI would be permitted to participate.
The provision would also permit the Department of Defense
to purchase from a source other than FPI a product that is
integral to, or embedded in, another product. For example, in a
major construction project, the Department's prime contractor
would be permitted to utilize its usual commercial sources and
purchase products in the most economical manner.
In addition, the provision would exempt national security
systems from the FPI mandatory source requirement, reflecting
the committee's view that it is not appropriate to require the
Department of Defense (as FPI has done in the past) to purchase
missile guidance systems or other critical defense items that
are made with prison labor.
Finally, the provision would permit DOD to make purchases
of less than $2,500 from sources other than FPI. This provision
is consistent with the ``micro-purchase threshold'' that has
been set in law to enable DOD officials to use credit cards for
small purchases. Under current regulations, FPI exempts only
purchases of $25 or less--an approach that is inconsistent with
the Department's acquisition streamlining efforts.
Consolidation of contract requirements (sec. 822)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the consolidation of contract requirements in excess of $5.0
million absent a written determination that the benefits of the
acquisition strategy including the consolidated contract
requirements substantially exceed the benefits of alternative
contracting approaches that would involve a lesser degree of
consolidation.
Sections 411 through 413 of the Small Business
Reauthorization Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-135) require
federal agencies to conduct market research to assess the
potential impact of ``bundled contracts,'' and to proceed with
such contracts only if the benefits of bundling substantially
exceed the benefits of proceeding with separate contracts.
Section 414 requires agencies to collect data regarding
bundling of contract requirements in excess of $5.0 million.
Unfortunately, it appears that the Department of Defense
and other agencies have failed fully to comply with these
requirements. This failure appears to be attributable, in
significant part, to the narrow interpretation that has been
given to the provision.
For example, the Small Business Reauthorization Act defined
bundling to include consolidated contracts that are ``likely to
be unsuitable for award to a small business concern.'' The
General Accounting Office recently concluded that a contract
cannot be considered unsuitable for award to a small business
concern if a team of contractors, including small business
concerns, could bid on the contract. Since a team of
contractors could bid on virtually any requirement, this
interpretation would appear to exclude virtually all contracts
from the application of the bundling provisions.
The provision recommended by the committee would address
these problems by requiring the Department to justify any
consolidation of contract requirements in excess of $5.0
million, regardless of whether the consolidation constitutes
``bundling.'' The Department would also be required to modify
its data reporting systems toidentify whether a procurement in
excess of $5.0 million has been consolidated or not.
The committee is concerned that efforts to impose new
record-keeping requirements with regard to bundled contracts
could unduly burden the defense acquisition system. For this
reason, the provision would prohibit the Department from
implementing new data collection systems with regard to the
bundling or consolidation of contracts, except as necessary to
comply with the requirement to identify consolidated contracts
in excess of $5.0 million.
The committee is also aware that in some cases where
contracts are legitimately consolidated, small-business-only
joint ventures may serve as an effective means to enable small
businesses to continue to participate in the procurement
process. The committee directs the Department to work with the
Small Business Administration in conducting outreach to promote
such joint ventures and encourage their participation in the
procurement process.
Codification and continuation of Mentor-Protege Program as permanent
program (sec. 823)
The committee recommends a provision to codify the pilot
Mentor-Protege program established by section 831 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 and
make the program permanent.
The Mentor-Protege program provides incentives to major
defense contractors to assist small disadvantaged businesses,
woman-owned businesses, and qualified organizations employing
the severely disabled to enhance their capabilities as
contractors on Department of Defense contracts. The Mentor-
Protege program does not guarantee contracts to qualified small
businesses. Instead, it is designed to equip these businesses
with the knowledge and expertise that they need to win such
contracts on their own, in the competitive market place.
Section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 incorporated a number of management controls
to ensure the success of the program. These included: limiting
program participation terms to three years, absent exceptional
circumstances; limiting the annual funding of a Mentor-Protege
agreement to $1.0 million a year, absent exceptional
circumstances; requiring annual reviews of the performance of
Mentor-Protege agreements by the Defense Contract Management
Command; making incremental funding of Mentor-Protege
agreements contingent upon past performance; and requiring
annual reports to Congress on program performance. These
program reforms, which appear to have resulted in significantly
improved program performance, are incorporated into the
codified provision.
The committee expects the Department to continue to work to
strengthen the Mentor-Protege program by improving compliance
with tracking and reporting requirements and enforcing the
required linkages between performance and funding.
SUBTITLE D--AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL CONTRACTING AUTHORITIES PROCEDURES,
AND RELATED MATTERS
Amendments to conform with administrative changes in acquisition phase
and milestone terminology and to make related adjustments in
certain requirements applicable at milestone transition points
(sec. 831)
The committee recommends a provision that would make a
series of modifications to title 10, United States Code, and
related statutes, to substitute references to the acquisition
milestones established by revised Department of Defense
Directive 5000.2 for obsolete references currently contained in
those statutes.
The committee is aware that the Department recently rewrote
its basic acquisition policy directives to focus on providing
proven technology to the warfighter faster, reducing total
ownership cost, and emphasizing affordability, supportability,
and interoperability. The new directives are intended to
separate technology development from system integration, allow
multiple entry points into the acquisition process, and require
demonstration of utility, supportability, and interoperability
prior to making a commitment to production. As part of the
rewrite, milestone names were changed to Milestone A (approval
to begin analysis of alternatives), Milestone B (approval to
begin integrated system development and demonstration), and
Milestone C (approval to begin low-rate production).
The phases of acquisition were changed to Concept and
Technology Development (in which alternative concepts are
considered and technology development is completed), System
Development and Demonstration (in which components are
integrated into a system and the system is demonstrated), and
Production and Deployment (in which the system is produced at a
low-rate to allow for initial operational test and evaluation,
creation of a production base, efficient ramp-up of production
to full-rate, and deployment). Within the Production and
Deployment phase is the Full-Rate Production Decision Review at
which the results of operational test and evaluation and live-
fire test are considered.
Under the new approach, program initiation begins later
than under the old model. The new model anticipates more
extensive technology development before committing to a new
program using those technologies, while the old model completed
technology development after program initiation. This is
consistent with sec.804, which requires that critical
technologies be successfully demonstrated in a relevant environment
before they may be incorporated into a major defense acquisition
program.
The provision recommended by the committee would make
technical changes to existing statutes to reflect the new
milestone process established by the revised directives.
Inapplicability of limitation to small purchases of miniature or
instrument ball or roller bearings under certain circumstances
(sec. 832)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
certain exceptions to the requirement in section 2534 of title
10, United States Code, to purchase ball and roller bearings
from domestic sources. This provision would provide added
flexibility to the Department of Defense while reserving large
and complex purchases of ball and roller bearings for the
national technology and industrial base.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Continuity of service in critical acquisition positions
Section 1734 of title 10, United States Code, addresses the
issue of continuity of service in critical acquisition
positions in the Department of Defense (DOD). Section 1734(a)
mandates a three-year assignment period for any person assigned
to a critical acquisition position, while section 1734(b)
requires that program managers and deputy program managers be
assigned to a program until completion of the major milestone
that occurs closest to the time at which the person has served
in the position for four years.
The administration has proposed to limit the three-year
tenure requirement to program managers, deputy program manager,
and senior contracting officials. The committee does not
believe that the Department's interest in effective management
of large, complex, and time-consuming acquisitions would be
served by the elimination of tenure requirements for thousands
of critical acquisition positions. Frequent turnover in these
positions can make it more difficult for the Department to
maintain an appropriate focus on long-term goals, such as
shortening the acquisition cycle, minimizing concurrency,
ensuring the maintainability and reliability of new systems,
and reducing life-cycle costs.
The committee understands that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics has
undertaken a comprehensive review of issues affecting the
acquisition workforce. The committee believes that as the
Department considers how to reshape the acquisition workforce,
it should give strong consideration to the problems that can be
caused by frequent turnovers in key acquisition positions.
Direct payment of subcontractors
A number of small businesses currently performing work
under the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) contract have
expressed concerns to the committee about a provision in the
contract requiring that the government, rather than the prime
contractor, make payments to subcontractors on the program.
These companies state that direct payment has increased, rather
than decreased, the amount of time it takes for them to be
paid. The committee is also concerned that direct payment may
blur the lines of responsibility for ensuring that
subcontractors are performing in accordance with the terms of
the contract and that payments are made when due.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to review
this issue in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and to determine the
circumstances, if any, under which it is in the interest of the
Department of Defense to pay subcontractors directly. The
committee believes that payments to subcontractors should be
made by prime contractors, not the government, unless and until
the Department of Defense has determined that appropriate
systems, guidance, and training are in place to ensure that
direct payments can be made quickly and accurately, and in a
manner that does not undermine the contractual responsibilities
of the prime contractor.
Internal controls on the use of credit cards
Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
completed a review of internal controls and accounting
practices for purchase card transactions and payments for two
Navy units based in San Diego. The GAO found a weak overall
internal control environment, flawed or nonexistent policies
and procedures, and a lack of adherence to those policies and
procedures that were in place. According to the GAO:
[M]anagement was not effectively utilizing internal
reviews and audits to determine whether purchase card
internal controls were being effectively implemented.
In fact, we found evidence that . . . management
ignored internal review results that demonstrated some
. . . serious problems . . . primarily because of
complaints from cardholders and their supervisors
regarding the administrative burden associated with
procedural changes that would be needed to address the
review findings.
The committee continues to believe that credit cards can
play an important role in streamlining the procurement system
and eliminating unneeded paperwork. However, streamlined
purchasing techniques such as purchase cards can also be abused
in the absence of appropriate internal controls and management
attention. The committee directs the Department of Defense
(DOD) to review this issue and take action to ensure that: (1)
appropriate internal controls for credit card purchases are in
place throughout the Department; and (2) DOD credit card
holders and their managers are fully trained and aware of the
importance of compliance with these policies and procedures.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (sec.
901)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
new position of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel
and Readiness and eliminate one Assistant Secretary of Defense
position.
Responsibility of Under Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition of
space launch vehicles and space launch services (sec. 902)
The committee recommends a provision that would assign
responsibility for the acquisition of space launch vehicles and
space launch services for the Department of Defense and the
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) to the Under Secretary of
the Air Force. The provision would ensure the acquisition of
space launch vehicles and services for the Department of
Defense and the NRO is coordinated and consolidated so that the
Department can take full advantage of the cost savings that
come from a such an approach.
This provision maintains the current Air Force
responsibility for space launch and is consistent with long-
term plans for reinvigorating U.S. launch capabilities,
particularly efforts to regain a competitive U.S. heavy launch
capability.
Sense of Congress regarding the selection of officers for assignment as
the Commander in Chief, United States Transportation Command
(sec. 903)
The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization
Act of 1986 envisioned that an officer would be assigned to
serve as the commander of a combatant command on the basis of
being the best qualified officer for the assignment, rather
than the best qualified officer of the armed service that has
historically supplied an officer to serve in that assignment.
Most of the positions of commanders of the combatant
commands have been filled successively by officers of more than
one of the armed services since the enactment of that Act.
However, the position of Commander in Chief, U.S.
Transportation Command has only been filled by general officers
of the Air Force. Until the most recent Air Force nominee to
this position, that officer has usually had limited experience
in the transportation services.
The U.S. Transportation Command and its component commands
could benefit from the appointment of an officer selected from
the two armed services that are the primary users of their
transportation resources, namely the Army and the Marine Corps.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would
express the sense of Congress that when deciding on the next
officer to be nominated to the position of Commander in Chief,
U.S. Transportation Command, the Secretary of Defense shall
consider nominating highly qualified officers from the ranks of
Army and Marine Corps flag officers.
Organizational realignment for Navy Director for Expeditionary Warfare
(sec. 904)
The committee recommends a provision that would reflect a
recent organizational realignment within the Office of the
Chief of Naval Operations by amending section 5038(a) of title
10, United States Code, to recognize that the Director for
Expeditionary Warfare is now in the Office of the Deputy Chief
of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs. The
committee notes, however, that the Director for Expeditionary
Warfare maintains the same roles and responsibilities.
Revised requirements for content of annual report on joint warfighting
experimentation (sec. 905)
The committee continues to strongly support joint
warfighting experimentation and to believe that it will play a
key role in the Department's transformation efforts. In that
regard, the committee notes with satisfaction that the budget
request increased substantially funding for joint warfighting
experimentation for U.S. Joint Forces Command to $118.8 million
for fiscal year 2002. This should provide sufficient funding to
conduct the congressionally-mandated Millennium Challenge 2002,
the Department's first major joint field experiment, as well as
to carry out ongoing joint concept development and
experimentation. The committee is also encouraged by the fact
that the services, U.S. Special Operations Command and the
Defense Agencies are participating so robustly in the planning
for, and are budgeting sufficient funds to participate
meaningfully in, Millennium Challenge 02.
The committee believes that the time has come to consider
providing additional authorities to the Commander in Chief,
U.S. Joint Forces Command to facilitate the conduct of joint
warfighting experimentation and to develop and acquire
promising technology of unique relevance to conducting joint
military operations. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
amendment to section 485 of title 10, United States Code, to
require the annual joint warfighting report to include a
specific assessment of whether there is a need for a major
force program, or some other resource mechanism, for funding
joint warfighting experimentation and for funding the rapid
development and acquisition on uniquely jointwarfighting
technologies that have been empirically demonstrated through such
experimentation.
Suspension of reorganization engineering and technical authority policy
within the Naval Sea Systems Command (sec. 906)
The committee is concerned that the Naval Sea Systems
Command (NAVSEA) may launch a reorganization that would change
the engineering and technical authority reporting chain of
command within the Command and within the organizations that
report to the Command, including the naval warfare centers.
This reorganization would apparently imply centralizing day-to-
day management of subsets of the activities within the warfare
centers to an official or officials within the NAVSEA
headquarters.
The Congress and the Navy depend upon the quality of the
research activities of the naval warfare centers to yield
integrated, well engineered improvements in warfighting
capability to the fleet. The committee is concerned that the
proposed reorganization would undermine the efficiency and
effectiveness of the warfare centers. The Navy established the
warfare centers, concentrating all of the work and talent
associated with one technical area at one activity, in order
to: (1) eliminate unwarranted duplication of effort; and (2)
develop centers of technical excellence and a critical mass of
capability.
The committee also recognizes that the warfare centers were
established to operate under a common set of working capital
fund rules and guidelines, which focuses their efforts on
efficiency, quality and customer satisfaction. This arrangement
would appear to be consistent with the more business-like
approach that the administration has identified as a central
focus of their efforts to make the Defense Department more
efficient.
The committee believes that realigning the management of
the warfare centers along functional lines, such as engineering
or directing technical activities, is potentially much less
effective than the current approach of having the warfare
centers managing mission areas, such as surface warfare and
undersea warfare. The proposed reorganization would appear to
violate a number of tenets of good management:
(1) The more normal business model would involve
central establishment of policy by the NAVSEA
headquarters, with decentralized management by field
operating activities.
(2) Centralizing day-to-day management of engineering
and technical direction authority within the NAVSEA
headquarters would appear to violate the well-
understood policy of unity of command. When several
people are in charge, no one is really in charge. More
importantly, however, when several people are in
charge, no one is responsible.
(3) As a general rule, the Department of Defense has
been reorganizing its acquisition and development
programs to create integrated product teams, where
different functional specialities are brought together
to focus on delivery of a product or capability in a
more efficient manner. The proposed NAVSEA
reorganization would appear to imply breaking apart the
integrated product teams within the naval warfare
centers that are focusing different scientific and
technical disciplines on mission needs. The Navy could
then be faced with recreating what it is breaking apart
by this reorganization.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would
delay the implementation of this realignment until such time as
the Secretary of the Navy provides his analysis of the proposed
reorganization and how he believes such a reorganization would
contribute to: (1) eliminating unwarranted duplication of
effort; (2) developing and supporting centers of technical
excellence and critical masses of capability; (3) improving
business-like management procedures for conducting the
activities of the naval warfare centers; and (4) improving the
quality of support to the fleet in meeting critical mission
needs.
Conforming amendments relating to change of name of Air Mobility
Command (sec. 907)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
references to the former Military Airlift Command to refer to
the command by its current designation as the Air Mobility
Command.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SUBTITLE A--FINANCIAL MATTERS
Transfer authority (sec. 1001)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide for
the transfer of funds authorized in Division A of this Act to
unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal
reprogramming procedures.
Reduction in certain authorizations of appropriations for management
efficiencies (sec. 1002)
The Secretary of Defense has testified that the Department
of Defense should be able to achieve five percent savings
across the board through management improvements. The committee
believes that the Department should be able to achieve
significant savings in fiscal year 2002 through improved
management efficiency; reform of business processes; improved
processes for the procurement of property and services; and
increased use of best business practices adopted from the
private sector.
The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the
authorizations of appropriations for the Department of Defense
in this Act by $1,630.0 million. The committee expects the
Department of Defense to achieve these savings by implementing
the requirements of Title VIII and by pursuing other management
efficiencies developed by the Business Initiative Council that
do not require enactment of new legislation by the Congress.
Authorization of supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2001 (sec.
1003)
This provision would authorize the supplemental
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 enacted in the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 107-20).
United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets in fiscal year
2002 (sec. 1004)
The resolution of ratification for the Protocols to the
North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Poland,
Hungary and the Czech Republic contained a provision (section
3(2)(c)(ii)) that requires a specific authorization for U.S.
payments to the common-funded budgets of NATO for each fiscal
year, beginning in fiscal year 1999, that U.S. payments exceed
the fiscal year 1998 total. The committee recommends a
provision to authorize the U.S. contribution to NATO common-
funded budgets for fiscal year 2002, including the use of
unexpended balances from prior years.
Clarification of applicability of interest penalties for late payment
of interim payments due under contracts for services (sec.
1005)
Section 1010 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 extended prompt payment
requirements to interim payments due under contracts for
services.
The committee recommends a provision clarifying that the
change made by section 1010 applies to payments due on or after
the date of enactment of that provision under all Department of
Defense contracts, regardless of when they may have been
entered.
Reliability of Department of Defense financial statements (sec. 1006)
The committee recommends a provision that would enable the
Department of Defense (DOD) to save resources that are
currently expended to prepare and audit financial statements
that are considered by the General Accounting Office to be
essentially unauditable. The provision would direct that the
resources saved be used to address underlying problems in the
Department's financial management systems and facilitate the
Department's ability to routinely produce reliable financial
information by no later than fiscal year 2006.
The committee is aware that because the Department's
financial management systems are seriously deficient, it has
been unable to produce reliable financial information or
auditable financial statements. Nonetheless, the DOD expends
significant resources preparing, reviewing and correcting
financial statements, and the Department's Inspector General
expends considerable resources trying to audit them. The
committee considers these practices to be a waste of resources
that could better be used to improve the Department's financial
management systems so that reliable financial information is
available on the Department's activities.
The provision recommended by the committee would direct the
Department to streamline its processes for preparation and
audit of financial statements until the Department's systems
are able to generate reliable information, which the committee
expects will take place in time to produce financial statements
for fiscal year 2006.
In particular, the provision would direct the Department to
identify in advance financial statements that will be
unreliable and to minimize the resources that are used to
prepare them. The DOD Comptroller would be required to estimate
the amount of resources saved by minimizing efforts on these
financial statements, and toredirect these resources to the
improvement of the Department's financial management systems, policies,
and procedures.
In addition, the Inspector General would be directed to
perform only those audit procedures that are consistent with
generally accepted government auditing standards for financial
statements that management has reported as unreliable. The
committee expects that the Inspector General will use the
resulting savings to improve the oversight of Department of
Defense management and help the Department identify actions
needed to improve financial management policies, procedures and
internal controls or to verify that improvements in these areas
have been made.
Senior Financial Management Oversight Council and financial feeder
systems compliance process (sec. 1007)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to establish a Senior Financial Management
Oversight Council, to establish a financial and feeder systems
compliance process, and to supervise and monitor the actions
that are necessary to carry out that process.
In the committee's view, the Department of Defense must
address problems with the reliability of financial and feeder
systems data and interfaces between these systems in order to
ensure proper accountability and control over its physical
assets, proper accounting for the costs of operations, and
proper recording and reconciling of disbursements.
Section 1008 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 required the Department to submit to Congress
biennial financial improvement plans. Through the process of
developing these plans, the Department is finally beginning to
develop a roadmap of actions necessary to address the
deficiencies in its financial and feeder systems. Although this
roadmap is still far from complete, it provides an important
first step toward addressing the Department's financial
management problems.
The provision recommended by the committee would build on
this progress by requiring the Department to establish an
oversight council and a management process for implementing
changes identified in the congressionally-mandated financial
management improvement plans.
Combating terrorism readiness initiatives fund for combatant commands
(sec. 1008)
The committee recommends a provision that would codify in
title 10, United States Code, the authority and specific
activities to be funded under the combating terrorism readiness
initiatives fund. The fund, which was established in fiscal
year 1996, is designed to meet emergency and emergent high-
priority combating terrorism requirements of the combatant
commanders. The fund, which is managed by the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, was characterized by the Crouch/Gehman
USS COLE Commission Report as ``a responsive and relevant
program.'' The committee agrees and recommends authorizing
$38.0 million for the fund, an increase of $10.0 million over
the requested amount.
SUBTITLE B--STRATEGIC FORCES
Repeal of limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic
nuclear delivery systems (sec. 1011)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 1302 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998, which requires the United States to maintain
a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I force structure
level until START II enters into force.
President Bush has called for substantial reductions in the
number of nuclear warheads. On May 23, 2000, then-Governor Bush
said: ``I will pursue the lowest possible number [of nuclear
weapons] consistent with our national security. It should be
possible to reduce the number of American nuclear weapons
significantly further than what has been already agreed to
under START II without compromising our security in any way.''
More recently, President Bush, in a speech at the National
Defense University on May 1, 2001, said: ``I am committed to
achieving a credible deterrent with the lowest-possible number
of nuclear weapons consistent with our national security needs,
including our obligations to our allies. My goal is to move
quickly to reduce nuclear forces. The United States will lead
by example to achieve our interests and the interests for peace
in the world.''
