64 635
2000
106 th Congress 2d Session
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report
106 644
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001
REPORT
of the
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[to accompany h.r. 4576]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
June 1, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
C O N T E N T S
Bill Totals 1
Committee Budget Review Process 3
Committee Recommendations by Major Category 3
Active Military Personnel 3
Guard and Reserve Personnel 3
Operation and Maintenance 3
Procurement 3
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 4
Items of Special Committee Interest 4
Military Health Care and Medical Research Programs 4
Information Assurance and Computer Network Security 5
Ballistic Missile Defense Programs 6
Tactical Fighter Aviation Issues 7
Army Transformation 9
Forces to be Supported 14
Department of the Army 14
Department of the Navy 15
Department of the Air Force 16
TITLE I. MILITARY PERSONNEL 19
Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropria19
Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 19
Adjustments to Military Personnel Account 21
End Strength Adjustments
21
Unobligated/Unexpended Military Personnel Balances
21
Unfunded Requirements
21
Basic Allowance for Housing
22
Guard and Reserve Forces
22
Full-Time Support Strengths
22
Military Personnel, Army
23
Military Personnel, Navy
25
Active Navy Manning
27
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
27
Military Personnel, Air Force
29
Reserve Personnel, Army
31
Reserve Personnel, Navy
33
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
35
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
37
Air Force Reserve Manning
39
National Guard Personnel, Army
39
Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams
41
Guard and Reserve Workyear Requirements
41
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
41
TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
45
Operation and Maintenance Overview
48
Real Property Maintenance
48
Depot Maintenance
49
Soldier Support Equipment
49
Junior ROTC
49
Field Maintenance and Logistical Support
50
War Reserve and Prepositioned Materiels
50
Headquarters and Administrative Expenses
50
Acquisition Program Growth
51
DFAS Program Growth
51
NATO and Overseas Staff Growth
51
Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data
51
Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings
52
Public Transit Vouchers
53
Recruiting and Advertising
53
Operation and Maintenance, Army
53
Medium General Purpose Tents
57
Tactical Missile Maintenance
57
Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne (MOTBY)
58
Night Training Safety ``Light Sticks''
58
Distance Learning--CCCE
58
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
58
Navy Aviation Depot Maintenance Apprentice Program
61
Man Overboard Indicator
61
UNOLS
62
Naval Sea Cadet Program
62
USNS Hayes Relocation
62
Center for Civil-Military Relations
62
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
62
Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment (MOLLE)
64
Civilian Personnel Separation
64
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
64
C 5 Spare Parts
67
Air Force Cargo Distribution Hub
67
Displaying Retired Aircraft
68
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
68
Beryllium Work-Related Illnesses
70
DoD Schools
70
Family Advocacy
71
Youth Development and Leadership Program
71
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
71
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
73
Fort Worth Naval Air Station
75
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
75
NBC Defense Equipment
77
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
77
March Air Reserve Base
79
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
79
National Emergency and Disaster Information Center
81
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
81
C 130 Operations
83
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund
83
Budget Justification and Budget Execution Materials
83
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
83
Environmental Restoration, Army
84
Environmental Restoration, Navy
84
Environmental Restoration, Air Force
84
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide
84
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites
84
Nike Battery 55
85
Santa Clarita
85
Newmark
85
Depleted Uranium Environmental Restoration
85
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
85
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
86
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense
86
TITLE III. PROCUREMENT
87
Estimates and Appropriations Summary
87
Special Interest Items
89
Classified Programs
89
Communication Systems Upgrades
89
Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Vehicles
89
Aircraft Procurement, Army
89
Kiowa Warrior Live-Fire Testing
90
Ground Proximity Warning System
90
Missile Procurement, Army
93
Short Range Air Defense Modernization
93
Javelin
93
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
96
Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge
96
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
98
Ammunition Management
98
Sense and Destroy Armor Munition
99
Other Procurement, Army
101
Up-Armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles
103
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
107
Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS)
107
EP 3 Modernization
108
Weapons Procurement, Navy
110
Joint Stand-Off Weapon
110
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
113
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
115
Other Procurement, Navy
117
Aviation Requirement for Joint Tactical Terminals
118
Procurement, Marine Corps
122
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
125
15
126
C 17 Advance Procurement
126
15 Modifications
126
16 Modifications
127
Miscellaneous Production Charges
127
Missile Procurement, Air Force
131
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
133
Other Procurement, Air Force
135
Next Generation Small Loader
136
Procurement, Defense-Wide
139
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
142
Defense Production Act Purchases
142
Microwave Power Tubes
142
Information Technology
142
Information Assurance and Computer Network Security
143
Information Technology Oversight
144
Defense Joint Accounting System (DJAS)
144
Navy Marine Corps Intranet
144
Information Security Lessons Learned
145
Army High Performance Computing Research Center
145
Information Technology Center
146
National Guard Bureau Fiber Optic Study
146
Global Infrastructure Data Capture Program
146
TITLE IV. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
147
Estimates and Appropriation Summary
147
Special Interest Items
147
Classified Programs
147
Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan
147
Tactical Radios
148
Networking of Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Assets
148
Joint Ejection Seat Program
148
Discoverer II
150
Use of Special Access-Like Security Measures to Protect Business
Sensitive Information
150
Budgeting for Operational Test
151
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
151
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
156
RDT&E Management Support
156
Rand Arroyo Center
156
Excalibur (XM 982)
156
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
161
DD 21 Next Generation Surface Combatant
165
Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP)
167
Network Centric Warfare (NCW)
167
Navy, Marine Corps Imagery Processing Exploitation
167
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV s)
168
Bone Marrow Registry
168
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
173
Radiation Hardened Electronics
176
Air Traffic Control, Approach, and Landing System
176
High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (HAE UAV)-Global Hawk
177
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
181
Arms Control Technology
184
High Performance Computing Program
185
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA)
185
Still-Image Compression Standard
185
Competitive Practices
185
Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense
189
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
189
TITLE V. REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
191
Defense Working Capital Funds
191
National Defense Sealift Fund
191
Ready Reserve Force
191
TITLE VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
193
Defense Health Program
193
Special Interest Items
193
TRICARE Improvements
194
Transfer of Defense Health Program Funds
194
Anthrax Vaccine Program
195
Chiropractic Demonstration Program
195
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
195
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
196
DoD Support to Plan Colombia
196
Tethered Aerostat Radar System
197
Office of the Inspector General
197
TITLE VII. RELATED AGENCIES
199
National Foreign Intelligence Program
199
Introduction
199
Classified Annex
199
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and
Disability System Fund
199
Intelligence Community Management Account
200
Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance,
Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund
200
National Security Education Trust Fund
200
TITLE VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
203
Definition of Program, Project and Activity
203
House of Representatives Reporting Requirements
203
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
204
Appropriations Language
204
General Provisions
206
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
208
Transfer of Funds
210
Rescissions
211
Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)
211
Constitutional Authority
211
Comparison with the Budget Resolution
212
Five-Year Outlay Projections
212
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
212
Full Committee Votes
212
Additional Views
224
106 th Congress
Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session
106 644
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001
June 1, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. Lewis of California, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4576]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in
explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the
Department of Defense, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001.
