57 992 1999 106 th Congress 1st Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report 106 244 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000 REPORT of the COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 2561] [Graphic Image Not Available] July 20, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed C O N T E N T S Bill Totals 1 Committee Budget Review Process 4 Introduction 4 Basis for Committee Recommendations 5 The President's Fiscal Year 2000 2005 Defense Program 5 Neglect of Traditional Appropriations and Acquisition Program Practices 8 ``Lessons Learned'' from Recent Military Operations 10 Shortages of Low-Density, High Demand Assets 13 United States Air Force--At a Crossroads? 13 Air Force Modernization Issues 16 22 17 22 Concerns 17 Potential Alternatives 19 Major Committee Recommendations 20 Air Force Program Reprioritization 20 Ensuring ``Lessons Learned'' Are Incorporated into FY 2001 2006 Defense Planning 21 Ensuring Appropriations Process Integrity 22 Multiyear Procurement 22 Addressing High Priority Shortfalls 22 Ensuring a Quality Ready Force 23 Modernization Programs 23 Reforms/Program Reductions 24 Tactical Reconnaissance 25 Information Assurance 26 Preparedness Against WMD Terrorist Attacks 26 Committee Recommendations by Major Category 28 Active Military Personnel 28 Guard and Reserve 28 Operation and Maintenance 28 Procurement 28 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 29 Forces to be Supported 29 Department of the Army 29 Department of the Navy 30 Department of the Air Force 31 Title I, Military Personnel 33 Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations 33 Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for FY2000 33 Overall Active End Strength 34 Overall Selected Reserve End Strength 34 Adjustments to Military Personnel Account 35 Overview 35 End Strength Adjustments 35 Pay and Retirement Reform 35 Basic Allowance for Housing 36 Aviation Continuation Pay 36 Unfunded Requirements 36 JROTC Leadership Training 36 Quality of Life Study 37 Guard and Reserve Forces 37 Full-Time Support Strengths 38 Guard and Reserve Full-Time End Strengths 38 Military Personnel, Army 38 Military Personnel, Navy 40 AOE 1 Replenishment Ships 42 Military Personnel, Marine Corps 42 Marine Corps Security Guards Detachments 44 Military Personnel, Air Force 44 Reserve Personnel, Army 46 Reserve Personnel, Navy 48 Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps 50 Reserve Personnel, Air Force 52 Test Support Mission 54 National Guard Personnel, Army 54 Army National Guard Workyear Requirements 56 National Guard Personnel, Air Force 56 Title II, Operation and Maintenance 59 Operation and Maintenance Overview 62 Rotational Training Initiatives 63 Real Property Maintenance 63 Base Operations Support 64 Depot Maintenance 64 Spares and War Reserve Materiel 65 Force Protection Initiatives 65 Soldier Support Initiatives 66 Operating Tempo Funding 66 Recruiting and Advertising 66 Small Business Advertising 67 Guard and Reserve Unfunded Requirements 67 Army Training Area Environmental Management 67 Headquarters and Administrative Expenses 67 Consultants and Advisory Services 68 Communications Services 68 Security Programs 68 Defense Finance and Accounting Service 69 Acquisition Contracting and Travel 69 Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data 69 Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings 69 A 76 Studies 70 Urban Warfare 71 Controlled Humidity Preservation Program 71 Operation and Maintenance, Army 71 Logistics and Technology Project 74 Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO) Facilities 75 Humanitarian Airlift Aircraft 75 National Training Center Heliport Security 75 Memorial Events 75 General Purpose Tents 76 Abrams Integrated Management Program 76 Information Technology Programs 76 Operation and Maintenance, Navy 76 Oceanographic Research 81 Naval Weapons Station Concorde 81 Portable Firefighting Equipment 82 Vieques Range Complex, Puerto Rico 82 Naval Air Station (NAS) LeMoore 82 Navy Electricity and Electronics Training Series 83 Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps 83 Blount Island 85 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force 85 Interim Contractor Support 89 Manufacturing Technology Assistance Pilot Program 90 McClellan Air Force Base 90 Enterprise Integration Program 90 REMIS 90 Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide 90 Performance Measures 92 DLA Warstoppers 93 Defense Acquisition University 93 Family Therapy Program 93 Defense Finance and Accounting Service 93 Information Technology Programs 93 DLA Security Locks 93 DLA Improved Cargo Methods 94 DTRA Treaty Implementation 94 Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)-Management Support 94 JCS J MEANS 94 OSD C4ISR 94 OSD Near East/South Asia Center for Security Studies 94 OSD Middle East Regional Security Issues 95 OSD Energy Savings Performance Contracts 95 OSD Job Placement Program 95 OSD Youth Development and Leadership Program 95 OSD Youth Development Initiative 95 OSD Management and Contract Support 95 WHS Emergency Notification 95 JCS Mobility Enhancements 95 National Curation Pilot Project 96 Information Systems Security Education 96 Improved General Purpose Tents 96 Department of Defense Education Activity 97 Pine Bluff Arsenal Sustainment Training and Technical Assistance Program 97 Legacy 97 Classified Program 97 Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve 99 Operation and Maintenace, Navy Reserve 99 Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve 99 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve 103 Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard 105 Army National Guard Center 107 Armed Forces Reserve Center 107 National Guard Bureau Nationwide Fiber Optics Network 107 National Guard Distance Learning 107 NGB Project Management System 107 Repair of UH 1 Engines 108 Moffett Field and March Air Reserve Base 108 Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard 108 National Guard State Partnership Program 111 C 130 Operations 111 159th Air National Guard Fighter Group 111 Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund 111 Budget Justification and Budget Execution Materials 111 Kosovo Base Camp Construction 112 United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 112 Environmental Restoration, Army 112 Rocky Mountain Arsenal 113 Environmental Remediation Contracts 113 Environmental Restoration, Navy 113 Environmental Restoration, Air Force 113 Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide 113 Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites 114 Camp Croft 114 Lake City Army Ammunition Plant 114 Newmark 114 Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid 115 Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction 115 Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense 116 Title III, Procurement 117 Estimates and Appropriations Summary 117 Special Interest Items 119 Classified Programs 119 Rangeless Training 119 Foreign Comparative Test New Starts 119 Air Force Interim Contractor Support 119 Reprogramming Procedures 120 Army Procurement Issues 120 Unfunded Requirements List 120 Aircraft Procurement, Army 121 Apache A Model Readiness 122 Missile Procurement, Army 124 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 126 Procurement of Ammunition, Army 128 Program Manager for Ammunition 128 Self-Destruct Fuzes 129 Other Procurement, Army 132 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles 134 Information Technology Programs 134 Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) 134 Aircraft Procurement, Navy 142 V 22 Aircraft 143 KC 130J Aircraft 143 Joint Primary Aircraft Training System 144 EA 6B Aircraft 144 Consolidated Automated Support System 145 Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS) 146 Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance Pod System-Completely Digital (TARPS-CD) 146 Rescissions 147 Weapons Procurement, Navy 149 JSOW 149 Rescissions 149 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps 151 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 153 Post Delivery Test and Trials 153 Rescissions 153 Other Procurement, Navy 155 Pollution Control Equipment 156 Rescissions 157 Procurement, Marine Corps 163 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 167 22 168 15 168 16 169 C 130J 169 8C 170 C 135 Modifications 170 15 Modifications 171 T 38 Modifications 171 Missile Procurement, Air Force 176 Minuteman III Guidance Replacement Program 176 JSOW 177 Titan 177 Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force 180 Other Procurement, Air Force 182 Procurement, Defense-Wide 187 Electronic Commerce Resource Centers 187 Information Technology Programs 188 Classified Programs 188 National Guard and Reserve Equipment 191 Fire Fighting 191 Support to Non-Profit Agencies 192 Defense Production Act Purchases 194 Information Technology 194 Year 2000 (Y2K) Computer Problem 195 Year 2000 (Y2K) Lessons Learned 195 Inadequate Information Technology Oversight 196 Defense Joint Accounting System 197 Information Technology Oversight-Committee Recommendations 197 Financial Management Regulations 198 Standard Procurement System 199 Armor Officer Distance Learning 199 Power Projection C4 Infrastructure 199 Supercomputing Work 199 Electricity and Electronics Training Series 199 IMDS/REMIS 199 DIMHRS 199 National Guard Bureau Nationwide Fiber Optics Network 200 National Guard Distance Learning 200 Maintenance Automated Identification Technology 200 Global Combat Support System--Army 200 Ammunition Automated Identification Technology 201 National Guard Distance Learning-Courseware 201 Joint Systems Education and Training Systems Development 201 Service Information Infrastructure Shortfalls 201 Share in Savings 201 Title IV, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 203 Estimates and Appropriation Summary 203 Special Interest Items 205 Classified Programs 205 Technical Data 205 Experimentation 205 Information Assurance as Part of Independent Operational Testing 205 Special Termination Cost Clause 206 Joint Mission Planning System 206 Utilization of Small Business 206 Anti-Tank Weapons Master Plan 208 Tactical Radios 208 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 208 Hunter Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) 212 Basic Research 213 Defense Research Sciences 213 Applied Research 213 Ballistics Technology 213 Human Factor Engineering Technology 213 Environmental Quality Technology 213 Advanced Technology Development 214 Medical Advanced Technology 214 Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology 214 Line-Of-Sight Technology Demonstration 214 Joint Tactical Radio 214 Artillery Systems-Demonstration and Validation 215 Operational Systems Development 215 Force XXI, Warfighting Rapid Acquisition Program 215 Other Missile Improvement Programs 216 Aircraft Modifications/Product Improvement Program 216 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy 221 Joint Experimentation 226 Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology 228 Intercooled Recuperative Gas Turbine Engine 228 JSOW 228 Aerial Targets 229 Bone Marrow Registry 229 Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP) 229 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 236 Consolidation and Elimination of Small Programs 236 AF/National Program Consolidation 236 Air Force Science and Technology 236 Wright Patterson Landing Gear Facility 236 Aerospace Propulsion Subsystems Integration 241 Advanced Computing Technology 241 Crew Systems and Personnel Protection Technology 241 Joint Strike Fighter 242 B 2 242 Milstar 243 SBIRS High 243 Development Planning 244 16 Squadrons 244 15 Squadrons 245 Spacelift Range System 245 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide 252 Basic Research 255 Chemical and Biological Defense Program 255 Applied Research 255 Historically Black Colleges and Universities 255 Extensible Information Systems 255 Biological Warfare Defense 256 Advanced Technology Development 256 Chemical and Biological Defense Program--Advanced Development 256 Verification Technology Demonstration 257 Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations 257 Ballistic Missile Defense 258 National Missile Defense Site Selection 259 Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) 260 Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) 260 Russian American Observational Satellite (RAMOS) 261 Space-Based Laser 261 Sensor and Guidance Technology 261 Discoverer II 262 Physical Security Equipment 262 Coalition Warfare 262 Technical Studies, Support and Analysis 263 Strategic Environmental Research Program 263 Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency Program 263 Tri-Service Directed Energy Center 263 Special Operations Tactical Systems Development 263 Information Technology Program 264 Developmental, Test and Evaluation, Defense 269 Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program 269 Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense 271 Title V. Revolving and Management Funds 273 Defense Working Capital Funds 273 Defense Reutilization and Marketing Services 273 National Defense Sealift Fund 273 Large Medium Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off (LMSR) Ships 273 Maritime Prepositioning Force Enhancement Conversion 274 National Defense Features 274 DOD Requirements for Commercial Tanker Ships 275 Massachusetts Maritime Academy Training Ship 275 Sealift Ship Leases 275 Title VI. Other Department of Defense Programs 277 Defense Health Program 277 Peer Reviewed Research 278 Tricare Contracts and Pharmacy Costs 278 Custodial Care 278 Fatigue Management 279 Joint Diabetes Project 279 Cervical Cancer Testing 279 Gulf War Illness 280 Computer Based Modeling in Health Care 280 Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army 280 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense 283 Forward Operating Locations 283 Fingerprint Operations 284 C 26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance Upgrade 285 Drug Testing 285 A 10 Logistical and Demilitarization Support 285 Office of the Inspector General 285 Title VII. Related Agencies 287 National Foreign Intelligence Program 287 Introduction 287 Classified Annex 287 Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund 287 Intelligence Community Management Account 288 Payment to Kaho'Olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund 288 National Security Education Trust Fund 288 Title VIII. General Provisions 289 Definition of Program, Project and Activity 289 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles 289 B 52 Force Structure 290 National Missile Defense 290 Aggressor Squadrons 290 Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations 291 Medium Extended Air Defense System 291 Military Recruitment Financial Penalties 291 House of Representatives Reporting Requirements 291 Changes in the Application of Existing Law 291 Appropriations Language 292 General Provisions 294 Appropriations Not Authorized by Law 297 Transfer of Funds 299 Rescissions 300 Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule) 300 Constitutional Authority 301 Comparison with the Budget Resolution 301 Five-Year Outlay Projections 302 Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments 302 Additional Views 314 106 th Congress Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106 244 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000 July 20, 1999.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. Lewis of California, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 2561] The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. BILL TOTALS Appropriations for most military functions of the Department of Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill for the fiscal year 2000. This bill does not provide appropriations for military construction, military family housing, civil defense, or nuclear warheads, for which requirements are considered in connection with other appropriations bills. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals $263,265,959,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The amounts recommended by the Committee in the accompanying bill total $266,061,503,000 in net new budget authority. This is $2,795,544,000 above the budget estimate; $15,540,955,000 above the sums made available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999 in the fiscal year 1999 Defense Appropriations Act; and, in terms of the total authority available to the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2000, $1,283,432,000 above the sums made available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999, when fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations are included.\1\ \1\These figures include $16,095,949,000 in fiscal year 1999 emergency defense funding included in Public Law 105 277, Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, and Public Law 106 31, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999; and $1,838,426,000 in Fiscal Year 2000 emergency defense funding also included in Public Law 106 31. Offset Folios 12 Insert here COMMITTEE BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS During its review of the fiscal year 2000 budget, the Subcommittee on Defense held a total of 17 hearings during the period of February 1999 to March 1999. Testimony received by the Subcommittee totaled 1,394 pages of transcript. Approximately half of the hearings were held in open session. Executive (closed) sessions were held only when the security classification of the material to be discussed presented no alternative. INTRODUCTION The Committee's consideration of the fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations bill comes as America's armed forces, and the plans and budgets intended to support them and U.S. security demands in the future, confront a series of difficult and interrelated challenges. As evidenced by Operation Allied Force and other recent military and humanitarian relief operations, the U.S. Armed Forces are still without question the finest in the world. The overall quality and skill of America's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines remains unsurpassed. And U.S. training, equipment, and technology are, when considered in their entirety, still superior to those of any potential adversary, as well as our allies. Even so, the immediate and long-term challenges confronting the Department of Defense (DoD), the military services, and policymakers in the executive and legislative branches remain difficult and complex. The international environment remains uncertain and potentially explosive. Recent trends and developments involving Russia, China, India and Pakistan are assuredly not optimistic, while prospects for other regional threats--including those which have dominated recent U.S. military planning, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran--remain both unclear and unsettling. Meanwhile, political instability persists in many regions, as does the growing threat posed by the proliferation of technology. Transnational issues such as ethnic conflicts, terrorism, the international drug trade and increasingly, ``information age'' threats continue to loom. And now, the United States, on the heels of a mission in Bosnia which nears four years in duration, faces an even more difficult and more protracted commitment to the Balkans in the wake of the Kosovo conflict. Against this backdrop, the U.S. military--now having been drawn down to the lowest force levels since the end of World War II--has been and will doubtless continue to be engaged globally. Yet, even before the recent hostilities involving Kosovo and Iraq, a combination of overseas commitments, new missions, shrinking force structure, aging equipment, and insufficient and, in some instances, misprioritized budgets joined to bring the current and future readiness of the U.S. military into question. These problems have created a punishing pace of operational tempo and a decline in overall quality of life for servicemembers and their families, which when combined with the effects of a strong economy, have created a serious military manpower crisis. Within the past year, for the first time in over two decades the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force have failed by significant margins to meet recruiting goals, while these services' retention rates for experienced personnel in critical specialty areas (such as Air Force pilots) have reached dangerously low levels. In the meantime, serious readiness and weapons modernization shortfalls persist. Recognizing these problems, both Congress and now the Administration have proposed significant increases in defense spending above previously planned levels. Basis for Committee Recommendations The Committee strongly believes that, in many ways, this year is a potential watershed for future defense planning, budgets, and programs. It is significant that there now appears to be a general consensus between the Administration and the Congress that the U.S. military's operational, budgetary and programmatic needs call for a steady and sustained increase in defense spending. Yet events of just the past eight months--notably, the strengths and weaknesses displayed during the conduct of Operations Desert Fox and Allied Force; the deployment of U.S. forces in support of the Kosovo Stabilization Force (KFOR); and the ongoing domestic debate over future government spending--combine to reinforce serious questions regarding the prospects for and adequacy of proposed defense budgets, be it the President's or Congressional alternatives. Therefore, the Committee has endeavored to not only consider the details of the Department's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget request, but has also attempted to measure that budget and the new fiscal years 2000 2005 Future Years' Defense Plan (FYDP) against a number of factors. These include the international challenges cited above; the need to not only plan for current DoD needs but those likely to be confronted in 2010, 2020 and beyond; and the already well-documented and articulated manpower, readiness and modernization needs of the DoD generally and the services specifically. The Committee also gave careful consideration to three additional areas in developing its recommendations: (a) The overall Federal budget debate and the strengths and weaknesses of the Administration's defense budgets in that context; (b) Neglect by certain DoD agencies of law, regulation and practices concerning the use of appropriated funds, including the initiation of new programs and diversion of funds provided for one purpose to another without the required congressional notification or approval--events which the Committee views as most troubling given the constitutional imperative that appropriated funds be put to the uses specifically delineated by the Congress; and (c) The actual experience derived from the recent combat operations involving Iraq and Yugoslavia; the degree to which the Future Years' Defense Plan and the individual services' budgets address a series of longstanding needs of the regional commanders-in-chief (CINCs) and our forces in the field; and whether the nation's current national security strategy (which calls for the U.S. military to carry out and win two, near-simultaneous ``major theater wars'') can reasonably expect to be supported given current defense planning and programming. The President's Fiscal Year 2000 2005 Defense Program The Committee finds, with some qualification, that the fiscal year 2000 budget and the overall fiscal years 2000 2005 defense program announced by the President this February is a more realistic attempt to match ``military means to goals'' than previous budget submissions. This new budget program calls for overall increases in previously planned defense spending levels of approximately $112 billion over the period 2000 2005. Of this amount, a significant portion (nearly $35 billion) is targeted specifically at improving military pay and benefits, including repeal of the military retirement program changes adopted in 1986. Other significant increases are programmed for readiness and operation and maintenance funding generally, as well as critical weapons modernization programs. Despite these noteworthy proposals, the Committee remains deeply troubled about whether this budget program can in fact meet both immediate and longer-term national security challenges. Three specific problems come to mind: The FY 2000 2005 Defense Budget Is Linked To Large Increases in Overall Discretionary Spending: The President's new fiscal year 2000 2005 defense program proposes steady and sustained growth in defense discretionary spending, from roughly $272 billion in FY 1999 (not including enacted emergency supplemental appropriations) to about $330 billion annually in FY 2005. The Committee believes such growth is justified, especially with numerous peacekeeping commitments and the need to reinvigorate weapons modernization accounts. However, the Committee also believes that it is a fair question to consider whether a defense program whose very viability hinges on such growth is in fact realistic. The defense budget cannot be viewed in insolation from the overall budget dynamic, involving spending levels for discretionary and entitlement programs, potential changes in the the tax code, and estimates of the government surplus. Such questions about long-term budget levels are particularly important to the DoD. Unlike most federal agencies, the DoD develops a multi-year budget program with some degree of fidelity, essential for an agency with hundreds of major equipment procurement and developmental efforts. Given the current uncertainty about the future budgetary environment, the Committee views with some caution any long-term revitalization plan for the DoD which has at its core an assumption of very robust outyear defense spending levels. This is especially important in light of plans being developed by each of the military services to make long-term commitments to major production programs which tend to ``squeeze'' other items in the budget to unacceptable levels. New, ``Unbudgeted'' Defense Budget Commitments Are Already Apparent: Since the budget was presented to the Congress in February, two new developments have arisen which will require major revisions to the existing DoD budget plan. The first involves Congressional action on military pay and benefits, as expressed through both House- and Senate-passed versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. The President's budget proposes a sizable increase over previously programmed amounts for military compensation. Both the House and Senate, most notably through increasing the size of the proposed fiscal year 2000 military pay raise (from 4.4 to 4.8 percent), but also through other initiatives, have now voted for authorization changes which pose considerable unbudgeted outyear costs for the DoD--perhaps more than $10 billion through fiscal year 2005. Long-term, unbudgeted costs of continued contingency deployments are also escalating, especially those resulting from NATO missions in the Balkans. The Committee observes the current DoD budget plan was premised on a gradual drawdown of U.S. forces in Bosnia, with no funds budgeted after fiscal year 2001 for any Balkan peacekeeping force or for continued sanctions enforcement around Iraq. Until late last year, the average cost of these two missions had appeared to stabilize at between $1.5 2.0 billion per year. Realistically, one must assume there will be costs of some greater magnitude from 2001 2005 stemming from continued U.S. deployments associated with Bosnia and Iraq; and now, these unbudgeted costs will be compounded by those resulting from Operation Joint Guardian, the U.S. participation in KFOR. Using conservative planning factors, the Committee believes these could result in up to $25 billion in unbudgeted, unprogrammed costs over the FYDP. The Committee believes it it essential that these issues be kept in plain view as the Congress develops its defense spending recommendations for fiscal year 2000 and beyond. They clearly cast a long shadow over DoD's overall Future Year's Defense Program, and the viability of planned modernization budgets in particular since personnel and readiness programs must continue to receive top budget priority. ``Creative Accounting'' In The Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request.-- Of immediate relevance to the Committee's consideration of the fiscal year 2000 defense appropriations request is what senior Department officials have publicly conceded is a FY 2000 2005 program built largely on optimistic economic assumptions and, for fiscal year 2000, ``one-time initiatives'' which the Committee can most charitably describe as ``creative accounting''. The most obvious and blatant of these are the budget proposals to offset nearly $5 billion in new fiscal year 2000 programmatic increases with a like amount of budget authority ``offsets''--a $3.1 billion reduction from a ``one-time'' proposal to incrementally fund the fiscal year 2000 Military Construction program (that is, providing only half the required budget authority needed to actually complete proposed military construction projects); and an unspecified cut of $1.65 billion (in the form of a proposed, non-program specific general reduction) embedded in the budget request for the fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations bill. The Committee finds small solace in the refrain of many senior Administration officials that its fiscal year 2000 defense budget ``has a $12 billion increase'' over previous plans, much of which is for critical personnel and readiness needs--when its budget really only pays for slightly more than half of those increases. In essence, the Department's FY 2000 budget tries to have it both ways: it proposes needed increases in key programs, but ``offsets'' this growth with ``cuts'' having no substance. The Committee will not subscribe to such a ``quick fix'' mentality. In both this bill, and the Military Construction bill reported by the Committee, it has rejected these proposals out of hand. Rather, to meet DoD's unfunded requirements, finance congressional initiatives and backfill for the budget's creative accounting, the Committee proposes an increase over the total fiscal year 2000 defense spending level by the President, combined with a wide range of program reductions, rescissions of previously appropriated funds and other initiatives. This approach is not only justified on the merits, but is a direct consequence of the Administration's having sent up a fiscal year 2000 budget submission which itself was ``oversubscribed'' by $4.75 billion. NEGLECT OF TRADITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS AND ACQUISITION PROGRAM PRACTICES Adding to the difficulties confronting the Committee in its consideration of the fiscal year 2000 budget request are serious budgeting and funding execution issues regarding appropriations for defense acquisition programs. These are occuring with increasing frequency in both the budget requests submitted by the Department of Defense as well as in the execution of program funding once appropriations have been provided by the Congress. Throughout this report there will be more specific descriptions of these and related issues. Of particular concern is the failure of certain DoD entities to comply with many existing procedures governing the expenditure of appropriated funds. One of the highest duties of the Congress is to exercise the mandate in Clause 7, Section 9, Article I of the Constitution of the United States that ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law.'' In terms of appropriations provided to the Department of Defense, this mandate has evolved over time as a result of statute, appropriations law, court rulings, and executive branch regulations; decades of appropriations implementation and resulting ``practices and rules''; and what the Committee regards as an ongoing discussion with the DoD and its component departments and agencies over budget rules and appropriate procedures regarding the use of appropriated funds. The Committee's perspective is one of ensuring that funds made available in appropriations acts are in fact put to the use intended by the elected members of Congress, under the terms and conditions the Congress and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees place on the funding in question. This is a responsibility the Constitution clearly intended for the Congress--the so-called power of the purse--and therefore, the Committee does not take issues regarding the use of appropriated funds lightly. However, given the sheer size, complexity, and dynamism of both the real world and the funding environments that the Department of Defense and the U.S. military operates, the Committee is sensitive to and has in fact actively engaged the Department on countless occasions to ensure that the DoD has the funding flexibility it needs to respond rapidly to emerging circumstances. The Committee notes that unless specific restrictions have been enacted into law, in most instances the most restrictive rules require the DoD, in accordance with certain pre-established thresholds, to provide the Committee with prior notification or, through the reprogramming process, to seek the Committee's prior approval for contemplated funding shifts. All the Committee demands is that these well-established procedures--many enshrined in statute or appropriations law, not just custom or practice--be followed. Regrettably, in recent years the Committee has observed a steady erosion of departmental compliance with these standards, prompting the Committee to actively address these problems in recent appropriations acts and accompanying Committee reports. The Committee further observes these abuses have generally been most numerous and blatant with respect to defense acquisition programs--and of late, those managed by the acquisition communities within the Department of the Air Force, the Department of the Army, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. For example, with respect to the Air Force, despite recent Committee direction and, in several instances, new appropriations law, the Committee finds that both in execution of funds provided in appropriations acts and in its fiscal year 2000 budget submission the Air Force acquisition community continues to ignore and violate a wide range of appropriations practices and acquisition rules. Details on these specific instances can be found elsewhere in this report, but a short summary of such Air Force abuses includes: (a) In its fiscal year 2000 budget the Air Force continues to blithely ignore specific Committee direction and law intended to ensure that funds appropriated for one purpose--for example, weapons procurement--are in fact used for that purpose and not for other efforts, such as research and development, by: (1) Requesting hundreds of millions of dollars in various procurement programs, when in fact the intended use is to support operation and maintenance funding needs (in violation of DoD policy); (2) Requesting substantial procurement funds for a program (the F 22 fighter) when in fact the use of the funds is for development (in violation of specific Congressional direction), and (3) Requesting substantial development funds for a program (the MILSTAR satellite), when the intent is to use the funds for procurement (in violation of a provision of law); (b) Violation of both new start program regulations and law, as well as standard reprogramming procedures, by using fiscal year 1999 funds to begin a new start, several hundred-million dollar production program which the Congress never formally approved (the C 5 avionics modernization program)--and did so by diverting funds specifically provided by the Congress for another program; and (c) Initiation of a new Special Access Program without prior Congressional notification as required by law. Regarding the Army, it has in several instances ignored specific Committee or House-Senate conference report direction on major programs, to include: (a) Entering into a new multi-year production contract for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles, despite specific Committee direction to defer such action until it first identified and then formally submitted to the Congress, an approved plan to fix significant technical and safety problems plaguing thousands of vehicles already delivered and in service; (b) Negotiating a multi-year production contract for the TOW Improved Target Acquisition System (ITAS) despite both fiscal year 1999 Committee and appropriations conference committee direction explicitly denying approval of the ITAS multi-year contract; and (c) In conjunction with OSD, explicitly ignoring fiscal year 1999 conference committee direction and using Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration funds for the Line-of-Sight Tank (LOSAT) program. Regarding OSD acquisition officials, in addition to the example involving LOSAT cited above, the Committee is little short of amazed when it comes to their actions on the Medium Altitude Air Defense (MEADS) program. This program was specifically terminated in the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 1999 Defense Appropriations Act. Internal DoD financial management documents issued this spring noted this action and correctly stated that: ``This item has been denied by the Congress and is not subject to reprogramming'' (emphasis added). Nonetheless, the Committee has since learned that officials in the OSD acquisition structure as well as in the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, an OSD acquisition organization, directed the use of over $2 million of funds specifically provided for another program to continue MEADS-related activities, and actually announced the winner of the MEADS contract competition. All for a program explicitly terminated in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations process. The Committee believes these and similar instances raise fundamental questions regarding DoD program oversight and compliance with existing law and regulations. The Committee is also compelled to note such actions contribute to the Committee's uncertainty regarding the adequacy of the Department's proposed defense budget and program planning. The extent of such problems gives the Committee little confidence that the military service or defense agency in question is requesting appropriations for its major acquisition programs based on solid cost estimates, testing and production milestones, and firm estimates and commitments to funding requirements. In this sense, such actions are extremely corrosive to sensible program management, defense planning and budgeting. And it severely weakens the working relationship between the executive branch--charged with proposing, then managing, programs if funded--and the legislative branch, which in providing funding must have confidence that the budget and program proposals underlying the funding requests in question are accurate and executable. The Committee could speculate as to the reason behind this growing trend--for example, the pressure to deal with weapons modernization demands following more than a decade of inflation-adjusted cuts in funding--but to do so is to justify these practices. While sympathetic to budget pressures, and aware of the desire of the acquisition community to exercise as much control and flexibility over its programs as possible, in keeping with its constitutional duties the Committee simply cannot excuse violations of appropriations and acquisition law, regulation and practice. ``Lessons Learned'' From Recent Military Operations The combat operations over Iraq and Yugoslavia (Operations Desert Fox and Allied Force, respectively) and their immediate aftermath have already been instructive in terms of ``lessons learned''--not only for DoD, the Joint Staff, the services, and the regional commands, but also for others in the executive branch and Congress. These missions have confirmed the wisdom of prudent investments over the years in so-called ``force multipliers''. These include such programs as advanced reconnaissance and intelligence collection; improved command, control and communications; selective ``platform'' upgrades, such as night attack capability for tactical strike assets, or conventional, all-weather precision weapons delivery capability for the heavy bomber force; and a new generation of precision-guided munitions. Yet these technological improvements are only one aspect of the many factors essential to battlefield success. While much attention is being directed at the new capabilities brought to bear in these operations, the Committee insists that without the less-glamorous ``basics''--such as effective logistics systems; solid training; and most importantly, keeping a highly motivated and quality force--our technological advances mean little. Accordingly, the Committee not only acknowledges the exemplary performance of the U.S. forces deployed in direct support of these operations, but all those who helped prepare, train, and equip those forces. This provides a vivid reminder to Congress and the senior leadership in the executive branch of the shared responsibility to work in concert with the senior military leadership of the Department and the forces in the field to fashion a defense program which balances these competing prerogatives. In keeping with this obligation, then, while laudatory of the performance of U.S. forces in these recent engagements, the Committee must register its deep concern over a number of issues which these recent operations have highlighted. Current Force Structure and Current Commitments Are Not In Balance. --It is now all too apparent that the military services are not yet properly reconfigured from their old ``Cold War'' orientation, or are simply undermanned or underequipped in certain key categories, to meet the Nation's emerging global commitments at an acceptable level of risk. In the immediate aftermath of the Yugoslav campaign, the Chiefs of Staff of Army and Air Force, in different yet equally compelling ways, have brought this issue into sharp focus. The new Army Chief of Staff has pronounced publicly that, without new and innovative thinking in his service--including a fundamental restructuring of the Army's heavy and light units--his service risks losing strategic and tactical relevance. The Air Force Chief of Staff declares that the immediate well-being of his service--stretched by years of unanticipated operations, unprecedented rates of ``peacetime'' operational tempo, declining readiness indicators, personnel turbulence and shortages, and now, two major air campaigns within the past eight months--makes a lengthy ``stand-down'', including a significant reprieve from overseas deployments, essential if he is to properly reconstitute his force. This Committee recognizes these are complex issues, with each Service facing its own unique challenges. But it is clear the strategy, roles and missions, and force structure assumptions underpinning the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) two years ago--which now form the basis of current DoD planning--must be revisited. This is a considerable undertaking, made more difficult by the uncertain world situation, the budget environment and many difficult resource allocation issues in each service. Nevertheless, the Committee expresses its conviction that, in light of the additional commitments incurred by U.S. forces since the QDR was conducted, as well as the serious personnel and readiness problems that have emerged over the past few years, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the senior leadership of each of the military services, and ultimately, the President and the Congress must deal with these issues head on, as soon as possible. Fundamental Problems Persist In Matching Resource Allocations To Operational Requirements.-- For years, the Committee has expressed deep concern that the DoD's annual budget submissions have consistently failed to adequately address certain critical warfighting needs. This disconnect was illustrated during the early stages of Operation Allied Force, when the Air Force had to submit an urgent reprogramming request, and then an emergency supplemental budget request for the Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile (the Air Force's only long-range, all weather conventionally armed stand-off weapon), because inventories had been drawn down to unacceptable levels. The Committee notes this problem would have been far worse had not the Congress in the mid-1990's provided funding for 250 CALCMs, which had not been budgeted by the Air Force or the DoD. Had this not occurred, CALCM would not have even been available for Operations Desert Fox or Allied Force. The Committee also notes that many of the innovations which were used to great effect in Operation Allied Force--such as the use of B 2 and B 1 bombers in a conventional bombing role--are available now only because of congressional actions to both initiate and accelerate many of the upgrades required for these missions. For example, the initial deployment of a precision-guided conventional weapon on the B 2--which served as a clear precursor to its subsequently being equipped with the highly effective JDAM munition--was the so-called ``GATS GAM'' interim weapon, a congressional initiative. These examples, unfortunately, are symptomatic of many recent budget decisions. The Committee has stated its view repeatedly that many programs with strong warfighting applications ofttimes are given short shrift in annual service budget submissions. The reasons for this vary, but are usually found in either budget pressures, service parochialism, and the aversion of many of the services' acquisition hierarchies to upgrade existing systems (as opposed to developing a new system from scratch). The Committee has also observed that these problems are especially acute when the capability or system in question has a ``joint'' or ``national'' character, and is needed by multiple services or joint warfighting commands. Regrettably, even when such capabilities are of great utility to forces in the field, they often involve missions or capabilities--such as logistics, transportation, intelligence collection and reconnaissance, and electronic combat--which the military services often fail to consider on a par with what each considers its core requirements. SHORTAGES OF LOW-DENSITY, HIGH-DEMAND ASSETS The Committee is especially troubled as many of these deficiencies, including shortages in so-called ``low-density, high-demand'' assets, have been well known for some time. These include, but are not limited to: electronic warfare aircraft and specialized jamming equipment; tactical intelligence collection and dissemination assets (ranging from collection assets such as the U 2, RIVET JOINT, AWACS and JSTARS aircraft and tactical UAVs; interoperable, secure communications and command and control, to include new data links and data fusion capability); and tactical airlift, aerial refueling capability and other transportation and logistics support platforms and equipment. The Committee has consistently supported additions over DoD budget requests for such programs over the years. Nevertheless, continued shortages in these and many other categories clearly posed operational constraints during Operations Desert Fox and Allied Force. This not only impeded the regional commands charged with prosecuting the air campaigns, but also other regional commanders who were confronted with the physical diversion of assets from their areas of responsibility and other unexpected resource shortfalls. The Committee's concern about these problems is not new, and it has demonstrated it will not shy from taking actions to ensure that our forces in the field are not at risk or caught short. In this regard, the recently-enacted emergency supplemental appropriations act which provided funding for the conduct of Operation Allied Force (Public Law 106 31) created a new appropriations account, the ``Operational Rapid Response Transfer Fund'', that was expressly intended to provide a funding source to meet immediate shortfalls and needs identified by the regional CINCs. The Committee understands the Department will soon make use of the $300,000,000 provided by the Congress in this fund to address some of these most urgent problems, such as those plaguing the limited inventory of Navy EA 6B jamming aircraft. The Committee commends the senior leadership of the Department for expeditiously following through on the Congress' intent in this regard. However, it is clear much more must be done. As with the questions raised earlier in this report about the proper size and organization of each of the military services, a continued failure by the DoD generally--and the military services and defense agencies specifically--to consistently link operational needs to decisions about resource allocations and defense program development carries with it serious implications for the ability of the U.S. military to carry out the current national security strategy. This is not just a theoretical discussion, nor one which the Committee believes can be deferred. The Committee bill, across all services and defense agencies, is intended to bring these questions to the forefront--and in the instance of one of the military services--the United States Air Force--the Committee believes these problems are now so acute that it must take a series of immediate and forceful steps. United States Air Force--At A Crossroads? The air campaigns against Iraq and Yugoslavia, which on the whole featured an exemplary level of professionalism, technical sophistication and skill, were conducted and supported in large measure by the men and women of the United States Air Force. To them, and their colleagues in the other branches of the military and defense agencies who also played important roles in these operations, the Committee expresses its gratitude and respect for their service and bravery. In the Committee's view, this performance on the part of the Air Force is all the more remarkable in light of the serious problems which, over the past few years, have increasingly beset this service as it struggles with the twin dilemmas of redefining its role in the post Cold War era while being called to carry out an increasing number of missions with fewer people. Among the most serious of these problems: --For the first time since 1979, the Air Force will miss its recruiting goals for new enlistees--by nearly 2,600 individuals. This is especially noteworthy given the Air Force's success since the transition to an all-volunteer force in attracting many more potential recruits than it actually requires. --The Air Force also is coping with serious retention problems, particularly in the midyear grades, with acute shortages in a large number of specialty career fields ranging from air traffic controllers to security police. Of considerable concern is that the Air Force is already suffering from a steep shortage of pilots, with an existing deficit of over 1,100 that is projected to approach 2,000 within the next three years. --Overall Air Force readiness--as measured by the mission capable rates of aircraft and other key systems--has steadily declined in each of the past eight years, with an overall rating of less than 75 percent (an eleven percent decline since 1991) prior to the onset of Operation Allied Force. --In the past three years a major aviation spare parts shortfall has arisen in the Air Force (as well as the Navy), due largely to faulty estimates which failed to accurately reflect the effects of increased operational tempo on aging equipment. Despite the appropriation of roughly $2 billion over budgeted amounts for spare parts over the past three years, continued operational demands and the time required to procure the necessary parts and perform required maintenance make it likely that Air Force operational readiness rates and equipment availability will remain low for the foreseeable future. --Despite the proposed increases in the President's budget submission, major funding shortfalls persist across nearly all Air Force mission and functional areas. In February 1999 the Air Force Chief of Staff submitted to Congress an ``unfunded priority list'' for fiscal year 2000 alone of over $2.3 billion. The following month, in response to a request from the House Armed Services Committee, senior Air Force officials provided a detailed unfunded shortfall list covering the period of the current Future Years Defense Plan (fiscal years 2000 2005). After adjusting this list (removing from it fiscal years 1999 and 2000 needs tied to the contingency operations involving Iraq and Kosovo, most of which were dealt with in the emergency supplemental appropriations act enacted in late May), the Air Force still documents unfunded needs totaling over $14 billion (emphasis added). All of these problems were present prior to the air campaigns against Iraq and Yugoslavia, which senior Air Force officials freely admit stretched existing Air Force personnel and assets to the limit. For example, during Operation Allied Force, the Air Force was compelled to implement the so-called ``stop-loss'' program, whereby individuals whose terms of service were due to expire were formally notified that they could be kept on active duty for an indefinite period owing to operational needs. At the time stop-loss was invoked, the Air Force indicated nearly 34,000 servicemembers in critical specialty areas could have their tours of duty involuntarily extended as a result of Operation Allied Force and the Air Force's other global missions. Air Force operational assets were also clearly taxed by Operations Desert Fox and Allied Force. The most acute problems occurred in certain categories--such as reconnaissance, airlift, and aerial refueling--where the Air Force carries a disproportionate share of, if not the only, capability within the U.S. armed forces to support major military operations. The Air Force itself describes its unique capabilities as ``Global Reach, Global Power''. One may then ask, can the Air Force today or in the future deliver on this motto's promise? These weaknesses give the Committee doubts about the U.S. military's ability to carry out the ``near-simultaneous, two major theater war'' capability that the national military strategy is premised upon. Of even greater concern is the fact that the six-year Air Force budget program demonstrably falls short of meeting both existing and projected requirements in these critical areas. Now, following Operation Allied Force, the Air Force Chief of Staff has made clear his view that the Air Force must conduct a ``stand-down'' of at least several months duration, to reconstitute its forces and give its officers and airmen a chance to recover from the operational tempo which is the root cause of many of the Air Force's personnel and readiness problems. The Committee has been advised that this standdown, as envisioned by the Air Force, would be of sufficient scope and length that many current operational requirements being carried out by the Air Force would either have to be transferred to the other services or left unaddressed. The Committee believes such candor on the part of senior Air Force leadership--clearly at variance from the typical ``can do'' attitude which the military services often take to an extreme--deserves both respect and careful consideration. It says much about the current state in which the Air Force finds itself. The Committee recognizes many of these problems are not of the Air Force's making, nor could they have been forecast. Many stem from a series of decisions and events which began in 1989 91, starting with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the resulting dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the Persian Gulf War, and the acceleration of a major defense build-down in response to these events and federal budget pressures. The Committee is well aware of the difficulties these changes posed for all the military services, and the Air Force in particular. Moreover, the operational employment of U.S. forces has changed markedly in recent years. The Air Force and its sister services not only continue to carry existing regional commitments and their potential warfighting demands, but now find themselves regularly deployed on a large scale on what had just a few years ago been called ``non-traditional missions'', such as peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and humanitarian relief operations. Each of the services--not just the Air Force--have and will continue to struggle with these new missions. With 20/20 hindsight, the Committee believes that the Air Force's recognition of the scale of its modernization dilemma may have inadvertently contributed to many of the personnel and readiness problems it now confronts. The Committee remembers vividly how just two years ago the then-Chief of Staff of the Air Force explained to the Committee how his service had consciously decided to give up force structure and manning levels in order to free up additional resources for modernization. Now, that gamble, and others taken by this Service, have come home to roost, leading to what the Committee believes is an Air Force personnel and readiness crisis, even while the Air Force still confronts a modernization crisis of considerable size and scope. Air Force Modernization Issues It is indisputable that the Air Force has many unmet needs in modernization, many of which were on clear display during Operation Allied Force. There is a requirement for at least five additional Joint STARS surveillance aircraft beyond those currently funded or budgeted--yet after this year, the Air Force budget provides none. At least 20 percent of the KC 135 aerial refueling fleet--which uses 1950's and 1960's vintage airframes--has yet to be modernized with improved engines and other equipment which will not only extend its service life but greatly increase its operational flexibility and availability. The Air Force budget fails to request even one tanker conversion in its budget until fiscal year 2002. The Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Transportation Command, declares a need for at least 150 C 130J tactical airlift aircraft--yet the Air Force budget fails to buy any until fiscal year 2002 and active duty units are not scheduled to receive any new C 130's until 2006. Due to fiscal constraints the Air Force has restructured the next-generation of early warning satellites used for detection of ballistic missile launches, the Space-Based Infrared System-High and -Low. In so doing, at least in the case of SBIRS-High, the Air Force has taken a fully funded, well-crafted acquisition program and within less than nine months, restructured it into a higher risk program, with a two year slip in fielding, excessive concurrency between development and production--and in the process generated an unfunded shortfall of nearly $100 million in its fiscal year 2000 budget. These are just a few examples where the Committee believes the Air Force acquisition program and budget priorities are inconsistent with actual need. Programs relied upon by forces in the field, and in some instances the National Command Authority, are not funded adequately or deferred. Other efforts, which may have some intrinsic merit but are really nothing more than expensive demonstration projects, receive increased budget allocations. Meanwhile, as described earlier in this report, the Air Force acquisition community seems at times to be completely oblivious to the legal and DoD policies in place governing the proper use of appropriated funds. f 22 The centerpiece of the Air Force's modernization program for at least the past decade, along with the C 17 transport aircraft, has been its next generation air superiority fighter, the F 22. The F 22 was originally conceived in the early 1980's to counter a projected threat driven by the expectation that the then-Soviet Union would couple the sheer size of its force structure with significant technological advances in fighter and air-to-air technology. Following the demise of the Soviet Union and the huge downsizing of the now Russian military, the Air Force has continued development of the F 22 based largely on what it states is its desire to guarantee air superiority over any potential adversary for the foreseeable future. The original F 22 inventory objective of 750 aircraft has since been revised downwards, to a figure of 339 today, enough to equip three wings plus expected attrition reserve requirements. As currently configured, there is little doubt that the F 22, if it meets its performance specifications, would far outclass any single fighter known to be under development. Even with the change in the threat environment, little of the F 22's high performance characteristics have changed in the past decade. The Air Force would concede that both development and production of the F 22 is indeed a challenging task, for that is the purpose of the program--to develop a fighter so capable that it will guarantee U.S. forces air superiority for decades once it is fielded. However, the ambitious technical goals of the F 22, which include a series of new production processes as well as the most advanced avionics and electronics ever fielded on a U.S. aircraft, have led to a series of delays in the F 22 development program. Juxtaposed with the Air Force's desired fielding schedule, this has led to a program whose recent history has been marked by continual cost growth and whose current acquisition profile would, even if examined in isolation, raise serious questions about the overall affordability and feasibility of this program. Given these factors, and the magnitude of other Air Force problems in personnel, readiness and modernization, the Committee decided to make the F 22 a focus of its deliberations. The following sections cites the key points which it took into consideration when making its recommendations. 