[House Report 104-208]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



   104th Congress 1st   HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES        Report
         Session
                                                       104-208
_______________________________________________________________________



                                     





 
             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1996

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS



                             together with



                            DISSENTING VIEWS



                        [To accompany H.R. 2126]




 July 27, 1995.--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

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Bill Totals......................................................     1
Committee Budget Review Process..................................     4
Introduction.....................................................     4
    Major Committee Initiatives..................................     5
    Quality, Ready Force.........................................     6
    Modernization Programs.......................................     7
    Reforms/Program Reductions...................................     9
    Operations ``Other Than War''................................    10
Highlights of Committee Recommendations..........................    13
    Active Military Personnel....................................    13
    Guard and Reserve............................................    14
    Operation and Maintenance....................................    14
    Procurement..................................................    14
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation...................    15
Forces To Be Supported...........................................    15
    Department of the Army.......................................    15
    Department of the Navy.......................................    16
    Department of the Air Force..................................    17
Title I. Military Personnel......................................    18
    Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel 
      Appropriations.............................................    18
    Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 
      1996.......................................................    18
        Overall Active End Strength..............................    19
        Overall Selected Reserve End Strength....................    19
    Adjustments to Military Personnel Account....................    20
        Overview.................................................    20
    Military Retiree Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)............    20
        Active Duty End Strengths................................    20
        B-52 Force Structure.....................................    20
        ``Friendly Fire'' Incidents..............................    20
        Selective Reenlistment Bonus.............................    21
        Aviation Continuation Pay................................    21
        Housing Allowances.......................................    21
        Full-Time Support Strengths..............................    21
        Civilian (Military) Technicians..........................    22
    Military Personnel, Army.....................................    23
    Military Personnel, Navy.....................................    23
    Military Personnel, Marine Corps.............................    23
    Military Personnel, Air Force................................    24
    Reserve Personnel, Army......................................    24
        Army Reserve Commands....................................    24
    Reserve Personnel, Navy......................................    24
    Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps..............................    25
        Active Reserve Manpower..................................    25
    Reserve Personnel, Air Force.................................    25
        WC-130 Weather Reconnaissance Mission....................    26
    National Guard Personnel, Army...............................    26
    National Guard Personnel, Air Force..........................    26
Title II. Operation and Maintenance..............................    28
    Operation and Maintenance Overview...........................    28
        Depot Maintenance........................................    29
        Operating Tempo Training.................................    30
        Real Property Maintenance................................    30
        Strategic Mobility Enhancements..........................    30
        Chemical and Biological Defense Training.................    31
        Recruiting and Advertising...............................    31
        Acquisition Reform.......................................    31
        Travel Reengineering.....................................    32
        Transportation Improvements..............................    32
        Printing Efficiencies....................................    32
        Reduced Audits...........................................    32
        Consolidation of Fraud Investigation.....................    33
        Civilian Personnel Management............................    33
        Civilian Personnel Understrength.........................    34
        Office of the Secretary of Defense Staffing..............    34
        Readiness Reprogramming..................................    34
        Assessing Readiness......................................    34
        DOD Financial Management Issues..........................    35
        Core Depot Maintenance Capability........................    36
        DOD Travel Policies......................................    36
        Household Goods Shipments................................    36
        Family Advocacy..........................................    36
        Construction Materials...................................    36
        Humanitarian Assistance..................................    37
        Transfers of Military Equipment..........................    37
        Classified Programs......................................    37
    Operation and Maintenance, Army..............................    37
        Depot Maintenance........................................    38
        Pre-positioned Equipment.................................    38
        National Training Center.................................    38
        Training Network.........................................    38
        Environmental Cleanup and Study..........................    39
            Fort Bliss Texas.....................................    39
        White Sands Missile Range................................    39
        Information Technology...................................    39
        Program Recommended......................................    39
    Operation and Maintenance, Navy..............................    41
        Defense Business Operations Fund.........................    41
        Depot Maintenance........................................    42
        Base Operations Support..................................    42
        AN/UYQ-70................................................    42
        CSS Hunley...............................................    42
        Photogrammetry...........................................    42
        Information Technology...................................    43
        Tomahawk Missile Recertification.........................    43
        Plasma Electric Waste Converter Technology...............    43
        Program Recommended......................................    43
    Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps......................    46
        Operating Tempo Training.................................    46
        Depot Maintenance........................................    46
        Base Support.............................................    47
        Initial Issue Personnel Support Equipment................    47
        Program Recommended......................................    47
    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.........................    49
        Depot Maintenance, Excess Funded Carryover...............    49
        Mission Readiness Training...............................    49
        Precision Weapons........................................    49
        Spares...................................................    49
        Simulation Enhancements..................................    50
        Real Property Support....................................    50
        Weapons Systems Maintenance..............................    50
        Undergraduate Pilot Training.............................    50
        Tuition Assistance.......................................    50
        Combat Search and Rescue.................................    50
        Civil Air Patrol.........................................    50
        Information Technology...................................    51
        Program Recommended......................................    51
    Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide......................    54
        Defense Business Management University...................    55
        Defense Acquisition University...........................    55
        Defense Mapping Agency...................................    55
        Federal Energy Management Program........................    55
        Office of Economic Assistance............................    55
        Alternative Fuels Study..................................    55
        Department of Defense Dependents Education...............    56
            Overseas Dependents Schools..........................    56
            Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools..    56
            Transition Assistance Program and Relocation 
              Assistance Program.................................    56
        Information Technology...................................    57
        Program Recommended......................................    57
    Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve......................    59
        Program Recommended......................................    59
    Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve......................    60
        Program Recommended......................................    60
    Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve..............    61
        Program Recommended......................................    61
    Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.................    62
        Program recommended......................................    62
    Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard...............    63
        Program Recommended......................................    63
    Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard................    64
        Program Recommended......................................    64
        Refugee/Disaster Relief Missions.........................    65
        159th Air National Guard Fighter Group...................    65
    National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, Army.....    65
    United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces..........    66
    Environmental Restoration, Defense...........................    66
        Asbestos Removal.........................................    66
        Naval Air Warfare Center Warminister.....................    66
        Defense Fuels Supply Point, Norwalk......................    66
        Ordnance Road Site.......................................    66
        Massachusetts Military Reservation.......................    67
    Summer Olympics..............................................    67
    Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid...............    67
    Humanitarian Assistance......................................    67
    Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction.........................    68
    Contributions for International Peacekeeping and Peace 
      Enforcement Activities.....................................    68
Title III. Procurement...........................................    69
    Estimates and Appropriation Summary..........................    69
        Multiyear Procurement....................................    69
        Joint Forces Command, Control and Communications.........    71
        High Capacity Air Ambulance..............................    71
        Classified Programs......................................    71
    Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................    71
        Committee Recommendations................................    72
        Authorization Changes....................................    72
        Fixed Wing Aircraft......................................    72
            C-XX Aircraft........................................    72
            C-26 Aircraft........................................    72
        Rotary Wing Aircraft.....................................    72
            UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter...........................    72
        Modification of Aircraft.................................    72
            Guardrail............................................    72
            Kiowa Warrior........................................    73
        Support Equipment and Facilities.........................    73
            Aircraft Survivability Equipment.....................    73
        Program Recommended......................................    73
    Missile Procurement, Army....................................    73
        Committee Recommendations................................    74
        Authorization Changes....................................    74
        Anti-Tank/Assault Missile Systems........................    74
            Javelin..............................................    74
            Multiple Launch Rocket System Rockets................    74
            Multiple Launch Rocket System Launchers..............    74
        Program Recommended......................................    74
    Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.....    75
        Committee Recommendations................................    75
        Authorization Changes....................................    75
        Modification of Tracked Combat Vehicles..................    76
            Carrier Modifications................................    76
            Bradley Fighting Vehicle Modifications...............    76
            Howitzer Modifications...............................    76
            FAASV................................................    76
            Improved Recovery Vehicle............................    76
            Abrams Tank Upgrade Program (MCR)....................    76
        Program Recommended......................................    76
    Procurement of Ammunition, Army..............................    77
        Committee Recommendations................................    77
        Overview.................................................    77
        Authorization Changes....................................    78
        Ammunition Shortfalls....................................    78
        Mortar Ammunition........................................    78
            60mm Mortar Ammunition...............................    78
        Artillery Ammunition.....................................    79
            SADARM...............................................    79
        Rockets..................................................    79
            Hydra 70.............................................    79
        Special Purpose Ammunition...............................    79
        Conventional Ammunition Demilitarization.................    79
        Program Recommended......................................    80
    Other Procurement, Army......................................    80
        Committee Recommendations................................    81
        Authorization Changes....................................    81
        Tactical Vehicles........................................    81
            Overview.............................................    81
            High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles.........    81
            Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles...................    81
            Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles....................    82
            Service Life Extension Programs......................    82
        Communications and Electronics...........................    83
            Navstar Global Positioning System....................    83
            SINCGARS.............................................    83
            Joint Stars..........................................    83
            Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System........    83
            FAAD C2..............................................    83
            Automated Data Processing Equipment..................    83
            Reserve Component Automation System..................    84
            Information Systems..................................    84
            Local Area Network...................................    84
            General Defense Intelligence Program.................    84
            Integrated Family of Test Equipment..................    84
        Other Support Equipment..................................    84
            Combat Support Medical...............................    84
            Items Less Than $2,000,000 (FLOAT/RAIL)..............    85
            Generators and Associated Equipment..................    85
            Simnet/Close Combat Tactical Trainer.................    85
            Modification of In Service Equipment.................    85
            Fire Fighting Equipment..............................    85
        Program Recommended......................................    86
    Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................    89
        Committee Recommendations................................    89
        Authorization Changes....................................    89
        Combat Aircraft..........................................    89
            F-18C/D Hornet.......................................    89
            AH-1W................................................    89
        Modification of Aircraft.................................    90
            F-14 Engines.........................................    90
            H-1 Series...........................................    90
            P-3 Series...........................................    91
            Trainer Aircraft Series..............................    91
        Aviation Support Equipment and Facilities................    91
            Common Ground Equipment..............................    91
        Aviation Multiyear Fund..................................    91
        Program Recommended......................................    92
    Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................    92
        Committee Recommendations................................    93
        Authorization Changes....................................    93
        Strategic Missiles.......................................    93
            Tomahawk.............................................    93
        Tactical Missiles........................................    93
            AMRAAM...............................................    93
            Penguin..............................................    93
        Modification of Missiles.................................    94
            Tomahawk.............................................    94
        Torpedoes and Related Equipment..........................    94
            Vertical Launched Anti-Submarine Rocket..............    94
        Procurement of Ammunition................................    94
        Program Recommended......................................    94
    Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.............    96
        Committee Recommendations................................    96
        Authorization Changes....................................    96
        Munitions Transfer.......................................    96
    Procurement of Ammunition, Navy..............................    96
        Practice Bombs...........................................    96
        Air Expendable Countermeasures...........................    96
        Other Ship Gun Ammunition................................    96
        Program Recommended......................................    97
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................    99
        Committee Recommendations................................    99
        Authorization Changes....................................    99
        Shipbuilding Funding Allocations.........................    99
        New Attack Submarine.....................................   100
        Aegis....................................................   101
        Alternatives to Aluminum in Ship Construction............   101
        Amphibious Ships.........................................   102
            LPD-17...............................................   102
        Mine Warfare and Patrol Ships Program....................   102
            Minehunting Combat System............................   102
        Auxiliaries, Craft, and Prior Year Programs..............   102
            Service Craft........................................   102
        Program Recommended......................................   103
    Other Procurement, Navy......................................   104
        Committee Recommendations................................   104
        Authorization Changes....................................   104
        Equipment Shortfalls.....................................   104
        Ships Support Equipment..................................   104
            Minesweeping Equipment...............................   104
        Communications and Electronics...........................   105
            Surface Electro-Optical Systems......................   105
            SSN Acoustics........................................   105
            Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (SSTD)..................   105
            C-3 Countermeasures..................................   105
            Navy Tactical Data System............................   105
            Link 16 Hardware.....................................   105
            ID Systems...........................................   106
            Shipboard Tactical Communications....................   106
            AN/SPS-48 Radar Upgrade..............................   106
            Enhanced Modular Signal Processor (EMSP).............   106
        Aviation Support Equipment...............................   106
            Sonobuoys............................................   106
            Weapons Range Support Equipment......................   107
            LAMPS MK-III Shipboard Equipment.....................   107
        Ordnance Support Equipment...............................   107
            Rolling Airframe Missile Guided Missile Launch System   107
            Ship Self Defense System.............................   107
            Anti-Ship Missile Decoy System.......................   107
            Supply Support Equipment.............................   108
                Special Purpose Supply Systems...................   108
        Program Recommended......................................   108
    Procurement, Marine Corps....................................   112
        Committee Recommendations................................   112
        Authorization Changes....................................   112
            Procurement of Ammunition............................   112
            Ground System Shortfalls.............................   112
        Intelligence and Communications Equipment................   113
            Intelligence Support Equipment.......................   113
        Program Recommended......................................   113
    Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................   115
        Committee Recommendations................................   115
        Authorization Changes....................................   115
        Strategic Strike Requirements Study......................   115
        Combat Aircraft..........................................   115
            B-2..................................................   115
            F-16.................................................   116
        Trainer Aircraft.........................................   116
            Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS).......   116
        Modification of Inservice Aircraft.......................   116
            B-1B.................................................   116
            B-52.................................................   116
            F-15.................................................   116
            C-5..................................................   117
            C-130................................................   117
            C-135 Modifications..................................   117
            E-4..................................................   117
            Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program Modifications   117
        Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities................   117
            Common Age...........................................   117
            F-15 Post Production Support.........................   118
            F-16 Post Production Support.........................   118
        Program Recommended......................................   118
    Missile Procurement, Air Force...............................   120
        Committee Recommendations................................   120
        Authorization Changes....................................   120
        Tactical Missiles........................................   120
            Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM)....   120
            Target Drones........................................   120
        Space Programs...........................................   120
            Global Positioning System (GPS)......................   120
            Defense Support Program (DSP)........................   121
            Special Programs.....................................   121
            Munitions Transfer...................................   121
        Program Recommended......................................   121
    Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.........................   123
        Committee Recommendations................................   123
        Munitions Transfer.......................................   123
        Program Recommended......................................   123
    Other Procurement, Air Force.................................   124
        Committee Recommendations................................   124
        Authorization Changes....................................   124
        Vehicular Equipment......................................   124
            60K A/C Loader.......................................   124
            Items Less Than $2,000,000...........................   124
        Electronics and Telecommunications Equipment.............   124
            Automatic Data Processing Equipment..................   124
            Base Information Infrastructure......................   125
            Communications--Electronic Modifications.............   125
        Base Support Equipment...................................   125
            Mobility Equipment...................................   125
            Intelligence Production Activity.....................   125
            Selected Activities..................................   125
        Program Recommended......................................   125
    Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................   128
        Committee Recommendations................................   128
        Authorization Changes....................................   128
        Mentor-Protege Program...................................   128
        Classified Programs......................................   128
        Defense Air Reconnaissance Program (DARP)................   128
        Defense Information Infrastructure.......................   128
        Chemical-Biological Warfare Defense System...............   128
        Program Recommended......................................   129
    National Guard and Reserve Equipment.........................   131
        Committee Recommendations................................   131
        Program Recommended......................................   131
    Information Technology.......................................   133
        Engineering Data Repositories............................   133
        Army Programs............................................   133
            Reserve Component Automation System..................   133
            Distance Learning....................................   134
        Navy Programs............................................   134
            Naval Standard Integrated Personnel System...........   134
        Air Force Programs.......................................   134
            Automated Maintenance Systems........................   134
            Base Level Systems Modernization.....................   135
        Defense-Wide Programs....................................   135
            Joint Logistics Systems Center.......................   135
            DISA Continuity of Operations........................   136
            Other Defense Agencies...............................   136
            Integrated Recruiting Information Management System..   137
Title IV. Research, Development, Test and Evaluation.............   138
    Estimates and Appropriation Summary..........................   138
    Special Interest Items.......................................   138
    Classified Programs..........................................   138
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army.............   138
        Committee Recommendations................................   139
        Authorization Changes....................................   139
        Exploratory Development..................................   139
            Combat Vehicle and Automotive Technology.............   139
            Ballistics Technology................................   139
            Electronics and Electronic Devices...................   139
            Human Factors Technology.............................   140
            Army Environmental Quality Technology................   140
            Medical Technology...................................   140
        Advanced Development.....................................   140
            Medical Advanced Technology..........................   140
            Aviation Advanced Technology.........................   140
            Weapons and Munitions Advanced Technology............   140
            Combat Vehicle and Automotive Advanced Technology....   140
            Missile and Rocket Advanced Technology...............   140
        Demonstration and Validation.............................   141
            Army Missile Defense Systems Integration.............   141
        Engineering and Manufacturing Development................   141
            Comanche.............................................   141
            Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles......................   141
            Weapons and Munitions-Engineering Development........   141
        RDT&E Management Support.................................   141
            DOD High Energy Laser Test Facility..................   141
        Operational Systems Development..........................   142
            Aircraft Engine Component Improvement Program........   142
            Industrial Readiness Activities......................   142
        Program Recommended......................................   142
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy.............   145
        Committee Recommendations................................   145
        Authorization Changes....................................   145
        Exploratory Development..................................   145
            Vectored Thrust Combat Agility Demonstrator..........   145
            Surface Ship Technology..............................   146
            Readiness, Training, and Environmental Quality 
              Technology.........................................   146
            Mine Countermeasures, Mining, and Special Warfare....   146
            Oceanographic and Atmospheric Technology.............   146
        Advanced Development.....................................   146
            Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology..........   146
            Ship Propulsion System...............................   146
            Medical Development..................................   147
            Advanced Undersea Warfare Technology.................   147
            Shallow Water MCM Demos..............................   148
            Advanced Technology Transition.......................   148
        Demonstration and Validation.............................   148
            Air/Ocean Tactical Applications......................   148
            Aviation Survivability...............................   148
            Submarine Tactical Warfare Systems...................   148
            Ship Concept Advanced Design.........................   148
            Ship Self-Defense....................................   149
            Joint Advanced Strike Technology.....................   150
        Engineering and Manufacturing Development................   151
            Standard Missile.....................................   151
            Enhanced Modular Signal Processor....................   151
            Navy Tactical Computer Resources.....................   151
            Unguided Conventional Air-Launched Weapons...........   151
            Ship Self-Defense....................................   151
        RDT&E Management Support.................................   151
            Studies and Analysis Support--Navy...................   151
            Management, Technical, and International Support.....   151
            Strategic Technical Support..........................   152
        Operational Systems Development..........................   152
            SSBN Security Technology Program.....................   152
            F/A-18 Squadrons.....................................   152
            Tomahawk and Tomahawk Mission Planning System........   152
            Marine Corps Combat Services Support.................   152
            Integrated Surveillance System.......................   152
            Industrial Preparedness..............................   153
        Other Items..............................................   153
            General Reduction....................................   153
        Program Recommended......................................   153
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force........   157
        Committee Recommendations................................   157
        Authorization Changes....................................   157
            Program Growth/Budget Execution Adjustments..........   157
            Computer Assisted Technology Transfer................   157
        Basic Research...........................................   158
            Defense Research Sciences............................   158
        Advanced Development.....................................   158
            Advanced Materials for Weapons Development...........   158
            Advanced Spacecraft Technology.......................   158
            Advanced Computing Technology........................   158
        Demonstration and Validation.............................   158
            Space Based Infrared Architecture (SBIR).............   158
        Engineering and Manufacturing Development................   159
            B-1B.................................................   159
            F-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter.......................   159
            Submunitions.........................................   159
            JSTARS...............................................   159
        RDT&E Management Support.................................   160
            Navigation/Radar/Sled Track Test Support.............   160
            Base Operations......................................   160
        Operational Systems Development..........................   160
            Aircraft Engine Component Improvement Program........   160
            Theater Battle Management C\4\I......................   160
            Classified Programs..................................   160
        Program Recommended......................................   160
    Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide.....   163
        Committee Recommendations................................   163
        Information Security.....................................   163
        STU-III Modernization....................................   163
        Authorization Changes....................................   164
        Basic Research...........................................   164
        Focused Research Initiatives.............................   164
            Counterproliferation Support.........................   164
            Historically Black Colleges, Universities, and 
              Minority Institutions..............................   164
        Exploratory Development..................................   165
            Computing Systems and Communications Technology......   165
            Tactical Technology..................................   166
            Integrated Command and Control Technology............   166
            Materials and Electronics Technology.................   166
            Defense Nuclear Agency...............................   167
            Radiation Hardened Electronics.......................   167
            Ballistic Missile Technology.........................   167
            Theater Missile Defense..............................   167
            National Missile Defense.............................   169
        Advanced Development.....................................   169
            Explosives Demilitarization Technology...............   169
            Counterterror Technical Support......................   169
            Experimental Evaluation of Major Innovative 
              Technologies.......................................   169
            Chemical and Biological Defense Program..............   170
            Advanced Submarine Technology........................   170
        Strategic Environmental Research Program and Development 
          Program................................................   170
            Advanced Electronics Technologies....................   170
            Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology...............   171
            Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations...........   171
            Joint Robotics Program...............................   171
            NATO Research and Development........................   171
        Environmental Security and Technical Certification.......   172
        Operational Systems Development..........................   172
            Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program..............   172
            Special Operations Tactical Systems Development......   172
        Program Recommended......................................   172
    Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense...................   175
        Committee Recommendations................................   175
        Program Recommended......................................   175
    Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense.....................   175
        Committee Recommendations................................   175
        Program Recommended......................................   175
Title V. Revolving and Management Funds..........................   176
    Defense Business Operations Fund.............................   176
        Aviation Fuel Reimbursement Pricing Study................   177
    National Defense Sealift Fund................................   177
Title VI. Other Department of Defense Programs...................   179
    Defense Health Program.......................................   179
    Medical Research.............................................   179
        TRICARE..................................................   179
        Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities..................   180
        Bone Marrow Research.....................................   180
        Breast Cancer............................................   180
        American Red Cross Emergency Communications Support......   181
        Dental Readiness.........................................   181
        Uncompensated Health Care................................   182
    Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense...........   182
        Committee Recommendations................................   182
        Cost Savings.............................................   182
        Program Recommended......................................   182
    Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense.......   183
        Committee Recommendations................................   183
        Classified Programs......................................   183
        Program Recommended......................................   183
    Office of the Inspector General..............................   184
Title VII. Related Agencies......................................   185
    National Foreign Intelligence Program........................   185
        Introduction.............................................   185
        Classified Report........................................   185
    Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System 
      Fund.......................................................   185
    Intelligence Community Management Account....................   186
        Committee Recommendation.................................   186
        Environmental Task Force.................................   186
    National Security Education Trust Fund.......................   186
Title VIII. General Provisions...................................   187
    Definition of Program, Project, and Activity.................   187
    Contractor Software Charges..................................   187
    Incremental Funding..........................................   188
    Spent Nuclear Fuel...........................................   188
    Military Sealift Command Ship Charters.......................   189
    LPD-17 Main Propulsion Engines...............................   189
    New Attack Submarine Emergency Generator Set.................   190
    Energy and Water Efficiency..................................   190
    House of Representatives Reporting Requirements..............   191
        Changes in Application of Existing Law...................   191
            Appropriation Language...............................   191
            General Provisions...................................   192
        Appropriations Not Authorized by Law.....................   195
        Transfer of Funds........................................   196
        Rescission of Funds......................................   197
        Inflationary Impact Statement............................   197
        Comparison With Budget Resolution........................   197
        Five-Year Projection of Outlays..........................   197
        Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments......   198
    Committee Votes..............................................   199
                                     

104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-208
_______________________________________________________________________



            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1996

                                _______


 July 27, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


 Mr. Young of Florida, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2126]

    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, 1996.