BILL TOTALS
Appropriations for most military functions of the Department of
Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill for the fiscal year
2001. This bill does not provide appropriations for military
construction, military family housing, civil defense, or nuclear
warheads, for which requirements are considered in connection with other
appropriations bills.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for activities funded
in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals $284,520,572,000
in new budget (obligational) authority. The amounts recommended by the
Committee in the accompanying bill total $288,512,800,000 in new budget
authority. This is $3,992,228,000 above the budget estimate and
$19,805,014,000 above the sums made available for the Department of
Defense for fiscal year 2000.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
COMMITTEE BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS
During its review of the fiscal year 2001 budget, the Subcommittee on
Defense held a total of 13 hearings during the period of February 2000
to March 2000. Testimony received by the Subcommittee totaled 1,408
pages of transcript. Approximately half of the hearings were held in
open session. Executive (closed) sessions were held only when the
security classification of the material to be discussed presented no
alternative.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MAJOR CATEGORY
Active Military Personnel
The Committee recommends a total of $65,098,288,000 for active
military personnel, a net increase of $51,800,000 above the budget
request. The Committee supports the budget request which proposed a 3.7
percent pay raise for military personnel effective January 1, 2001. The
Committee also agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in
the President's budget, and has included $18,500,000 for additional Navy
recruiters and Navy force structure manning.
Guard and Reserve Personnel
The Committee recommends a total of $10,805,928,000, a net increase
of $50,750,000 above the budget request for Guard and Reserve personnel.
The Committee agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in
the President's budget for the Selected Reserve, and has included
$37,500,000 to provide for additional full-time support personnel for
the Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Army
National Guard. The Committee has also included funds for the proposed
3.7 percent pay raise.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The Operation and Maintenance appropriation provides for the
readiness of U.S. forces as well as the maintenance of facilities and
equipment, the infrastructure that supports combat forces, and the
quality of life of service members and their families.
The Committee recommends $97,507,228,000, a net increase of
$1,227,115,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget request. This increase
is driven primarily by the need to address shortfalls in funding for
infrastructure repairs and maintenance, depot level maintenance, basic
soldier support equipment, field level maintenance and logistical
support, and shortages of sustainment stocks. The Committee also
recommends reductions from the budget request as the result of fact of
life changes and management actions the Department of Defense should
undertake to streamline its operations.
PROCUREMENT
The Committee recommends $61,558,679,000 for programs funded in Title
III of the Committee bill, Procurement, a net increase of $2,292,076,000
to the fiscal year 2001 budget request. Included in these totals is
$2,452,551,000 for procurement of National Guard and Reserve equipment,
a net increase of $622,651,000 above the budget request.
Major programs funded in the bill include:
$183,371,000 for 17 UH 60 Blackhawk helicopters.
$709,454,000 for Apache Longbow modifications.
$372,248,000 for 3,754 Javelin anti-tank missiles.
$285,363,000 for 2,200 Hellfire missiles.
$188,689,000 for 66 MLRS launcher systems.
$440,689,000 for Bradley fighting vehicle industrial base sustainment.
$1,200,077,000 for the Medium armored vehicle family.
$338,422,000 for the Abrams tank upgrade program.
$2,818,533,000 for 42 F/A 18E/F fighter aircraft.
$1,128,592,000 for 16 Marine Corps V 22 aircraft.
$231,118,000 for 3 KC 130J aircraft.
$433,932,000 for 12 Trident II ballistic missiles.
$4,053,653,000 for the CVN 77 aircraft carrier.
$1,198,012,000 for 1 New Attack Submarine.
$2,703,559,000 for 3 DDG 51 Destroyers.
$348,951,000 for 1 ADC(X) ship.
$2,149,882,000 for 10 F 22 fighter aircraft.
$400,000,000 for 5 F 15 fighter aircraft.
$2,185,823,000 for 12 C 17 airlift aircraft.
$250,610,000 for 1 JSTARS aircraft.
$380,232,000 for C 135 modifications.
$219,848,000 for 9,098 JDAM munitions.
$2,357,943,000 for ammunition for all services.
$433,962,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
The Committee recommends $40,170,230,000 for programs funded in Title
IV of the Committee bill, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, an
increase of $2,307,829,000 to the fiscal year 2001 budget request. Major
programs funded in the bill include:
$614,041,000 for the Comanche helicopter.
$355,309,000 for the Crusader artillery program.
$706,000,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter program.
$257,274,000 for the DD 21 next generation destroyer.
$1,411,786,000 for F 22 development.
$145,313,000 for B 2 development.
$569,188,000 for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High.
$332,952,000 for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.
$4,111,408,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE INTEREST
Military Health Care and Medical Research Programs
The Committee continues to emphasize support for and oversight of
defense health care and medical research programs. The Committee
recommends total funding for the Defense Health Program of
$12,143,029,000, an increase of $988,412,000 over the enacted fiscal
year 2000 level (a one year increase of nearly nine percent), and
$542,600,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget request. In addition,
appropriations for other medical programs in this bill, funded in
accounts other than the Defense Health Program appropriation cited
above, are recommended to receive increases above the budget request
totaling nearly $400,000,000.
The funds provided above the budget request include $280,600,000 to
implement the health care enhancements recently approved by the House in
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 (H.R. 4205),
which are targeted to achieve improved access to care for service
members, their dependents, and the retired military community. The
Committee bill also includes additions over the budget request totaling
$638,830,000 for medical research programs, including $175,000,000 for
the peer-reviewed breast cancer research program and $75,000,000 for the
peer-reviewed prostate cancer research program (both managed by the
Department of the Army).
Consistent with findings resulting from its fiscal year 2001 budget
review hearings, the Committee also recommends general provisions
intended to give the Department greater flexibility in the execution of
its managed care contracts, as well as requirements that the Secretary
of Defense more fully monitor and report to Congress on issues
associated with the execution of those contracts, in particular cost
growth in the TRICARE system.
Information Assurance and Computer Network Security
The fiscal year 2001 budget request generally accelerates the efforts
underway within the Department of Defense and the intelligence community
to take advantage of rapid advances in information technology. The
Committee, as in years past, supports such efforts as the DoD's
``Revolution in Military Affairs'' and ``Revolution in Business
Affairs'' which are largely premised on taking advantage of a growing
ability to move and process information.