Repeal of section 1302 would allow the President to carry
out such reductions in nuclear forces and for the United States
to be a leader in reducing nuclear forces.
Bomber force structure (sec. 1012)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of any funds available to the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2002 from being used to retire, move or dismantle
any B-1B Lancer bombers until certain specified events occur.
In June 2001, the Air Force announced a plan to retire 33
B-1B Lancer bombers and to consolidate the remaining B-1B
Lancer bombers in the active duty Air Force. This decision
would remove all B-1B Lancer bombers from the Air National
Guard. Under the plan as announced, this consolidation and
retirement was to have been completed by the end of fiscal year
2001. Subsequent to theannouncement, Congress passed the Fiscal
Year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act, prohibiting the Air Force
from implementing the consolidation using fiscal year 2001 funds.
The committee is concerned that the decision to retire 33
B-1B Lancer bombers and consolidate the remaining bombers was
made without a full analysis of the costs and benefits of all
potential options for the B-1B Lancer bomber fleet. In
addition, the committee believes that any decision on the
future of the B-1B Lancer bomber fleet should be made only
after larger defense strategy reviews have been completed. As a
result, the committee recommends a provision that would
prohibit the use of fiscal year 2002 funds available to the
Department of Defense from being used to implement the decision
to retire or consolidate the B-1B Lancer bomber until after the
National Security Strategy has been submitted to Congress, the
Quadrennial Defense Review and the Nuclear Posture Review are
completed, and the Secretary of Defense submits to the
congressional defense committees a report on the B-1B Lancer
bomber.
The report would include a review of the future roles,
missions, and makeup of the bomber force structure; a
comparative cost analysis of maintaining, upgrading, basing,
and operating the B-1B Lancer bombers in the active and reserve
components; and the plans for assigning other missions to the
National Guard units that currently fly B-1B Lancer bombers.
The provision would also require the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a study on the same matters that
would be required in the report to be prepared by the Secretary
of Defense. This report would be due on January 31, 2002.
The budget request did not include any funds to maintain
the B-1B Lancer bomber in the National Guard units in fiscal
year 2002. The budget request assumed the consolidation would
have been completed during the course of fiscal year 2001 and,
thus, no funds would be needed by the National Guard in fiscal
year 2002 for the B-1B Lancer. As a result of the Fiscal Year
2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act, the National Guard will
continue to be responsible for the B-1s beyond the end of FY
2001. In Title III of this bill the committee has recommended
including the funds that are necessary to allow the National
Guard to maintain the B-1 through fiscal year 2002.
Additional element for revised Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1013)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1041 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 by adding a new element to the nuclear posture
review. In keeping with President Bush's desire to dealert
nuclear weapons, this provision would add deactivation or
dealerting as an additional element to the nuclear posture
review.
In remarks at the National Press Club on May 23, 2000,
then-Governor Bush said: ``[T]he United States should remove as
many weapons as possible from high alert, hair-trigger status,
another vestige of the Cold War confrontation. Preparation for
quick launch within minutes after a warning of an attack was
the rule during the era of superpower rivalry. But today, for
two nations at peace, keeping so many weapons on high alert may
create unacceptable risks of accidental or unauthorized
launch.''
The committee believes this provision would ensure that
dealerting and deactivation are included as elements in the
upcoming nuclear posture review. The committee urges the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that all options are explored,
in the context of the nuclear posture review, that could
enhance the safety and security of U.S. nuclear forces and
warheads. In addition, the committee urges the Secretary to
implement any such steps as soon as possible.
SUBTITLE C--REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Information and recommendations on congressional reporting requirements
applicable to the Department of Defense (sec. 1021)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Secretary of Defense an opportunity to address concerns about
the proliferation of recurring reporting requirements in the
Department of Defense (DOD). This provision is a successor to
the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (P.L.
104-66), which eliminated numerous reporting requirements
previously imposed on DOD and other federal agencies.
The provision recommended by the committee would require
the Secretary to compile a list of all provisions of law that
require the Department to report to Congress on a recurring
basis. The list would include the Secretary's assessment of the
continuing utility of each report and any recommendation of the
Secretary for the consolidation or elimination of reports. The
committee notes that the reporting requirement contained in
this section was requested by the Department of Defense.
Report on combating terrorism (sec. 1022)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the
Department of Defense (DOD) policies, plans and procedures for
combating terrorism. The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities held a hearing on May 1, 2001 relating to the
Department's Weapons of Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams
(WMD-CSTs) in the aftermath of a DOD Inspector General (IG)
report thatrevealed numerous problems with a number of aspects
of the teams. In the course of that hearing, it became apparent that
the structure, strategy, roles, relationships and responsibilities of
the various DOD entities with responsibilities relating to combating
terrorism remain unclear. The committee appreciates that the Secretary
of Defense has only recently implemented a provision of the Floyd D.
Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 by
designating the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD/SOLIC) with the duty to provide overall
direction and supervision for policy, program planning and execution,
and allocation and use of resources for combating terrorism. The
committee expects the preparation of this report to serve as the means
by which the ASD/SOLIC assists the Secretary of Defense in addressing
the various issues pertaining to combating terrorism.
Revised requirement for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to advise
Secretary of Defense on the assignment of roles and missions to
the armed forces (sec. 1023)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
requirement contained in section 153(b) of title 10, United
States Code, for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
submit a review of roles and missions of the armed forces to
the Secretary of Defense every three years. The provision
would, instead, amend section 118(e) of title 10, United States
Code, to require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
include his review of roles and missions of the armed forces in
his assessment of the congressionally-mandated Quadrennial
Defense Review.
Revision of deadline for annual report on commercial and industrial
activities (sec. 1024)
The committee recommends a provision that would change the
due date for the Commercial Activities Report to Congress,
required by section 2461(g) of title 10, United States Code,
from February 1 to June 30 of each year, as requested by the
Department. The change in the due date of the report should
give the Department time to consider challenges to the previous
year's inventory prior to compiling a new report to Congress.
Production and acquisition of vaccines for defense against biological
warfare agents (sec. 1025)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, subject to the availability of
authorized and appropriated funds for such purpose, to design,
construct, and operate on a military installation a government-
owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) vaccine production facility.
The provision would also authorize the Secretary to use
Department of Defense (DOD) funds to qualify and validate the
GOCO vaccine production facility in accordance with Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines and standards. Lastly, the
provision would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a
long-range plan for the production and acquisition of vaccines
to defend against biological warfare agents and to report to
the congressional defense committees on that plan by February
1, 2002.
The Department of Defense is considering various options
for the production of biological warfare defense vaccines to
meet the Department's current and future requirements. These
options include private sector production; a government-owned,
contractor operated (GOCO) facility; and other options.
The committee understands that, as Department officials
indicated earlier this year, any new vaccine production
facility will take five to seven years to build, obtain FDA
approval, and begin production of various vaccines. The
committee also notes that a significant amount of analysis and
review has been conducted by both the Department and the
committee on a GOCO vaccine production facility in particular.
Given the urgent requirement to vaccinate military
personnel against biological warfare agents, and the need to
transition several newly developed vaccines from the Joint
Vaccine Acquisition Program (JVAP) to a production process in
approximately three to five years, the Department should ensure
that vaccine production facilities are available when required.
It is important that the Department prepare a plan and
report to Congress expeditiously, as required in this
provision, in order to proceed with vaccine production and
acquisition efforts as soon as practicable. The committee
supports the fiscal year 2002 budget request of $3.1 million
for a GOCO vaccine production facility program management
office and preliminary design.
The requirement in this provision for a plan and report
would not supercede or replace previously directed requirements
for developing and reporting on Department of Defense vaccine
acquisition plans. The statement of managers accompanying the
Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (S. Rept. 106-945) has specific reporting
requirements to the congressional defense committees that would
not be rescinded by this provision. The provision would require
the Department to consider, in preparing the plan and report
required by this provision, the analysis and information
developed to meet the requirements of section 218 of the Floyd
D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001 and of S. Rept. 106-945.
Should the Secretary proceed with a GOCO facility for
vaccineproduction, the committee directs that all applicable
competitive procedures be used in site selection and in the award of
contracts or other agreements to construct and operate a GOCO vaccine
production facility. Cost sharing should be used to the maximum extent
practicable. Lastly, the committee recommends that the Department
maximize the participation of FDA officials in the planning, design,
and construction of the GOCO vaccine production facility.
Extension of times for Commission on the Future of the United States
Aerospace Industry to report and to terminate (sec. 1026)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1097 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 to ensure that the
Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace
Industry has a full year to carry out its work and to allow the
commission 60 rather than 30 days to archive documents and
complete other activities after the submission of its final
report.
SUBTITLE D--ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME
Amendment of Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (sec. 1041)
The committee recommends a revision of the Armed Forces
Retirement Act of 1991 to implement changes resulting from a
Department of Defense review of the management structure of the
Armed Forces Retirement Home. The recommended provisions would
change the names of the facilities to Armed Forces Retirement
Home-Washington and Armed Forces Retirement Home-Gulfport, and
would authorize appointment of: (1) a Chief Operating Officer
responsible for the overall operation of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home; (2) a military officer as director for each
facility; (3) a civilian with experience in running a
retirement home as deputy director for each facility; and (4) a
local board of trustees for each facility to serve in an
advisory capacity to the director. The recommended provisions
would establish a three-tier fee structure and authorize a
temporary reduced fee for residents of Armed Forces Retirement
Home-Gulfport until their residence is renovated.
Definitions (sec. 1042)
The committee recommends a provision that would define the
terms Retirement Home, Local Board, Armed Forces Retirement
Home Trust Fund, and Fund.
Revision of authority establishing the Armed Forces Retirement Home
(sec. 1043)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the Armed Forces Retirement Home as an independent
establishment of the executive branch to provide residences and
related services for certain retired and former members of the
armed forces. The Retirement Home would operate two facilities,
the Armed Forces Retirement Home-Washington and the Armed
Forces Retirement Home-Gulfport. The recommended provision
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to acquire property for the
benefit of the Retirement Home, to dispose of property of the
Retirement Home, and to provide Department of Defense support
to the Retirement Home on a non-reimbursable basis.
Chief Operating Officer (sec. 1044)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to appoint a Chief Operating Officer
for the Retirement Home who would be responsible for the
overall direction, operation, and management of the Armed
Forces Retirement Home and who would report to the Secretary of
Defense. The recommended provision would authorize the Chief
Operating Officer to appoint a staff to assist in the
administration of the Retirement Home and to accept gifts on
behalf of the home.
Residents of Retirement Home (sec. 1045)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the
requirement for a resident to reapply for acceptance as a
resident when absent from the home for more than 45 consecutive
days. The recommended provision would authorize the Chief
Operating Officer to prescribe the monthly fees for the
residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home based on the
financial needs of the Retirement Home and the ability of the
residents to pay. The fees would be the same for each facility
of the Retirement Home, except for residents of the Armed
Forces Retirement Home-Gulfport, who would pay a reduced rate
until the resident occupies a renovated room.
Local boards of trustees (sec. 1046)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to appoint a local board of trustees for
each facility of the Armed Forces Retirement Home to serve in
an advisory capacity to the Director of the facility and to the
Chief Operating Officer.
Directors, Deputy Directors, and staff of facilities (sec. 1047)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to appoint a Director and a Deputy
Director for each facility of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
The Director of a facility would be an active duty military
officer in a grade above lieutenant colonel or commander, and
would be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the
facility. The Deputy Director would be a civilian with
experience as a continuing care retirement community
professional. The recommended provision authorizes the Director
of a facility to appoint staff to assist in the operation of
the facility.
Disposition of effects of deceased persons and unclaimed property (sec.
1048)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Director of a facility of the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to designate an attorney who is a full-time officer or employee
of the United States or a member of the armed forces on active
duty to serve as attorney or agent for the facility in certain
probate proceedings.
Transitional provisions (sec. 1049)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Armed Forces Retirement Home Board to continue to serve and
perform the duties of the Chief Operating Officer until the
Secretary of Defense appoints the first Chief Operating
Officer. The recommended provision would also authorize the
person serving as the Director of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home-Washington to continue to serve as the Director of that
facility until April 2, 2002, and the persons serving as the
Deputy Directors of the facilities to serve until a Deputy
Director is appointed for that facility.
Conforming and clerical amendments and repeals of obsolete provisions
(sec. 1050)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
conforming technical amendments to title 24, United States
Code.
Amendments of other laws (sec. 1051)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 4301(2) of title 5, United States Code, to exclude the
Chief Operating Officer and the Deputy Directors of the Armed
Forces Retirement Home from the definition of employee for
purposes of performance appraisals under chapter 43 of title 5,
United States Code. The recommended provision would amend
various sections of title 10, United States Code, to exclude
general or flag officers, while serving as Directors of
facilities of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, from
limitations applicable to general and flag officers on active
duty.
SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS
Requirement to conduct certain previously authorized educational
programs for children and youth (sec. 1061)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct the National Guard Challenge
Program and the STARBASE program.
One of the key recommendations from the Secretary of
Defense's Defense Strategy Review is to engage the American
public by expanding citizenship and community outreach
programs. The committee strongly endorses this recommendation.
Two of the Department of Defense's most effective community
outreach programs are the National Guard Challenge program and
the STARBASE program. The direct role of the military in both
programs is key to their success. These programs enhance a
positive image of the armed forces as they expose youth,
parents, and teachers to the value of military service. They
also serve as an entree for military recruiters seeking access
to secondary schools.
Authority to ensure demilitarization of significant military equipment
formerly owned by the Department of Defense (sec. 1062)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
authority to ensure demilitarization of significant military
equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense (DOD).
The possession of improperly demilitarized DOD property by
individuals and business entities was the subject of a recent
study of the Defense Science Board and has raised considerable
public concern. Section 1051 of the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 required DOD to
develop a plan for improving the demilitarization of excess and
surplus defense property and propose appropriate legislation to
clarify the authority of the government to recover critical
defense property that has not been properly demilitarized. The
Department complied with this requirement and proposed
legislation addressing this issue.
The provision recommended by the committee would make it
unlawful for any person to possess significant military
equipment formerly owned by DOD that has not been
demilitarized, without proper authorization. Under this
provision, the Secretary ofDefense would be required to notify
the Attorney General of potential violations of this prohibition, and
the Attorney General would be authorized to take appropriate steps to
ensure that the equipment is demilitarized or returned.
The committee notes that military equipment would be
covered by this provision only if it is specifically designated
as significant military equipment. Public safety should be the
foremost consideration in making any such designation, but the
Secretary may also take into consideration the historic or
cultural significance of certain equipment. For example, the
committee does not believe that civil war cannon would or
should be designated as significant military equipment.
Similarly, the committee does not expect that World War II
aircraft from which all weapons systems have been removed would
or should be designated as significant military equipment.
Conveyances of equipment and related materials loaned to state and
local governments as assistance for emergency response to a use
or threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction (sec. 1063)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense (DOD) to transfer to state and local
authorities training equipment it has loaned to them as part of
the Domestic Preparedness Program, which was established in
accordance with the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
Act of 1996 (otherwise known as the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Act).
The equipment was purchased by the Department on behalf of
cities participating in the Domestic Preparedness Program. That
equipment has been permanently retained and maintained on loan
due to the legal prohibition against transferring DOD property
directly to non-federal government agencies. As a result, the
Department has been required to inventory, and to hold some
liability for, this equipment. In addition, local authorities
have incurred the additional task of maintaining records to DOD
standards. This one-time transfer will eliminate the financial
cost, labor and liabilities associated with this equipment so
long as it remains DOD property.
Authority to pay gratuity to members of the Armed Forces and civilian
employees of the United States for slave labor performed for
Japan during World War II (sec. 1064)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a $20,000 gratuity to
a veteran or civilian internee, or the surviving spouse of a
veteran or civilian internee, who (1) served in or with United
States combat forces during World War II, (2) was captured and
held as a prisoner of war by Japan, and (3) was required to
perform slave labor for Japan.
Retention of travel promotional items (sec. 1065)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Federal employees of the Executive Branch, members of the
foreign service, military members, and their family members to
retain for personal use promotional items received as a result
of using travel or transportation services paid for by the
Executive Branch. The promotional items, including frequent
flyer miles, upgrades, and access to carrier clubs or
facilities, could be retained if awarded under the same
conditions as offered to the general public and at no
additional cost to the government.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Comptroller General report on policies and plans regarding the
preparedness of military installations for incidents involving
weapons of mass destruction
The committee directs the Comptroller General to study and
provide a report to the Congress on Department of Defense (DOD)
policies and plans to ensure the preparedness of military
installations for terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). The report shall include an assessment of
existing efforts to improve military installation preparedness
against terrorist attacks involving WMD. The report should also
evaluate whether current policies facilitate defense-wide
sharing of priorities and information, and/or foster
efficiencies in allocating resources.
A recent DOD study of the Installation Pilot Program
(mandated by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106-398) revealed a lack
of preparedness at military installations to manage the
consequences of a WMD terrorist attack. The study demonstrated
that standards, priorities and implementation schedules varied
from service to service and from installation to installation.
In addition, this study and the DOD-directed study of Fort
Bragg and Pope Air Force Base indicated that military
installations lack sufficient coordination with civilian first
responders in the surrounding communities. Therefore, the
Comptroller's report shall describe planning and training with
local community first responders and efforts to achieve
military and civil-military interoperability.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to include
within the report a description of the Department's utilization
and management of resources to carry out this critical mission.
Thereport should be submitted to Congress no later than March
4, 2002.
Department of Defense management reform initiatives
In November 1997, the Secretary of Defense initiated a set
of initiatives, known as the Defense Reform Initiative (DRI),
aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the
Department of Defense's business operations. Major elements of
the DRI included: adopting private sector best business
practices, consolidating operations, subjecting more
commercial-type activities to public-private competition,
modernizing logistics operations, and improving the acquisition
process.
Earlier this year, the new Secretary of Defense announced
his own management reform program and created a Senior
Executive Committee and a Business Initiative Council to
oversee the improvement of the Department's business management
practices. The Secretary's program appears to include a number
of initiatives that are similar to those undertaken by the last
administration.
The committee believes that the reform of the Department's
business practices will not be successful without many years of
sustained effort continuing through several administrations. To
ensure that valuable initiatives have not been dropped in the
transition from one administration to the next, the committee
directs the Department to review each element of the DRI and
make a determination by no later than March 1, 2002, which of
these initiatives should be continued and incorporated into the
new management reform program.
Further, the committee directs the General Accounting
Office to review the determinations made by the Department and
report to Congress by no later than May 1, 2002, on which DRI
initiatives have been incorporated into the new management
reform program and which initiatives have been dropped.
GAO report on advanced SEAL delivery system program
The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a
review and provide a report on the progress of the Advanced
SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) program. The program has
encountered significant technical, financial and management
problems over the past several years. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 required the Department
of Defense to review this program and consider elevating it to
a higher level of acquisition review. The Department has
conducted a review and has instituted a more rigorous oversight
mechanism.
The committee recognizes the technical challenges
associated with this unique system and feels the program
management team has been making progress addressing these
challenges. Nevertheless, the committee is concerned about
subsequent delays and additional cost growth. To address these
outstanding concerns, the committee directs the Comptroller
General to report to the congressional defense committees on
the ASDS program no later than March 11, 2002. At a minimum,
the report should include an assessment of the results of
contractor testing concluded in September 2001, as well as the
results of the overarching integrated product team review of
the ASDS program to be conducted subsequent to that testing.
GAO Reports on National Reconnaissance Office and National Imagery and
Mapping Agency Commissions
Two important commissions, the National Commission for the
Review of the National Reconnaissance Office and the
Independent Commission on the National Imagery and Mapping
Agency, reviewed the activities and performance of the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the National Mapping and
Imagery Agency (NIMA) and reported their findings and
recommendations in fiscal year 2001. Both commissions made
substantive recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of the
NRO and NIMA.
The committee reviewed both reports and received testimony
from representatives of both commissions. The committee has
been generally receptive to the recommendations of both
commissions. The committee wants to fully understand how the
Department of Defense and the intelligence community are
implementing the commissions' respective recommendations.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to conduct two studies, as follows:
(1) a study of the measures undertaken by the
Secretary of Defense, the Director of Central
Intelligence, and the Director of the NRO to implement
the recommendations of the National Commission for the
Review of the NRO; and
(2) a study of the measures undertaken by the
Secretary of Defense, the Director of Central
Intelligence, the Director of the NRO, and the Director
of NIMA to implement the recommendations of the
Independent Commission on the NIMA.
The committee further directs that the Comptroller General
submit these reports to the congressional defense and
intelligence committees no later than February 15, 2002.
Military child care programs
The military Child Development Program is a model for the
nation for providing high-quality, affordable child care. As
demonstrated by the level of national accreditation, military
programs have achieved quality unequaled in the civilian
community. Despite these achievements, little is known about
the impact on the developmental outcomes of children receiving
care in these facilities.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to carry out
a study on how military child development programs that meet
accreditation standards of an appropriate national early
childhood accrediting body affect the development of preschool-
age children. The study shall compare the developmental status
and educational performance of children who attended Department
of Defense certified child development programs as compared to
children who attended non-military child care programs. The
children in the study must be enrolled in child care for at
least one year prior to school entry and must have completed at
least the first grade at the time their developmental status is
evaluated.
The Secretary should report the results of this study to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives no later than March 15, 2003.
Military spouse employment
Opportunities for spouse employment play a key role in the
quality of life of military families. Many military career
decisions are influenced by the ability of the member's spouse
to find meaningful employment.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness to examine current Department of
Defense and other federal, state, and nongovernmental programs
to explore opportunities to improve retention of military
personnel by increasing employability of military spouses and
assisting spouses in gaining access to financial and other
assistance for job training and education. The examination
should include the feasibility and desirability of a program
for direct financial assistance to military spouses to increase
their qualifications for employment.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness to submit a report on the results of
this examination not later than March 30, 2002, to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
Professional development and training of financial management personnel
The committee remains concerned about the education,
technical competence, and experience of personnel serving in
financial management positions in the Department of Defense
(DOD). Section 1007(d) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 required the Department to develop a
financial management competency plan to address this issue. The
committee directs the DOD Comptroller to report to the
congressional defense committees on the status of the required
plan and the Department's efforts to enhance the professional
qualifications of key financial managers in the Department.