                              Bill Totals

    Appropriations for most military functions of the 
Department of Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill 
for the fiscal year 1996. 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 1996 budget request for 
activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Bill totals $236,344,017,000 in new budget (obligational) 
authority. The amounts recommended by the Committee in the 
accompanying bill total $244,119,400,000 in new budget 
authority. This is $7,775,383,000 above the budget estimate and 
$2,516,329,000 above the sums made available for the same 
purposes for fiscal year 1995.
    The new budget authority enacted for the fiscal year 1995, 
the President's budget estimates, and amounts recommended by 
the Committee for the fiscal year 1996 appear in summary form 
in the following table:


                    Committee Budget Review Process

    During its review of the fiscal year 1996 budget, the 
Subcommittee on National Security held a total of 35 hearings 
during the time period of February 15, 1995 to June 14, 1995. 
Testimony received by the Subcommittee totalled approximately 
2,084 pages of transcript. Over half of the hearings were held 
in open session. Executive or closed sessions were held only 
when the security classification of the material to be 
discussed presented no alternative.

                              Introduction

    The bill reported by the Committee reflects an effort to 
meet the many competing demands confronting the Department of 
Defense and the armed forces of the United States in an 
uncertain era.
    The past year has provided vivid evidence of the danger and 
violence posed by ethnic and geographic disputes throughout 
many regions of the world. Nations and groups continue their 
pursuit of highly sophisticated weapons, particularly weapons 
of mass destruction and long-range delivery systems. 
Instability in the states of the former Soviet Union has not 
abated. Meanwhile, significant military threats to the United 
States and its allies still persist on the Korean Peninsula and 
in the Persian Gulf region. There is no sign that current 
trends will result in any lessened long-term security demands 
on the United States and its military forces.
    In the near-term, this environment has prompted the 
continued deployment of American forces, in many instances on 
short notice, on a series of contingency operations which 
peaked in the fall of last year with over 100,000 U.S. troops 
embarked overseas on unexpected, unprogrammed operations. These 
types of operations, in terms of the number of affected 
personnel and equipment, their duration, and expense, pose an 
obvious challenge for the Nation's smaller military forces and 
have already caused disruptions to military readiness.
    In the meantime, the U.S. armed forces have continued the 
rapid restructuring and downsizing brought about by the end of 
the Cold War and what is now a decade-long decline in military 
force structure, budgets and resources--a process which has 
been accelerated and deepened by the current Administration. 
While a restructured force remains clearly in order given the 
demise of the Warsaw Pact, there is a general consensus this 
smaller military should retain the attributes of the U.S. 
military of the late 1980's-early 1990's: a force made up of 
highly trained, able and motivated individuals, capable of 
responding to a wide range of possible threats to American 
interests, and to do so decisively through possessing 
operational and technological superiority over any possible 
adversary.
    Unfortunately, the Committee believes the defense programs 
and budgets of the Administration are not sufficient to achieve 
these objectives.
    By its own admission, the Administration's defense program 
is heavily weighted towards maintaining current readiness--an 
objective the Committee supports--but because of fiscal 
constraints, this has occurred at the expense of necessary 
weapons modernization and development. As a result, the fiscal 
year 1996 budget requests a level of funding for weapons 
procurement which is the lowest, in constant dollars, in over 
45 years. For lack of funds, production lines are being shut 
down and inventory requirements are not being met for a host of 
systems, ranging from major frontline systems such as Army 
Blackhawk helicopters and the Air Force's F-15E fighter to less 
sophisticated but equally critical programs such as artillery 
and mortar ammunition, trucks, and 60K aircraft loaders. Those 
systems which are in production are generally being purchased 
at less than optimal production rates, resulting in higher unit 
costs.
    In addition, despite initiatives by the Secretary of 
Defense to increase funding for essential military quality of 
life programs, the Committee notes that the backlog of repair 
and maintenance at military facilities, including barracks and 
family housing, continues to grow by substantial amounts.
    Finally, funding constraints are impeding the development 
and deployment of critical technologies needed to cope with 
emerging threats and to leverage the capability of existing 
systems. The prime example is missile defense, where the 
Administration's programs to counter the growing threat posed 
by both ballistic and cruise missiles are in need of 
bolstering. The Committee also believes the budget request for 
certain key ``force multipliers''--in the areas of strategic 
and tactical mobility, joint service communications and 
intelligence, and precision munitions--is inadequate, 
particularly given the central role these capabilities are 
envisioned to play in any future conflict.
    As a result, the Committee concurs with the findings of the 
House National Security Committee that a substantial, long-term 
commitment of additional defense resources is essential. 
Additional funding is needed to meet both the existing needs of 
our forces in the field--that is, near-term readiness and 
quality of life problems--as well as the readiness demands of 
the future, which require an emphasis on a retaining quality 
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines as well as a substantial 
infusion of funds into weapons modernization and development.
    At the same time, however, the Committee recognizes it has 
an obligation to reduce funds for those activities it believes 
are of lower priority or which have little immediate bearing on 
military preparedness. In addition, the administrative and 
bureaucratic operations of the Department of Defense and the 
military services, especially those dealing with weapons 
acquisition, require substantial review and revision.
    It is these dual imperatives--funding those programs of 
critical military value, while seeking economies and reductions 
from lower priority or duplicative programs--which guided the 
Committee in its recommendations.

                      major committee initiatives

    The Committee's recommendations can be considered in three 
broad categories;
    (a) ensuring the retention of a quality, ready force;
    (b) providing a modernization program which meets both 
today's requirements as well as the security needs of the 
future; and
    (c) reducing, reforming, or eliminating programs or 
activities with little military utility, which have shown 
little demonstrable success, or which have encountered delays 
in development or production.

                          quality, ready force

    Personnel Issues: The Committee has recommended fully 
funding the military pay raise which the Administration 
requested for fiscal year 1996, after two years in which the 
Administration sought to freeze military pay and was overturned 
by Congress. In addition, the Committee has added nearly $670 
million above the budget request for housing allowances, as 
well as for overseas station allowances which face a severe 
funding shortfall due to the decline in the value of the dollar 
abroad. The Committee has fully funded all child care and 
family support programs and proposes an increase for a program 
directed at assisting new military parents. Finally, the 
Committee has added $35.5 million for military recruiting, in 
order to ensure new accessions are of the highest possible 
quality.
    Training/OPTEMPO: The Committee has fully funded the 
requested amounts for all the Services' training and OPTEMPO 
accounts and has added $210 million over the request in these 
areas where the Services identified shortfalls.
    Equipment repair/maintenance: The Committee is distressed 
regarding the continuing existence of substantial unfunded 
backlogs in the Services' depot maintenance accounts and has 
added $379 million over the request to meet the most urgent 
unfunded equipment maintenance requirements.
    Real property maintenance: For years the Committee has 
expressed its concern about the growing backlog in real 
property maintenance accounts, used to support the Department's 
base infrastructure including barracks and mission-essential 
facilities. The Committee has recommended substantial increases 
to the budget request in previous years in an effort to stem 
the long-term deterioration of the Department's physical 
assets. This year, the Secretary of Defense has launched 
several initiatives to improve the declining state of military 
housing, an effort the Committee applauds. Yet serious problems 
remain, not only in housing but throughout many aspects of the 
Department's physical plant and equipment holdings.
    Therefore, the Committee has recommended an increase of $1 
billion to the request for real property maintenance, including 
an additional $256 million for barracks, in what it intends as 
the first step in a long-term commitment to revitalizing the 
Department's base infrastructure.
    Unfunded ``contingency'' operations: Regarding near-term 
military readiness, both the Secretary of Defense and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have testified to the Committee 
that the major threat to maintaining the current preparedness 
of U.S. forces is the spate of unfunded, so-called contingency 
operations being carried out by American forces. Uncertainties 
about funding for such operations have already resulted in 
instances where specific units have been forced to stand down 
operations, cancel scheduled training, and defer needed 
maintenance.
    The Committee has a variety of concerns about contingency 
operations which are addressed in a subsequent section of this 
report. However, in an attempt to avoid readiness problems the 
Committee has recommended an increase of $647 million over the 
request to support the ongoing operations in and around Iraq 
(Operations Provide Comfort and Southern Watch). In its fiscal 
year 1996 budget the Administration failed to request funds for 
these operations, which have been underway to varying degrees 
since the end of the Gulf War over four years ago. This has 
occurred even though these activities have become an ongoing, 
somewhat predictable mission. Without the Committee's 
initiative, the Department would be forced to ``raid'' other 
operating accounts to sustain these missions pending approval 
of additional funding, causing disruptions in planning and 
mission execution.
    The Committee is aware of other unbudgeted operations which 
very well may continue into fiscal year 1996, such as the 
operations in and around the former Yugoslavia as well as 
refugee support at Guantanamo Bay. However, the Committee does 
not believe there is a sufficient degree of certainty regarding 
the duration, scope, or funding requirements associated with 
these activities to warrant additional funding at this time.