However, as in society at large, the national security community's
growing use of such technology poses great vulnerabilities as well.
Events of recent weeks have only served to highlight this problem, with
the news dominated by acts by individual hackers committing computer
vandalism. The threats posed by such seemingly random acts--in
themselves real--pale in comparison to the potential dangers posed by
those who seek to damage American interests. The range of possibilities
runs from those attempting to discreetly break into systems to steal
information, to more active measures intended to destroy or disable
information networks in order to damage U.S. military and intelligence
capabilities, perhaps in connection with a real world conflict.
The Committee believes that a concerted, focused effort is needed to
protect key information systems, not only by those within the national
security community but at all levels of government. The Committee
commends the DoD for the efforts it has already initiated in this
regard, which among other things includes taking advantage of lessons
learned from the Year 2000 computer problem. Nevertheless, it is the
Committee's belief that much more needs to be done in this arena.
The Committee is well aware that the complexity of this problem does
not lend itself to a ``silver bullet'' solution. A more appropriate
response is a broad approach intended to create a ``defense-in-depth'',
with multiple levels of protection and avoidance of any single point of
failure. Drawing on testimony from experts in the Department of Defense,
the FBI, industry and academia, the Committee therefore recommends
increases over the budget request totaling $150,000,000, targeted at
addressing the most serious vulnerabilities in the Department's
information infrastructure.
These funds are directed towards specific objectives, including
increased monitoring of DoD networks; enhanced protection of military
communications; additional training for DoD personnel; and increasing
the Department's knowledge of its vulnerabilities. The funding
allocations include:
$36,000,000 to purchase hardware and software applications to monitor
computer networks for suspicious activity;
$35,000,000 for new digital secure phones to replace the outdated
STU-III;
$20,000,000 to ensure security capabilities are built into new cell
phones, rather than retrofitting them later at a significantly higher
cost;
$18,600,000 to accelerate the DoD's Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
program;
$15,000,000 for information security awareness, education and training;
$12,100,000 for an effects-based evaluation of a computer network
attack on information systems and processes;
$10,300,000 for an assessment of the physical and cyber
vulnerabilities of militarily-critical DoD and commercial
infrastructures; and
$3,000,000 for additional basic (6.1) research into information
assurance.
Specific program details associated with this initiative are noted
throughout this report and are summarized in the Information Technology
section under Title III, Procurement. The Committee directs that those
information assurance program elements or projects receiving funds over
the budget request in the Committee report be designated as items of
congressional interest and shall be so noted on DD Form 1414 (this is to
include amounts requested in the budget request and the additional
funding cited above).
The Committee intends that this Information Assurance initiative be
the first step in a longer-term effort to increase programmed funding
for DoD's efforts towards securing its information systems and networks.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2002
budget submission which provides details on the planned obligation of
these funds, as well as the funding proposed in the fiscal year 2002
budget for information assurance programs.
Ballistic Missile Defense Programs
In light of the growing threat posed to deployed U.S. military
forces, the citizens and territory of the United States, and our allies,
the Committee recommends a total of $4,555,370,000 for programs under
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). This is a net
increase of $168,245,000 over the budget request, and $738,824,000 above
the amounts provided for fiscal year 2000.
Within this amount, the Committee recommends specific funding
allocations for certain key programs as shown below:
National Missile Defense:
$74,530,000
$1,740,238,000
Theater High-Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) RDT&E $549,945,000
Navy Theater-Wide RDT&E $512,671,000
Navy Area RDT&E $274,234,000
PAC-3:
$365,457,000
$81,016,000
International Cooperative Programs RDT&E $116,992,000
Tactical Fighter Aviation Issues
The Committee, as it noted in its report last year, remains concerned
about the developmental challenges and overall costs associated with the
current Department of Defense plans to modernize its tactical fighter
inventory. The Committee recognizes the need and justification for each
of the major ongoing tactical fighter modernization programs: the Navy's
F/A 18 E/F fighter; the Air Force's F 22 fighter; and the Marine
Corps/Air Force/Navy Joint Strike Fighter. Nevertheless, given the
current expense of each of these programs, and the growing share of the
DoD budget they will consume as they move from development into low-rate
and then full-scale production, the Committee believes it is absolutely
essential that the DoD insist on a rigorous testing and development
process as well as sound program and cost management for each program.
Absent such controls, the financial ``bow wave'' associated with
tactical fighter modernization, already immense, can only grow--which
could result in either reduced procurement objectives, putting even more
pressure on existing, aging assets; or the diversion of funds from other
critical defense needs.
The Committee's fiscal year 2001 recommendations for each of these
programs are summarized below.
F/A 18 E/F: The Committee recommends $2,818,553,000 for procurement
of 42 aircraft, the number of aircraft requested in the budget;
$101,068,000 in advance procurement, and $248,093,000 for research,
development, test and evaluation (the budgeted amounts).
F 22: The Committee recommends funding the budgeted amounts for
procurement of 10 aircraft ($2,149,882,000), advance procurement
($396,222,000), and research, development, test and evaluation
($1,411,786,000).
The Committee continues to believe it is essential the F 22 aircraft
receive adequate testing prior to a production decision. Unfortunately,
the F 22's flight test program continues to fall short of Air Force
projections. Between November 1999 and March 2000, the F 22 program lost
an additional nine flight test months. The Committee is especially
concerned about slips in static and fatigue testing, which are now both
more than a year behind schedule. In a related matter, the Committee has
become increasingly convinced that the congressionally-imposed F 22
development cost cap is forcing the Air Force to reduce or delay the
funding for, and planned scope of, testing in order to accommodate
continued cost growth on the F 22 development contract.
Responding to these concerns, the Committee has included two general
provisions. The first (Section 8116 of the Committee bill) restates the
criteria established in Public Law 106 79 (the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2000), which prohibits award of a low-rate
production contract for the F 22 until:
(1) first flight of an F 22 aircraft incorporating Block 3.0 software;
(2) certification by the Secretary of Defense that all Defense
Acquisition Board exit criteria for award of low-rate production has
been met; and
(3) submission of a report by the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation assessing the adequacy of the testing to date.
The Committee also proposes Section 8117, which replaces the
existing, individual statutory budget caps on F 22 development and
production with a single, overall cap for the entire program. This will
provide the Air Force greater flexibility to plan, budget, and execute a
sound testing and development program than is currently the case under
existing law.