Reach Out and Read Program
The Reach Out and Read Program, available in 50 states,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, facilitates
development of reading skills in young children. Volunteers
participating in this program read to children in waiting rooms
while children await pediatric check-ups, and the program
provides children's books to pediatricians, nurses, and early
childhood educators to give to parents of young children.
The committee recognizes the link between programs to
improve literacy and the quality of life of military personnel
and encourages the Department of Defense to make this program
available to children through military medical treatment
facilities, TRICARE contractors, child development programs and
new parent support programs.
Secondary Education Transition Study
Children of military families face unique challenges in
their pursuit of educational excellence. On average, these
children move every two to six years and attend schools in six
different school districts between kindergarten and high school
graduation. In order to understand and address problems faced
by military families with high school age children, the Army
conducted the Secondary Education Transition Study. As a result
of this study, nine high school districts serving large
military installations have agreed to a number of measures to
address transition issues faced by military high school
students as they move from one school district to another.
These measures include improving the timely transfer of school
records; developing systems to ease student transition during
the first two weeks of enrollment; promoting practices to
foster access to extracurricular programs; establishing
procedures to lessen the adverse impact of moves from the end
of junior year through the senior year; communicating
variations in school calendars and schedules; creating and
implementing professional development systems; continuing
strong, child-centered partnerships between installations and
the supporting school; providing information concerning
graduation requirements; and providing specialized services for
students applying for funding for post-secondary study.
Additionally, the Army will hire school liaison officers at
Army installations to help the schools to understand and
address concerns of military families, and to help military
families to understand and comply with school policies and
procedures.
The committee commends the Army for this initiative. The
lessons learned from this important study apply to all military
services. The committee encourages all services to examine the
findings and recommendations of this study and to work with
supporting schools to address the transition issues faced by
children of military families.
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY
SUBTITLE A--INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL
Authority to increase maximum number of positions in the Defense
Intelligence Senior Executive Service (sec. 1101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to increase the number of Defense
Intelligence Senior Executive Service positions by the number
of Senior Intelligence Service positions eliminated from the
Cental Intelligence Agency. The recommended provision would
limit the total number of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive
Service positions to 544 positions.
Continued applicability of certain civil service protections for
employees integrated into the National Imagery and Mapping
Agency from the Defense Mapping Agency (sec. 1102)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that former Defense Mapping Agency personnel transferred into
the National Imagery and Mapping Agency pursuant to the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 retain
certain civil service protections for as long as they remain
Department of Defense employees employed without a break in
service in the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
SUBTITLE B--MATTERS RELATING TO RETIREMENT
Federal employment retirement credit for non-appropriated fund
instrumentality service (sec. 1111)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
federal employees the opportunity to receive either Civil
Service Retirement System or Federal Employees Retirement
System credit for prior non-appropriated fund service. Under
this provision, employees who choose to receive this credit
would have their Civil Service Retirement System or Federal
Employees Retirement System annuity reduced commensurate with
the cost of funding the present value of the non-appropriated
fund service.
Improved portability of retirement coverage for employees moving
between civil service employment and employment by non-
appropriated fund instrumentalities (sec. 1112)
The committee recommends a provision that would remove the
requirement that employees who move between non-appropriated
and appropriated fund employment systems have five or more
years of service in a system to elect to continue in the Civil
Service Retirement System, Federal Employees Retirement System,
or Non-appropriated Fund Retirement Systems, as applicable. The
committee recognizes that employees who render valuable federal
service in both capacities move between the two systems,
sometimes not remaining in either system long enough to become
vested in a retirement program.
Repeal of fiscal year 2003 limitation on exercise of voluntary
separation incentive pay authority and voluntary early
retirement authority (sec. 1113)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, during fiscal year 2003, to use
voluntary separation incentives and voluntary early retirement
authority for workforce restructuring to meet mission needs,
achieve strength reductions, correct skill imbalances or reduce
the number of high-grade, managerial, or supervisory positions.
This authority would be limited to separation of 4,000
employees.
SUBTITLE C--OTHER MATTERS
Housing allowance for the chaplain for the corps of cadets at the
United States Military Academy (sec. 1121)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
housing allowance for the chaplain for the Corps of Cadets at
the United States Military Academy.
Study of adequacy of compensation provided for teachers in the
Department of Defense overseas dependents' schools (sec. 1122)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General to conduct a study and report on whether
compensation for teachers in the defense dependents' education
program is adequate for recruiting and retaining high quality
teachers, and whether changes in the methodology for computing
teacher pay are necessary. The recommended provision requires
the Comptroller General to report conclusions and
recommendations to Congress by March 1, 2002.
Pilot program for payment of retraining expenses incurred by employers
of persons involuntarily separated from employment by the
Department of Defense (sec. 1123)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
three-year pilot program to facilitate the reemployment of
Department of Defense (DOD) employees who are involuntarily
separated because of reductions in force or transfers of
functions. The recommended provision would authorize retraining
incentive payments of up to $10,000 to civilian employers who
agree to hire, train, and employ the DOD employee for at least
one year.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
SUBTITLE A--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds (sec.
1201)
The committee recommends a provision that would define the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, define the funds as
those authorized to be appropriated in section 301, and
authorize the CTR funds to be available for obligation for
three fiscal years.
Funding allocations (sec. 1202)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$403.0 million, the amount included in the budget request, for
the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs. The provision
would also establish the funding levels for each of the program
elements in the CTR program and provide limited authority to
vary the amounts authorized for specific program elements.
The committee continues to support the CTR program and
believes it is one of the most important national security
efforts to reduce the threats posed by former Soviet Union
offensive nuclear weapons and delivery systems, weapons-usable
plutonium and uranium, and chemical and biological weapons and
materials.
Chemical weapons destruction (sec. 1203)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1305 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 to establish an annual certification process
by the Secretary of Defense that must be completed before any
funds could be spent for design and construction of a facility
to destroy Russian chemical munitions at Shchuch'ye, Russia.
The budget request included $50.0 million for destruction
of Russian chemical weapons. The committee recommends this
amount be included in the funds authorized for the Cooperative
Threat Reduction (CTR) program in section 301.
The provision would prohibit the funds authorized in
section 301 for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program
from being obligated until the Secretary of Defense certifies
that Russia has: (1) accurately disclosed the size of its
existing chemical weapons stockpile; (2) demonstrated an annual
commitment of at least $25.0 million to chemical weapons
elimination; (3) developed a plan to destroy its stockpiles of
nerve agents; (4) enacted a law that would provide for the
elimination of all Russian nerve agents at a single site; (5)
agreed to destroy its chemical weapons production facilities at
Volgograd and Novocheboksark; and (6) demonstrated a commitment
from the international community to fund and build
infrastructure needed to support and operate the facility.
The committee believes that destruction of the Russian
chemical munitions at Shchuch'ye is the only sure way to
prevent these and other chemical munitions from being lost or
stolen. Until such time as these munitions are destroyed, the
committee will support efforts to improve the physical security
of the munitions.
Russia has recently begun to demonstrate its commitment to
support chemical weapons destruction. The U.S. commitment is to
build the destruction facility itself. Russia and the
international community must plan to fund and build the
infrastructure needed to support the facility as well as
operate the facility until all the nerve agent is destroyed. It
is only with this continued commitment on the part of the
Russian government and the international community that the
committee believes the United States should provide funds to
design and build the facility.
The committee directs the Department of Defense to include
in its annual budget request for the CTR program the financial
commitment the Department expects to receive from Russia and
from the international community for the fiscal year for which
the budget request is submitted.
Management of Cooperative Threat Reduction program and funds (sec.
1204)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program to continue to be
financed, managed, and implemented by the Department of
Defense. In addition, the provision would require the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) to continue in its role as the
executive agent for the CTR program.
The committee recommends this provision to ensure that
responsibility for and management of the CTR program is not
transferred to any other federal agency. Nothing in this
provision is intended by the committee to interfere in any way
with the current relationships that the CTR program has with
other federal agencies. The committee believes that the
cooperation and coordination that has been instituted among the
CTR program and other related programs, particularly at the
Department of Energy and the Department of State, is working
well and should be maintained.
Additional matter in annual report on activities and assistance under
the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. (Sec. 1205)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
annual report on Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) to add a
new reporting requirement. The provision would direct the
Secretary of Defense to include in the report a description of
the amount of the financial commitment received, from the
international community and from Russia, for the chemical
weapons destruction facility located at Shchuch'ye, Russia. The
report would include a description of the commitment received
during the reporting year.
SUBTITLE B--OTHER MATTERS
Support of United Nations-sponsored efforts to inspect and monitor
Iraqi weapons activities (sec. 1211)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend,
through fiscal year 2002, the authority of the Department of
Defense to support United Nations-sponsored inspection and
monitoring efforts to ensure Iraqi compliance with its
international obligations to destroy its weapons of mass
destruction programs and associated delivery systems. The
provision would limit the assistance that could be provided by
the Secretary of Defense to $15.0 million for fiscal year 2002.
Cooperative research and development projects with NATO and other
countries (sec. 1212)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2350 of title 10, United States Code, to expand the
entities, to include friendly foreign countries, with which the
Department of Defense is authorized to enter into cooperative
research and development agreements.
International cooperative agreements on use of ranges and other
facilities for testing of defense equipment (sec. 1213)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, to enter into a formal agreement with an eligible
foreign country or international organization to provide
reciprocal access to each other's ranges and other facilities
for testing of defense equipment.
Clarification of authority to furnish nuclear test monitoring equipment
to foreign governments (sec. 1214)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1203 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 to clarify that the
Department of Defense has the authority to transfer title of
existing nuclear test monitoring equipment to foreign host
nations, and to inspect and maintain such equipment to ensure
that it continues to provide the data needed to satisfy United
States nuclear test monitoring requirements.
The committee understands that the existing section 1203 is
unclear regarding the Department's authority to transfer title
for the equipment to host nations, and that this situation is
jeopardizing existing bilateral cooperation on nuclear test
monitoring with some nations. The Department of Defense has
requested a revision to the existing section to resolve this
problem.
Participation of government contractors in chemical weapons inspections
at United States Government facilities under the Chemical
Weapons Convention (sec. 1215)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 303(b)(2) and section 304(c) of the Chemical Weapons
Convention Implementation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6723(b)(2) and
6724(c)) to permit federal contractor personnel to participate
in inspections of U.S. Government facilities conducted under
the Act. The provision makes clear that federal contractor
personnel may participate in such inspections only at U.S.
Government facilities and only if led by a Federal Government
employee.
The committee understands that the existing sections of the
Act preclude contractor personnel from participating in such
inspections to accompany inspection teams. The Department of
Defense has requested that the committee amend the Act to
provide the Department with greater flexibility in providing
personnel to accompany inspection teams while implementing the
Act. The committee realizes that with the downsizing of the
U.S. Government, more contractor personnel are used to support
government activities and that this process has proven to be
more economical and efficient. Consequently, the committee
believes the Department should have this flexibility to
facilitate better implementation of the Act.
Authority to transfer naval vessels to certain foreign countries (sec.
1216)
The committee recommends a provision that would transfer to
various countries:
(1) on a grant basis, one Oliver Hazard Perry-class
frigate and six Knox-class frigates; and
(2) on a sale basis, four Kidd-class destroyers and
two Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates.
The provision would direct that, to the maximum extent
practicable, the President shall require, as a condition of
transfer, that repair and refurbishment associated with the
transfer be accomplished in a shipyard located in the United
States.
The authority under this provision would expire at the end
of the two-year period that begins on the date of enactment of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
TITLE XIII--CONTINGENT AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
Authorization of appropriations contingent on increased allocation of
new budget authority (sec. 1301)
The committee recommends a provision that would make the
authorization of specified amounts contingent upon the
availability of funds in accordance with the requirements of
the congressional budget process.
Section 217 of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
Fiscal Year 2002, H.Con.Res. 83, provides that:
(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), if the
President submits a budget amendment and the Committee
on Appropriations or the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate reports a bill, or an amendment thereto is
offered, or a conference report thereon is submitted,
that provides additional resources for defense spending
in response to the recommendations of the President's
National Defense Review, the chairman of the Committee
on the Budget may increase the allocation of new budget
authority and outlays to that committee for fiscal year
2002 by the amount of new budget authority (and the
outlays resulting therefrom) provided by that measure
for that purpose.
(b) Surplus.--Legislation described in subsection (a)
may not, when taken together with all other previously-
enacted legislation (except for legislation enacted
pursuant to section 211), reduce the on-budget surplus
below the level of the Medicare Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund surplus in any fiscal year covered by this
resolution.
On June 27, 2001, the President submitted a budget
amendment, in accordance with the requirements of section
217(a), that would increase the amount available for the
Department of Defense by $18.4 billion over the amount for the
National Defense function in the Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget for Fiscal Year 2002. However, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget has not determined whether this amount
can be made available consistent with the requirements of
section 217(b), and has not made an allocation of new budget
authority for defense spending.
The amounts authorized in this bill include the $18.4
billion increase recommended by the President. The committee
recognizes, however, that some or all of this amount may not be
available. For this reason, the provision recommended by the
committee would make the authorization of certain funds
contingent upon either: (1) an allocation by the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget in accordance with the requirements
of section 217; or (2) a vote to waive the point of order under
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
and make additional amounts available, notwithstanding the
requirements of section 217.
The provision would also specify that if an amount less
than $18.4 billion is made available, the reduction shall be
distributed on a proportionate basis across the specified
budget accounts.
Reductions (sec. 1302)
Section 1301 of the bill would make the authorization of
$15.2 billion contingent upon the availability of funds in
accordance with the requirements of the congressional budget
process. The provision recommended by the committee would
specify the amounts of funds that are made contingent.
The amounts and accounts specified are those that were
identified by the President in his June 27, 2001 budget
amendment. As outlined by the Department of Defense, these
amounts include $1.6 billion for base operations support; $1.3
billion for flying hours; $2.6 billion for depot maintenance,
spares, range and training center modernization, and force
protection; $2.6 billion for facility construction and repair,
and utilities; $850.0 million for the National Foreign
Intelligence Program; $3.6 billion for command and control
systems, information operations systems, airlift spares and
aircraft, ships, and experimentation; and $600.0 million for
missile defense.
Amounts provided for military pay ($2.0 billion) would not
be made contingent because the committee believes that
providing fair compensation to our men and women in uniform
must be our first priority. Amounts provided for military
health care ($1.6 billion) would not be made contingent because
these amounts are necessary to meet the requirements of Title
VII of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2001.
Reference to Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002
(sec. 1303)
The committee recommends a provision providing a proper
reference for the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
Fiscal Year 2002, for the purpose of sections making reference
to such Concurrent Resolution.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
EXPLANATION OF FUNDING TABLE
Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military
construction projects of the Department of Defense. It includes
funding authorizations for the construction and operation of
military family housing and military construction for the
reserve components, the defense agencies, and the NATO Security
Investment program. It also provides authorization for the base
closure account that funds environmental cleanup and other
activities associated with the implementation of previous base
closure rounds.
The following tables provide the project-level
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized
in Division B of this Act and summarize that funding by
account. The tables also display the funding requested by the
administration in the fiscal year 2002 budget amendment for
military construction and family housing projects.
TITLE XXI--ARMY
SUMMARY
The Army requested authorization of $1,760,541,000 for
military construction and $1,400,533,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,635,341,000 for military construction and $1,422,843,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2002.
The amounts authorized for military construction and family
housing reflect a reduction of $3.3 million to be achieved from
savings in the foreign currency account. This reduction shall
not cancel any military construction authorized by title XXI of
this bill.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
This section contains the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 2002. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
2002.
Improvement to military family housing units (sec. 2103)
This section would authorize improvements to existing
family housing units for fiscal year 2002.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year
2002. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount
the Army may spend on military construction projects.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2001
projects (sec. 2105)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(division B of Public Law 106-398) to increase the total
project authorizations for the following projects by the
following amounts: $4.4 million for a basic training barracks
project at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; $3.0 million for a
battle simulation center at Fort Drum, New York; and $3.0
million for a digital training range at Fort Hood, Texas.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
SUMMARY
The Navy requested authorization of $1,071,408,000 for
military construction and $1,222,495,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,146,948,000 for military construction and $1,230,686,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2002.
The amounts authorized for military construction and family
housing reflect a reduction of $700,000 to be achieved from
savings in the foreign currency account. This reduction shall
not cancel any military construction authorized by title XXII
of this bill.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
This section contains the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 2002. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Family housing (sec. 2202)
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year
2002.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2002.
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 2002. This
section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy
may spend on military construction projects.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2001 project
(sec. 2205)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2201(a) of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (division B of Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-
395) to correct the funding authorization for the Naval
Shipyard, Bremerton, Puget Sound, Washington, from $100,740,000
to $98,740,000, and for Naval Station, Bremerton, Washington,
from $11,930,000 to $1,930,000. The provision would also
correct the total funding authorized for construction projects
inside the United States from $811,497,000 to $799,497,000.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000 project
(sec. 2206)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
(division B of Public Law 106-65) to increase the total project
authorization for the headquarters facility for the Commander
in Chief of the Pacific Fleet at Camp Smith, Hawaii by $3.0
million.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Planning and design, Navy
The committee directs that of the amount authorized for
appropriation for Navy planning and design, not more than the
amount indicated for each respective project be directed toward
the design of the following projects: $1,450,000 for an
Aircraft Prototype Facility at Patuxent River Naval Air
Station, Maryland; and $1,790,000 for a National Security
Research Center at the Naval War College, Newport, Rhode
Island.
Unspecified minor construction, Navy
The committee authorizes the Secretary of the Navy, using
funds authorized for unspecified minor construction, to
construct a fire station at the Naval Computer
Telecommunications Area, Master Station, Cutler, Maine.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
SUMMARY
The Air Force requested authorization of $1,068,250,000 for
military construction and $1,387,358,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,168,289,000 for military construction and $1,411,502,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2002.
The amounts authorized for military construction and family
housing reflect a reduction of $3.3 million to be achieved from
savings in the foreign currency account. This reduction shall
not cancel any military construction authorized by title XXIII
of this bill.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
2301)
This section contains the list of authorized Air Force
construction projects for fiscal year 2002. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Family housing (sec. 2302)
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal
year 2002.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2002.
The amounts authorized include $18.0 million for the
improvement of 164 housing units at Whiteman Air Force Base,
Missouri and $4.5 million for the improvement of housing units
at Hunley Park at Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina.
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Air Force's budget for fiscal year 2002.
This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount
the Air Force may spend on military construction projects.
Modification of authority to carry out fiscal year 2001 project (sec.
2305)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2302(a) of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (division B of Public Law 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-
400) to correct the number of family housing units authorized
for construction at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, from
119 units to 46 units.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Planning and design, Air Force
The committee directs that of the amount authorized for
appropriation for Air Force planning and design for military
construction, not more than the amount indicated for each
respective project be directed toward the design of the
following projects: $1,250,000 for a Corrosion Control Paint
Facility at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia; $490,000 for a
replacement Fire/Crash Rescue Station at Seymour-Johnson Air
Force Base, North Carolina; and $1,500,000 for a Depot
Maintenance Hangar at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.
The committee directs that of the amount authorized for
appropriation for planning and design for family housing, not
more than the $870,000 be directed toward the design of phase
4A of the replacement of family housing at Mountain Home Air
Force Base, Idaho.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SUMMARY
The Defense Agencies requested authorization of
$694,558,000 for military construction and $46,012,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends
authorization of $859,744,000 for military construction and
$46,012,000 for family housing or fiscal year 2002.
The amounts authorized for military construction and family
housing reflect a reduction of $1.7 million to be achieved from
savings in the foreign currency account. This reduction shall
not cancel any military construction authorized by title XXIV
of this bill.
The committee reiterates its position that while the Army
serves as the executive agent for chemical munitions
destruction within the Department of Defense, the
responsibility for chemical demilitarization rests with the
Department of Defense as a whole. The committee has authorized
military construction funding for fiscal year 2002 chemical
demilitarization projects requested in the Army's military
construction budget in this account. The committee directs the
Department of Defense to include funding for this mission in
the Defense-Wide category rather than in the budget of the
Department of the Army in future budget submissions.
Authorized Defense Agency construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2401)
This section contains the list of authorized Defense Agency
construction projects for fiscal year 2002. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out energy conservation projects.
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403)
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each Defense Agency military construction program for fiscal
year 2002. This section also would provide an overall limit on
the amount that may be spent on such military construction
projects.
The committee bill would authorize an additional $60.0
million for cleanup of former Department of the Navy facilities
closed by previous base realignment and closure rounds. The
committee is disappointed that the Navy budget did not include
sufficient funding to fund the agreements the Navy has reached
with local redevelopment authorities for the cleanup of these
properties and expects the Navy to fully fund its obligations
in this respect in the future.
Cancellation of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2001
projects (sec. 2404)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(division B of Public Law 106-398) to cancel the project
authorizations for four TRICARE Management Agency medical/
dental clinic and support facility projects at Camp Pendleton,
California since the funds authorized in fiscal year 2001 were
used for payment of a claim related to the construction of the
Portsmouth Naval Hospital, Virginia. These projects would be
authorized for fiscal year 2002 in section 2403 of this Act.
Cancellation of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2001 project
(sec. 2405)
The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the
fiscal year 2001 project authorization and the authorization of
appropriations for military construction for a national missile
defense system by $55.0 million to reflect the administration's
proposal in the fiscal year 2002 budget to build any facilities
related to ballistic missile defenses with research and
development funds rather than military construction funds.