                         modernization programs

    Department of Defense officials freely admit that the most 
serious shortcoming in the budget proposal is in those accounts 
providing for procurement and research and development of new 
equipment and technologies. Based on extensive testimony as 
well as a concerted effort to identify critical shortfalls in 
existing requirements, the Committee is recommending increases 
to the request specifically targeted at meeting existing 
equipment/capability shortfalls as well as providing for future 
military requirements. The most significant recommendations 
include:
    Missile defense: The Committee recommends $3.49 billion, a 
net increase over the budget request of $599 million for 
Ballistic Missile Defense, including an additional $450 million 
for national missile defense and $265 million for theater/
tactical systems. Also, mindful of the growing threat to U.S. 
forces posed by both theater ballistic and cruise missiles, the 
Committee has continued its long-standing emphasis on ship 
self-defense and ``cooperative engagement'' (the sharing of 
tracking and targeting information among many different 
platforms) and has added $204.8 million to the budget for these 
efforts.
    Mobility: In order to address the continuing demand for 
improved mobility and logistics in support of rapid deployment 
of U.S. forces, the Committee proposes a comprehensive package 
of recommendations which include procurement of eight new C-17 
transports as requested, nearly $1 billion for strategic 
sealift and additions over the budget including $974 million 
for the lead ship of the new LPD-17 class for Marine 
expeditionary forces, $339 million for additional tactical 
transport aircraft, and over $260 million for tactical trucks 
and vehicles. In addition, the Committee proposes an increase 
of $100 million over the request for mobility infrastructure 
improvements as well as $51 million to accelerate ongoing 
prepositioning programs in Southwest Asia and the Far East.
    Major weapons programs: The Committee proposes a net 
addition of $493 million above the request for the procurement 
of long-lead items associated with restarting production of the 
B-2 bomber. In addition, the Committee has adopted those 
funding levels associated with the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill's recommendations regarding the Seawolf and 
new attack submarine development programs. The Committee 
recommends funding the requested amounts for the Army's 
Comanche helicopter ($199 million), the Marine Corps V-22 
aircraft ($810 million), and the Navy's F/A-18 E/F aircraft 
($924 million), and has provided an additional $200 million 
above the request for the Air Force F-22 fighter, addressing 
what the Air Force has identified as its highest priority 
funding shortfall.
    Munitions: The Committee recommends an additional $770 
million over the request for munitions, of which $374 million 
is for standoff precision-guided munitions, rockets, and 
missiles, and $396 million is for Army, Navy, and Marine Corps 
ammunition accounts.
    Inventory Shortfalls: In light of existing inventory 
shortfalls, the Committee has added funds for Army Blackhawk 
and Kiowa Warrior helicopters, upgrades to P-3 maritime 
surveillance aircraft for the Navy, Marine Corps AH-1W attack 
helicopters, and F-15E fighters, among others.
    Also, the Committee is particularly concerned about growing 
shortages in relatively low-dollar yet essential equipment 
items, an area of the budget which has been cut back 
substantially as procurement dollars have become more scarce 
and focused on large weapons systems. As a result, an increase 
of nearly half a billion dollars over the request is proposed 
for miscellaneous equipment, including such items as ground 
support equipment, initial issue combat gear, night vision 
goggles, and small arms. The Committee has also recommended an 
increase of $908 million to redress critical equipment needs of 
the Guard and Reserve components.
    Joint command, control, communications and intelligence 
(C3I): Recent technological advances as well as the increased 
emphasis on joint operations have created an opportunity for 
U.S. forces to leverage technology into a significant ``force 
multiplier.'' Testimony from all the services as well as from 
the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff have stressed the 
importance of an effective intelligence collection and 
dissemination system, as well as interoperable communications 
between service ``sensors and shooters.'' Accordingly, the 
Committee has recommended increases of over $260 million for 
various improvements in this arena, including two new RIVET 
JOINT aircraft, upgrades to the U-2, acceleration of unmanned 
aerial vehicle (UAV) programs, a series of joint C3I 
initiatives, and other programs discussed in the classified 
portion of this report.
    Chemical/biological defense: Mindful of the threat posed to 
U.S. forces by chemical and biological weapons, which are 
relatively easy and inexpensive to acquire, the Committee 
proposes an increase over the budget of $110 million to 
accelerate ongoing programs in this area.

                       reforms/program reductions

    The Committee recognizes the Department of Defense is no 
more sacrosanct than any other portion of the Federal 
government in terms of its need to be constantly reviewed, 
assessed, and improved. Accordingly, a high priority throughout 
the Committee's budget oversight process has been the 
identification of lower priority programs which, although they 
in some instances contribute to the military mission, can be 
cut or eliminated in order to fund higher priority programs and 
activities. The Committee has also recommended many budget 
reductions intended to reform and steamline existing Department 
of Defense structure or operations. Finally, the Committee has 
identified budget savings stemming from audits by the General 
Accounting Office, the Department's audit and inspector general 
functions, and the Committee's Surveys and Investigations 
staff, as well as changes in program status identified by the 
military departments.
    Reduction of lower-priority programs: The following table 
shows selected programs in the budget request which the 
Committee has eliminated or reduced based on their possessing a 
relatively low priority or where the requested funding was 
excessive.

        Program                                                Reduction
Technology Reinvestment Program.........................   -$500,000,000
Energy management programs..............................    -114,700,000
Defense acquisition/management universities.............    -103,900,000
Consultants/studies and analysis........................    -100,000,000
Payment of U.N. assessment..............................     -65,000,000
Civil-military programs.................................     -59,000,000
Civilian Personnel Management...........................     -23,300,000
Intelligence Environmental Task Force...................     -17,600,000
National Security Education Trust Fund..................     -15,000,000

    Reform/restructuring: The Committee notes that DoD, with a 
decade of reduced budgets and downsizing behind it, has already 
implemented or is well into implementing a series of management 
and organizational reforms. Among other things, these 
initiatives have already resulted in the defense civilian 
workforce being reduced by one-quarter with significant 
additional reductions projected in the near future. While DoD 
is to be commended for such moves, the Committee believes more 
must and can be done. Accordingly, it has recommended a number 
of budget reductions intended to further streamline and 
rationalize operations.
        Program                                                Reduction
Environmental Restoration...............................   -$200,000,000
Overseas humanitarian and disaster aid..................    -133,300,000
Cooperative Threat Reduction............................    -171,000,000
Defense acquisition.....................................    -163,500,000
Transportation system overhead..........................     -70,000,000
Undergraduate pilot training............................     -60,000,000
Defense dependents education overhead...................     -54,000,000
Travel procedures.......................................     -40,000,000
Excessive audits........................................     -33,000,000
Contractor automatic data processing (indirect costs)...     -30,000,000
Printing................................................     -10,000,000
OSD staff...............................................      -6,400,000
Consolidation of fraud investigations (net).............      -4,900,000

    Program/budget execution: In addition to the reductions 
cited above, the Committee proposes nearly 100 reductions to 
budgeted items based on delays in program execution, contract 
savings, or other events resulting in the requested amount 
being clearly excessive to program needs. These reductions have 
resulted in over $2 billion in savings in this legislation.

                     operations ``other than war''

    The Committee is increasingly concerned with the use of 
U.S. armed forces and Department of Defense resources in what 
the DoD now euphemistically refers to as ``operations other 
than war.'' U.S. military forces have become increasingly 
involved in supporting international peacekeeping, humanitarian 
and refugee relief, and disaster assistance. Examples of such 
operations include the deployments in and around Iraq, Somalia, 
Rwanda, Haiti, Cuba, and the former Yugoslavia.
    Of particular note is the effect such operations are having 
on the readiness of U.S. forces in tandem with significant cuts 
in force structure and budgets; the continued difficulty in 
providing adequate funding on a timely basis for such 
operations, none of which have been budgeted for in advance; 
and finally, the failure of the current Administration to 
adequately consult with Congress or seek Congressional approval 
for these operations, most of which have only a tenuous claim 
on America's critical security interests.
    The Committee is proposing a number of general provisions 
to deal with different aspects of Department of Defense 
involvement in these ``non-traditional'' operations. While a 
description of each provision follows, the general goals being 
sought by the Committee are to provide greater budgeting 
honesty and flexibility, more involvement of Congress in the 
decisions to carry out such missions, and selective limitations 
on the use of DoD funds for activities which either clearly 
require advance approval by Congress or which if funded at all 
should be undertaken by other Federal departments.
    Interim financing of unfunded operations. The House-passed 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 
contains several proposals intended to provide the Department 
with greater interim flexibility in financing unplanned, 
unfunded operations. One such proposal, contained in Section 
1003 of the House authorization, permits the transfer of up to 
$200 million from selected defense accounts in order to broaden 
the base of funding sources which can be used to pay for 
contingency operations pending enactment of supplemental 
appropriations. This transfer was made subject to the 
provisions of appropriations acts, and therefore the Committee 
has included Section 8099 which provides for the $200 million 
in transfer authority proposed in the authorization.
    Operations Provide Comfort/Southern Watch: As described 
earlier, the Kurdish relief and sanctions enforcement efforts 
in and around Iraq are expected to require $647 million in 
fiscal year 1996. If funds are not provided for these 
operations in a timely manner then it will result in the 
diversion of funds otherwise intended for military training and 
readiness activities. Consequently, the Committee has 
recommended funding these operations.
    The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 
the Committee by January 30, 1996, on whether this funding is 
sufficient to support the projected cost of Operations Provide 
Comfort and Southern Watch. If not, the Committee directs the 
needed funds be sought in a supplemental appropriations 
request. The Committee also designates these funds as an item 
of special interest, meaning they can only be used for 
additional incremental costs associated with Operations Provide 
Comfort and Southern Watch unless prior approval is granted by 
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Should the 
funding in this legislation be in excess of the amount needed 
for these operations the Committee will entertain a prior 
approval reprogramming request to use the funds for other high 
priority requirements.
    The Committee has also, in Section 8100, restricted the 
availability of these funds contingent on there being a request 
for Operations Provide Comfort and Southern Watch in the fiscal 
year 1997 President's budget request. In some fashion these 
operations have been underway for over four years, since the 
end of the Gulf War, yet they have never been budgeted in an 
annual appropriations request. If, as appears to be the case, 
these operations have now become an ongoing mission of the 
Department of Defense then the Committee believes the funding 
required to support them should be budgeted, as are the U.S. 
deployments to Europe and the Far East.
    The Committee recognizes Congress shares responsibility 
with the Executive in providing the resources needed in a 
timely fashion to support unfunded operations. However, the 
Committee believes the Department of Defense has contributed 
significantly to this problem by failing to budget for 
operations which have become fixtures of U.S. policy and will 
be maintained for the immediate future. The Committee realizes 
the Department's budget has and will remain a ``peacetime'' 
operating budget, meaning that unexpected, unplanned operations 
must be funded through supplemental appropriations. Also, many 
deployments are short-term and volatile in nature, precluding 
their being budgeted for in an annual budget submission which 
is basically prepared a year in advance of Congressional 
approval and execution.
    However, the Committee does not believe Operations Provide 
Comfort and Southern Watch meet these criteria and therefore 
they should be budgeted for, and compete with other defense 
priorities for resources. In order to ensure compliance with 
this directive, Section 8100 prevents the additional fiscal 
year 1996 funding for these operations from being obligated or 
expended unless these activities are accounted for in the 
fiscal year 1997 budget request.
    Costs of enforcing U.N. resolutions: The Committee has 
recommended retention of Section 8101, included in the fiscal 
year 1995 Defense Appropriations Act, requiring the Secretary 
of Defense to provide quarterly reports to Congress on the 
costs incurred by DoD in implementing or supporting activities 
resulting from U.N. Security Council resolutions.
    Consultation with Congress: The Committee proposes a new 
provision (Section 8102), requiring that the President consult 
with the appropriate Congressional authorities at least 15 days 
in advance of committing U.S. forces to any new peacekeeping, 
peace-enforcement, humanitarian, or international disaster 
relief mission. Advance consultation may only be waived in the 
event of emergency or when a time-sensitive deployment must be 
carried out, in which case the President must consult with 
Congress and provide the information required by Section 8102 
within 48 hours of the beginning of such deployments. For 
purposes of this section, any additional deployment of U.S. 
ground forces to the countries of the former Yugoslavia in 
excess of 100 U.S. servicemembers, above the levels deployed as 
of the date of enactment of this provision, constitutes a new 
peacekeeping activity requiring advance consultation with the 
Congress.
    The conference report to accompany the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1995, signed by 
the President in April of this year, urged the Administration 
to work with the Congress and the Appropriations Committees of 
the House and Senate to develop more effective means of dealing 
with the issues posed by these unfunded, non-traditional 
missions. This has been followed by several letters sent by the 
House and Senate majority leadership as well as from the 
Chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction imploring the 
Administration to consult and work with the Congress, 
particularly with respect to changes in U.S. involvement in 
supporting the U.N. and NATO operations in the former 
Yugoslavia. The Administration has failed to respond in any 
constructive way to these communications and has instead moved 
to provide substantial additional resources to support these 
operations.
    Faced with such a lack of cooperation, the Committee has no 
recourse than to restrict Department of Defense funding for any 
new international peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, or 
disaster relief activity unless the President consults in 
advance with Congress.
    Prior notification of transfer of Defense articles and 
services: Section 8103 provides that none of the funds 
available to the Department of Defense may be used to transfer 
defense articles and services (other than intelligence 
services) to another nation or international organization for 
use in peacekeeping, peace-enforcement, humanitarian 
assistance, or disaster relief operations without 15 days prior 
notice to the congressional defense committees. The Committee 
is increasingly concerned about the diversion of DoD resources 
and funds to support such non-traditional operations, which has 
occurred with increasing frequency in the past year with 
respect to the Haiti intervention, Caribbean refugee relief, 
the Rwanda deployment, and support for operations in and around 
the former Yugoslavia. The defense oversight committees of the 
Congress have rarely, if at all, been consulted in advance or 
formally notified of the provision of Department of Defense 
assistance in these instances. The Committee believes that 
Congress must be kept fully aware of the use and involvement of 
defense assets in what are essentially non-defense activities 
in support of foreign policy objectives. As a result of the 
failure of the Administration to consult with and notify the 
congressional defense committees regarding the provision of 
defense funds and articles which were originally provided for 
U.S. military requirements, the Committee believes it has no 
choice but to impose a prior notification requirement in law.
    Bosnia-Herzogovina peace settlement: The President has 
continued to state his commitment to deploy a sizable U.S. 
military contingent to Bosnia-Herzogovina to help implement a 
negotiated peace settlement. Administration officials have 
confirmed such a force would include approximately 25,000 U.S. 
servicemembers. Even though such a deployment seems remote at 
present, the Committee believes the potential risks to U.S. 
forces, expected cost of such a mission, likely duration of any 
deployment, and diversion of sorely-needed defense resources 
such a deployment would entail clearly requires advance 
approval by the Congress. Section 8104 would deny the use of 
funds to deploy U.S. forces for this purpose unless it is 
expressly authorized by Congress.
    Restricting defense funds to defense activities: The 
Committee is concerned with the degree to which the Department 
of Defense is participating in, and bearing the financial 
burden of, activities which under both law and tradition are 
the responsibility of other Federal departments. The principal 
example of this growing trend is the use of DoD funds, 
personnel, and facilities to deal with Cuban and Haitian 
refugees. The cost of these operations, which at one point were 
running at approximately $1 million per day, have been almost 
entirely borne by the DoD even though other Federal agencies 
have long had primary responsibility for refugee and 
immigration issues. In the past these agencies reimbursed the 
Department of Defense for such support in accordance with the 
Economy Act. However, DoD has not been reimbursed for many 
recent activities. The Committee notes that DoD involvement in 
and support for many ``non-defense'' activities has been 
carried out successfully for years based on the principle of 
reimbursement, one example being the use of defense assets 
during natural disasters, with DoD being reimbursed by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    The Committee does not believe the Department of Defense 
should be forced to bear the cost of operations which are not 
its responsibility, especially since this diverts funds which 
were provided by Congress expressly for military activities. 
Therefore, the Committee has included Section 8105 which 
prevents Department of Defense funds from being used for such 
purposes after December 1, 1995, unless they are specifically 
authorized in law, provided for in a defense appropriations act 
or performed in accordance with the terms of the Economy Act. 
The Committee's provision should not be construed to impinge on 
the conduct of intelligence activities, nor to the provision of 
DoD support carried out in response to previously granted 
legislative authority.
    Prohibition on use of DoD funds for United Nations 
assessment: For the second straight year, the budget requests 
DoD funds to be used to pay a portion of the U.S. assessment to 
the United Nations. Congress rejected this proposition last 
year, and the House-passed National Defense Authorization for 
fiscal year 1996 specifically denies the use of DoD funds for 
assessment payments. Section 8106 of this bill prohibits DoD 
funds for being used for this purpose.