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF): The Joint Strike Fighter is a critically
important program for the Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy. As currently
planned it will be the largest single defense acquisition program in the
history of the DoD. The Committee fully understands the integral part
that this program plays in all three Services' tactical fighter
modernization plans. It also believes that the JSF, should it live up to
its technological promise and cost goals, represents the best option for
replacing aging Navy and Marine Corps F/A 18 and AV 8B fighters, as well
as Air Force F 16s. In short, the Committee wants this program to
succeed.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for JSF was premised on
completion of the program's concept demonstration/validation phase by
March 2001. By this date, the program was expected to be ready for
transition into engineering and manufacturing development (EMD), to be
conducted by one of the two competing contractor teams following a
``winner-take-all'' source selection decision. However delays in the
start of the JSF flight demonstration program, as well as technical
problems which may hinder demonstration of critical JSF design
characteristics, have made a March 2001 completion date for concept
demonstration increasingly unlikely.
Moreover, the Department of Defense has been actively assessing the
effects of the ``winner-take-all'' acquisition strategy on the defense
industrial base. It is possible that the Department may, in a matter of
weeks, announce a revised acquisition strategy involving some degree of
teaming or cooperation between what are currently two opposing
industrial teams, each with distinctly different design concepts,
hardware, subcontractors and vendor bases. Should such a revision to the
acquisition strategy occur, logic dictates that the JSF development
program and budget plan will require adjustments, perhaps even major
changes, to those currently assumed in the fiscal year 2001 budget
submission and the existing Future Years Defense Plan.
The Committee believes Congress must be in a position to carefully
consider, and respond if necessary, to any proposed revisions in the
JSF's acquisition strategy--especially in light of the potential
schedule and cost impacts. Additionally, the current JSF program
schedule and the fiscal year 2001 budget request both presume a source
selection and EMD contract award will be completed by March 2001. As
stated above, technical and schedule problems make it unlikely this
milestone will be met.
The Committee also notes that this projected March 2001 date is just
two months into the beginning of a new Administration and Congress. The
Committee believes there must be sufficient time for the next
Administration to formulate its own plans for the JSF in the context of
its own overall defense program. In this regard, a March 2001 decision
point involving a program of this importance is clearly unrealistic.
Therefore, the Committee recommends the following actions:
(1) The Committee bill includes total fiscal year 2001 funding for
the Joint Strike Fighter of $706,606,000, a net decrease of $150,000,000
from the budget request. Within this total the Committee has provided
$411,101,000 for concept demonstration, an increase of $150,000,000 over
the budget request; and $295,502,000 for engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD), a decrease of $300,000,000 from the budget request.
These changes have been allocated to the appropriate program elements in
the Navy and Air Force research, development, test and evaluation
accounts. The effect of these changes is to provide sufficient funding
to extend the concept demonstration/validation phase from March to June
2001; and to delay initiation of entry into the engineering and
manufacturing development phase of the JSF program by three months, from
March to June 2001.
(2) To ensure that Congress is kept apprised of the status of the JSF
program, the Committee bill includes a general provision (Section 8118)
which requires that 60 days following enactment of the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2001, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
a report to the congressional defense committees describing what, if any
changes have been made to the JSF acquisition plan as a result of the
Secretary's review of the ``winner-take-all'' strategy. If applicable,
this report shall address any contemplated changes in the JSF
development schedule and funding profile resulting from a revised
acquisition strategy. The Secretary is also to report on a number of
issues regarding the technical progress made towards achieving planned
JSF performance characteristics.
(3) This provision also requires submission of a similar report from
the next Administration's Secretary of Defense by March 30, 2001, which
will provide Congress with updated information regarding the JSF
demonstration phase as well as a detailed explanation of the next
Administration's plans for this program. The provision also restricts
the obligation of funds for the EMD phase of the JSF program until June
1, 2001, and further conditions the release of funds on a certification
from the Secretary that the JSF EMD program has been fully funded by
each of the participating services in the Future Years Defense Plan.
Army Transformation
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Department of the Army
marks the first year of a 12- to 15-year, $70 billion effort to
transform its Cold War legacy force--designed for a different era and a
different enemy--into a force built on speed, lethality, versatility,
survivability, and sustainability. This ambitious and far-reaching plan,
conceived less than a year ago, has become known as the ``Army
Transformation'' strategy.
Recent operations have clearly shown that, in the wake of a 40
percent reduction in personnel and a 37 percent reduction in buying
power over the last decade, and a weapons acquisition process which has
proven to be lacking in many respects, the Army cannot quickly deploy
its heavy forces, and is not optimally equipped or organized to meet the
changing demands placed on it in the post-Cold War era. The Army Chief
of Staff has described this problem succinctly: ``... our heavy forces
are too heavy and our light forces lack staying power. ''
In light of the clearly demonstrated need for the Army to reconfigure
itself, and the depth of the commitment to change exhibited by the Army
leadership, the Committee has made the issue of Army Transformation a
major focus of its deliberations in fashioning the fiscal year 2001
Defense Appropriations bill. The Committee took the following issues
into consideration.
Past Restructuring Initiatives. The Committee notes that ``Army
transformation'' is not a new idea. Especially since the end of the Cold
War, different Administrations and different Army leaders have
recognized the need for the Army to adapt to new and different threats.
Over the last decade, the Army has undertaken a variety of restructuring
initiatives, large and small. They include such efforts as the advanced
warfighting experiment process, ``Force XXI'', digitization, the ``Army
of Excellence'', the ``Army After Next'', and most recently the Strike
Force headquarters concept. Many of these initiatives have shown some
promise, but have regrettably failed to generate sufficient impetus to
bring about transforming change to the Army. The reasons for this are
varied, including prolonged research and development efforts or extended
and disjointed experimentation programs. Other efforts suffered from
lack of sufficient funding. None had sufficient momentum or budgetary
priority to be completed as originally envisioned.
The consequence of the Army's having failed in these attempts to make
significant changes were perhaps most pungently summed up by the
then-Deputy Secretary of Defense, John Hamre, who in August 1999 stated:
``If the Army only holds onto nostalgic versions of its grand past, it
is going to atrophy and die.''
The New ``Army Vision''. Within the past year, the Army has
responded to this challenge by devising a new strategy, intended to
provide in the near-term an enhanced capability to rapidly deploy combat
power, while laying the foundation for the creation of an ``objective''
force that is as lethal and survivable as its heavy forces but as
deployable, agile, and versatile as its light forces. The Army intends
to accomplish this through three major initiatives.
``Interim Force''. --The Army has initiated an aggressive program to
convert a selected number of brigades into 4,000 person interim brigade
combat teams (IBCTs, also referred to as ``new medium brigades''),
intended to bridge the gap between traditional heavy and light Army
forces. The fiscal year 2001 budget contains funding to begin this
process for the first such IBCT. The primary focus of the ``interim
force'' is to make the Army's light combat formations more lethal,
survivable, and tactically mobile. The transition to interim force
elements will also convert some heavy brigades into lighter and more
agile forces.
