(1) $3,423,870,000 for fiscal year 2000. (2) $4,050,455,000 for fiscal year 2001. SEC. 102. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS. (a) AIRCRAFT.-Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for procurement of aircraft for the Navy as follows: (1) $8,228,655,000 for fiscal year 2000. (2) $8,010,880,000 for fiscal year 2001. (b) WEAPONS.-Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for procurement of weapons (including missiles and torpedoes) for the Navy as follows: (1) $1,357,400,000 for fiscal year 2000. (2) $1,559,200,000 for fiscal year 2001. (c) NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION.—Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for ammunition for the Navy and Marine Corps as follows: (1) $484,900,000 for fiscal year 2000. (2) $479,800,000 for fiscal year 2001. (d) SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION.-Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for shipbuilding and conversion for the Navy as follows: (1) $6,678,454,000 for fiscal year 2000. (2) $12,225,660,000 for fiscal year 2001. (e) OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY.-Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for other procurement for the Navy as follows: (1) $4,100,091,000 for fiscal year 2000. (2) $3,640,153,000 for fiscal year 2001. (f) MARINE CORPS.-Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for procurement for the Marine Corps as follows: (1) $1,137,220,000 for fiscal year 2000. SEC. 103. AIR FORCE. (a) AIRCRAFT.-Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for procurement of aircraft for the Air Force as follows: (1) $9,302,086,000 for fiscal year 2000. (2) $9,923,117,000 for fiscal year 2001. (b) MISSILES. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for procurement of missiles for the Air Force as follows: (1) $2,359,608,000 for fiscal year 2000. (2) $3,337,205,000 for fiscal year 2001. (c) AMMUNITION.-Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for ammunition for the Air Force as follows: (1) $419,537,000 for fiscal year 2000. (2) $648,324,000 for fiscal year 2001. (d) OTHER PROCUREMENT.—Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for other procurement for the Air Force as follows: (1) $7,085,177,000 for fiscal year 2000. SEC. 104. DEFENSE-WIDE ACTIVITIES. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for Defense-wide procurement as follows: (1) $2,128,967,000 for fiscal year 2000. (2) $2,911,556,000 for fiscal year 2001. SEC. 105. DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for procurement for the Inspector General of the Department of Defense as follows: (1) $2,100,000 for fiscal year 2000. SEC. 106. DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for procurement for carrying out health care programs, projects, and activities of the Department of Defense as follows: (1) $356,970,000 for fiscal year 2000. (2) $363,149,000 for fiscal year 2001. SEC. 107. CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the destruction of lethal chemical weapons in accordance with section 1412 of the Department of Defense Au thorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521) and the destruction of chemical warfare material of the United States that is not covered by section 1412 of such Act as follows: (1) $1,169,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. (2) $986,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. Subtitle B-Multi-Year Contract Authorizations SEC. 111. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. Multi-year contracts may be entered into in accordance with section 2306 of title 10, United States Code, as follows: (1) For the Army: (A) Longbow Apache Helicopter; (C) MLRS Rocket Launcher; (2) For the Navy: F/A-18E/F Aircraft. FISCAL YEAR 2000 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT-AGING MILITARY EQUIPMENT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Duncan Hunter (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, MILITARY PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. HUNTER. The subcommittee will come to order. Today's hearing addresses a neglected but important issue, and it is one I have been wanting to talk about for some time, since I am constantly disturbed by the fact that the Department is operating some very old equipment that, it would appear, is only going to get older. The headline on Dr. Thompson's statement sums up my concerns, and I quote: "Fear of Flying: America's Aging Fleet of Military Aircraft"-a sad commentary and one that points to the need for sustained growth in defense spending, but more on that later. Last October, the subcommittee held a hearing to preview forthcoming issues in the Fiscal Year 2000 budget request. The principal witness was Dr. Jacques Gansler, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. In his written statement for that hearing, Dr. Gansler noted the following, and I quote, “As the defense budget rapidly declined after the end of the cold war, modernization was deferred in order to fully fund current operations and support and base infrastructure, and thus, ensure current readiness. The reduced modernization budgets, combined with the increased military deployments, have now taken their toll. Our weapons are overworked and aging. "By next year, for example, the average age of our aircraft fleet will be over 20 years. Because many of our systems are old and overworked, they require more frequent and costlier maintenance. This accelerated maintenance is costing us much more each year in repair costs, down time, and maintenance tempo." I might add that the dropping mission-capable rates in all the services reflect that fact. "Furthermore," Dr. Gansler continued, "because our systems are so old, we find that the spare parts we need from third and fourth year suppliers are no longer available. We reverse-engineer these obsolete parts, which requires extensively lead times and much higher spare parts costs. Clearly, we must keep our equipment in good repair to maintain readiness. However, it drains resourcesresources we should be applying to modernization or replacement of existing systems, as they become increasingly obsolete, and to the development and deployment of the required new systems to counter the anticipated asymmetrical threats of the early 21st century. "Many of the systems under development today"-and I am continuing Dr. Gansler quote-"even with accelerated development times, will not become fully operational until the end of the first decade of the 21st century. The bow wave of deferred modernization makes it even more critical to begin to shift funds from support and infrastructure to combat modernization now, in order to be able to afford new systems." End quote. We are going to hear numerous examples of aging equipment today, and their operational and budgetary effects on readiness. And the reality of what Dr. Gansler noted can best be illustrated by the Commandant of the Marine Corps' observation in his appearance before the committee last month, and I might add he said essentially the same thing today. General Krulak stated, “We are transporting Marines and equipment in CH-53D's that we had expected would leave our inventory seven years ago, and at current replacement rates, we will be flying them for another ten years. By the time we completely replace the CH-46E, we will be flying airframes that are 47 years old. Our fleet of KC-130F tankers is approaching 40 years of age-almost twice its planned service life." End quote. He went on to note that, as a result of having to operate and maintain old equipment, he had to invest $309 million on the now 27-year-old amphibious assault vehicle in order to keep it operational until the advanced amphibious assault vehicle is fully funded in 2012. Much has been made of a major increase in the defense budget for the next six fiscal years, and I might add that it is very clear to all of us that there is nothing that this administration can promise beyond the end of the President's term that can be legally committed to us, because it is going to be, the Defense Department is going to be run by people who haven't been appointed by President's who haven't been elected. So I would offer that to all of my friends who talk about the $112 billion defense increase that they expect over the next six years. As Chairman Spence noted this morning in discussing that prospect of increased defense money, a lot of it is premised on what we would call "smoke and mirrors"; that is, economic projections that are very rosy; the deference of a lot of our costs which heretofore have been upfront costs on military construction; new accounting methods, et cetera. But even if that entire increase becomes reality, the procurement accounts are not the beneficiaries of any near-term largesse. Very little of that money will go into modernization. As has been pointed out in previous hearings with the Secretary and the Service Chiefs, the Fiscal Year 2000 procurement budget actually declines by $1.1 billion from the forecast of only a year ago. The cumulative addition to this budget grows by only $4.1 bil |