22 concerns F 22 has been experiencing technical problems.-- The F 22 has experienced several technical problems including: manufacturing problems with titanium castings; delamination of longerons; structural weaknesses in aft fuselage; anomalies in brakes, inertial reference system and environmental control system; nagging fuel leaks; problems with engine low pressure turbine blades, high pressure turbine blades, and engine combustors; and problems with excessive engine vibration. The Air Force reports that there are 97 issues limiting aircraft operations and 68 issues limiting ground maintenance. There are already indications that further flight testing in fiscal year 1999 will be curtailed while the Air Force labors to correct these technical problems. While the Committee recognizes that the sophisticated technology intended for use in the F 22 makes such technical problems likely, it also must consider that the successful resolution of these problems will further both delay schedules and drive up costs. Affordability of the F 22 is questionable.-- Based on Air Force acquisition reports, the F 22--even without further cost growth--is projected to cost three times as much as the aircraft it replaces (the F 15). The unit cost of the six F 22's proposed to be procured with fiscal year 2000 funds is $300 million per plane compared to a $55 million per plane cost for the F 15. To finance such an expensive program, DoD's modernization plan requires unprecedented levels of spending on tactical aircraft over the next 20 years. In fact, DoD's tactical aircraft modernization plan requires twice the historical percentage of procurement dollars to buy roughly half the number of aircraft. The Air Force has not demonstrated it can control F 22 costs.-- Ten years ago, the Committee recommended termination of the F 22 (then called the Advanced Tactical Fighter) based in part on concerns over cost growth and unrealistic budgeting. Then, the Air Force told the Committee that F 22 development would cost $14 billion, a $900 million increase from the estimate provided six months earlier. Since then, the program has experienced a decade of cost growth with the current estimate for F 22 development now exceeding $23 billion. In the last six months alone, the development cost increased another $700 million and the production cost of just the first 6 aircraft increased $300 million. The Committee notes, that without any further cost growth, the F 22 program is budgeted for more than $23 billion over the next six years alone, and has a ``total cost to complete'' of $40 billion assuming the Air Force's current schedule, cost estimates, and inventory objective of 339 remain static. Independent cost estimates developed within the Pentagon, the Congressional Budget Office, and the General Accounting Office all indicate that the Air Force production cost estimates are excessively optimistic. For example, the Cost Analysis Improvement Group within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, responsible for developing independent cost estimates for the Secretary, believes the F 22's total production costs are understated by at least $9 billion. The current F 22 acquisition plan has a high potential for even further cost growth.-- The F 22 is a technically challenging program combining stealth, advanced sensors and avionics, and the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds. The Air Force will not finish basic testing of these capabilities for another four years. To date, the program has completed only five percent of the required testing. The advanced sensors and avionics (perhaps the highest risk elements of the program) have not been tested on the F 22 at all. Yet this year's budget proposes production funding for six aircraft. Overall, the Air Force's acquisition strategy requires the purchase of over $13 billion worth of aircraft before completion of basic operational testing. The unit cost of these initial aircraft increased 40 percent over the last 2 years, and any problems found during the next four years of testing will simply add to these costs. U.S. has overwhelming numerical advantage of advanced fighters without F 22.-- Current threat projections for 2010 indicate that the United States will have a 5 to 1 numerical advantage of advanced fighters against our most challenging adversaries without the F 22. Against what could be considered the most likely medium term adversaries used in Air Force planning scenarios, the United States enjoys a numeric advantage of 26 of our advanced fighters for every one belonging to our adversaries. POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES The Committee also examined potential alternatives to the current F 22 program, and makes the following findings. F 15 economic service life extends beyond 2015.-- The Air Force has justified the need for the F 22 in part as a replacement for aging F 15 aircraft. However, service life data from the Air Force indicates that the F 15 can exceed 16,000 flying hours without major structural changes. The average age of the F 15 inventory is expected to be only 8000 flying hours by 2015. F 15 can be improved to provide greatly enhanced combat capability.-- F 15 combat capabilities can be improved substantially with upgraded radars, jammers, and helmet mounted targeting systems. The most cost effective upgrade may be a new datalink which allows aircraft to share target information. Air Force testimony to the Committee this year described the so-called ``Link 16'' datalink as ``the most significant increase in fighter avionics since the introduction of the on-board radar.'' Tests with this $200,000 per aircraft upgrade to the F 15 have demonstrated a five-fold increase in air combat kill ratios. (The Committee fails to understand why the Air Force has neglected to budget for this modestly priced upgrade for all its combat coded F 15s, while it chooses to request $150 million in fiscal year 2000 to redesign F 22 parts that have already become obsolete. The Committee notes that while this upgrade makes the F 15 five times more effective in the air combat mission, the Air Force only requires the F 22 to be twice as effective as the F 15.) JSF has robust air-to-air capabilities and will be available in fiscal year 2007. --The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), in development to produce a lower cost, yet highly capable replacement for Navy F/A 18's, Marine Corps F/A 18's and AV 8B's, and Air Force F 16's is scheduled to begin production deliveries in 2007. This program will be badly needed in this timeframe to begin replacing these aircraft types, which comprise the vast majority of the U.S. tactical fighter force, as their age and usage rates make a replacement in this timeframe essential, While incorporating advanced technology similar to that being developed for the F 22, the much higher inventory objective (over 2,800 aircraft) plus the lack of any other alternatives at present to deal with the block obsolescence issue make the JSF, in the Committee's view, one of the DoD's highest acquisition priorities. Like the F 22, the Joint Strike Fighter combines stealth and advanced avionics to provide a robust air-to-air capability. Unlike the F 22, the JSF is being designed to be an affordable joint aircraft with far superior air-to-ground capabilities. U.S. has other advantages in the area of air dominance.-- While not minimizing the potential advantages which accrue to the side with a high technology air superiority aircraft, the Committee believes that the achievement of air dominance in the information age is more than one-on-one dogfights. Eight years ago, during Operation Desert Storm, 200 Iraqi aircraft were destroyed or captured on the ground whereas only 35 were destroyed in air-to-air combat. Since then, the U.S. has immensely improved its ability to achieve battlefield information dominance and to prosecute ground targets with precision guided weapons. The U.S. ability to damage runways, destroy aircraft fuel and repair infrastructure, and disrupt enemy command and control is improving markedly with the continued introduction of precision stand-off weapons into the bomber and tactical fighter inventory. This will severely limit any adversary's ability to get fighters airborne to mount serious challenges to U.S. fighters. Should enemy fighters get airborne, absent a complete change in U.S. training and readiness priorities, they will likely confront a U.S. force possessing large numbers of highly maintained advanced fighters operated by better trained pilots with superior situational awareness. Despite current inventory problems (due largely to limited numbers of the total number of specialized platforms), there is no question the United States enjoys tremendous advantages in surveillance (AWACS, JSTARS), jamming (EA 6B, EC 130), command, control and communications, intelligence (RC 135s, EP 3s, UAVs, satellites), tactics, training, maintenance, and long-range precision weapons. It is vitally important that sufficient resources be invested in these systems as well--something the Committee believes is not being done. MAJOR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Air Force Program Reprioritization As outlined earlier in this report, the Air Force is currently facing critical problems in terms of personnel, overall readiness, and funding for many essential warfighting needs, including many that give U.S. forces significant operational advantages over any adversary. The Committee believes the case for addressing these shortfalls as soon as possible is compelling. At the same time, the Committee is not convinced that the F 22 program as currently constituted can continue as planned, especially considering the other difficulties confronting the Air Force and the DoD generally. Therefore, the Committee believes that unless and until the Air Force and the Department of Defense can clearly demonstrate how they intend to meet these competing demands, continued F 22 production is not justified at this time. The Committee thus recommends an F 22 ``production pause'' until these issues can be resolved. To implement this recommendation, the Committee specifically denies the $1.8 billion F 22 production funding requested for fiscal year 2000. The Secretary of the Air Force is further directed to take all necessary actions to cease production of aircraft funded in fiscal year 1999 and use all available procurement funds provided in that year to finance activities needed to ensure an orderly pause in the production program. The Committee does approve the budgeted amount of $1.2 billion for F 22 development. These funds are provided in expectation that they will be used to complete the buy of nine F 22 development aircraft previously purchased. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to use these funds to take all necessary actions to restructure the ongoing F 22 development program into an affordable demonstration program tailored to reduce the risk of the Joint Strike Fighter. The Committee's expectation is that nine F 22 test aircraft currently funded will be more than sufficient to satisfy the requirements of this tailored demonstration program. The Committee therefore directs that none of the funds provided for the F 22 can be used to acquire more than nine flying test aircraft without written prior notification to the congressional defense committees. The Committee further reminds the Air Force that section 8090 of the Committee bill prohibits the use of research and development funding for procurement of aircraft for operational use. Regarding other major Air Force issues, the Committee recommands significant increases over the budget request for a variety of programs such as: Air Force personnel recruiting and retention incentives (including $300 million over the budget for the aviation continuation pay program, targeted at retaining mid-grade pilots); spare parts and war reserve shortages; quality of life upgrades at Air Force facilities; and weapons modernization enhancements. The latter includes additions over the budget request for new production F 15 and F 16 fighters, and upgrades for these aircraft. The Committee also has provided funds over the budget request for bomber modernization, to accelerate upgrades to the existing inventory of B 52, B 1 and B 2 bombers, and has also increased funding for precision guided weapons. The Committee also proposes adding funding for a variety of Air Force reconnaissance assets including one additional Joint STARS aircraft, additional Predator unmanned aerial vehicles, and upgrades to existing RC 135 RIVET JOINT and U 2 surveillance platforms. The Committee also provides sizable increases in funding for the KC 135 tanker and RIVET JOINT engine upgrade programs. Finally, the Committee also adds $100 million to the Joint Strike Fighter program for risk reduction efforts. Additional details on these and other Air Force program adjustments can be found elsewhere in this report. Ensuring ``Lessons Learned'' Are Incorporated Into FY 2001 2006 Defense Planning The Committee commends the Secretary of Defense for his establishment of an ``After-Action Review Board'' to assess Operation Allied Force, jointly chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, with representation from the services and the Joint Staff. The Committee expects that this group will examine issues associated with the actual conduct of Operation Allied Force, which as the first offensive military operation in NATO's history clearly evidenced the various problems, be they political, strategic, or tactical, associated with coalition warfare on this scale. However, the Committee also believes that this group, which is meeting while the Department is also developing its detailed fiscal year 2001 2006 defense plan, must also seek to address the force structure, organizational, and resource allocation cited earlier in this report. The Committee, therefore, recommends a new general provision (Section 8129), which following after the lead of a similar congressionally-mandated review following the Persian Gulf War, is intended to build on the Secretary's initiative by directing that he formally assess the conduct of Operation Allied Force, as well as that of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. The Committee believes it imperative the Secretary use these reviews to determine deficiencies in existing U.S. capabilities; report on his findings to both the President and Congress; and to the degree possible, incorporate these findings into the defense planning guidance and the fiscal year 2001 budget submission. Under this section, the Secretary is to report his initial findings to the President and the Congress not later than October 15, 1999, and will submit his final report with the submission of the fiscal year 2001 budget request. Ensuring Appropriations Process Integrity The Committee recommends a number of initiatives to ensure that appropriated funds will not be diverted to programs without the required congressional notification or approval. To address the agency problems cited earlier in this report, the Committee recommends several adjustments to Section 8005 of the Committee bill, which provides the Secretary of Defense with the authority to transfer funds and propose reprogramming of funds. In the instance of problems encountered with specific acquisition programs, the Committee has also proposed several general provisions which realign and limit certain funding, as well as a number of appropriations adjustments described elsewhere in this report. Multiyear Procurement The Defense Department proposed a number of new multiyear procurement initiatives in the fiscal year 2000 budget. As described earlier in this report, the Committee is concerned that defense acquisition budgets will not materialize as forecast. As a result, the Committee believes it unwise to commit at this stage to any additional new multiyear procurements. If such contracts are initiated and subsequently broken for lack of funds, there would be severe cost penalties and program disruption. On the other hand, those programs not subject to multiyear contracts could suffer disproportionate reductions as an even larger share of defense procurement funding could be locked into long-term contracts. The Committee, therefore, recommends that no funds or authority be provided to initiate new multiyear contracts in fiscal year 2000. Section 8008 of the Committee bill, which in past years has provided multiyear contracting authority, has been modified to prohibit new multiyear contracts. This action has no effect on on-gong multiyear contracts begun in prior years with prior appropriations, except in those instances where authority is sought to expand such contracts beyond their original timeframes. Addressing High Priority Shortfalls The Committee bill recommends additions to the budget request of over $3.6 billion to address unbudgeted shortfalls identified by the military Service Chiefs in personnel, acquisition and readiness-related programs. In total, the Committee recommends additions to the budget request that encompass nearly 44 percent of the noncontingency operation-related unbudgeted shortfalls identified by the military Service Chiefs. The Committee has also recommended increases over the budget request and fiscal year 1999 enacted levels for intelligence programs. Specific details are cited throughout the report and the classified annex. Ensuring a Quality Ready Force Personnel Issues. --The Committee fully funded the 4.4 percent military pay raise in the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill (Public Law 106 31). The Committee recommends an additional $165,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 to increase the pay raise to 4.8 percent. The Committee has fully funded and in some cases adds funds over the budget request for other pay compensation and bonus programs. Military Medical Programs. --The Committee recommends fully funding the Defense Health Program and has provided a net increase of over $480,000,000 above the budget request for a variety of health care efforts. Training/OPTEMPO. --For the Active duty forces, the Committee has added $112,100,000 to fund various shortfalls at the rotational training centers and $55,600,000 for operating tempo deficiencies in both the active and Guard and Reserve components identified by the Service Chiefs. Spare Parts/War Reserve Material Shortfalls. --The Committee has added $453,000,000 to fund shortfalls in the active and Reserve components' stocks of spare and repair parts, to maintain near-term readiness and ensure sustainability of U.S. forces. Equipment Repair/Maintenance. --The Committee has added $297,900,000 for depot level maintenance of active and Reserve component weapons systems and support equipment. Real Property Maintenance. --The Committee has added a total of $854,000,000 for real property maintenance, targeted at quality-of-life related needs at defense installations. Force Protection. --The Committee has added $41,400,000 for force protection initiatives identified by the military services as unfunded priorities. In addition, the Committee recommends that five percent of the additional $400,000,000 provided to the active components for base operations support be directed toward installation security and force protection costs. Soldier Support Equipment. --The Committee has added $88,000,000 to fund purchases of additional soldier support equipment such as cold weather clothing, body armor and initial issue equipment for both the active and Reserve components. Modernization Programs The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes an increase of $4,440,977,000 over fiscal year 1999 levels for modernization programs. While this increase is welcomed by the Committee, persistent shortfalls still exist. The Committee has included many recommendations throughout this bill which address these shortfalls identified from the testimony of Defense Department witnesses as well as shortfall lists provided to the Committee by the Department. In total, the bill recommends a net increase to the budget request of over $1,179,859,000 for procurement programs. The most significant recommendations include: Missile Defense. --The Committee recommends total funding of $3,899,543,000 for the Ballistic Missile Defense Program. This total includes $761,555,000 for national missile defense and $1,116,432,000 for theater systems. The Committee has provided $527,871,000 for the Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) program, a reduction of $83,755,000 to the budget request due to the delay in entering the engineering and manufacturing development phase. A total of $419,768,000 in new appropriations is proposed for the Navy Theater-Wide (Upper Tier) program, an increase of $90,000,000 above the budget request. Major Weapon Programs. --The Committee recommends fully funding the budget request for the Army's Crusader next generation artillery system, the Navy's AV 8B and F/A 18 E/F aircraft, the carrier replacement program, and DDG 51 and LPD 17 ships. The Committee has also funded the number of C 17 aircraft requested by the Air Force. The Committee has added funds over the budget request to procure additional aircraft such as UH 60 Blackhawk helicopters for the Army, JPATS trainer aircraft for the Navy and Air Force, V 22 and KC 130Js for the Marine Corps, and F 15, F 16 and JSTARS aircraft for the Air Force. The Committee has also added funds over the request for Apache modifications, Bradley fighting vehicle industrial base sustainment, KC 135 tanker re-engining, continued upgrades to the B 2 bomber fleet and additional AMRAAM missiles. Mission Essential Shortfalls.-- The Committee has included additional funding for less glamorous, yet mission essential items which are critical for the capabilities of deployed troops. The Committee recommends increases over the budget request for such items as: tactical radios ($40,000,000), afloat protection systems ($24,400,000), enhancements to the EA 6B electronic warfare aircraft fleet ($111,000,000), ammunition for all services ($202,954,000), communication and electronics infrastructure equipment ($135,200,000) and tracked vehicle modification kits ($60,500,000). Guard and Reserve Components. --The Committee continues its support of the Guard and Reserve in the fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations Bill with recommended increases of approximately $616,000,000 over the budget request for selected personnel and operation and maintenance programs. With respect to modernization programs, the Committee has provided $2,485,300,000 in accounts throughout the bill for procurement of National Guard and Reserve Equipment. This is an increase of $796,400,000 above the budget request for aircraft, tactical vehicles, miscellaneous equipment and upgrades to miscellaneous equipment for the guard and reserve components of the total force. Reforms/Program Reductions The following table shows selected programs in the budget request which the Committee has eliminated or reduced funding based on their having a relatively low priority, program duplication, unaffordability, or where the requested funding is excessive due to fact-of-life changes or when compared to previously enacted levels. Program Reduction 22 Production Pause -$1,852,075,000 Revised Fiscal Year 1999 Inflation Estimates -452,100,000 Chemical Demilitarization Program -388,000,000 Military end-strength underexecution -212,300,000 Headquarters and Administrative Expenses -179,000,000 Discoverer II -108,481,000 Javelin Missile -98,000,000 THAAD -83,755,000 T 38 Upgrade -77,000,000 JSOW -68,000,000 GPS Satellites -67,498,000 SADARM Procurement -54,546,000 Standard Missile - 43,600,000 Maneuver Control System -42,049,000 SHF Terminals -31,950,000 Tactical Reconnaissance During Operation Allied Force and the subsequent deployment of NATO peace keeping troops in the Balkans region, the Committee believes the Department of Defense learned at least two important lessons with respect to tactical reconnaissance: it is extremely valuable and there are not enough assets. It was clear to many of the commanders that the RIVET JOINT and unmanned aerial vehicle assets became the best ``eyes and ears'' tactical intelligence monitoring available in theater. The problem is that there are a limited number of these assets and staffing is extremely lean. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles proved their worth during Operation Allied Force. The vehicles could fly at altitudes and in areas that could not and should not be attempted by manned aircraft. The vehicles were vulnerable to enemy fire but managed to provide valuable intelligence that was used to target future strikes and monitor troop movements. The RIVET JOINT, U 2 and special Navy manned reconnaissance aircraft were also effective during Operation Allied Force. These aircraft were a lucrative source of intelligence and logged in excess of 700 sorties over Kosovo and surrounding areas. Due to their effectiveness, these assets were popular with local commanders. However, the numbers of these aircraft are incredibly limited which puts tremendous pressure on aircrews. Despite the obvious benefits of these reconnaissance assets and the fact that they are major providers of intelligence for force protection, target acquisition, troop movements, and battle damage assessment, the Department's fiscal year 2000 budget does not include adequate funding for its tactical reconnaissance requirements. Therefore, the Committee has included a total of $270,100,000 above the budget request to fund a variety of upgrades for tactical reconnaissance assets. The following is a list of the additional major items for which funding is provided by the Committee: Amount Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicle +$20,000,000 Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicle +25,000,000 RIVET JOINT +102,200,000 U 2 +36,000,000 Joint SIGINT Avionics Family +17,400,000 The Committee believes that these funds will provide significant tactical reconnaissance capability for future operations. The Department should ensure that the benefits from these increases are not shortchanged in future budget requests and that needed enhancements and aircraft replacements are fully funded. Information Assurance The Committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is vulnerable to unauthorized entries into its information infrastructure that could endanger U.S. troops or compromise U.S. security. There have been many instances in the past few years in which individuals outside of the Department of Defense have gained unauthorized access to the Defense Information Infrastructure. This is a serious threat to the protection of vital data. The DoD must have confidence that unauthorized persons have not altered critical information. Therefore, throughout this report, the Committee recommends increases of over $500,000,000 to the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request, for critical technology developments and system upgrades that will provide information superiority and information assurance. As a part of this overall funding level, the Committee recommends providing an additional $150,000,000 for the Deputy Secretary of Defense to use in support of these efforts in section 8114 of the Committee bill. These funds are available for transfer by the Deputy Secretary to those agencies and organizations that require additional funds for specific projects, programs and activities that support information assurance and computer security. The Committee anticipates these funds will only be used as part of an overall Department of Defense Information Assurance Plan and not simply divided proportionately among the Services. The Committee therefore has included language which prohibits the transfer of any portion of the additional $150,000,000 until the Deputy Secretary has submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a proposed funding allocation and plan, with specific goals, targeted at meeting DoD's needs in information superiority and information assurance. Preparedness Against WMD Terrorist Attacks Section 8113 of the Committee bill provides an additional $50,000,000 above the budget request to enhance efforts underway within the Department to develop a domestic emergency response capability against potential terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction. These funds are to be allocated as follows: RAID Team Training/Equipment.-- To complete the training and outfitting of Rapid Assessment Initial Detection (RAID) teams funded in FY 1999 and in this bill, including procurement of unified command suites and mobile analytical laboratory systems. Appropriation Amount National Guard Personnel, Army $4,240,000 National Guard Personnel, Air Force 1,060,000 Operation and Maintenance, Army 10,930,000 Other Procurement, Army 12,180,000 Military Support Detachment RAID (Light) Team. --To provide the training and preliminary equipment issue to field an initial operating capability for one traditional drilling Military Support Detachment RAID (Light) team. Amount National Guard Personnel, Army $70,000 National Guard Personnel, Air Force 20,000 Operation and Maintenance, Army 1,180,000 Additional Training/Exercises/Coordination Activities.-- To enhance the training, organization, and support of DOD forces to prepare for and respond to WMD terrorism, and to enhance interoperability and connectivity between local, state, and federal interagency WMD response forces. Amount Reserve Personnel, Army $2,000,000 Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard 12,320,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 6,000,000 Of the funds provided for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard, the bill provides: $3,000,000 only to establish a cost effective counter terrorism training program at the Memorial Tunnel facility which has been outfitted by the Federal Highway Administration to study the effects of fire and smoke mitigation in enclosed spaces; $2,000,000 to develop a structured undergraduate research program to address the shortage of laboratory personnel skilled in the study of organisms and chemicals necessary to defend against biological and chemical weapons; $3,500,000 to enhance the Army National Guard's distance learning capabilities by implementing and expanding the Virtual Readiness University concept, enhancing the security of the Guardnet 21 backbone, and other related initiatives. The Committee believes the National Guard's Distance Learning Network provides a ready-made and cost-effective infrastructure to deliver WMD training courses across the country to local, state, and federal WMD response forces. The Committee recommends that the National Guard Bureau and the Department of Justice establish a collaborative training program to make expanded use of the National Guard Distance Learning Network, and other training and education resources of the National Guard and Department of Justice, to train civilian and military personnel. Of the funds provided for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, the bill provides $3,000,000 (PE 273610A) to continue consequence management and related training activities through the National Terrorism Preparedness Institute at the Southeastern Public Safety Institute. In addition, funds are provided to study the mass psychological trauma and impact of a WMD terrorism attack on civilians and on the military, and to identify appropriate response strategies. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MAJOR CATEGORY ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL The Committee recommends a total of $62,132,237,000 for active military personnel, a reduction of $1,526,243,000 below the budget request. The Committee has reduced the active and reserve military personnel accounts by $1,838,426,000 to reflect action taken in the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106 31) which provided advance funding for the fiscal year 2000 pay and retirement reform initiatives proposed by the President. The Committee also includes additional funds to pay for the cost of the pay raise increase from 4.4 percent to 4.8 percent, as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in the President's budget, and has included funds to provide for additional personnel costs for the Navy and Marine Corps. Guard and Reserve The Committee recommends a total of $9,899,740,000, a decrease of $165,073,000 below the budget request for Guard and Reserve personnel. The Committee agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in the President's budget for Selected Reserve, and has included funds to provide for additional personnel costs for the Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard. The Committee has also included funds for the proposed pay raise to 4.8 percent. Operation and Maintenance The Operation and maintenance appropriation provides for the readiness of U.S. Forces as well as the maintenance of facilities and equipment, the infrastructure that supports the combat forces and the quality of life service members and their families. The Committee recommends $93,686,750,000, a net increase of $2,418,501,000 above the fiscal year 2000 budget request. This increase in driven primarily by the need to address shortfalls in funding for rotational training centers, spare and repair part stocks, depot-level maintenance, support equipment, and the infrastructure of U.S. military bases. The Committee also recommends reductions from the budget request as the result of fact of life changes and management actions the Department should undertake to streamline activities. Procurement The Committee recommends $53,031,397,000 in obligational authority for programs funded in Title III of the bill, Procurement, a net increase of $1,179,859,000 over the fiscal year 2000 budget request. Major programs funded in the bill include the following: $207,140,000 for 19 UH 60 Blackhawk helicopters. $774,536,000 for Apache Longbow modifications. $296,472,000 for 2200 Hellfire missiles. $307,677,000 for 2682 Javelin anti-tank missiles. $138,134,000 for 47 MLRS launcher systems. $392,762,000 for Bradley fighting vehicle industrial base sustainment. $422,996,000 for the Abrams Tank upgrade program. $260,444,000 for 12 AV 8B strike aircraft. $2,691,989,000 for 36 F/A 18E/F fighter aircraft. $856,392,000 for 11 V 22 aircraft. $284,493,000 for 17 CH 60S helicopters. $325,476,000 for 15 T 45 Trainer aircraft. $576,257,000 for 8 KC 130J airlift aircraft. $361,202,000 for P 3 aircraft modifications. $437,488,000 for 12 Trident II ballistic missiles. $155,267,000 for 91 Standard missiles. $751,540,000 for the aircraft carrier replacement program. $748,497,000 for the New Attack Submarine. $2,681,653,000 for 3 DDG 51 Destroyers. $1,508,338,000 for 2 LPD 17 ships. $439,966,000 for 1 ADC(X) ship. $440,000,000 for 8 F 15 aircraft. $350,610,000 for 15 F 16 aircraft. $2,671,047,000 for 15 C 17 aircraft. $468,465,000 for 2 JSTARS aircraft. $321,818,000 for F 15 modifications. $295,536,000 for F 16 modifications. $552,988,000 for C 135 modifications. $190,279,000 for AMRAAM missiles. $300,898,000 for 32 Patriot PAC 3 missiles. $2,044,331,000 for ammunition for all services. research, development, test and evaluation The Committee recommends $37,169,446,000 for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation. Major programs funded in the bill include: $282,937,000 for the Crusader artillery system. $427,069,000 for the Comanche helicopter. $190,931,000 for cooperative engagement capability. $251,456,000 for new submarine design. $111,580,000 for ship self defense. $308,634,000 for the Airborne Laser program. $576,612,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter. $1,222,232,000 for F 22 development. $344,165,000 for B 2 development. $322,803,000 for the evolved expendable launch vehicle program. $527,871,000 for Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). $419,768,000 for Navy Theater Wide Missile Defense. $761,555,000 for National Missile Defense. FORCES TO BE SUPPORTED DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY The fiscal year 2000 budget is designed to support active Army forces of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and reserve forces of 8 divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15 enhanced National Guard brigades (6 enhanced brigades will be aligned under 2 AC/ARNG integrated division headquarters). These forces provide the minimum force necessary to meet enduring defense needs and execute the National Military Strategy. A summary of the major active forces follows: Fiscal year-- 1998 1999 2000 Divisions: 1 1 1 ------- ------- ------ Total 10 10 10 ======= ======= ====== Non-division Combat units: 3 3 3 ------- ------- ------ Total 3 3 4 ======= ======= ====== Active duty military personnel, end strength (thousands) 495 480 480 \1\Separate brigade is aligned to one of the light divisions. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY The fiscal year 2000 budget supports battle forces totaling 316 ships at the end of fiscal year 2000, a decrease of 1 ship from fiscal year 1999. Forces in fiscal year 2000 include 18 strategic submarines, 11 aircraft carriers, 245 other battle force ships, 1,852 Navy/Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 645 Undergraduate Training aircraft, 454 Fleet Air Training aircraft, 238 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 442 Reserve aircraft, and 450 aircraft in the pipeline. A summary of the major forces follows: Fiscal year-- 1998 1999 2000 Strategic Forces 18 18 18 ----------- ----------- --------- SLBM Launchers 432 432 432 General Purpose 271 256 256 ----------- ----------- --------- Support Forces 25 25 25 ----------- ----------- --------- Mobilization Category A 18 18 16 ----------- ----------- --------- =========== =========== ========= Total Ships, Battle Force 333 317 316 Total Local Defense/Misc Forces 162 161 167 Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces 139 138 143 Surface Combatant Ships 2 1 0 Coastal Defense 13 12 13 Mobilization Category B 6 8 10 Surface Combatants 0 0 0 Mine Warfare Ships 8 10 11 Support Ships 0 0 0 Naval Aircraft: 4,204 4,128 4,168 ----------- ----------- --------- Naval Personnel: 560,036 544,896 543,929 Reserve: 94,294 90,843 90,288 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE The fiscal year 2000 Air Force budget is designed to support a total active inventory force structure of 49 fighter and attack squadrons, 6 Air National Guard air defense interceptor squadrons and 8 bomber squadrons, including B 2s, B 52s, and B 1s. The Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBM forces will consist of 700 active launchers. A summary of the major forces follows: 1998 1999 2000 USAF fighter and attack (Active) 51 51 49 USAF fighter and attack (ANG and AFRC 36 35 35 Air defense interceptor (ANG) 10 6 6 Strategic bomber (Active) 8 9 8 Strategic bomber (ANG and AFRC) 3 3 3 ICBM launchers/silos 700 700 700 ICBM missile boosters 580 580 550 ======== ======== ======= USAF airlift squadrons (Active): 13 13 11 -------- -------- ------- Total Airlift 22 22 20 ======== ======== ======= Total Active Inventory 6,242 6,207 6,187 FY 1998 (Actual) FY 1999 Col FY 00 PB FY 2000 Active Duty 367,470 365,882 360,877 Reserve Component 180,066 181,233 180,386 Air National Guard 108,096 106,991 106,678 Air Force Reserve 71,970 74,242 73,708 TITLE I MILITARY PERSONNEL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request has made military personnel its first priority to improve retention and recruiting through a more equitable compensation package. The budget request proposed increasing the military personnel accounts by over $3,100,000,000 from the fiscal year 1999 enacted levels, and by more than $36,000,000,000 over the Five Year Defense Plan. These personnel initiatives include enhanced pay raises, reform of the basic pay tables, legislation to repeal the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986, new legislative initiatives designed to improve recruiting and retention in specific skill areas or critical military skills, and increased funding for enlistment bonuses and education benefits to help the Services' meet their accession goals. The Committee, in the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106 31), provided $1,838,426,000 in advance funds to support the President's fiscal year 2000 request for a 4.4 percent pay raise, pay table reform and retirement reform. In addition to the funds provided in the fiscal year 1999 supplemental, the Committee recommends including $164,510,000 for an increase of 0.4 percent in the military's pay raise to 4.8 percent, as proposed by the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee also includes $367,200,000 for increases to enlistment, reenlistment and aviation bonuses to improve recruiting and retention in the Department, $103,800,000 for recruiting, advertising and recruiter support programs, and $225,000,000 for the acceleration of the Basic Allowance for Housing reform. SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 Fiscal year 1999 $70,607,566,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 73,723,293,000 Fiscal year 2000 recommendation 72,011,977,000 Change from budget request -1,711,316,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $72,011,977,000 for the Military Personnel accounts. The recommendation is an increase of $1,404,411,000 above the $70,607,566,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1999. These military personnel budget total comparisons include appropriations for the active, reserve, and National Guard accounts. The following tables include a summary of the recommendations by appropriation account. Explanations of changes from the budget request appear later in this section. SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATION [In thousands of dollars] Account Budget Recommendation Change from budget Military Personnel: $22,006,632 $21,475,732 -$530,900 -------------- ------------------- --------------------- Subtotal, Active 63,658,480 62,132,237 -1,526,243 ============== =================== ===================== Reserve Personnel: 2,270,964 2,235,055 -35,909 National Guard Personnel: 3,570,639 3,486,427 -84,212 -------------- ------------------- --------------------- Subtotal, Guard and Reserve 10,064,813 9,879,740 -185,073 ============== =================== ===================== Total, Title I 73,723,293 72,011,977 -1,711,316 The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes a decrease of 5,631 end strength for the active forces and a decrease of 11,744 end strength for the selected reserve over fiscal year 1999 authorized levels. The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted in the tables below. OVERALL ACTIVE END STRENGTH Fiscal year 1999 estimate 1,390,437 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,384,806 Fiscal year 2000 House authorization 1,385,432 Fiscal year 2000 recommendation 1,385,512 Compared with Fiscal year 1999 -4,925 Compared with Fiscal year 2000 budget request +706 OVERALL SELECTED RESERVE END STRENGTH Fiscal year 1999 estimate 877,042 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 865,298 Fiscal year 2000 House authorization 865,298 Fiscal year 2000 recommendation 865,373 Compared with Fiscal year 1999 -11,669 Compared with Fiscal year 2000 budget request +75 FY 1999 estimate Budget request Fiscal year 2000 House authorization Recommendation Change from request Active Forces (end strength): 480,000 480,000 480,000 480,000 -------------------- ------------------ ----------------------- ------------------ ---------------------- Total, Active Force 1,390,437 1,384,806 1,385,432 1,385,512 +706 ==================== ================== ======================= ================== ====================== Guard and Reserve (end strength): 208,000 205,000 205,000 205,000 -------------------- ------------------ ----------------------- ------------------ ---------------------- Total, Guard and Reserve 877,042 865,298 865,298 865,373 +75 ADJUSTMENTS TO MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNT OVERVIEW END STRENGTH ADJUSTMENTS The Committee recommends an understrength reduction of $212,300,000 to the budget request, as a result of a General Accounting Office review of the 1999 military personnel end strength levels. The General Accounting office has been examining the costs for military pay and allowances to determine if the fiscal year 2000 requirements are correct. They have concluded, based on May 1999 end strength projections, that the active components will begin fiscal year 2000 with approximately 12,000 fewer military personnel on-board than budgeted. In addition, actual data shows active military personnel on-board, by grade mix, is different than was requested in last year's budget request. This means the fiscal year 2000 pay and allowances requirements for personnel are incorrect and the budgets are overstated. The Committee will continue to monitor the Services end strength levels as more current data becomes available. PAY AND RETIREMENT REFORM The Committee included funds in support of the President's budget request for a 4.4 percent increase in basic pay, pay table reform, and the repeal of the 1986 Military Retirement Reform Act in the Fiscal Year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106 31), and, therefore, recommends a reduction of $1,838,426,000 in the active and reserve military personnel accounts for fiscal year 2000 for these pay and compensation initiatives. Subsequent to the Supplemental appropriations bill, however, the House-passed Defense Authorization bill recommended language to enhance the percentage pay raise for military personnel, effective January 1, 2000, and revised the budget's legislative proposal concerning the proposed repeal of the Redux retirement system. The Committee recommends an additional $164,510,000 to cover the cost of the increased pay raise, and recommends a reduction of $392,000,000 to the military personnel accounts for modifications to the Redux retirement system consistent with the House-passed authorization bill. BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING The Committee recommends an increase over the request of $225,000,000 for the reform of the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) program. In 1998, the services began phasing in the Basic Allowance for Housing program, which will replace two separate allowances, the Variable Housing Allowance and Basic Allowance for Quarters. The transition from the old housing allowance system to the new Basic Allowance for Housing was to be phased in over six years and was required to be cost neutral. The intent of BAH is to provide service members compensation that is based on comparable civilian costs of housing, and reduce their out-of-pocket housing expenses. The Committee recommends the additional funds to complete the transition phase of BAH reform, as recommended by the House-passed Defense Authorization bill, in order to protect service members from any further erosion of their housing benefits. AVIATION CONTINUATION PAY The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000,000 over the budget request to provide additional funds for the pilot Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP) bonus. The Committee is concerned about the high personnel tempo and operations tempo that aviation officers and enlisted crew members are undergoing, and understands that the Air Force is experiencing major retention problems in these career fields, as well as other critical skill areas. Prior to 1995, one in 14 pilots separated after 14 years of service. Today, one in four pilots separate prior to retirement. In addition, the Air Force is currently operating with approximately 1,100 less pilots, or at 92 percent of their manning requirements, and have projected over 1,600 pilot shortages by fiscal year 2003. The Committee believes that an increase in this bonus will allow the Air Force to implement an ACP program which offers bonuses to those eligible pilots who would otherwise separate from the military. The Committee also supports the budget request which establishes a new Career Enlisted Flyer Incentive Pay, designed to reverse declining retention of enlisted crew members. UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of $592,200,000 for additional active duty and reserve component pays and allowances to enhance recruiting, retention and quality of life initiatives for military personnel, as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Enlistment Bonuses $39,200 Selective Reenlistment Bonuses 28,000 Aviation Continuation Pay 300,000 Basic Allowance for Housing 225,000 ---------- Total 592,200 JROTC LEADERSHIP TRAINING The Committee recommends an increase of $34,800,000 over the budget request in the services' personnel and operations and maintenance accounts to expand the number of JROTC programs during fiscal year 2000. The Committee is impressed with the proposal of the George C. Marshall Foundation to develop, deliver, and evaluate a school-based community service program to develop ethical leadership and problem-solving abilities of JROTC students. The Committee commends this proposal to the Department for consideration. QUALITY OF LIFE STUDY The Committee is encouraged by the Department's decision to proceed with a service-wide quality of life survey similar to the model developed by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and reported in GAO Report NSIAD 99 197. The Committee expects that the Department's survey will take into account the factors GAO identified as having negative effects on unit morale and readiness, such as the availability of parts and equipment to perform daily job functions, the frequency of deployments, and other factors related to the work environment. In addition, the Committee supports a limited annual quality of life survey with consistent questions to develop longitudinal data on this issue. The Department may also consider the use of focus groups and the involvement of impartial entities to provide independent review and analysis. A report on the findings of the survey shall be submitted to the Committee by February 1, 2000. GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES The Committee recognizes that Guard and Reserve Forces are an essential part of the total force having played an important role in recent peacetime operations such as assistance to South American countries after Hurricane Mitch, and their continued work under the Enhanced New Horizons Exercises, Operations Desert Thunder/Fox in Southwest Asia, Operations Joint Guard/Forge in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and most recently the conflict in Kosovo. Many of the skills needed for response to a crisis reside in the Reserve components, guaranteeing the increased use of Reservists in military operations other than war. The Committee's recommendation for fiscal year 2000 continues its support of the Guard and Reserve and recommends an increase of $611,906,000 over the budget request for the operation and maintenance accounts. In addition to the $1,688,900,000 requested in the budget, and fully funded for Guard and Reserve equipment, the Committee has recommended $796,400,000 throughout the bill for additional aircraft, tactical vehicles, and various miscellaneous equipment and upgrades to existing equipment for the Guard and Reserve components. The following table summarizes the Guard and Reserve funding issues: [In thousands of dollars] Operation and Maintenance +$611,900 Modernization +796,400 ------------ Total +1,408,306 full-time support strengths There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard and Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and Reserve (AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component personnel. Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, maintain and administer the Reserve components. Civilian (Military) technicians directly support units, and are very important to help units maintain readiness and meet the wartime mission of the Army and Air Force. Full-time support end strength in all categories totaled 90,086 in fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 2000 budget request is 113,827 end strength. The following table summarizes Guard and Reserve full-time support end strengths: GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS FY 1999 estimate Budget estimate House authorization Recommendation Change from request Army Reserve: 12,804 12,804 12,804 12,804 Navy Reserve TAR 15,618 15,010 15,010 15,010 Marine Corps Reserve 2,362 2,272 2,272 2,272 Air Force Reserve: 991 1,078 1,078 1,134 +56 Army National Guard: 21,763 21,807 22,563 21,807 Air National Guard: 10,930 11,091 11,025 11,096 +5 Total: 64,468 64,062 64,752 64,123 +61 MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $20,841,687,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 22,006,632,000 Committee recommendation 21,475,732,000 Change from budget request -530,900,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,475,732,000 for Military Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $634,045,000 above the $20,841,687,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 48 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Army are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] xlBudget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel: 1100 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses 25,000 1100 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonus 24,000 xlOther Adjustments: 2755 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -559,533 2770 Personnel Underexecution -15,000 2790 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 49,533 2800 Retirement Reform -127,500 2805 Basic Allowance for Housing 72,600 MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $16,570,754,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 17,207,481,000 Committee recommendation 16,737,072,000 Change from budget request -470,409,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,737,072,000 for Military Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $166,318,000 above the $16,570,754,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 50 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Navy are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] xlOther Adjustments: 5555 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -436,773 5580 Personnel Underexecution -51,300 5595 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 37,464 5605 Retirement Reform -96,400 5610 Basic Allowance for Housing 71,600 5615 AOE 1 Replenishment Ships 5,000 AOE 1 REPLENISHMENT SHIPS The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of $5,000,000 in ``Military Personnel, Navy'' to provide additional manpower costs for the required end strength associated with the decision not to implement the fiscal year 2000 decommissionings of the AOE 1 class of ships. MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $6,263,387,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 6,544,682,000 Committee recommendation 6,353,622,000 Change from budget request -191,060,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,353,622,000 for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $90,235,000 above the $6,263,387,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 52 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Marine Corps are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] xlOther Adjustments: 8205 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -177,980 8240 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 15,520 8242 Marine Corps Security Guards 6,600 8250 Retirement Reform -38,700 8255 Basic Allowance for Housing 19,500 8260 Marine Corps Execution Repricing -16,000 MARINE CORPS SECURITY GUARD DETACHMENTS The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of $6,600,000 in ``Military Personnel, Marine Corps'', and $4,100,000 in ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps'' to provide additional personnel and sufficient operational support costs associated with increasing the number of embassies guarded by Marine Security Guard Detachments. MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $17,211,987,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 17,899,685,000 Committee recommendation 17,565,811,000 Change from budget request -333,874,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,565,811,000 for Military Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $353,824,000 above the $17,211,987,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 54 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Air Force are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] xlOther Adjustments: 11005 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -471,892 11020 Personnel Underexecution -146,000 11040 4.8% Pay Increase 40,518 11070 Retirement Reform -105,800 11080 Basic Allowance for Housing 61,300 11090 Aviation Continuation Pay 300,000 11100 TERA Rephasing -12,000 RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $2,167,052,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 2,270,964,000 Committee recommendation 2,235,055,000 Change from budget request -35,909,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,235,055,000 for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $68,003,000 above the $2,167,052,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 56 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Army are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] xlBudget Activity 2: Other Training and Support: 11750 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses 2,200 xlOther Adjustments: 12005 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -40,574 12030 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 4,765 12045 JROTC Program 2,400 12050 Retirement Reform -4,700 RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,426,663,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,446,339,000 Committee recommendation 1,425,210,000 Change from budget request -21,129,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,425,210,000 for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease of $1,453,000 below the $1,426,663,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 58 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Navy are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] xlBudget Activity 2: Other Training and Support: 12600 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses 5,000 12600 Administration and Support/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses 4,000 xlOther Adjustments: 12855 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -29,833 12895 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 3,004 12899 JROTC Program 1,400 12910 Retirement Reform -4,700 RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $406,616,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 409,189,000 Committee recommendation 403,822,000 Change from budget request -5,367,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $403,822,000 for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is a decrease of $2,794,000 below the $406,616,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 60 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] xlOther Adjustments: 13755 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -7,820 13780 JROTC Program 2,600 13790 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 853 13795 Retirement Reform -1,000 RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $852,324,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 881,170,000 Committee recommendation 872,978,000 Change from budget request -8,192,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $872,978,000 for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $20,654,000 above the $852,342,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 62 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Air Force are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] xlOther Adjustments: 14605 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -13,143 14620 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 1,751 14626 JROTC Program 1,900 14630 Retirement Reform -1,000 14635 Transfer of Test Support Mission/AGR's 2,300 TEST SUPPORT MISSION The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of $2,300,000 in ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'' to provide additional personnel costs required for the proposed transfer of the Functional Check Flight mission and two Test Support missions to the Air Force Reserve Command from the active Air Force. NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $3,489,987,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 3,570,639,000 Committee recommendation 3,486,427,000 Change from budget request -84,212,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,486,427,000 for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease of $3,560,000 below the $3,489,987,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 64 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Army are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] xlBudget Activity 2: Other Training and Support: 15200 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses 7,000 xlOther Adjustments: 15355 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -70,416 15370 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 7,704 15395 Retirement Reform -8,500 15400 Workyear Reduction/Annual Training -20,000 ARMY NATIONAL GUARD WORKYEAR REQUIREMENTS The Committee recommends a reduction from the budget request of $20,000,000 due to a General Accounting Office (GAO) review of the Army National Guard's military personnel budget request. The GAO reports that the Guard has overstated the number of average workyears of military personnel that is budgeted in fiscal year 2000 because of overstated participation rates for annual training and the variance in costs of the different pay groups. In addition, the GAO reports that last year the Army Guard moved approximately $86,000,000 of annual training funds (budget activity one) to pay for schools and special training costs (budget activity two) without the Department's knowledge and without congressional approval. The Committee directs that the Secretary of Defense report to the Committee, by February 1, 2000, on its efforts to ensure the Army Guard's accounting procedures for determining annual training and schools and special training costs are properly coded, and that the Army Guard follow the Department's financial management regulations in the future. NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,377,109,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,486,512,000 Committee recommendation 1,456,248,000 Change from budget request -30,264,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,456,248,000 for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $79,139,000 above the $1,377,109,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 66 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Air Force are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] xlOther Adjustments: 16105 Pay Increase Provided in P.L. 106 31 -30,462 16130 4.8% Pay Raise Increase 3,398 16140 Retirement Reform -3,700 16145 C 130 Personnel 500 TITLE II OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The fiscal year 2000 budget request for Operation and maintenance is $91,268,249,000 in new budget authority, which is an increase of $7,225,435,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999. The request also includes a $150,000,000 cash transfer from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction fund. The accompanying bill recommends $93,686,750,000 for fiscal year 2000, which is an increase of $2,418,501,000 above the budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends that $150,000,000 be transferred from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction fund, as proposed in the budget request. These appropriations finance the costs of operating and maintaining the Armed Forces, including the reserve components and related support activities of the Department of Defense (DoD), except military personnel costs. Included are pay for civilians, services for maintenance of equipment and facilities, fuel, supplies, and spare parts for weapons and equipment. Financial requirements are influenced by many factors, including force levels such as the number of aircraft squadrons, Army and Marine Corps divisions, installations, military personnel strength and deployments, rates of operational activity, and the quantity and complexity of equipment such as aircraft, ships, missiles and tanks in operation. The table below summarizes the Committee's recommendations. Offset Folios 69 to 70 Insert here OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW Despite increases proposed by the administration in the fiscal year 2000 budget request, the Committee notes that there are substantial unfunded requirements in the Operation and Maintenance accounts that are critical to maintaining the readiness of U.S. armed forces, enhancing the sustainability of such forces when they are deployed, and improving the condition of the supporting infrastructure. As in past years, the Committee requested that the Military Services identify their top unfunded priorities for consideration during the Committee's deliberations on the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. Once again, the Military Services have identified significant shortfalls in the Operation and Maintenance accounts. In the Committee's view, these shortfalls pose a serious risk to both the near term readiness of U.S. forces as well as the ability of these forces to sustain combat operations. These shortfalls are evident in a number of areas financed by the Operation and Maintenance accounts including: funding for the rotational training centers; funding for stocks of spare and repair parts necessary to ensure that equipment is mission capable and can be sustained once deployed; depot-level maintenance of weapons systems and support equipment; and, basic troop support gear such as cold weather clothing and body armor. These shortfalls are also apparent in the funding required to maintain the condition of U.S. military bases which, despite increases in the budget request, is perennially underfunded. To correct these deficiencies, the Committee recommends increased funding above the budget request in a number of areas including those areas of need cited above. The Committee notes that an additional $2,250,000,000 was provided in the fiscal year 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 106 31) for critical, readiness-related shortfalls identified by the military Services including: spare parts, depot maintenance, readiness related training and base operations support. These increases, outlined below, have had a direct impact on certain recommendations made by the Committee in its deliberations on the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. For instance, the Committee recommendation for additional spare parts for the Services is biased toward improving stocks of war reserve materials because a large percentage of the Department's immediate needs were met in Public Law 106 31, the Supplemental Appropriations Act. The following listing indicates those readiness categories and funding addressed earlier this year in Public Law 106 31. Spare Parts Requirements $1,124,900,000 Depot Maintenance 742,500,000 Readiness Training and OPTEMPO 200,200,000 Base Operations Support 182,400,000 The Committee also notes that there are areas in the Operation and Maintenance accounts where savings can be achieved to free up resources both for readiness needs, and to make resources available for more robust modernization programs. Given the need to correct deficiencies in the Operation and Maintenance accounts in order to enhance near-term readiness and sustainability as well as weapons modernization, the Committee believes it is imperative for the Department of Defense to use its Operation and Maintenance funding as efficiently as possible. Therefore, the Committee recommends certain reductions based on fact-of-life considerations, as well as management actions that the Department should undertake to streamline activities funded in the Operation and Maintenance accounts. ROTATIONAL TRAINING INITIATIVES The Committee recommends an increase of $112,100,000 above the budget request to address shortages of equipment and parts and to improve the state of infrastructure at each of the Military Service's rotational training centers. Consistent with the recommendations of the House Armed Services Committee in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2000 National Defense Authorization bill, the Committee finds that the rotational training centers are a key to maintaining the readiness of U.S. forces, and that the equipment, facilities and ranges at these centers are in urgent need of upgrades and repairs. To address these shortfalls, the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request, to be distributed as follows: Army $42,100,000 Navy 2,000,000 Marine Corps 25,700,000 Air Force 42,300,000 REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE The Committee recognizes that the Administration, for the first time, requested funding for the Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense account. While the Committee recommends including funding in this account, as discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee recommends returning the funds included in the budget request to the Services' Operation and Maintenance accounts. The Committee notes that a substantial portion of the funding included in the budget request for Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense is not related to quality of life enhancing projects such as dormitories, barracks and related facilities. Similarly, the Committee notes that the funding proposed in the budget request was derived primarily by transferring funds which would have otherwise been included in the Services' Operation and Maintenance accounts. Despite the administration's change in approach to real property maintenance (RPM) funding, the budget materials acknowledge that the central problem of RPM, a persistent and growing backlog, continues unabated. The budget estimates indicate that the RPM backlog is at least $9,600,000,000 and growing. The Committee notes with interest that the budget materials have not even included an estimate of the backlog of Army RPM for the past two years. (The last available data indicate that the backlog for this one service alone was $5,900,000,000.) To improve the information in the budget request, the Committee directs that the Department of Defense include estimates of the backlog of real property maintenance for the Army as well as all other Services and Defense-wide components in the fiscal year 2001 budget request, and all subsequent budget requests. In order to reduce the backlog of real property maintenance requirements, the Committee recommends an increase totaling $854,000,000 above the budget request. Of this amount, $800,000,000 for the Active components is provided in the Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense account as described elsewhere in this report. Funding over the budget request for the Guard and Reserve components totals $54,000,000 and is provided to each component's respective Operation and Maintenance account. The additional funding over the budget request is distributed as follows: Army $182,600,000 Navy 285,200,000 Marine Corps 62,100,000 Air Force 259,600,000 Defense-wide 10,500,000 Army Reserve 10,000,000 Navy Reserve 10,000,000 Marine Corps Reserve 4,000,000 Air Force Reserve 10,000,000 Army National Guard 10,000,000 Air National Guard 10,000,000 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT The Committee recommends increases above the budget request totaling $439,800,000 to meet unfunded requirements associated with base operations support, broken out by component in the table below. The Services continue to suffer from significant unfunded priorities in their base operations support accounts. The Committee recognizes that unfunded requirements in this area have an indirect yet corrosive effect on the readiness of U.S. forces, as the Services have and will continue to shift funding from readiness related activities, such as training and equipment maintenance, to meet ``must pay'' bills related to base operations. Due to continuing concerns about installation security and force protection, the Committee expects the Department of Defense to allocate not less than 5 percent of the increases over the budget request for the active military services for base operations support to programs and costs associated with installation security and force protection. Army $154,600,000 Navy 91,200,000 Marine Corps 10,000,000 Air Force 144,200,000 Army Reserve 10,000,000 Navy Reserve 10,000,000 Air Force Reserve 10,000,000 Air National Guard 9,800,000 DEPOT MAINTENANCE The Committee recommends an increase of $297,900,000 above the budget request to meet unfunded depot-level equipment maintenance requirements. The Committee notes that the Department of Defense has an unfunded backlog of depot-level maintenance of over $1,100,000,000, with an additional $200,000,000 in unfunded ship maintenance availabilities. As it has noted in previous years, the Committee observes the fiscal year 2000 budget request once again provides for depot maintenance funding at significantly less than 100 percent of the Services' requirements. In order to reduce backlogs, and improve the availability of weapons systems and related equipment, the Committee recommends increases over the budget request, to be distributed as outlined below. Further detail on the distribution of this funding is found in the tables accompanying the description of each Service's Operation and Maintenance account. The following list indicates the additions over the budget request. Army $35,600,000 Navy 125,100,000 Marine Corps 20,000,000 Air Force 68,800,000 Army Reserve 3,400,000 Air Force Reserve 15,000,000 Army National Guard 10,000,000 Air National Guard 20,000,000 SPARES AND WAR RESERVE MATERIEL The Committee recommends an increase of $453,000,000 above the budget request to meet unfunded requirements for the acquisition of spare and repair parts for both peacetime operations as well as war reserve requirements. The Services have significant unfunded requirements as regards to the acquisition of critical inventory, including unit readiness spares and war reserve sustainment spares for the Army; aviation spares for the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Air National Guard; readiness spares kits and bare base kits for the Air Force; war reserve material procured by the Defense Logistics Agency; and various peacetime operating stocks in support of Marine Corps Reserve and Air National Guard requirements. The availability of this material has a direct bearing on the Services' ability to prosecute the two MRC scenario postulated in the National Security Strategy. To address these shortfalls, the Committee recommends increases over the budget request as outlined below. In addition, the Committee directs that the Secretary of Defense provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than January 31, 2000, which delineates the amounts that the each Service plans to spend on peacetime operating stocks and war reserve materials. The Committee further directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than February 28, 2000, that identifies the components of both the peacetime operating stocks and war reserve materials that will be allocated to improve the readiness of Apache helicopters. The following list indicates the additions over the budget request. Army $213,500,000 Navy 85,000,000 Marine Corps 25,000,000 Air Force 115,000,000 Defense-wide 3,000,000 Marine Corps Reserve 1,500,000 Air National Guard 10,000,000 FORCE PROTECTION INITIATIVES The Committee recommends an increase of $41,400,000 above the budget request for force protection to meet unfunded priorities identified by the Chief of Naval Operations and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. This increased funding is distributed as outlined below. In addition to these amounts, as described elsewhere in this report the Committee has directed that not less than 5 percent of the additional funding provided above the budget request for base operations support for the active duty military services be directed toward enhanced facilities security and force protection requirements. Navy $36,400,000 Air Force 5,000,000 SOLDIER SUPPORT INITIATIVES The Committee recommends an increase of $88,000,000 above the budget request in several Operation and Maintenance accounts for additional soldier support equipment. The Committee notes that there continues to be a substantial backlog of this type of equipment, which is essential to sustain troops in the field and enhance combat readiness. Items to be procured with these extra funds include extended cold weather clothing, body armor, equipment harnesses and other initial issue gear, and other personnel support equipment items. The funds added above the budget request are outlined below: Army $26,000,000 Marine Corps 35,000,000 Marine Corps Reserve 13,000,000 Army National Guard 14,000,000 OPERATING TEMPO FUNDING The Committee recommends an increase of $55,600,000 above the budget request for training operations. Based on unfunded training needs identified by the Service Chiefs, and the recommendations in the House report accompanying the fiscal year 2000 National Defense Authorization bill, the Committee recommends that this increased funding be distributed as shown below. In addition, the Committee notes the additional funds provided for the Air National Guard are for the purpose of increased flying hours in support of F 16 training activities. Marine Corps $10,600,000 Army Reserve 20,000,000 Army National Guard 10,000,000 Air National Guard 15,000,000 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING The Committee recognizes that the military Services' recruiting efforts to enlist high quality recruits is continuing to be difficult and recommends an increase of $103,800,000 over the budget request to support the Department's efforts in achieving their recruiting objectives. The Committee understands the Army is currently developing two new test accession programs, the GED+ and the College First Program. These programs while designed to expand recruiting markets to all qualified applicants, and increase opportunities for youths to serve in the Army, are also expected to increase minority representation in the military. Of the funds provided, the Committee has included $33,000,000 for the Army for recruiting and advertising, which will allow for the implementation of these two new test programs. Small Business Advertising The Committee understands that there are many qualified minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses, and small businesses that design and place advertising and advertising campaigns, which can assist the Department in its recruiting efforts using print, electronic, and the radio media. The Committee believes these firms can provide valuable new insights and expertise to servicewide recruiting programs. The Committee expects the Department to increase the use of these qualified businesses in the initiation, design and placement of its advertising in the print, radio and electronic media. GUARD AND RESERVE UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS The Committee recommends an increase of $356,600,000 over the budget request for additional Guard and Reserve Operation and maintenance requirements described by the Service's as readiness priorities, as follows: Base Operations Support $39,800,000 Real Property Maintenance Backlog 54,000,000 Depot Maintenance 48,400,000 Optempo/Flying Hours 45,000,000 Spares 11,500,000 Recruiting and Recruiter Support 51,500,000 Military (civilian) technicians shortfall 48,000,000 Information Management/Operations 31,400,000 Initial Issue/ECWCS 27,000,000 ARMY TRAINING AREA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT The Committee recommends providing $32,000,000 over the budget request, in Operation and Maintenance, Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard accounts, as outlined in the Army's unfunded requirements list, to conduct preventive maintenance on training grounds to ensure continued realistic training and to protect the environment. This funding is distributed as follows: Army $24,736,000 Army Reserve 1,000,000 Army National Guard 6,264,000 HEADQUARTERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES The Committee recommends a reduction of $179,000,000 below the budget request for headquarters and administrative activities. Despite past attempts to streamline the management of DoD activities, the Committee notes that the budget request once again reflects headquarters activities which cost in excess of $3,000,000,000 in total and which are manned by over 40,000 personnel. In addition, the Committee agrees with the assessment found in the House report accompanying the fiscal year 2000 National Defense Authorization bill that these figures substantially understate the true funding and manning levels of headquarters and administrative activities. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions from the budget request: Army -$64,000,000 Navy -35,000,000 Air Force -20,000,000 Defense-wide -60,000,000 CONSULTANTS AND ADVISORY SERVICES The Committee recommends a reduction of $40,000,000 below the budget request for consulting and advisory services. Despite numerous unfunded requirements which contribute directly to the readiness of U.S. forces, or which represent must pay bills, as noted elsewhere in this report, the Department continues to request substantial amounts for studies which do not contribute directly to solving these fundamental problems. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions from the budget request: Army -$10,000,000 Navy -10,000,000 Air Force -10,000,000 Defense-wide -10,000,000 COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES The Committee recommends a reduction of $81,150,000 below the budget request for communications services. The Committee notes that the budget request includes alarmingly high levels of both price and program growth. For instance, on prices, the budget request reflects growth of over 16 percent in some cases, as compared to the general purchase rate of inflation of 1.5 percent. Therefore, the Committee recommends the following reductions from the budget request: Army -$36,000,000 Navy -23,000,000 Marine Corps -150,000 Air Force -22,000,000 SECURITY PROGRAMS The Committee recommends a decrease of $24,067,000 below the budget request for security programs of the Department of Defense. The budget request reflects substantial growth for security programs, notably work performed by the Defense Security Service and certain arms control programs. A review performed by the House Appropriations Surveys and Investigations staff indicates that this growth can be reduced and effect neither the work of the Defense Security Service, nor U.S. treaty compliance obligations. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions from the budget request: Army -$9,867,000 Navy -6,900,000 Air Force -7,300,000 DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE The Committee recommends a reduction of $30,000,000 below the budget request for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. The Committee notes that, on balance, the budget portrays program growth in the Services' Operation and Maintenance accounts, and is convinced that DFAS can further increase the efficiency of its operations. The Committee therefore recommends this reduction be distributed as follows: Army -$9,300,000 Navy -9,300,000 Marine Corps -2,000,000 Air Force -9,400,000 ACQUISITION CONTRACTING AND TRAVEL The Committee recommends a reduction of $17,531,000 from the budget request for acquisition personnel travel and contracting expenses, to be distributed as follows: Army -$3,350,000 Air Force -4,181,000 Defense-Wide -10,000,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET EXECUTION DATA The Committee directs the Department of Defense to continue to provide the congressional defense committees with quarterly budget execution data. Such data should be provided not later than forty-five days past the close of each quarter of the fiscal year, and should be provided for each O 1 budget activity, activity group, and subactivity for each of the active, defense-wide, reserve and National Guard components. For each O 1 budget activity, activity group and subactivity, these reports should include: the budget request and actual obligations; the DoD distribution of unallocated congressional adjustments to the budget request; all adjustments made by DoD during the process of rebaselining the O&M accounts; all adjustments resulting from below threshold reprogrammings; and all adjustments resulting from prior approval reprogramming requests. In addition, the Committee requires that the Department of Defense provide semiannual written notifications to the congressional defense committees which summarize Operation and Maintenance budget execution to include the effect of rebaselining procedures, other below threshold reprogrammings, and prior approval reprogrammings. The Committee further directs that the Department of Defense provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations written notification 30 days prior to executing procedures to rebaseline the Operation and Maintenance accounts. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPROGRAMMINGS The Committee directs that proposed transfers of funds between O 1 budget activities in excess of $15,000,000 be subject to normal, prior approval reprogramming procedures. Items for which funds have been specifically provided in any appropriation in this report using phrases ``only for'' or ``only to'' are Congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD form 1414). Each of these items must be carried on the DD form 1414 at the stated amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. In addition, due to continuing concerns about force readiness and the diversion of Operation and maintenance funds, the Committee directs the Department of Defense to provide written notification to the congressional defense committees for the cumulative value of any and all transfers in excess of $15,000,000 from the following budget activities and subactivity group categories: Operation and maintenance, Army Land Forces: Divisions, Corps combat forces, Corps support forces, Echelon above corps forces, Land forces operations support; Land Forces Readiness: Land forces depot maintenance. Operation and maintenance, Navy Air Operations: Mission and other flight operations, Fleet air training, Aircraft depot maintenance; Ship Operations: Mission and other ship operations, Ship operational support and training, Intermediate maintenance, Ship depot maintenance. Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Expeditionary Forces: Operational forces, depot maintenance. Operation and maintenance, Air Force Air Operations: Primary combat forces, Primary combat weapons, Air operations training, Depot maintenance; Mobility Operations: Airlift operations, Depot maintenance, Payments to the transportation business area; Basic Skills and Advanced Training: Depot maintenance; Logistics Operations: Depot maintenance. Further, the Department should follow prior approval reprogramming procedures for transfers in excess of $15,000,000 out of the following budget subactivities. Operation and maintenance, Army Depot maintenance. Operation and maintenance, Navy Aircraft depot maintenance, Ship depot maintenance. Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Depot maintenance. Operation and maintenance, Air Force Air Operations: Depot maintenance; Mobility Operations: Depot maintenance; Basic Skills and Advanced Training; Depot maintenance; and Logistics Operations: Depot maintenance. A 76 STUDIES The Committee harbors serious concerns about the current DoD outsourcing and privatization effort. While the Committee recognizes the need to reduce DoD infrastructure costs, the cost savings benefits from the current outsourcing and privatization effort are, at best, debatable. Despite end-strength savings, there is no clear evidence that this effort is reducing the cost of support functions within DoD with high cost contractors simply replacing government employees. In addition, the current privatization effort appears to have created serious oversight problems for DoD especially in those cases where DoD has contracted for financial management and other routine administrative functions. DoD appears to be moving toward a situation in which contractors are overseeing and paying one another with little DoD oversight or supervision. As a result of this developing situation, the Committee recommends a reduction of $100,000,000 from the budget request as described in a new general provision, Section 8109. In addition, the Committee directs that DoD undertake a comprehensive review of A 76 studies as described in a new general provision, Section 8110. URBAN WARFARE The Department of Defense has recently placed increased emphasis on the importance of urban warfare. For example, the Committee is aware that the Army has recently begun efforts to acquire weapons systems that would have special application to an urban environment, and has developed an urban training area within the Joint Readiness Training Center. Nevertheless, the Committee is persuaded that efforts in this area must be substantially expanded in order to improve the readiness of U.S. forces for possible conflicts centered in urban environments. Consequently, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 31, 2000, that provides the following: an inventory of Department of Defense assets dedicated to urban warfare and associated training, including equipment and training areas; a description of the training programs specific to urban warfare; and an assessment of the readiness of U.S. forces in the conduct of urban warfare. This report shall also provide an assessment of shortfalls in equipment, personnel and facilities necessary to enhance the posture of U.S. forces in this area. CONTROLLED HUMIDITY PRESERVATION PROGRAM The Committee believes that the Controlled Humidity Preservation (CHP) Program will enhance the condition of Department of Defense equipment such as weapons systems and associated support equipment by minimizing maintenance requirements associated with moisture-induced corrosion. Accordingly, the Committee requires that the Secretary of Defense submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 31, 2000, that outlines measures taken by each of the military Services to expand the application of the CHP Program. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $17,185,623,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 18,610,994,000 Committee recommendation 19,629,019,000 Change from budget request 1,018,025,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,629,019,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $2,443,396,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 83 to 84 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 250 Soldier Support--Extended Cold Weather Clothing system (ECWCS) 19,000 250 Military Gator 8,000 250 Soldier Support--Field Kitchen Modern Burner Units (MBU) 4,000 250 Soldier Support--Soldier Modernization 3,000 450 Rotational Training--NTC Prepo Fleet Maintenance 28,000 450 Rotational Training--Korea Training Area 4,100 450 Rotational Training--CMTC Mission Support 4,000 450 Rotational Training--FORSCOM Developments to National Training Center 4,000 450 Rotational Training--JRTC Prepo Fleet Maintenance 2,000 550 Training Area Environmental Management 23,984 650 Depot Maintenance/System Sustainment Tech Support 35,600 650 Humanitarian Airlift Aircraft Maintenance 200 750 Transportation Improvements-National Training Center 12,500 750 Ft. Baker Repairs and Maintenance 6,000 750 NTC Airhead 2,000 750 Security Improvements-NTC Heliport 300 850 Headquarters growth -4,000 Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: 1650 Air Battle Captain Program 1,250 1850 Improved Moving Target Simulator (IMTS) 3,500 1950 Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies 1,500 2000 University of Mounted Warfare 3,000 2000 Armor Officers Distance Learning 500 2000 Training Area Environmental Management 440 2050 Training Area Environmental Management 312 2200 Recruiting and Advertising 17,500 2400 Junior ROTC 6,000 2450 Recruiting Leases 15,500 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 2650 Security Program (Arms Control, DSS) -9,867 2800 Pulse Technology 5,000 2850 Supercomputing Work 6,500 2850 Logistics and Technology Project 1,100 2850 Power Projection C4 Infrastructure -16,552 3000 Acquisition Travel and Contracts -3,350 3000 Headquarters growth -5,000 3050 Service-wide communication underexecution -20,000 3200 Ft. Atkinson Preservation 250 3200 DFAS Reduction -9,300 3250 Claims Underexecution -43,400 3350 Corps of Engineers Building Demolition 4,650 Undistributed: 3710 Classified Undistributed 2.500 3775 Base Operations Support 154,600 3835 Memorial Events 400 3940 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer From Quality of Life Enhancements) 625,808 3960 Contract and Advisory Services -10,000 4070 Management Headquarters -55,000 4080 Reductions in JCS Exercises -10,000 4085 Spares/War Reserve Material 213,500 4086 Communications Reduction -16,000 CECOM telecommunications upgrades (Ft. Monmouth) (18,600) LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY PROJECT The Committee recognizes the need for substantial improvements in the Department of Defense logistics system. Accordingly, the Committee directs that $1,100,000 of the funds provided for Operation and Maintenance, Army be used only to initiate a Logistics and Technology project to establish benchmarks based on civilian technologies and to develop and present educational materials to DoD logistics personnel. government-owned, contractor-operated (goco) facilities The Committee remains concerned about the Army's lack of progress in recovering costs associated with the environmental restoration of GOCO facilities. The Committee is disappointed with the gaps in the Army's information collection efforts on 24 GOCO facilities, frustrated with the continued failure to file claims, and skeptical that the Army's proposed recovery strategy will produce results. Accordingly, the Committee includes a provision in Operation and Maintenance, Army which withholds $4,000,000 of the funds available in the Army Administration subactivity group until the completion of a 120-day assessment of the prospects of recovering costs associated with the environmental restoration at these 24 GOCO facilities. Consistent with its request in last year's Conference Report, the Committee further directs that no later than March 30, 2000, the Secretary of the Army shall submit a report on the results of that assessment to the congressional defense committee that provides: a summary of historical third-party insurance coverage for each GOCO facility; a detailed legal analysis of the potential claims for each of the GOCO facilities; recommendations as to which insurance carriers to notify, including the procedure for notifying the carriers; recommendations for interfacing with past and present GOCO contractors relative to the pursuit of insurance recovery; recommendations for responding to insurance carrier inquiries and/or coverage positions; and recommendations for maximizing the insurance recovery in an efficient and cost effective manner, including a projected timetable for completion. HUMANITARIAN AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT The Committee understand that Department of the Army is in possession of a C 12 Aircraft which may be deemed surplus. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, this plane to a non-governmental organization (NGO) which provides humanitarian airlift primarily to sub-Saharan Africa. Further, the committee includes $200,000 solely for the purposes of repairing the aircraft prior to transfer. NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER HELIPORT SECURITY The Committee believes that there is not adequate security for the National Training Center's heliport. To begin addressing this problem, the Committee provides $300,000 only to begin implementing the planned security improvements at this facility. Memorial Events The Committee has included an additional $400,000 above the budget request of $1,500,000 only to support memorial events to reflect increased costs. GENERAL PURPOSE TENTS Of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, Army, for soldier life support equipment, the Committee directs that $18,000,000 be made available for the purpose of meeting prospective requirements for modular general purpose tents (M.G.P.T.) associated with wartime and other mobilizations. The Committee understands that the M.G.P.T. system developed by the Army provides a more durable and habitable replacement for the current general purpose tent, and has provided funds to continue the program under Army management. ABRAMS INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Department of Defense budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes funding of $72,600,000 for the Abrams Integrated Management XXI Program (AIM XXI), to rebuild early versions of the Abrams tank and to bring these tanks up to the most recent configuration. The Committee supports this program, and the funding level proposed in the budget request. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS Information on the Armor Officer Distance Learning, Supercomputing Work, and Power Projection C4 Infrastructure programs can be found in the Information Technology section of this report. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $21,872,399,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 22,188,715,000 Committee recommendation 23,029,584,000 Change from budget request 840,869,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,029,584,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $1,157,185,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 85 to 87 insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Navy are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 4400 Flying Hours (Marine Aviation Logistics CH 46/7 58) 27,400 4400 UAV Flight Hours 2,000 4450 Contractor Maintenance Support (Marine Corps Aviation) 3,100 4450 Rotational Training--Naval Air Strike Airwarfare Center 2,000 4600 Depot Maintenance--Aircraft and Support Equipment Rework 37,600 4600 Depot Maintenance--EA 6B Depot Support (Marine Corps Aviation) 2,500 4600 Depot Maintenance--EA 6B Pod Repair (Marine Corps Aviation) 1,000 5000 Depot Maintenance--Ship Depot Maintenance 55,000 5400 Joint Warfare Analysis Center 5,000 5500 Unjustified Growth for USACOM -2,000 5550 Reverse Osmosis Desalinators 500 5950 Depot Maintenance--Aegis Cruiser Upgrade Program 15,000 5950 Depot Maintenance--MK 45 Overhaul 10,000 5950 Depot Maintenance--CWIS Overhaul 4,000 Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: 6650 NWS Concord 500 Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: 7300 Monterey Institute for Counter Proliferation Studies 4,000 7300 Naval Postgraduate School--Facility Maintenance 2,000 7300 Defense Language Institute 1,500 7350 CNET 4,000 7350 Navy Electricity and Electronic Training 4,000 7550 Recruiting and Advertising 5,000 7700 Junior ROTC 3,500 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 8000 DFAS Reduction -9,300 8250 Servicewide Communications -4,000 8600 ATIS 2,500 8600 Object Oriented Simulations/Reengineering 2,500 8750 Integrated Combat Systems Test Facility Support 2,000 9000 Security Programs (DSS) -6,900 Undistributed: 9355 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of Life Enhancements) 508,369 9357 Force Protection (Afloat) 24,400 9357 Force Protection (Ashore) 12,000 9360 Classified Programs Undistributed 5,500 9395 Base Operations Support 91,200 9540 Navy Environmental Leadership Program 5,000 9590 Executive Education Demonstration Project 1,000 9600 Spares 85,000 9700 Management Headquarters -35,000 9705 Reduction in JCS Exercises -2,000 9710 Contract and Advisory Services -10,000 9725 Communications Reduction -19,000 OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH Within the funds provided for Operation and Maintenance, Navy, the Committee directs that $7,500,000 be used only to fund backlogs in oceanographic research. NAVAL WEAPONS STATION CONCORD The Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 above the budget request only to conduct a joint-use study examining the potential for joint use of the Naval Weapons Station, Concord (CA), by civilian and military entities that is consistent with the missions of the Navy and the Army and the needs of the surrounding communities. The study shall be conducted by the Navy in conjunction with the Army and the cities of Concord, Martinez, and Pittsburg, Contra Costa County, the communities of Clyde and Bay Point, and the East Bay Regional Parks District. This study shall be concluded no later than December 31, 2000. PORTABLE FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT The Committee is concerned about the condition and types of equipment currently used by Navy and Marine Corps initial fire fighting response teams. The Committee is aware that equipment has recently become available that can improve the effectiveness of fire fighters while substantially improving the safety of working conditions for such personnel. Accordingly, the Committee directs that not less than $300,000 of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, Navy be used to purchase commercially available portable foam supply vests. VIEQUES RANGE COMPLEX, PUERTO RICO The Committee is deeply concerned about the tragic accident which occurred in April 1999 on the Navy's training range on the Island of Vieques. The Committee recognizes that the Navy considers this range to be a critical training asset, necessary to maintain the readiness of the aviation units of the Navy's Atlantic Fleet. However, because of this incident and other factors, the Committee directs the Navy to reexamine this issue, supports the Navy's decision to temporarily suspend all training at Vieques, and awaits the results of the panel that the Secretary of Defense has appointed to review this incident. The Committee believes the Panel must place special emphasis on reviewing the actual need for the Navy's use of the Vieques range, and should study the results of the Puerto Rican Special Commission on Vieques. In addition, the Committee directs the Panel to look at the use of alternative sites. NAVAL AIR STATION (NAS) LEMOORE The Committee strongly believes that a key to enhancing retention rates in the Navy is to improve the quality of life at its key bases and installations. In particular, the Committee has been told by many Navy fighter pilots that the deficiency of quality of life facilities, including recreation facilities, at NAS Lemoore, California is a significant reason for the retirement of experienced personnel. As the major new concentration for west coast tactical Naval Aviation, the excellence of this facility is critical to morale and retention. Because NAS Lemoore is located in a remote and isolated location, the normal metrics defining policy for construction of revenue generating recreational facilities cannot prevail. The Committee encourages the Department of Defense to find a method such as designation as remote and funding by appropriated funds, or waiver of the normal parameters for rates of return to allow for construction of necessary recreation facilities at NAS Lemoore. The Committee directs DoD to report on this plan by December 31, 1999. NAVY ELECTRICITY AND ELECTRONICS TRAINING SERIES Information on this project can be found in the Information Technology section of this report. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $2,578,718,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 2,558,929,000 Committee recommendation 2,822,004,000 Change from budget request 263,075,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,822,004,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $243,286,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 91 insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 10050 Soldier Support--Initial Issue 30,000 10050 Rotational Training--MCAGCC Improvements 25,700 10050 Training and OPTEMPO (III MEF Airlift Requirements) 10,600 10050 Soldier Support--Body Armor 5,000 10050 NBC Defense Equipment 1,100 10100 Corrosion Control 13,800 10100 Fuel Conversion to JP 5/8 1,100 10150 Depot Maintenance 20,000 10350 Care in Storage (WRM Materials) 2,000 Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: 11200 Recruiting and Advertising 5,000 11250 Off-Duty and Voluntary Education 3,000 11300 Junior ROTC 2,000 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 11650 DFAS Reduction -2,000 Undistributed: 11905 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of Life Enhancements) 120,225 11945 Base Operations Support 10,000 12030 Reduction in JCS Exercises -2,400 12070 Marine Corps Security Guards 4,100 12075 Spares/War Reserve Materiel 25,000 12085 Communications Reductions -150 12090 IRV Transfer -11,000 BLOUNT ISLAND The Committee supports the actions of the Marine Corps to acquire the Blount Island Command Complex property that is currently under lease. The Committee expects that this initiative will include acquisition of all surrounding property impacted by the current explosive safety quantity distance (ESQD) arc to permanently prevent development that is incompatible with the loading/offloading of ordnance on Maritime Prepositioning Ships. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $19,021,045,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 20,313,203,000 Committee recommendation 21,641,099,000 Change from budget request 1,321,896,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,641,099,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $2,619,964,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 93 to 95 insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 12600 Battlelabs--Engineering and Technical Support 4,000 12650 Reverse Osmosis Dersalinators 1,000 12750 Rotational Training--AETC Mission Essential Equipment 14,000 12750 Rotational Training--Utah Test and Training Range Support 11,700 12750 Rotational Training--Funding for Air Warfare Center Range Support 6,100 12750 Rotational Training--AETC Range Improvements 5,900 12750 Rotational Training--Funding for Air Warfare Center Fiber Link 4,600 12775 Depot Maintenance 31,000 12775 Object Oriented Simulations/Reengineering 2,500 12800 Communications, Other Contracts -2,000 13100 Power Scene 4,000 13100 SIMVAL 1,261 13350 Launch Facility Enhancements 10,000 Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: 13850 Interim Contractor Support (C 17) 396,600 13850 Airlift Operations (C 17 Sustainability) 2,900 13975 Depot Maintenance 5,400 Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: 14950 Recruiting and Advertising 9,300 15150 Junior ROTC 15,000 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 15350 REMIS 3,500 15350 Joint Service Ammo Management Automated Info System (JAMSS) 1,935 15650 Acquisition Travel and Contracts -4,181 15700 Servicewide Communications -4,000 15750 Personnel Programs -11,400 15950 DFAS Reduction -9,400 16050 Civil Air Patrol Corporation 7,500 16100 William Lehman Aviation Center 500 16250 Security Programs (DSS) -7,300 Undistributed: 16410 Classified Undistributed -800 16480 Base Operations Support 109,300 16670 Force Protection Infrastructure 5,000 16680 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of Life Enhancements) 400,826 16700 Spares 115,000 16775 Base Operations Support (Real Property Support) 34,900 16795 NBC High Leverage Programs 18,800 16800 C 130J Logistics and Training 6,055 16810 ICBM Prime Contract 16,300 16825 AEF Joint Experimentation (JEFX) 35,600 16835 Management Headquarters -20,000 16840 Reduction in JCS Exercises -10,000 16845 Contract and Advisory Services -10,000 16850 Depot Maintenance--Rivet Joint #15 16/COBRA BALL 3 32,400 16855 Air Force MTAP 4,000 16865 Air Force ICS Transfer 106,100 16870 Communications Reduction -16,000 Interim Contractor Support As described elsewhere in this report, the Committee has transferred a total of $502,700,000 from various Air Force procurement accounts to Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. This includes $396,600,000 associated with the C 17, and $106,600,000 associated with various other weapons systems. In the Committee's view, this funding, since it covers expenses such as sustainment spares and depot maintenance, should be both budgeted for and appropriated under Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, rather than in the procurement accounts. Manufacturing Technology Assistance Pilot Program The Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 above the budget request to continue and expand the Manufacturing Technology Assistance Pilot Program (MTAPP). Of this amount, not less than $2,000,000 shall be available only to expand the MTAP program to Pennsylvania. McClellan Air Force Base The Committee notes that with the impending closure of McClellan Air Force Base, unique research assets will become available to the local community. Accordingly, the Committee supports the provision included in the House-passed National Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2000 which provides for the transfer of the McClellan Nuclear Radiation Center. Enterprise Integration Program The Committee urges the Air Force and the Defense Logistics Agency to jointly consider the development and implementation of an Enterprise Integration program to improve the quality and availability of logistical data necessary to support the acquisition of spare and repair parts required to field Air Force weapons systems. REMIS Information on this project can be found in the Information Technology section of this report. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $10,914,076,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 11,419,233,000 Committee recommendation 11,401,733,000 Change from budget request -17,500,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,401,733,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is an increase of $487,657,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folio 98 insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 17050 JCS Exercises: -35,000 17100 SOCOM--ASDS Slip -3,000 17100 SOCOM--JTT/CIBS M 500 Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: 17250 DLA--Warstopper 3,000 Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: 17460 DAU--Organizational Composition Research 2,000 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 17775 Starbase 300 17775 Innovative Readiness Training -15,000 17800 Classified and Intelligence 11,600 17900 DCAA--Low priority program growth -5,000 17900 DCAA--Performance Measures -2,000 18000 DHRA--DIMHRS -41,200 18000 DHRA--DEERS 8,000 18000 DHRA--DCPDS (program slip) -2,000 18200 DLA--Automated Document Conversion 12,500 18200 DLA--Security Locks 10,000 18200 DLA--Performance Measures -5,000 18200 DLA--Improved Cargo Methods 4,000 18310 DSCA--Performance Measures -2,000 18475 DTRA--Treaty Implementation -4,500 18475 DTRA--Performance Measures -2,000 18500 DoDEA--WIC Program Overseas 2,000 18600 JCS--JMEANS 4,500 18600 JCS--Management Support -5,000 18650 OEA--Pico Rivera 2,000 18650 OEA--Completion of Fort Ord conversion support 5,000 18650 OEA--Completion of San Diego Conversion Center 5,000 18700 OSD--C4ISR 6,000 18700 OSD--NGB Project Management System 5,000 18700 OSD--NE/SA Center for Security Studies 1,500 18700 OSD--Middle East Regional Security Issues 1,500 18700 OSD--Energy Savings Performance Contracts 8,000 18700 OSD--Job Placement Program 4,000 18700 OSD--Youth Development and Leadership Program 300 18700 OSD--Performance Measures -10,000 18700 OSD--Youth Development Initiative 2,500 18700 OSD--Management and Contract Support -15,000 18700 OSD--(A&T) Travel and Contracts -10,000 18700 OSD--Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities 12,000 18900 WHS--Low Priority Programs -10,000 18900 WHS--Defense Travel Service -32,000 18900 WHS--Emergency Notification 2,500 19110 Impact Aid 35,000 19250 JCS Mobility Enhancements 50,000 19295 Human Resources Enterprise Strategy 7,500 19305 Headquarters and Management -40,000 19335 Contract and Advisory Services -10,000 19341 United Service Organizations 25,000 Performance Measures The Committee is disappointed with the quality of the performance measures included in the Department's Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide budget justification books. On multiple occasions the Congress has made clear its intentions to link an agency's budget to the quality of its performance measures and the progress it makes in improving its performance. The Committee recommends reductions totaling $21,000,000 against those defense agencies that presented weak or non-existent performance goals. DLA--Warstoppers The Committee recommends $3,000,000 only for the warstopper program to be used to maintain industrial readiness through microcircuit solutions like the Department's Generalized Emulation of Microcircuits program. Defense Acquisition University The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Defense Systems Management College, only for the Information Technology Organizational Composition Research Project. The Committee also supports the Defense Acquisition University's efforts to use state-of-the-art commercial training technology that would train the acquisition workforce in a simulated government procurement environment. FAMILY THERAPY PROGRAM The Department's National Guard Youth Challenge program has developed a residential program for at-risk youths which focuses on providing leadership, responsible citizenship, job skills, life coping skills, and educational and physical fitness programs. The Committee urges the Department to consider adding to this curriculum an in-depth family reintegration phase to the Challenge Youth program, which addresses the problems of family disintegration and juvenile violence. Defense Finance and Accounting Service The Committee understands that due to unusual circumstances the Department had to budget for $400,000 in security costs in the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide account, but that starting in fiscal year 2001, these expenses will be properly realigned to the Defense Working Capital Fund. Information Technology Programs Information on Defense Human Resources Agency (DEERS), Defense Human Resources Agency (DIMHRS), Military Personnel Information Systems, and Automated Document Conversion programs can be found in the Information Technology section of this report. DLA--Security Locks Federal Specification FF L 2740A was established by the Inter-Agency Committee on Security Equipment as the standard for providing secure protection to our nation's most sensitive classified material. In the past, the Committee has supported Department of Defense efforts to retrofit existing containers with security locks that conform to this specification. The Committee is concerned, however, that sensitive classified materials in the possession of defense contractors are not subject to the same protection under Federal Specification FF L 2740A, as mandated by Executive Order 12829. While new containers purchased by defense contractors must have locks which meet or exceed this specification, there remain a great deal of classified materials stored by defense contractors in containers which fall well below the prescribed standard. The Committee therefore directs the Department to retrofit all security containers under the control of, or accessed by defense contractors with locks meeting the federal specification FF L 2740A. The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for this purpose, and expects full utilization of these funds in the current fiscal year. DLA--Improved Cargo Methods The Committee recommends $4,000,000 only to test, develop and implement cost saving opportunities identified in ongoing studies of private sector logistics technology, practices and procedures to move military cargo more cheaply, with greater speed, and with greater reliability. DTRA--Treaty Implementation The Committee recommends a reduction of $4,500,000 due to delays in treaty implementation and changes in requirements. If additional funds prove necessary to meet emergent requirements stemming from valid treaty obligations, the Committee expects the Department to submit a reprogramming request subject to normal, prior approval reprogramming procedures. Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)--Management Support The Committee recommends a reduction of $5,000,000 from JCS Management Support. None of this, or any other reduction, is to be taken against the Joint Staff's efforts in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide to support Joint Vision 2010. JCS--J MEANS The Committee recommends $4,500,000 only for the Joint Multi-Dimensional Education and Analysis System (J MEANS). This program will incorporate the National Defense University's wargaming modules and allow students to fully assess the effect of alternate strategies and technologies in an information age battlefield. OSD--C4ISR The Committee recommends $6,000,000 only to sustain the enhanced Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) Integrated Architecture Program and to extend the development across all the unified commands. OSD--Near East/South Asia Center for Security Studies The Committee supports the Department's plans to examine establishing a Near East/South Asia Center for Security Studies to promote a stable regional security environment, enhance military-to-military exchanges and to promote regional security cooperation. The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs, to facilitate planning for the Center. OSD--Middle East Regional Security Issues The Committee recommends providing $1,500,000 for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs only to support current and established programs, conducted since 1993, to promote informal region-wide dialogues on Arms Control and regional security issues for Arab and Israeli officials and experts. OSD ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS The Committee recommends $8,000,000 only to assist in training, providing technical expertise, performing energy audits, and otherwise assisting in the ESPC process. OSD--Job Placement Program The Committee understands that the Department has been fully briefed on an innovative job placement and community outreach services program, FirstDay of the Future. With the imminent closure of Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases, the Committee continues to believe that this innovated program will be beneficial to the effected military and civilian personnel and their families. Therefore, the Committee recommends $4,000,000 only to expeditiously implement this program. OSD--Youth Development and Leadership Program The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 over the budget request for the Youth Development and Leadership program, only to develop a safety net program to serve as the follow-up activity for the program initiated under Public Law 105 174. osd--youth development initiative The Committee recommends $2,500,000, consistent with Section 8107, only for a grant to a widely respected non-profit organization to finance on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis efforts to mobilize individuals, groups, and organizations to build and strengthen the character and competence of America's youth. osd--management and contract support The Committee is concerned about the continued growth in contractor support to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), that more than offsets the reductions made in OSD personnel. The Committee therefore recommends a reduction of $15,000,000 and directs that none of this, or any other reduction, be taken against the studies funded through the Office of Net Assessment. whs--emergency notification The Committee notes the success the Pentagon's Army Operation Center has had with its automated emergency notification system and recommends $2,500,000 only to field the system to other organizations in the Department with similar notification requirements. JCS MOBILITY ENHANCEMENTS The Committee recommends $50,000,000 to support Transportation Command's mobility enhancements efforts. The Committee believes that the Center for Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies should be considered for up to $15,000,000 of this amount. NATIONAL CURATION PILOT PROJECT The Committee understands that the Department has a requirement to safely store over 41,000 cubic feet of cultural and historical artifacts collected from public lands and to make these collections available to the public. In response to this, the Defense Legacy Resources Management Program awarded a grant to the Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the State of Montana, to study and develop a design for a curatorial collections and processing building. The curation pilot project is designed to lead to the construction of new facilities in cooperation with the pilot institutions who will rehabilitate federally-associated collections for the Department. The Committee understands that the study is complete. The Committee therefore directs the Department to provide this report to the Committee by September 30, 1999, and the Department is encouraged to move forward with this important effort. INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY EDUCATION The increasing dependence by the Department of Defense on computers and computer communications has also increased its vulnerability to attacks on these information systems. This threat to a national critical infrastructure mandates the fostering and ongoing support of well-educated professionals that are able to protect our critical information system. The President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection completed a two-year study that concluded, in part, that a significant portion of the nation's infrastructure protection is tied to the development of information security professionals. The Committee is aware that, although there are several post-graduate level educational programs currently available for advanced training in this area, there are no doctorate level programs currently available. The Committee believes that the development of a doctoral program in information security is required to provide a flow of individuals with the knowledge and credentials to support the expanding needs of the Department. The Committee urges the Secretary of Defense to review requirements for doctorate-level information systems security professionals within the Department and, if appropriate, consider sponsoring the establishment of doctorate level education programs in educational institutions capable of providing this level of training. IMPROVED GENERAL PURPOSE TENTS The Committee is pleased with the Army's successful development of a modular general purpose tent system (M.G.P.T.S.) to replace the current general purpose small, medium and large tents, which use 1940's design and manufacturing techniques. The M.G.P.T.S. has been designed to serve as a new generation of tents, providing greater durability and improved performance when exposed to severe weather. The Committee believes the new system may better support Marine and Air Force field operations and encourages utilization of the improved system by these forces. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY The Committee understands that before and after school programs are a strong support system to families living on military bases. The Committee believes that consideration should be given to enhancing services including tutorial and learning enrichment programs. PINE BLUFF ARSENAL SUSTAINMENT TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM The Committee directs the Department of Defense to establish a Sustainment Training and Technical Assistance Program at Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR, for chemical and biological defense equipment in support of the Department of Justice equipment grant program. LEGACY The Committee encourages the Department to consider the U.S.S. Constitution museum for funding in its legacy program. CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS Additional recommendations by the Committee are described in the classified annex accompanying this report. Offset Folios 105 Insert here OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,202,622,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,369,213,000 Committee recommendation 1,513,076,000 Change from budget request +143,863,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,513,076,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $310,454,000 above the $1,202,622,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 19620 Mission Operations/Increased Optempo 20,000 19640 Forces Readiness Operations Support/Training Area Environmental Management 1,000 19660 Depot Maintenance 3,400 19680 Base Support 10,000 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 20070 Recruiting and Advertising 25,000 Other Adjustments: 20090 Real Property Maintenance 10,000 20120 Recruiting Support 3,500 20360 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of Life Enhancements) 39,563 20365 Information Management 27,000 20365 Information Operations 4,400 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $957,239,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 917,647,000 Committee recommendation 969,478,000 Change from budget request +51,831,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $969,478,000 for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $12,239,000 above the $957,239,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folio 107 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] xlBudget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 22055 Recruiting and Advertising 3,000 22060 Recruiting Support 5,000 xlOther Adjustments: xl 22794 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of Life Enhancements) 13,831 22796 Base Operations 10,000 22810 Real Property Maintenance 10,000 22815 Contributory Support to CINCs 10,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $117,893,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 123,266,000 Committee recommendation 143,911,000 Change from budget request +20,645,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $143,911,000 for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $26,018,000 above the $117,893,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folio 109 insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] xlBudget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 23600 Maintenance of Real Property 4,000 xlOther Adjustments: 24110 Increased Use of Guard and Reserves 1,200 xl 24220 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of Life Enhancements) 945 24250 Initial Issue 10,000 24260 782 Career Gear Issue 3,000 24270 Spares 1,500 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,747,696,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,728,437,000 Committee recommendation 1,788,091,000 Change from budget request +59,654,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,788,091,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $40,395,000 above the $1,747,696,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folio 111 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 24970 Depot Maintenance 15,000 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 25400 Recruiting and Advertising 1,500 1,000 Other Adjustments: 25510 Real Property Maintenance 10,000 25520 Base Operations 10,000 25558 Real Property Maintenance (Transfer from Quality of Life Enhancements) 12,154 25570 C 130 Operations 10,000 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $2,678,015,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 2,903,549,000 Committee recommendation 3,103,642,000 Change from budget request +200,093,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,103,642,000 for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $425,627,000 above the $2,678,015,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folio 113 Insert here The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 10,000 6,264 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 17,500 6,500 Other Adjustments: 48,000 10,000 10,000 60,629 10,000 14,000 4,200 3,000 Army National Guard Center The Committee understands that the Headquarters, 53rd Support Battalion, Army National Guard is in extensive need of repair and renovation. The Committee has provided additional funds for Real Property Maintenance for the Army National Guard's backlog of repair and maintenance projects, and directs that $1,000,000 be designated for repair of the armory in Florida. ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER The Committee has provided additional funds for Real Property Maintenance for the Army National Guard and directs that $3,000,000 be provided for remedial site preparation for the Eugene Armed Forces Reserve Center and Organizational Maintenance Shop. National Guard Bureau Nationwide Fiber Optics Network Information on this project can be found in the Information Technology section of this report. National Guard Distance Learning Information on this project can be found in the Information Technology section of this report. NGB Project Management System The Committee recommends a total increase of $8,000,000 for the National Guard's Project Management System. The Committee understands that the National Guard Bureau has taken the lead within the Department to implement a project management system using the latest commercially developed off-the-shelf technology, which will enable program managers to better manage programs in a timely manner and stay within budget and cost limits. The Committee believes that the National Guard Bureau Project Management System Pilot Project has tremendous applicability throughout all services and urges the Secretary of Defense to implement this program throughout the Department. The Committee has included $3,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard for the continuation of the Project Management System Pilot Project, and $5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide to implement this project management system throughout the Department. REPAIR OF UH 1 ENGINES The Committee understands that the Army National Guard's UH 1 Iroquois helicopter fleet has been restricted in the types of missions flown because of the unreliability of the T 53 engines, many of which require major repairs or overhaul for deficiencies. The Committee urges the Secretary of the Army to consider the use of commercial practices regarding the repair and overhaul of these helicopter engines. MOFFETT FIELD AND MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE The Committee recognizes the many advantages of the Moffett Airfield complex and the March Air Reserve Base for providing needed facilities in supporting the ongoing effort to upgrade domestic preparedness against weapons of mass destruction. Moffett's infrastructure and command and control capabilities include not only the airfield, but critical Federal, civil and housing assets, including NASA/Ames, Onizuka Air Station, DoD and DoT activities, together with the unique emergency support capabilities of the California Air National Guard 129th Rescue Wing, FEMA and the Red Cross. March Air Reserve Base hosts various military and civilian activities including Air Mobility, National Guard Refueling, and a Fighter Wing serving the U.S. Customs Service Domestic Air Interdiction. March is a fully operational public safety training complex which combines law enforcement, fire and rescue, emergency management, response and medical training for first responders or biological and chemical terrorism, SWAT training, domestic terrorism and fire technology for hazardous materials. The Committee urges the Department and cognizant state and local officials to fully consider Moffett's and March's operational and support capabilities when selecting new locations for expanding the capability of weapons of mass destruction first responders to train, equip and support local authorities in California. The Committee requests a report from DoD/National Guard and Reserves by December 31, 1999 on use of these key Federal facilities. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $3,106,933,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 3,099,618,000 Committee recommendation 3,239,438,000 Change from budget request +139,820,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,239,438,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $132,505,000 above the $3,106,933,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1999. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folio 117 Insert Here The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard are shown below: [In thousands of dollars] Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: 10,000 5,000 4,800 10,000 20,000 15,000 Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: 4,000 Other Adjustments: 63,020 5,000 2,000 1,000 National Guard State Partnership Program The Committee recommends $1,000,000 only for the National Guard's State Partnership Program. The Committee directs that these funds be used to support theater engagement opportunities for National Guard soldiers and state civilian personnel who directly support the State Partnership Program and civil-military engagement goals and for the National Guard Minuteman Fellows Program which the Committee has supported in the past. C 130 Operations The Committee recommends a total of $1,500,000 over the budget request for personnel and operation and maintenance costs to support the restoration of C 130 operational capabilities for the Florida Air National Guard. 159th Air National Guard Fighter Group The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 over the budget request in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard and directs that these funds be used for the operation of C 130H operational support aircraft of the 159th ANG Fighter Group. OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $439,400,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 2,387,600,000 Committee recommendation 1,812,600,000 Change from budget request -575,000,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,812,600,000 for the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. The funding in this paragraph provides for ongoing DoD operations in Southwest Asia and Bosnia. Due to the termination of air operations over Kosovo and reduced air operations tempo over Southwest Asia, the Committee recommends a reduction of $575,000,000 from the budget request. Budget Justification and Budget Execution Materials The Committee notes that the budget request includes a relative lack of justification data concerning U.S. participation in contingency operations in both the Military Personnel accounts, the Procurement accounts and the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. Accordingly, the Committee includes a new general provision, Section 8111, which requires the Department of Defense to include the same type of budget justification materials as are provided for other Department of Defense activities. In addition, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees at the end of each quarter of the fiscal year, with the first such report due on December 31, 1999, detailing both the financial transactions associated with the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund as well as all other appropriation accounts from which contingency operations expenses are paid, and programmatic data for each contingency operation. This budget execution data shall include the amounts paid from each appropriation account to include funds distributed from the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund to each appropriation account, for each contingency operation; a comparison of actual troop strength for active duty and Guard and Reserve components for each contingency operation compared to the amounts anticipated in the budget request; and, a comparison of major weapons systems, including but not limited to all types of aircraft, naval vessels and major ground equipment items for each active duty and Guard and Reserve component for each contingency operation compared to the level assumed in the budget request. Kosovo Base Camp Construction The Committee is aware of ongoing efforts to construct two base camps that will house U.S. troops deployed in support of the NATO peacekeeping force in Kosovo. While the Committee acknowledges that such efforts are essential to support the quality of life for deployed troops, the Committee agrees with the language included in the report accompanying the House version of the fiscal year 2000 Military Construction Appropriations bill. Accordingly, the Committee reminds the Department of Defense that Section 110 of Public Law 105 237 prohibits construction of new bases overseas without prior notification to the Committee on Appropriations. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $7,324,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 7,621,000 Committee recommendation 7,621,000 Change from budget request The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,621,000 for the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The recommendation is an increase of $297,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $370,640,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 378,170,000 Committee recommendation 378,170,000 Change from budget request The Committee recommends an appropriation of $378,170,000 for Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $7,530,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Rocky Mountain Arsenal The Committee is encouraged by the Department's progress in remediating the environmental contamination at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal site near Denver, Colorado, and in facilitating the successful conversion and reuse of the property. The Committee encourages the Defense Department to continue to fully support the cleanup and conversion projects at this site. Environmental Remediation Contracts The Committee is concerned about the Department's limited use of indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts for environmental remediation. The Committee directs the Department to report to the congressional defense committees on how this contract vehicle compares with other contract options in cost, involvement of small businesses and inclusion of local companies. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $274,600,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 284,000,000 Committee recommendation 284,000,000 Change from budget request The Committee recommends an appropriation of $284,000,000 for Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $9,400,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $372,100,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 376,800,000 Committee recommendation 376,800,000 Change from budget request The Committee recommends an appropriation of $376,800,000 for Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $4,700,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $26,091,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 25,370,000 Committee recommendation 25,370,000 Change from budget request The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,370,000 for Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is a decrease of $721,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $225,000,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 199,214,000 Committee recommendation 209,214,000 Change from budget request +10,000,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $209,214,000 for Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The recommendation is a decrease of $15,786,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Camp Croft The Committee is concerned about the unexploded ordnance at the former Camp Croft and the danger this poses to the safety of the citizens living on or near this former military base. The Committee encourages the Department to address this problem as quickly and as completely as possible. LAKE CITY ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT The Committee is concerned about the soil and groundwater contamination at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. The Committee understands that the U.S. Army has signed an interagency agreement with the Environmental Protection agency and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and urges the Department to allocate the funds necessary to implement the projects required by this agreement. NEWMARK The Committee continues to have serious concern about the Department's failure to respond at a senior level to groundwater contamination at the Newmark and Muscoy Superfund sites in California. The Committee understands that both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the City of San Bernardino believe that the contamination is a direct result of industrial waste from Camp Ono, a World War II depot and maintenance facility. The EPA has reported that there is ``no other reasonable source for the contamination,'' than the former Army base, and, more recently, that the Army is ``a likely source of the contamination.'' Report language in the conference reports accompanying the fiscal year 1997 and 1998 Defense Appropriations Bills highlighted the urgency of this problem and requested adequate funding and prompt action by the Department to remediate this site. The Committee is disappointed with the Department's response. The Department has, thus far, ignored a September, 1998 court order to mediate the dispute. The Committee is particularly concerned by the Department's lack of a response to the Committee's November, 1998 request for senior-level mediation involving the Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. As a result, the Committee strongly believes that the Department should, within 60 days of enactment of this Act, initiate mediation in this matter with the EPA and report to the congressional defense committees fully explaining the Department's plan to reach a timely resolution to this matter. OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $50,000,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 55,800,000 Committee recommendation 55,800,000 Change from budget request The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,800,000 for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The recommendation is an increase of $5,800,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999. FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $440,400,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 475,500,000 Committee recommendation 456,100,000 Change from budget request -19,400,000 This appropriation funds the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction activities of the Department of Defense. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action. [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction 475,500 456,100 -19,400 Strategic Nuclear Arms Elimination Ukraine 33,000 43,000 +10,000 Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination Russia 157,300 177,300 +20,000 Weapons Transportation Russia 15,200 15,200 0 Weapons Storage Security Russia 40,000 90,000 +50,000 Warhead Dismantlement Processing Russia 9,300 9,300 0 Reactor Core Conversion 20,000 20,000 0 Fissile Material Storage Russia 64,500 60,900 -3,600 Chemical Weapons Destruction Russia 130,400 24,600 -105,800 Defense and Military Contacts 2,000 0 -2,000 Other Assessments 1,800 1,800 0 PROJECT LEVEL TABLE [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention Russia 2,000 14,000 +12,000 FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION The Department recommended $475,500,000 for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction programs. The Committee recommends $456,100,000, a net decrease of $19,400,000. The Committee has recommended changes to each program in accordance with the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. However, the Committee is also recommending an increase of $12,000,000 for the biological weapons proliferation prevention program for additional security enhancements. QUALITY OF LIFE ENHANCEMENTS, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $455,000,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,845,370,000 Committee recommendation 800,000,000 Change from budget request -1,045,370,000 The Committee recommends an appropriation of $800,000,000 for Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense. The recommendation is an increase of $345,000,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The President's budget proposed providing $1,845,370,000 for this account. However, upon examination the Committee has determined these funds are intended to be used for general real property maintenance projects, and not solely quality of life-related efforts, which was the basis for the Committee's having created this account several years ago. Accordingly, the Committee recommends providing the $1,845,370,000, requested by the administration in this account directly to the Services in their respective Operation and Maintenance accounts. For this account, the Committee provides an increase of $800,000,000 for active component real property maintenance which is reserved only for quality of life related projects. The Committee designates the increased funding provided in this account as a special interest item, subject to normal prior approval reprogramming procedures. The adjustments to the budget request for Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense are shown in the table below: [In thousands of dollars] Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense: Program Increases: Army $182,600 Navy 285,200 Marine Corps 62,100 Air Force 259,600 10,500 NTC LEA (1,200) Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense: Transfers Out: Army 625,808 Navy 508,369 Marine Corps 120,225 Air Force 400,826 Army Reserve 39,563 Navy Reserve 13,831 Marine Corps Reserve 945 Air Force Reserve 12,154 Army National Guard 60,629 Air National Guard 63,020 TITLE III PROCUREMENT ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY The fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense procurement budget request totals $51,851,538,000. The accompanying bill recommends $53,031,397,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of $1,179,859,000 above the fiscal year 2000 budget estimate and is $4,440,977,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 1999. The table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee's recommendations. Offset folio 125 insert here SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in the project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases ``only for'' or ``only to'' in this report are Congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. These items remain special interest whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference report. CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS Adjustments to classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report. RANGELESS TRAINING Last year, the Congress directed the Defense Department to conduct a technical evaluation between the Joint Tactical Combat Training System and other alternatives to ensure that the best and most affordable system is chosen to accomplish the rangeless training mission for the Navy and the Air Force. The Department did an outstanding job of initiating the evaluation on a timely basis. In particular, the Committee commends the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology; the Director of Test, Systems Engineering and Evaluation, Ranges and Resources; the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Readiness, Readiness and Training; the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Conventional Systems; and the Joint Tactical Training System project office. The Committee recognizes that implementing the initiative took a great deal of time and commitment from these organizations. The result of these efforts will allow the Department to field a much-needed rangeless training system in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. The Navy and the Air Force requested a total of $42,300,000 to continue the Joint Tactical Training System in fiscal year 2000 which the Committee recommends. The procurement funds are designated to be of special interest, and may only be obligated to procure equipment for the system which DoD selects as the result of the congressionally-directed technical evaluation. FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TEST NEW STARTS The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that all DoD components follow new start notification procedures prior to award of production contracts resulting from successful foreign comparative tests. The Committee notes that DoD notification of the desire to test a foreign system does not constitute notification of procurement of that system. AIR FORCE INTERIM CONTRACTOR SUPPORT Interim Contractor Support is the maintenance and support of a new weapon system provided by a commercial vendor pending transition to organic support. Current DoD policy allows procurement appropriations to fund Interim Contractor Support (ICS) whereas organic support is funded in the operation and maintenance (O&M) appropriations. DoD policy calls for all acquisition programs to minimize the scope and duration of ICS. However, the Committee has recently learned of a growing trend in the Air Force to abuse the ICS concept by maximizing its scope and duration, effectively shifting the O&M burden of certain programs to the procurement accounts. For example, the C 17 program now plans to use approximately $400 million a year of procurement funding to finance flying hour spares and depot aircraft maintenance for the life of the C 17 production program. The Committee believes that using ICS in this manner blurs the distinction between O&M and procurement appropriations and therefore seriously compromises oversight in Congress and OSD. ICS represents large pools of funding that a program manager could divert, without the prior knowledge of Congress, for additional procurement end-items or acquisition cost overruns while ``shorting'' operational forces. The Committee also notes that in the last several years, DoD witnesses have highlighted efforts to increase modernization funding to meet the Joint Staff goal of $60 billion per year. Funding high levels of O&M effort in the procurement accounts gives Congress a false picture of how well DoD is meeting these higher modernization funding goals. Given these concerns, the Committee recommendation includes a transfer of $502.7 million from Air Force procurement to O&M appropriations. The Committee directs the Air Force to fund all ICS in the O&M accounts in future budget submissions. REPROGRAMMING PROCEDURES The Committee understands that DoD policy prevents defense components from acting on notification reprogrammings until written approval has been provided by the Senate defense committees. The Committee further understands that DoD policy does not extend this courtesy to House defense committees. The Committee believes that each of the congressional defense committees should be accorded the same opportunity to review and approve all reprogrammings submitted for Congressional consideration, including notification reprogrammings. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure the reprogramming policy is updated to reflect the requirement to receive written approval from all congressional defense committees prior to implementing reprogrammings, including notification reprogrammings. This direction applies to all defense appropriations. ARMY PROCUREMENT ISSUES UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS LIST This year, as in the past, the Committee requested that the Service Chiefs provide ``unfunded requirements lists''. Usually the lists include critical activities or items that the Services believe are not adequately funded in the budget request, for example, base operations. It has also been the Committee's understanding that the Secretary of Defense only allows the Services to include those items that are included in the current budget request and the outyears. However, the Committee notes that several items on the Army's shortfall list are not funded in the Future Years' Defense Plan and have such large outyear funding requirements that the Committee does not believe they can be accommodated in future budget submissions, such as the Huey, Blackhawk, and the Bradley Service Life Extension Programs (SLEP). While programs such as the Blackhawk SLEP have merit, the Committee is reluctant to add a ``down payment'' of $31 million in fiscal year 2000 if the Army will not budget the half billion dollars required in the outyears. Although the Committee appreciates the Army Chief of Staff's candor when submitting the Army's unfunded requirements list, the Committee encourages him to include only items which are included in the budget request and can be supported in future budget submissions. AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,388,268,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,229,888,000 Committee recommendation 1,590,488,000 Change from budget request +360,600,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of tactical and utility airplanes and helicopters, including associated electronics, electronic warfare, and communications equipment and armament, modification of in-service aircraft, ground support equipment, components and parts such as spare engines, transmissions gear boxes, and sensor equipment. It also funds related training devices such as combat flight simulators and production base support. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Authorization Changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request CH 47 Cargo Helicopter Mods 70,738 126,838 +56,100 Utility/Cargo Airplane Mods 6,308 9,308 +3,000 AH 64 Longbow Mods 729,536 774,536 +45,000 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request UH 60 BLACKHAWK (MYP) 86,140 207,140 +121,000 (NOTE: UH 60L aircraft are only for the Dual Mission General Support Aviation Company, National Guard, 40 Infantry Division) +67,000 (NOTE: UH 60Q aircraft are only for the National Guard) AH 64 MODS 22,565 116,565 +94,000 (NOTE: Only for the National Guard) +3,000 UH 60 MODS 12,087 13,587 +1,500 AIRBORNE AVIONICS 43,690 47,090 +3,400 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT 88 24,188 +24,100 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT 35,915 37,915 +2,000 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS 4,394 14,894 +10,500 APACHE A MODEL READINESS The deployment of Task Force Hawk to Albania during Operation Allied Force revealed a series of personnel training, readiness, and equipment problems affecting the Army's Apache forces. The Committee is extremely concerned with the condition of the current Apache fleet and has recommended the following increases in procurement to alleviate recognized deficiencies: $75,000,000 only to procure and integrate the Second Generation Forward Looking Infrared Radar and $6,000,000 only to procure and integrate HF radios on Apache A model helicopters. The Committee also recommends an increase of $213,500,000 in Operations and Maintenance, Army for spare parts and war reserve material. The Committee expects that a portion of these funds will be used to meet Apache requirements. The Committee's recommendation procures upgrades for 24 Apache A model helicopters. The Committee encourages the Army to adequately fund upgrades for the remaining fleet in subsequent budget requests. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset folio 130 insert here MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,226,335,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,358,104,000 Committee recommendation 1,272,798,000 Change from budget request -85,306,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, and anti-tank/assault missile systems. Also included are major components, modifications, targets, test equipment, and production base support. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request Avenger System Modifications 33,750 35,050 +1,300 Avenger Modifications 0 4,300 +4,300 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request JAVELIN (AAWS M) SYSTEM SUMMARY (AP CY) 98,406 0 -98,406 MLRS LAUNCHER SYSTEMS 130,634 138,134 +7,500 PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset folio 132 insert here PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,548,340,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,416,765,000 Committee recommendation 1,556,665,000 Change from budget request +139,900,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of tanks; personnel and cargo carriers; fighting vehicles; tracked recovery vehicles; self-propelled and towed howitzers; machine guns; mortars; modification of in-service equipment, initial spares; and production base support. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendations Change from request Armor Machine Gun, 7.62MM M240 12,204 40,004 +27,800 Machine Gun, 5.56 (SAW) 0 10,100 +10,100 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request Bradley base sustainment 308,762 392,762 +84,000 (Note: Only for the National Guard) +4,000 Carrier, MOD 53,463 68,463 +15,000 Howitzer, 155MM M109A6 (MOD) 6,259 7,259 +1,000 M1 Abrams Tank Modifications 29,815 31,815 +2,000 PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset folio 134 insert here PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,065,955,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,140,816,000 Committee recommendation 1,228,770,000 Change from budget request +87,954,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modification of in-service stock, and related production base support including the maintenance, expansion, and modernization of industrial facilities and equipment. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendations Changes from request 25MM, All Types 46,618 48,618 +2,000 40MM, All Types 36,645 44,645 +8,000 105MM DPICM XM915 0 5,000 +5,000 Bunker Defeating Munition 0 10,000 +10,000 Grenades, All types 11,431 16,431 +5,000 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request CTG, Mortar 60MM Smoke WP M722 0 4,000 +4,000 CTG Mortar 81MM Prac 1/10 Range M880 1,906 3,306 +1,400 CTG Mortar 120MM HE M934 W/MO Fuze 46,279 49,279 +3,000 CTG Mortar 120MM Illum XM930 W/MTSQ FZ 0 10,000 +10,000 CTG 120MM WP Smoke M929A1 51,819 59,619 +7,800 CTG 120MM APFSDS T M829A2/M829E3 0 32,000 +32,000 CTG 120MM HEAT MP T M830A1 0 22,000 +22,000 Proj Arty 155MM SADARM M898 54,546 0 -54,546 Mine at M87 (VOLCANO) 0 15,000 +15,000 Wide Area Munitions 10,387 20,837 +10,000 Provision of Industrial Facilities 46,139 53,439 +7,300 PROGRAM MANAGER FOR AMMUNITION A July 1997 study conducted for the Army advocated the reconfiguration and management of the U.S. munitions industrial base through the creation of a single, general-officer level Program Manager who would be responsible for overseeing the life-cycle development of ammunition. According to the study, creating a single Program Manager for ammunition would significantly reduce costs for the Army and provide better management of the U.S. munitions industrial base. To date, the Army has not implemented this recommendation. The Committee encourages the Army to create a Program Manager for Ammunition at Picatinny Arsenal and directs the Commander of the Army Materiel Command to report by January 5, 2000, on his plan to implement this recommendation. self-destruct fuzes The Committee is aware that the Army has completed testing of, and type classified, M234 and M235 self-destruct fuzes for artillery and rocket grenades. The Committee believes that using a self-destruct fuze in future production of grenades, bomblets and submunitions could reduce the risk of unexploded ordnance casualities on the battlefield. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committee, no later than December 31, 1999, an analysis of unexploded ordnance issues and the recommended solutions including the use of self-destruct fuzes. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset folios 137 to 138 insert here OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $3,339,486,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 3,423,870,000 Committee recommendation 3,604,751,000 Change from budget request +180,881,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of: (a) tactical and commercial vehicles, including trucks, semi-trailers, and trailers of all types to provide mobility and utility support to field forces and the worldwide logistical system; (b) communications and electronics equipment of all types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile strategic and tactical communication equipment; (c) other support equipment such as chemical defensive equipment, floating and rail equipment, generators and power units, material handling equipment, medical support equipment, special equipment for user testing, and non-system training devices. In each of these activities, funds are also included for modification of in-service equipment, investment spares and repair parts, and production base support. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles 190,399 196,399 +6,000 Product Improved Combat Vehicle Crewman Headset 0 15,000 +15,000 Lightweight Video Reconnaissance System 3,436 5,936 +2,500 Combat Support Medical 25,250 40,250 +15,000 Roller, vibratory, self-propelled 0 10,300 +10,300 Compactor, high speed 9,798 12,938 +2,600 Crane, wheel mounted, 25 ton 12,089 20,089 +8,000 Items less than $2 million (Construction Equipment--UBM) 4,286 6,286 +2,000 Pusher tug, small 0 9,000 +9,000 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request Tactical Trailers/Dolly Sets 15,277 20,277 +5,000 HEMTT Modifications 4,901 11,701 +6,800 Modification of Inservice Equipment 29,769 33,269 +3,500 SHF Term 31,950 0 -31,950 SMART-T (Space) 61,761 31,761 -30,000 SCAMP (Space) 5,033 0 -5,033 Army Data Distribution System 36,763 58,763 +20,000 SINCGARS Family 13,205 33,205 20,000 ACUS Mod Program (WIN T/T) 109,056 115,956 +6,900 Medical Comm for CBT Casualty Care (MC4) 20,600 21,600 +1,000 Information System Security Program-ISS 28,750 39,450 +10,700 Joint Stars (Army) (TIARA) 82,176 107,176 +25,000 CI HUMINT Automated Tool Set (CHATS) (TIARA) 3,137 4,637 +1,500 Shortstop 0 28,000 +28,000 Night Vision Devices 20,977 67,777 +46,800 Combat Identification Aiming/Light 9,486 0 -9,486 Mod of In-Svc Equip (Tac Surv) 6,533 29,533 +23,000 Digitization Applique 66,423 56,423 -10,000 Mortar Fire Control System 3,740 0 -3,740 Maneuver Control System (MCS) 52,049 10,000 -42,049 Production Base Support (C E) 378 2,878 +2,500 Heavy Dry Supt Bridge System 13,980 17,980 +4,000 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Eqpmt (EOD E) 4,989 10,989 +6,000 Lightweight Maintenance Enclosure (LME) 2,128 3,728 +1,600 Distribution Sys, Pet and Water 10,716 13,716 +3,000 Generators and Associated Equip 78,639 81,639 +3,000 Combat Training Centers Support 2,450 9,050 +6,600 Training Devices, Nonsystem 67,374 75,124 +7,750 SIMNET/Close Combat Tactical Trainer 75,367 40,367 -35,000 Intergrated Family of Test Equipment (IFTE) 41,602 56,602 +15,000 Modification of In-Svc Equipment (OPA 3) 24,852 39,352 +14,500 Ultra Lightweight Camouflage Net System 0 20,000 +20,000 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES Recently, the Committee's Surveys and Investigations (S&I) staff completed an in-depth analysis of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles Program (FMTV). The Committee was very disturbed when it became aware of the S&I staff's findings. The S&I staff, which spent many hours in the field with unit personnel, found many problems with the truck. For example: (1) Door latches do not secure properly causing the doors to open during normal operations; (2) Starters which fail after only 2,000 miles of operation; (3) Transmission tanks that crack causing anti-freeze and transmission fluid to mix; (4) Tail gates that cannot be closed with troops seated because the truck bed warps; and (5) Batteries that boil over and leak acid onto air tanks causing corrosion. The S&I staff found many other problems, from poorly constructed seats to fragile bumpers. The Committee remains troubled that the FM TV truck has so many outstanding technical issues. Additionally, the S&I staff found that even though the Army claims that many of the problems identified by the S&I staff are being resolved, the Army is unable to provide even rudimentary cost estimates for fixing the problems. The Committee directs that the Army provide the Congress, no later than December 15, 1999, a report that addresses the outstanding technical and operational problems with the FMTV, the solution for each problem and the cost of implementing each solution. Information Technology Programs Information on the Committee's proposed adjustments to the LAN, LogTech, STAMIS, and ADPE programs can be found in the Information Technology section of this report. tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (tuav) The Committee supports the Army's revised Acquisition Strategy for the Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV). This revised strategy was outlined in a March 26, 1999 letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. The revised strategy includes the termination of the Outrider Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration and a new competition to meet the Army's TUAV requirement. The Committee notes that since the new strategy was presented to Congress after submission of the fiscal year 2000 budget, funding for the TUAV was not requested in the proper appropriation. The Army requested procurement funding for the Outrider vehicle, not research and development funding for the new acquisition strategy. The Committee has made the necessary correction by reducing Outrider procurement funding by $45,863,000 and increasing the research and development funding for tactical unmanned aerial vehicle by $40,000,000, a net reduction of $5,863,000 which the Committee believes is justified given the revised acquisition plan. The Committee directs that the Army consider reliability and interoperability with the Tactical Control System (TCS) as critical source selection evaluation criteria for the new TUAV. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 143 to 148 Insert here AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $7,541,709,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 8,228,655,000 Committee recommendation 9,168,405,000 Change from budget request +939,750,000 This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of aircraft and related support equipment and programs; flight simulators; equipment to modify in-service aircraft to extend their service life, eliminate safety hazards, and improve their operational effectiveness; and spare parts and ground support equipment for all end items procured by this appropriation. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Authorization Changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request V 22 796,392 856,392 +60,000 Special Project Aircraft 28,782 30,782 +2,000 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Commitee recommended Change from request CH 60S 208,493 284.493 +76,000 JPATS 44,826 55,826 +11,000 KC 130J 12,257 576,257 +564,000 EA 6 Series 161,047 272,047 +111,000 18 Series 308,789 281,789 -27,000 AH 1W Series 13,726 16,726 +3,000 SH 60 Series 56,824 60,324 +3,500 H 1 Series 6,339 16,339 +10,000 EP 3 Series 27,433 44,433 +17,000 P 3 Series 276,202 361,202 +85,000 2 Series 28,201 55,101 +26,900 6 Series 86,950 85,250 -1,700 Special Project Aircraft 28,782 30,782 +2,000 Common ECM Equipment 50,584 58,584 +8,000 Common Ground Equipment 413,732 379,782 -33,950 Other Production Charges 39,991 64,991 +25,000 V 22 aircraft The Navy requested $796,392,000 for 10 V 22 aircraft. The Committee recommends $856,392,000, an increase of $60,000,000 for one additional V 22. The Committee strongly endorses the Department's plan to replace aging CH 46E's and CH 53D's with the versatile and comparatively quieter V 22 Osprey. The Committee expects the Department to accelerate the procurement of the V 22 to achieve the most economical buy rate. In addition, the Committee directs the Department to accelerate the stand up of West Coast V 22 squadrons in order to provide better operational support and geographical balance. KC 130J AIRCRAFT The Marine Corps requested $12,257,000 for support of KC 130J aircraft. The Committee recommends $576,257,000 to procure eight aircraft and their associated support equipment, an increase of $564,000,000. The Marine Corps requires 51 KC 130J aircraft to replace KC 130F air-to-air refueler/tactical transports, the oldest aircraft in the Marine Corps' inventory, which were procured between 1960 1962 and are currently being flown by the active forces. KC 130Fs comprise 73 percent of the Marine Corps active force tanker inventory and 45 percent of the Department of Defense's rotary wing capable tanker inventory. They play a vital role in supporting forward-deployed Marine Air-Ground Task Forces and other CINC forward presence missions. Current KC 130F aircraft are not night vision capable, they lack external fuel tanks (which reduces range by 1000 miles or fuel offload capability by 18,000 pounds), and they lack defensive systems to warn and protect from enemy missile attack. The KC 130F fleet averages over 22,000 flight hours and 12,000 landings per aircraft. An engineering assessment completed in December 1998 indicated that actual center wing fatigue life remaining on these aircraft is significantly less than previously estimated. The Marine Corps subsequently informed the Committee that the urgency of the need for KC 130J aircraft to replace those in-service aircraft significantly increased after the fiscal year 2000 budget request was submitted to Congress. During the last four years, 3 aircraft (6 percent of the active tanker fleet) were struck from operation due to fatigue. Today, while the inventory requirement is 79 KC 130 tanker aircraft, the Marines are only operating at 77 aircraft. The Committee agrees with Marine Corps assessments concerning the overwhelming need to modernize the tactical tanker aircraft force. The Committee notes that even with congressional funding, 80 percent of the Marine Corps requirement for KC 130J aircraft has not been budgeted. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the fiscal year 2001 and subsequent budgets contain sufficient funds to sustain the KC 130J line at an efficient rate after fiscal year 2000. JOINT PRIMARY AIRCRAFT TRAINING SYSTEM The Navy requested $44,826,000 for procurement of 8 JPATS training aircraft. The Committee recommends $55,826,000 for 12 aircraft, an increase of $11,000,000. This includes $12,000,000 for procurement of 4 additional aircraft only for the navigator (UNFO) mission, and a decrease of $1,000,000 as recommended by House authorization action due to excessive engineering change order allowances. The Navy recently informed the Committee that by replacing 16 older training aircraft with 9 new JPATS aircraft, it could save $16,000,000 annually while also significantly improving the quality of training. In this bill, the Committee has recommended the maximum number of additional JPATS aircraft in both Navy and Air Force aircraft procurement accounts allowable under the current contract, in order to take advantage of the contract's favorable pricing. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the fiscal year 2001 budget contains funds for the remaining 5 JPATS UNFO aircraft. e/a 6b aircraft With the retirement of the Air Force EF 111 aircraft, the EA 6B has become the Defense Department's primary escort jammer aircraft to support combat strike missions. The crews and aircraft of Navy and Marine EA 6B squadrons performed admirably during Operation Allied Force. However, due to the Department's overall lack of jamming aircraft, the forces were stretched, air crews were stressed, and the logistics support tail was strained. This operation also made it clear that even advanced stealth aircraft benefit from escort jamming from the EA 6B, counter to assumptions made when the EF 111s were retired. The Committee views recent EA 6B operations be it in Operation Allied Force, or in the ongoing sanctions enforcement operations around Iraq, as a premier example of the actual and potential future benefits of joint service combat operations. The Committee believes this clearly indicates that more, not less, tactical escort jamming support, will be needed in the future. Yet the EA 6B airframe has limited life remaining and its limited numbers have already posed severe challenges to operational planners. Therefore, the Committee bill recommends an additional $227,000,000 to reinvigorate the tactical jamming aircraft force. The fiscal year 1999 Supplemental Appropriations Act financing the cost of Operation Allied Force provided $300,000,000 for a operational rapid response fund. The Defense Department has indicated that a number of EA 6B near-term upgrades will be financed from the supplemental funds, to include: $45,000,000 for band 9/10 jammers, $39,000,000 for universal exciters, and $30,400,000 for miniaturized automated tactical terminals/integrated data modems. Although these items provide important and quick warfighting improvements to the EA 6B fleet (a use for the fund consistent with its creation by this Committee), they do not address the mid and long term fleet force structure and modernization issues. Therefore, the Committee recommends an additional $111,000,000 in Aircraft Procurement, Navy for EA 6B enhancements. This includes $60,000,000 for the procurement of high-fidelity simulators for EA 6B bases at Cherry Point, North Carolina and Whidbey Island, Washington; $31,000,000 to procure and install EA 6B night vision equipment; and $20,000,000 to remanufacture a test aircraft into an operational asset. The rationale for these additions as follows. After the budget was submitted, the Navy informed the Committee that competitively procuring high fidelity simulators for east and west coast EA 6B bases was feasible and would result in reduced need for aircraft flight training hours, more airframes for forward deployment, and reduced airframe wear. Outfitting the EA 6Bs with night vision devices increases operational effectiveness while reducing crew risk to enemy optically guided surface-to-air missiles. Finally, refurbishment of an EA 6B test asset will result in one additional combat aircraft deployed to the fleet. The EA 6B force structure, already heavily tasked to meet current commitments, will decline over time due to aircraft wear and attrition and cannot be augmented with new production aircraft on a cost-effective basis. Moreover, in about ten years, the EA 6B fleet size and capabilities will begin a steady decline as older aircraft reach the age of retirement. The Defense Department currently has no plan to meet these eventualities, and therefore, the Committee believes it would be prudent to begin planning now to ensure that no EA 6B force degradation occurs. Elsewhere in this report, the Committee recommends an additional $116,000,000 in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy account for tactical jamming aircraft enhancements. This includes $60,000,000 to provide the EA 6B with Link 16 connectivity; $16,000,000 to initiate an analysis of alternatives for a follow-on jammer aircraft; and $40,000,000 to immediately begin risk reduction and concept development for a F/A 18E/F variant to become the follow-on tactical jamming aircraft. The Committee urges the Defense Department to expand the tactical jammer aircraft fleet, in particular to capitalize upon the operational need and advantages which accrue from combining jamming with stealth aircraft, by introducing a tactical jamming variant of the F/A 18E/F aircraft by the year 2006. CONSOLIDATED AUTOMATED SUPPORT SYSTEM The Navy has standardized its aircraft support equipment through the Consolidated Automated Support System. The Committee believes that the Navy should develop a longer term acquisition strategy, rather than using annual buys, in order to stabilize the program and achieve cost reductions. Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS) The Committee remains concerned about the lack of progress that has been made in fielding new technologies to meet Marine Corps tactical reconnaissance requirements. The F/A 18 ATARS program has been hindered with a troubled past and despite its recent deployment to meet emergency requirements in the Balkans region, is limited by technology developed in the mid-1980's. Following an investment of almost $1,000,000,000 and 15-years of development effort, the ATARS program remains plagued with annoying maintenance issues, has yet to complete a successful Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL), and has not been certified for full rate production. Therefore, the Committee directs that prior to the obligation of any fiscal year 2000 appropriations, the Marine Corps must complete a ``by the book'' OPEVAL of the full-up ATARS system. If the ongoing operational assessment tests and the OPEVAL indicate that the system does not meet the stated requirements, the Committee requires that it be immediately notified of the shortfalls and the Marine Corps plan for the future of ATARS. The Committee notes that in fiscal year 1999, the Navy's budget justification material indicated that it intended to use 1999 funds to finance the ATARS OPEVAL and initiation of Full Rate Production. Congress agreed and this became the ``Congressionally approved'' program. The Committee understands that the Navy now desires to not use 1999 appropriations to initiate Full Rate Production, but intends to waive acquisition regulations and move to a Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) III decision prior to completion of the OPEVAL. With the execution of the LRIP III, the Navy will have committed, through the LRIP process, to procure half of the ATARS inventory objective. The Committee requests that prior to making such a decision, the Secretary of the Navy submit to the Committee a revised acquisition plan for ATARS. Additionally, the Secretary of the Navy should submit a letter to the Committee that addresses the Navy's desire to alter the fiscal year 1999 Congressionally approved program and request approval to use appropriated funds for a similar, although alternative, purpose. Additionally, the Committee directs that the Marine Corps complete and submit to the Committee by November 1, 1999, a report that addresses its future plans for meeting reconnaissance requirements. This ``road map'' of tactical reconnaissance must address the Marine Corps plan to acquire the Navy's Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP) system when it successfully completes evaluation and testing and becomes available for procurement. tactical airborne reconnaissance pod system--completely digital (tarps-cd) The Committee understands that TARPS(CD) is the proof of concept for the next generation of tactical reconnaissance systems: the Shared Airborne Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP). TARPS(CD) is employing off the shelf technology similar to the more capable technology being developed for the SHARP system. The Committee fully supports this approach and the rapid prototyping process that the Navy, particularly the Naval Research Lab, is promoting with SHARP. The Committee also supports the Navy's decision to deploy TARPS(CD) on board the USS John F. Kennedy to support peacekeeping operations in the Balkans region. The opportunity now presents itself for additional limited operational experience with TARPS(CD) and through that experience, to assist with the design and risk mitigation for SHARP. The operational lessons learned from a limited, interim deployment of TARPS(CD) therefore would have a two-fold effect: preparing operational forces to more quickly integrate the capability increases of SHARP into their tactics and also allowing that experience to assist the final design of the SHARP system to ensure it meets fleet operational requirements. Therefore, the Committee adds $25,000,000 only to procure and test additional TARPS(CD) systems. These additional systems will provide for continued development in support of the rapid prototyping process for SHARP, as well as spares for the system deployed with the USS John F. Kennedy. RESCISSIONS The Committee recommends rescissions of $62,500,000 from several fiscal year 1999 Aircraft Procurement, Navy programs. These include: $41,500,000 in Common Ground Equipment due to the cancellation of the jet start unit project; $11,000,000 in AV 8B due to cancellation of the aircraft life extension program; and $10,000,000 due to contract savings resulting from E 2C multiyear procurement. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000. Offset Folio 155 Insert Here WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,211,419,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,357,400,000 Committee recommendation 1,334,800,000 Change from budget request -22,600,000 This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of strategic and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes, guns, associated support equipment, and modification on in-service missiles, torpedoes, and guns. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Committee recommended Change from request Standard missile 198,867 155,267 -43,600 Aerial Targets 21,177 51,177 +30,000 Penguin missiles 0 10,000 10,000 Tomahawk 50,894 50,894 0 Note: Funds provided only to convert Anti-Ship Tomahawks to the block III C variant. JSOW The Navy requested $154,913,000 for JSOW. The Committee recommends $135,913,000, a net decrease of $19,000,000. This amount includes a decrease of $39,300,000 for the anti-armor JSOW variant and an increase of $20,300,000 for the baseline JSOW variant. As discussed in the Air Force section of this report, the Committee recommends deferring production of the anti-armor variant of the JSOW pending resolution of technical problems with the improved BLU 108 submunition and pending resolution of targeting problems. In order to minimize disruption to the JSOW production flow, the Committee recommends converting the proposed BLU 108 weapons to baseline weapons resulting in a savings of $19,000,000. The Committee expects the Navy to include separate budget exhibits for each variant of JSOW in future budget submissions. RESCISSIONS The Committee recommends a rescission of $8,000,000 from fiscal year 1999 Weapons Procurement, Navy due to delay in procurement of the Improved Tactical Air Launched Decoy resulting from deficiencies revealed in recent operational testing. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000. Offset Folio 157 Insert Here PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $484,203,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 484,900,000 Committee recommendation 537,600,000 Change from budget request +52,700,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, ammunition modernization, and ammunition related material for the Navy and Marine Corps. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request Air Expendable Countermeasure 34,259 39,259 +5,000 5.56MM, All Types 12,958 21,958 +9,000 7.62MM, All Types 7 5,007 +5,000 40MM, All Types 11,247 12,547 +1,300 60MM, All Types 12,433 16,433 +4,000 25MM, All Types 3,194 11,394 +8,200 Demolition Munitions, All Types 14,733 21,933 +7,200 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request 50 Caliber 16,364 18,364 +2,000 Grenades, All Types 2,270 4,270 +2,000 Rockets, All Types 11,030 20,030 +9,000 PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset folios 065 to insert here SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $6,035,752,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 6,678,454,000 Committee recommendation 6,656,554,000 Change from budget request -21,900,000 This appropriation provides funds for the construction of new ships and the purchase and conversion of existing ships, including hull, mechanical, and electrical equipment, electronics, guns, torpedo and missile launching systems, and communication systems COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Project Level Changes [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Committee recommended Change from Request CVN Refueling Overhauls (AP-CY) 345,565 323,665 -21,900 POST DELIVERY TEST AND TRIALS The Committee directs that in future budgets, the costs associated with post delivery test and trials conducted during the post delivery period for all fiscal year 1997 and subsequent ships be included in the subdivision of funds appropriated in the fiscal year in which the test and trials occur. RESCISSIONS The Committee recommends rescissions of $46,400,000 from several fiscal year 1999 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy programs. These include: $32,400,000 in the Virginia class submarine due to reduction in shipyard labor and overhead rates resulting from the multi-mission modification to SSN 23; $11,400,000 due to contract savings in the CVN 69 CVN refueling advance planning contract; and $2,600,000 due to contract savings in nuclear propulsion components for the Virginia class submarine. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000. Offset folios 161 to insert here OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $4,072,662,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 4,100,091,000 Committee recommendation 4,252,191,000 Change from budget request +152,100,000 This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of major equipment and weapons other than ships, aircraft, missiles, and torpedoes. Such equipment ranges from the latest electronic sensors for updating naval forces to trucks, training equipment, and spare parts. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request Undersea Warfare Support Equipment 2,605 11,205 +8,600 SATCOM ship Terminals (Space) 237,722 247,722 +10,000 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Committee recommended Change from request Other Navigation Equipment 67,516 87,516 +20,000 Note: CADRT funds are only to begin low rate initial production. Pollution Control Equipment 113,506 116,506 +3,000 Strategic Platform Support Equipment 6,070 21,070 +15,000 Note: For procurement of submarine workstations, to include but not be limited to the navigation system workstation, OJ 172, and the data exchange auxilliary console, on SSN 688 and Trident class submarines. Minesweeping Equipment 16,302 20,802 +4,500 Dyad mine countermeasures system 0 +4,500 Items Less Than $5.0M 126,133 154,533 +28,400 Radar Support 0 22,300 +22,300 Surface Sonar Support Equipment 0 5,000 +5,000 Undersea Warfare Support Equipment 2,605 11,205 +8,600 Note: Only for procurement of surface ship enhanced capability torpedo defense systems for large deck ships and LEAD countermeasure units for all ships to include upgraded torpedo countermeasure winch and tow capability for littoral operations. Sonar Support Equipment 0 3,000 +3,000 C 3 Countermeasures 0 10,000 +10,000 Shipboard IW Exploit 48,031 21,531 -26,500 Common High Bandwidth Data Link 40,083 31,283 -8,800 Navy Tactical Data System 0 25,000 +25,000 Note: To install Wintel-based shipboard display emulator computers workstations, and displays in LHA 1, LHA 3, and LHA 5 ships. 0 +5,000 Other Training Equipment 44,229 54,229 +10,000 TADIX B 6,248 23,548 +17,300 Naval Space Surveillance System 6,634 7,834 +1,200 GCCS M Equipment Tatical/Mobile 7,077 17,077 +10,000 RADIAC 7,778 4,278 -3,500 Items Less Than $5.0M 5,206 10,206 +5,000 Submarine Communication Equipment 85,368 53,268 -32,100 SATCOM Ship Terminals (Space) 237,722 247,722 +10,000 Note: Includes procurement/installation of mini-DAMA UHF SATCOM terminals on MCM and MHC ships, and mini-DAMA medium data rate upgrades for DDGs, SSN 688s, MHCs, MCMs, and submarine shore sites. JEDMICS 0 17,000 +17,000 Note: Only for the continued procurement and integration of the same security solution implemented in 1999. 0 +5,000 Naval Shore Communications 114,339 92,439 -21,900 Passive Sonobuoys (non-Beam forming) 15,933 23,933 +8,000 AN/SSQ 57 (Special purpose) 0 1,000 +1,000 AN/SSQ 62 (DICASS) 17,111 17,711 +600 AN/SSQ 101 (ADAR) 12,773 18,773 +6,000 Aviation Life Support 17,053 23,053 +6,000 Aegis Support Equipment 86,668 93,668 +7,000 Command Support Equipment 14,471 16,471 +2,000 Pollution Control Equipment The Committee directs the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Navy's pollution control equipment program for upgrading equipment on Navy ships. RESCISSIONS The Committee recommends rescissions of $22,700,000 from several Other Procurement, Navy programs. This includes $6,384,000 in fiscal year 1998 and $8,953,000 in fiscal year 1999 due to the recent program slip in the Combat Survivor Evader Radio; $5,500,000 in fiscal year 1999 for FFG upgrades; and $1,900,000 in fiscal year 1999 due to a reduction in quantity in the MK XII IFF digital interrogator systems. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000. Offset folios 165 to 169 insert here PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $874,216,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,137,220,000 Committee recommendation 1,333,120,000 Change from budget request +195,900,000 This appropriation provides the Marine Corps with funds for procurement, delivery and modification of missiles, armament, communication equipment, tracked and wheeled vehicles, and various support equipment. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request Night Vision Equipment 9,032 17,532 +8,500 Material Handling Equipment 50,010 66,510 +16,500 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousand of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request Modification Kits (TRKD Veh) 22,853 83,353 +60,500 Comm Switching and Control Systems 65,125 98,025 +32,900 (Note: Further details are provided in the Information Technology section of this report) Comm and Elec Infrastructure Support 81,770 139,070 +57,300 (Note: Further details are provided in the Information Technology section of this report). Mod Kits MAGTF C41 13,821 18,821 +5,000 Fire Support System 0 6,000 +6,000 Command Support Equipment 0 2,000 +2,000 Field Medical Equipment 2,445 7,645 +5,200 Modification Kits 0 2,000 +2,000 PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset folios 171 to 173 insert here AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $8,095,507,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 9,302,086,000 Committee recommendation 8,298,313,000 Change from budget request -1,003,773,000 This appropriation provides for the procurement of aircraft, and for modification of in-service aircraft to improve safety and enhance operational effectiveness. It also provides for initial spares and other support equipment to include aerospace ground equipment and industrial facilities. In addition, funds are provided for the procurement of flight training simulators to increase combat readiness and to provide for more economical training. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action. [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request 16 Post Production Support 30,010 50,010 +20,000 C 17 Modifications 95,543 93,543 -2,100 Project Level Changes [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request C 17 (MYP) 3,080,147 2,671,047 -409,100 C 17 (MYP) (AP CY) 304,900 301,700 -3,200 JPATS 88,232 106,332 +18,100 V 22 OSPREY 29,203 16,736 -12,467 Operational Support Aircraft 0 63,000 +63,000 TARGET DRONES 36,152 31,652 -4,500 B 1B 130,389 147,039 +16,650 Predator UAV 38,003 58,003 +20,000 A 10 24,360 29,360 +5,000 16 249,536 295,536 +46,000 KC 10A (ATCA) 53,366 29,757 -23,609 C 130 207,646 165,546 -42,100 Transfer to RDTEAF for Avionics Modernization -38,600 DARP 138,436 302,936 +164,500 3 124,061 94,561 -29,500 4 19,985 9,985 -10,000 PASSENGER SAFETY MODIFICATIONS 0 75,000 +75,000 COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 171,369 185,897 +14,528 B 2A 106,882 75,482 -31,400 WAR CONSUMABLES 29,282 54,282 +25,000 f 22 The Committee recommendation with respect to F 22 is discussed elsewhere in this report. f 15 The Committee recommendation includes $440,000,000 to procure 8 F 15E aircraft. The budget proposed no funding for new F 15 production. The F 15E is a multi-role fighter with both robust air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, and was a key player in Operation Allied Force because of its ability to carry a wide range of precision guided munitions. The F 15E is the only Air Force all-weather deep interdiction aircraft capable of employing the entire range of available or programmed precision guided munitions including laser guided bombs, AGM 130, JDAM, JSOW, JASSM, and WCMD. The procurement of these aircraft will not only significantly enhance warfighting capability, but also, in view of the Committee's recommendation regarding a production ``pause'' on the F 22, it will preserve fighter modernization options pending delivery of the Joint Strike Fighter. f 16 The Air Force requested $252,610,000 for 10 F 16 aircraft. The Committee recommends $350,610,000, a net increase of $98,000,000, for a total of 15 F 16s. (This amount includes a $17,000,000 reduction for excess engineering change orders and nonrecurring engineering funding. The Committee notes that given the maturity of the F 16 program, there should be few changes demanding such funding.) The Air Force budget this year included 10 F 16s in fiscal year 2000 and a total of 30 F 16s over the next 4 years, none of which were programmed prior to submission of the fiscal years 2000 2005 defense program. The Air Force has made this adjustment in light of the need to bolster the Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) mission area, as well to address various inventory and unit shortfalls and modernization needs by cascading active F 16s to the Air National Guard and Reserves. The Committee agrees with the Air Force plan and notes that that Operation Allied Force has further highlighted the urgent need for additional SEAD assets, and the limitations of those early model F 16s which remain fielded largely in Guard and Reserve units. Accordingly, the Committee believes the Air Force F 16 procurement plan could be accelerated through purchase of additional aircraft in fiscal year 2000 and has included an additional $115,000,000 over the budget request to procure an additional 5 F 16 Block 50 aircraft. The Committee has also provided an additional $24,000,000 in F 16 advance procurement to allow follow-on buys to be accelerated into fiscal year 2001. c 130j The Air force requested $30,618,000 for the C 130J program. The Committee recommends $17,718,000, a reduction of $17,718,000 representing a transfer of Interim Contractor Support to the Operations and Maintenance account as discussed elsewhere in this report. The Committee is concerned with the current Air Force C 130J acquisition plan. The Air Mobility Command (AMC) has clearly indicated its requirement for 150 new production C 130J aircraft beyond those already purchased. In fact, the Committee notes AMC has just issued preliminary basing plans for the aircraft. Yet the Air Force budget does not include funding for these aircraft until fiscal year 2002, and under the preliminary AMC fielding plan these assets will not begin arriving at active duty units until 2006. Moreover, an Air Force failure to budget for any C 130Js for two years could cause significant disruption to the existing production program. As stated throughout this report, this is yet another example of a well documented CINC operational requirement which is being deferred or not funded (a need which in this case is further buttressed by production line concerns). As discussed earlier in this report, to ameliorate this disruption and to satisfy an even more urgent Marine Corps requirement, the Committee has recommended eight KC 130J aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps. Given its own tactical airlift needs, the Committee directs the Air Force to accelerate the start of its buy of C 130J aircraft into next year's budget (fiscal year 2001) which, along with continued Marine Corps purchases, would minimize the inefficiencies in the current production profile. e 8c The Air Force requested $280,265,000 for one E 8C Joint STARS aircraft. The Committee recommends $468,465,000 for two Joint STARS aircraft (a net increase over the budget of $188,200,000). This amount includes a decrease of $13,000,000 budgeted for shutdown, a decrease of $23,000,000 based on refurbishment cost savings of the newly acquired German Boeing 707, and a $25,800,000 decrease associated with transfer of Interim Contractor Support funding to the Air Force Operations and Maintenance account. The Committee recommendation also includes a $250,000,000 increase to procure the fifteenth Joint STARS aircraft. The Committee notes the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) approved requirement for Joint STARS is 19 aircraft. Though all 19 aircraft were budgeted several years ago, the quantity was reduced largely in anticipation of sales to NATO. NATO has decided not to buy Joint STARS, leaving a shortfall of five aircraft. Operation Allied Force has only highlighted the importance of Joint STARS, whose performance has been lauded by the operational community. However, it has also reinforced the importance of, and need to adequately budget for, a sufficient quantity of these and other ``low-density, high demand'' assets. The Joint STARS operational base of aircraft and crews is among the most stressed in the U.S. military's force structure, and there are clearly not enough Joint STARS programmed to support the current strategy of being able to conduct two near-simultaneous major theater wars. Given these concerns, the Committee believes it is prudent to procure an additional aircraft in fiscal year 2000. The Committee further strongly encourages the Air Force to fund the remaining four aircraft in its fiscal year 2001 2006 budget plan. C 135 Modifications The Air Force requested $347,088,000 for C 135 Modifications. The Committee recommends $552,988,000, a net increase of $205,900,000. This amount includes a $2,100,000 decrease for Pacer Crag in accordance with House authorization action, and a $208,000,000 increase to procure eight additional KC 135E to R reengining conversions for the Air National Guard. Having a robust and capable aerial refueling capability is yet another critical link in the overall ability of the American military to conduct global operations and meet its worldwide security commitments. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent years, be it through humanitarian relief deployments or military operations abroad. Like the need for intelligence support, or adequate air- and sealift, the aerial refueling mission area is critical national military asset. Operation Allied Force stressed that capability, both in terms of the sheer number of aerial refueling platforms and aircrews needed to support that air campaign, and the adjustments, workarounds and disruptions to other U.S. global military activities that resulted from the diversion of assets to EUCOM's area of operation. At present, the bulk of the nation's aerial refueling capability resides in the KC 135 tanker fleet, which was largely acquired during the 1950's and 1960's. Despite its age, this fleet has been slowly modernized over the last fifteen years, largely as a result of funds added by the Congress for the KC 135E to R engine conversion program. Each aircraft so upgraded has a 25 percent increase in fuel offload capability, a 35 percent reduction in time-to-climb, and a 23 percent decrease in take-off distance, and also meets all Stage III noise and emission standards. Combined, these improvements greatly enhance operational utility and flexibility, as well as access to a wider number and variety of airfields. This re-engining program is a high priority for the Air Mobility Command, and the Committee notes that there are still over 130 Air National Guard tankers requiring this upgrade, many of which are over 40 years old. Yet the current Air Force outyear budget plan defers additional conversions until fiscal year 2002. Given the operational need and considerable utility of a more modern, robust and available aerial refueling capability, the Committee recommends $208,000,000 over the budget request for an additional eight KC 135E to R conversions. 15 Modifications The Air Force requested $263,490,000 for F 15 modifications. The Committee recommends $321,818,000, a net increase of $58,328,000. This amount includes a decrease of $22,000,000 for excess funds budgeted for APG 63 radar nonrecurring costs, a decrease of $8,672,000 for excess funds in various modification programs as identified by GAO, an increase of $21,000,000 for F 15C fighter datalinks for active combat coded aircraft, an increase of $18,000,000 for fighter datalinks for the Air National Guard, an increase of $25,000,000 for E-kit engine upgrades for Air National Guard aircraft, and an increase of $25,000,000 for E-kit engine upgrades for active component Air Force aircraft. At relatively modest cost and in relatively short time, such upgrades can provide considerably improved operational capabilities to the Air Force's fighter inventory. For example, the fighter datalinks are estimated to provide the F 15 with a 5-to-1 increase in kill ratio, and are part of a capability which Air Force testimony to the Committee this year described as ``the most significant increase in fighter avionics since the introduction of the on-board radar.'' The funds added by the Committee over the budget request will outfit all remaining active and guard combat coded F 15 air superiority aircraft with this vital capability. The E-kit engine upgrades recommended by the Committee likewise provide significant benefits including 86 percent increased availability, 46 percent reduction in engine flight hour costs, increased throttle response and overall thrust, and an estimated improvement in aircraft safety rates. T 38 Modifications The Air Force requested $94,487,000 for T 38 modifications. The Committee recommends $43,987,000, a decrease of $50,500,000. The Air Force request includes funding for the T 38 Avionics Update Program. When structuring this program, the Air Force wisely adopted a ``fly before buy'' acquisition strategy with operational testing scheduled to complete prior to procurement. However, initial flight tests revealed both hardware and software deficiencies which will delay completion of operational testing approximately one year. The Committee believes it is important to preserve the ``fly before buy'' acquisition strategy, especially in light of the development problems recently experienced. Therefore, the Committee recommends deferring the production program one year to accommodate the delayed testing by rescinding fiscal year 1999 production funds and reducing fiscal year 2000 funds by $50,000,000. In addition, the Committee recommends a reduction to the T 38 propulsion upgrade by $500,000. The Committee fully supports this program, but believes production funding in fiscal year 2000 is premature. Offset folios 180 to 182 insert here MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $2,069,827,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 2,359,608,000 Committee recommendation 2,329,510,000 Change from budget request -30,098,000 This appropriation provides for procurement, installation, and checkout of strategic ballistic and other missiles, modification of in-service missiles, and initial spares for missile systems. It also provides for operational space systems, boosters, payloads, drones, associated ground equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial facilities, machine tool modernization, and special program support. MINUTEMAN III GUIDANCE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM For the past several years, the Air Force has reduced the budget for the Minuteman III Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) as a billpayer for other Service priorities. The Committee is concerned about how these actions are impacting the projected reliability of the Minuteman III weapon system. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide a report separately detailing the inventory and the weapon system reliability (required and projected) of each Minuteman III variant (unmodified missiles, missiles modified with GRP only, and missiles modified with GRP and Propulsion Replacement Program) by year for fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2010. The Committee further directs that this report be provided to the congressional defense committees no later than September 1, 1999. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action. [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request AGM 65 Maverick 2,800 12,800 +10,000 Spaceborne equipment 9,594 4,594 -5,000 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from requests AMRAAM 97,279 190,279 +93,000 MM III Modifications 242,960 277,960 +35,000 Global Positioning (Space) 139,049 103,349 -35,700 Global Positioning (Space) (AP CY) 31,798 0 -31,798 NUDET Detection System 11,375 1,575 -9,800 DEF Meteorological SAT Prog (Space) 38,223 34,223 -4,000 Defense Support Programs (Space) 111,609 106,609 -5,000 Evolved Expendable Launch Veh (Space) 70,812 66,812 -4,000 MILSTAR 0 150,000 +150,000 JSOW The Air Force request includes $79,981,000 for procurement of JSOW precision guided munitions. The Committee recommends $60,981,000, a net decrease of $19,000,000 which includes a decrease of $39,300,000 for BLU 108 JSOW and an increase of $20,300,000 for baseline JSOW. The BLU 108 is designed to attack armored vehicles, however, Air Force testimony provided to the Committee states that the technology which would allow aircraft to target these vehicles is years away. Air Force testimony further states that the technology required to transfer targeting data from a third party such as JSTARS is also years away. Without realtime targeting, the Air Force and Navy must rely on prior intelligence to develop pre-planned JSOW missions. However, predicting the precise location of vehicles 24 to 48 hours in advance (in order to incorporate the missions into the theater's Air Tasking Order) is extremely difficult. The Committee further notes that recently identified delays in the improved BLU 108 submunition have further degraded the performance of the JSOW anti-armor variant. Because of the development delays in the improved BLU 108, the Air Force and Navy propose to procure the JSOW anti-armor variant using the older, less capable BLU 108 submunition. The Committee believes it is more prudent to defer procurement of the anti-armor variant until the Air Force and Navy can resolve the targeting issues and complete development on the improved BLU 108 submunition. In order to minimize disruption to the JSOW production flow, the Committee recommends converting the proposed BLU 108 weapons to baseline weapons resulting in a savings of $19,000,000. TITAN The Air Force budget for Titan assumes approval of a Special Termination Cost Clause which waives the requirement to budget for termination liability. The Committee notes that the Air Force has not yet submitted an STCC notification letter to the Congress. Nevertheless, the Committee sees no reason to make an exception to the longstanding requirement to budget for termination liability for this program. The Committee directs the Air Force to fully fund the Titan contract including all termination liability. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: OFFSET FOLIOS 186 INSERT HERE PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $379,425,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 419,537,000 Committee recommendation 481,837,000 Change from budget request +62,300,000 This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related items for the Air Force. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request Practice Bombs 24,325 24,325 (6000) Sensor Fuzed Weapon 61,334 73,634 +12,300 Joint Direct Attack Munition 125,605 175,605 +50,000 PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: OFFSET FOLIOS 188 INSERT HERE OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $6,960,483,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 7,085,177,000 Committee recommendation 6,964,227,000 Change from budget request -120,950,000 This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapon systems and equipment other than aircraft and missiles. Included are vehicles, electronic and telecommunications systems for command and control of operation forces, and ground support equipment for weapon systems and supporting structure. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action. [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request Mechanized Material Handling Equip 15,320 25,320 +10,000 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommendation Change from request 60K A/C Loader 81,163 69,863 -11,300 Intelligence Comm Equip 5,495 28,395 +22,900 Air Traffic Ctrl/Land Sys (Atcals) 887 5,887 +5,000 National Airspace System 54,394 45,394 -9,000 Theater Air Control Sys Improvement 37,917 23,417 -14,500 Automatic Data Processing Equip 71,173 84,173 +13,000 Theater Battle MGT C2 Sys 47,648 44,548 -3,100 Base Information Infrastructure 122,839 197,839 +75,000 Defense Message System (DMS) 14,025 4,125 -9,900 NAVSTAR GPS Space 14,614 13,314 -1,300 AF Satellite Control Network Space 33,591 17,591 -16,000 Eastern/Western Range I&M Space 83,410 107,910 +24,500 MILSATCOM Space 46,257 37,757 -8,500 Radio Equipment 16,685 20,435 +3,750 Comm Elect Mods 56,195 53,995 -2,200 Base/ALC Calibration Package 10,157 7,557 -2,600 Night Vision Goggles 2,800 4,800 +2,000 Items Less Than $5.0M 3,559 6,559 +3,000 Base Procured Equipment 14,035 25,035 +11,000 Items Less than $5.0M 22,500 21,500 -1,000 Intelligence Production Activity 40,047 16,247 -23,800 Tech Surv Countermeasures EQ 2,976 3,976 +1,000 PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: OFFSET FOLIOS 191 TO 193 INSERT HERE PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $1,944,833,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 2,128,967,000 Committee recommendation 2,286,368,000 Change from budget request +157,401,000 This appropriation funds the Procurement, Defense-Wide activities of the Department of Defense. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request Major Equipment, OSD 88,976 166,976 +78,000 Major Equipment, DLA Defense Support Activities 47,455 56,455 +9,000 Automatic Document Conversion System 0 12,500 +12,500 Special Operations Command SOF Rotary Wing Upgrades 41,233 83,233 +42,000 Advanced Seal Delivery Sys 21,213 7,400 -13,813 SOF Intelligence Systems 19,154 21,154 +2,000 SOF Small Arms and Weapons 23,355 30,355 +7,000 Chemical/Biological Defense: 124,612 125,612 +1,000 M42 protective mask reclamation +1,000 Human Resources Enterprise Strategy 0 7,500 7,500 ELECTRONIC COMMERCE RESOURCE CENTERS The Committee has long supported the Electronic Commerce Resource Center (ECRC) program as a means to streamline acquisition procedures and reduce acquisition costs, and has provided a total of $39,491,000 to continue this program for FY 2000. The ECRC program continues to provide valuable service to small- and medium-sized businesses to move to paperless electronic contracting when conducting business affairs with the Department of Defense. The Committee believes it is important to ensure that small- and medium-sized businesses are not placed at further competitive disadvantages as the Department rapidly moves to more sophisticated methods of electronic commerce as part of its acquisition reform strategy. The Committee is disappointed that the Department has requested significantly less funding for this program in FY 2000 than was requested in FY 1999 with no apparent justification for this decrease provided in the budget submission. In addition, the Committee is disturbed to learn that ECRC program funds appropriated for FY 1999 have not been released and in fact have been used for other purposes or for activities of lower value, including reimbursement of administrative support contractors. The Committee has recommended bill language to ensure that ECRC funds are used as intended by the Congress. The Committee is also aware that the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition) finally has chartered a panel to review this program pursuant to the direction of this Committee two years ago. The Committee intends that this review be a constructive effort to retool and expand the ECRC program to become a more integral part of the Department's broader paperless contracting strategy. This should include a strategy to spin off those centers that become self-sustaining, consolidate overlapping centers, create new centers, and develop program performance measures. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS Information on the Automated Document Conversion and Human Resources Enterprise Strategy programs can be found in the Information Technology section of this report. CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS Additional recommendations by the Committee are described in the classified annex accompanying this report. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 196 to 197 Insert here NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $352,000,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 0 Committee recommendation 130,000,000 Change from budget request +130,000,000 This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of tactical aircraft and other equipment for the National Guard and Reserve. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS In all accounts throughout the bill, the Committee recommends a total of $2,485,300,000 for procurement of National Guard and Reserve equipment, a net increase of $796,400,000 above the budget request. The Committee believes that the Chiefs of the Reserve and National Guard components should exercise control of modernization funds provided in Procurement, National Guard and Reserve Equipment account, and directs that they provide a separate submission of a detailed assessment of their modernization requirements and priorities to the congressional defense committees. The Committee expects the component commanders to give priority consideration for funding in this appropriation of the following items: CH 47 helicopters, AN/PEQ 2A TPIALs and AN/PAQ 4C infrared aiming lights, master crane aircraft component hoisting systems, aluminum mesh gas tank liners for C 130 aircraft and Army ground vehicles, A/B FIST 21 training systems, CH 60S combat search and rescue kits, super scooper aircraft, modular airborne fire fighting systems, F 16 ALR 56M radar warning receivers, deployable rapid assembly shelters, C 40A aircraft, C 22 replacement aircraft, secure communications and data systems, CH 60 helicopters, M270A1 long-range surveillance launchers, M106A Paladin self-propelled howitzer/M1992A2 FAASV ammunition carrier, AN/AVR 2A(V) laser detecting sets, ALQ 184(V)9 electronic countermeasure pods, extended cold weather clothing systems, HEMTT trucks, multi-role bridge companies, medium tactical wreckers, rough terrain container cranes, CH 47 cargo compartment expanded range fuel systems, C 38A aircraft, C 17 communications suite upgrades, mobile radar approach control, internal crashworthy fuel cells, DFIRST, F/A 18 series mods, UH 60 Q kits, MLRS launchers, meterological measuring systems, improved target simulators, and C 17 maintenance training systems. Fire-Fighting The Committee is aware that National Guard Units in California and Florida are providing valuable assistance to federal, state, and local firefighters whose states have been ravaged by an unusually large number of wildfires. The Committee is also aware that the current inventory of aircraft available to assist in these efforts is inadequate and that there are a number of platforms and systems available for lease or purchase which could improve the National Guard's fire-fighting capabilities dramatically. The Committee has included a general provision (Section 8112) providing $20,000,000 to the Army National Guard to begin to improve fire-fighting capabilities and directs the National Guard Bureau to provide a report to the Committee examining the various options available for this mission prior to the expenditure of any of these funds. Support to non-profit Agencies The Committee is aware that National Guard units throughout the United States provide assistance to non-profit organizations including the transportation and lending of equipment as goodwill in their community relations programs. One such example is the cooperative relationship between the Alabama Sports Festival and the Alabama Army National Guard. The Committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is interfering with these relationships by impeding the ability of National Guard units to assist local non-profit organizations and directs the Secretary of Defense to review current policy to determine if it has become overly restrictive. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 200 to Insert here DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES Fiscal year 1999 appropriation 0 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 0 Committee recommendation $5,000,000 Change from request +5,000,000 The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only for microwave power tubes. The Annual Industrial Capabilities Report to Congress, submitted by the Secretary of Defense in February 1999, stated that the most pressing concern for the microwave power tube industry was the difficulty in obtaining reliable suppliers of various critical materials and components. Microwave power tubes generate and amplify microwave energy for applications in radar, electronic warfare, and telecommunications systems. DOD currently uses over 270 different types of operating systems employing over 180,000 microwave tubes. Microwave power tubes will be used in these and similar applications for at least the next two to three decades since there are no foreseeable replacement technologies. The additional funding will provide DOD assured access to affordable microwave tubes by incentivizing the insertion of consistent, quality-driven improvements in the tube industry's supplier chain. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY The Department requested $16,216,119,000 for Information Technology. The Committee recommends $16,517,219,000, an increase of $301,100,000 as explained below: [In thousands of dollars] Operation and Maintenance, Army: 500 -16,552 6,500 Operation and Maintenance, Navy: 4,000 Operation and Maintenance, Air Force: 3,500 Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide: -41,200 8,000 -2,000 12,500 7,500 Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard: 2,500 15,000 Other Procurement, Army: 16,552 5,000 -18,100 15,000 15,000 8,000 Other Procurement, Navy: 12,000 5,000 Procurement, Marine Corps: 32,900 57,300 Other Procurement, Air Force: 10,000 45,000 10,000 Procurement, Defense-Wide: 12,500 7,500 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: 2,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy: 10,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: 9,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide: 5,000 41,200 Year 2000 (Y2K) Computer Problem In the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999, the Congress directed the Department to undertake an extensive program of system tests, functional end-to-end tests and warfighting operational evaluations to ensure the Department's readiness to deal with the Year 2000 computer problem. In the subsequent Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, the Congress provided $1,100,000,000 in emergency appropriations to support the testing and remediation efforts. Although it was initially difficult to get the Department to focus on the Year 2000 computer problem, the Committee is pleased with the progress the Department has made since last Fall. The direct intervention of the Deputy Secretary of Defense proved critical to focusing the attention of the services, regional commanders and functional managers on this important issue and ensuring the sustained level of effort needed to address this problem. The numerous audit reports prepared by the Department of Defense Inspector General were very effective in focusing the attention of individual commanders on this problem and in keeping the reporting system honest. In addition, the Committee appreciates the Department's openness and, in particular, its willingness to include representatives from several congressional committees in its oversight process. This summer, the Department is entering the most critical phase of the process, conducting tests to evaluate multiple computer systems working together as part of ``end-to-end'' testing for different functional capabilities. With little time remaining for the Department to conduct hundreds of related end-to-end test events it is critical that these events and their evaluations be well planned and well managed. The Committee agrees with the recommendations of the recent General Accounting Office report and encourages the Department to establish a strong quality assurance program for its testing efforts. Year 2000 (Y2K) Lessons Learned There have been many positive outcomes to dealing with the Y2K computer problem. The Department has developed a series of databases, tests, and exercises that are readily applicable to information assurance. The Department, for instance, has created a database listing its information technology systems, examined the interfaces between systems, outlined a ``thin line'' series of systems that have to work to complete particular warfighting missions, and has conducted operational evaluations of how regional commanders would continue to fight even if certain key systems failed. One of the unfortunate lessons of the Y2K process, however, was the inability of the Department's Chief Information Officer (CIO) to get the services and agencies to concentrate on this problem earlier. With the exception of a few activities (the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico deserves particular mention for its early and aggressive Y2K remediation effort), the Department did not become fully engaged until the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense made it a continued priority. The Committee is concerned that similar problems will occur in addressing the Department's information assurance problem. The Committee believes that the problems the Department encountered and the steps it has taken to deal with the Y2K problem are directly related to addressing the problem of information assurance. For example, maintaining the database of information technology systems, with key information about the system interfaces, is a prerequisite to any information assurance effort. To this end, the Committee has included a general provision (Section 8125) requiring all information technology systems to register with the CIO by March 31, 2000 and to provide additional information as the Secretary of Defense may require. The Committee directs the Department to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 15, 2000 on the lessons learned from Y2K with particular emphasis on what additional programs should be continued and what lessons can be applied to information assurance. INADEQUATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT The Committee is disappointed with the Department's current level of oversight of its information technology systems. In the words of the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG), information technology projects ``have tended to overrun budgets, slip schedules, evade data standardization and interoperability requirements, and shortchange user needs''. The DoD IG rates this as one of the Department's top ten most serious management problems. Likewise, the General Accounting Office has consistently designated the Department's information technology project management as a high risk area. Despite these concerns, the senior group responsible for reviewing and approving information technology investments (called the IT OIPT) has not even met in over a year. Those systems that are reviewed are often approved despite lacking key documentation. For example, at least seven programs totaling $780,000,000 are moving forward despite lacking an Acquisition Program Baseline, a critical tool for program management. Others have gone forward without being able to demonstrate the costs and benefits of the investment. In hearings, when the Committee has requested lists of systems terminated or significantly restructured as part of the Department's oversight process, the answers have consistently indicated that this rarely if ever happens. In fact, an investigation of the systems terminated by the Office of the Secretary of Defense reveals that the majority of them were canceled because their sponsoring organization was abolished, not because of any problems with the system. DEFENSE JOINT ACCOUNTING SYSTEM A recent example of these problems is the Defense Joint Accounting System (DJAS), currently under development. Despite the importance of developing joint systems, the Department has allowed the Air Force and the Navy to opt out of this program and to develop and modernize their own distinct systems. Thus, this `joint' system will be fielded only to the Army and a few defense-wide activities. After its initial Milestone O approval, the timeline for completing the DJAS software development effort expanded from 16 months to six or more years, the benefits declined from $322,000,000 to $204,000,000 and are now characterized as ``productivity savings'', whereas before they were real cost savings. In November, the DoD IG issued a draft report warning that DJAS had not completed the steps required under the program management process to be prepared for a Milestone I review. In March, the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation issued similar warnings about the dramatic change in the programs scope, cost and duration. Despite these serious concerns, the Department not only issued Milestone I approval, but also Milestone II approval at the same time, all without having a meeting of the IT OIPT to review the system. The Committee rejects this approval as inconsistent with the intent of the Information Technology oversight process and the Clinger-Cohen Act. Further, the Committee directs that the DoD IG update and complete their audit of DJAS with particular emphasis on determining if DJAS meets the standards for Milestone I or Milestone II approval and the requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act. In addition, following the Inspector General's report, the Committee directs the Department to conduct a proper Milestone I review of this system and to provide a report to the congressional defense committees consistent with the requirements of general provision Section 8125 of this bill. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT--COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The basic policies and procedures necessary for sound oversight and program management are clearly outlined in the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. The Committee believes that a strong Chief Information Officer, with visibility over the programs and a commitment to implementing the Clinger-Cohen Act, is the best approach to correcting the Department's problem. The Committee therefore supports the Department's request for a $14,710,000 increase in the ASD(C3I)/CIO operation and maintenance budget specifically for improving information technology oversight and for compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act and directs that no reductions be taken against this account. Furthermore, the Committee has included a new general provision (Section 8125) that prohibits any information technology system from receiving Milestone I, Milestone II, or Milestone III approval until the Chief Information Officer certifies in writing to the congressional defense committees that the system is in compliance with the provisions of the Clinger-Cohen Act. The Committee provides this funding and this additional authority in the expectation that they will be used to instill discipline into the process. The Committee is prepared to make an activity's or a program's compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act a condition of future funding. In addition, the Committee directs the Department to take the following steps and except where otherwise noted, to provide a report on its progress to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2000. 1. Ensure that program managers for all major information technology investments are adequately trained and provide to the congressional defense committees a status report on the number of program managers who meet the training requirements and the plans to train those who do not meet the requirements. 2. Establish separate program elements for each major information technology system. 3. Review how information technology infrastructure is acquired and consolidate infrastructure resources into infrastructure specific accounts, if appropriate. 4. Establish procedures to ensure infrastructure efforts, such as the Metropolitan Area Networks, are consistent with Department policy and architecture. 5. Establish clear guidance for how economic analyses should be done and ensure that they are implemented uniformly. 6. Periodically, conduct post-implementation reviews to determine if programs are achieving the anticipated benefits. 7. Resolve the discrepancies between how the Acquisition Program Baselines, the Economic Analysis, and the IT 42s report costs and benefits to ensure consistency in reporting and analysis. 8. Include in the 300b reports the original baseline costs and benefits, any revised baseline costs and benefit projections as well as the actual costs and benefits achieved. 9. Examine the Milestone review process for information technology to determine if changes are needed to reflect the front loaded costs of software development. 10. Complete a coordinated, final 1999 DOD Information Technology strategic plan and the incorporated CIO Action Plan and provide to the congressional defense committees no late than September 1, 1999. In addition, the Department should provide a detailed report on the progress made thus far toward achieving the established priorities as outlined in the Action Plan. Financial Management Regulations In last year's report this Committee highlighted its concern that the Department's use of operation and maintenance funds to develop and modernize its information technology systems was inconsistent with the Financial Management Regulations and directed the Department to correct this in its fiscal year 2000 budget submission. The Department failed to do so. The Committee is concerned the continuation of this practice undermines the most basic distinction between appropriations and puts the Department in jeopardy of committing anti-deficiency violations. Consistent with last year's report the Committee directs the Department to submit prior approval reprogrammings as necessary to bring its programs into compliance. The Committee, however, remains prepared to work with the Department to realign funding between appropriation accounts prior to the completion of the fiscal year 2000 defense appropriations bill in order to bring the Department into compliance with the least disruption. Standard Procurement System The Committee is concerned about the ability of the Standard Procurement System to meet the requirements of its users. The Committee recommends that the Chief Information Officer delay the fielding of the infrastructure for this system, until it confirms that the software release version 5.0 satisfies the users requirements and until there is resolution on the appropriateness of the Defense Logistic Agency's contracting strategy. ARMOR OFFICER DISTANCE LEARNING The Committee recommends $500,000 only to continue developing distance learning technologies for the Armor officer's courses at Fort Knox. POWER PROJECTION C4 INFRASTRUCTURE The Committee recommends transfering $16,552,000 from the Operation and Maintenance, Army account to the Other Procurements, Army account (Local Area Network) to ensure that this program is funded in accordance with fiscal law and the Department's Financial Management Regulations for investments. SUPERCOMPUTING WORK The Committee recommends an increase of $6,500,000 only for the Army's High Performance Computing Research efforts to enable the Army to continue its supercomputing work. ELECTRICITY AND ELECTRONICS TRAINING SERIES The Committee recommends $4,000,000 only for the Center for Navy Education and Training (CNET), for the conversion of Navy training manuals into an enhanced interactive electronic format suitable for distance learning. imds/remis The Committee recommends $12,500,000 only for the Integrated Maintenance Data Systems (IMDS) and the Reliability and Maintainability Information System (REMIS). Of this amount, $9,000,000 is provided in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force for accelerated development and fielding in addition to improved training for IMDS. The remaining $3,500,000 is provided in Operations and Maintenance, Air Force to ensure continued support for the legacy REMIS system while the necessary changes are being made to transition it to the IMDS system. DIMHRS The Committee supports section 8147 of the 1999 Department of Defense Appropriations Act which directed the Department to establish a Defense Reform Initiative (DRI) enterprise program for military manpower, personnel, training and compensation programs using a revised Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS) as a baseline. The Committee supports the President's request of $65,100,000 for the DIMHRS program. In coordination with the Department and the Program Manager's office, $41,200,000 has been realigned from Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide to Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide to be consistent with the Financial Management Regulations (FMR) and to provide more flexibility in managing the program. The Committee directs that this funding be used only to develop a system that is consistent with the Human Resources Enterprise Strategy. The Committee recommends $7,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide and $7,500,000 in Procurement, Defense-wide only to support the development of the Human Resources Enterprise Strategy and to continue program support and infrastructure improvements at the Systems Executive Officer for Manpower and Personnel (SEO/MP) and the Navy/DoD Information Technology Center. The Committee directs the Department to provide these funds only for and under the management and control of the Secretary of the Navy and the SEO/MP. The Committee expects that these funds will be allocated quickly and that the Department will coordinate the modernization of individual service systems to ensure they are consistent with the Human Resources Enterprise Strategy. NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU NATIONWIDE FIBER OPTICS NETWORK The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the National Guard Bureau only for feasibility study and engineering design of NDFON to provide a dedicated fiber optic network to satisfy high volume telecommunications traffic generated by the National Guard's distance learning initiative. The Committee expects this initiative to determine if a fiber optic network can satisfy the National Guard's requirements and save the government money while being consistent with the Department's information architecture. NATIONAL GUARD DISTANCE LEARNING The Committee recommends $15,000,000 in Other Procurement, Army (ADPE) and $15,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard only for the continued fielding of the National Guard Distance Learning Network Program. MAINTENANCE AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY The Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 to Other Procurement, Army (LogTech) only to allow the implementation of the Maintenance Automated Identification Technology Initiative into the Army's Blackhawk aviation units and at the Corpus Christi Army Depot. global combat support system--army The Committee recommends a reduction of $18,100,000 from Other Procurement, Army (STAMIS) for the Global Combat Support System--Army. This program was awarded a combined Milestone O/I/II without even a cost--benefit analysis. The budget requests procurement funds to begin fielding this system in fiscal year 2000 even though the first tier of the program is not scheduled for a Milestone III review until fiscal year 2001. The Committee is skeptical of this program's approval process and opposes providing any funds for fielding until after it has achieved Milestone III. AMMUNITION AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY The Committee recommends providing $15,000,000 in Other Procurement, Army (ADPE) to be used only for the completion of the ongoing Radio-Frequency Tagging/Intransit Visibility program at the remaining Army ammunition depots and related ammunition supply points and ports. national guard distance learning--courseware The Committee recommends an increase of $8,000,000 in Other Procurement, Army (ADPE) for the Washington State Army National Guard only to develop online distance learning courses. This program is important to meet unfunded Army National Guard training requirements and to take full advantage of the Army National Guard Distance Learning Network. JOINT SYSTEMS EDUCATION AND TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only for the Simulation Training and Instrumentation Command and the Naval Air Warfare Center--Training Systems Division for the development of an advanced distributed learning (ADL) prototype. SERVICE INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE SHORTFALLS In response to significant shortfalls identified in the service unfunded requirements list, the Committee recommends providing an additional $135,200,000. Of this amount, $32,900,000 is to upgrade the Marine Corps base telecommunications infrastructure. Another $57,300,000 is to procure upgrades and replacement of information transfer components located inside buildings on Marine Corps bases and stations (to include Barstow, 29 Palms, Camp Pendleton, and Quantico). Finally $45,000,000 is for upgrades to the Air Force Communications Infrastructure. SHARE IN SAVINGS The Committee is interested in the potential benefits of the share-in-savings pilot program as authorized in the Clinger-Cohen Act and encourages the Department to present its recommendations to the congressional defense committees on how to expand the use of this program. TITLE IV RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION SUMMARY The fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense research, development, test and evaluation budget request totals $34,375,219,000. The accompanying bill recommends $37,169,446,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of $2,794,227,000 above the fiscal year 2000 budget estimate and is $412,796,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 1999. The table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee's recommendations. Offset Folio 210 Insert Here Special Interest Items Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in the project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases ``only for'' or ``only to'' in this report are Congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. These items remain special interest whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference report. Classified Programs Adjustments to classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report. Technical Data The Rand Corporation has been funded by many federal agencies to create a common data base for government and private-sector research, in order to prevent duplication of effort by individual researchers funded under federal contracts. The Committee directs the Defense Department to continue its support for and participation in the Rand RADIUS data base. In addition, the Department shall ensure that access to defense technical data is provided to Members of Congress and their staffs on the same level as Defense Department employees. The Committee directs the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees by September 1, 1999 on how these objectives will be met. Experimentation The Committee directs that with each annual budget submission to Congress, the Defense Department provide a report to the congressional defense committees which identifies all funds for experimentation by appropriation, fiscal year, P 1 or R 1 line item, and effort. The report shall include Atlantic Command experimentation, other experimentation, exercises with significant experimentation, wargaming, advanced concept technology demonstrations, modelling and simulation, science and technology exercises, CINC initiative funding, BMDO experiments, and advanced technology demonstrations. INFORMATION ASSURANCE AS PART OF INDEPENDENT OPERATIONAL TESTING The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that information assurance testing is included in the Independent Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) of all DOD information technologies and national security systems. The Committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2000 on the Department's plans to implement the directed testing. SPECIAL TERMINATION COST CLAUSE The Committee reaffirms the existing policy of providing the congressional defense committees notification 30 days prior to contractual implementation of a special termination cost clause. The Committee further notes that the need to budget for termination liability is a fundamental financial management principle and therefore discourages, as a general principle, the use of special termination cost clauses for either procurement or research and development programs. JOINT MISSION PLANNING SYSTEM The Committee is concerned that several DOD programs are continuing to develop separate, ``stove-piped'' mission planning systems rather than taking full advantage of the joint mission planning system architecture currently under development by the Air Force and Navy. The Committee notes that efforts are underway to develop new or upgraded planning systems for Tomahawk, CALCM, and Air Mobility Command's Advanced Computer Flight Plan System. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review these programs and make recommendations on the merits, cost, and timetable of migrating these systems to the joint mission planning system architecture. The Committee directs that this report be provided to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2000. UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS The Committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has made great strides at developing programs that foster small business involvement in the material development and acquisition process. There are a number of programs that provide opportunities for small businesses to develop new technologies, and a number of management organizations and mechanisms already in place in an effort to facilitate such opportunities. The Committee also recognizes that the military department scientific and technology communities also play an active role in encouraging small business participation in development of advanced technologies for military applications. The Committee encourages such activities and urges that they be strengthened. During the last decade, corporate mergers, acquisitions, and downsizing have considerably reduced the number of competitors in defense industry generally. While this may be desirable to the Defense Department to reduce infrastructure costs and to minimize the unnecessary duplication of capabilities, it may have the effect of making it much more difficult for small businesses to gain access to compete with large industrial organizations than just five years ago. Further, the fiscal pressure on the Defense budget and major contractors during the last few years have driven down both government funded and corporate R&D investments in new technologies and processes. Technology development itself, particularly in the areas of advanced communications and information technologies, is evolving at such a rapid pace that it is incompatible with DoD weapon system acquisition timelines. These factors argue for an increased emphasis on technology development and insertion by small businesses, which are more affordable and more able to take risk and to innovate. The Committee notes that the current Department of Defense system relating to small businesses does well on the front-end of the process: providing R&D funds to small businesses for development of new concepts, approaches, and technologies. However, the Committee believes that the present system could do better in terms of integrating small businesses into mainstream weapons acquisition programs. The present system is geared to providing incentives to DoD weapon system managers to use small businesses, who however are under no real pressure to utilize or foster small businesses in their programs for the long term. The Committee recognizes that there are some unique defense areas--such as nuclear reactor technology--that do not readily lend themselves to small business approaches. On the other hand, the Committee believes that program managers for major weapons system should be more prone to use and grow small business participation in their programs that may span 20 and 30 year timeframes. The Committee is also concerned that the present DoD system for small business innovative research is viewed as a ``tax'' by weapon system program managers. Once taxed, they may no longer feel compelled to foster small business involvement within their programs as the funds they would use to do this have been taken from them and given to another organization to manage. An area that may be ripe for increased small business participation is DOD upgrades or modifications to major platforms which tend to be done with incumbent contractors who have little real incentive to innovate and little competitive pressure once awarded a contract. The budget situation generally has caused DoD to forgo new system development and to rely more on modifications, upgrades, and conversions of existing systems. A main feature of such upgrades is the insertion of new technologies, particularly those involving computing and communications. The Department of Defense reported to Congress in February 1999 on its plan on processes that would facilitate the rapid transition of successful SBIR projects to Phase III incorporation into DoD acquisition programs. While the Committee supports these initiatives and believes that they may bring together initial SBIR research and development with acquisition program needs, the Committee also strongly believes that unless program managers budget for phase III SBIR participation in their acquisition programs that the increased utilization of small businesses will not occur. The Committee also believes that program managers for weapon system upgrades should expressly be charged with the responsibility for generating small business participation in their modification/upgrade programs, including budgeting for SBIR phase III activities. The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2000 which: (1) describes the current system for small business participation, technology development, and technology insertion into defense weapon system acquisition programs; (2) describes improvements that are underway to improve the SBIR process; (3) provides options, including legislative initiatives, to increase SBIR participation in DoD weapon system programs and contracts; and (4) provides options and incentives for weapon system program mangers to themselves foster development of small business technologies and integration of small business products into long term weapon system acquisition or modernization programs. ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS MASTER PLAN In the fiscal year 1999 Statement of the Managers, the DoD was directed to provide Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan with the fiscal year 2000 budget. To date, the Congress has not received the plan. The Committee understands that the Master Plan is complete, but disagreements on the recommendations and analysis between the Services and the Office of Secretary of Defense prevent the plan from being delivered to the Congress. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to deliver the Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan immediately. Absent the Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan, the Committee has recommended the following program reductions and terminations: The Army's Javelin missile system, the Army's Line-of-Sight Anti-tank missile system, and the joint Navy and Air Force Joint Stand-off Weapon Anti-Armor missile variant. TACTICAL RADIOS The Committee directs that no more than 25 percent of the funds appropriated for the research and development of any tactical radio program may be obligated until the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence certifies in writing to the congressional defense committees that the development program meets interoperability requirements, is not duplicative of other developmental efforts, and is fully funded in the budget. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $5,031,788,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 4,426,194,000 Committee recommendation 5,148,093,000 Change from budget request +721,899,000 This appropriation finances the research, development, test and evaluation activities for the Department of the Army. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request Human Factors Engineering Technology 16,932 19,792 +3,400 MLRS Product Improvement Program 36,540 67,440 +30,900 Maneuver Control System 45,125 46,125 +1,000 Information Systems Security Program 9,426 15,426 +6,000 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request Sensors and Electronic Survivability 22,978 25,978 +3,000 Missile Technology 32,892 43,892 +11,000 (Note: Only to accelerate the development of a low cost guidance unit for precision guided weapons and munitions) Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology 39,749 42,249 +2,500 Weapons and Munitions Technology 34,687 37,187 +2,500 Electronics and Electronic Devices 25,796 37,596 +11,800 Countermine Systems 10,321 14,121 +3,800 Military Engineering Technology 41,085 61,085 +20,000 (Note: For the continuation of the dual-use geographic synthetic aperture radar (GeoSAR) program. The development and implementation of this airborne dual and interferometic SAR technology will not only provide the Army with highly detailed, comprehensive data and significantly contribute to target identification, trafficability analysis, and battlefield awareness capabilities, but will serve to clearly demonstrate the productivity and cost benefits which accrue through the Defense Department's dual-use policy). +5,000 Warfighter Technology 23,971 26,971 +3,000 Dual Use Applications Program 18,222 10,000 -8,222 Medical Technology 70,136 169,636 +99,500 [Note: $6,000,000 is only to continue the Army Molecular Genetics and Musculoskeletal Research program.] +15,000 Warfighter Advanced Technology 31,287 42,773 +11,486 Medical Advanced Technology 10,539 69,339 +58,800 Weapons and Munitions Advanced Technology 39,893 67,643 +27,750 (Note: This Center of Excellence will focus on the development and demonstration of the next generation of warheads and explosives, and would provide the Army with the smart munitions and enhanced ballistics necessary to maintain our military's lethality overmatch) 1,800 +1,800 (Note: Only for concurrent development of light cannon armament systems for use with future vehicles) Combat vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology 90,941 137,441 +46,500 (Note: Only to further the Army's development and deployment of the advanced combat vehicle building of the programs initiated in this area by DARPA) +13,500 (Note: Only for a technology transfer center to identify and transfer weight reduction technologies and processes for ground vehicles) Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology 43,639 51,639 +8,000 Night Vision Advanced Technology 36,628 45,628 +9,000 (Note: The UAV could be employed as an adjunct to ground reconnaissance units. The funds are to be applied by the U.S. Army Armor Center, Ft. Knox, for concept exploration, initial hardware development and evaluation.) +5,000 Advanced Tactical Computer Science and Sensor 22,610 27,610 +5,000 Army Missile Defense Systems Integration (DEM/V) 12,353 24,853 +12,500 (Note: Only for multi-mission battlefield sensors program including spectral analysis, isotope identification, and real time forensic analysis in support of WMD detection and counter-terrorism.) +3,000 Landmine Warfare and Barrier--Adv Dev 4,099 12,099 +8,000 Armament Enhancement Initiative 36,937 56,937 +20,000 Tactical Electronic Surveillance System--Adv Dev 0 2,500 +2,500 Weapons and Munitions--Adv Dev 1,751 4,751 +3,000 (Note: Funds are to improve the SMAW D by leveraging SMAW CS technology to give the system a fire from confined space capability) All Source Analysis System 49,684 57,684 +8,000 (Note: The successful development of this lightweight laptop computer will complete the intelligence fusion architecture and provide a ``seamless intelligence flow'' to all echelons) Logistics and Engineer Equipment--Adv Dev 6,514 9,514 +3,000 Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles 0 1,400 +1,400 Air Traffic Control 1,981 5,981 +4,000 Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle 0 7,000 +7,000 (Note: To continue research on joint mine-clearing flail technology under the direction of the Unmanned Ground Vehicles/Systems Joint Program Office) Night Vision Systems--Eng Dev 30,644 36,544 +5,900 Combat Feeding, Clothing, and Equipment 110,829 84,329 -26,500 Non-System Training Devices--Eng Dev 71,034 74,234 +3,200 Automatic Test Equipment Development 10,252 20,252 +10,000 (Note: Only to continue the development of the Improved Target Acquisition Systems electro-optical avionics support) Brilliant Anti-Armor Submunition (BAT) 128,026 144,026 +16,000 Joint Surveillance/Target Attack Radar System 11,535 27,535 +16,000 (Note: Of this amount, $5,000,000 is only for Engineering Support for Requirements Development and $8,000,000 is only for the Surveillance Common DataLink.) +3,000 Aviation--Eng Dev 6,312 13,312 +7,000 Weapons and Munitions--Eng Dev 54,943 73,143 +18,200 (Note: Transferred from PE 0203761A) Landmine Warfare/Barrier--Eng Dev 40,916 30,120 -10,796 (Note: Transfer $8,000,000 to 0603619A) Army Tactical Command & Control Hardware & Software 35,299 39,799 +4,500 (Note: Only to leverage advanced 3D display technology development work in support of other services at a not-for-profit technology transfer center for incorporation into Army command and control modernization initiatives for fixed sites and at tactical command centers at the corps, division and brigade levels) Concepts Experimentation Program 16,990 19,990 +3,000 Army Test Ranges and Facilities 137,193 147,193 +10,000 Army Technical Test Instrumentation and Target 30,470 31,670 +1,200 Survivability/Lethality Analysis 30,138 40,138 +10,000 DOD High Energy Laser Test Facility 14,230 34,230 +20,000 Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety 10,537 19,037 +8,500 Environmental Compliance 0 8,000 +8,000 Adv Field Artillery Tactical Data System 36,222 42,722 +6,500 Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs 29,544 42,544 +13,000 Aircraft Engine Component Improvement Program 2,900 4,900 +2,000 Digitization 28,180 30,180 +2,000 Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below (FBC) 44,225 59,225 +15,000 Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program 29,985 34,985 +5,000 Digital Information Technology Test Bed 0 2,000 +2,000 Security and Investigative Activities 0 10,000 +10,000 (Note: Funds are only for the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command's Information Dominance Center) End Item Industrial Preparedness Activities 66,167 102,667 +36,500 (Note: To support the existing Mantech Electro-Optics Center in meeting precision manufacturing requirements) +4,000 Army Ground Intelligence Center 0 35,000 +35,000 Hunter Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) The Hunter UAV, a system whose production the Army has terminated, was deployed to Operation Allied Force in the Balkans region. The Army has lost seven air vehicles in theater. Despite these losses, the Army claims it possesses sufficient Hunter inventory to continue operational support. While the Army is not continuing to develop the Hunter, it has incorporated certain modifications to improve performance and reduce support costs for deployment to the Balkans region. The Committee understands that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has recommended that $15,650,000 from the amount appropriated in Public Law 106 31 for the Operational Rapid Response Transfer Fund, be used to offset the cost of Hunter operations in the Balkans region. The Committee supports this recommendation. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure that within available resources, adequate funds are provided for all necessary Hunter requirements. BASIC RESEARCH DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES The Army requested $125,613,000 for defense research sciences. The Committee recommends the budget request and directs that $3,000,000 is only for vehicle mobility research at the Center for Advanced Propulsion Systems. APPLIED RESEARCH BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY The Army requested $36,287,000 for ballistics technology. The Committee recommends $42,287,000, an increase of $6,000,000 only for electromagnetic (EM) gun pulsed power technology. Furthermore, the Committee directs that within the available amount, $2,500,000 is only for electrothermal-chemical technology development. HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY The Committee urges all the military services to budget for the implementation of the lessons learned through the Army's MedTeams program to reduce emergency department errors and improve patient satisfaction. Environmental Quality Technology The Army requested $12,758,000 for environmental quality technology. The Committee recommends $81,258,000, an increase of $68,500,000. Of this amount $9,000,000 is only for the Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System, which is capable of destroying hazardous, chemical and medical waste. In addition, $7,000,000 is only for the Sustainable Green Manufacturing Initiative to develop advanced, environmentally responsible manufacturing processes for weapons systems. Of the total, $3,000,000 is only to continue efforts to develop a computer-based land management model for the Army to reduce time and costs attributable to military training area recovery and restoration. Further, $8,000,000 is only for the continuation of the Commercialization of Technologies to Lower Defense Costs Initiative. In addition, $13,000,000 is only for the continuation of the Demanufacturing of Electronic Equipment for Reuse and Recycling (DEER2) Initiative. Another $3,000,000 is only to continue the next phase of the ongoing DEER2 program by establishing a state of the art product and material recycling site. Furthermore, $9,000,000 is only for a Corrosion Measurement and Control Project to leverage available technologies and tools to detect, measure and control corrosion to meet the Department's sustainment and readiness goals and to lower maintenance costs. Another $10,000,000 is only for the Range Safe Technology Demonstration Initiatives which include clean-up demonstrations at five installations. An additional, $4,500,000 is only for the continuation of the environmental pollution projects at Watervliet Arsenal. Finally, $2,000,000 is only to advance the maturation of Vessel Plating Technology, an environmental friendly process for chrome plating long gun tubes. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY The Committee is very concerned about the roughly $15 million the Services spend on alcohol rehabilitation each year. Research to uncover the biological basis for alcoholism and to develop a chemical block to the addiction appears promising. The Committee encourages the Department to participate or partner in this research to identify the pharmacological causes of alcoholism. MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY Last year, the Congress terminated the EFOG M program. The Committee is aware that adequate funding was appropriated in fiscal year 1999 to pay for any termination costs incurred for the EFOG M program, and no additional funds are required for program termination. LINE-OF-SIGHT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION The Army requested $41,619,000 for the Line-of-Sight Technology (LOSAT) Demonstration. The Committee recommends no funds for this program based on recommendations in the Army's Light Anti-Tank (LAT) Study/Program and inadequate outyear funding. The Army LAT Study indicated an improved TOW missile, with a Fire and Forget capability is of higher priority of than LOSAT. It is the Committee's understanding that the Army has decided to begin developing an improved TOW fire and forget system in fiscal year 2001 and has included this item on this year's unfunded requirements list. Therefore, the Committee has included funds to accelerate the TOW Fire and Forget Program. Additionally, the Army budget does not include adequate funds to procure LOSAT and the Army has identified a shortfall in excess of $250 million. Further details are provided under the heading ``Other Missile Product Improvement Programs.'' JOINT TACTICAL RADIO The Committee understands that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology will make key architecture and acquisition strategy decisions on the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) in October 2000. Although the Committee is pleased that top management attention is being given to this program, the Committee believes that the architecture and acquisition strategy decisions need to be made at an earlier date in order to influence key development decisions. Since JTRS will resolve interoperability issues among service radios, the Committee believes the DoD should accelerate this effort. The Committee recognizes the difficult task of replacing approximately 750,000 radios in the DoD inventory; but believes the task can be made less daunting if DoD will determine which radios and wave forms will be given priority. Additionally, the Committee believes an operational test and evaluation plan needs to be established with adequate criteria to measure successful operations, both in joint and coalition operations. The Committee directs the DoD to provide to the Committee by December 15, 1999, a report on its strategy for developing and fielding the JTRS. The plan is to include priority radios for replacement, cost of the development program, a development schedule and estimated unit cost of production radios. ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--DEMONSTRATION AND VALIDATION The Army requested $282,937,000 for artillery systems demonstration and validation. The Committee recommends the budget request. The Committee expresses its continued support for the Crusader development program and encourages the Army to provide adequate funding in future budget submissions for this program. OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FORCE XXI, WARFIGHTING RAPID ACQUISITION PROGRAM The Army requested $55,921,000 for the Force XXI, Warfighting Rapid Acquisition Program (WRAP). The Committee recommends $36,621,000, a decrease of $19,300,000. Of the decrease $10,500,000 is excess funds due to the denial of a fiscal year 1999 WRAP initiative. The Committee also recommends the transfer of $8,800,000 from this program element to other lines, as follows: xlResearch, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: Rifle Launch Entry Munitions (Transferred to PE 0604802A) $1,000,000 xlOther Procurement, Army: HEMTT-Load handling $6,800,000 MEDLOG-Division $1,000,000 The Army's rationale for establishing the WRAP initiative was to accelerate the development and fielding of mature technologies. Once again, the Committee notes a significant number of WRAP initiatives have experienced schedule delays and cost growth, such as the Mortar Fire Control, Gun Laying and Positioning System, and the Airborne Command and Control System. Additionally, the Committee notes the Army has not fully supported all of the WRAP initiatives in subsequent budget requests such as the Airborne Command and Control system. Therefore, the Committee directs the Army to submit with its fiscal year 2001 budget request a detailed report describing the status of the WRAP initiatives. The report is to include the original and current schedule and cost estimates for each approved initiative. The Committee directs that none of the WRAP funds may be obligated without prior approval from the congressional defense committees. Notification of the Army's intent to obligate the funds is to include supporting criteria outlining the technical merit and maturity; criticality and priority to warfighting requirements; affordability; effectiveness; and sustainability in future budget submissions. Further, the Committee directs that none of the WRAP funds may be used for technologies included in the budget request, such as, but not limited to, applique, night vision equipment, and radios. Instead, WRAP funds are to be reprogrammed, with prior approval, to the proper project for obligation. OTHER MISSILE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS The Army requested $9,914,000 for other missile improvement programs. The Committee recommends $20,914,000, an increase of $11,000,000 only for a TOW Fire and Forget missile. Based on the Army's Light Anti-Armor Study, the Committee believes that the TOW Fire and Forget System will increase lethality and survivability for the light forces. The Committee understands this particular initiative is among the programs analyzed in the Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan. Also, the Committee understands that the Army is reviewing various options for fielding a TOW Fire and Forget capability to include modifications to existing missiles; producing new Fire and Forget missiles; and developing a new TOW-like Fire and Forget missile. Therefore, the Committee directs that none of the funds appropriated for the improved TOW Fire and Forget may be obligated until 30 days after Congress receives the Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan. Additionally, none of the funds may be obligated until the Army submits a TOW Fire and Forget program plan to the Congress for prior approval. The plan is to include the TOW Fire and Forget requirement, the alternatives for satisfying that requirement, and the total program cost for each alternative. AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Army's unfunded requirements list included $31,400,000 for a Blackhawk Service Life Extension Program (SLEP). Although the Committee believes that the current Blackhawk fleet is aging and needs to be upgraded, the Committee believes it is premature to add funds for this initiative at this time. The Committee directs the Army to provide with the fiscal year 2001 budget request a report on the state of the Blackhawk fleet. The report is to include the various Blackhawk models in the inventory, the average age of each model type, required upgrades and the estimated cost of a Service Life Extension Program as compared to the cost of procuring new aircraft. Furthermore, the Committee directs the Army to provide adequate funds for either the Blackhawk SLEP or new aircraft in subsequent budget submissions. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 223 to 226 Insert Here RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $8,636,649,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 7,984,016,000 Committee recommendation 9,080,580,000 Change from budget request +1,096,564,000 This appropriation provides funds for the research, development, test and evaluation activities of the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Authorization Changes The Committee recommends the following changes in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request ASW systems development 17,780 23,780 +6,000 Industrial preparedness 59,104 74,104 +15,000 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] FY 2000 budget request Committee recommendation Change from request Air and Surface Launched Weapons Technology 37,616 54,616 +17,000 Ship, Submarine & Logistics Technology 43,786 64,586 +20,800 (Note: Funds for curved plate double hull are only to continue the demonstration of developed techniques for the advancement of curved plate advanced double hull technology for naval and commercial applications.) +4,000 NOTE: Funds for metalworking technology are only for test and evaluation of systems that provide more efficient and affordable methods of metal fabrication for components on navy ships, carriers and submarines performed at the Center for Concurrent Technology in Bremerton, Washington. Communications, Command and Control, Intel, Surveillan 68,823 78,073 +9,250 Human Systems Technology 30,586 37,086 +6,500 Materials, Electronics and Computer Technology 77,957 90,457 +12,500 NOTE: Funds for engineered wood composite lumber are only to continue the ongoing collaborative research to adapt wood based composites for specific building applications for improved Navy construction. +2,000 Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology 60,334 71,084 +10,750 Undersea Warfare Weaponry Technology 34,066 39,066 +5,000 Dual Use Applications Program 18,390 10,000 -8,390 Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology 42,046 51,046 +9,000 Precision Strike and Air Defense Technology 52,580 82,080 +29,500 NOTE: Funds for small combatant craft are only for the purchase, test, and evaluation of small combatant craft (one low radar signature and one high effective operational speed), for close in-shore naval operations. +7,500 Surface Ship & Submarine HM&E Advance Technology 41,515 75,515 +34,000 Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) 56,943 62,943 +6,000 Medical Development 15,064 81,864 +66,800 Manpower, Personnel and Training Adv Tech Dev 20,632 39,632 +19,000 NOTE: Funds are only to continue effort to standardize distributed learning courseware. +6,000 NOTE: Funds are only to begin phase I, developing linkage between joint and military service demonstration and experimentation initiatives and the design of future carriers using methodology demonstrated in the JMO T program. Environmental Quality and Logistics Advanced Tech 23,809 28,809 +5,000 NOTE: Only for Integrated Data Environment Systems development and testing. Navy Technical Information Presentation System 41,840 19,940 -21,900 NOTE: $520,000 is only to establish the Center for Defense Technology and Education for the military services at the Naval Postgraduate School to focus on the impact of emerging technologies on joint warfare. Advanced Technology Transition 75,635 96,535 +20,900 NOTE: Sub carrier modulation is to be managed by the Navy Undersea Warfare Center. C3 Advanced Technology 23,808 39,808 +16,000 C2W Replacement for EA 6B 0 16,000 +16,000 Software Development and Management 0 2,000 +2,000 Aviation Survivability 7,280 16,280 +9,000 NOTE: Funds are only for improvements to the existing ejection seat test facility at Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division. +1,500 ASW Systems Development 17,780 23,780 +6,000 Surface and Shallow Water Mine Countermeasures 82,465 94,465 +12,000 Advanced Submarine Combat Systems Development 0 10,000 +10,000 Surface Ship Torpedo Defense 640 5,640 +5,000 NOTE: Funds are only to continue the joint collaborative SSTD program with the United Kingdom including the upgrade of the SLQ 25 A torpedo countermeasure capability, including the winch and tow, for littoral operations. Shipboard System Component Development 108,334 114,484 +6,150 Advanced Submarine System Development 115,767 124,267 +8,500 Ship Concept Advanced Design 5,318 29,818 +24,500 NOTE: Automated maintenance environment funds are only to integrate the NAVSEA AME project with the NAVAIR GAME project to create a deployable battle group level integrated maintenance system under the NAVSEA AME contract. Advanced Surface Machinery Systems 17,727 22,727 +5,000 Combat System Integration 46,740 79,740 +33,000 Conventional Munitions 34,309 43,309 +9,000 Marine Corps Assault Vehicles 94,843 112,843 +18,000 Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System 42,654 45,654 +3,000 Cooperative Engagement 114,931 190,931 +76,000 Environmental Protection 70,793 84,793 +14,000 NOTE: Only to continue the validation of a thermochemical conversion process used to decontaminate mixed waste streams and PCB's from retired Navy submarines at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. +10,000 Navy Energy Program 4,984 7,984 +3,000 Navy Logistics Productivity 0 27,500 +27,500 Ship Self Defense--Dem/Val 5,654 10,654 +5,000 Land Attack Technology 101,489 111,489 +10,000 Space and Electronic Warfare (SEW) Architecture/Engine 35,170 37,170 +2,000 Other Helo Development 48,776 80,776 +32,000 Standards Development 74,325 78,825 +4,500 S 3 Weapon System Improvement 2,095 7,095 +5,000 P 3 Modernization Program 3,010 18,010 +15,000 Tactical Command System 41,599 45,599 +4,000 Air Crew Systems Development 6,801 14,301 +7,500 NOTE: Funds are only for continuation of Navy effort in concert with a similar Air Force program to define ejection seat deficiencies and identify corrective actions relative to stability, restraint, and accommodation configurations. +3,500 EW Development 163,077 237,577 +74,500 Surface Combatant Combat System Engineering 204,480 244,480 +40,000 NOTE: Funds for displays are only to address AEGIS-specific interoperability issues and the development of tactical display services supporting TMD and CEC systems. +7,500 SSN 688 and Trident Modernization 48,896 76,896 +28,000 NOTE: BQG 5 funds are for integration and installation planning for the inboard segment and testing on a submarine. Submarine Combat System 6,546 9,546 +3,000 New Design SSN 241,456 251,456 +10,000 Navy Tactical Computer Resources 3,300 58,300 +55,000 NOTE: Funds are only to develop selected submarine combat system Q 70 retrofits for SSN 688/Trident class submarines. +5,000 NOTE: UYQ 70 technology refresh funds are only to develop and implement technology refresh, to include but not be limited to, Q 70 COTS networking and interconnect infrastructure, common system service software components, advanced human to machine interfaces, IT21 workstation, systems compatibility design and logistics streamlining. +5,000 NOTE: ADLIDCA equipment only for Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Ship Self Defense--EMD 96,580 111,580 +15,000 Medical Development 4,285 10,285 +6,000 NOTE: Only for continued development of a Navy voice interactive device to facilitate the collection, processing, storing, and forwarding of critical medical information for treatment of combat casualties. Distributed Surveillance System 14,910 38,910 +24,000 Commerical Operations and Support Savings Initiative 18,729 16,500 -2,229 Major T&E Investment 42,621 49,621 +7,000 Studies and Analysis Support--Navy 8,531 6,031 -2,500 Sew Surveillance/Reconnaissance Support 12,121 16,121 +4,000 Marine Corps Program Wide Support 8,198 28,398 +20,200 Strategic Sub & Weapons System Support 45,907 60,407 +14,500 F/A 18 Squadrons 315,714 373,214 +57,500 2 Squadrons 16,132 55,132 +39,000 Tomahawk and Tomahawk Mission Planning Center (TMPC) 147,223 142,223 -5,000 Consolidated Training Systems Development 26,257 500 33,757 +7,500 Harm Improvement 23,642 43,642 +20,000 Aviation Improvements 53,292 63,292 +10,000 Marine Corps Communications Systems 90,293 94,293 +4,000 Marine Corps Ground Combat/Supporting Arms Systems 39,941 36,741 -3,200 Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 69,742 77,242 +7,500 Airborne Reconnaissance Systems 4,958 18,958 +14,000 NOTE: Funds are only for Electro-Optical Framing with on chip FMC. +4,000 Manned Reconnaissance Systems 30,958 39,958 +9,000 NOTE: Funds are only for testing and evaluation of a small lightweight synthetic aperture radar for the SHARP reconnaissance system. Naval Space Surveillance 712 2,712 +2,000 Industrial Preparedness 59,104 74,104 +15,000 Maritime Technology (Maritech) 19,681 24,681 +5,000 Joint Experimentation The Navy requested $41,840,000 for joint experimentation conducted by the United States Atlantic Command (ACOM). The Committee recommends $19,940,000, a decrease of $21,900,000 due to delay in the fiscal year 1999 program and to reduce program scope as explained below. The Committee notes that a reprogramming request to accelerate the fiscal year 1999 program was not approved by Congress until the last quarter of the fiscal year, and these funds can be used to partially offset the amount requested in fiscal year 2000. Within the amount requested in fiscal year 2000, $18,720,000 has been identified for the highest priority: attack operations against critical mobile targets. This highest priority is fully funded in the Committee's recommendation. The joint experimentation program has noble goals, namely to improve wartime operations and interoperability of the military services' forces by analyzing, evaluating, and perhaps changing organizations, doctrine, tactics, weapon system acquisitions, and identifying or defining requirements for the development of future technologies. The budget request envisions an expenditure of over $374 million and establishing a bureaucracy of 161 personnel during the next six years to address these issues. The output of this large expenditure of funds, according to the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Atlantic Command, is workshops, seminars, and wargames. The Committee notes that for $374 million proposed for this initiative, not a single item of equipment would be fielded to combat troops, who today face many shortages of equipment and parts. The proposed ACOM organization would operate autonomously and not be integrated with or responsible to any other chain of command. The potential for duplication of effort or wasted effort is of major concern to the Committee. The Atlantic Command also cannot articulate with clarity how these funds would be used, other than to provide general categorization of broad potential activities. The Committee agrees that ACOM could play a useful role in improving joint organizations, tactics, and doctrine. The Committee questions whether ACOM can play a significant role in weapon systems acquisition or technology development. Before agreeing to the manpower and funding investments envisioned in the budget, the Committee would like to see ACOM focus on a well-defined area of weapon systems acquisition and demonstrate to the Defense Department and to Congress that through its activities it can make a meaningful contribution to the process. The Committee directs that ACOM experimentation funds in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 may only be used for attack operations against critical mobile targets, limited infrastructure investments needed to facilitate that single objective, and participation in OSD weapon system reviews. The Committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to report quarterly to the congressional defense committees on the results of ACOM activities during the previous quarter. Such reports should not focus on inputs (how much ACOM has spent, how many seminars it conducted, how many trips were taken) but rather on outputs (changes that have been made to organizations, tactics, doctrine, or weapon system acquisitions). The claimed rationale for an investment of $374 million and establishment of a new bureaucracy of 161 non-combat personnel is the perception that the Defense weapon system oversight process is not working properly and weapons are not being fielded which are interoperable among the military services. The Committee views the ACOM initiative as a politically-driven substitute to addressing the real problem, managing the weapon system acquisition process to ensure that the best systems are fielded to U.S. combat forces, to provide the best performance during wartime when conducting joint service operations. The Commander-in-Chief of the United States Atlantic Command informed the Committee that the test of whether the ACOM joint experimentation initiative is successful is whether or not ACOM ``gets a seat at the table'' when weapon systems acquisition decisions are made. The Committee believes this concern can be addressed in a straightforward manner without a huge investment of funds for studies and establishment of a huge new bureaucracy. The Committee has therefore included a new general provision (Section 8120) which: requires the Defense Acquisition Board to include the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command as a fully participating member; prohibits approving weapons systems from moving into subsequent phases unless the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command certifies to the congressional defense committees that an acquisition before the Defense Acquisition Board fully meets joint service interoperability requirements as determined by theater Commanders-in-Chief; and requires that funds to support the U.S. Atlantic Command participation in Defense Acquisition Board reviews be absorbed within those proposed in the President's budget for ACOM activities. OCEANOGRAPHIC AND ATMOSPHERIC TECHNOLOGY The Committee encourages the Navy to accelerate transfer of the research ship USNS Hayes from Cape Canaveral to the South Florida Test Facility as soon as possible. INTERCOOLED RECUPERATIVE GAS TURBINE ENGINE The Navy requested $17,700,000 for continued development of the intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine. The Committee recommends $22,700,000, an increase of $5,000,000 to provide a federal government share of a cost improvement program with industry and international partners that could allow the engine to be better suited for future ships such as DD 21. The Committee has included bill language to implement the cost improvement program, while limiting the Navy's program share to not more than one-third of the total program cost, to capitalize on the approximate $400 million investment in this program to date. The Committee hereby withdraws the program development cost cap stated in the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 1999 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, since the Navy has indicated that it desires to participate in the allied engine qualification effort and to reflect the additional costs of the cost improvement initiative. JSOW The Navy requested $30,567,000 for JSOW. The Committee recommends $15,000,000, a net decrease of $15,567,000. This amount includes a decrease of $30,567,000 for the JSOW unitary variant and an increase of $15,000,000 only for GPS anti-spoofing. Last year, the Committee recommended termination of the Navy-unique JSOW unitary variant based on its high cost and low performance relative to other DoD stand-off munitions. Despite the Committee's recommendation last year, the Navy has requested additional funds in fiscal year 2000 for development of a new, cheaper unitary variant. As a cost saving measure, the new variant no longer includes ``man-in-the-loop'' which severely limits the weapon's capability against moving targets. However, the GAO has learned that the Navy's JSOW unitary inventory requirement is based almost completely on the use of the weapon against just this class of targets. The small number of fixed targets that drive the inventory requirement hardly justifies development of another service-unique weapon system, given the acquisition plans for such other service-unique systems as SLAM-ER, Tactical Tomahawk, and JASSM which can more effectively attack the same targets. Accordingly, the Committee once again recommends termination of the JSOW unitary program. AERIAL TARGETS The Navy is conducting a competition for development and production of the Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target (SSST). The Committee directs the Navy conclude the competition and select a vendor by October 15, 1999. The Committee further directs that none of the funds in this Act may be used for the SSST after October 15, 1999 if the Navy has not concluded the competition by that time. BONE MARROW REGISTRY The Committee provides $34,000,000 to be administered by the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program, also known, and referred to, within the Naval Medical Research Center, as the Bone Marrow Registry. This DoD donor center has recruited 200,000 DoD volunteers, and provides more marrow donors per week than any other donor center in the Nation. The Committee is aware of the continuing success of this life saving program for military contingencies and civilian patients, which now includes more than 3,600,000 potential volunteer donors, and encourages agencies involved in contingency planning to include the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program in the development and testing of their contingency plans. DD Form 1414 shall show this as a special congressional interest item, and the Committee directs that all of the funds appropriated for this purpose be released to the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program within 60 days of enactment of the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Appropriations Act. shared reconnaissance pod (sharp) The Committee is pleased with the commitment the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations have made in the development of the SHARP system. The Committee notes that in a June 1, 1999 report to Congress, the Secretary of the Navy determined that the SHARP program is the ``most effective reconnaissance system for the F/A 18, the scheduled replacement for F 14 Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance Pod System (TARPS).'' Given these results, it is difficult to understand why the Marine Corps has not aggressively pursued this technology in conjunction with the Navy. The Committee requests that the Secretary of the Navy review the Marine Corps proposals for its roadmap to meet future tactical reconnaissance requirements to ensure that this plan includes a transition to SHARP when the system becomes available for acquisition. The rapid prototyping development and acquisition strategy for SHARP is unique in that the Navy seeks to use off the shelf sensor technology and integrate this technology into a pod that can be used on the F/A 18. The Committee believes that significant progress has been made in the commercial sector to develop electro-optic sensor, radar, and pod technologies that can meet most of SHARP's operational needs immediately. However, several challenges exist, both technically and philosophically, to getting this technology integrated, tested, and fielded on the F/A 18. Technical challenges include development of a suitable pod and the integration of the sensors, radar, and the ground station data link with the aircraft. The Committee is confident that the Navy will overcome these challenges. The philosophical challenge includes a new development and acquisition strategy that requires the Service to adopt a rapid prototyping process with ``off-the-shelf'' technology. The Committee believes a flexible and dynamic development and acquisition approach is necessary to quickly and effectively field SHARP. The Committee has included $9,000,000 for the SHARP program only to pursue the acquisition and testing of a small, lightweight synthetic aperture radar for inclusion into SHARP. Significant work has already been conducted on such a system that is being leveraged by the Navy on other platforms. The Navy should not use these funds to pursue a new developmental effort for this SAR, but should test what is available today. This is a congressional interest item. These funds shall not be used for other program requirements without prior approval. The Committee is aware that there could be future funding shortfalls in the SHARP program based on additional requirements and technology enhancements. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that any and all SHARP program requirements are fully funded in future budget requests. Finally, the Committee is concerned that technical challenges in the development of a suitable pod could potentially delay fielding of SHARP. The Navy should aggressively pursue the most innovative and competitive SHARP pod design and development. It appears the current acquisition approach does not allow for participation by small innovative companies. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2000. Offset Folios 237 to 241 Insert Here RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $13,758,811,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 13,077,829,000 Committee recommendation 13,709,233,000 Change from budget request +631,404,000 This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation activities of the Department of the Air Force. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS CONSOLIDATION AND ELIMINATION OF SMALL PROGRAMS The Committee is concerned about the proliferation of program element line-items in the Air Force research and development budget. The Committee notes that several of these program elements request appropriations below a million dollars often to fund legacy programs that have long since transitioned from development to production to fielding. The Committee believes that these efforts should either be consolidated with other similar efforts or eliminated altogether. Accordingly, the Committee recommendation denies funding for these small programs with the expectation that the Air Fore will make further suggestions regarding consolidation or elimination. af/national program consolidation The Air Force request included three line-items each funding different aspects of cooperation among national intelligence programs and the Air Force. The Committee believes it would be more efficient to consolidate these efforts into a single line-item. The Committee recommendation for this new line-item totals $23,500,000, which includes $19,500,000 (representing a 15 percent reduction based on consolidation efficiencies) and a $4,000,000 increase for a TENCAP program as authorized in the House version of the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Act. AIR FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY The Air Force budget reduces various Science and Technology efforts by $94,600,000 to fund the Space Based Laser and Space Based Radar programs. The Air Force subsequently submitted a request for $94,600,000 as part of its list of unfunded priorities. The Committee recommendation includes the additional $94,600,000 of Science and Technology funding. This additional funding has been spread to the various Science and Technology line-items in accordance with specific project recommendations made by the Air Force. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee recommendation further includes reductions to the budgeted amounts for Space Based Laser and termination of the Space Based Radar. WRIGHT PATTERSON LANDING GEAR FACILITY The Committee understands that the Air Force intends to keep the Wright Patterson Landing Gear Facility open and available to both military and commercial users, but plans to shift ownership of the facility from the Air Force Research Laboratory to either another Air Force organization or a commercial firm. The Committee further understands that the Air Force is evaluating options and will make a decision on the final disposition of the facility by the end of fiscal year 1999. The Committee agrees with the Air Force that the facility should stay open and makes no judgments as to the final ownership. However, the Committee does expect the Air Force to notify the Committee of its final decision on the disposition of the facility prior to implementation of this decision. AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action. [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request EELV 324,803 322,803 -2,000 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request Defense Research Sciences 209,505 216,505 +7,000 Materials 63,334 74,234 +10,900 Aerospace Flight Dynamics 43,898 49,298 +5,400 Human Effectiveness Applied Research 51,512 72,412 +20,900 Aerospace Propulsion 62,012 77,212 +15,200 Aerospace Sensors 64,988 75,688 +10,700 Hypersonic Technology Program 0 16,600 +16,600 Phillips Lab Exploratory Development 115,313 147,613 32,300 Command Control and Communications 46,448 47,548 +1,100 Dual Use Science and Technology Program 17,927 10,000 -7,927 Advanced Materials for Weapon Systems 25,890 31,890 +6,000 Advanced Aerospace Sensors 29,405 47,805 +18,400 Flight Vehicle Technology 5,992 11,992 +6,000 Aerospace Propulsion and Power Technology 38,778 39,378 +600 Personnel, Training and Simulation Technology 4,827 7,027 +2,200 Electronic Combat Technology 27,334 34,434 +7,100 Space and Missile Rocket Propulsion 11,231 26,531 +15,300 Ballistic Missile Technology 0 23,000 +23,000 Advanced Spacecraft Technology 76,229 67,259 -8,970 Space Systems Environmental Interactions Technology 3,677 4,177 +500 Conventional Weapons Technology 21,479 23,033 +1,554 Advanced Weapons Technology 38,995 56,495 +17,500 Environmental Engineering Technology 0 3,000 +3,000 C31 Subsystem Integration 9,122 7,922 -1,200 Space-Based Laser 63,840 35,000 -28,840 National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 80,137 40,137 -40,000 Space Based Infrared Architecture (SPACE)--DEM/VAL 151,378 0 -151,378 C 130 43,600 +43,600 Wideband Milsatcom (SPACE) 53,344 44,344 -9,000 Air Force/NRO Partnership (AFNP) 2,905 -2,905 B 1B 203,544 183,544 -20,000 Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training 38,656 41,156 +2,500 EW Development 90,347 89,047 -1,300 Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) Low EMD 77,651 229,029 +151,378 Munitions Dispenser Development 0 3,900 +3,900 Armament/Ordnance Development 8,887 27,887 +19,000 Submunitions 4,798 10,798 +6,000 Agile Combat Support 946 0 -946 Joint Direct Attack Munition 1,385 20,385 +19,000 Life Support Systems 6,135 9,135 +3,000 Combat Training Ranges 6,220 17,820 +11,600 Computer Resource Technology Transition (CRTT) 196 6,396 +6,200 Joint Interoperability of Tactical Command & Control 5,837 2,837 -3,000 Commercial Operations and Support Savings Initiative 30,485 15,937 -14,548 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (SPACE) 324,803 322,803 -2,000 Target Systems Development 192 0 -192 Major T&E Investment 47,334 69,534 +22,200 Initial Operational Test & Evaluation 23,819 30,569 +6,750 Test and Evaluation Support 392,104 400,104 +8,000 Information Operations Technology 491 0 -491 B 52 Squadrons 32,139 47,539 +15,400 Advanced Cruise Missile 688 0 -688 Air and Space Command and Control Agency (ASC2A) 2,946 0 -2,946 Manned Destructive Suppression 5,402 3,402 -2,000 Advanced Medium Range Air-To-Air Missile (AMRAAM) 49,783 52,783 +3,000 AF TENCAP 10,102 0 -10,102 Compass Call 4,908 12908 +8,000 Aircraft Engine Component Improvement Program 160,212 175,212 +15,000 Theater Air Control Systems 467 6,467 +6,000 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) 33,393 36,393 +3,000 Advanced Communications Systems 2,864 0 -2,864 Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System 130,488 161,988 +31,500 USAF Modeling and Simulation 19,299 23,799 +4,500 Wargaming and Simulation Centers 5,192 26,692 +21,500 Mission Planning Systems 16,764 20,764 +4,000 War Reserve Materiel--Equipment/Secondary Items 1,467 -1,467 Defense Satellite Communications System (SPACE) 8,985 3,985 -5,000 Information Systems Security Program 7,992 12,492 +4,500 Medium Launch Vehicles (SPACE) 1,179 0 -1,179 Security and Invesigative Activities 466 1,466 +1,000 National Airspace System (NAS) Plan 1,756 0 -1,756 Tactical Terminal 239 0 -239 Navstar Global Positioning System (User Equipement) 53,963 49,313 -4,050 Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 70,835 89,800 +18,965 Airborne Reconnaissance Systems 124,608 144,008 +19,400 Manned Reconnaissance Systems 9,388 12,488 +3,100 Distributed Common Ground Systems 12,820 33,820 +21,000 NCMC--TW/AA System 16,408 4,524 -11,884 Space Architect 9,898 0 -9,898 Modeling and Simulation Support 1,069 0 -1,069 C 5 Airlift Squadrons 63,041 60,041 -3,000 C 17 Aircraft 170,718 149,918 -20,800 Air Cargo Material Handling 502 0 -502 KC 10 23,609 +23,609 Depot Maintenance (non-IF) 1.500 5,000 +3,500 Joint Logistics Program--Ammunition Standard System 11,333 13,268 +1,935 Support Systems Development 22,383 37,383 +15,000 AEROSPACE PROPULSION SUBSYSTEMS INTEGRATION The Air Force requested $29,825,000 for Aerospace Propulsion Subsystems Integration. The Committee recommends $8,925,000, a decrease of $20,000,000 associated with the advanced engine demonstration project for next generation fighter and bomber aircraft. The Committee notes that all next generation aircraft currently in development already have dedicated engine development programs. In the absence of a clear transition path to a next generation aircraft, the Committee believes it is premature to fund such an engine demonstration project at this time. ADVANCED COMPUTING TECHNOLOGY The Air Force requested $4,507,000 for Advanced Computing Technology. The Committee recommends no funding for this program given that the commercial computer marketplace is making sufficient investment in this technology area. CREW SYSTEMS AND PERSONNEL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY The Air Force requested $14,841,000 for crew systems and personnel protection technology. The Committee recommends $34,341,000, an increase of $19,500,000. Of this amount, $4,500,000 is only for the high brightness head-mounted display project and $15,000,000 is only for risk reduction to initiate a program to conduct pre-qualification testing and modifications for ejection seats from all viable competitors. The Committee believes there is a great need to upgrade ejection seat technology to maximize safety at all airspeeds, attitudes and altitudes for all pilot profiles to include lighter weight female pilots. The Committee is aware that at least three different manufacturers are actively engaged in development efforts to improve ejection seat safety and believes that a fair and open competitive process will best ensure safety, performance and affordability. The Committee therefore has added $15,000,000 to this account and directs that this sum be combined with $5,000,000 from the amount requested for ejection seat risk reduction efforts. This program shall be a joint Air Force--Navy program, and shall have as its goal to complete pre-qualification testing within 12 months of contract award. The Committee expects that this program will lead to development of fully qualified generic seats that can be competed for installation into the Joint Strike Fighter and other current and future aircraft. JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER The Air Force requested $235,374,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter program. The Committee recommends $335,374,000, an increase of $100,000,000 only for further risk reduction for the Joint Strike Fighter program. The Joint Strike Fighter program is being designed to be a joint, affordable, multi-mission aircraft. The Committee believes these attributes are fully consistent with the changed national security environment. The Committee provides the additional funds to ensure the Joint Strike Fighter program remains on track to meet its objectives. B 2 The Air Force requested $201,765,000 for B 2 bomber development efforts. The Committee recommends $344,165,000, an increase of $142,400,000. This amount includes a decrease of $31,600,000 for JASSM integration contract savings, a decrease of $37,000,000 based on rephased upgrades to AV 3, an increase of $30,100,000 for a classified program identified by the Air Force, an increase of $92,000,000 for Link 16/Center Instrument Display upgrades, an increase of $35,900,000 for EGBU 28 integration, an increase of $35,000,000 for an inflight replanning upgrade, an increase of $16,000,000 for stealth enhancements, and an increase of $2,000,000 for a next generation bomber study. With respect to the reduction associated with aircraft designated AV 3, the Committee notes that the AV 3 Block 30 modification budgeted in fiscal year 2000 will now be delayed to future years to allow the aircraft to serve as a test vehicle for JSOW, LO maintenance improvements, SATCOM/DAMA, software updates, and JASSM integration. These funds should be budgeted in the year of need. With respect to the next generation bomber study, the Committee believes that the conflict in Kosovo has clearly demonstrated the value of a highly capable bomber force. The Committee supports the Long Range Air Power Panel recommendation that ``the Department develop a plan to replace the existing force over time.'' However, the Committee notes that the Air Force's Long Range Bomber Roadmap postpones the start of any program to fulfill the requirements of such a plan until 2013. The Committee believes this decision is unsupportable given the long-lead times associated with bomber development programs. The Committee notes that in the past several years, three different studies have each indicated the need for additional bombers. These studies have recognized that bombers are force multipliers, providing the inherent advantage of being able to carry large payloads over extremely long ranges. The Committee further believes that the integration of precision guided munitions on bombers provides a tremendous capability to attack multiple targets per sortie at a fraction of the cost of using expensive cruise missiles. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Air Force to study alternatives for modernizing the bomber force with new aircraft. The Committee directs that this study include required capabilities, required quantities, projected costs (by year, by appropriation and in total), and nominal schedules for two alternatives: (1) a new design bomber, and (2) a new ``low cost'' B 2 using acquisition reform measures and commercial best practices. The Committee believes RAND should review the Air Force assumptions, analysis, and conclusions and provide its comments along with the Air Force report. Finally, the Committee directs that this report be provided no later than May 1, 2000. MILSTAR The Air Force requested $361,308,000 for the MILSTAR program. The Committee recommends $214,308,000, a net decrease of $147,000,000. The Committee recommendation includes a $3,000,000 increase for integrated satellite communication control and a $150,000,000 decrease to transfer MILSTAR satellite procurement to the missile procurement account. The Committee is concerned with the Air Force's compliance with past legislation on this program. Over the last two years, Congress has passed legislation preventing the use of research and development funds to procure end-items for operational use unless these end-items are required for testing purposes. Over these past two years, the Air Force has ignored this provision of law with respect to the MILSTAR program and has continued to budget and execute the program using research and development funding. The Committee was further dismayed to learn that by incrementally funding satellite procurement along with various development activities, the Air Force is now unable to determine an accurate unit cost of the MILSTAR satellite recently lost. Therefore, the Air Force has no way to determine a fair and reasonable cost for any MILSTAR satellite replacement. The Committee finds this lack of accountability astonishing and is a perfect example of the dangers of budgeting for procurement items in the research and development account. Accordingly, the Committee recommendation transfers the remaining funding for MILSTAR satellite procurement to the Missile Procurement, Air Force account and expects the Air Force to budget for MILSTAR and other satellites not specifically needed as test articles in the procurement accounts. SBIRS HIGH The Air Force requested $328,653,000 for SBIRS High. The Committee recommendation provides this amount. The Committee is concerned that the currently proposed Air Force production program maximizes hardware concurrency, an unacceptably high risk acquisition approach. For example, the Air Force proposes to procure hardware in fiscal year 2001 for the entire SBIRS High constellation (including all development and production satellites), a full four years before launch and test of the first development satellite. Parts for the fifth satellite are being procured more than 4 years ahead of need and will presumably ``sit on a shelf'' for these years. Given the significant remaining development risk in this program, by all appearances such a highly concurrent acquisition strategy is unwise, representing a potential ``rush to failure'' that the Government would be well advised to avoid. In addition, the proposed production program is incrementally funded, in violation of the long-standing ``full funding policy'' for procurement. There is no sound reason to make an exception to this long-standing and important acquisition principle for the SBIRS program. If the program is a priority, then it should be funded in the traditional manner, with Air Force budget submissions and program execution so configured. Accordingly, the Committee directs that no more than $100,000,000 of the funds provided for SBIRS High shall be obligated until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the production program complies with all DoD full funding policies (including the prohibition against funding more than 20% of the end-item cost using advance procurement) and that program concurrency risk has been minimized through the use of annualized production buys. The Committee further directs that concurrent with the Secretary of Defense certification above, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation submit an assessment of whether the SBIRS High acquisition strategy allows for adequate on-orbit testing prior to a final production decision. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING The Air Force requested $5,696,000 for development planning. The Committee specifically denies funding for this program. This program is ostensibly intended to perform pre-milestone I studies and analysis in order to transition projects into later phases of the acquisition process. Though the FY 1999 President's Budget requested funding in this program for specific efforts which received subsequent appropriations, the Committee has learned that the Air Force diverted these appropriated funds to an entirely different set of efforts without prior notification to congressional defense committees. Such diversion of funds is inconsistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of Section 8111 of the Fiscal Year 1999 Appropriations Act prohibiting initiation of new programs without prior congressional notification. Though this abuse alone would be sufficient justification to deny funding for this line-item, the Committee further notes the program's failure to transition projects into later phases of the acquisition process. The Committee simply will not tolerate these abuses, and therefore specifically denies all funding for this program. F 16 SQUADRONS The Air Force requested $112,670,000 for F 16 squadron development. The Committee recommends $152,670,000, an increase of $15,000,000 only for jamming countermeasure improvements for F 16 aircraft. The Committee believes that the Air Force has not sufficiently prioritized the need to address advances in threat jamming techniques in its current fighters. Consistent with the Department's strategy of maintaining Information Dominance on the battlefield, the Committee believes it is critical to maintain superiority in electronic counter countermeasures (ECCM) and provides the additional funds to accelerate efforts in this area. The Committee is further concerned about limitations in the combat range of F 16s and encourages the Air Force to explore ways to increase this range. F 15 SQUADRONS The Air Force requested $112,670,000 for F 15 squadron development. The Committee recommends $152,670,000, an increase of $40,000,000. Of the additional funds provided, $20,000,000 is only for F 15 service life extension and $20,000,000 is only for jamming countermeasure improvements for F 15 aircraft as discussed in association with the F 16. The Committee understands that F 15 aircraft service life can be extended to 16,000 flight hours without major structural modifications, allowing the aircraft to stay in service well past 2015. To maximize the return on the nation's significant investment in this platform, the Committee provides an additional $20,000,000 to ensure the aircraft reaches its maximum economic service life. SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM The Air Force requested $43,186,000 for the Spacelift Range System. The Committee recommends $60,986,000, an increase of $17,800,000 which includes $9,300,000 only to fund Air Force identified shortfalls in on-going space range modernization and an additional $8,500,000 only to prepare a comprehensive study of required modernization, upgrades, and enhancement of existing space launch related facilities at Vandenberg AFB and Edwards AFB. The Committee is deeply troubled with the pace, scope, and cost of the space range modernization program. The space launch ``business'' has changed dramatically in recent years, going from a ``design, test, fix, and retest'' approach dominated by relatively infrequent government launches to a significant increase in launches dominated by the commercial sector. Much of the equipment at the ranges is 30 years old and manpower intensive and simply cannot support the nation's space launch needs in an efficient manner. For years, range modernization funds have been used as a funding ``source'' to address other Air Force priorities. Now there appears to be growing recognition, both in and out of the Air Force, that the range problems must be fixed quickly. For example, recommendation 24 of the Cox Commission report states that it is in the national security interest of the United States to increase U.S. domestic launch capacity. In addition, the White House has recently initiated a major review of the space ranges with participation from DOD, NASA, and industry. The Committee further notes that the Air Force unfunded priority list requests additional funds to address range problems which the Committee has provided. The Committee further recommends an increase of $8,500,000 for the state spaceport authority to prepare a comprehensive study of required modernization, upgrades, and enhancements of existing space launch related facilities at Vandenberg AFB and Edwards AFB. The study shall include, but is not limited to, engineering plans and designs for a universal launch complex, solid rocket motor storage facility, hazardous structural test systems, launch vehicle processing facility, and gas storage and distribution system. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 253 to 257 Insert here RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $9,036,551,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 8,609,289,000 Committee recommendation 8,930,149,000 Change from budget request +320,860,000 This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation activities of the Department of Defense. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AUTHORIZATION CHANGES The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request in accordance with House authorization action. [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations 117,969 88,569 -29,400 PATRIOT PAC-3 29,141 77,641 +48,500 Industrial Preparedness 6,665 10,415 +3,750 PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request Defense Research Sciences 64,293 66,293 +2,000 University Research Initiatives 216,778 227,278 +10,500 Chemical and Biological Defense Program 31,386 45,386 +14,000 Next Generation Internet 40,000 41,000 +1,000 Support Technologies--Applied Research 65,328 80,328 +15,000 Medical Free Electron Laser 9,719 12,000 +2,281 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) 14,329 16,329 +2,000 [Note: $2,000,000 is only for Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI).] Computing Systems and Communications Technology 322,874 330,874 +8,000 Extensible Information Systems 70,000 30,000 -40,000 Biological Warfare Defense 145,850 101,850 -44,000 Chemical and Biological Defense Program 64,780 99,280 +34,500 Tactical Technology 137,626 137,626 Integrated Command and Control Technology 31,296 43,996 +12,700 Materials and Electronics Technology 235,321 248,821 +13,500 WMD Related Technology 203,512 215,512 +12,000 Explosives Demilitarization Technology 11,183 22,383 +11,200 Counterterror Technical Support 52,223 57,223 +5,000 Support Technologies--Advanced Technology Development 173,704 196,317 +22,613 Chemical and Biological Defense Program--Advanced Development 40,910 45,910 +5,000 Special Technical Support 10,948 15,948 +5,000 Verification Technology Demonstration 58,455 76,455 +18,000 Generic Logistics R&D Technology Demonstrations 17,336 30,536 +13,200 Strategic Environmental Research Program 53,506 59,506 +6,000 Advanced Electronics Technologies 246,023 256,523 +10,500 High Performance Computing Modernization Program 159,099 167,099 +8,000 Sensor and Guidance Technology 232,319 182,658 49,661 Marine Technology 22,538 23,538 +1,000 Physical Security Equipment 37,107 25,792 -11,315 Joint Robotics Program 12,937 16,937 +4,000 Advanced Sensor Applications Program 15,345 26,845 +11,500 Theater High-Altitude Area Defense System--TMD 34,133 527,871 +493,738 Navy Theater-Wide Missile Defense System 329,768 419,768 +90,000 [Note: The Committee bill also provides $35,000,000 in additional funding for Navy Theater-Wide accleration to be derived from funds previously provided in Public Law 105 277.] *[+35,000] MEADS--DEM/VAL 48,597 0 -48,597 National Missile Defense--DEM/VAL 836,555 761,555 -75,000 National Missile Defense DEM/VAL -75,000 [Note: The Committee bill also provides $75,000,000 in additional funding for National Missile Defense to be derived from funds previously provided in Public Law 105 277.] *[+75,000] Joint Theater Missile Defense--DEM/VAL 195,722 200,722 +5,000 BMD Technical Operations 190,650 200,650 +10,000 International Cooperative Programs 36,650 36,650 [Note: The Committee bill also provides $45,000,000 in additional funding for the Arrow Third Battery to be derived from funds previously provided in Public Law 105 277.] *[+45,000] Chemical and Biological Defense Program--DEM/VAL 62,033 69,533 +7,500 Joint Systems Education and Training 0 5,000 +5,000 Humanitarian Demining 15,847 20,647 +4,800 Chemical and Biological Defense Program--EMD 116,365 120,865 +4,500 Commercial Operations and Support Savings Initiative 16,976 8,000 -8,976 Theater High-Altitude Area Defense System--TMD--EMD 577,493 0 -577,493 Patriot PAC 3 Theater Missile Defense Acquisition--EMD 29,141 77,641 +48,500 [Note: The Committee bill also provides $75,000,000 in additional funding for PAC 3 to be derived from funds previously provided in Public Law 105 277.] *[+75,000] Navy Area Theater Missile Defense--EMD 268,389 310,189 +41,800 DIMHRS 0 41,200 +41,200 OSD Technical Studies and Assessments [Note: Consolidation of studies lines.] 0 30,021 +30,021 Network Security 0 12,000 +12,000 [Note: The Department is directed to transfer funds provided for this project to the National Security Agency for execution.] Defense Imagery and Mapping Program 88,401 101,401 +13,000 C3I Intelligence Programs 9,480 15,480 +6,000 Manned Reconnaissance Systems 8,494 16,994 +8,500 Tactical Cryptologic Activities 109,540 106,840 -2,700 Industiral Preparedness 6,665 10,415 +3,750 Special Operations Tactical Systems Development 106,671 149,370 +42,699 Special Operations Intelligence Systems Development 1,407 6,507 +5,100 SOF Medical Technology Development 2,039 6,039 +4,000 *Funds noted in brackets are provided from within those provided for in Section 102 of division B, title 1, chapter 1 of Public Law 105 277. BASIC RESEARCH CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM The Department requested $31,386,000 for Chemical and Biological Defense basic research. The Committee recommends $45,386,000, an increase of $14,000,000. Within this amount $1,000,000 is only for chemical and biological detection programs, $10,000,000 is only for laboratory-based and analytical threat assessment research at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), and $3,000,000 is only for chemical and biological point detectors. APPLIED RESEARCH HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES The Department requested $14,329,000 for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The Committee recommends $16,329,000, an increase of $2,000,000. Within this amount, the Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 only for a minority research program. EXTENSIBLE INFORMATION SYSTEMS The Department requested $70,000,000 for Extensible Information Systems. The Committee recommends $30,000,000, a decrease of $40,000,000. The Committee recognizes the importance of advanced computing capability for defense weapon systems and requirements. However, the Committee notes that DARPA is requesting funds for three new projects: deeply networked systems (AE 01), software for autonomous systems (AE 02) and software for embedded systems (AE 03). The Committee believes that all three new technology areas have promise but notes that DARPA is requesting a 15 percent increase in overall computing technology programs versus the prior year. The Committee therefore recommends a total of $30,000,000 for these new programs. This is a 5 percent increase over the prior year level for computing technology programs--including Next Generation Internet ($40 million), Computing Systems and Communications Technology ($323.8 million) and Extensible Information Systems ($30 million). BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE The Department requested $145,850,000 for Biological Warfare Defense programs. The Committee recommends $101,850,000, a decrease of $44,000,000. Within this amount, the Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 only for aerogel special silica material technology and an increase of $4,000,000 only for asymmetrical protocols for biological warfare defense. In addition, the Committee recommends a decrease of $12,000,000 for consequence management software as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee also notes that the fiscal year 2000 request represents an approximately 77 percent increase in the biological warfare defense program over last year's enacted level. While the Committee believes that the additional emphasis is warranted, it is not sure that such a significant increase in funding can be executed properly. In addition, the Committee notes that the Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Disease (USAMRIID) has significant experience with known and emerging biological threat agents. Furthermore, the Committee believes that USAMIIRD may be able to substantially enhance the work being done within the DARPA program through additional laboratory-based and threat assessment research--to include medical countermeasures and novel approaches to emerging biological threat agents. Therefore, as noted elsewhere in this report, the Committee recommends an increase in the Chemical and Biological Program appropriation for USAMRIID. The Committee believes that the Army research program should supplement the DARPA Biological Warfare Defense program and the Committee encourages collaboration between DARPA and USAMRIID on emerging biological defense research. ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM--ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT The Department requested $64,780,000 for Chemical and Biological Defense advanced development. The Committee recommends $99,280,000, an increase of $34,500,000. Within this amount, the Committee recommends an increase of $10,000,000 only for laboratory-based and analytical threat assessment research and protocols to enhance biological defense, an increase of $13,000,000 only for countermeasures to biological and chemical threats, an increase of $3,000,000 only for safeguard, an increase of $4,500,000 for chemical and biological point detectors and an increase of $4,000,000 only for biological and chemical hazard detection. The Committee recommends an increase of $13,000,000 only to establish a program to develop interdisciplinary research and training for countermeasures to biological and chemical agents. The Committee believes that such a program will provide a working infrastructure for the scientific resources needed to improve countermeasures to chemical and biological threats. VERIFICATION TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION The Department requested $58,455,000 for Verification Technology Demonstration. The Committee recommends $76,455,000, an increase of $18,000,000. Within this amount, the Committee recommends an increase of $6,000,000 only for nuclear detection analysis, and an increase of $12,000,000 only for basic and applied research to support nuclear testing. In addition, the Committee recommends from within available funds $10,000,000 only for the center for monitoring research. The Committee recommends an additional $6,000,000 only for the Nuclear Treaty sub-element of the Verification Technology Demonstration program, of which $2,500,000 is only for the continuation of an industry-based program for developing systems using advances in solid state nuclear detectors, processing electronics, and analysis software; and $3,500,000 is only for the continuation of an industry-based program for the development of detection technologies and advanced analytical and monitoring techniques. Last year's nuclear tests in South Asia raise serious concerns about the Department's ability to support a robust operational nuclear test monitoring program. The Committee directs that $12,000,000 shall be available only for peer-reviewed basic and applied research only to support operational nuclear test monitoring. Of this amount, $4,000,000 shall be available only for peer-reviewed seismic research; and $8,000,000 shall be available only for peer-reviewed basic research--$7,000,000 of which is only for explosion seismology research. The Committee directs that the basic and applied seismic research program address the specific prioritized research topics recommended to the Department by the National Research Council. The Committee directs the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to award these funds through a competitive peer panel review process; to segregate the basic and applied research funds for this program into clearly identifiable projects within the 6.1 and 6.2 budget categories; and to improve integration of the basic and applied components of the program. Further, the Committee directs the Department to provide by December 1, 1999, a detailed report to the Committee on the plan for obligating these funds. Finally, the Committee directs the Department to sustain funding for these activities in future budgets to ensure the expertise needed in this critical operational program. ADVANCED CONCEPT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS The Department requested $117,969,000 for Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTD). The Committee recommends $88,569,000, a decrease of $29,400,000 as proposed in the House-passed Defense Authorization bill. The Committee notes that the goal of ACTDs is to get critical technology into the field so that it can be expeditiously evaluated in an operational environment. Although the Committee supports this idea in principle, the Committee remains concerned about the process of funding these demonstrations. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned about providing funds to the Department in advance of an explicit justification of individual projects. The ACTD appropriation is provided with the understanding that the Department may make funds available for specific projects without further notification to Congress. The Department has argued that such fiscal flexibility is necessary in order to take advantage of emerging technologies and to field these technologies expeditiously and it has consistently asked for increased appropriations to expand ACTDs. However, the Committee has been reluctant to approve increases because of the potential for abuse of resources inherent in this program. Unfortunately, it has come to the Committee's attention that such an abuse has occurred. The House Defense Appropriations Committee report for Fiscal Year 1999 contained a specific prohibition on the use of ACTD funds. The report directed that ``none of these funds can be used for LOSAT or EFOGM.'' Unfortunately, the Department willingly disregarded this prohibition and proceeded to use $7,000,000 of Fiscal Year 1999 ACTD funds for LOSAT. As discussed at the beginning of this report, this is but one of an increasing number of instances where specific guidance from the Congress has been ignored. Therefore the Committee recommends its reduction to the budget request with prejudice, and expresses its intent to deny future funding increases for ACTDs under this account. The Committee cannot overstate its strong concern regarding this matter. Therefore, the Committee has included a general provision (Section 8118) that requires DOD to submit a report to the congressional defense committees prior to the obligation of funds for all ACTD projects. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE The Department requested $3,672,822,000 for all ballistic missile defense programs. The Committee bill provides for a total of $3,899,543,000 for all ballistic missile defense programs. This amount includes $3,669,543,000 in new appropriations and $230,000,000 to be derived from funds previously provided in Section 102 of division B, title I, chapter 1 of Public Law 105 277. Of the new appropriations provided within this bill, a total of $2,970,009,000 is provided for research and development; $355,900,000 is provided for procurement within the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) budget; and, $343,634,000 is provided in Air Force research and development programs to include $308,634,000 for the Airborne Laser and $35,000,000 for the Space-Based Laser. The Committee bill provides the budgeted amount for the joint U.S.-Israel ARROW anti-tactical ballistic missile development program, and also provides for $45,000,000 to support deployment of a third ARROW battery. The recommended amounts represent an increase of $226,721,000 over the budget request of $3,672,822,000 for these programs. Changes to specific programs are summarized in the following table: Budget request Recommended Change from request Support Technologies--Applied Research 65,328 80,328 +15,000 Support Technologies-Advanced Technology Development 173,704 196,317 +22,613 Theater High-Altitude Area Defense systems--TMD 34,133 527,871 +493,738 Navy Theater Wide Missile Defense system 329,768 +419,768 +90,000 MEADS--DEM/VAL 48,597 0 -48,597 National Missile Defense--DEM/VAL 836,555 761,555 -75,000 National Missile Defense--DEM/VAL -75,000 Joint Theater Missile Defense--DEM/VAL 195,722 200,722 +5,000 BMD Technical Operations 190,650 200,650 +10,000 International Cooperative Programs 36,650 36,650 Theater High-Altitude Area Defense systems--TMD--EMD 577,493 0 -577,493 Patriot PAC 3 Theater Missile Defense Acquisition--EMD 29,141 77,641 +48,500 Navy Area Theater Missile Defense--EMD 268,389 310,189 +41,800 *Funds noted in brackets are provided from within those provided for in Section 102 of division B, title I, chapter 1, of Public Law 105 277. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SITE SELECTION The Committee is concerned about the growing ballistic missile threat and the implications of testing by North Korea of advanced ballistic missiles. Furthermore, the Committee believes that potential deployment options for the National Missile Defense system should be fully examined for their effectiveness in defending the U.S. against a potential limited ballistic missile threat. Therefore, the Committee directs that with the submission of the Fiscal Year 2001 budget, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that contains an assessment of the advantages or disadvantages of deploying a ground-based National Missile Defense system at more than one site. THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE (THAAD) The Department requested $611,626,000 for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program. Of that amount, $527,871,000 is requested for Demonstration and Validation and $83,755,000 is requested for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD). The Committee recommends $527,871,000 for Demonstration and Validation and no funds for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD). The THAAD program has experienced serious problems--including extensive delays, cost growth, and six consecutive intercept test failures. However, the Committee believes that continued demonstration and validation flight testing is necessary to verify that ``hit-to-kill'' missile defense systems like THAAD will be effective against the growing theater ballistic missile threat. While the Committee is pleased that Flight Test 10 was successful in intercepting a target last month, the Committee believes that THAAD should not proceed to the next phase of acquisition until all exit criteria have been met and that senior acquisition officials are confident that the proposed system design will meet the needs of the military. Therefore, the Committee recommends no funding for the EMD phase of the THAAD program at this time. MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM (MEADS) The Department requested $48,597,000 to continue the international cooperative Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) program. The Committee denies the request. The Committee continues to be concerned about several issues regarding the MEADS program and believes that these concerns have not been addressed in the proposed Fiscal Year 2000 budget. The Committee recognizes the valid need for a mobile ground based system for ballistic missile defense. In addition, it recognizes that a multinational program could possibly meet both U.S. needs but also those of our NATO allies. However, the MEADS program, since its inception, has been inadequately funded, ill-defined, and as currently structured is unlikely to meet the requirements of the military. To date, more than $100,000,000 has been appropriated for MEADS with little more accomplished than a seemingly endless series of studies. This pattern is repeated in the fiscal year 2000 request. Senior OSD acquisition officials have told the Committee that the request of $48,597,000 is nothing more than a planning wedge. The Department's lack of a strong commitment to this program is further evidenced by the programming of only $146 million over the next three years for MEADS. The GAO has recently reported that MEADS development costs alone are estimated to be rougly $2 billion, with deployment costing approximately $12 billion. Under existing funding costraints, the Committee fails to see how these funding requirements can be met without reducing programmed funding and delaying the potential deployment of more mature programs such as PAC-3, THAAD, and the Navy Area and Theater-Wide programs. The Committe also notes the checkered record of other efforts to launch multinational programs, and while recognizing the importance of this program to our multinational partners it realizes such an effort raises a series of problems which previous multinational development efforts failed to overcome. For such an ambitious undertaking as MEADS to succeed, it will require a real commitment from all partners, including the United States, as well as focused management and a solid acquisition program. In addition to these serious programmatic issues, the Committee is also greatly disturbed about fiscal irregularities regarding the use of fiscal year 1999 funds. As indicated earlier in this report, officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense knowingly decided to expend fiscal year 1999 funds to continue the MEADS program, in direct conflict with specific congressional direction. Furthermore, the Committee is extremely disturbed that the funds used for MEADS were from the Air Directed Surface to Air Missile, appropriations which according to DoD's own internal financial management documents were not available for such purposes. In order to preclude a repeat of this experience, the Committee bill includes new general provisions, which restores the funds diverted from the Air Directed Surface to Air Missile and also implements the Committee's recommendation regarding fiscal year 2000 funds for MEADS. For the reasons cited, even though it acknowledges the operational need for a program which meets the MEADS requiremet, the Committee cannot support the MEADS program as currently constituted and therefore denies the budget request. RUSSIAN AMERICAN OBSERVATIONAL SATELLITE (RAMOS) The Committee understands that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, plans to make $16,000,000 of current and/or prior year funds available for the RAMOS program. The Committee directs that these funds shall be available only to continue the RAMOS satellite demonstration program. space-based laser The Department requested $75,000,000 and the Air Force requested $63,840,000 for the Space Based Laser (SBL) program for a total program of $138,840,000. The Committee recommends a total of $93,813,000, a decrease of $16,187,000 from the Department's request and a decrease of $28,840,000 from the Air Force request. The Committee believes that the SBL is an interesting technology program but believes that the Department has higher priority considerations and more immediate requirements for space--including the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High and Low programs. The Committee therefore recommends no increase over the fiscal year 1999 budget request. SENSOR AND GUIDANCE TECHNOLOGY The Department requested $232,319,000 for Sensor and Guidance Technology. The Committee recommends $180,658,000, a net decrease of $51,661,000. Within this amount, the Committee recommends an increase of $3,000,000 only for the large millimeter telescope, a decrease of $4,000,000 for the low cost cruise missile defense initiative and a decrease of $50,661,000 for the Discoverer II program. DISCOVERER II The Department requested $50,661,000, the Air Force requested $28,670,000 and the National Reconnaissance Office requested $29,150,000 for the Discoverer II satellite technology demonstration program. The Committee denies the request. The Committee understands the Department's interest in developing and building a low-cost constellation of radar satellites to provide tactical commanders with important information--including ground moving target indication and terrain-mapping capability. However, while the Committee agrees that the goals of the Discover II program are laudable, it does not believe that they can realistically be achieved. The Committee is very concerned about the technological risk in the program and the lack of a validated requirement. Furthermore, the Committee is extremely concerned that one of the principal goals of the program--a low cost system--is highly unrealistic given the history of space acquisition programs. The Committee notes that an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) already concludes that the demonstration program would cost approximately twice the original $600 million estimate. Therefore, the Committee recommends no funding for the program and directs that the Discoverer II program should be terminated. PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT The Department requested $37,107,000 for Physical Security Equipment. The Committee recommends $25,792,000, a decrease of $11,315,000. The Committee notes the budget request is a 44 percent increase over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. Therefore the Committee recommends a reduction due to program growth. COALITION WARFARE The Department requested $12,781,000 for Coalition Warfare. The Committee denies the request. This is a new start program that would provide $12,781,000 to conduct Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTD) with U.S. allies. The Committee agrees with the goal of increasing interoperability with coalition forces. However, the Committee believes that the first priority must be to insure that U.S. forces have the capability to be interoperable. Furthermore, the Committee believes that issues of interoperability should be considered in the normal course of planning and acquisition and does not believe that the U.S. will gain substantially by after the fact measures to force interoperability with allied forces. The Committee also notes that funding provided in this bill for the Joint Warfighting Experimentation program should provide a basis for understanding and correcting problems with U.S. military joint operations and encourages the Department to address and solve these issues before it tries to address the larger problems related to coalition warfare. TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS The Department requested a total of $40,861,000 for several different studies activities. These include $353,000 for Technical Studies, Support and Analysis; $4,900,000 for Assessments and Evaluations; $29,506,000 for Technical Studies, Support and Analysis; $588,000 for Technical Studies, Support and Analysis; $2,215,000 for USD(A&T) Critical Technology Support; and $3,299,000 for Industrial Capabilities Assessments. The Committee recommends no funds for these studies lines. However, the Committee recommends a new line for technical studies and assessments and provides $30,021,000 for all technical studies, support and analysis. Strategic Environmental Research Program The Department requested $53,506,000 for the Strategic Environmental Research Program. The Committee recommends $59,506,000, an increase of $6,000,000. Of this amount, $3,000,000 is only to continue the research, development and demonstration program devoted to health and safety issues of environmental cleanup and shipyard workers and $3,000,000 is only to continue the risk-based approach to research the effects of toxic chemicals on human health and the environment to help establish cleanup criteria for the Department's environmental cleanup sites. DEFENSE IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY PROGRAM The Department requested $88,401,000 for the Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency Program. The committee recommends $101,401,000, an increase of $13,000,000. Of the additional amount provided by the Committee, $5,000,000 is only for the National Technology Alliance (NTA) and $8,000,000 is only for NIMA's acquisition of an enterprise license of the commercial off-the-shelf NIMA viewer and for the distribution and support of the NIMA Viewer to NIMA customers. tri-service directed energy center The Committee requests the Air Force, as the lead for the Tri-Service Directed Energy Center (Tri-DEC), to further investigate the use of non-lethal directed energy (DE) technologies for intelligence gathering in the area of counter-proliferation to support the needs of the services. The Air Force should give specific emphasis on technologies that support the following areas: 1. Long range detection and identification of development, production, and test of weapons of mass destruction; 2. Detection and identification of illicit drug production; 3. Long range detection and characterization of battlefield use of weapons of mass destruction; and, 4. Assessment of battle damage and the need for follow-up strikes against underground storage facilities for weapons of mass destruction. SPECIAL OPERATIONS TACTICAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT Special Operations MC 130 Combat Talon aircraft are required to provide night, all-weather infiltration and extraction of Special Operations personnel and equipment as well as the resupply of military operations in hostile areas. The Committee is aware that the Autonomous Landing Guidance System (ALG) may provide Special Operations Force pilots with a precision approach system that enhances their ability to descend into landing strips under adverse conditions. The Committee encourages the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to investigate the feasibility of equipping its aircraft with ALG and directs USSOCOM to provide a report to the Committee not later than April 1, 2000 on the operational utility of incorporating this system into its Combat Talon aircraft. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS Information on the Joint Systems Education, Training Systems Development and DIMHRS programs can be found in the Information Technology section of this report. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 273 to 276 Inset here DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $258,606,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 253,457,000 Committee recommendation 271,957,000 Change from budget request +18,500,000 This appropriation funds the Developmental, Test and Evaluation activities of the Department of Defense. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request Central Test and Evaluation Investment Development 121,741 140,241 +18,500 CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM The Department requested $121,741,000 for Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program. The Committee recommends $140,241,000, an increase of $18,500,000. Within this amount, $8,500,000 is only for the roadway simulator, $5,000,000 is only for the airborne separation video system and $5,000,000 is only for the Magdalena Ridge observatory program. The Committee directs that none of the funds provided for the roadway simulator may be made available for military construction. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 278 inset here OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $34,245,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 24,434,000 Committee recommendation 29,434,000 Change from budget request +5,000,000 This appropriation funds the Operational Test and Evaluation activities of the Department of Defense. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Change from request Committee recommendation Live Fire Testing 9,832 14,832 +5,000 Live fire testing and training initiative +5,000 PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 280 insert here TITLE V REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $94,500,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 90,344,000 Committee recommendation 90,344,000 Change from budget request The Committee recommends an appropriation of $90,344,000 for the Defense Working Capital Funds. The recommendation is a decrease of $4,156,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. DEFENSE REUTILIZATION AND MARKETING SERVICES The Committee does not recommend including language, as proposed in the budget request, allowing the transfer of Defense Stockpile sales proceeds to the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS). The Committee notes that this solution, like other recent funding schemes for DRMS is a temporary measure; and would not last longer than five to six years. The Committee directs that the Department of Defense continue funding the relevant portion of DRMS operations costs through the surcharge included in the price of wholesale supply items until such time as a permanent funding mechanism can be developed for DRMS. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 31, 2000, which outlines a plan to provide funding for DRMS on a permanent basis. NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation $708,366,000 Fiscal Year 2000 budget request 354,700,000 Committee recommendation 729,700,000 Change from budget request +375,000,000 This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation, and supply of prepositioning ships; operation of the Ready Reserve Force; and acquisition of ships for the Military Sealift Command, the Ready Reserve Force, and the Marine Corps. LARGE MEDIUM SPEED ROLL-ON/ROLL-OFF (LMSR) SHIPS In fiscal years 1995 and 1997, Congress appropriated funds for conversion of three commercial ships for the Marine Corps' Maritime Prepositioning Fleet Enhancement (MPF E). These ships were a direct response to lessons-learned from Operation Desert Storm, and have a significant impact on the warfighting ability of the Marine Corps. Late last year, it became evident that the program was not viable under the existing plan. Cost increases/overruns have occurred on the first two MPF E ships, and the procurement for the third ship was canceled. This has left a major void in the combat prepositioning capability of the Marine Corps. The Defense Department has a successful program to build 14 new-construction prepositioning ships for the Army. These Large Medium Speed Roll-on/Roll-off (LMSR) ships have much more capability and a significantly longer life than the used commercial ships that the Marine Corps originally envisioned for the MPF E mission. The Committee understands that one of the Army ships can be reconfigured for the Marine Corps mission and fielded within a year. The Committee believes reconfiguring this ship immediately to meet one-third of the Marine Corps' prepositioning enhancement requirement and replacing the diverted Army capability with a new LMSR to be delivered in the mid-term provides the best mix of sealift assets to increase warfighting capability. The Committee directs that an existing LMSR ship be transferred to the Marine Corps. The Committee recommends $320,000,000 for procurement of one additional LMSR ship for prepositioning of Army materiel. The Committee also recommends $30,000,000 to convert an existing LMSR ship to the Marine Corps MPF E specifications. MARITIME PREPOSITIONING FORCE ENHANCEMENT CONVERSION The Navy recently notified Congress of a second episode of significant cost growth for the conversion a used commercial ship to meet Marine Corps Maritime Prepositioning Force Enhancement requirements. In section 8083 of the Committee bill, the Committee has transferred $38 million of previously appropriated funds within the National Defense Sealift Fund as requested by the Navy so that the conversion can continue without disruption. NATIONAL DEFENSE FEATURES The commercial shipping industry is contemplating the construction of a new class of high-speed, high-capacity sealift ships for cargo routes in the North Atlantic ocean. Should such ships be constructed in the United States, the Committee believes they could also provide much needed fast sealift capability for the U.S. military and would be excellent candidates for the defense features program. This program provides funding by the Department of Defense so that commercial ships constructed in the United States are to be built in a manner to facilitate their use by the military during a national emergency. This can provide substantial cost savings over existing and traditional sealift capability. Should the United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) approve loan guarantees for construction of such commercial ships, the Committee directs that the Department of Defense report to the congressional defense committees within one month of the MARAD approval on the feasibility, cost-effectiveness, desirability, and cost to the Department of Defense for installation and life cycle maintenance of such features in those ships. DOD REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL TANKER SHIPS The Committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has not determined with sufficient precision the extent to which it may have to request the U.S. Maritime Administration to requisition former U.S. government-owned tankers to meet defense needs in the event of a national emergency. The Department of Defense must have an adequate tanker capacity to draw upon in a national emergency. On the other hand, commercial shipping companies should not be unduly burdened with requisition and other conditions on use of their tanker ships that are in excess of legitimate defense needs. The Committee is most concerned about tanker ships which are more than 25 years old, the generally accepted useful life of a tanker ship, and whether the Maritime Administration is being too restrictive in prohibiting the disposition of ships that have exceeded their useful life estimates due to uncertainty over Department of Defense actual requirements. The Committee directs that the Secretary of Defense submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2000 on the Department's requirements and criteria for maintaining government control on commercial tanker ships which have exceeded their estimated useful lives. MASSACHUSETTS MARITIME ACADEMY TRAINING SHIP The Committee recommends $25,000,000 only for the Department of Defense to upgrade a ship for the Ready Reserve Force that can also be used as a training ship for Massachusetts Maritime Academy cadets. These funds would be used to convert an existing vessel in the Department of Defense Ready Reserve Force into a training ship for Academy's maritime cadet during peacetime which also serves as a Ready Reserve Force troop ship for use during national emergencies. The current ship that the Department of Defense uses for these dual purposes has been deemed unsuitable due to its material condition. The Commander in Chief of the U.S. Transportation Command recently approved the upgrade of a ship already in the DOD inventory on an interim basis but that ship is ported on the west coast and is too small for the wartime troop carrying mission, leaving a significant gap in the Defense Department's sealift capability for wartime. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include any additional funds beyond those contained in this bill needed to complete the ship in the fiscal year 2001. SEALIFT SHIP LEASES The Committee notes that no funds were requested in the National Defense Sealift Funds for leases of ships which involve new construction, and therefore none of the funds in this Act are available for such leases. TITLE VI OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $10,149,872,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 10,834,657,000 Committee recommendation 11,078,417,000 Change from budget request +243,760,000 This appropriation funds the Defense Health Program activities of the Department of Defense. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES [In thousands of dollars] Budget request Recommended Change from request Operation and Maintenance 10,477,687 10,471,447 -6,240 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM The Department requested $10,834,657,000 for the Defense Health Program, of which $10,477,687,000 is for operation and maintenance and $356,970,000 is for procurement. The Committee recommends $11,078,417,000, a net increase of $243,760,000. Of this amount $10,471,447,000 is for operation and maintenance, $356,970,000 is for procurement and $250,000,000 is only for research and development. PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH Once again, the Administration requested no funds for breast cancer and prostate cancer peer-reviewed research programs. The Committee recommends $175,000,000 for the Army peer-reviewed breast cancer research program, and $75,000,000 for the Army peer-reviewed prostate cancer research program. TRICARE CONTRACTS AND PHARMACY COSTS The Committee notes that the Defense Health Program budget request is significantly higher than in prior years. In fact, the DHP budget request represents over a six percent increase over the fiscal year 1999 level. The Committee is pleased that the Department has fully funded the Defense Health Program, has recognized the impact of technology and pharmaceutical costs on the military health care budget, and that it has proposed increases in funding for these purposes. However, the Committee also understands that various trends in pharmaceutical use, to include cost shifting, may be having an adverse and unanticipated impact on existing TRICARE contracts. In addition, these increases have not been accounted for under existing TRICARE contracts nor are they reflected in the budget request. Therefore, where it can be demonstrated that increases in pharmaceutical costs could not be anticipated by a contractor at the time of the initial contract award, the Committee believes the Department and its TRICARE vendors should work together to make arrangements for equitable adjustment. However, the Committee also recognizes that there is no conclusive study that attributes increases in the cost of care provided under TRICARE contracts solely to increases in pharmaceutical costs. Therefore, the Committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to provide a report on the impact of pharmaceutical costs on TRICARE contracts to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2000. The report should evaluate and review civilian contractor and government data to determine the actual reasons for the increases in health care costs. If it is determined that cost shifting is a primary reason for the increase in pharmacy costs, the Department is directed to take steps to ensure that requests for equitable adjustment are promptly and fairly considered. Custodial Care The Committee recommends a general provision (section 8122) clarifying the definition of ``custodial care'' for the provision of health care to military families with complex medical needs. The Committee strongly disagrees with the Department's decision to interpret the custodial care exclusion to include medically necessary skilled care and thereby transition this care to Medicaid. The Committee intends that the military health care system interpret the custodial care exclusion in a manner consistent with other federal programs (FEHBP and Medicare) and related case law. The Committee intends that the military health care system continue to provide for the needs of patients with exceptionally serious, long range, and incapacitating physical or mental conditions in a manner fully consistent with the direction provided in section 726 of P.L. 102 484, and in P.L. 97 377. The Committee expects the Department to redesign its case management program to ensure that: (a) members and former members of the uniformed services, and their dependents and survivors, have access to all medically necessary health care through the health care delivery system of the uniformed services regardless of the age or health care status of the person seeking the health care; and (b) military families do not have to resort to Medicaid, welfare or charity programs for the provision of medically necessary health care services. FATIGUE MANAGEMENT The Committee commends the Department for its efforts to better understand the risks of fatigue and the impact of fatigue on safety. The Committee believes a department-wide fatigue management initiative, designed to minimize accidents, injuries, and fatalities associated with fatigue has merit and should be considered for implementation of such a program. The initiative should include research on non-amphetamine treatments. JOINT DIABETES PROJECT The Committee has provided $14,000,000 in the Army (603002A) for continued funding for the Joint Diabetes Project, as presented in testimony before the Committee. These funds are to be equally divided between the participating institutions. The project will reduce suffering and costs associated with diabetes and related complications for DOD personnel and dependents, utilizing the partnership's advanced, state-of-the-art expertise and strengths in the areas of diabetes research, detection, prevention and managed care protocol (clinical practice guidelines). CERVICAL CANCER TESTING The Committee strongly urges the Department to investigate emerging methods to better test for, prevent, and treat cases of cervical cancer. In 1999, there were an estimated 12,800 new cases of cervical cancer and 4,800 cervical cancer deaths in the United States. It has clearly been shown that this cancer is more than 90 percent curable if it is detected in the early stages. The Committee is aware of new testing techniques combining tests for the human papillomavirus (HPV) and conventional pap tests that can provide a new dimension to the cervical cancer screening process. The Committee is also aware of promising clinical trials of a new HPV 16 vaccine at the National Cancer Institute, which could potentially prevent the spread of the type of HPV found in 50 percent of cervical cancers. The Committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to report to the congressional defense committees by no later than January 31, 2000 on actions taken in the military health system to establish a systematic program for early detection and prevention of cervical cancer using the most modern and up to date screening methods. GULF WAR ILLNESS The Committee concurs with the findings of a recent GAO report on squalene antibodies and is concerned by the Department's reluctance to test for squalene antibodies since squalene is a potential contributing factor in illnesses of veterans of the Persian Gulf War. The Secretary of Defense is directed to develop and/or validate the assay to test for the presence of squalene antibodies. A report detailing the proposals to carry out this requirement shall be submitted to the Committee by January 1, 2000. COMPUTER BASED MODELING IN HEALTH CARE The Committee believes that computer based modeling and simulation capabilities may assist military health planners to assess the cost, access and quality impacts of reengineering delivery processes, delivery of protocols, and insertion of technology before committing vital resources. The Committee urges the Department to consider these management tools. CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY , Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $780,150,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 1,169,000,000 Committee recommendation 781,000,000 Change from budget request -388,000,000 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Program Reductions The Army requested $1,169,000,000 for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army. The Committee recommends $781,000,000, a decrease of $388,000,000. Of the decrease, $4,500,000 is taken with prejudice against program management consultants. Of the funds available, $75,303,000 shall be transferred to the Federal Emergency Preparedness Program to provide off-post emergency response and preparedness assistance to the communities surrounding the eight continental United States chemical storage and disposal sites. The Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction Program, Army mission is to safely destroy all U.S. chemical warfare munitions and related materiel while ensuring maximum protection of the public, personnel involved in the destruction effort, and the environment. The Committee commends the Army for its efforts in destroying chemical munitions in a safe manner. As of March 17, 1999, over 13.5 percent, or 4,259 tons, of the stockpile has been destroyed. Currently there are two sites operational and five sites in the design phase. Despite the fact that two additional sites are on hold until completion of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Demonstration, the Committee is hopeful that the U.S. will meet the deadline of April 2007 for the destruction of chemical munitions as called for by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Although the Committee is extremely supportive of this important national program, it is troubled at the lack of management and financial oversight exercised by both the Army and OSD on such a large program. In earlier years, the Committee expressed its concern because the chemical munitions destruction program was plagued by cost growth and schedule delays. It appears as if the DoD has made an attempt to rectify cost and schedule issues by managing the program as an Aquisition Category 1 program. The Committee hopes that this action will allow the Army better control over the schedule and costs in the future. The Committee is aware that the chemical agents and munitions program uses the practice of budgeting in advance of need and uses funds outside of the funded delivery period. As a result, the funds are often obligated later than anticipated. The Committee remains concerned over the extremely slow obligation and expenditure rates for the chemical munitions destruction program. Recently, the Committee has learned that its concerns are valid. Through an internal DoD comptroller memorandum, the Committee has learned that the chemical agents and munitions program uses unique and questionable budget execution actions. Not only are there large unexpended and unobligated balances of prior year funds, but the budget request is $388 million higher than last year's appropriated amount. Since not only the Committee, but also the Office of the Secretary of Defense Comptroller's staff, can not determine the validity of the program's prior year obligations, the Committee recommends the program be held at last year's level. The Committee is disturbed to learn that individuals employed by the Department of Defense have visited the Congress with paid consultants to ``promote'' the chemical agents and munitions destruction program. Therefore, the Committee recommends the decrease in program management for consultants. Given the questionable budget execution and management activities, the Committee directs that the DoD Inspector General and the General Accounting Office report to the Congress no later than March 15, 2000 on the chemical agents and munitions destruction program. ALTERNATIVE METHODS The Committee recognizes the proximity of densely populated areas and the importance of safely and completely destroying chemical munitions such as those stored in the Bluegrass Army Depot. The Committee directs the Army to proceed in a timely manner to complete the evaluation of the merits of all practical methods, including alternatives to incineration, that may effectively and efficiently dispose of stored chemical ordnance. PROGRAM RECOMMENDED The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2000: Offset Folios 289 Insert here DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $735,582,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 788,100,000 Committee recommendation 883,700,000 Change from budget request +95,600,000 This appropriation provides funds for Military Personnel; Operation and Maintenance; Procurement; Research, Development, Test and Evaluation; and Military Construction for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Defense requested $788,100,000 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee recommends $883,700,000, an increase of $95,600,000. Authorization Changes The Committee recommends the following changes in the budget request in accordance with House authorization action: [In thousands of dollars] Item Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request Operation Caper Focus 0 6,000 +6,000 Wide Aperture Radar Facility 0 17,500 +17,500 Southwest Border Fence 0 6,000 +6,000 P 3 Forward Looking Infrared Radars 0 2,700 +2,700 Tethered Aerostat Radar System 40,489 31,689 -8,800 SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ADJUSTMENTS [In thousands of dollars] National Guard counter-drug support +20,000 Gulf States Initiative +10,000 Regional Counter-drug Training Academy +2,000 Northeast Regional Counter-drug Training Center +2,000 Counter-narcotics Center at Hammer +2,000 Other Joint Military Intelligence Programs +6,000 Observation Aircraft +4,000 Mothership Operations +3,500 Lake County HIDTA +1,000 Appalachian HIDTA +3,200 Multi-Jurisdictional Counter-drug Task Force +4,000 Southwest Border States Initiative +6,000 National Interagency Counter-drug Institute +2,000 Young Marines +1,500 A 10 Logistical and Demilitarization Support +5,000 FORWARD OPERATING LOCATIONS In the ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' appropriations account, the Department requested $59,555,000 to establish Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) in Central and South America including $42,800,000 for Military Construction to establish these new facilities. The Committee recommends the budget request. However, it directs that none of the funds can be used for Military Construction at an FOL until a formal binding long-term agreement which specifies the extent, use of, and host nation support for, the forward operating location is executed by both the host nation and the United States. As a consequence of the Panama Canal Treaty, U. S. Forces are required to fully withdraw from the Republic of Panama by December 31, 1999 and Howard AFB will no longer be available as the principal operating location for Counter-drug operations in Central and South America. Negotiations for the continued use of Howard AFB beyond 1999 failed shortly before the budget was submitted. The Commander-in-Chief U.S. Southern Command (CINCSOUTH) plans to restructure his theater counter-drug concept of operations by establishing FOL staging areas at Liberia, Costa Rica; Manta, Ecuador; and Curacao and Aruba as replacements for Howard AFB. U.S. Forces are currently operating out of Curacao, Aruba, and Ecuador under interim agreements. The Committee commends the Department and CINCSOUTH for their ability to begin operations so quickly and successfully at three of the four sites after suspending operations at Howard AFB on May 1, 1999. The Committee notes that an agreement to use the Costa Rica FOL has not been achieved. Therefore, the Departments of Defense and State are encouraged to seek another location to cover the area previously identified with that site as soon as possible. The Committee is concerned that the military construction costs identified in the budget have grown substantially, and are still not stable. The Committee has been assured by the CINCSOUTH that these estimates will stabilize below the current estimate of $122,500,000 over the next two fiscal years. The Committee would not normally provide Military Construction funds in the DoD appropriations bill as proposed in the budget. It does so this year only following consultation with, and with the approval of, both the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee and the House Armed Services Committee. This one-time recommendation is an effort to facilitate and expedite plans the CINCSOUTH has made to protect the substantial investment the Committee has made above the budget in the past to stem the flow of drugs to the United States from the source zone and through the transit zone. The Committee, however, directs that future requests for Military Construction funding be contained in budget requests for Military Construction consistent with past practices. Fingerprint Operations The Committee is aware of a proposal to install and demonstrate contactless fingerprint device systems in drug theater corridors of the U.S.