The IBCTs are specifically designed for employment as early entry
forces that can begin operations immediately upon departure from the
port of debarkation. The mobility goal is to deploy an entire interim
brigade by C 17 or C 130 aircraft to a theater twice as fast as a
mechanized brigade (approximately 96 hours with a dedicated airflow).
The Army intends this interim force to provide the National Command
Authority with a better-tailored and more effective capability for
smaller scale contingencies, such as past operations in Grenada,
Somalia, Haiti, or current operations in Kosovo. The Army also contends
that this force will improve American combat power for fighting major
theater wars (MTW), such as on the Korean peninsula, especially should
the Nation find itself confronted with a second MTW scenario.
The interim force concept, which is currently estimated to cost
around $600 to $900 million per brigade, centers on acquiring a family
of off-the-shelf, medium weight infantry carrier vehicles and a new
mobile armored gun system. Costs will be refined with the final
selection of interim armored vehicles later this summer.
The current Army budget funds an equipment acquisition profile of one
interim brigade combat team per fiscal year over the Future Years
Defense Plan. In testimony before the Committee, the Army Chief of Staff
made clear his view that it is preferable to implement the interim force
transition at a rate of two brigades per year. This is in order to
reduce the risk to U.S. forces, which in all likelihood will continue to
be ordered to undertake operations with equipment, organization, and
doctrine that is not optimized for many of the missions they will be
tasked with performing.
``Objective Force'' --While attempting to address immediate
operational needs through the rapid fielding of the interim brigades,
the fiscal year 2001 Army budget also proposes a major research and
development effort to support the design and eventual fielding of a new
medium weight ``objective force'', based on ``leap ahead'' technology,
and intended for deployment in the 2012 timeframe. This force will be
designed to deploy a combat-capable combined arms brigade anywhere in
the world in 96 hours, the remainder of the division 24 hours later, and
five divisions anywhere in the world in 30 days. Even though it would be
centered around a relatively lightweight (10 to 20 tons), advanced
technology Future Combat System vehicle, the Army believes the objective
force can be shaped and equipped to have the versatility,
sustainability, and lethality to fight and win a full spectrum of
conflicts ranging from small stability and support operations to
full-scale major regional wars.
Heavy Force Recapitalization.-- The third major element of the Army
strategy calls for ``recapitalization'' of its legacy heavy forces, to
ensure that the Army will continue to have the ability to generate
overwhelming heavy combat power to fight and win the Nation's wars. This
part of the plan is centered on further tank upgrades, revitalization of
helicopter assets, artillery upgrades, and enhanced situation awareness
(digitization) capabilities. It calls for modernizing III Corps, the 3rd
Infantry Division, selected Guard brigades, and other units not part of
the interim force. The Committee notes that even under the most
optimistic implementation timetables for the future ``objective force'',
it will be necessary to maintain the Army's heavy formations for at
least another two decades.
Committee Observations and Concerns:-- The Committee commends the
present Army leadership for devising a program that not only attempts to
learn lessons from past restructuring efforts, but also tries to
reevaluate and make fundamental changes to core organizational,
doctrinal, and institutional concepts. However, the Committee believes
that if this effort is to avoid the fate of previously well-intended
Army efforts, it will require a sustained level of commitment from the
Army, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress, a demonstrated dedication
to change and willingness to make tough choices, and a concerted effort
to make this a top Department of Defense priority.
Internal Army Transformation Needed.-- While laudatory of the Army
leadership's aggressive efforts over the past year to make its
transformation vision a reality, the Committee believes that the Army
must undertake a serious self-examination of how it is internally
organized and resourced to manage a complex and expensive undertaking
such as Transformation. The Committee has not been impressed with the
slow and protracted way in which the Army has historically developed and
acquired many of its major systems. For example, it will take 30 years
for the Army to develop and procure a new fleet of medium trucks, the
Comanche helicopter will be in development for nearly 20 years before it
is procured, and hundreds of millions were spent to develop the medium
Armored Gun System only to see the Army recommend its cancellation
immediately prior to procurement. Other examples abound. The Committee
has observed how any number of Army research and development programs
have displayed a lack of focus and relevance over the years, while there
have been a series of embarrassing design problems involving relatively
simple items such as trailer hitches and medium trucks.
Budget Priorities Must Shift As Well.-- The Army must also come to
grips with the need to make the hard budgetary choices needed to reorder
its internal priorities and to eliminate lower priority expenditures. It
is not unreasonable to require the Army to contribute a significant
portion of the total cost of the transformation effort from savings
derived from other desirable but lower priority Army
programs--especially those that after years of development have yet to
demonstrate success, are duplicative of existing capabilities, or
represent a ``Cold War'' mindset in terms of requirements and
operational utility.
The Committee is also puzzled by the actions of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD). The Committee notes that after issuing what
amounts to an ultimatum to the Army to transform itself, OSD did not
follow up its challenge with the resources necessary to properly and
robustly implement the transformation plan. Even though Army
transformation is a centerpiece of the President's fiscal year 2001
defense budget, the Administration proposed larger program increases for
both the Air Force and the Navy than for the Army. Indeed, the proposed
fiscal year 2001 budget cuts the Army's overall buying power by 1.5
percent.
The Committee takes no issue with the legitimacy of the Air Force and
Navy program increases, most of which meet valid needs and requirements.
But the Committee also believes that if the DoD and the next
Administration does not accord Army transformation the budgetary
priority it deserves, it will languish and eventually be homogenized
into the traditional Army structure along with many past initiatives,
producing only marginal long term effect.
Interim Force Implementation Issues.-- The Committee is concerned
about many aspects of the proposed ``off-the-shelf'' acquisition plan
the Army has initiated to equip the new interim brigades. But given Army
immediate operational requirements, and the well-demonstrated inability
of the Army acquisition system to quickly develop and field equipment,
the Committee believes this unconventional acquisition initiative must
be given a chance to succeed. Even then, the interim brigade acquisition
strategy cannot be allowed to become yet another drawn-out, overly
expensive program which collapses from its own weight.
The Committee is aware that some have called for slowing down the
fielding of the interim force to allow for a period of experimentation,
detailed platform demonstrations, and operational analysis. The
Committee believes that the Army shall, and must, take the necessary
steps to ensure that the equipment and operational tactics for the
interim force meet the warfighting needs of those commanders who may be
called upon to use this capability, as well as providing for the safety
of those soldiers who may be called upon to fight on behalf of the
Nation. On balance, given the Army's needs the Committee finds itself
supportive of the Army Chief of Staff's crisply stated vision for the
interim force: ``We intend to stand it up, organize it, equip it, train
it, pick it up, and lift it and use it, as opposed to study it.''