The committee notes that $20.0 million of the original
appropriation has already been reprogrammed into planning and
design funds, and another $9.0 million has been proposed for
site preparation work. The committee also notes the testimony
before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support by
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and
Environment) that there were ``no plans at the moment for the
so-called remainder'' of the funds.
Therefore, the committee recommends that these funds be
used for more pressing military construction needs and deletes
the unused balance of this authorization without prejudice.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000
projects (sec. 2406)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
(division B of Public Law 106-65) to increase the project
authorization for a chemical demilitarization facility at Blue
GrassArmy Depot, Kentucky by $47.2 million and the
authorization for a hospital at Fort Wainwright, Alaska by $82 million.
The provision would also cancel the project authorizations
for an aircrew water survival training facility at Whidbey
Island Naval Air Station, Washington since the funds authorized
in fiscal year 2000 were used for payment of a claim related to
the construction of the Portsmouth Naval Hospital, Virginia.
This project would be authorized for fiscal year 2002 in
section 2403 of this Act.
The committee notes that the increase in the cost of the
hospital at Fort Wainwright, Alaska represents a cost increase
of over 60 percent from the amount authorized in fiscal year
2000. The committee urges the TRICARE Management Agency and the
Army Corps of Engineers to review their cost estimating and
contracting procedures so that such excessive cost increases
will be not be required for similar projects in the future.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 1999
projects (sec. 2407)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(division B of Public Law 105-261) to increase the project
authorization for a chemical demilitarization facility at
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland by $37.6 million.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 1995 project
(sec. 2408)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
table in section 2401 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (division B of Public
Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 3040), as amended, to increase the
funding for Chemical Weapons and Munitions Destruction related
to Pine Bluff, Arkansas, by $23.0 million.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
SUMMARY
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
$162,600,00 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2002. The committee
recommends an authorization of $162,600,000 for fiscal year
2002.
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) Security Investment Program in an amount equal to the
sum of the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of
this title and the amount of recoupment due to the United
States for construction previously financed by the United
States.
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)
This section would authorize appropriations of $162,600,000
for the United States contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year
2002.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SUMMARY
The Department of Defense requested a military construction
authorization of $615,238,000 for fiscal year 2002 for National
Guard and Reserve facilities. The committee recommends
authorizations for fiscal year 2002 of $791,249,000 to be
distributed as follows:
Army National Guard..................................... $365,240,000
Air National Guard...................................... 227,232,000
Army Reserve............................................ 111,404,000
Air Force Reserve....................................... 53,732,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 33,641,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 791,249,000
Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2601)
This section would authorize appropriations for military
construction for the National Guard and Reserve by service
component for fiscal year 2002. The state list contained in
this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific
projects authorized at each location.
The committee directs that of the amount authorized for
appropriation for planning and design for the Air National
Guard, not more than $280,000 be directed toward the design of
a replacement for the Vehicle Maintenance Complex at Mansfield-
Lahm Airport, Mansfield, Ohio.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Report on requirement for Regional Training Institute
The committee understands that the Army plans to construct
a Regional Training Institute (RTI), part of the Total Army
School System (TASS), at Camp Rowland in Niantic, Connecticut.
The committee further understands that the Chief of Staff of
the Army has directed that Camp Rowland be the Northeast
training facility for active, National Guard, and Reserve units
in eight states. The committee understands that Camp Rowland
would require upgrades to its infrastructure, educational,
administrative, and billeting facilities, which are World War
II vintage, in order to meet this expanded mission. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review the
requirement for construction of a Northeast Regional Training
Institute and to report to the Committee on the Army's plan for
construction of this facility not later than March 1, 2002.
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by
law (sec. 2701)
This section would provide that authorizations for military
construction projects, repair of real property, land
acquisition, family housing projects, contributions to the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure program, and
National Guard and Reserve military construction projects will
expire on October 1, 2004, or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2005, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to
authorizations for projects for which appropriated funds have
been obligated before October 1, 2004 or the date of enactment
of an Act authorizing funding for military construction for
fiscal year 2005, whichever is later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1999 projects (sec.
2702)
This section would extend the authorizations for certain
fiscal year 1999 military construction projects until October
1, 2002, or the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2003, whichever is
later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1998 projects (sec.
2703)
This section would extend the authorizations for certain
fiscal year 1998 military construction projects until October
1, 2002, or the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2003, whichever is
later.
Effective date (sec. 2704)
This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of this Act shall take effect on October 1,
2001, or the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SUBTITLE A--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
CHANGES
Increase in thresholds for certain unspecified minor military
construction projects (sec. 2801)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2805 of title 10, United States Code to increase from
$500,000 to $750,000 the cost of an unspecified minor
construction project requiring approval by the Secretary
concerned. The provision would further amend section 2805 to
increase the amount the Secretary concerned may spend from
appropriated operations and maintenance amounts for projects
intended to correct deficiencies that are a threat to life,
health, or safety from $1.0 million to $1.5 million and for
other unspecified minor construction projects from $500,000 to
$750,000.
Unforseen environmental hazard remediation as basis for authorized cost
variations for military construction and family housing
construction projects (sec. 2802)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to exclude the
cost associated with unforseen environmental hazard remediation
from the limitation on cost increases in military construction
projects. Costs that could be excluded would include asbestos
removal, radon abatement, lead-based paint removal or
abatement, and any other legislated environmental hazard
remediation that could not be reasonably anticipated at the
time the funding for the project was approved by the Congress.
Repeal of requirement for annual reports to Congress on military
construction and military family housing activities (sec. 2803)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal a
statutory requirement for an annual report to Congress on the
status of military construction and family housing projects and
trends in the funding for various aspects of military
construction.
Authority available for lease of property and facilities under
alternative authority for acquisition and improvement of
military housing (sec. 2804)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
authorities for lease or conveyance of property in connection
with military family housing privatization to allow the
military departments to use the authorities contained in
section 2667 of title 10, United States Code. This provision
would provide additional flexibility for the military
departments to make use of the value of assets at one
installation at privatization projects at other installations.
Funds for housing allowances of members assigned to military family
housing under alternative authority for acquisition and
improvement of military housing (sec. 2805)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, to the extent provided in advance in
appropriations acts, during the year in which a contract is
awarded for a family housing privatization project, to
reimburse the Military Personnel appropriations account from
the Family Housing Maintenance and Operations appropriations
the amounts necessary to offset the additional cost of housing
allowances that would be paid as a result of a housing
privatization project. The provision would also make certain
technical changes.
SUBTITLE B--REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION
Availability of proceeds from sales of Department of Defense property
when the installation where the property sold is closed (sec.
2811)
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
from 50 percent to 100 percent the share of the proceeds from
the sale of surplus Department of Defense property at closed
installations that may be used for infrastructure maintenance
and environmental restoration at other installations within the
service that operated the closed installation.
Pilot efficient facilities initiative (sec. 2812)
On August 3, 2001 the Department of Defense submitted its
Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI) legislative proposal to
the Congress. The bulk of that proposal concerned authorization
of an additional round of base realignment and closure in 2003,
which has been addressed separately. The Department's EFI
proposal also requested permanent authority to waive a number
of property management and other legislative restrictions at
any military installation.
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program to
determine the potential for increasing the efficiency and
effectiveness of the operation of military installations. The
pilot program would terminate four years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
The provision would permit the Secretary to designate up to
two installations in each military department as participants
in the efficient facilities initiative. The Secretary would be
required to develop a management plan to carry out the
initiative at each designated installation and submit that plan
to the Congress. The Secretary would be required to identify
any statutes he proposes to waive under this authority. Such
waivers would have to be enacted into law in subsequent
legislation before they would take effect.
Funds received by the military departments pursuant to this
authority would be deposited in an Installation Efficiency
Project Fund, which could be used to manage capital assets and
provide support services at installations participating in the
initiative.
Demonstration program on reduction in long-term facility maintenance
costs (sec. 2813)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to enter into no more than three
contracts in any fiscal year that would require the contractor
to maintain a facility constructed for the Army for up to the
first five years of operation of that facility and would
include any costs for the performance of such maintenance in
the cost of construction of the project. The demonstration
program would be authorized for fiscal years 2002 through 2006.
SUBTITLE C--LAND CONVEYANCES
Land conveyance, Engineer Proving Ground, Fort Belvoir, Virginia (sec.
2821)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to convey to the Commonwealth of
Virginia 11.45 acres located at the Engineer Proving Ground,
Fort Belvoir, Virginia for the purpose of constructing a
portion of Interstate Highway 95 through the Engineer Proving
Ground and 170 acres for the purpose of constructing a portion
of the Fairfax County Parkway through the Engineer Proving
Ground. The Commonwealth of Virginia would agree to design and
construct that portion of the Fairfax County Parkway through
the Engineer Proving Ground; design, for eventual construction,
the necessary access into the Engineer Proving Ground; provide
utility permits; and provide funding toreplace an existing
building located on the property to be conveyed.
Modification of authority for conveyance of Naval Computer and
Telecommunications Station, Cutler, Maine (sec. 2822)
This section would make certain technical corrections to
section 2853(a) of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (division B of Public Law 106-398: 114 Stat. 1654A)
to clarify that all or part of the specified property may be
conveyed.
Land transfer and conveyance, Naval Security Group Activity, Winter
Harbor, Maine (sec. 2823)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to transfer administrative
jurisdiction of a parcel of real property consisting of
approximately 26 acres located at the former facilities of the
National Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor Maine, Hancock
County, Maine, to the Secretary of the Interior. The transfer
would be concurrent with the reversion of approximately 71
acres from the Secretary of Navy to the Secretary of Interior
as authorized by Public Law 80-260 (61 Stat. 519) and to be
executed on or about June 30, 2002.
The provision would also authorize the Secretary of the
Navy to convey for public benefit purposes, without
consideration, to the State of Maine, any political subdivision
of the State of Maine, or any tax-supported agency in the State
of Maine a parcel of real property, including improvements,
consisting of approximately 485 acres and comprising the former
facilities of the National Security Group Activity, Winter
Harbor Maine, Hancock County, Maine.
The Secretary would be authorized to transfer, without
consideration, any or all personal property associated with the
parcels transferred or conveyed. The Secretary of the Navy
would be required to maintain the property at current standards
until the conveyance of the property or September 30, 2003,
whichever is earlier. Until the conveyance of the property is
executed, the Secretary of the Navy may lease all or part of
the property, at a price determined by the Secretary, to any
person or entity the Secretary determines as appropriate. The
amount of rent would be determined by the Secretary. The
Secretary would credit any amount received for a lease of real
property to the appropriate account providing funds for the
operations and maintenance of the property or for procurement
of utility. The provision would authorize the Secretary of the
Navy to seek reimbursement from the recipient of the property
of the costs incurred for any studies, assessments or analysis
related to the conveyance of the property.
Conveyance of segment of Loring Petroleum Pipeline, Maine and related
easements (sec. 2824)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to convey, without
consideration, to the Loring Development Authority, Maine, a
segment of the Loring Petroleum Pipeline, Maine, and related
easements, consisting of approximately 27 miles and running
between the Searsport, Maine, terminal and Bangor Air National
Guard Base, Maine. The provision would require the Loring
Development Authority to reimburse the Secretary for any
environmental assessment, study, analysis or other expenses
incurred for the conveyance.
Land conveyance, petroleum terminal serving former Loring Air Force
Base and Bangor Air National Guard Base, Maine (sec. 2825)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to convey to the Maine Port
Authority of the State of Maine the Petroleum Terminal at Mack
Point, Searsport, Maine. The conveyance may include a parcel of
real property consisting of approximately 20 acres and
comprising a portion of the Petroleum Terminal and any
additional fuel tanks, other improvements, and equipment
located at the 43-acre parcel located adjacent to the Petroleum
Terminal and currently leased by the Secretary. The Secretary
would not be authorized to convey the property unless the
Authority agrees to use the property solely for economic
development.
As consideration the Authority shall lease at no cost for a
period of no more than 25 years approximately one acre,
including improvements, that constitutes the Aerospace Fuels
Laboratory. As part of the lease, the Authority shall maintain
around the real property a zone free of improvements or
encumbrances. The provision would prelude the Secretary from
conveying the property until the lease on the 43-acres leased
by the Secretary expires and until the Secretary completes any
environmental remediation required by law. The provision would
also require the Authority to reimburse the Secretary for the
costs incurred by the Secretary for any environmental
assessment, study, or analysis, or for any other expense
incurred by the Secretary for the conveyance.
Land conveyance, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Toledo, Ohio
(sec. 2826)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to convey, without consideration, to
the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, Ohio a parcel of real
property consisting of approximately 29 acres comprising the
Naval Industrial Reserve Plant, Toledo, Ohio. The Secretary
would be authorized to convey such facilities, equipment,
fixtures and other personalproperty located or based on the
parcel that the Secretary considers excess to the Navy. Until such time
as the real property is conveyed, the Secretary would be authorized to
lease the property to the Port Authority in exchange for security, fire
protection and maintenance services.
The provision would require as conditions of conveyance
that the Port Authority accept all property in the condition at
the time of conveyance or lease and that the property be used
for economic development. The Port Authority would be
authorized to sublease the facility subject to prior approval
of the Secretary. The provision would require the Port
Authority to reimburse the Secretary for any environmental
assessment, study, analysis or other expense incurred for the
lease or conveyance.
SUBTITLE D--OTHER MATTERS
Development of United States Army Heritage and Education Center at
Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania (sec. 2841)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to enter into a partnership with the
Military Heritage Foundation for the design, construction and
operation of a US Army Heritage and Education Center at
Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. The facility would provide
research facilities, classrooms, offices and associated
activities for the study and storage of artifacts. The
Secretary would be authorized to accept funds from the Heritage
Foundation for the design and construction of the US Army
Heritage and Education Center. The facility would become the
property of the Department of the Army upon the satisfaction of
any and all financial obligations incurred by the Military
Heritage Foundation. The provision would also authorize the
Commandant of the US Army War College, under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, to accept gifts for the benefit of
the United State Army Heritage and Education Center.
Limitation on availability of funds for renovation of the Pentagon
Reservation (sec. 2842)
The committee is concerned that plans for security
modifications to offices for senior Department of Defense
officials have been changed, without adequate notification to
the Congress, in ways that may reduce the security benefits
originally intended when the Congress approved an increase in
the ceiling on Pentagon renovation funding for these
modifications. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision
that would prohibit the obligation of funds for secure
secretarial offices and support facilities in the Pentagon
until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency has certified that such new offices and
facilities would meet applicable force protection requirements.
Naming of Patricia C. Lamar Army National Guard Readiness Center,
Oxford, Mississippi (sec. 2843)
The committee recommends a provision that would name the
Oxford Army National Guard Readiness Center as the Patricia C.
Lamar Army National Guard Readiness Center.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Competition in military housing privatization
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
has not taken sufficient steps to ensure competition in the
award of contracts for housing privatization. The committee
believes that qualified firms of all sizes, both local and
national, should have an opportunity to participate in this
program in order to achieve the full benefits of competition.
Department of Defense notification procedures for housing
privatization solicitations should advance this objective. In
accordance with the requirements of section 15.305(a)(2)(ii) of
the Federal Acquisition Regulation, any evaluation of past
performance conducted in the evaluation of proposals should
consider performance history on relevant contracts with private
entities as well as Federal, State, and local government
entities.
The committee directs the Department of Defense to review
its procedures to ensure that solicitations for housing
privatization projects allow full and open competition in all
stages of the process.
Military unaccompanied housing privatization
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
placed high priority on improving housing for unaccompanied
military personnel. Although the committee strongly supports
this effort, the committee is concerned that the Department has
not utilized the authorities to privatize military
unaccompanied housing provided in subchapter IV of Title 10,
United States Code. The committee urges the Secretary of
Defense to consider use of this authority as a cost saving
alternative to military construction in his effort to improve
unaccompanied housing.
Land acquisition moratorium
In 1990, the Deputy Secretary of Defense imposed a
moratoriumon the acquisition of land by the military
departments. Under this policy, any land acquisition involving more
than 1000 acres or costing over $1.0 million requires the prior
approval of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
The committee understands and supports the rationale behind
this policy, which is to ensure that in an era of downsizing of
defense infrastructure, that the military departments should
not acquire more property unless there is a demonstrated need.
However, in recent years the committee and the Department
of Defense have become more concerned about the actual and
potential conflicts between military training requirements and
the restrictions imposed by the civilian populations around
military installations. One approach to reducing such conflicts
may be for the military departments to acquire additional land
either as training areas, or as buffer zones to separate
training areas from the surrounding population and provide
additional flexibility in meeting environmental requirements or
providing habitat for listed species.
The current moratorium appears to inhibit the military
departments from acting in a timely fashion to seize such
opportunities. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
review whether changes in the current land acquisition policy
could address some of the concerns being studied in the review
of ``encroachment'' issues being conducted by the Senior
Readiness Oversight Council.
Review of need for military land withdrawals in Nevada
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to review
the use of all lands currently withdrawn from public use as
military training ranges and for all airspace in the military
operating area or otherwise designated as restricted for
military training associated with these ranges at Naval Air
Station Fallon, Nevada and submit a report to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
not later than June 30, 2002. The Secretary is directed to
identify any land or airspace no longer needed for military use
in that report.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
review the use of all lands currently withdrawn from public use
as ranges for military training purposes and for all airspace
in the military operating area or otherwise designated as
restricted for military training associated with these ranges
at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada and submit a report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than June 30, 2002. The Secretary is
directed to identify in that report any land or airspace no
longer needed for military use in that report.
TITLE XXIX--DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT
SUBTITLE A--MODIFICATIONS OF 1990 BASE CLOSURE LAW
Modifications of 1990 base closure law (secs. 2901-2904)
On February 27, 2001, a bill (S. 397) was introduced in the
Senate and referred to the committee which would authorize two
additional base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds in 2003
and 2005 under the terms of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (the 1990 Act), which set the terms for
the 1991, 1993 and 1995 base realignment and closure rounds.
This legislation also contained several changes to the
procedures in the 1990 Act, including a prohibition on
privatization in place of closed or realigned facilities unless
it was specifically recommended by the base closure commission
and determined to be the most cost-effective option and a
requirement that any selection criteria relating to the cost or
savings of proposed closures take into account the impact of
the closure on other federal agency operations on that
installation.
On August 3, 2001, the administration submitted a
legislative proposal to the Congress that would authorize an
additional round of base closures in 2003. This was the fifth
consecutive year the Department of Defense (DOD) has requested
additional base closure authority from the Congress. The
administration proposal also contained changes to the
procedures of the 1990 law, including an increase in the number
of commissioners, language placing the emphasis on military
value that has been used as the selection criteria in previous
rounds in the BRAC statute, new language allowing the DOD to
pay the difference to the recipient if the estimated cost to
the recipient to clean up a BRAC site exceeds the value of the
property, and language extending the scope of the BRAC process
to non-DOD facilities that support DOD missions or
installations.
The committee believes the arguments for allowing the
closure of additional military facilities are clear and
compelling: DOD has excess facilities, closing bases saves
money, and the military services have higher priority uses that
could be funded with those savings. The savings from BRAC are
significant. The General Accounting Office reported in August
2001 that ``audits of BRAC financial records have shown that
BRAC has enabled DOD to save billions of dollars.'' According
to the Department of Defense, previous base closure rounds are
already saving $6.0 billion each and every year.
The authorization of an additional round of base
realignment and closure is an essential element of reshaping
our military. The committee believes that giving the Secretary
of Defense the authority to recommend and implement changes to
reshape our base structure will not only free up funds to be
applied to modernization and other higher priority needs, but
that it is essential to the implementation of the Quadrennial
Defense Review and the successful transformation of our
military to meet the threats of the future.
Therefore the committee recommends a series of provisions
incorporating elements of both S. 397 and the administration
proposal that would extend and amend the 1990 Act to authorize
an additional round of base realignment and closure in 2003.
The committee did not agree to expand the scope of the BRAC law
to non-DOD facilities.
Section 2901 would extend the authorities of the 1990 Act,
which expired after the 1995 round, to authorize a new BRAC
round in 2003.
Section 2902 would establish a separate account to track
the costs and savings of the 2003 round.
Section 2903 would make substantive changes in the 1990 Act
that would apply to the 2003 round. This provision would
increase the number of commissioners from eight to nine;
require that the selection criteria emphasize military value;
require that any selection criteria relating to the cost or
savings of proposed closures take into account the impact of
the closure on other federal agency operations on that
installation; require the Secretary of Defense to review every
type of installation and to take into account the anticipated
need for and availability of overseas installations in the
future; and require the Secretary to consider any notice from a
local government that the government would approve of the
closure of a neighboring installation.
This section would also give the commission an additional
24 hours to provide information received from certain
individuals to the Congress; require that the Secretary of
Defense be given an opportunity to testify before the
commission on changes made by the commission to the Secretary's
recommendations; prohibit privatization in place of closed or
realigned facilities unless it was specifically recommended by
the base closure commission and determined to be the most cost-
effective option; allow payment to a local redevelopment
authority for services provided on property leased back by the
United States; and allow the DOD to pay the difference to the
recipient if the estimated cost to the recipient to clean up a
BRAC site exceeds the value of the property.
Section 2904 would make technical and clarifying changes to
the 1990 Act.
The committee notes the increasing limitations certain
constraints are placing on training and operations at military
installations nationwide. Such constraints include endangered
species, critical habitats, the marine environment, airspace
management, air pollution, and noise pollution. The committee
understands, for example, that virtually every major U.S.
military installation has had to reconcile its mission with
these constraints. Fully consistent with the proposal to
authorize base realignment and closures included in this title,
the committee encourages the Secretary, when composing
selection criteria, to consider the absence of significant
encroachment issues.
In authorizing this round of base realignment and closures,
the committee is not endorsing any specific target for a
percentage reduction in excess capacity to be achieved from
this round, and does not expect the Department of Defense or
commission recommendations to be designed to achieve any
predetermined target. Reductions should be based on the force
structure plan that is submitted in accordance with the
requirements of this legislation.