                Highlights of Committee Recommendations

                       active military personnel

    The Committee recommends a total of $60,113,931,000 for 
active duty military personnel, an increase of $476,054,000 
above the budget request. The Committee agrees with the 
authorized end strength as requested in the President's budget. 
In keeping with the emphasis on the quality of life initiatives 
requested in the President's budget, the Committee recommends 
an increase of approximately $383,800,000 for Overseas Station 
Allowance, Basic Allowance for Quarters and Variable Housing 
Allowance for active duty personnel.

                           guard and reserve

    The Committee recommends a total of $9,117,961,000, an 
increase of $59,175,000 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 Selected 
Reserve, but added additional end strength in the Operation and 
maintenance Reserve accounts for restoration of full-time 
support personnel that were deleted. The Committee also 
recommends an increase of $7,250,000 for Basic Allowance for 
Quarters and Variable Housing Allowance for Reserve personnel.

                       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 of Service members and 
their families.
    The Committee recommends $81,583,817,000, an increase of 
$783,567,000 above the fiscal year 1996 budget request. As 
described elsewhere in this report, this increase is driven 
primarily by the need to accelerate equipment and facilities 
maintenance, mobility enhancements, and fact of life changes 
such as foreign currency driven costs due to the decline in the 
value of the dollar. However, the Committee's recommendation is 
tempered by efficiencies the Department can achieve by 
streamlining administrative functions such as acquisition 
reform, travel reengineering, transportation improvements, 
reduced audits and others.

                              Procurement

    The Committee recommends $42,898,305,000 in new 
obligational authority for procurement, an increase of 
$4,236,256,000 over the fiscal year 1996 budget request. Major 
programs funded in the bill include the following:
        $334,880,000 for 60 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters
        $341,986,000 for upgrades and modifications to Apache 
        helicopters
        $249,460,000 for 1,102 Hellfire missiles
        $210,428,000 for 1,110 Javelin missiles
        $124,971,000 for 120 ATACMS missiles
        $450,911,000 for upgrades to the Abrams tank
        $149,692,000 for medium tactical vehicles
        $100,596,000 for heavy tactical vehicles
        $308,163,000 for 12 AV-8B Harrier aircraft
        $583,204,000 for 12 F/A-18C/D tactical aircraft
        $286,182,000 for 12 T-45 trainer aircraft
        $1,101,904,000 for modification of naval aircraft
        $201,727,000 for 164 Tomahawk missiles
        $231,540,000 for 151 Standard missiles
        $974,000,000 for a LPD-17 Amphibious ship
        $2,162,477,000 for two DDG-51 cruisers
        $773,000,000 for B-2 aircraft
        $250,000,000 for 6 F-15E tactical aircraft
        $2,402,291,000 for 8 C-17 airlift aircraft
        $1,442,882,000 for modification of Air Force aircraft
        $178,366,000 for 291 AMRAAM missiles.

               Research, Development, Test and Evaluation

    The Committee recommends $35,879,560,000 in new 
obligational authority for Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation, an increase of $1,547,607,000 above the budget. 
Major programs funded in the bill include the following:
        $2,338,718,000 for F-22 aircraft
        $201,513,000 for armored system modernization
        $199,103,000 for the Comanche helicopter
        $198,978,000 for Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs
        $762,548,000 for the V-22A OSPREY aircraft
        $923,984,000 for F-18 aircraft
        $567,117,000 for Ship Self Defense
        $649,666,000 for the MILSTAR communications satellite
        $189,702,000 for the JSTARS (Joint Surveillance/Target 
        Attack Radar System)
        $3,041,138,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense.

                         Forces to be Supported

                         Department of the Army

    The fiscal year 1996 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. These forces provide the 
minimum force necessary to remain a superpower, meet enduring 
defense needs, and execute the National Military Strategy.
    A summary of the major active forces follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal Year--   
                                                    --------------------
                                                      1994   1995   1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Divisions                                                               
    Airborne.......................................      1      1      1
    Air Assault....................................      1      1      1
    Light..........................................      2      2      2
    Infantry.......................................      1      0      0
    Mechanized.....................................      4      5      4
    Armored........................................      3      3      2
                                                    --------------------
      Total........................................     13     12     10
                                                    --------------------
Non divisional Combat units:                                            
    Armored cavalry regiments......................      3      3      3
    Separate brigades..............................      4      2      0
                                                    --------------------
      Total........................................      7      5      3
                                                    --------------------
Active duty military personnel, end strength                            
 (thousands).......................................    540    510    495
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         department of the navy

    The fiscal year 1996 budget supports ship battle forces 
totaling 365 ships at the end of fiscal year 1996, a decrease 
from fiscal year 1995. Forces in fiscal year 1996 include 17 
strategic ships, 11 aircraft carriers, 290 other battle force 
ships, 29 support ships, reserve force ships, 1,437 Navy/Marine 
Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 651 Undergraduate Training 
aircraft, 749 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 440 Fleet Air 
Training aircraft, 460 Reserve aircraft, 191 RDT&E aircraft, 
and 458 aircraft in the pipeline.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year--       
                                           -----------------------------
                                              1994      1995      1996  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A summary of major forces follows:                                  
                                                                        
Strategic Forces..........................        19        16        17
                                           -----------------------------
    Submarines............................        18        16        17
    Other.................................         1         0         0
                                           =============================
    SLBM Launchers (MIRV).................       408       384       408
                                           =============================
General Purpose...........................       315       303       301
                                           -----------------------------
    Aircraft Carriers.....................        12        11        11
    Surface Combatants....................       111       113       116
    Submarines............................        88        84        80
    Amphibious Warfare Ships..............        43        39        42
    Combat Logistics Ships................        47        43        41
    Other.................................        14        13        11
                                           =============================
Support Forces............................        41        35        29
                                           -----------------------------
    Mobile Logistics Ships................        14        11         6
    Support Ships.........................        27        24        23
                                           =============================
Mobilization Category A...................        16        19        18
                                           -----------------------------
    Aircraft Carriers.....................         0         1         1
    Surface Combatants....................        16        14        10
    Amphibious Warfare Ships..............         0         2         2
    Mine Warfare..........................         0         2         5
                                           =============================
      Total Ships, Battle Force...........       391       373       365
                                           =============================
      Total Local Defense/Misc. Forces....       151       148       159
                                           -----------------------------
Auxiliaries/Sealift Forces................       143       131       135
Surface Combatant Ships...................         1         3         5
Coastal Defense...........................         7        12        13
Mobilization Category B...................         0         1         3
    Surface Combatants....................         0         0         0
    Mine Warfare Ships....................         0         1         3
    Support Ships.........................         0         0         0
                                           =============================
Naval Aircraft:                                                         
    Primary Authorized (Plus-Pipe)........     4,809     4,414     4,386
                                           -----------------------------
    Authorized Pipeline...................       497       461       458
    Tactical/ASW Aircraft.................     1,543     1,456     1,437
    Fleet Air Training....................       489       423       440
    Fleet Air Support.....................       850       807       749
    Training (Undergraduated).............       690       640       651
    Reserve...............................       547       454       460
    Research and Development..............       193       173       191
                                           =============================
Naval Personnel:                                                        
    Active................................   642,820   613,200   602,000
                                           -----------------------------
        Navy..............................   468,662   439,200   428,000
        Marine Corps......................   174,158   174,000   174,000
                                           =============================
Reserve:                                                                
    Navy..................................   107,627   100,710    98,608
                                           -----------------------------
        SELRES............................    87,701    83,200    80,920
        Sea/Air Mariners..................       787  ........       198
        TARS..............................    19,139    17,510    17,490
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      department of the air force