The Committee cautions the Army that it should be prepared to
demonstrate that it has given full and careful consideration to vehicle
cost in awarding upcoming IBCT vehicle production contracts. In
particular, the Committee will review how the Army has weighed such
costs against the benefits and desire of achieving commonality among all
medium combat vehicle types. The Committee expects the Army to follow a
``best value'' concept when evaluating bids and awarding IBCT contracts.
Committee Recommendations:
The Committee strongly supports the thrust of the Army leadership's
strategic vision to transform its Cold War legacy force to one that is
better tailored to conduct a full spectrum of operations with dominance,
speed, agility, lethality, and sustainability.
In addition, the Committee concurs with the Army leadership that the
greatly increased frequency of small-scale contingency operations over
the past decade, and the likely continuation of such missions in the
foreseeable future, justifies the need for establishing its interim
brigades more quickly than the ten-year timeframe currently proposed.
The Army believes that it can implement this force in half the time if
funds are available, and the Committee agrees that this is what should
be done. In addition, the Committee strongly supports the concept that
the interim force must not just be developed as a specialized force only
for small contingency operations, but as a ``full spectrum force''
capable of effective combat at all levels of conflict.
Therefore, after careful consideration, the Committee makes these
recommendations regarding the key aspects of the Army Transformation
strategy:
The Committee recommends fully funding the budget request of
$105,000,000 for the cornerstone of the ``objective force'', the Future
Combat Vehicle, and also provides an additional $46,000,000 over the
request to accelerate this effort.
The Committee bill fully funds the budget request of $646,077,000 to
develop and field interim armored vehicles for the first interim brigade
combat team--and provides additions above the budget request of
$150,000,000 for development costs, and $133,000,000 in procurement
accounts to completely test, equip and field the first IBCT.
In addition, the Committee provides an additional $800,000,000 in
procurement funding to equip a second IBCT, in accordance with the
Army's preferred rate of interim brigade implementation.
As stated above, the Committee believes that the Department of
Defense must increase the overall attention and priority it is giving to
the interim brigade transformation concept. The Committee bill therefore
contains a general provision (Section 8115) prohibiting the obligation
of any funds provided for the second IBCT, unless and until the
Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the fiscal year 2002
Department of Defense budget submission fully funds an additional two
IBCTs for fiscal year 2002, as well as in each of the succeeding years
of the Future Years Defense Plan until eight brigades are financed. The
Committee expects and directs the DoD to include adequate funding in
next year's budget request to meet the recommended pace of converting
two brigades per year.
Finally, a key aspect of the Army transformation process must be an
internal transformation, to revitalize and modernize its processes for
developing and acquiring major systems in a timely, efficient, and cost
effective manner. The Committee therefore directs the Secretary of the
Army to commission an independent organization (as discussed in the
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army portion of this report)
to review and make necessary recommendations to improve the Army's
management structure, procedures, requirements development and resource
allocation levels for its research and development, major systems
acquisition, and budget/fiscal analysis functions. This review shall
expressly compare the manner in which these functions are organized and
resourced by the other military services, and shall solicit the views
and recommendations for improving these functions from cognizant
officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of
Management and Budget, the Congress, and industry. This review shall be
completed no later than March 31, 2001, and a summary of the
recommendations and actions the Secretary plans to take in response to
those recommendations shall be transmitted to the congressional defense
committees by April 30, 2001.
FORCES TO BE SUPPORTED
Department of the Army
The fiscal year 2001 budget is designed to support active Army forces
of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and reserve forces of 8
divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15 enhanced National Guard brigades
(6 enhanced brigades will be aligned under 2 AC/ARNG integrated division
headquarters). These forces provide the minimum force necessary to meet
enduring defense needs and execute the National Military Strategy.
A summary of the major forces follows:
Fiscal year--
1999 2000 2001
Divisions:\1\ 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) 480 480 480
\1\Separate brigade is aligned to one of the light divisions.
\2\Selected Divisions will have the Interim Brigade Combat Teams (2 brigades undergoing transformation at Ft. Lewis, WA) within them.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
The fiscal year 2001 budget support battle forces totaling 316 ships
at the end of fiscal year 2001, the same as in fiscal year 2000. Forces
in fiscal year 2001 include 18 strategic submarines, 12 aircraft
carriers, 246 other battle force ships, 1,835 Navy/Marine Corps
tactical/ASW aircraft, 619 Undergraduate Training aircraft, 517 Fleet
Air Training aircraft, 254 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 404 Reserve
aircraft, and 472 aircraft in the pipeline.
A summary of the major forces follow:
Fiscal year--
1999 2000 2001
Strategic Forces 18 18 18
---------- ---------- ----------
SLBM Launchers 432 432 432
General Purpose 256 257 258
---------- ---------- ----------
Support Forces 25 25 25
---------- ---------- ----------
Mobilization Category A 18 16 15
---------- ---------- ----------
---------- ---------- ----------
Total Ships, Battle Force 317 316 316
Total Local Defense/Misc Force 162 165 155
Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces 138 143 132
Surface Combatant Ships 1 0 0
Coastal Defense 13 13 13
Mobilization Category B 10 9 10
Naval Aircraft: 4,100 4,115 4,101
---------- ---------- ----------
Naval Personnel:
Active:
Navy 373,046 371,800 372,000
Marine Corps 172,641 172,518 172,600
Reserve:
Navy 89,172 89,134 88,900
SELRES 73,297 74,124 74,251
TARS 15,875 15,010 14,649
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
The fiscal year 2001 Air Force budget is designed to support a total
active inventory force structure of 78 fighter and attack squadrons, 4
Air National Guard air defense interceptor squadrons and 12 bomber
squadrons, including B 2s, B 52s, and B 1s. The Minuteman and
Peacekeeper ICBM forces will consist of 605 active launchers.
A summary of the major forces follows:
Fiscal year--
1999 2000 2001
USAF fighter and attack (Active) 83 81 78
USAF fighter and attack (ANG and AFRC) 45 45 45
Air defense interceptor (ANG) 6 6 4
Strategic bomber (Active) 10 11 12
Strategic bomber (ANG and AFRC) 3 3 3
ICBM operational launch facilities/control centers 605 605 605
ICBM operational missile boosters 550 550 550
======== ======== ========
USAF Airlift Squadrons (Active): 15 15 12
-------- -------- --------
Total Airlift 26 26 23
======== ======== ========
Total Active Inventory 6,203 6,143 6,114
FY 1999 (Actual) FY 2000 Col/FY 2001 PB FY 2001 PB
Active Duty 360,590 357,900 357,000
Reserve Component 177,478 180,386 182,300
Air National Guard 105,715 106,678 108,000
Air Force Reserve 71,772 73,708 74,300
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request continues to make
military personnel programs a high priority. The budget request proposed
a 3.7 percent pay raise, effective January 1, 2001, included a
significant increase in funds for advertising and recruiting support,
expanded pays, bonuses and other retention incentives, recommended an
increase in the number of recruiters, and contained new initiatives to
improve the Services' ability to recruit and retain a quality force.