SUBTITLE B--MODIFICATION OF 1988 BASE CLOSURE LAW
Modification of 1988 base closure law (sec. 2911)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
1988 base closure authorities to allow payment to a local
redevelopment authority for services provided on property
leased back by the United States.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Economic development conveyances
Section 2821 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 authorized the military departments to
transfer base closure properties for economic development
purposes at less than fair market value, to include conveyance
of such property without consideration. When the Department of
Defense requested this legislative change, its stated intent
was to apply stringent criteria to this new authority. This new
authority was also intended to induce communities to accept
conveyance of such property earlier. Since enactment of this
authority, every conveyance of base closure property has been
at no cost to the recipient. The committee urges the Department
of Defense to review their procedures in this area and ensure
that conveyances for economic development at less than fair
market value, in particular those to be conveyed at no cost,
merit such treatment in each case. The committee also urges the
Department of Defense to review the desirability of linking the
discounting of such properties below fair market value to the
speed with which the community accepts the property.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for the atomic energy
defense activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2002, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of
plant and capital equipment; research and development; nuclear
weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration
and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses
necessary to carry out the purpose of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (Public Law 95-91). The title would authorize
appropriations in six categories: national nuclear security
administration; defense environmental restoration and waste
management; defense environmental management privatization;
other defense activities; and defense nuclear waste disposal.
The budget request for atomic energy defense activities
totaled $13.4 billion, a 0.9 percent decrease over the adjusted
fiscal year 2001 level. Of the total amount requested: $5.3
billion was for weapons activities; $4.5 billion was for
defense environmental restoration and waste management
activities; $1.1 billion was for defense facility closure
projects; $141.5 million was for defense environmental
management privatization; $527.6 million was for other defense
activities; and $310.0 million was for defense nuclear waste
disposal.
The committee recommends $14.3 billion for atomic energy
defense activities, an increase of $911.0 million to the budget
request. The committee recommends $7.4 billion for the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), an increase of $575.0
million to the budget request. The amount authorized for the
NNSA is as follows: $5.5 billion for weapons activities, an
increase of $152.8 million to the budget request; $830.5
million for defense nuclear nonproliferation, an increase of
$56.8 million to the budget request; and $688.0 million for
naval reactors, the amount of the budget request. The committee
further recommends $6.1 billion for defense environmental
restoration and waste management, including defense facility
closure projects, an increase of $422.2 million to the budget
request, of which $157.5 million is for defense environmental
management privatization, a $16.0 million increase to the
budget request. The committee recommends $501.5 million for
other defense activities, a decrease of $26.0 million to the
budget request; and $250.0 million for defense nuclear waste
disposal, a reduction of $60.0 million to the budget request.
The following table summarizes the budget request and the
committee recommendations:
SUBTITLE A--NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATIONS
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$7.352 billion for the Department of Energy National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) an increase of $574.9 million
above the budget request.
Weapons activities
The committee recommends $5.5 billion for weapons
activities, an increase of $152.8 million above the budget
request. The amount authorized is for the following activities:
$1.0 billion for directed stockpile work, a decrease of $26.9
million; $2.1 billion for campaigns, an increase of $140.9
million; $1.5 billion for readiness in the technical base and
facilities, an increase of $86.2 million; $77.6 million for
secure transportation assets, a decrease of $44.2 million;
$448.9 million for safeguards and security, the amount of the
budget request; and $267.9 million for facilities and
infrastructure, an increase of $267.9 million.
Directed stockpile work
The committee recommends $1.0 billion for directed
stockpile work, a reduction of $26.8 million from the $1.0
billion requested. Directed stockpile work supports the NNSA
mission to maintain the safety, security, reliability, and
performance of the Nation's nuclear stockpile without
underground nuclear explosive testing. The program is designed
to ensure that nuclear weapons continue to meet their military
requirements.
The committee recommends $305.5 million for research and
development, the amount of the budget request.
The committee recommends $362.5 million for stockpile
maintenance, the amount of the request.
The committee recommends $178.6 million for stockpile
evaluation, a reduction of $2.2 million below the budget
request. The committee recommends $29.1 million for
dismantlement/disposal, a reduction of $6.3 million below the
budget request. These reductions are available as a result of
changes in the W56 and W-79 dismantlement lines.
The amount recommended for production support is $134.9
million, a reduction of $17.9 million below the budget request.
The committee recommends $6.4 million for field
engineering, training, and manuals, a reduction of $0.3 million
below the budget request.
Campaigns
The committee recommends $2.1 billion for the stockpile
stewardship campaigns of the NNSA, an increase of $140.9
million above the budget request. The campaigns are focused
scientific and engineering efforts, involving the three NNSA
weapons laboratories, the production plants, and the Nevada
Test Site to develop and maintain the special capabilities and
tools needed for continued certification of the stockpile, now
and into the future, in the absence of underground nuclear
explosive testing. The goal of the campaigns is to provide the
capability to address current and future questions about the
stockpile using the most advanced sciences and technologies.
Campaigns focus research and development activities on clearly
defined objectives and deliverables.
The committee recommends $52.6 million for primary
certification, a reduction of $2.9 million from the budget
request.
The committee recommends $93.6 million for dynamic
materials properties, a reduction of $4.2 million from the
budget request.
The committee recommends $44.5 million for secondary
certification and nuclear systems margins, a reduction of $2.7
million from the budget request. The committee supports the
NNSA efforts in high energy density physics partnerships with
universities and urges the NNSA to expand these whenever
possible.
The committee recommends $492.4 million for inertial
confinement fusion ignition and high yield, an increase of
$24.5 million above the budget requested. The additional funds
would provide $10.0 million to enhance National Ignition
Facility diagnostics and cryogenic target activities; $7.0
million to address shortfalls in the inertial confinement
fusion programs base program; $3.0 million to support
conceptual and preliminary design activities of a petawatt-
class laser at Sandia National Laboratory's Z-machine; $2.0
million to initiate development of critical short-pulse laser
technologies; and $2.4 million to support university
partnerships.
The committee recommends $755.0 million for advanced
simulation and computing, an increase of $17.0 million above
the budget request. This increase would add $17.0 million to
construction project 00-D-103, Terascale simulation facility at
the Lawrence Livermore National laboratory so that this project
can be completed in time to house the next computer under the
advanced computing initiative.
The committee recommends $237.7 million for pit
manufacturing and certification, an increase of $109.2 million
above the budget request. The additional funds would fully fund
all increases associated with efforts to manufacture and
certify a new pit. The committee believes that this project
must continue to be managed on a project basis. The committee
recognizes the difficulty of certifying a new pit and urges
NNSA to develop a multi-lab team to develop an approach for
certification of a new pit. In addition, the committee believes
it is premature to rush to design a new pit manufacturing
facility when there are significant uncertainties about the
size of the nuclear weapons stockpile in the future anduntil
such time as the ability to manufacture a certifiable pit is restored.
The committee remains concerned however about the
reliability, safety and security of the United States Nuclear
Stockpile. Earlier this year, the Panel to Assess the
Reliability, Safety and Security of the United States Nuclear
Stockpile issued its report and testified before the committee.
That testimony reiterated the critical need to restore missing
pit production capabilities and refurbish the production
complex. This recommendation was based on the Panel's
observation that the United States remains unable to produce or
reproduce all of the components in the existing weapons
inventory. To establish and sustain the capability to restore
integrated design, fabrication, and qualification capabilities
for the full range of weapon components, the panel recommended
the following efforts be undertaken: (a) restore the capability
to support needed weapons work; (b) restore nuclear facilities
adequate to long-term needs, including facilities for pit
production; and (c) improve the design and production process.
The committee notes the panel's estimate that it will take
ten or more years to build an adequate pit production facility.
The committee urges the administration to begin a time-phased
program to design and build a pit production facility. The
pending Nuclear Posture Review is expected to outline such
critical concerns as the size of a future arsenal and mix of
weapons. This review is scheduled to be released in December
2001. Conceptual design should proceed at the conclusion of
this study in order to facilitate a timely decision on facility
construction.
The Department of Energy's request included $4.0 million
for conceptual design activities for a modern pit facility. The
committee recommends that of the funds available for pit
manufacture and certification an additional $10 million be
available to select an architect-engineering organization to
begin the conceptual design and report process, in order to
keep the new pit production facility on schedule.
Readiness in technical base and facilities
The committee recommends $1.5 billion in readiness in
technical base and facilities, an increase of $86.2 million
above the budget request. Readiness in technical base and
facilities ensures safe operation of NNSA defense program
facilities.
The committee recommends $900.4 million for operations of
facilities, an increase of $70.0 million above the budget
request. The additional funds will provide $10.0 million for
additional operation of the pulsed-power facilities at Sandia
National Laboratory and $10.0 million to refurbish the Z-
machine at Sandia National Laboratory. In addition, the funds
would provide $50 million to address a number of shortfalls at
the weapons plants.
The committee recommends $197.2 million in program
readiness, an increase of $9.1 million above the budget request
for infrastructure shortfalls and to maintain materials
processing capabilities.
The committee recommends $60.4 million in special projects,
a $4.1 million reduction from the budget request. From the
funds available for this account the committee directs the
Administrator to identify the costs and the schedule that would
be necessary to move the NNSA Atomic Museum off of the grounds
of Kirtland Air Force Base.
The committee recommends $90.3 million for material recycle
and recovery, a decrease of $11.0 million below the budget
request.
The committee recommends $88.9 million for nuclear weapons
incident response, a decrease of $0.2 million to the budget
request.
The committee recommends $39.0 million for project 02-D-101
Microsystem and Engineering Science Applications (MESA) lab, an
increase of $37.0 million above the budget request.
The committee recommends $31.1 million for project 02-D-103
Project engineering and design, various locations, an increase
of $21.9 million above the budget request. The additional funds
would allow the NNSA to begin preliminary design activity on
replacing and consolidating facilities across the complex. The
committee believes that when the NNSA establishes a new
construction project that the new project should include the
cost of demolishing any buildings being replaced. NNSA has
significantly more square feet of space then it requires,
although much of the existing space is substandard. In order to
reduce the maintenance costs over the long term, the NNSA must
begin to reduce the total number of square feet of space it
owns. The committee directs the NNSA to include in all
construction project requests an explanation as to how the
construction project will decrease the overall number of square
feet of space at the site where the construction project is
planned.
The committee recommends $16.4 million in 01-D-103,
Preliminary Design and Engineering, a decrease of $29.0 million
below the budget request.
The committee recommends no money for 01-D-124, Highly
Enriched Uranium (HEU) Storage Facility, Y-12 Plant, a
reduction of $9.5 million to the budget request.
The committee recommends $2.0 million for project 99-D-108
Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test Site, an increase of
$2.0 million to upgrade roads at the Nevada Test Site.
Defense nuclear nonproliferation
The budget request included $773.7 million for defense
nuclear nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy,
National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA). This
amount represents the amount requested, $815.7 million, reduced
by the use of $42.0million in prior year balances. The
committee recommends $830.5 million for these programs, after
adjustments of $42.0 million, an increase of $56.8 million above the
budget request. The committee further recommends a decrease of $51.5
million in program direction funds in the defense nuclear
nonproliferation account, moving the program direction funds to a
consolidated program account for the NNSA. The committee recommends an
overall programmatic increase of $108.2 million for DOE/NNSA defense
nuclear nonproliferation programs.
Nonproliferation and verification research and development
The budget request included $206.1 million for
nonproliferation and verification research and development. The
committee recommends an increase of $52.0 million to restore
funding for this important research to the fiscal year 2001
level.
The additional funds would allow DOE/NNSA to continue a
wide variety of research efforts to improve detection,
identification, measuring, and modeling capabilities to support
U.S. nonproliferation activities. The research capabilities
that DOE/NNSA and its laboratories and facilities carry out
provide technical capability and assistance for a wide range of
uses across the Federal Government.
Some of the technologies that would be supported by the
additional funds include: improved remote effluent detection
using Lidar and Hyperspectral infrared imaging systems; better
remote physical detection capabilities; expanded regional
ground-based seismic systems and improved seismic calibration
capabilities; improved radiation detection and nuclear
materials analysis capabilities; development of
microtechnologies and micromachining technologies to reduce the
size of detectors; improved modeling to support chemical and
biological materials detection, fate and transport in urban
environments, and decontamination; and the HAZMAT spill test
center at the Nevada Test Site.
International nuclear safety and cooperation
The budget request included $13.8 million for International
Nuclear Safety and Cooperation.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.7 million, to
restore the program to its fiscal year 2001 level.
The committee continues to support the effort to enhance
the operational safety of Soviet-designed nuclear power plants
and to improve the nuclear safety infrastructure in the
countries that operate these reactors. The DOE/NNSA works with
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as part of an international
effort to improve the operational safety of certain types of
Soviet-designed reactors.
This program also works closely with the Department of
Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program office to
shut down the last remaining Russian plutonium producing power
reactors. While there are substantial and valid concerns about
the ability of these reactors to continue to operate until they
can be shut down and replaced with fossil fueled power plants,
the committee urges the DOE/NNSA to make only those
improvements at those reactors that meet urgent short-term
safety needs. The committee does not support, and recommends no
funds for, actions designed to increase the operational life of
those reactors, or actions that would delay the CTR program
efforts to shut down the reactors.
Highly enriched uranium transparency implementation
The budget request included $13.9 million for the Highly
Enriched Uranium (HEU) transparency implementation program. The
committee recommends $13.9 million, the amount of the request.
The HEU transparency implementation program is responsible for
monitoring the nonproliferation aspects of the February 1993
HEU Purchase Agreement between the United States and Russia.
This program ensures that the $12.0 billion of HEU sold to the
United States under the HEU Purchase Agreement is derived from
500 metric tons of HEU that has been removed from dismantled
Russian nuclear weapons. The committee is concerned, however,
that this funding level supports only 18 of the 24 special
monitoring visits to the four Russian uranium processing
facilities and urges the DOE/NNSA to carry out as many of the
allowed visits as possible. Moreover, the committee expects the
fiscal year 2003 budget to fund all such permitted visits.
Arms control and nonproliferation
The budget request included $101.5 million for Arms Control
and Nonproliferation. This request included $22.1 million for
the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), $6.6
million for the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI), and $8.9
million for Spent Fuel Activities in Kazakhstan.
The committee recommends an increase of $36.5 million for
Arms Control and Nonproliferation, including $14.5 million for
the NCI, $15.0 million for IPP, and $7.0 million for Spent Fuel
Activities in Kazakhstan.
The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Arms Control
and Nonproliferation programs at the DOE/NNSA represented a
reduction of $46.9 million, or 32 percent, below the amount
appropriated for these programs in fiscal year 2001. The Arms
Control programs at DOE/NNSA fund a wide variety of important
efforts to detect, prevent, and reverse the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction materials, technology, and
expertise. The DOE/NNSAefforts, in these and the companion
Materials Protection Control and Accounting programs, are designed to
address what the Baker-Cutler task force described as the ``most urgent
unmet national security threat to the United States today.''
In its January 2001 report, the Task Force on the
Evaluation of the Department of Energy's Nonproliferation
Programs With Russia, chaired by former Senator Howard Baker
and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, identified and
discussed this threat. The task force reached the following
conclusions:
(1) The most urgent unmet national security threat to the
United States today is the danger that weapons of mass
destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia could be
stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used
against American troops abroad and citizens at home.
(2) Current nonproliferation programs in the Department of
Energy, the Department of Defense, and related agencies have
achieved impressive results thus far, but their limited mandate
and funding fall short of what is required to address
adequately the threat.
The task force went on to specifically find:
(1) By and large, current DOE programs are having a
significant and positive effect. The strategic plan recommended
by the task force should review the needs of each of these
programs and, where appropriate, provide for a substantial
increase in funding. Expansions of program scope and increases
in funding, however, must take careful account of the pace at
which funds can usefully be expended in each individual
program.
(2) The strategic plan and the associated budgets should
identify specific goals and measurable objectives for each
program, as well as provide criteria for success and an exit
strategy. These should be factored into the five-year budget
plan currently being developed for the National Nuclear
Security Administration.
(3) A major obstacle to further expansion and success of
current programs is the continuation of differences between the
U.S. and Russia over transparency and access. As a condition
for a substantially expanded program, the U.S. and Russia
should agree at a high level on the degree of transparency
needed to assure that U.S.-funded activity has measurable
impacts on program objectives and that U.S. taxpayer dollars
are being spent as intended.
(4) Given the gravity of the existing situation and the
nature of the challenge before us, it is imperative that the
President establish a high-level leadership position in the
White House with responsibility for policy and budget
coordination for threat reduction and nonproliferation programs
across the U.S. Government. The President should appoint a
person of stature who commands the respect and attention of
relevant Cabinet officers and Congressional leaders to lead
this program.
(5) The U.S. administration of these programs should seek
to eliminate any unnecessary and overly restrictive controls
that hamper swift and efficient action. To overcome potential
impediments that often arise from ``business as usual''
practices within the Russian and U.S. bureaucracies, DOE and
related agencies should take practical steps, including further
enlargement of the DOE team working with the U.S. Ambassador in
Moscow, to ensure the most efficient on-the-ground
implementation of the programs in Russia.
(6) It is imperative to mobilize the sustained interest and
concern of the Congress. The task force urges the Congress to
consider the creation of a joint committee on weapons of mass
destruction, nuclear safety and nonproliferation, modeled after
the former Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Creation of such a
committee would ensure that the issues receive adequate high-
level attention and that Member and staff expertise is
developed and preserved.
The task force also discusses Russia's role in this effort:
While emphasizing that enhanced efforts are needed
from the U.S., the Task Force underscores that enhanced
efforts are also required from Russia. Ultimately,
Russia will be responsible for securing its remaining
nuclear arsenal. If this program is conceived in full
cooperation with the Russian Federation, is adequately
financed, and is implemented as part of a growing, open
and transparent partnership, then the task force
believes that Russia should be positioned to take over
any work remaining at the end of the eight to ten year
period. If Russia is not prepared for such a
partnership, then full success will not be achieved.
Bearing this in mind, the task force report outlines
an enhanced national security program as described
above. This program could be carried out for less than
one percent of the U.S. defense budget, or up to a
total of $30.0 billion over the next eight to ten
years. The Russian Government would, of course, be
expected to make a significant contribution
commensurate with its own financial ability. The
national security benefits to U.S. citizens from
securing and/or neutralizing the equivalent of more
than 80,000 nuclear weapons and potential nuclear
weapons would constitute the highest return on
investment in any current U.S. national security and
defense program. The new President should press other
major powers such as the European Union, Japan and Canada
to assume a fair share of the costs of these efforts
designed also to enhance the security of these
countries. Contributions from other countries could
significantly reduce U.S. costs.
The committee urges the DOE/NNSA to fund these programs to
address adequately the threat. As the task force concluded,
``the limited mandate and funding fall short of what is
required to address adequately the threat.''
For over forty years the International Atomic Energy Agency
and its member states have undertaken an intense effort to
establish increasingly credible systems for accounting and
control of special and other fissionable material (SNM) and the
facilities that produce SNM. The committee recognizes that the
quantity and complexity of materials and facilities that
require international safeguards has increased the potential
threat that such materials and facilities could be diverted to
clandestine unsafeguarded activities. It is, therefore,
increasingly important that sophisticated nuclear monitoring
systems, capable of handling the vast number of facilities
requiring such safeguards, be developed and implemented to
ensure the integrity of international nuclear safeguards
programs.
The committee, therefore, directs that $5.0 million of the
funds available to the Office of Arms Control and
Nonproliferation (NN-40) be used to develop advanced
instrumentation and provide these advanced safeguards systems
for implementation by the International Atomic Energy Agency as
part of its advanced safeguards system. Furthermore, these
systems should also offer increased confidence building
measures that will help strengthen U.S. and international
confidence in the accuracy and integrity of international
safeguards over nuclear weapons usable material.
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
The committee continues to support the IPP program and
recommends that, of the funds available to the IPP program,
$5.0 million should be dedicated to working in those cities in
Russia that will be closed or downsized pursuant to the NCI
program. The IPP program sponsors focused applied research
projects in Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, in conjunction
with U.S. industry. Its efforts extend beyond the former Soviet
nuclear programs and include a range of other former program
participants including former biological weapons scientists.
These projects must have significant potential for
commercialization in order to be approved for IPP funding. The
ultimate goal of the IPP program is to have these projects
commercialized in a way that could provide full-time employment
for Russian and other scientists and engineers. To date,
approximately three hundred full-time jobs have been created.
Several additional projects are about to be commercialized with
the expectation that over the course of the next year or so, as
many as 2,000 new full-time jobs will be created.
The IPP program has been very successful in providing
valuable non-military research opportunities to the former
Soviet scientists and engineers and preventing a brain drain.
At the same time, the IPP commercial partners have received
valuable research and development efforts. The committee urges
the IPP program efforts in the closing Russian nuclear cities
to focus on applied research that could lead to creation of
full-time commercial jobs in the closed cities. The committee
believes that the IPP program is a successful, very focused
program that should maintain its focus and purpose and should
not be merged into the NCI program. At the same time, it should
work more closely with the NCI program in its efforts in the
nuclear cities that will be closed or downsized.
Nuclear Cities Initiative
The NCI program was established by a March 1998 agreement
between the United States and Russia to address the brain drain
problem and to work with Russia to shrink the size of the
Russian nuclear weapons complex. Unlike the IPP program, which
focuses its efforts on scientists still at work in the weapons
complex, NCI was intended to provide assistance to scientists,
engineers, technicians, and others as they loose their jobs as
a result of the Russian effort to downsize nuclear weapons
facilities. Russia requested U.S. assistance in finding
employment for these displaced workers and to help accelerate
the planned downsizing.
NCI has been criticized since its inception for, among
other things, being overly broad in its goals and largely
unfocused in how it would achieve those goals. Some of this
criticism was merited. The NCI program has just completed its
second full year in operation and has begun to establish
clearer mission goals. It has one project that has significant
potential to provide a substantial number of skilled technical
jobs.