    The fiscal year 1996 Air Force budget was designed to 
support a total active inventory force structure of 53 fighter 
and attack squadrons, 6 Air National Guard air defense 
interceptor squadrons and 9 bomber squadrons, including B-2s, 
B-1s, and B-52s. The Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBM forces will 
consist of 580 active launchers.
    A summary of the major forces as proposed in the 
President's budget follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Fiscal year--    
                                                 -----------------------
                                                   1994    1995    1996 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF fighter and attack squadrons (Active)......      53      55      53
Air defense interceptor squadrons (ANG).........      10      10       6
Strategic bomber squadrons (Active).............      12       9       9
ICBM launchers/silos............................     711     700     700
ICBM missile boosters...........................     667     580     580
USAF airlift squadrons (Active):                                        
    Strategic airlift...........................      17  \1\ 18      17
    Tactical airlift............................      11      11      11
                                                 -----------------------
      Total airlift.............................      28      29      28
                                                 -----------------------
      Total Active Inventory \2\................   6,810   6,806   6,306
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Addition of C-17 squadron at Charleston AFB, SC.                    
\2\ Includes Active, ANG, and AFRES--Except foreign government operated 
  aircraft.                                                             


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  End strength                      1995      1996    1997
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Active Duty.....................................   400,051   388,200    
Reserve Component...............................   194,287   183,427    
Air National Guard..............................   115,581   109,458    
Air Force Reserve...............................    78,706    73,969    
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                TITLE I

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

  Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations

    The President's budget request reflects a continuation in 
the drawdown of military personnel and force structure, as 
stated elsewhere in this report. The increased reductions in 
end strength will be nearly completed by the end of fiscal year 
1996, reducing force levels by over 30 percent since fiscal 
year 1990 for Active and Guard and Reserve personnel. The 
fiscal year 1996 budget request recommends certain proposals 
that support improving the quality of life for military 
personnel. In the area of compensation, the budget requested a 
2.4 percent pay increase, an increase in the Basic Allowance 
for Quarters, and a new living allowance for high-cost areas. 
The Committee supports these initiatives to enhance the lives 
of military personnel, and recommends an additional increase of 
$91,050,000 over the budget request in housing allowances to 
help offset the costs to military personnel for off-base 
housing, especially in those high-cost geographical areas.

   SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

Fiscal year 1995........................................ $71,101,502,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................  68,696,663,000
Fiscal year 1996 recommendation.........................  69,231,892,000
Change from budget request..............................    +535,229,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$69,231,892,000 for the Military Personnel accounts. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $1,869,610,000 below the 
$71,101,502,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1995. 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 1996 MILITARY   
                        PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATION                        
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Change from 
         Account              Budget      Recommendation      budget    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:                                                     
    Army................     $19,721,408      19,884,608        +163,200
    Navy................      16,930,609      17,006,363         +75,754
    Marine Corps........       5,877,740       5,928,340         +50,600
    Air Force...........      17,108,120      17,294,620        +186,500
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Active..      59,637,877      60,113,931        +476,054
                         ===============================================
Reserve Personnel:                                                      
    Army................       2,101,366       2,122,566         +21,200
    Navy................       1,348,223       1,350,023          +1,800
    Marine Corps........         361,751         366,101          +4,350
    Air Force...........         782,761         783,586            +825
National Guard                                                          
 Personnel:                                                             
    Army................       3,218,258       3,240,858         +22,600
    Air Force...........       1,246,427       1,254,827          +8,400
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Guard                                                   
       and Reserve......       9,058,786       9,117,961         +59,175
      Total, Title I....      68,696,663      69,231,892        +535,229
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fiscal year 1996 budget request included a decrease of 
38,100 end strength for the active forces and a decrease of 
37,900 end strength for the selected reserve over fiscal year 
1995 authorized levels.
    The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted 
in the tables below.

                      overall active end strength

Fiscal year 1995 estimate...............................       1,523,300
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................       1,485,200
Fiscal year 1996 House authorization....................       1,485,200
Fiscal year 1996 recommendation.........................       1,485,200
    Compared with Fiscal year 1995......................         -38,100
    Compared with Fiscal year 1996 budget req...........................

                 overall selected reserve end strength

Fiscal year 1995 estimate...............................         965,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................         927,035
Fiscal year 1996 House authorization....................         927,035
Fiscal year 1996 recommendation.........................         927,073
    Compared with Fiscal year 1995......................         -37,927
    Compared with Fiscal year 1996 budget request.......             +38

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year 1996                     
                                         Fiscal year -----------------------------------------------------------
                                             1995                                                  Comparison of
                                           estimate      Budget        House      Recommendation   request with 
                                                        request    authorization                  recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Forces (end strength):                                                                                   
    Army...............................      510,000      495,000       495,000         495,000   ..............
    Navy...............................      439,200      428,000       428,000         428,000   ..............
    Marine Corps.......................      174,000      174,000       174,000         174,000   ..............
    Air Force..........................      400,100      388,200       388,200         388,200   ..............
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Active Force..............    1,523,300    1,485,200     1,485,200       1,485,200   ..............
                                        ========================================================================
Guard and Reserve (end strength):                                                                               
    Army Reserve.......................      242,000      230,000       230,000         230,000   ..............
    Navy Reserve.......................      100,700       98,608        98,608          98,608   ..............
    Marine Corps Reserve...............       41,000       42,000        42,000          42,000   ..............
    Air Force Reserve..................       78,700       73,969        73,969          74,007             +38 
    Army National Guard................      387,000      373,000       373,000         373,000   ..............
    Air National Guard.................      115,600      109,458       109,458         109,458   ..............
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Guard and Reserve.........      965,000      927,035       927,035         927,073             +38 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Adjustments to Military Personnel Account

                                overview

           military retiree cost of living adjustment (cola)

    The Committee is concerned that the budget request for 
fiscal year 1996 did not completely resolve the inequity of the 
effective dates of military and Federal civilian retirees COLAs 
to make them compatible. The House Committee on National 
Security recommended correcting the disparity in the payment 
dates, but in doing so, made it contingent on Department of 
Defense discretionary funds being appropriated into the 
Military Retirement Trust Fund to avoid ``PAYGO'' problems. The 
Committee reiterates its support of fair and equitable 
treatment between the two retiree groups, but believes the 
appropriate Congressional committees need to find an 
alternative solution to resolve this problem.

                       active duty end strengths

    The Committee agrees with the House National Security 
Committee's initiative of authorizing additional end strength 
to select units and mission areas in an effort to reduce 
personnel tempo rates. However, the Committee was unable to 
find the resources to fund any additional increase for active 
duty end strengths at this time. The Committee, therefore, 
directs the Department to report by January 31, 1996 on which 
units, mission areas, or particular skills are being used 
consistently in each Service because of support to operations 
other than war, such as humanitarian or peacekeeping missions, 
or any mission over and above regular operational deployments. 
The report should include the Services' recommendations on how 
they would restructure units or personnel to relieve the high 
personnel or operational tempo rates.

                          b-52 force structure

    The Committee believes that the number of B-52 bombers 
supported by the budget request is insufficient to meet mission 
requirements. To ensure that adequate forces are available to 
meet foreseeable requirements, the Committee recommends an 
increase above the budget request of $180,000,000. The 
Committee understands that this amount is sufficient to support 
an additional squadron of aircraft (a total of 18) above the 
amount requested in the budget. This amount is distributed 
between the Military personnel, Operation and maintenance and 
Procurement accounts as indicated below. Transferring any of 
these funds for any purpose other than that specified above is 
subject to normal reprogramming procedures.

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Military personnel, Air Force...........................         $65,000
Operation and maintenance, Air Force....................          95,000
Aircraft procurement, Air Force.........................          20,000

                      ``friendly fire'' incidents

    The Committee recognizes the need for DoD to provide ``ex 
gratia'' payments to compensate the families of victims of 
friendly fire. The Committee is concerned that current DoD 
policy in these instances gives preferential treatment to 
foreign over U.S. victims. The Committee directs the Department 
to review its policy to ensure equal treatment for U.S. 
nationals and report back to the Committee by March 31, 1996.

                      selective reenlistment bonus

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $42,000,000 for 
Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). The Selective Reenlistment 
Bonus is authorized to maintain an adequate level of 
experienced and qualified enlisted personnel in critical 
skills. The General Accounting Office reported that the 
Services are not focusing these bonus awards on critical skills 
that are in short supply. In fiscal year 1994, for example, 
almost half of the new SRB contracts were awarded to personnel 
in skills with fill rates of 90 percent or higher, and in which 
some service members were paid separation incentives to leave 
the service. The Committee believes the Services should 
carefully monitor bonuses given to personnel who have those 
critical skills that are in demand.

                       aviation continuation pay

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $5,600,000 for 
Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP). Aviation Continuation Pay is a 
bonus program used to restore pilot retention for aircraft 
communities experiencing pilot shortages. The General 
Accounting Office has reported that the Services are paying ACP 
bonuses as a retention incentive to aviators in skills that 
also receive exit incentives. In addition, ACP is being paid 
for periods of time for which aviators have preexisting 
commitments for military service. The Committee expects the 
Secretary of Defense to validate the Services' requirements and 
use of Aviation Continuation Pay.

                           housing allowances

    The Committee recommends a total increase of $91,050,000 
for housing allowances to help offset the cost to 
servicemembers who live in high geographical areas. The amount 
recommended for Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) would fund 6 
months of the fiscal year. The Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) 
would take effect in the last quarter of the fiscal year, as 
authorized by the House National Security Committee.

                      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 totalled 
154,655 in fiscal year 1995. The fiscal year 1996 budget 
request is 151,650. The following table summarizes Guard and 
Reserve full-time support end strengths:

                                    GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal year                                                          
                                              1995         Budget        HNSC        Committee    Recommendation
                                          appropriated    request                 recommendation    vs request  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve:                                                                                                   
    AGR.................................        11,940       11,575       11,575         11,575   ..............
    Technicians.........................         6,591        6,409        6,630          6,630            +221 
Navy Reserve TAR........................        17,510       17,490       17,490         17,490   ..............
Marine Corps Reserve....................         2,285        2,285        2,285          2,285   ..............
Air Force Reserve:                                                                                              
    AGR.................................           648          628          628            628   ..............
    Technicians.........................        10,425        9,467        9,802          9,802            +335 
Army National Guard:                                                                                            
    AGR.................................        23,650       23,390       23,390         23,390   ..............
    Technicians.........................        25,489       25,094       25,500         25,500            +406 
Air National Guard:                                                                                             
    AGR.................................         9,098        9,817        9,817          9,817   ..............
    Technicians.........................        24,218       22,558       22,906         22,906            +348 
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total:                                                                                                    
          AGR/TAR.......................        65,131       65,185       65,185         65,185   ..............
          Technicians...................        66,723       63,528       64,838         64,838          +1,310 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    civilian (military) technicians

    The Committee recommends an additional $29,000,000 in the 
Operation and maintenance accounts of the Army Reserve, Air 
Force Reserve, Army National Guard, and Air National Guard for 
additional end strength of 1,310 technicians over the 
President's budget request. The Committee is concerned that the 
additional programmed reductions and suggested outsourcing of 
jobs performed by a technician would greatly impact the 
readiness of Reserve units in their ability to deploy, maintain 
equipment, and administer and train Reserve units.
    The Committee expects these funds to not be used for any 
other purpose without a prior approval reprogramming being 
submitted to the Committee. In addition, the Committee directs 
the Department to provide the required number of workyears 
needed to sustain the levels of civilian (military) technicians 
as provided in this bill.
    The Committee also includes several general provisions 
concerning military technicians. Section 8024 provides military 
technician pay the same exemption from sequestration as other 
military personnel; and Section 8078 prohibits reducing the 
full-time support levels for technicians unless such reductions 
are as a result of a reduction in military force structure. The 
Committee expects the Department to follow the intent of these 
provisions.