The Committee agrees with these personnel initiatives and recommends
increases over the budget for programs such as Basic Allowance for
Housing costs, Dislocation Allowance, enlistment and selective
reenlistment bonuses, recruiting and advertising, and additional
recruiters.
SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
Fiscal year 2000 $73,894,693,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 75,801,666,000
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation 75,904,216,000
Change from budget request +102,550,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,904,216,000 for the
Military Personnel accounts. The recommendation is an increase of
$2,009,523,000 above the $73,894,693,000 appropriated in fiscal year
2000. These military personnel budget total comparisons include
appropriations for the active, reserve, and National Guard accounts. The
following tables include a summary of the recommendations by
appropriation account. Explanations of changes from the budget request
appear later in this section.
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATION
[In thousands of dollars]
Account Budget Recommendation Change from request
Military Personnel: $22,198,457 $22,242,457 +$44,000
-------------- ----------------- -----------------------
Subtotal, Active 65,046,488 65,098,288 +51,800
============== ================= =======================
Reserve Personnel: 2,433,880 2,463,320 +29,440
National Guard Personnel: 3,747,636 3,719,336 -28,300
-------------- ----------------- -----------------------
Subtotal, Guard and Reserve 10,755,178 10,805,928 +50,750
============== ================= =======================
Total, Title I 75,801,666 75,904,216 +102,550
The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes a slight decrease of 618
end strength for the active forces and an increase of 1,556 end strength
for the selected reserve over fiscal year 2000 authorized levels.
The Committee recommends the following personnel levels highlighted
in the tables below.
Overall Active End Strength
Fiscal year 2000 estimate 1,382,218
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,381,600
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation 1,382,242
Compared with Fiscal year 2000 +24
Compared with Fiscal year 2001 budget request +642
Overall Selected Reserve End Strength
Fiscal year 2000 estimate 864,144
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 865,700
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation 866,934
Compared with Fiscal year 2000 +2,790
Compared with Fiscal year 2001 budget request +1,234
FY 2000 estimate Fiscal year 2001
Budget request Recommendation Change from request
Active Forces (end strength): 480,000 480,000 480,000
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------------
Total, Active Force 1,382,218 1,381,600 1,382,242 +642
================= ================ ================ =====================
Guard and Reserve (end strength): 205,000 205,000 205,300 +300
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------------
Total, Guard and Reserve 864,144 865,700 866,934 +1,234
ADJUSTMENTS TO MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNT
Overview
End Strength Adjustments
The Committee recommends a personnel understrength reduction of
$138,400,000 to the budget request, as a result of a General Accounting
Office review of the fiscal year 2000 military personnel end strength
levels. The General Accounting Office has been examining the costs for
military pay and allowances to determine if the fiscal year 2001
requirements are correct. It has concluded, based on March 2000 end
strength projections, that the active and Reserve components will begin
fiscal year 2001 with approximately 3,200 fewer military personnel
on-board than budgeted. In addition, actual data shows active military
personnel on-board, by grade mix, is different than was requested in
last year's budget request. This means the fiscal year 2001 pay and
allowances requirements for personnel are incorrect and the budgets are
overstated. The Committee will continue to monitor the Services' end
strength levels as more current data becomes available.
Unobligated/Unexpended Military Personnel Balances
The Committee recommends a reduction of $96,000,000 to the budget
request, as a result of a General Accounting Office review of prior year
unobligated military personnel account balances. Generally the Services'
military personnel appropriations are obligated in the year of
appropriation, with the majority of the obligated balances being
disbursed within two years after being appropriated. However, all of the
funds obligated are not always expended, and those unexpended balances
are then transferred to the foreign currency account. Since the
Services' account data have shown a pattern of not spending all of their
appropriated funds, the Committee believes that the fiscal year 2001
military personnel budget request is overstated and can be reduced.
The Committee also believes the Services need to do a more
comprehensive job of reviewing their appropriations balances to ensure
that funds are properly obligated and expended, and if not, to adjust
their budget submissions accordingly.
Unfunded Requirements
The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of
$250,550,000 for additional active duty and reserve component pays and
allowances to enhance enlisted recruiting, retention, and quality of
life initiatives for military personnel, as follows:
[Dollars in thousands]
Enlistment Bonuses $130,400
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses 33,000
AGR Pilot Bonus 12,400
College First Program 5,000
Basic Allowance for Housing 63,750
Dislocation Allowance 6,000
-----------
Total $250,550
Basic Allowance for Housing
The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of
$63,750,000 for the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) program. The
budget recommended funds for a BAH initiative that will eliminate the
out-of-pocket housing costs being paid by military personnel. This
initiative will lower the average out-of-pocket costs for off-base
housing from the current 18.8 percent to 15 percent next year, and
eliminate them entirely by fiscal year 2005. The Committee recommends an
additional $30,000,000, to further reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses
for military personnel over the budget request.
In addition, the Committee recommends $33,750,000 to maintain housing
allowances at the 1999 levels during fiscal year 2001, in order to
protect service members from any further erosion of their housing
benefits in areas where the 2000 BAH rates had been decreased.
Guard and Reserve Forces
The Committee recognizes that Guard and Reserve forces are an
essential part of the total force having played an important role in
recent peacetime operations. Many of the skills needed for response to a
crisis reside in the Reserve components, guaranteeing the increased use
of Reservists in military operations other than war. The Committee
continues its support of the Guard and Reserve and recommends an
increase of $320,150,000 over the budget request for the personnel and
operation and maintenance accounts as shown below.
[Dollars in thousands]
Military Personnel +$50,750
Operation and Maintenance +269,400
------------
Total +$320,150
Full-Time Support Strengths
There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard and
Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and Reserve
(AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component personnel.
Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, maintain and
administer the Reserve components. Civilian (military) technicians
directly support units, and are very important to help units maintain
readiness and meet the wartime mission of the Army and Air Force.