The committee believes that the NCI program should continue
to restrict its activities to three Russian closed cities and
to two serial production facilities. The DOE/NNSA should
continue discussions with Russia and identify appropriate pilot
projects that have a high probability of success. The committee
believes that commercial partners are essential to the success
of the overall NCI effort.
NCI should limit its programmatic focus as well. Whereas
IPP is actively engaged in providing research opportunities,
primarily to scientists and engineers who are still employed by
their institutes, NCI should focus on helping the Russian
cities attractcommercial ventures that will provide jobs to
those who will be laid-off as the Russian nuclear weapons complex
downsizes. DOE/NNSA should focus its NCI efforts to help the facilities
at these cities attract new investments and preparing the cities to be
attractive to new investment.
The work that NCI has undertaken at Avangard, Russia--such
as moving fences and other site preparation work to enable and
facilitate a new commercial joint venture to come to Avangard--
is precisely the type of work that should be conducted by the
NCI program. NCI should continue to work with Russia, other
U.S. Federal Government agencies, and the private sector to
encourage and facilitate commercial development at the closed
cities. NCI should expand in the future only as it becomes
clear which approaches work and which do not. On the other
hand, it is unrealistic to expect NCI to attract the large
numbers of jobs that will ultimately be needed for the
displaced workers. NCI should assist in what is fundamentally a
Russian effort to close facilities. NCI should work toward an
agreement with Russia that will identify realistic programmatic
expectations and a realistic time line in which to complete the
program.
The committee does not support merging the IPP and NCI
programs into a single program at this time. Nevertheless, the
committee believes the programs should be joined to form parts
of a single division in the Office of Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation in the NNSA. This division should be under
common leadership and administrative support. This new division
should be structured to call upon the commercial participants
in the IPP program to help the NCI program attract commercial
firms to the closed or closing Russian facilities. The
committee recognizes that the NNSA is in transition and that a
new Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
has not yet been confirmed. Therefore, the committee directs
the NNSA to submit to the congressional defense committees a
program plan that will bring the IPP and the NCI programs
together under common senior management. The committee expects
the plan to be submitted four months after the Deputy
Administrator has been sworn in, and the plan to be implemented
no later than six months after a new Deputy Administrator has
been sworn in. The committee expects this program plan will
also address needed management improvements, greater
coordination between the two programs, and improved
programmatic plans for the NCI program.
The committee notes that the European Community has
recently initiated a European NCI program. The committee
strongly supports this initiative and urges DOE/NNSA to
cooperate with and work with the European NCI program wherever
possible.
Spent Fuel Activities in Kazakhstan
The additional $7.0 million recommended by the committee
for Spent Fuel Activities in Kazakhstan will restore this
program to roughly its fiscal year 2001 appropriated level so
that the DOE/NNSA can continue to support the efforts in
Kazakhstan to store spent fuel safely and securely at the Aktau
reactor.
International Materials Protection Control and Accounting
The budget request included $138.8 million for
International Materials Protection Control and Accounting
(MPC&A). The committee recommends $143.8 million, an increase
of $5.0 million to complete additional permanent security
upgrades.
The committee believes that theft of weapons-grade nuclear
materials in the former Soviet Union is one of the most
critical national security and proliferation threats to the
United States. The committee commends the MPC&A program for its
success in increasing the security of approximately 50 percent
of the Russian stockpile of nuclear weapons-usable material not
contained in Russian nuclear weapons. A significant number of
challenges remain, however, in the effort to improve
permanently the level of security for this material.
Among the challenges to achieving the overall goal of
safely securing and storing all weapons-usable material in
Russia and the other countries of the former Soviet Union are
ensuring continued access to sites where improvements have been
made, completing comprehensive long-term improvements, and
ensuring Russian support to operate and maintain the security
improvements and systems.
Although more than the budget request, the funding
recommended by the committee represents a $25.7 million
reduction from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level. The
committee is concerned that decreasing funding for this program
may not be adequate to meet current needs as well as the
significant challenges confronting the program.
The committee urges the administration to work at the
highest levels of the Russian and U.S. governments to address
the issues of access, transparency, and the other challenges,
and to work to accelerate security upgrades at the remaining
facilities and buildings. In addition, the United States should
work with Russia to consider efforts to consolidate the number
of sites where material is stored.
The DOE/NNSA second line of defense program, which helps to
improves detection capabilities at border control points, is an
integral part of the overall effort to prevent and detect theft
of nuclear materials. The committee believes these programs
should be managed under one effort. Accordingly, the committee
directs that the second line of defense program be merged into
the MPC&A program and managed as one integrated program. The
committee further directs that $4.0 million of the funds
available to the Arms Control program be made available for
second line of defense activities.
Related to second line of defense activities are efforts to
improve and strengthen export control regimes. The committee
directs the DOE/NNSA to use up to $5.0 million of the funds
available for the Defense nuclear nonproliferation programs be
used to work with key supplier states and regions of concern to
develop or improve export control regimes. This effort should
include efforts to expand cooperative activities to strengthen
nuclear export controls worldwide, strengthen the DOE/NNSA role
in the technical analysis of proliferation problem and increase
the role DOE/NNSA plays in the evaluation of U.S. export
licenses.
Russian surplus fissile materials disposition
The budget request included $57.0 million for Russian
surplus fissile materials disposition.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to
support the continued development of advanced reactor
technologies in Russia to burn up large quantities of excess
Russian plutonium.
It is estimated that Russia currently has in excess of 100
tons of excess weapons grade plutonium. If U.S. and Russian
efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and dismantle
additional warheads are to be successful, the amount of surplus
plutonium should increase.
The September 2000 agreement between Russia and the United
States detailed technologies to be used to dispose of excess
plutonium. Under the agreement, both Russia and the United
States will convert the plutonium to an oxide form to be used
in Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel. The Russian reactors that are
capable of burning MOX fuel can burn approximately two metric
tons of plutonium per year. In order to increase the burn rate
of plutonium, the United States and Russia have jointly funded
a research and development effort to development new reactor
technology. The committee supports this effort and urges the
(DOE/NNSA) to accelerate demonstration of new reactor
technology. As in the past, the committee expects continued
Russian contributions to the research and development effort.
The committee urges the DOE/NNSA to solicit aggressively
financial commitments from other nations to continue
development of this technology.
U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition
The budget request included $233.0 million for the U.S.
surplus fissile materials disposition program. The committee
recommends the amount of the request, but is concerned that
this amount is significantly less than the amount needed to
support the hybrid plutonium disposition program established by
DOE/NNSA in January 2000 and the U.S. HEU project to transfer
50 metric tons of HEU to the United States Enrichment
Corporation.
In January 1997 the DOE announced it would pursue a hybrid
disposition strategy for surplus U.S. plutonium. This strategy
relies on two technologies: irradiation and immobilization. The
former will convert the plutonium to an oxide form, and combine
it with uranium oxide to make a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. This
fuel will be irradiated in a commercial nuclear power plant to
make electricity. The latter, immobilization, will take
plutonium not suitable for use in MOX fuel, and convert it into
a stable ceramic form. This plutonium ceramic will be
surrounded by vitrified high level nuclear waste and disposed
of in a permanent spent fuel repository. In January 2000, the
DOE issued the record of decision to implement the hybrid
program.
The funding included in the budget request would limit the
MOX fuel program to a technology demonstration program only and
suspend the immobilization program. This puts in possible
jeopardy the ability of the DOE/NNSA to support a long-term
disposition effort for surplus weapons grade plutonium as well
as the ability of the DOE to store additional plutonium at the
DOE Savannah River Site. The committee understands that the
slowdown in the plutonium disposition program is largely the
result of the administration's ongoing review of all
nonproliferation programs. The committee urges the DOE to
complete the review as quickly as possible and reinstate the
hybrid plutonium disposition program.
Secure Transportation Asset
The committee recommends $77.6 million for Secure Transport
Asset, a decrease of $44.2 million below the budget request.
Safeguards and security
The committee recommends $448.9 million for safeguards and
security, the amount of the budget request.
Facilities and infrastructure
The committee recommends $267.9 million for facilities and
infrastructure, an increase of $267.9 million above the budget
request.
Office of Administrator and program direction
The committee recommends $380.4 million for program
direction for the National Nuclear Security Administration, an
increase of $365.4 million above the budget request. All of the
program direction accounts of the NNSA, with the exception of
the program direction account for the Office of Naval Reactors,
would be combined. The NNSA has announced a major
headquartersreorganization that will begin to move the NNSA into an
integrated organization. The committee commends the NNSA for this
action and urges NNSA to complete a reorganization of the field
structure of the NNSA.
Defense Environmental restoration and waste management (sec. 3102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$6.2 billion for defense environmental restoration and waste
management, an increase of $422.2 million above the budget
request. The amount authorized is for the following activities:
closure projects $1.1 billion, an increase of $30.0 million
over the budget request; $943.2 million for site/project
completion, an increase of $31.2 million over the budget
request; $3.2 billion for post-2006 completion, an increase of
$325.0 million over the budget request; $1.3 million for excess
facilities, the amount of the budget request; $205.6 million
for safeguards and security, the amount of the request; $216.0
million for science and technology development, an increase of
$20.0 million over the budget request; $355.8 million for
program direction, the amount of the budget request.
Closure projects
The committee recommends $1.1 billion in defense facilities
closure projects, an increase of $30.0 million above the budget
request. The site closure account includes sites that will be
closed by the end of 2006. The committee believes that if a
site does not have a reasonable opportunity to close by 2006,
then the site should not be included in this account and the
funding for the site should be transferred to the post-2006
completion account. The committee also believes that if new
sites are scheduled to close within the five-year period after
2006, and there is high confidence in the ability of these
sites to close within such a time period, then the Department
of Energy (DOE) should consider establishing a second closure
account for those sites. The committee recommends the
additional funds to ensure that the projects in this account
meet their closure dates.
Site and project completion
The committee recommends $943.2 million for site and
project completion, an increase of $31.2 million to the budget
request, to ensure that the terms and conditions of enforceable
cleanup and other agreements with the states and Environmental
Protection Agency are met. The committee recommends a reduction
of $15.8 million, the amount of the budget request for project
92-D-140 F&H Canyon exhaust upgrades.
Post-2006 Completion
The committee recommends $3.2 billion for post-2006
completion, an increase of $325.0 million above the budget
request. Included in the additional amounts are $120.0 million
for the DOE Savannah River and $105.0 million for the Hanford
Sites. Of the funds available to the Hanford Site, the
committee directs the DOE to continue with the reactor
cocooning project. Of the funds available to DOE in the Post-
2006 completion account $20.0 shall million be available for
Los Alamos and Livermore National Laboratories to continue
waste management and remediation activities; $21.6 million
shall be available to ensure that sufficient TRU-pact
containers are available to continue shipping tru-wastes from
Rocky Flats to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project; $4 million
shall be available to continue ground water-monitoring
activities at the Nevada Test Site; $5 million shall be
available for the Mexico Border health initiative; and, $3.6
million shall be made available for spent fuel stabilization
activities at the Savannah River Site.
Included in the budget request for Post-2206 completion is
the budget request for the Office of River Protection. The
committee recommends $862.4 million for the Office of River
Protection, $50.0 million above the request for tank farm
operations.
Science and technology
The committee recommends $216.0 million for Science and
technology, an increase of $20.0 million to the budget request.
The committee notes that the budget request for science and
technology for fiscal year 2002 is $56.0 million below the
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001, a significant
reduction. The committee strongly supports the research,
development, and demonstration work of the Office of Science
and Technology and urges the DOE to fully fund this office in
the future. The new cleanup and waste treatment technologies
that have resulted from the research conducted by the office of
science have provided significant savings to the DOE cleanup
program. The committee urges the DOE to work with small
business to identify new technologies as well as the large DOE
contractors.
Other Defense Activities (sec. 3103)
The committee authorizes $501.4 million for other defense
activities, after adjustments, a reduction of $26.1 million to
the budget request.
Security and Emergency Operations
The committee recommends $247.6 million for Security
andEmergency Operations, a reduction of $21.7 million to the budget
request. This reduction reflects a $20.0 million decrease in the
corporate management information program, and a $1.7 million decrease
in program direction.
Worker and community transition
The committee recommends $20.0 million for worker and
community transition, a reduction of $4.4 million to the budget
request.
Defense Environmental management privatization (sec. 3104)
The committee recommends $157.5 million for environmental
management privatization, an increase of $16.0 million over the
budget request. The $16.0 million increase is for project 97-
PVT-2, advanced mixed waste treatment project, Idaho Falls,
Idaho.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal (sec. 3105)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$250.0 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, a $60.0
million reduction below the budget request of $310.0 million.
SUBTITLE B--RECURRING GENERAL PROVISIONS
Reprogramming (sec. 3121)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the reprogramming of funds in excess of 110 percent of the
amount authorized for the program, or in excess on $2.0 million
above the amount authorized for the program, whichever is less,
until: (1) the Secretary of Energy submits a report to the
congressional defense committees; and (2) a period of 30 days
has elapsed after the date on which the report is received. The
committee recommends an increase in the threshold for
reprogrammings from the $1.0 million threshold that has been in
place in previous years, bringing the Department of Energy more
in line with the reprogramming authority provided to the
Department of Defense. The committee notes that the threshold
level for reprogramming actions had been $10.0 million but was
reduced to $1.0 million in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1995. The committee believes that $1.0
million has become an unrealistic threshold and DOE
programmatic execution may be unnecessarily delayed by
maintaining a $1.0 million threshold.
Limits on minor construction projects (sec. 3122)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Energy to carry out minor construction
projects using operation and maintenance funds, or facilities
and infrastructure funds, if the total estimated cost of the
minor construction project does not exceed $5.0 million. In
addition, the provision would require the Secretary to submit
an annual report identifying each minor construction project
undertaken during the previous fiscal year. The committee
directs the Secretary to submit this report at the same time
the Secretary submits the Department of Energy budget request
for fiscal year 2003, or as soon thereafter as possible.
Limits on construction projects (sec. 3123)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit any
construction project to be initiated and continued only if the
estimated cost for the project does not exceed 125 percent of
the higher of the amount authorized for the project or the most
recent total estimated cost presented to the Congress as
justification for such a project. The Secretary of Energy may
not exceed such limits until 30 legislative days after the
Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees a
detailed report setting forth the reasons for the increase.
This provision would also specify that the 125 percent
limitation would not apply to projects estimated to cost under
$5.0 million.
Fund transfer authority (sec. 3124)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit
funds authorized by this Act to be transferred to other
agencies of the government for performance of work for which
the funds were authorized and appropriated. The provision would
permit the merger of such transferred funds with the
authorizations of the agency to which they are transferred. The
provision would also limit, to not more than five percent of
the account, the amount of funds authorized by this Act that
may be transferred between authorization accounts within the
Department of Energy.
Authority for conceptual and construction design (sec. 3125)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
Secretary of Energy's authority to request construction funding
until the Secretary has completed a conceptual design. This
limitation would apply to construction projects with a total
estimated cost greater than $5.0 million. If the estimated cost
to prepare the construction design exceeds $600,000, the
provision would require the Secretary to obtain a specific
authorization to obligate such funds. If the estimated cost to
prepare a conceptual design exceeds $3.0 million, the provision
would require theSecretary to request funds for the conceptual
design before requesting funds for construction. The provision would
further require the Secretary to submit to Congress a report on each
conceptual design completed under this provision. The provision would
also provide an exception to these requirements in the case of an
emergency.
Authority for emergency planning, design, and construction activities
(sec. 3126)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit the
Secretary of Energy to perform planning and design with any
funds available to the Department of Energy pursuant to this
title, including those funds authorized for advance planning
and construction design, whenever the Secretary determines that
the design must proceed expeditiously to protect the public
health and safety, to meet the needs of national defense, or to
protect property.
Funds available for all national security programs of the Department of
Energy (sec. 3127)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize,
subject to section 3121 of this Act, amounts appropriated for
management and support activities and for general plant
projects to be made available for use in connection with all
national security programs of the Department of Energy.
Availability of funds (sec. 3128)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
amounts appropriated for operating expenses or for plant and
capital equipment for the Department of Energy to remain
available until expended. Program direction funds would remain
available until the end of fiscal year 2003.
Transfers of defense environmental management funds (sec. 3129)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
manager of each field office of the Department of Energy with
limited authority to transfer up to $5.0 million in fiscal year
2002 defense environmental management funds from one program or
project, including site project and completion and post 2006
completion funds, three times in a fiscal year. Each transfer
shall not exceed $5.0 million and the transfers shall not be
aggregated.
Transfer of weapons activities funds (sec. 3130)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
manager of each Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security
Administration (DOE/NNSA) office with limited authority to
transfer up to $5.0 million in fiscal year 2002 weapons
activities funds from one program or project under the
manager's jurisdiction to another. Each manager would be able
to use this authority up to three times per year. This
authority is similar to that which has been provided to the
managers of the DOE environmental management sites. Each
transfer shall not exceed $5.0 million and the transfers shall
not be aggregated.
SUBTITLE C--PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS
Limitation on availability of funds for weapons activities for
facilities and infrastructure (sec. 3131)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to establish criteria for the facilities and
infrastructure program. Over the years, the Department of
Energy has deferred much of the routine maintenance of real
property and facilities needed to maintain adequately the
defense program facilities. The committee recommends $267.9
million in section 3101 to begin to address this backlog of
deferred maintenance. Although the budget request did not
create such an account in the DOE/NNSA budget, the
Administrator of the NNSA testified before the committee that
such an account would be needed to begin to correct the
substantial maintenance backlog at DOE/NNSA facilities.
The committee believes that firm criteria must be
established against which projects can be judged and priorities
established. This will ensure that the projects funded by this
account are high priority projects necessary to ensure worker
and community health and safety, comply with environmental
requirements, meet safeguards and security requirements and
ensure the mission of the defense programs is maintained on a
timely basis. The criteria should provide a mechanism to allow
priorities to be established by site and among sites so that a
integrated list of priority projects can be developed. The
committee believes that the projects should be funded on the
priority of the projects to Defense Programs of the DOE and
NNSA and not based on any requirement for an equitable
distribution of the funds by site.
As a result, the committee recommends a provision that
would require the Administrator to establish such criteria
before more than fifty percent of the funds authorized to be
appropriated by the Act are obligated or expended.
The committee fully supports the efforts to address
themaintenance backlog at the DOE/NNSA sites. The committee believes
that it is equally important, however, for the DOE/NNSA to plan and
budget adequately in the future for needed real property maintenance;
to ensure that maintenance costs are included in the five-year budget
plan for new construction; and to ensure that all new construction is
planned to include funds to tear down the facilities they are
replacing.
Limitation on availability of funds for other defense activities for
national security programs administrative support (sec. 3132)
The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the
Secretary of Energy from using more than $5.0 million of the
funds authorized to be appropriated for national security
programs administrative support pursuant to section 3103(a)(8)
until such time as the Secretary submits the future years
nuclear security program required by section 3253 of the
National Nuclear Security Act (title XXXII of Public Law 106-
65) and until the Secretary submits a justification document
for the national security programs administrative support
activities describing the activities to be carried out with the
funds provided.
The Department of Energy (DOE) included $25.0 million in
its national security budget request in the Other Defense
Activities account, apparently to supplement the DOE non-
defense funded budget request for Departmental Administration.
DOE did not include this amount in any of its budget
justification books. Not only did the budget justification book
for Other Defense Activities not include any reference to this
request, the budget request summary tables included in this
book showed the DOE fiscal year 2001 request but not the fiscal
year 2002 budget request.
The committee understands that the DOE was aware of these
mistakes and omissions in its Other Defense Activities budget
justification book at the time it submitted this material to
the committee. Nevertheless, the DOE failed to supply any
supplemental or additional material to Congress to display,
acknowledge, or justify the $25.0 million requested for
national security programs administrative support.
The committee further understands that the $25.0 million
requested was to augment the non-defense funded Departmental
Administration account. This account funds general DOE
administrative expenses such as the Office of the Secretary,
the General Counsel, the Chief Financial Officer, and the
Office of Policy. The budget request for the Departmental
Administration account for fiscal year 2002 was $83.8 million.
The budget justification for this amount describes the
administrative services that will be provided to the entire DOE
from the $83.8 million requested but contains no reference to
the additional $25.0 million. Thus, the provision recommended
by the committee directs the Secretary to submit a detailed
plan, at the same level of detail contained in the DOE budget
justification books, for the activities to be funded by the
$25.0 million requested by DOE for national security programs
administrative support.
The DOE also failed to submit the future years nuclear
security program plan. When this plan is submitted as required,
together with the justification material discussed above, the
Secretary may obligate and expend the balance of the $25.0
million authorized to be appropriated.
Until such time as the reports required by this provision
are submitted, the activities that would have been funded by
the national security programs administrative support account
shall be funded by the funds available to the Department for
Departmental Administration.
Nuclear Cities Initiative (sec. 3133)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of funds authorized to be appropriated after fiscal
year 2001 for the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) from being
obligated or expended to expand the NCI program beyond its
current scope until thirty days after the Administrator of the
National Nuclear Security Administration submits to Congress an
agreement on access signed by the United States and Russia. The
current scope of the program is three nuclear cities and two
serial production facilities.
The provision would also require the Administrator to
submit a report to Congress on the financial and programmatic
activities of the NCI. This report would be submitted no later
than the first Monday in February of each year and would cover
activities that occurred during the fiscal year preceding the
year in which the report is filed. Included in the report would
be a certification by the Administrator that each NCI project
is contributing to the downsizing effort. The first report
would be due in February 2002 covering the fiscal year 2001
program.
Construction of Department of Energy operations office complex. (sec.
3134)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
discretionary authority to the Secretary of Energy to provide
for design and construction of a new Department of Energy (DOE)
operations office complex using energy savings performance
contracts. These contracts would be those entered into in
accordance with the provisions of title VII of the National
Energy Policy Conservation Act (NEPCA)(42 U.S.C. 8287 et seq.)
In exercising this authority, the Secretary of Energy must
still comply with the sections in Title XXXI Subtitle B of this
Act dealing with construction and construction project funding.
The committee believes that the DOE should explore all
possible options for saving money on its construction projects.