                        MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $20,870,470,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................  19,721,408,000
Committee recommendation................................  19,884,608,000
Change from budget request..............................    +163,200,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$19,884,608,000 for Military Personnel, Army. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $985,862,000 below the 
$20,870,470,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The 
adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget request are as 
follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch.................          +3,600
Overseas Station Allowance..............................        +139,000
Selective Reenlistment Bonus............................          -1,200
Basic Allowance for Quarters............................         +12,000
Variable Housing Allowance..............................          +9,800
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................        +163,200

                        MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $17,752,237,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................  16,930,609,000
Committee recommendation................................  17,006,363,000
Change from budget request..............................     +75,754,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$17,006,363,000 for Military Personnel, Navy. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $745,874,000 below the 
$17,752,237,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The 
adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget request are as 
follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Aviation Continuation Pay...............................          -1,000
Responsibility Pay......................................          -1,146
Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch.................         +25,500
Overseas Station Allowance..............................         +45,000
Selective Reenlistment Bonus............................         -25,000
Basic Allowance for Quarters............................         +11,600
Variable Housing Allowance..............................         +20,800
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................         +75,754

                    MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $5,800,071,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   5,877,740,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,928,340,000
Change from budget request..............................     +50,600,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,928,340,000 
for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an 
increase of $128,269,000 above the $5,800,071,000 appropriated 
for fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 
budget request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Aviation Continuation Pay...............................            -200
Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch.................          +3,400
Overseas Station Allowance..............................         +43,000
Selective Reenlistment Bonus............................          -4,000
Basic Allowance for Quarters............................          +3,200
Variable Housing Allowance..............................          +5,200
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................         +50,600

                     MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $17,388,579,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................  17,108,120,000
Committee recommendation................................  17,294,620,000
Change from budget request..............................    +186,500,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$17,294,620,000 for Military Personnel, Air Force. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $93,959,000 below the 
$17,388,579,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The 
adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget request are as 
follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Aviation Continuation Pay...............................          -4,400
Aviation Career Incentive Pay...........................            -800
Flight Duty Pay.........................................            -500
Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch.................         +45,000
Overseas Station Allowance..............................         +73,000
Selective Reenlistment Bonus............................         -12,000
Basic Allowance for Quarters............................         +11,000
Variable Housing Allowance..............................         +10,200
B-52 Force Structure....................................         +65,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................        +186,500

                        RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $2,168,120,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   2,101,366,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,122,566,000
Change from budget request..............................     +21,200,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,122,566,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a decrease 
of $45,554,000 below the $2,168,120,000 appropriated for fiscal 
year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget 
request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Unit Readiness/Training.................................         +20,000
Basic Allowance for Quarters............................            +500
Variable Housing Allowance..............................            +700
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................         +21,200

                         army reserve commands

    The Army is implementing a reorganization and restructuring 
plan for its subordinate headquarters. Under the plan to reduce 
the number of subordinate headquarters, the existing Army 
Reserve Commands (ARCOMs) will be realigned into Regional 
Support Commands, Regional Support Groups, or eliminated 
entirely. The Committee is concerned that the Army Reserve 
reorganization plan places an inappropriate emphasis on 
administrative performance to rank the 20 ARCOMs instead of 
using performance measures directly relevant to the training 
and deployability status of the individual soldiers and units 
under the command of each ARCOM. The Committee directs the 
Department to report by December 1, 1995 on the criteria and 
methodology used for the reduction and reorganization of the 
Army Reserve Commands.

                        RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $1,411,409,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   1,348,223,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,350,023,000
Change from budget request..............................      +1,800,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,350,023,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease 
of $61,386,000 below the $1,411,409,000 appropriated for fiscal 
year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget 
request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Basic Allowance for Quarters............................            +700
Variable Housing Allowance..............................          +1,100
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................          +1,800

                    RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $350,048,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     361,751,000
Committee recommendation................................     366,101,000
Change from budget request..............................      +4,350,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $366,101,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an 
increase of $16,053,000 above the $350,048,000 appropriated for 
fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 
budget request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Annual Training/School Tours............................          +4,000
Basic Allowance for Quarters............................            +150
Variable Housing Allowance..............................            +200
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................          +4,350

                        active reserve manpower

    The Committee recognizes that the Marine Corps Reserve has 
an unfunded requirement for an increase in end strength of 274 
Active Reserve manpower. The Committee understands these 
personnel are required to support the mission of the Reserve 
force and will revisit this issue in the future.

                      RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $771,634,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     782,761,000
Committee recommendation................................     783,586,000
Change from budget request..............................        +825,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $783,586,000 
for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an 
increase of $11,952,000 above the $771,634,000 appropriated for 
fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 
budget request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

WC-130 weather reconnaissance mission...................            +725
Basic Allowance for Quarters............................            +100
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................            +825

                 wc-130 weather reconnaissance mission

    The Committee continues to strongly believe that the 
weather reconnaissance mission is critical to the protection of 
Defense installations and the population living along the east 
and Gulf coasts of the United States. Section 8038 has been 
included which prohibits funds to reduce or disestablish the 
operation of the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron 
(Hurricane Hunters) of the Air Force Reserve if such action 
would reduce the Weather Reconnaissance mission below the 
levels funded in this Act. The level specifically funded in 
this Act is to support a stand alone squadron with dedicated 10 
PAA aircraft, 20 line assigned aircrews evenly divided between 
Air Reserve Technician (ART) and Reserve aircrews, and at least 
1,600 flying hours dedicated to this misssion. Funding has also 
been provided to ensure adequate operation and maintenance 
support. The Committee is adamant that this important mission 
be continued in accordance with this direction and directs the 
Air Force to submit future budget requests reflecting this 
direction.

                     NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $3,350,505,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   3,218,258,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,240,858,000
Change from budget request..............................     +22,600,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,240,858,000 
for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is a 
decrease of $109,647,000 below the $3,350,505,000 appropriated 
for fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 
budget request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

School/Special Training.................................         +20,000
Basic Allowance for Quarters............................          +1,300
Variable Housing Allowance..............................          +1,300
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................         +22,600

                  NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $1,238,429,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   1,246,427,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,254,827,000
Change from budget request..............................      +8,400,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,254,827,000 
for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is 
an increase of $16,398,000 above the $1,238,429,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The adjustments to the 
fiscal year 1996 budget request are as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Tanker Task Force/1st Air Force.........................          +7,200
Basic Allowance for Quarters............................            +500
Variable Housing Allowance..............................            +700
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................          +8,400
                                TITLE II

                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

    The fiscal year 1996 budget request for Operation and 
maintenance is $80,800,250,000 in new budget authority, which 
is a decrease of $2,018,835,000 from the amounts appropriated 
in fiscal year 1995. The request also includes a $150,000,000 
cash transfer from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction 
Fund.
    The accompanying bill recommends $81,583,817,000 for fiscal 
year 1996, which is an increase of $783,567,000 from the budget 
request. In addition, the Committee recommends including 
$695,100,000, the amount requested in the budget submission, to 
recover accumulated operating losses incurred by several Navy 
activities in the Defense Business Operations Fund. However, 
contrary to the Navy budget request, these funds are 
appropriated directly to the DBOF, rather than included in the 
Operation and maintenance title.
    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 amounts 
for pay of civilians, services for maintenance of equipment and 
facilities, fuel, supplies, and spare and repair parts for 
weapons and equipment. Financial requirements are influenced by 
many factors, including force level such as the number of 
aircraft squadrons, Army and Marine Corps divisions, 
installations, military personnel strength deployments, rates 
of operational activity, and the quantity and complexity of 
equipment such as aircraft, ships, missiles and tanks in 
operation.

                   Operation and Maintenance Overview

    The Committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has 
given readiness-related funding priority in the fiscal year 
1996 budget request. The Committee acknowledges the budget 
request generally provides for robust programs in the areas of 
operating tempo training, depot maintenance, and other programs 
critical to near term readiness. However, there are certain 
shortfalls in the budget request that undermine the 
Department's efforts to maintain and improve the readiness of 
its forces. Among the shortfalls, described in more detail 
below, are: depot maintenance for selected equipment 
categories, certain gaps in mission readiness training, 
significant unfunded requirements for real property 
maintenance, strategic mobility, and training for chemical and 
biological defenses.
    The Committee also believes that there are certain areas in 
which the Department can improve its operations, streamline its 
organization, and reduce costs. The Department clearly 
recognizes the potential for improvement, and has highlighted a 
number of reform initiatives. However, the budget request fails 
to take advantage of these initiatives since funding 
adjustments are not included. Discussed in detail below are 
reforms which the Committee believes will lead to significant 
long term savings in the Defense budget. These initiatives 
include: acquisition reform, travel reengineering, 
transportation improvements, printing efficiencies, reduced 
audits, consolidation of fraud investigation, civilian 
personnel management efficiencies, and staff reductions in the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense.
    The table summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Committee          Change from   
                                                        Budget request        recommended           request     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   RECAPITULATION                                                                               
                                                                                                                
O&M, Army...........................................         18,134,736          18,999,825            +865,089 
    Transfer--Stockpile/DBOF........................            (50,000)            (58,500)            (+8,500)
O&M, Navy...........................................         21,175,710          20,846,710            -329,000 
    Transfer--Stockpile/DBOF........................            (50,000)            (87,000)           (+37,000)
O&M, Marine Corps...................................          2,269,722           2,508,822            +239,100 
O&M, Air Force......................................         18,206,597          18,894,397            +687,800 
    Transfer--Stockpile/DBOF........................            (50,000)            (63,600)           (+13,600)
O&M, Defensewide....................................         10,366,782           9,958,810            -407,972 
O&M, Army Reserve...................................          1,068,591           1,119,191             +50,600 
O&M, Navy Reserve...................................            826,042             857,042             +31,000 
O&M, Marine Corps Reserve...........................             90,283             104,783             +14,500 
O&M, Air Force Reserve..............................          1,485,947           1,519,287             +33,340 
O&M, Army National Guard............................          2,304,108           2,344,008             +39,900 
O&M, Air National Guard.............................          2,712,221           2,737,221             +25,000 
National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice,                                                             
 Army...............................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
Court of Military Appeals, Defense..................              6,521               6,521   ..................
Environmental Restoration, Defense..................          1,622,200           1,422,200            -200,000 
Summer Olympics.....................................             15,000              15,000   ..................
Special Olympics....................................  ..................  ..................  ..................
Humanitarian assistance.............................             79,790   ..................            -79,790 
Former Soviet Union threat reduction................            371,000             200,000            -171,000 
Contributions for International Peacekeeping and                                                                
 Peace Enforcement Activities Fund..................             65,000   ..................            -65,000 
Overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid......  ..................             50,000             +50,000 
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Grand total, O&M..............................         80,800,250          81,583,817            +783,567 
      Transfer......................................           (150,000)           (209,100)           (+59,100)
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total funds available, O&M....................         80,950,250          81,792,917            +842,667 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           DEPOT MAINTENANCE

    This Committee has consistently recognized the significance 
of adequate funding for the maintenance and repair of weapon 
systems and equipment as a key to the readiness of U.S. forces. 
In the fiscal year 1996 budget request, the Department has 
funded a high level of depot maintenance, but there are gaps 
which the Committee believes should be closed. In general, the 
backlog of maintenance increases from fiscal year 1995 to 1996 
by over $300,000,000. Of this amount, nearly $200,000,000 is 
for maintenance of equipment other than aircraft and vehicles. 
In addition, the Committee understands that there will be ship 
maintenance availabilities that are not anticipated in the 
budget request. The Committee recommends adding a total of 
$379,000,000 to address these maintenance shortfalls. The table 
below indicates the distribution of these funds.