Full-time support end strength in all categories totaled 148,849 in
fiscal year 2000. The fiscal year 2001 budget request is 133,023 end
strength. The following table summarizes Guard and Reserve full-time
support end strengths:
GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS
FY 2000 estimate Budget request Recommendation Change from request
Army Reserve: 12,804 12,806 13,106 +300
Navy Reserve TAR 15,010 14,649 14,649
Marine Corps Reserve 2,272 2,203 2,261 +58
Air Force Reserve: 1,134 1,278 1,336 +58
Army National Guard: 22,430 22,448 23,154 +706
Air National Guard: 11,157 11,148 11,148
Total: 64,807 64,532 65,654 +1,122
MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $22,006,361,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 22,198,457,000
Committee recommendation 22,242,457,000
Change from budget request +44,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,242,457,000 for
Military Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of
$236,096,000 above the $22,006,361,000 appropriated for fiscal year
2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Army
are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:
1100 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses 71,000
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
2450 Unemployment Benefits -2,100
Other Adjustments:
2770 Personnel Underexecution -24,900
2805 Basic Allowance for Housing 12,800
2815 BAH Out-of-Pocket Costs 10,200
2820 Dislocation Allowance 2,000
2825 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances -25,000
MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY
MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $17,258,823,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 17,742,897,000
Committee recommendation 17,799,297,000
Change from budget request +56,400,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,799,297,000 for
Military Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of
$540,474,000 above the $17,258,823,000 appropriated for fiscal year
2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Navy
are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:
3900 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses 23,500
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
5250 Unemployment Benefits -1,400
Other Adjustments:
5610 Basic Allowance for Housing 4,300
5625 USS Houston manning 3,500
5630 Additional Recruiter Manning 15,000
5631 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs 9,500
5632 Dislocation Allowance 2,000
Active Navy Manning
The Committee recommends an increase of $18,500,000 over the
``Military Personnel, Navy'' budget request to provide additional
manpower costs for the required end strength associated with the
decision not to implement the fiscal year 2001 decommissioning of the
USS Houston submarine, and to increase the Navy's recruiter manning
levels from 4,500 to 5,000 total strength level.
MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $6,555,403,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 6,822,300,000
Committee recommendation 6,818,300,000
Change from budget request -4,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,818,300,000 for
Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of
$262,897,000 above the $6,555,403,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,
Marine Corps are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:
6700 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses 4,000
6700 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses 4,000
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
7900 Unemployment Benefits -700
Other Adjustments:
8230 Personnel Underexecution -8,100
8255 Basic Allowance for Housing 1,500
8260 Marine Corps Execution Repricing -8,000
8265 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs 2,800
8270 Dislocation Allowance 500
MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $17,861,803,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 18,282,834,000
Committee recommendation 18,238,234,000
Change from budget request -44,600,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,238,234,000 for
Military Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of
$376,431,000 above the $17,861,803,000 appropriated for fiscal year
2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Air
Force are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:
9350 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses 7,500
9350 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses 29,000
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
10700 Unemployment Benefits -600
Other Adjustments:
11020 Personnel Underexecution -59,600
11080 Basic Allowance for Housing 12,100
11115 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances -42,000
11120 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs 7,500
11125 Dislocation Allowance 1,500
RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $2,289,996,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 2,433,880,000
Committee recommendation 2,463,320,000
Change from budget request +29,440,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,463,320,000 for
Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of
$173,324,000 above the $2,289,996,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Army
are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:
11750 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses 12,400
Other Adjustments:
12020 Full Time Support/AGRs 10,000
12045 JROTC Program 1,300
12055 College First Program 5,000
12060 Basic Allowance for Housing 740
RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,473,388,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,528,385,000
Committee recommendation 1,566,095,000
Change from budget request +37,710,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,566,095,000 for
Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of
$92,707,000 above the $1,473,388,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Navy
are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Other Adjustments:
12880 JROTC Program 600
12895 Basic Allowance for Housing 310
12900 CINC Active Duty for Training 13,400
12910 Annual Training 23,400
RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $412,650,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 436,386,000
Committee recommendation 440,886,000
Change from budget request +4,500,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $440,886,000 for Reserve
Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of
$28,236,000 above the $412,650,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,
Marine Corps are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Other Adjustments:
13780 JROTC Program 300
13795 Personnel Underexecution -700
13800 Active Duty for Special Work 3,000
13805 Active Personnel Reserve Reassessment 1,900
RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $892,594,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 981,710,000
Committee recommendation 980,610,000
Change from budget request -1,100,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $980,610,000 for Reserve
Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $88,016,000
above the $892,594,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Air
Force are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Other Adjustments:
14610 Personnel Underexecution -8,100
14626 JROTC Program 1,200
14640 AGR Pilot Bonus 3,700
14645 RED HORSE Unit 400
14650 Additional Recruiter Manning 1,700
AIR FORCE RESERVE MANNING
The Committee recommends an increase over the request of $2,100,000
in ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'' to provide additional personnel
costs required for the stand up of a new total force Rapid
Engineer-Deployable Heavy Operations-Repair Squadron Engineer (RED
HORSE) unit, and additional Reserve recruiter manning end strength.
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $3,610,479,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 3,747,636,000
Committee recommendation 3,719,336,000
Change from budget request -28,300,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,719,336,000 for
National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of
$108,857,000 above the $3,610,479,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard
Personnel, Army are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:
15200 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses 12,000
Other Adjustments:
15360 Personnel Underexecution -36,100
15390 Additional Full Time Support AGR 23,500
15420 Basic Allowance for Housing 1,300
15430 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances -29,000
Weapons of Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams
The Department of Defense has currently fielded 10 Weapons of Mass
Destruction Civil Support Teams. Last year, the Congress directed the
establishment and organization of an additional 17 teams, for a total of
27 teams. The stationing of these additional teams has already been
determined by the Department. However, the Committee believes that
should additional WMD teams be established by the Congress or the
Department in the future, priority should be given to states in the
Southwestern United States, and other areas which are experiencing
significant population increases.
Guard and Reserve Workyear Requirements
For the past several years, the Committee has asked the General
Accounting Office (GAO) to review the Reserve military personnel budget
requests. In the course of their review, the GAO found that the Army
National Guard has overstated the average number of military personnel
workyears budgeted because the inactive duty training participation
rates used to estimate the budget were overstated. Last year, the
Committee also directed the Secretary of Defense to ensure the Army
National Guard's accounting procedures for determining annual training
and schools and special training costs were properly coded, and that the
Army National Guard follow the Department's financial management
regulations. GAO has determined that the Army National Guard has not
corrected the accounting problems reported last year, and further found
that this accounting practice is also followed by the other Guard and
Reserve components. The Committee again directs the Secretary of Defense
to report to the Committee, by February 1, 2001, on its efforts to
ensure that accurate accounting information is used in preparing the
Reserve components budget submissions.
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,533,196,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,627,181,000
Committee recommendation 1,635,681,000
Change from budget request +8,500,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,635,681,000 for
National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase
of $102,485,000 above the $1,533,196,000 appropriated for fiscal year
2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard
Personnel, Air Force are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Other Adjustments:
16120 Personnel Underexecution -900
16155 Basic Allowance for Housing