While recognizing that this is a creative use of the authority
provided by NEPCA, if successful, this could result in
considerable cost savings.
SUBTITLE D--MATTERS RELATING TO MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
Establishment of position of deputy administrator for nuclear security
(sec. 3141)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
principle deputy administrator for nuclear security in the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
In May of 2001, the NNSA announced a reorganization that
will begin to ensure that the NNSA operates as a fully
integrated organization. Key to this reorganization is the
establishment of a new position of principle deputy
administrator. This new position should be filled by an
individual appointed by the President with the advice and
consent of the Senate. The committee believes this new position
will be important to assist the Administrator of the NNSA with
the day-to-day management of the NNSA. As a result, the
committee believes that the position of principle deputy should
be filled with an individual who is very familiar with both the
mission and operations of the NNSA and its facilities, and who
can bring sound management, judgement, and experience to the
position.
Responsibility for national security laboratories and weapons
production facilities of Deputy Administrator of National
Security Administration for Defense Programs (sec. 3142)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3214 of the National Nuclear Security Administration
Act by striking subsection (c), which directs the contractor
managers and directors of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) weapons production plants and national
laboratories to report to the Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs. In May 2001, the NNSA announced a reorganization of
headquarters NNSA federal employees. Repeal of this provision
would allow the managers and directors of these facilities to
report as determined by the Administrator of the NNSA under the
reorganization plan. In addition, repeal of subsection (c)
would allow the Administrator to carry out a planned
reorganization of the NNSA field federal employees in fiscal
year 2002. The committee supports this reorganization as it
will help to create a fully integrated NNSA.
Clarification of status within the Department of Energy of
Administration and contractor personnel of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (sec. 3143)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3219 of the National Nuclear Security Administration
Act to clarify that when work performed at National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) facilities is sponsored by
Department of Energy (DOE) offices outside of the NNSA, the
sponsoring office can supervise the work being performed and to
allow NNSA employees to serve on DOE task forces. This
provision has been requested by the DOE/NNSA.
As a matter of statute and policy, the NNSA encourages the
use of NNSA facilities by DOE offices outside of the NNSA. This
work, known as ``work for others,'' is very important to the
NNSA facilities. Work for others helps to provide a wider
variety of work to the NNSA employees than can be provided by
the NNSA and helps to defray some of the costs to the NNSA of
these facilities. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, more than 20
percent of the work performed at NNSA facilities was work
sponsored and paid for by DOE offices outside of the NNSA. This
provision would clarify that these other offices can continue
their normal practice of providing technical expertise,
supervision and direction of the work that they fund. Without
this clarification, the NNSA facilities are at risk of losing
this important work.
This provision would also clarify the ability of NNSA
employees to serve on DOE task forces. During the recent
California energy crisis, the Secretary of Energy sought the
assistance of a senior NNSA employee to chair an energy task
force. In order to allow the NNSA employee to participate in
the task force, the NNSA employee had to be detailed to the
DOE, thus disrupting the work of his office in NNSA. This
provision would clarify the ability of NNSA employees to serve
on DOE task forces while continuing to perform their NNSA
duties.
Modification of authority of Administrator for Nuclear Security to
establish scientific, engineering and technical positions (sec.
3144)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3241 of the National Security Administration Act to
allow the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to
expand the number of scientific and technical positions
available to the NNSA from the current 300 positions to 500
positions. This provision would also clarify that these
positions are not Senior Executive Service (SES) positions.
While the NNSA does have positions classified as SES positions,
the positions filled using the authority provided by section
3241 are not SES positions.
The committee is aware that NNSA would like to consider the
possibility of converting additional or even all NNSA employees
to excepted service status. The committee urges the
Administrator of the NNSA to work closely with the Office of
Personnel Management to explore this option further. The
committee would be willing to hold hearings on this issue next
year if the Administrator makes any additional legislative
proposals that would expand the hiring authority provided by
section 3241 beyond the additional 200 positions provided by
this provision.
SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS
Improvements to Energy employees occupational illness compensation
program (sec. 3151)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend and
clarify the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act of 2000 (title XXXVI of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001).
The provision would add leukemias to the list of diseases
covered under the Act with the exception of chronic lymphocytic
leukemia, that were the result of occupational exposures that
occurred before the age of 21 years. Current law covers
leukemias, with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia,
that were the result of occupational exposures that occurred
after the age of 21 years. This provision would clarify that
all leukemias, with the exception of chronic lymphocytic
leukemia, that were the result of occupational exposures,
regardless of the age at which the occupational exposure
occurred, are included in the compensation regime.
The provision would clarify that a special cohort employee
included in the study, as required by section 3626 of the Act,
includes both Department of Energy (DOE) contractor employees
and employees of any atomic weapons employer facility. A
special cohort employee is defined in the Act as an employee of
either a DOE contractor or an atomic weapons employer, but the
Act failed to include employees of an atomic weapons employer
in the study. This provision would remedy that oversight.
The provision would expand the category of employees
diagnosed with chronic silicosis from category 1/1 to the
medically accepted definition of chronic silicosis, category 1/
0.
The provision would clarify the definition of survivor to
allow surviving children, including adopted or step-children,
to divide equally with a surviving spouse, any unpaid
compensation under the Act. If there are surviving children,
but no surviving spouse, the provision provides that any unpaid
compensation due under the Act would be equally divided among
the surviving children. If there were no surviving children,
but there was a surviving spouse, the provision would require
all unpaid compensation to be paid to the surviving spouse. In
the absence of either a surviving spouse or surviving children,
any unpaid compensation would be divided among surviving
parents, grandparents, and grandchildren.
The provision would clarify that if a covered employee had
been a plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking compensation as a result
of any occupational exposure covered by the Act, and the suit
was dismissed or otherwise brought to a close in a manner that
did not provide any recovery to the plaintiff, the covered
employee is not barred from compensation under the Act. In such
circumstances, the covered employee would have to satisfy the
terms and conditions for compensation under the Act.
The provision would clarify that a covered employee may
hire and pay an attorney up to 10 percent of the compensation
paid if the services rendered by the attorney were for other
than services rendered in support of the filing of the initial
claim. This provision would allow, for instance, an attorney to
assist with an appeal from a denial of an initial claim, and be
compensated at 10 percent of the compensation paid.
The provision would also clarify that the limitations on
attorney fees would not extend to any representation or
assistance provided after an award of compensation for a matter
not related to the compensation award or claim.
The provision would also require the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to conduct a study to
determine if there was any residual contamination in the
facility of any atomic weapons employer or beryllium vendor
after such facility discontinued operations and activities
related to the production of nuclear weapons. In the event such
contamination was present, the provision would require NIOSH to
determine if the residual contamination could have caused or
contributed to the cancer or covered beryllium illness of any
covered employee. The provision would also require NIOSH to
submit the report compiled as a result of the study to the
congressional defense committees.
Department of Energy counterintelligence polygraph program (sec. 3152)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Energy to submit a plan for an interim
counterintelligence polygraph program to the congressional
defense committees 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act. This provision would also direct the Secretary to
establish by regulation, subject to public notice and comment,
a permanent counterintelligence polygraph program. The
permanent program would utilize the results of the ongoing
review of polygraphs by the Committee to Review the Scientific
Evidence on the Polygraph of theNational Academy of Sciences
(NAS). The draft of these new regulations must be published within six
months after the date on which the Secretary receives the report of the
NAS Committee. To enable the Secretary to establish a new science-based
counterintelligence polygraph program, the provision would also repeal
section 3154 of the Department of Energy Facilities Safeguards,
Security, and Counter Intelligence Act of 1999 (Subtitle D of title
XXXI of Public Law 106-65).
The committee believes that a science-based
counterintelligence polygraph program can only be created after
completion of the NAS Committee review and only by
counterintelligence professionals and polygraph experts who
understand the value and limitations of polygraphs. The current
program is too large, too expensive, and is not designed to
take maximum advantage of polygraphs in a counterintelligence
program.
The primary purpose of this provision is to establish a
program that utilizes polygraphs as part of a comprehensive
counterintelligence program. The committee has no objection to
the Secretary continuing the current DOE polygraph program as
the interim program. If the interim program is not the current
program, then the interim program shall not take effect until
30 days after the date that the Secretary has submitted the
interim plan that would be required by the provision.
One-year extension of authority of Department of Energy to pay
voluntary separation incentive payments (sec. 3153)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3161(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 to provide a one-year extension of the
Department of Energy (DOE) authority to make voluntary
separation incentive payments. The committee is aware that the
DOE would like to extend the ability to encourage voluntary
separations and avoid any future need to conduct a reduction in
force. This provision would allow the DOE to do long-term
planning for reductions as a result of future reorganizations.
Additional objective for Department of Energy defense nuclear
facilities work force restructuring plan (sec. 3154)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3161(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 to add a new element to the required workforce
restructuring plan. This additional plan element would require
the Secretary of Energy to consider and promote economic
diversification when these plans are developed.
Modification of date of report of panel to assess the reliability,
safety, and security of the United States nuclear stockpile
(sec. 3155)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3159(d) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 by extending the due
date for the third report required by that section from October
1, 2001 to February 1, 2002.
Reports on achievement of milestones for National Ignition Facility
(sec. 3156)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to notify the congressional defense committees when the
National Ignition Facility (NIF) achieves each level one and
level two milestone.
The NIF is an essential element of the NNSA stockpile
stewardship program that is being constructed at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory. The NIF is the only facility
that will allow direct experimental study in the laboratory of
issues that affect the aging stockpile in temperature and
pressure regimes approaching those that occur in nuclear
weapons. It will play a major role in providing the underlying
science needed to validate the state of the art nuclear weapon
simulation computer codes under development by the Advanced
Simulation Computing program.
After experiencing major schedule and budgetary problems in
early 2000, the NNSA revised the NIF project and budget
baseline in August 2001. The actions taken by the NNSA to
restructure and reorganize the management of NIF appear to have
been successful in addressing the budgetary and schedule
problems. Given the importance of the NIF program and its
previous problems, the committee believes that reports to the
congressional defense committees on progress in meeting major
NIF milestones will help to ensure that Congress is kept
informed of the progress of the program.
Support for public education in the vicinity of Los Alamos National
Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3157)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
period of time in which the Department of Energy (DOE) may make
contributions to the Los Alamos Education Foundation and
authorizes $6.9 million, the amount contained in the budget
request, to be paid to the Foundation in fiscal year 2002. In
addition, the provision would authorize $8.0 million for the
fiscal year 2002 payment, to be made from the funds available
to the Department of Energy, to offset cost of living expenses
for school teachers at the Los Alamos Public Schools. The
provision would also allow the DOE to extendthe current
contract with the Los Alamos Public Schools, pursuant to which these
funds are paid.
Section 3167(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 established the Los Alamos Education
Foundation to provide educational enrichment assistance to the
communities surrounding Los Alamos. The DOE has not kept pace
with the contributions planned under that provision. As a
result, even though the Foundation has been very successful in
raising private funds, additional funds are still needed from
the DOE.
The committee believes that the DOE should bring its annual
contributions to a close when the Foundation has reached a
self-sustainable level of funding, and in any event no longer
than 10 years. The provision would direct the Secretary to
conduct a study and then make recommendations as to how the DOE
could meet the goals of the section 3167(a) and the Foundation
and then terminate all contributions to the Foundation. Also
included in the required report would be a recommendation from
the Secretary regarding the advisability of continuing to pay
the cost of living payments to Los Alamos Schools. Included in
this report should be a recommendation as to how the DOE can
make payments that would resemble impact aid provided to
communities with large populations of school age dependents.
Improvements to Corral Hollow Road, Livermore, California (sec. 3158)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
up to $0.3 million for safety improvements to Corral Hollow
Road, a narrow two-lane road that provides the only access to
the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security
Administration (DOE/NNSA) Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory Site 300 facility.
Over the years, the population in the area has grown
substantially as has traffic on the road, making left turns
into Site 300 dangerous. In order to ensure that the employees
and visitors to Site 300 are safe, this provision would allow
DOE/NNSA to widen the road so that left turn and acceleration
lanes can be added to Site 300.
SUBTITLE F--ROCKY FLATS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (sec. 3171-3181)
The committee recommends a provision, known as the Rocky
Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001, that would require
the Department of Energy (DOE), in cooperation with the
Department of Interior and the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, to permanently designate at Rocky Flats a national
wildlife refuge known as the ``Rocky Flats National Wildlife
Refuge.''
The creation of the National Wildlife Refuge by the DOE and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service represents the first completed
cleanup and closure of a major DOE Environmental Management
(EM) site. The designation of the Rocky Flats site as a
wildlife refuge will ensure that appropriate land uses are
maintained and that an environmentally sound end state will
result. As cleanup and closure continues, the committee urges
the DOE to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
ensure a smooth transition from an EM site into a Wildlife
Refuge.
Specifically, the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act
of 2001 (the RFNWR Act) provides that: the land that presently
comprises the Rocky Flats site will remain in federal
ownership; no part of the Rocky Flats site can be annexed by a
local government; and no through roads can be built through the
site.
Additionally, the RFNWR Act requires the DOE and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding 18 months after enactment of the Act to address
administrative issues and make preparations regarding the
future transfer of the site to the Fish and Wildlife Service
and to divide responsibilities between the agencies until the
transfer occurs. The Act provides that when the cleanup is
completed and the site is closed as a DOE facility, the
transfer of the site will occur from the DOE to the Fish and
Wildlife Service. While most of the site will be transferred
from the DOE to the Fish and Wildlife Service, any cleanup
facilities or structures that the DOE must maintain and remain
liable for will be excluded from transfer. It directs that the
transfer will not result in costs to the Fish and Wildlife
Service and requires the DOE to consult with the Fish and
Wildlife Service on the identification of lands transferred.
Finally, it requires the DOE to continue cleanup at the site
and mandates that any conflicts between the two agencies be
resolved, but that cleanup shall take priority.
The RFNWR Act mandates that the DOE continue to clean up
and close the site under all existing laws, regulations and
agreements; the establishment of the site as a National
Wildlife Refuge shall not affect the level of cleanup required;
the DOE shall clean up the site to levels that are established
in the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement as the agreement is
revised based on input from the public, the regulators, and any
other interested state and federal government agencies; and the
DOE will remain liable for any long-term cleanup obligations
and be required to pay for this long-term site care.
The RFNWR Act establishes the Rocky Flats site as a
National Wildlife Refuge 30 days after transfer of the site to
the Fish and Wildlife Service. It directs that the refuge shall
be managed in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act.
The RFNWR Act directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to
convene a public process to develop management plans for the
refuge, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, and to consult
with the local communities in the creation of this public
process.
The RFNWR Act also recognizes and preserves the existence
of other property rights on the Rocky Flats site, such as
mineral rights, water rights, and utility rights-of-way for all
relevant parties. It allows the DOE and the Fish and Wildlife
Service to impose reasonable conditions on the access to
private property rights for cleanup and refuge management
purposes. It requires the DOE to seek acquisition of the
mineral rights underlying the site held by private owners. In
addition, it allows the owners of any water ditch easements to
come on the site to survey these rights and describe them for
legal purposes.
The RFNWR Act authorizes the establishment of a Rocky Flats
museum to commemorate the history of the site, its operation,
and cleanup.
Finally, the RFNWR Act requires the DOE and the Fish and
Wildlife Service to inform Congress on the costs associated
with implementing the Act.
The committee recognizes that the Department of Energy's
top priority at Rocky Flats is safe cleanup and closure, and
strongly supports the 2006 closure date. The committee further
recognizes that the accelerated cleanup at Rocky Flats and
creation of the Wildlife Refuge has been achieved through
strong support and cooperation from the surrounding
communities, the State of Colorado, and the Colorado
Congressional delegation.
Creation of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge
provides an important path forward for Rocky Flats and a model
for other EM sites across the nation.
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST
Fissile material disposition
At the end of the Cold War it became clear that the United
States and Russia had significant quantities of surplus weapons
grade plutonium. This plutonium had to be secured and
permanently destroyed if it was not to fall into the hands of
terrorists or others seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, or to
be reused in weapons. The committee has long supported efforts
to permanently dispose of weapons grade plutonium in the United
States and Russia. The committee's efforts began in 1993 with
the creation of the Office of Fissile Material Disposition at
the Department of Energy.
In 1998, as the threat presented by the hundreds of tons of
plutonium--enough to make tens of thousands of nuclear
weapons--became more apparent, the United States and Russia
agreed to convert 50 tons of plutonium to forms not suitable
for weapons use. In August of 2000, Russia and the United
States followed with an agreement to dispose of 34 tons each of
weapons grade plutonium. They agreed to irradiate the plutonium
as fuel in nuclear reactors, immobilize the plutonium, or
otherwise dispose of the plutonium by other methods mutually
agreed upon. Each side agreed to begin operation of disposition
facilities by the end of 2007.
To help Russia in its effort, the United States agreed to
provide up to $200 million or more, if the parties agreed. In
addition, the United States agreed to help Russia raise funds
from the international community to help with the disposition
effort. The August 2000 agreement addressed plutonium in
various forms and specified disposition according to form. The
United States agreed to dispose of 25.5 tons by irradiation and
9 tons by immobilization. Russia planned to dispose of all 34
tons by irradiation as fuel in nuclear reactors.
This agreement was the result of DOE efforts to identify
suitable plutonium disposition methods. In January 1997, the
Department issued its plan to develop a dual track approach to
plutonium disposition. In January 2000, the DOE issued the
Record of Decision (ROD) supporting the dual track approach
that became the basis for the August 2000 agreement with
Russia.
The DOE worked very hard to position the United States
program to meet the goal of operating disposition facilities by
the end of 2007. By the end of 2001, the DOE had completed
Title I and II design on a Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility (MOX) and had submitted a construction request to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Title I design for the Pit
Disassembly and Conversion Facility is 35 percent complete; the
DOE has operated the technology to disassemble pits, and has
completed twelve studies to resolve design issues. In support
of the immobilization effort, the DOE installed and operated a
prototype conversion and ceramification facility.
The DOE fiscal year 2002 budget request signaled a major
policy shift in efforts to dispose of surplus plutonium. The
budget for the Russian program was reduced by 62 percent. The
immobilization program was suspended, the MOX fuel fabrication
delayed and the pit disassembly facility work was reduced to a
limited technology demonstration effort. In addition, the
United States reduced efforts to help Russia raise funds in the
international community. At about the same time the budget was
submitted, the new administration announced it was conducting a
review on US threat reduction programs and nonproliferation
programs. These actions now appear to have put the whole
program in jeopardy, particularly the U. S. domestic
disposition program. The committee is disappointed that the DOE
is edging away from implementing the ROD for thisimportant
nonproliferation program. Significant money, time and effort has been
invested in this effort to dispose of plutonium for thousands of
nuclear weapons. Now it appears that these efforts could be wasted and
that the opportunity to prevent 34 tons of weapons grade plutonium from
being used for nuclear weapons may have been squandered.
The actions of the administration have significantly
delayed the plutonium disposition program. Moreover, these
actions have caused major concerns at the DOE Savannah River
Site and jeopardized DOE's ability to continue to ship excess
plutonium to the Savannah River Site.
The DOE Savannah River was selected to be the site for the
three disposition facilities. Savannah River is also the site
where most of the surplus plutonium not in pit form will be
stored. Most of this plutonium is being shipped to Savannah
River from other DOE sites. These shipments were predicated on
the existence of a robust plutonium disposition effort. Without
the full plutonium disposition effort, as specified in the ROD,
the Savannah River site may be forced to store this plutonium
indefinitely--an unacceptable situation.
In the past several months this carefully structured
nonproliferation program, with far reaching implications, has
changed from being on track to nearly falling apart. The
committee urges the DOE to get this program back on track
immediately and not to squander this opportunity to permanently
dispose of the plutonium.
For the reasons stated, the committee directs the Secretary
of Energy to provide to the committee a report setting forth a
plan with milestones; to comply with the agreement with Russia,
and have disposition operations begin by 2007; to assist Russia
with raising funds in the international community; and to
complete and report on all reviews of this program no later
than March 1, 2002.
Office of Engineering and Construction Management
The National Research Council reaffirmed its recommendation
that the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Engineering and
Construction Management (OECM) ``would have a greater positive
impact if it were elevated to the level of assistant secretary
and reported directly to the deputy secretary.''
The OECM has been integral to the progress the DOE has made
over the last several years in significantly improving project
and construction management. Nevertheless, the committee
believes that much more needs to be done. As a result, the
committee urges the Secretary to have the OECM report directly
to the Deputy Secretary. The committee further believes that
the director of the OECM should be a career employee with
significant senior level project and construction management
experience.
The Secretary should also establish clear lines of
authority for OECM; provide necessary staff and resources to
improve DOE project management; development and implement
contract performance measurement systems; design and implement
an information-management system to track contracts and
contractor performance; and continue emphasis on close
cooperation and trust within DOE and its contractors.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office
of Project Management, working closely with the OECM, has
worked to improve the project and construction management
abilities of the NNSA. The committee commends the OECM and the
NNSA Office of Project Management for the significant
improvement that has resulted from their efforts.
Alternative dispute resolution
The Department of Energy (DOE) and several of its
contractor operators at the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) have been engaged in
litigation in the United States Court of Claims (civil actions
No. 98-468C and No. 00-156). These actions arise out of efforts
to cleanup the Pit 9 facility at the INEEL. The committee urges
the DOE and its contractor to explore the possibility of using
alternative dispute resolution to resolve the substance of
these actions pursuant to the Administrative Dispute Resolution
Act, 5 U.S.C. section 581(a), and in accordance with the
Construction Industry Arbitration and Mediation Rules of the
American Arbitration Association as modified by agreement of
the parties.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3201)
The committee recommends $18.5 million for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) for fiscal year 2002,
the amount of the request.
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
National defense stockpile (secs. 3301-3304)
The committee recommends a provision (sec. 3301) that would
authorize the disposal of additional materials from the
National Defense Stockpile in fiscal year 2002 as proposed in
the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
The committee further recommends two provisions (sec. 3302,
3303) that would revise limitations contained in previous
authorization acts on the disposal of cobalt and accelerate the
disposal of cobalt required by a previous authorization act.