-Mexico border region. The Committee believes that such devices, once fully certified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, have the potential to enhance the identification of drug traffickers, reduce costs, and reduce the time required to process Federal, State and local government drug suspects throughout the region. The Committee encourages the Department of Defense, in conjunction with the Justice Department, to carry out a broad-based demonstration of contactless fingerprint device systems in those areas where the drug trafficking threat is most acute. C 26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance Upgrade In fiscal year 1998 and 1999, the Committee provided $9,500,000 to upgrade counter-drug C 26 aircraft with an improved photo reconnaissance capability. The Committee is concerned that this program has not yet begun and directs the National Guard to expedite delivery of this enhanced mission capability to C 26 counter-drug aircraft. DRUG TESTING The Committee is aware of a number of new technologies in the drug testing area which have the potential to provide immediate, onsite results, at less cost than existing systems. In view of the significant existing expenditures by the Department of Defense and the services to carry out drug testing, the Committee encourages the Department to conduct an evaluation of available testing systems and technologies to determine if the methods currently in use by the DoD are the most cost-effective and efficient. A 10 Logistical and Demilitarization Support The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only to provide logistical and demilitarization support for the transfer of three excess A 10 aircraft from the Aircraft Maintenance Regeneration Center for loan to the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs of the Department of State to support international drug eradication and interdiction efforts. OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $132,064,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 140,844,000 Committee recommendation 140,844,000 Change from budget request The Committee recommends an appropriation of $140,844,000 for the Office of the Inspector General. The recommendation is an increase of $8,780,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. TITLE VII RELATED AGENCIES NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The National Foreign Intelligence Program consists of those intelligence activities of the government which provide the President, other officers of the Executive Branch, and the Congress with national foreign intelligence on broad strategic concerns bearing on U.S. national security. These concerns are stated by the National Security Council in the form of long-range and short-range requirements for the principal users of intelligence. The National Foreign Intelligence Program budget funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily of resources for the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, intelligence services of the Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force, Intelligence Community Management Staff and the CIA Retirement and Disability System Fund. CLASSIFIED ANNEX Because of the highly sensitive nature of intelligence programs, the results of the Committee's budget review are published in a separate, detailed and comprehensive classified annex. The intelligence community, Department of Defense and other organizations are expected to comply fully with the recommendations and directions in the classified annex accompanying the fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations Bill. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $201,500,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 209,100,000 Committee recommendation 209,100,000 Change from budget request This appropriation provides payments of benefits to qualified beneficiaries in accordance with the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees (P.L. 88 643). This statute authorized the establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System (CIARDS) for a limited number of CIA employees, and authorized the establishment and maintenance of a fund from which benefits would be paid to those beneficiaries. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee recommends $209,100,000 for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Systems Fund (CIARDS). The recommendation is the same as the budget request and $7,600,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $129,123,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 149,415,000 Committee recommendation 144,415,000 Change from budget request -5,000,000 This appropriation provides funds for the activities that support the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Intelligence Community. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The budget requested $149,415,000 for the Intelligence Community Management Account. The Committee recommends $144,415,000, a decrease of $5,000,000. Details of adjustments to this account are included in the classified annex accompanying this report. PAYMENT TO KAHO'OLAWE ISLAND CONVEYANCE, REMEDIATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FUND Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $25,000,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 15,000,000 Committee recommendation 15,000,000 Change from budget request The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000 for Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund. The recommendation is a decrease of $10,000,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999. NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND Fiscal year 1999 appropriation $3,000,000 Fiscal year 2000 budget request 8,000,000 Committee recommendation 8,000,000 Change from budget request The National Security Education Trust Fund was established to provide scholarships and fellowships to U.S. students to pursue higher education studies abroad and grants to U.S. institutions for programs of study in foreign areas and languages. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the National Security Education Trust Fund. This recommendation is the same as the budget request and $5,000,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 1999. TITLE VIII GENERAL PROVISIONS The accompanying bill includes 129 general provisions. Most of these provisions were included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 and many have been included in the Defense Appropriations Act for a number of years. Actions taken by the Committee to amend last year's provisions or new provisions recommended by the Committee are discussed below or in the applicable section of the report. DEFINITION OF PROGRAM, PROJECT AND ACTIVITY For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99 177) as amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100 119) and by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101 508), the following information provides the definitions of the term ``program, project, and activity'' for appropriations contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The term ``program, project, and activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget items, identified in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999, the accompanying House and Senate Committee reports, the conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement of the managers of the Committee on Conference, the related classified reports, and the P 1 and R 1 budget justification documents as subsequently modified by Congressional action. In carrying out any Presidential sequestration, the Department of Defense and agencies shall conform to the definition for ``program, project, and activity'' set forth above with the following exception: For Military Personnel and the Operation and Maintenance accounts the term ``program, project, and activity'' is defined as the appropriations accounts contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The Department and agencies should carry forth the Presidential sequestration order in a manner that would not adversely affect or alter Congressional policies and priorities established for the Department of Defense and the related agencies and no program, project, and activity should be eliminated or be reduced to a level of funding which would adversely affect the Department's ability to effectively continue any program, project, and activity. FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES The Committee has serious concerns over the status of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicle Program. Since the current program has experienced cost growth, schedule delays, and technical issues, the Committee believes it is extremely important to conduct a second source competition. The Army has requested that the Committee provide language which clarifies Section 112 of Public Law 105 261 because it hinders the second source competition strategy. Therefore, the Committee includes a new general provision (Section 8105) which makes Section 112 of Public Law 105 261 apply only to Phase III of the Army's second source acquisition strategy for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles. B 52 FORCE STRUCTURE The Committee includes a new general provision (Section 8108) which earmarks $47,100,000 from various Air Force appropriation accounts to fund a total force structure of 94 B 52 aircraft of which 23 shall be maintained in an attrition reserve status. Given the Air Force's continuing requirements for these aircraft, as evident in the recent campaign in Kosovo, the Committee is convinced that a robust force structure should be maintained. Of the funds earmarked for this purpose, $3,000,000 shall be derived from Military Personnel, Air Force, $34,500,000 from Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, and $9,600,000 from Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE The Committee includes a new provision (section 8115) that requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report with the fiscal year 2001 budget on National Missile Defense basing locations. The report shall include an assessment of (1) The ability of a single site versus multiple sites to counter the expected ballistic missile threat; (2) optimum basing locations; (3) the survivability and redundancy of potential National Defense Systems; (4) the estimated costs associated with different site deployment options. The Committee is concerned that prior to the decision to deploy National Missile Defense at any particular site, all options should be evaluated. AGGRESSOR SQUADRONS The Committee has serious concerns about the state of dedicated aggressor squadrons maintained by both the Navy and the Air Force. The committee notes that the size of such squadrons has dwindled over the course of this decade, and that the current force structure is insufficient to meet as much of the training burden as it once did. In addition, the Committee is aware that the dissimilar combat flight training provided by these squadrons is essential to developing, and maintaining the skills of Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force combat pilots. Accordingly, the Committee includes a new general provision (Section 8116) which requires the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Air Force to provide an inventory of the personnel and equipment available for dedicated aggressor squadrons from 1990 to the present, and an assessment of the training requirements that such squadrons are able to meet over the same time period. ADVANCED CONCEPT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS The Committee includes a new general provision (section 8118) that requires the Department to submit a report to the congressional defense committees regarding the obligation of funds for ACTDs. The Committee includes this section due to the Department's disregard for instructions included in the Fiscal Year 1999 House Report regarding Line of Site Anti-Tank (LOSAT). In addition, the section includes language regarding the use of funds made available in Public Law 105 262. MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM The Committee includes a new general provision (section 8119) that provides that none of the funds available in Public Law 105 262 may be used to fund MEADS. The Committee recommends this section due to DOD's improper use of fiscal year 1999 funds for MEADS. That action was in direct conflict with the Conference Report direction to terminate MEADS. MILITARY RECRUITMENT FINANCIAL PENALTIES The Committee includes a new general provision (Section 8124) clarifying the scope of previous law governing the withholding of federal funds from institutions of higher education that choose to restrict the U.S. military from recruiting on their campuses and from conducting ROTC programs. Section 8124 makes clear that this prohibition of federal funds affects all identified categories of federal aid except student financial assistance. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives: CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue on-going activities which require annual authorization or additional legislation, which to date has not been enacted. The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing the application of existing law. The bill includes a number of provisions, which have been virtually unchanged for many years, that are technically considered legislation. The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for more than one year for some programs for which the basic authorizing legislation does not presently authorize each extended availability. In various places in the bill, the Committee has earmarked funds within appropriation accounts in order to fund specific programs and has adjusted some existing earmarking. Those additional changes in the fiscal year 2000 bill, which might be interpreted as changing exiting law, are as follows: Appropriations Language Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'' which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses, and includes language which transfers funds to the National Park Service for necessary infrastructure repair improvements at Fort Baker. Language has also been included concerning environmental remediation costs of government-owned, contractor-operated facilities. Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'' which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses. Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'' which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses. Language has been included in ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide'' which earmarks funds for providing the Computer/Electronic Accommodations program to federal agencies; amends the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses; deletes language concerning federally owned educational facilities located on military installations; includes language which earmarks funds provided in Public Law 105 277 for certain procurement and research and development accounts; and includes language which earmarks funds for certain classified activities to be transferred as necessary to the appropriate appropriations. Language has also been included which earmarks $10,000,000 for security locks. Language has been deleted in ``Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard'' regarding base operations reporting requirements. Language has been included in ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'' which allows for additional transfer authority for the Defense Health Program, and which provides that funds may be transferred back to this appropriation if not necessary for the purposes otherwise provided. Language has been deleted in ``Environmental Restoration, Army'' which earmarked funds for environmental remediation by the Corps of Engineers; and includes language regarding additional transfer authority. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Navy'' regarding additional transfer authority. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Air Force'' regarding additional transfer authority. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide'' regarding additional transfer authority. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites'' regarding additional transfer authority. Language has been deleted in ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction'' which earmarked funds for the dismantling and disposal of submarine reactor components in the Russian Far East. Language has been included in ``Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense'' which authorizes the use of Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide funds for grants to local educational authorities. Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Army'' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement, and the purchase cost of vehicles for physical security of personnel. Language has been amended in ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy'' which provides specific project-level appropriations. Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Navy'' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement. Language has been amended in ``Procurement, Marine Corps'' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement. Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Air Force'' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement. Language has been amended in ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement, and the purchase cost of vehicles for physical security of personnel; includes language which earmarks funds only to support Electronic Commerce Centers; and includes language which prohibits funds for the Joint Electronic Commerce Program Office. A new appropriations paragraph, ``Defense Production Act Purchases'' has been included which provides funds only for microwave power tubes. Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'' which earmarks funds for an operational test of the Starstreak and Stinger missiles. Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'' regarding live fire stock tests on the SSN 21 submarine; and includes language which earmarks funds for the Intercooled Recuperated Gas Turbine Engine program subject to certification by the Secretary of the Navy. Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' that restricted funds for the Navy Upper Tier program; amends language which earmarks funds for the Theater Wide Missile Defense program; and includes language which earmarks funds provided in Public Law 105 277 for ballistic missile defense, for certain missile defense programs. Language has been included in ``Defense Working Capital Funds'' which provides for the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement only for the Defense Security Service. Language has been deleted in ``National Defense Sealift Fund'' which earmarked funds for alteration of bridges. Language has been included in ``Defense Health Program'' which earmarks research and development funds only for the Army peer-reviewed breast cancer and prostate cancer research programs. Language has been amended in ``Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army'' which deletes an earmark of funds for the Johnston Atoll off-island leave program, and includes language which would transfer funds to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Defense Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program. Language has been included in ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' which transfers funds to ``Military Construction, Air Force'' for construction at forward operating locations in the United States Southern Command area of responsibility. Language has been amended in ``Office of the Inspector General'' which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses. Language has been amended in ``Intelligence Community Management Account'' which earmarks funds for the Advanced Research and Development Committee. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 8005 has been amended to include restrictions on below threshold reprogramming of funds within certain accounts in Titles III and IV of the bill as discussed in the Major Committee Recommendations section of this report. Section 8008 has been amended to restrict initiation or expansion of certain multiyear contracts as discussed in the Major Committee Recommendations section of this report. Section 8013 has been amended to delete language which prohibited Army personnel from jointly receiving an enlistment bonus and Army College Fund benefits. Section 8024 has been amended to delete language which referenced Public Law 105 56 concerning the availability of funds appropriated for the Indian Financing Act Incentive payments program. Section 8033 has been amended to designate funds exclusively for use by the Civil Air Patrol. Section 8034 has been amended to delete language which reduced amounts in the bill to reflect savings from the number of staff years to be performed by Federally Funded Research and Development Centers. Section 8036 has been amended to change the names of the ``congressional defense committees''. Section 8044 has been amended to delete language which prohibited obligation of funds until a report was submitted on details in the Overseas Military Facility Investment Recovery Account. Section 8056 has been amended which provides authorization of appropriations in this Act and in fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations on intelligence activities until enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000. Section 8057 has been amended to include language to permit the Army Corps of Engineers to demolish and remove its former northwest district headquarters. Section 8058 has been amended to include language which rescinds funds from the following programs: (Rescissions) 1998 Appropriations: Other Procurement, Navy: Combat Survivor Evader Radio $6,384,000 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: 16 savings 11,700,000 C 130 Avionics Modernization Program 1,800,000 JSTARS contract savings 12,600,000 Missile Procurement, Air Force: Classified program 100,000,000 1999 Appropriations: Other Procurement, Army: Scamp terminals 4,000,000 CSEL 13,700,000 Maneuver Control System 3,000,000 Aircraft Procurement, Navy: Universal Jet Air Start Unit 41,500,000 2C savings 10,000,000 AV 8B Mods, termination of life extension program 11,000,000 Weapons Procurement, Navy: Improved Tactical Air Launched Decoy 8,000,000 Under the heading, Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy: New Attack Submarine overhead savings 32,400,000 New Attack Submarine contract savings 2,600,000 CVN 69 Overhaul contract savings 11,400,000 Other Procurement, Navy: Combat Survivor Evader Radio 8,953,000 MK 12 IFF contract savings 1,900,000 FFG upgrades 5,500,000 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: 16 savings 7,800,000 C 130 Avionics Modernization Program 2,700,000 T 38 Avionics Upgrade Program 27,600,000 C 17 prior year savings (GAO) 36,400,000 B 1 prior year savings (GAO) 6,729,000 Missile Procurement, Air Force: GPS prior year savings (GAO) 6,800,000 Medium Launch Vehicle Savings from delayed GPS launch (GAO) 2,600,000 Classified program 146,100,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: Mines 4,000,000 Force XXI initiative 12,400,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: Satellite Control Network (GAO) 10,300,000 DSCS delays in EELV integration (GAO) 2,500,000 GBS reduced receiver suites (GAO) 5,300,000 SBIRS SABRS (GAO) 3,500,000 B 2 JASSM savings 7,000,000 B 1B prior year savings (GAO) 10,721,000 Milstar (GAO) 10,600,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide: ACTD/LOSAT 7,000,000 Tactical Technology 16,500,000 Section 8064 has been amended to include language on the design and construction of secure offices and support facilities to the subway entrance at the Pentagon. Section 8075 has been amended, concerning quarterly reports on loan guarantees, to reflect a name change of the congressional defense committees. Section 8080 has been amended to change the amount of funds that would be available for transfer from operation and maintenance accounts to military personnel accounts for the Innovative Readiness Training program. Section 8083 has been amended to change the amounts of shipbuilding and conversion transfers. Section 8091 has been included which rescinds $452,100,000 of 1999 appropriations to reflect savings from revised economic assumptions. Section 8097 has been amended to include the Office of Management and Budget to be notified regarding initiating a new start program. Section 8098 has been amended to prohibit contracting with individuals who have been debarred by the Department for the unlawful manufacture or sale of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Section 8099 has been included which earmarks funds for a grant to the Women in Military Service for America Memorial. Section 8100 has been amended to delete reporting requirements by the Secretary of Defense regarding training of foreign security forces. Section 8101 has been included which reduces the budget request by $171,000,000 to reflect savings from favorable foreign currency fluctuations. Section 8103 has been included which provides funding to repair and upgrade the road access route to the National Training Center. Section 8104 has been included which makes funds appropriated to the Navy available to replace lost Treasury checks for which claims were filed. Section 8105 has been included which make Section 112 of Public Law 105 261 apply only to Phase III of the Army's second source acquisition strategy. Section 8106 has been included which prohibits funds appropriated to the Navy to be used to develop, lease or procure ADC(X) class of ships unless the main propulsion diesel engines are manufactured domestically in the United States. Section 8107 has been included which provides funds for a non-profit organization. Section 8108 has been included which earmarks $47,100,000 to maintain an attrition reserve of 23 B 52 aircraft and a total inventory of 94 such aircraft. Section 8109 has been included which reduces amounts available in several Operation and Maintenance accounts by $100,000,000 for savings related to A 76 studies, and which prohibits contracting out certain functions pursuant to such studies. Section 8110 has been included requiring the Department of Defense to provide a summary of the results of A 76 studies conducted by DoD since 1995. Section 8111 has been included requiring that the Department of Defense submit budget justification materials for contingency operations costs for each appropriation account. Section 8112 has been included which appropriates $20,000,000 for the Army National Guard for the procurement or lease of fire-fighting aircraft or systems. Section 8113 has been included which appropriates $50,000,000 only for Weapons of Mass Destruction Domestic Preparedness. Section 8114 has been included which provides $150,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for information security and assurance programs and includes reporting requirements. Section 8115 has been included which directs the Department to submit a report regarding basing options for National Missile Defense. Section 8116 has been included which requires a study of dedicated aggressor squadrons by the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Air Force. Section 8117 has been added prohibiting the Department of Defense from using funds provided in Department of Defense Appropriations Acts for the repair and maintenance of military family housing. Section 8118 has been included which provides that funds appropriated in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide account for advance concept technology demonstrations may only be obligated after a report to the congressional defense committees is provided by the Department. Section 8119 has been included which provides that none of the funds appropriated may be used for the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). Section 8120 has been added as discussed in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy section of this report under the heading ``Joint Experimentation.'' Section 8121 has been included providing $250,000 for the purpose of acquiring and preserving the cemetery site near Ft. Atkinson, Nebraska. Section 8122 has been included which defines custodial care as care designed essentially to assist an individual in meeting the activities of daily living not medically necessary care. Section 8123 has been amended to credit refunds associated with the use of government travel and purchase cards to the appropriation account which initially paid for purchases made with such cards. Section 8124 has been included concerning funds for student financial assistance at schools. Section 8125 has been included to enhance DoD oversight of information technology systems. Section 8126 has been included which enforces current policy by prohibiting the Department from providing certain support to other agencies who are in arrears to the Department. Section 8127 has been included which restores reimbursement rules for the Foreign Military Sales account. Section 8128 has been included which allows the acceleration of certain spectrum sales. Section 8129 has been included which requires a report from the Secretary of Defense on the conduct of recent contingency operations. APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law: Military Personnel, Army Military Personnel, Navy Military Personnel, Marine Corps Military Personnel, Air Force Reserve Personnel, Army Reserve Personnel, Navy Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps Reserve Personnel, Air Force National Guard Personnel, Army National Guard Personnel, Air Force Operation and Maintenance, Army Operation and Maintenance, Navy Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Environmental Restoration, Army Environmental Restoration, Navy Environmental Restoration, Air Force Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense Aircraft Procurement, Army Missile Procurement, Army Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army Procurement of Ammunition, Army Other Procurement, Army Aircraft Procurement, Navy Weapons Procurement, Navy Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy Other Procurement, Navy Procurement, Marine Corps Aircraft Procurement, Air Force Missile Procurement, Air Force Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force Other Procurement, Air Force Procurement, Defense-Wide National Guard and Reserve Equipment Defense Production Act Purchases Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense Defense Working Capital Funds National Defense Sealift Fund Defense Health Program Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense Office of the Inspector General Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund Intelligence Community Management Account Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation and Environmental Restoration Fund National Security Education Trust Fund Sec. 8099. Sec. 8112. Sec. 8113. Sec. 8114. TRANSFER OF FUNDS Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill. The following table shows the appropriation affected by the transfers: Appropriations to which transfer is made Amount Appropriations from which transfer is made Amount Operation and maintenance, Army $50,000,000 National Defense Stockpile xlTransaction Fund $150,000,000 Operation and maintenance, Navy 50,000,000 Operation and maintenance, Air Force 50,000,000 Language has been included in ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', which provides for the transfer of $6,000,000 to the ``National Park Service'' for improvements at Fort Baker. Language has been included in ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', which provides for the transfer of $40,000,000 to certain classified activities. Language has been included in ``Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund'', which provides for the transfer of funds out of this account to other appropriations accounts. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Army'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Navy'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Air Force'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account. Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account. Language has been included in ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' which provides for the transfer of $6,000,000 out of ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' into the account. Language has been included in ``Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army'' which provides for the transfer of $75,303,000 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the Defense Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness program. Language has been included in ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' which transfers funds to other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense. Language has been included in ``Intelligence Community Management Account'' which provides for the transfer of $27,000,000 to the Department of Justice for the National Drug Intelligence Center. Ten provisions (Section 8005, 8006, 8015, 8040, 8064, 8066, 8080, 8083, 8113, and 8114) contain language which allows transfers of funds between accounts. RESCISSIONS Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill: Other Procurement, Navy 1998/2000 $6,384,000 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1998/2000 26,100,000 Missile Procurement, Air Force 1998/2000 100,000,000 Aircraft Procurement, Army 1999/2001 8,000,000 Missile Procurement, Army 1999/2001 7,000,000 Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 1999/2001 9,000,000 Procurement of Ammunition, Army 1999/2001 6,000,000 Other Procurement, Army 1999/2001 39,700,000 Aircraft Procurement, Navy 1999/2001 106,500,000 Weapons Procurement, Navy 1999/2001 16,000,000 Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps 1999/2001 3,000,000 Under the heading, Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 1999/2003: 37,000,000 35,000,000 11,400,000 Other Procurement, Navy 1999/2001 39,353,000 Procurement, Marine Corps 1999/2001 5,000,000 Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001 127,229,000 Missile Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001 169,500,000 Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force 1999/2001 2,000,000 Other Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001 44,400,000 Procurement, Defense-Wide 1999/2001 5,200,000 Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army 1999/2000 5,000,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 1999/2000 36,400,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy 1999/2000 40,900,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 1999/2000 126,821,000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide 1999/2000 52,200,000 COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE) In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): SECTION 8118 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999 Sec. 8118. During the current fiscal year and hereafter, no funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense may be used to award a contract to, extend a contract with, or approve the award of a subcontract to any person who within the preceding 15 years has been convicted debarred by the Department of Defense based upon a conviction under section 704 of title 18, United States Code, of the unlawful manufacture or sale of the Congressional Medal of Honor. section 337 of the communications act of 1934 SEC. 337. ALLOCATION AND ASSIGNMENT OF NEW PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES LICENSES AND COMMERCIAL LICENSES. (a) * * * (b) Assignment. --The Commission shall-- (1) commence assignment of the licenses for public safety services created pursuant to subsection (a) no later than September 30, 1998; and (2) commence competitive bidding for the commercial licenses created pursuant to subsection (a) after January 1, 2001. * * * * * * * CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that: ``Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public character, shall include a statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.'' The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .'' Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this specific power granted by the Constitution. COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93 344), as amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. For purposes of determining the 302(b) allocation for this bill, all figures in this table include funding in this bill, plus previously enacted fiscal year 2000 appropriations from Public Law 106 31. [In millions of dollars] 302(b) allocation-- This bill-- Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays Discretionary 267,692 259,130 267,691 258,040 Mandatory 209 209 209 209 FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93 344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill. (This includes funding in this bill, plus previously enacted fiscal year 2000 appropriations from Public Law 106 31.) [In millions of dollars] Budget Authority in bill 267,900 2000 181,503 2001 55,399 2002 19,790 2003 6,897 2004 5,748 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93 344), as amended, no new budget or outlays are provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to State and local governments. FULL COMMITTEE VOTES Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed below: There were no recorded votes. Offset Folios 312 to 321 Insert here ADDITIONAL VIEWS This bill may signify an important change in how Congress approaches defense budget policy in the next century as we continue to struggle under highly constrained discretionary budget caps. 22 Fighter Program In recognition of the changing post-Cold War threat and the constraints being placed on all discretionary programs by unrealistic budget caps, the Committee has for the first time in recent years taken issue with a costly high-profile military program proposed by the Defense Department. The Committee has deleted all production funds in this budget ($1.858 billion for six aircraft) for the proposed F 22 fighter aircraft program. This action not only frees up nearly $2 billion for higher priority military programs this year, but also will allow reallocation of roughly $40 billion of military funds over the next decade for higher priority needs. The Defense Subcommittee recommended this action in a bipartisan and unanimous fashion, and the Committee agreed by voice vote with little controversy. Reorient Military Spending Priorities. --By this action, the Committee is sending a clear message to the Pentagon that it is time to reorient its spending priorities to meet a broader array of military budget requirements for the 21st Century. That means paying far more attention to so-called ``asymmetrical'' threats like chemical and biological terrorism, information warfare, smaller scales urban warfare, cruise missile defense and bolstering conventional military capabilities like airlift, sealift, electronic jamming, intelligence and surveillance, and communications. It also means we must review the force structures of our NATO allies and demand more investment from them in force modernization as well. Tactical Aircraft Plan is Out of Balance. --For too long the Pentagon has resisted calls to restructure its hyper-expensive tactical aircraft procurement plan to buy three separate types of tactical aircraft costing in excess of $300 billion even though the traditional Cold War threats for which they were designed have dissipated and new non-conventional threats are emerging. The most expensive of these planes is the F 22, which was first designed to meet a Cold War threat from overwhelming numbers of advanced Soviet aircraft. Over the years, even though the old Soviet threat has evaporated, the only thing that has changed about the F 22 program has been its cost and its production schedule. Development costs have nearly doubled from $12 billion in 1985 to over $23 billion today. Current estimates are that it will cost at least another $40 to $60 billion to procure. Over the next five years, the Air Force proposes to pay $151 million apiece for the F 22 fighter, about three times the cost of our top of the line F 15E fighter (about $55 million), and about six times the cost of an F 16 fighter. And since the Air Force wants to begin buying these planes with less than 5% of the required testing completed, most independent analysts predict that F 22 costs will grow even further. F 22 Consumes Too Much Funding Needed For Other Military Capabilities. --In making this decision, the Committee reviewed not only what capability the F 22 can provide for the future compared to other planes, but what capability we are giving up because of the cost of this plane--the so-called ``opportunity cost.'' It is now clear from experiences in Yugoslavia and Iraq that other Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps aviation capabilities are being stretched dangerously thin in certain key areas because of the need to pay the exorbitant F 22 budget costs. It is also clear that from a larger perspective, the F 22 is consuming resources that could be used to address other critical strategic concerns such as emerging threats from chemical/biological/nuclear terrorism, information warfare, and cruise missiles. The Committee has recognized that it takes more than an ultra-sophisticated fighter to successfully prosecute modern-day air operations. It requires a total balanced and integrated system, starting with highly trained and well-motivated aircrews. It also depends on sophisticated surveillance systems such as the AWACS and JSTARS systems, modern information and communications systems to provide instantaneous situation awareness, sophisticated missiles, electronic jamming support, intelligence gathering platforms such as the U 2 and various unmanned aerial vehicles, and support from refueling tankers and specialized helicopters. The Committee rightly believes that the Pentagon is over-emphasizing fighter procurement, proposing to buy this expensive high tech fighter at a cost that will severely limit other weapons purchases and upgrades. This could actually degrade performance in the years ahead, since there will be no additional funds to sufficiently upgrade these other systems in a timely manner. The Air Force and the Department as a whole are already starting to pay this price. For instance: The Air Force retired its F 111 airplanes with their electronic jamming capability in order to save money for the F 22; now we find that the military will not fly missions even with our stealthy aircraft, such as the B 2, without jammer protection and there is concern about a shortage of these critical assets; The Air Force has greatly cut back on its ``Red Flag'' pilot training program using dedicated aggressor squadrons--a program widely regarded as a key to superior US pilot proficiency; The Air Force relies on 1950s and 1960s-era aerial tankers, many of which urgently require re-engineering and other upgrades, yet no funding is requested. One of their most critical intelligence assets--the U 2 plan--flies with outdated avionics, which the Air Force has no plan to upgrade due to budget constraints; The Air Force has no bomber modernization plan--the best they can come up with is a plan to keep the B 52s flying until they are literally 80 years old; To find more money for the F 22, the Air Force has forced at least a two year delay in our next generation satellite early warning system (SBIRS High) for the detection of ballistic missile attack--a critical system to our national security; The Air Force isn't able to find enough new recruits and it is losing veteran pilots to early retirement at an alarming rate with the shortage now topping over 1,100 pilots--in part due to poor facilities for Air Force personnel and their families; The Air Force has had serious ongoing spare parts shortages and has increasing equipment maintenance backlogs; The Air Force ran out of key precision guided cruise missiles--the CALCM--during the Kosovo campaign; There are new technologies for our top of the line F 15 and F 16 aircraft that will add significantly to their effectiveness, like the ``link 16'' system that could and should be fielded now--but must wait due to funding considerations; The Marine Corps is being forced to replace its worn out helicopters with the new V 22 tiltrotor at a much slower rate than is optimal from an operational perspective. What is the Realistic Threat? In making its recommendation on the F 22, the Committee also had to weigh whether the potential threat to future air superiority was real and as ominous as the Air Force alleges. It is fair to say that the Air Force can make a case for only an ill-defined and ambiguous potential threat that would justify this level of expenditure. In making the decision to allocate limited dollars, national security decisionmakers are put in the unenviable position of making choices based on the likelihood and severity of potential threats. It seems clear in this case that other concerns, such as the spread of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism rate a higher budget priority than the F 22 program. There are also some issues of credibility. The Air Force does not have a particularly good record in making straightforward threat assessments to support its F 22 budget proposals. In the early 1990s, after the Soviet Union collapsed (and the Air Force's argument for procuring the F 22 with it), the Air Force changed its threat analysis to say that some 35 countries had procured aircraft with the capabilities that threatened U.S. air domination. Only later were we surprised to learn that the Air Force included countries like Switzerland, Norway, Israel, Australia, even New Guinea as possible threat countries, all of whom possessed U.S.-built F 16 aircraft that we had sold to them. We were also told at the time that new Russian planes like the Mig 29 were making our F 15s and F 16s obsolete. This of course was disproved in Iraq and Yugoslavia. Since events of the last decade have made many of the old F 22 arguments untenable, it is not surprising that a new argument is taking shape. We are now told that yet a new Russian plan, the SU 37, and several Western European planes under development are the new threats to U.S. air supremacy While these planes might be highly capable (an assumption that should be closely scrutinized for the SU 37), most analysts doubt whether the Russian economy will be in a position for decades to finance and produce such an expensive plane in large quantity. The Air Force budget alone is more than the entire Russian, Iraqi, North Korean, Iranian, Syrian, and Cuban authorized military budgets combined. It is reported that the Russians now spend a paltry sum for military research and development (about $2 billion a year) and for military procurement (about $3.5 billion per year). Most analysts believe this decline has fractured the Russian defense industrial base to the point that it will not recover for decades if at all. The real threat from Russia emanates from its weakness, not its strength. A much more productive use of just some of the funds earmarked for the F 22 program would be to expand ongoing efforts to disarm Russian nuclear and chemical warheads, and to keep Russian weapons scientists gainfully employed for peaceful purposes. This threat is much more real and ominous than the paper threat of great numbers of futuristic Russian-made aircraft. As for the potential fielding of advanced Western European fighter aircraft, the Yugoslav air campaign exposed numerous deficiencies in the military capabilities of even our largest Western European NATO allies. Domestic pressure for continuing military budget cutbacks continues in many of these same European countries and it remains to be seen if there is the political will to undertake massive and expensive upgrades of European air force units. A strong argument could be made that these countries should undertake such upgrades to pull a far greater share of the burden in any future NATO military air operation. A valid concern may exist about proliferation of these aircraft to other nations. But it would seem that a cheaper and far more rationale response is to work with our allies diplomatically to ensure that these planes do not fall into the hands of the rogue states and other undesirable regimes (something that certainly seems attainable). Pilot Training and Skill Levels Are Being Discounted. --Even more important than any single piece of technology or the numbers of aircraft possessed by potential opponents are the capabilities of the pilots flying those aircraft. History repeats the same lesson whether from World War I, from Mig Alley , from Viet Nam, or from Desert Storm , that the training of pilots, including their ability to see the battlefield, is the key factor in victory. That factor continues to favor the United States and should continue well into the 21st Century. It seems unlikely that any second-world or Third World nation could possibly match the training and skill of American pilots. Threats From Rogue States .--Indeed, no serious analyst would predict that potential opponents such as Iraq, North Korea, Libya, or Iran will be in a position politically or financially to acquire such advanced aviation technology in the quantities needed to threaten U.S. air supremacy. Nor will they be able to train a sophisticated air force and provide the sophisticated support assets that would be required to sustain them in any kind of serious conflict. It is clear that if they wish to challenge the United States in the 21st Century, there are cheaper, quicker, and potentially more deadly ways to confront us. Those threats should be the focus of our budget priorities for the 21st Century. Reassessment Is Warranted .--Given the high cost that the Air Force has proposed for addressing such an ambiguous threat to our fighter supremacy, it is time that U.S. defense planners reassess the entire tactical aircraft program. Three hundred billion dollars for three different new tactical airplanes is extravagant in a world where we will have no military peer for at least the next 20 years. The Committee is to be congratulated for making this difficult choice on a bipartisan basis, and forcing this reassessment to take place. Problems With This Bill As much as I would wish to support the Committee bill because of its F 22 provision, there are other problems that prevent me from doing so at this point--problems that I hope will be corrected so that I can eventually support the conference report. Unfortunately, this bill still exhibits many of the same tired old military spending traits we have seen in recent years from this Congress. Too many extra dollars have again been siphoned off from key domestic education, health, clean water, food and drug safety, law enforcement, veterans' health care, national parks, and other important priorities to pay for military pork barrel projects of little or no value. We still see hundreds of millions of dollars in military equipment being bought in this bill not on the basis of how much it is needed, but rather on the basis of where it is built. Serious Congressional Oversight Is Too Often Lacking .--This Congress also has already dodged any significant attempt at reform to cut out the wasteful military spending that everyone knows is widely prevalent. For instance, the authorizing committees have once again refused to act on military base closures, rejecting the Pentagon's request for two additional rounds of base closures that some have projected would save another $20 billion by 2005, and $3 billion per year thereafter. Instead, this Congress finds it acceptable to pay billions of extra dollars per year for unneeded and unnecessary military bases that the Defense Department readily admits add little or nothing to our national security. Many other opportunities for making large military spending savings exist as well. Little serious Congressional attention has been paid to a continuous stream of GAO reports explaining how the Pentagon's financial management operations are so weak that they are classified as a ``high risk'' for fraud, waste, and abuse. Despite many promises, the Pentagon still cannot properly account for billions of dollars of property, equipment, inventory, and supplies. The Navy for instance has lost track of more than $3 billion worth of goods over the last three years, including night vision devices, communications gear of all sorts, even guided missile launchers for planes. That's the equivalent of misplacing three Navy destroyers. In April of this year, the GAO reported that about 60% of DoD's inventory of on-hand items, or about #39.4 billion of DoD's secondary inventory, exceeded DoD's requirements. The Pentagon's financial management system is so weak that it cannot keep track of billions of dollars of yearly military expenditures. Million dollar-plus overpayments to military contractors are oftentimes found out only because the contractor voluntarily returns the money. In past reports to Congress, the GAO has pointed out many other opportunities to save significant sums as well, only to have them fall on deaf ears in Congress. For instance, the GAO has reported that: DoD's laboratory infrastructure is estimated to have an excess capacity approaching 35 percent; DoD's capacity for rotary-wing aircraft training is close to double what is needed by all the military services; The cost to educate a physician in DoD's Uniform Services University of Health Sciences is more than twice as much as the cost of providing scholarships to students in civilian medical schools; DoD's overhead for transportation services has been two to three times the basis cost of transportation. In my view, it is not possible to support a bill that shifts billion from key domestic accounts like education, health, veterans, and the environment to pay for extra military spending. This is especially the case when the Congress makes no serious effort to clean up the billions in wasteful and unnecessary military spending--waste that every Member of Congress knows exists. Budget Gimmickry At An All Time. --Instead of rigorous oversight to root out these inefficiencies and wasteful practices, this Congress has spent its time concocting budget gimmickry of unprecedented proportions to pay for these excesses. Three-and-a-half years ago, the Congressional Republican leadership closed down the federal government over its demand that the President use only ``honest numbers'' from the Congressional Budget Office to measure appropriations bills. They said at the time that estimates from the CBO were the only ``meaningful'' numbers that provided ``no wiggle room'' and ``no smoke and mirrors.'' Now, the Republican leadership has wiggled into a complete about face on this issue. For this bill, the Republican leadership has very quietly ``directed'' the head of the Congressional Budget Office to ignore his own professional spending estimates and simply not count $10.473 billion of spending in this bill. The leadership has also directed the CBO to ignore its scoring rules on asset sales as well--ordering them to credit this bill with another $2.6 billion from the expected proceeds from the FCC auction of portions of the frequency spectrum (having little of nothing to do with defense). We once again have a situation in which this Republican leadership is pronouncing their unabiding support and steadfastness for adhering to the budget caps while they whisper orders to the CBO to ignore those very same caps. FY 2000 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL [In billions of dollars] Budget authority Outlays Budget Resolution Cap (302b for FY 2000) 267.692 259.130 Actual CBO Spending Estimate: 270.291 271.113 ------------------ ----------- ================== =========== Scorekeeping Gimmickry: -10.473 ------------------ ----------- Total scorekeeping changes (-2.600) (-13.073) ================== =========== Under caps due to ``directed scoring'' 0.0 -1,090 MILITARY SPENDING AND TAX CUTS Perhaps the most important decision that Congress will make this year affecting the defense budget over the next decade will be the upcoming vote to cut taxes. Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee, in correct with the House Republican leadership, approved an $864 billion ten-year tax cut bill. Since the bill will trigger additional debt service of $155 billion, the real cost of this bill is $1.02 trillion. Tax Cut Crowds Out Defense Increases. --This tax cut dissipates more than the entire non-Social Security surplus projected by CBO, and it leaves no money to extend the solvency of either Social Security or Medicare. This tax cut would make it extremely unlikely that other initiatives including the $150 billion ten-year defense spending (outlays) increase proposed by the President, could be financed without returning to deficit spending. What's more, the underlying spending assumptions that make up the 10-year budget surplus estimates are fallacious--they assumed deeper cuts in the discretionary spending category (that includes defense) than Congress has ever imposed before. The implications for all discretionary programs (including defense) are ominous if Congress chooses to endorse these spending assumptions by voting for a massive tax cut. If enacted, this tax cut promises to return us to the dark days of the 1980's--with large deficits and cutthroat competition between domestic and defense programs. Living Within The Assumed Caps. --The CBO now projects a non-Social Security surplus totaling $964 billion over the next ten years. This projection assumes that appropriations will be capped at designated levels in 2000, 2001, and 2002 (an extremely dubious assumption), in accordance with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Thereafter, the projected surplus assumes that total appropriations will remain at the 2002 funding level in real purchasing power. In addition, the projections assume that there will be no emergencies in the next decade that require federal spending. Congress has already breached this ten-year ``freeze'' assumption by providing growth rates above this level for highway and mass transit programs. In addition, the President has called for providing an additional $150 billion (outlays) above a freeze level for defense programs over this period. If only these two deviations are allowed to occur over the next decade, the remaining funds for non-defense/non-transportation domestic programs would have to be reduced by 31 percent (-$750 billion) below their 1999 levels, after adjusting for inflation. While some may think this could be somewhat acceptable in the abstract, I challenge Members to say whether they would vote for 31 percent reductions (at a minimum) in the following domestic programs: Veteran's hospitals and medical care National Institutes of Health (NIH) NASA FAA air traffic control system Education for the disadvantaged Special education Community development block grants Coast Guard Federal Bureau of Investigation WIC (nutrition for women, infants, and children) Customs Section 8 housing for the elderly and handicapped National Park Service Drug Enforcement Agency INS FEMA National Science Foundation EPA Superfund grants to states Head Start Pell Grants National Weather Service Agriculture conservation Flood control Teacher training Food and Drug Administration It is politically and economically nai AE4ve and irresponsible to the people whom we represent to think that these programs can sustain a 31% reduction over ten years without threatening public health and safety and the economic prosperity on which the future of American working families depends. America will not be frozen in time for ten years. Our population will continue to grow, our economy and social structures will continue to evolve and become more complex, and our responsibilities as the world's only economic and military superpower will be great. The Republican tax cut would place into serious jeopardy the President's military spending proposal and sets the chances at zero that any funds could be found to increase the President's defense plan. Dave Obey.