The committee further recommends a provision (sec. 3304)
that would revise a limitation on the disposal of manganese
ferro contained in a previous authorization act to prohibit
disposals of manganese ferro during fiscal year 2002.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 3401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$17.4 million to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for
the Naval Petroleum Reserves.
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Departmental Recommendations
By letter dated June 29, 2001, the General Counsel of the
Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate
proposed legislation ``To authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2002 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal years
2002, and for other purposes.'' The transmittal letter and
proposed legislation were officially referred as Executive
Communication 2954 to the Committee on Armed Services on June
29, 2001. Executive Communication 2954 is available for review
at the committee. Senators Levin and Warner introduced this
legislative proposal as S.1155, by request, on June 29, 2001.
Committee Action
In accordance with the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946, as amended by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970,
there is set forth below the committee vote to report the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
In favor: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman,
Cleland, Landrieu, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of
Nebraska, Carnahan, Dayton and Bingaman.
Opposed: Senators Warner, Thurmond, McCain, Smith, Inhofe,
Santorum, Roberts, Allard, Hutchinson, Sessions, Collins and
Bunning.
Vote: 13-12.
The roll call votes on amendments to the bill which were
considered during the course of the mark-up have been made
public and are available at the committee.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not
available at the time the report was filed. It will be included
in material presented during floor debate on the legislation.
Regulatory Impact
Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2002.
Changes in Existing Law
Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and
reduce the expenditure of funds.
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS JOHN W. WARNER, STROM THURMOND, BOB SMITH,
JAMES M. INHOFE, RICK SANTORUM, PAT ROBERTS, WAYNE ALLARD, TIM
HUTCHINSON, JEFF SESSIONS, SUSAN M. COLLINS, AND JIM BUNNING
For the first time in decades--perhaps for the first time
in the history of the Senate Armed Services Committee--the
annual defense authorization bill was reported to the Senate on
a straight party-line vote. This is an action that we have not
taken lightly. In deference to the extraordinary bipartisan
traditions of this Committee, it is regrettable, but it is a
clear and necessary manifestation of the support we have for
the President of the United States and his missile defense
initiatives.
The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Bill reported to
the Senate by the Armed Services Committee fails to support the
President's top national security priorities. In addresses to
the Nation, as a candidate and as the Commander-in-Chief,
President George W. Bush has repeatedly stressed the importance
of ensuring the security of our homeland from traditional and
non-traditional threats, transforming the military to more
effectively deal with 21st Century emerging threats, and
achieving a new strategic framework with Russia. This bill, in
its current form, greatly undermines the ability of the
Department of Defense to rapidly develop and test the
technologies needed to protect our Nation from limited,
accidental or unintentional ballistic missile attack and ties
the hands of the President in unprecedented ways, inhibiting
his ability to reach agreement with the Russians on a
meaningful framework for the future.
Differences over the future course of the development and
deployment of ballistic missile defenses--consistent with
Public Law 106-38--to protect the American people, U.S. troops
overseas, and our allies and friends, deeply divided the
Committee during its deliberations. The Majority included
provisions in this bill related to missile defense which would
encroach on the President's constitutional authority, impede
progress on critical missile defense development and testing
efforts, and impose unprecedented and unnecessary reporting
requirements and administrative burdens on the missile defense
program. In addition, the bill contains a significant cut--$1.3
billion--from the President's request, including a cut of over
$650 million in theater missile defense programs.
Although we offered reasonable compromises, the Majority
repeatedly voted unanimously to retain these egregious missile
defense provisions and funding reductions despite the fact that
they know these provisions will never be enacted into law. The
inclusion of these provisions in this important Department of
Defense authorization bill at this time sends the wrong message
to our allies, friends and potential adversaries around the
world, and undermines the President's on-going efforts with
Russia.
For these reasons, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
wrote to the Committee, prior to the final vote, advising that
he would recommend that the President veto the bill because of
the missile defense provisions. Secretary Rumsfeld stated, ``If
such language were to become law, the U.S. would fall still
further behind in countering the threats of long-range
missiles. If the language the Committee is considering were to
be adopted by the Congress and forwarded to the President for
his signature, I would have to recommend to the President that
he veto the FY02 National Defense Authorization Act.'' We agree
that such a recommendation is warranted if the offending
provisions are not modified or removed.
ballistic missile defense
Many of us on this Committee, together with numerous other
colleagues in the Senate, have long been in the forefront of
efforts to develop missile defenses to protect our nation from
a limited ballistic missile attack, and to protect our
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines deployed overseas, and
our allies and friends from the burgeoning threat posed by the
proliferation of ballistic missiles. It has been a long and
arduous struggle. Unfortunately, the legislative provisions and
funding reductions imposed on ballistic missile defense
programs and activities in this bill greatly reduce the
possibility of fielding a missile defense system in time to
deal with the current and rapidly emerging ballistic missile
threats around the world.
President Bush has proposed a bold new approach--to depart
from the thinking of the past and pursue a new strategic
framework with Russia which recognizes the dramatically changed
strategic environment. The President outlined this new approach
during a May 1, 2001, speech at the National Defense
University. ``Today, the sun comes up on a vastly different
world. The Wall is gone, and so is the Soviet Union * * *
Today's Russia is not our enemy * * * Yet this is still a
dangerous world, a less certain, a less predictable one. More
nations have nuclear weapons and still more have nuclear
aspirations. Many have chemical and biological weapons. Some
already have developed the ballistic missile technology that
would allow them to deliver weapons of mass destruction at long
distances * * * We need new concepts of deterrence that rely on
both offensive and defensive forces * * * We need a new
framework that allows us to build missile defenses to counter
the different threats of today's world.''
We wholeheartedly endorse the President's goals and commend
him for the consultative approach he has adopted--seeking the
views of our allies and friends, engaging in discussions with
the Russians. The President and his top advisers are involved
in intensive dialogue with top Russian officials to achieve a
newstrategic framework that will move us beyond the constraints
of the ABM Treaty and allow us to provide for the defense of our
nation.
Most Americans are not aware that over 10 years after the
missile attacks which we and our allies suffered during the
Persian Gulf War, our nation, and our allies, remain virtually
defenseless against such attacks. President Bush is committed
to correct that. We support him in his efforts, as our actions
in this markup indicate.
As a nation we have no greater responsibility than to
protect our citizens, our forward deployed forces, and our
allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction and the
missiles, of all ranges, that deliver them. Our ability to
provide a measure of protection against these threats is
presently obstructed by the ABM Treaty.
Whatever follows the current ABM Treaty must enable the
United States to develop and deploy missile defenses to protect
our nation from a limited ballistic missile attack, and to
protect our forces deployed overseas, as well as our allies and
friends. It must allow the United States, and Russia, to pursue
all the technologies needed to achieve an effective defense
against limited ballistic missile attacks against our
respective homelands, and remove current prohibitions on
sharing missile defense technology with our allies and friends.
The President, by virtue of the powers granted by the
Constitution of the United States, is the chief architect of
this nation's foreign policy. However, the President's ability
to succeed in his foreign policy endeavors is greatly enhanced
by the support of the Congress. Congress is a co-equal branch
of government under the Constitution and plays a vital role in
issues of foreign policy. Congress must be a true partner in
the President's efforts to achieve a new strategic framework
for the future. As Members of the Senate, we must not impede
the President's ability to reach an agreement with the Russians
by legislatively imposing unreasonable conditions or fiscal
constraints on his missile defense program. Unfortunately, the
missile defense provisions included in this bill do exactly
that.
Most troublesome is the legislative provision that would
restrict the President from exercising his constitutional
authority to conduct foreign policy. We strongly object to
section 221 of this bill which would, if enacted, have the
effect of usurping the President's authority--under Article 15
of the ABM Treaty--to exercise the right to withdraw from that
Treaty and, thereby undercut the President during his ongoing
discussions with Russia. This provision would prohibit the
obligation or expenditure of funds for any activities that
``are inconsistent with the terms of the ABM Treaty,'' until
after the receipt of a Presidential certification and a
subsequent vote of the Congress to approve the funds for these
specific activities. This provision would apply even if the
United States were no longer a party to the ABM Treaty. In
effect, this provision would give Congress the power to mandate
continued adherence to a treaty even after the President
exercised his right--as specified in the treaty--to withdraw
from that treaty. This is an unprecedented and unacceptable
encroachment on presidential authority.
The Majority justified this provision in large part by
claiming that the Administration has been unclear on whether
the BMD test activities contained in the fiscal year 2002
request would violate the ABM Treaty. On the contrary, the
Administration has been clear and consistent on this issue. The
President, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security
Adviser and the Deputy Secretary of Defense have consistently
stated that the United States will not violate the ABM Treaty.
This position was reaffirmed in Secretary Rumsfeld's letter to
Senator Warner during the course of the Committee markup.
The Majority professes frustration with Administration
statements that it cannot determine now whether planned
activities and tests in fiscal year 2002 might come into
conflict with the ABM Treaty. The Majority insists that it
requires complete clarity on this issue prior to approving
funding for BMD activities for fiscal year 2002. Yet the Senate
has never voted for a defense authorization bill with a
complete understanding of the Treaty compliance of requested
BMD activities--those determinations have simply not been made
before Congress votes on the annual defense authorization
bills. The Majority now demands a standard in this bill never
imposed on nor achieved by its own previous Administration.
The inconsistency of the Majority's position on this issue
is clearly illustrated by the fact that all committee members
voted to approve the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 with the knowledge that the Act included
funding for early deployment activities of a national missile
defense--a clear ABM Treaty violation.
We also note that the bill contains three sections that
constrain BMDO's programmatic flexibility and subvert the
BMDO's proposed approach to develop and deploy BMD systems
efficiently and effectively. These provisions limit BMDO's
ability to transfer funds to successful technology efforts, and
require BMDO to develop extraordinarily detailed baselines,
annual program plans, and treaty compliance plans for virtually
all of its activities.
The BMDO's proposed program for fiscal year 2002 employs
the best business practices identified by GAO in a series of
reports--practices which this committee has both sponsored and
endorsed. These best practices include: matching requirements
with technology maturity; an emphasis on technology development
and driving technology to maturity before it is incorporated
into systems; and substantial testing and simulation to assure
that the system can beproduced and function reliably. The GAO
reports describe a capabilities-based (as opposed to requirements
based) approach that requires flexibility to mature technologies,
incorporate them into systems, and evolve those systems incrementally.
We believe that BMDO's proposed approach holds considerable promise,
and we oppose the provisions included in the bill that serve to
undermine it.
We are also concerned about the extent of the reduction in
funding of the ballistic missile defense programs included in
this bill. This reduction targets testing, risk reduction and
BMD system integration, and the most mature technologies
available for defense of the United States against limited
missile attack. In addition, a substantial reduction has been
taken from theater missile defense programs--programs to meet
the most urgent threats facing our deployed troops today. The
results of these cuts would be to increase the risk for
virtually all BMD programs, decrease confidence that our
missile defense system can work together, and delay the effort
to develop and deploy defenses against missiles of all ranges.
Inconsistencies between these reductions and the Majority's
stated priorities abound. The Majority believes that theater
missile defenses deserve high priority--but they would reduce
theater missile defense programs by $650 million. All agree
that missile defense systems should not be deployed until they
are thoroughly tested. This is reflected in BMDO's very strong
emphasis this year on technology development, filling out test
inventories, providing spare parts that support test programs,
and increasing funding for test support and evaluation--but the
reductions in this bill would force cut backs for testing in
virtually all BMD programs. We believe that these reductions
are ill-conceived, and must be restored.
the budget request
The new Bush Administration inherited a proud armed force
that was showing the effects of a decade of underfunding and
overuse. While U.S. servicemen and women have performed their
military missions with great dedication and professionalism,
military personnel, equipment and infrastructure are
increasingly stressed by the effects of the unprecedented
number of military deployments over the past decade, combined
with years of declining defense spending. At the same time
military force structure was declining in size by almost 40%,
overseas deployments for peacekeeping and other military
operations increased by over 300%. This contributed to what
General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
referred to as the ``strategy-resource mismatch''--a mismatch
that will, hopefully, be resolved in the Fiscal Year 2002
Quadrennial Defense Review and associated strategic review
process. As the Service Chiefs have told this Committee
repeatedly, future readiness and the upkeep of military
facilities were continually deferred to pay for current
operations and maintenance.
The Congress was sensitive to this issue, providing much
needed increases in defense funding in recent years. In Fiscal
Year 2000, the Congress reversed a 14-year decline by
authorizing a real increase in defense spending. Last year, the
Congress continued that momentum by providing an even larger
real increase for Fiscal Year 2001. Over the past two years,
the Congress increased military pay by over 8%, restored
retirement and health care benefits to keep faith with those
who serve, raised procurement levels to begin recapitalization
and modernization of aging equipment, and significantly
increased investment in research and development for the
future.
While much has been done, more is needed. President Bush is
to be commended for the increases he has proposed in defense
spending. The President recommended increases for Fiscal Year
2002 totaling $38.2 billion. These increases represent an
almost 11% increase in defense spending above the amount
available in Fiscal Year 2001. The President's budget request
begins to address chronic underfunding, reverse negative
readiness trends, keeps faith with our men and women in
uniform, and fulfills his promise to the American people that
he will take the steps necessary to protect our Nation and our
vital interests from the full spectrum of threats that confront
us in an increasingly complex, dangerous world.
Apart from the ballistic missile defense issue, which has
previously drawn widespread bipartisan support, the Committee
did take many important actions to support the President's
initiatives and to improve national security and defense
programs. The bill includes a substantial pay raise for
military personnel and other quality of life initiatives, a
significant increase in the defense health program, and
increased funding for current readiness. As this bill moves
forward, we will work to modify or eliminate the offending
missile defense provisions from the bill and restore funding
that enables the Nation to have the ability to protect itself
against weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missile
threat. We will do everything we can to ensure that Congress
acts in a way that best serves the American people and the men
and women who serve to protect them.
John W. Warner.
Strom Thurmond.
Bob Smith.
James M. Inhofe.
Rick Santorum.
Pat Roberts.
Wayne Allard.
Tim Hutchinson.
Jeff Sessions.
Susan M. Collins.
Jim Bunning.
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR BOB SMITH
I am disappointed in the outcome of the defense markup this
year, particularly in the draconian cuts to the
Administration's missile defense budget, and attempt to mandate
compliance with the ABM Treaty, even if the President decided
to withdraw from the Treaty with six months' notice. The ABM
Treaty is a Cold War relic and should be discarded. It has left
us naked to the real threat of nuclear missiles on U.S.
territory or on U.S. forces deployed overseas, and has not
prevented widespread proliferation of these weapons of mass
destruction, including to rogue regimes. Before Secretary
Rumsfeld joined the Bush Administration, he chaired a
bipartisan Commission, now well-known for publicizing the near-
term threat of ballistic missiles. As the Committee completed
its mark up, news reports announced that China is on the verge
of deploying its new mobile ICBM, the DF-31, which can reach
the western United States. More than twenty Third World
countries now have ballistic missile programs. The actions by
this Committee, if permitted to go into effect, will only
forestall the day that this nation is protected from missile
attack.
Since the Rumsfeld Commission, another Commission, known as
Hart-Rudman, warned that secure access to outer space and
cyberspace is the sine qua non of the US military's ability to
function effectively. The commission advised the US to use both
technological and diplomatic means to guard against the
possibility of ``breakout'' capabilities in space or cyberspace
that would threaten U.S. national security.
I am therefore very disappointed that the Committee would
not agree to include legislation which Senator Allard and I
sponsored which would implement the findings of the Space
Commission, also chaired by Donald Rumsfeld. Increasingly, our
adversaries are recognizing the importance of space control,
yet it appears that the Committee is locked, whether by
constraining the U.S. to the outmoded ABM Treaty, or as with
opposing space legislation, into the status quo. We need to
have a more dynamic, more fluid defense policy, one which
addresses threats when they arise and which takes advantage of
our superior technological base and know-how, to keep U.S.
military weaponry and forces unsurpassed and unchallenged in
the world.
Finally, I am also in disagreement with the Committee over
the base closure language in the bill. While I have supported
the BRAC process in the past when I believed we had a surplus
of military infrastructure, I am now concerned that we have
gone too far, and that the promised savings never materialized.
In fact, according to the CBO and GAO, the savings are not
auditable. I am also worried that we have under-estimated the
costs of clean-up of closed bases. In New Hampshire, I am
particularly concerned about the future of the Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard because I know that re-opening a shipyard is not a
possibility after closure. I would support a process in which
the Secretary of Defense announces which facilities should be
shut down, and presents such a list to the Senate and House. I
no longer support a process which unnecessarily puts every
facility at risk, and which only rewards the legions of
consultants and lobbyists paid to ward off becoming a target of
a BRAC round.
Bob Smith.
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
I think it is vital to discuss two issues regarding this
year's defense authorization bill--military voting and the
strategic subcommittee mark.
1. military voting rights
I was surprised to discover that the original Chairman's
Mark contained no provisions to improve overseas and absentee
military voting. I would have thought that recent election
problems would have demanded a Committee response. Thankfully
my proposed amendment, which was based on my bill S. 381,
started the necessary discussions and some language was added
to the legislation to improve the military voting situation. It
appears as if the Majority is now willing to at least admit
that the issue needs addressing.
While I was pleased that these improvements were made,
stronger legislative measures are still needed. I was
disappointed that the Majority was not amicable to making all
the needed corrections to the system. Solutions to critical
problems related to recently separated uniformed voters,
standards of absentee ballot invalidation (including postmark
requirement clarification) and polling place location were
rejected by the Majority but still need to be addressed.
2. strategic subcommittee
As the ranking member on the Strategic Subcommittee, I
believe there are some good provisions in the bill which are at
risk due to the serious flaws in the bill.
I appreciate the efforts in the area of Defense
Environmental Management. In particular, the support in the
bill for closure sites would benefit the sites' surrounding
communities and the nation as a whole. This would provide a
clean and safe environment at the sites of former defense
nuclear weapons facilities. It would free up scarce resources
as these sites are cleaned up and closed down to help advance
environmental cleanup and restoration at other Environmental
Management sites.
I also appreciate the efforts for the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA). The NNSA appears to be making
important strides. There are still enormous challenges ahead,
but NNSA seems to be moving in the right direction.
In intelligence matters, I was encouraged by the support
for unmanned aerial vehicles, sensor capabilities, and
commercial satellite imagery. I am still concerned, however,
that other critical components of the intelligence architecture
did not receive similar support. Processing and dissemination
of intelligence products remains a weakness in the overall
system. Current programs are underfunded and would greatly
benefit from increased support.
I was pleased with the support for greater DOD involvement
in the development of reusable launch vehicles. However, I
should note that I was disappointed that the committee has
opted not to implement any of the reforms of the Space
Commission. This is an area of particular interest to me and to
another former Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Bob Smith.
Early in the process of the mark-up, I made it clear that
my top priority was missile defense. I made it clear that I
would not support a mark that cut these programs too deeply or
that encumbered them with too many restrictions. Unfortunately,
this was the case and I therefore could not support the bill.
I was disappointed I could not support the Subcommittee
mark but I was extremely disappointed by the uncompromising and
strident full committee Majority position. Senator Warner and I
offered reasonable compromises to the extreme language
concerning the ABM Treaty, restrictive programmatic
flexibility, extraordinary planning and reporting requirements,
and the net cut of $1.3 billion (or about 16 percent) from the
missile defense budget request. I am convinced that the funding
reductions in combination with restrictive bill language would,
if enacted, hobble the President in his effort to come to a
satisfactory agreement with Russia on a new strategic
relationship. I must state forthrightly that, just measuring
the impact of these cuts and the restrictive provisions, unless
there is honest negotiation and compromise between the
Majority, the Minority, and the Administration on all these
issues, this bill is at risk of not becoming law due to strong
floor opposition or by the Administration's threatened veto.
Wayne Allard.
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR JIM BUNNING
I object to the base closure provision included within the
2002 Defense Authorization Bill, previously known as the Base
Realignment And Closure (BRAC) and now called the Efficient
Facilities Initiative (EFI). It provides for one more round of
base closures in 2003. My biggest concern is that we are
proposing to conduct another expensive round of base closures
without knowing if the first four rounds have saved us any
money. Everyone acknowledges that base closure is very
expensive up front. Supporters maintain that in the long term
there will be savings. The problem is that they can't
definitively show us any savings yet.
I have heard so-called `savings numbers' from DOD here and
there, but by their own admission those numbers have been
projections and predictions at best. I have asked the
Department of Defense numerous times to be provided with
detailed numbers to their cost savings from previous BRAC
rounds and they have been unable to provide me with a detailed
account of where these savings have come from and where those
savings were applied.
The Congressional Research Service and the General
Accounting Office have been asked to find a definitive savings,
as well, and they have had a tough time finding a consistent
and detailed cost savings number. They quote DOD projections
and predictions as their source, but we have learned that DOD
cannot provide us with accurate detailed numbers as to how much
the previous closings have saved us.
Just the other day we heard in the SASC Readiness
Subcommittee from Committee staff that one of the reasons DoD
cannot provide us accurate cost savings numbers is because
environmental cleanup costs from previous BRAC rounds continue
to climb above expectations. The Defense Department cannot give
an accurate estimate on when these costs will cease. They keep
finding more and more environmental problems, such as
unexploded ordinance, that need to be dealt with before the
bases can be closed and returned to the civilian sector.
Finally, with the Quadrennial Defense Review still
unfinished, I believe it is premature to authorize a future
base closure round. This review tells us what our force
structure should be, and correspondingly, whether there is
really a need to reduce our base structure, and what the long
term plan is for how our base structure and facilities
management fit into our military strategy and policy.
It is primarily for these reasons that I oppose the base
closure provision in this bill, and it is for these reasons why
I will support striking this provision when the full Senate
considers this legislation.
Jim Bunning.