                        [In thousands of dollars]                 Amount
Army..........................................................  $204,000
Navy..........................................................   130,000
Marine Corps..................................................    25,000
Air Force.....................................................     6,000
Reserve components............................................    14,000

                        OPERATING TEMPO TRAINING

    Like depot maintenance, the Department has maintained a 
robust readiness training program in the fiscal year 1996 
budget request. This is evident in the level of operating 
tempo, and training opportunities funded by all the military 
services. Generally, the training program is equal to, and in 
some cases slightly greater than the level funded in fiscal 
year 1995. However, there are gaps in the training program of 
both the Marine Corps and the Air Force which the Committee 
believes should be rectified in order to maintain force 
readiness. In total, the Committee recommends adding 
$35,200,000 to fill this shortfall.

                       REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE

    Despite recent attempts to improve the quality of 
Department of Defense facilities, including funds added over 
the Services' initial budget submissions by OSD in fiscal year 
1996, the backlog of maintenance and repair work at DoD 
facilities continues to grow. In its overview of the Operation 
and maintenance title, the Department estimates that by fiscal 
year 1996, the backlog will have grown to over $12 billion. 
While there are differences of opinion within the Department on 
how best to measure the backlog, there is no question that the 
Department has deferred a substantial amount of facilities 
maintenance and repair work. To begin the process of reducing 
this backlog, the Committee recommends an increase totalling 
$1,000,000,000 above the budget request, of which not less than 
$256,000,000 shall be for barracks renovation and maintenance.

                    STRATEGIC MOBILITY ENHANCEMENTS

    The Committee recommends an increase of $100,000,000 to the 
budget request for mobility enhancements. In past years, the 
Committee has strongly supported DoD efforts to improve 
strategic mobility capabilities, and to enhance the 
deployability of U.S. forces. It has repeatedly been emphasized 
in testimony before this Committee that strategic mobility is a 
critical variable in support of the U.S. National Security 
Strategy. Additional funding is provided to support 
improvements such as facilities maintenance, repairs and 
upgrades; and, equipment needed to enhance force deployability. 
Also, based on a favorable assessment from the Joint Staff, the 
Committee concurs with the House National Security Committee 
that the Center for Commercial Deployment of Transportation 
Technologies should be considered for funding within this 
program.

                CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE TRAINING

    The Committee recommends an increase of $50,000,000 for 
specialized skills training in the area of chemical and 
biological defense similar to that proposed in the House-passed 
fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization bill.

                       recruiting and advertising

    The Committee recommends an increase of $35,500,000 for 
Recruiting and Advertising to support the Department's efforts 
in addressing negative recruiting that all of the Services are 
experiencing. Of this amount, $10,000,000 is for the Joint 
Recruiting and Advertising Program (JRAP), and $2,000,000 is 
for the Joint Market Research Program (JMRP) to fund critical 
annual surveys, like the Youth Attitude Tracking Study, that 
are underfunded in fiscal year 1996.

                           acquisition reform

    The Committee recommends reducing the amount requested in 
the budget by $163,500,000 based on savings that the Department 
should be able to achieve by accelerating the implementation of 
acquisition reform initiatives. Of this amount, the Committee 
estimates that $59,100,000 can be saved by efficiencies in the 
supply management business area of the Defense Business 
Operations Fund.
    During the past year, major reforms have taken place to 
improve the Department's methods for acquiring major weapons 
systems, spare parts, personnel support material, and other 
equipment. These changes include the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act coupled with DoD revisions to contract 
management oversight, implementation of Integrated Product 
Teams for acquisition of major systems, and the Department's 
draft of the commercial contracting regulation.
    However, the Committee is concerned that the potential of 
these initiatives is not fully realized in the fiscal year 1996 
budget request. For example, based on a relatively narrow 
definition of the acquisition workforce (including the Military 
Services' logistics operations activity, the Defense Logistics 
Agency, and the supply management business area of the Defense 
Business Operations Fund) the Department projects a workforce 
of over 105,000 in fiscal year 1996, which is a reduction of 
less than 3% from fiscal year 1995. Although the Committee does 
not recommend managing resources based on end-strength, the 
personnel figures in the budget do not reflect the significance 
of the business process changes the Department is implementing.
    In addition, it has come to the attention of the Committee 
that some of the procedural changes being considered by the 
Department are contrary to the intent of acquisition reform 
legislation. For example, the Department does not appear to be 
reducing the administrative or audit burden with respect to 
procurement of certain commercial items.
    For these reasons, the Committee believes that the proposed 
reduction can readily be achieved in concert with the 
Department's ongoing efforts to improve the acquisition 
process.

                          travel reengineering

    The Committee recommends decreasing the budget request by 
$40,000,000 in anticipation of efficiencies the Department of 
Defense will achieve through its travel reengineering efforts. 
Although the potential savings have not been reflected in the 
budget request, the Committee understands that this initiative 
will have far reaching effects on most aspects of DoD travel. 
Among the proposed revisions are changes to simplify 
entitlements rules, decentralized authority to approve travel, 
enhanced commercial travel office services, and automated 
voucher calculation to name but a few. In addition, the General 
Accounting Office, in testimony before the Congress, has 
highlighted the administrative cost of travel in the Department 
as excessive.

                      transportation improvements

    In 1992, the Secretary of Defense directed that all 
transportation functions, other than Service-unique functions, 
be assigned to the US Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM). To 
implement this decision, operations of the Military Services' 
transportation component commands, including the Military 
Traffic Management Command (MTMC), the Military Sealift Command 
(MSC), and the Air Mobility Command (AMC), were assigned to the 
Commander-in-Chief, USTRANSCOM (CINCTRANS). In addition to 
operational command, CINCTRANS was also assigned responsibility 
for that portion of the Defense Business Operations Fund which 
relates to these transportation functions.
    The Committee recognizes that the Military Services retain 
the responsibility to organize, train and equip the activities 
assigned to CINCTRANS. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that 
combining these activities presents an opportunity to 
reevaluate the infrastructure and staffing needed to provided 
transportation services. Despite this opportunity, the 
Department has failed to initiate any significant 
organizational changes to take advantage of the consolidation 
of transportation functions. Accordingly, the Committee 
recommends a reduction of $70,000,000 from the budget request 
in order to achieve streamlining and consolidation of the 
defense transportation and administration infrastructure.

                         printing efficiencies

    The Committee supports the efforts of the Department and 
the Defense Printing Service (DPS) to minimize in-house 
printing capacity, and accordingly recommends reducing the 
budget request by $10,000,000. Noting that DPS currently 
satisfies about 50% of requirements through commercially 
procured services, the Committee supports the recommendation in 
the House-passed fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization bill to 
increase the amount of work done in this manner.

                             reduced audits

    The Committee recommends reducing the budget request by 
$33,000,000 based on efficiencies which can be achieved in the 
Services' audit functions. The Committee views internal 
Department of Defense audits as a critical oversight function. 
Nevertheless, as indicated in the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill, many such audits do not provide a 
sufficient return to have warranted study in the first place. 
Similarly, the Committee believes this function can be 
performed more efficiently by prioritizing audits, and limiting 
scope to high return areas.

                  consolidation of fraud investigation

    Among the recommendations contained in the January 1995 
Report of the Advisory Board on the Investigative Capability of 
the Department of Defense is the suggestion that the Department 
consolidate fraud investigation. There are a number of 
arguments which support this idea. First, the Department has 
not been able to draft and implement administrative 
instructions that resolve jurisdictional tension between the 
Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations (DCIOs). Second, 
according to the report, the US attorneys have concerns about 
the independence of the Military Criminal Investigative 
Organizations (MCIOs) from improper command influence. Third, 
the report indicates that although the quality of such 
investigations is generally high, the Defense Investigative 
Service does the best quality work in cases where civil actions 
are involved.
    Despite these arguments, the Department would prefer not to 
consolidate arguing that a single organization in charge of 
this function would be less responsive to the needs of the 
Secretaries of the Military Departments than the existing 
MCIOs. However, the Department's position appears to run 
counter to the concerns of the U.S. attorneys as described 
above. Moreover, a critical aspect of such responsiveness, 
according to the Report, is the degree to which a central 
authority charged with the responsibility for fraud 
investigation responds to the Military Departments' remedies 
programs. These programs are significant because each can 
affect the award of contracts, recovery of funds, a 
corporation's ability to contract with DoD and an employee's 
ability to remain in government service.
    Considering the recommendations in the Report, the 
Committee supports consolidated fraud investigation within the 
Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General. Savings 
associated with this consolidation are outlined below.

                     civilian personnel management

    The Committee recommends reducing the budget request by 
$23,300,000 for civilian personnel initiatives. Several 
accounts within this title reflect programmatic increases for 
civilian personnel initiatives including the establishment of 
regional personnel support centers. In the view of this 
Committee, such growth represents an investment which, in 
itself, is not objectionable. However, the budget materials do 
not justify the investment. There is no indication as to the 
savings or other benefits that would result from making this 
investment. Given the wealth of other, higher priority DoD 
requirements, the Committee recommends that these initiatives 
be deferred until they can be adequately justified.

                    civilian personnel understrength

    The Department continues to make significant progress in 
reducing its civilian workforce commensurate with the general 
reductions in DoD and its mission forces. Current execution 
data indicates that the Army, Air Force and Defense-wide 
activities are operating at significantly less than the 
personnel levels assumed in the budget request. Therefore, the 
Committee recommends a cumulative reduction of $210,000,000 to 
account for the accelerated rate of personnel reductions.

              office of the secretary of defense staffing

    Consistent with the recommendations of the House National 
Security Committee the Committee believes that there is an 
opportunity to reduce the size of the OSD staff commensurate 
with reductions taking place elsewhere in the Department. As 
recommended in the House-passed authorization bill, the 
Committee believes that the extent of this reduction should be 
25 percent over the next four years. Accordingly, the Committee 
recommends a reduction to the OSD budget request of $6,400,000, 
representing the first-year increment of this action.

                        readiness reprogramming

    In the conference report accompanying the fiscal year 1995 
Appropriations Act the conferees established a notification 
requirement for transfers in excess of $20,000,000 from certain 
O-1 subactivity group categories. The committee believes that 
the reasons for this requirement are still valid, and 
recommends that such notification procedures be retained. 
Therefore, the Department shall notify the congressional 
defense committees prior to transfers in excess of $20,000,000 
from the following subactivity group categories:

O&M, Army

    Operating forces: Combat units; Tactical support; Force 
related training/special activities; Depot maintenance.

O&M, Navy

    Operating forces: Mission and other flight operations; 
Aircraft depot maintenance; mission and other ship operations; 
ship depot maintenance.

O&M, Marine Corps

    Operating forces: Operational forces.

O&M, Air Force

    Operating forces: Primary combat forces; Primary combat 
weapons; Air operations training. Mobilization: Airlift 
operations.

                          assessing readiness

    Beginning in fiscal year 1996, the military services 
provided Readiness Justification books as part of the budget 
request. The Committee believes that these books provide a 
useful summary of current operating tempo and resourcing data. 
However, the data contained in these books do not necessarily 
provide predictive indicators of readiness. Also, the Committee 
has learned from other sources such as the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff 1995 Force Readiness Assessment, that 
there are many other potential measures of readiness. In 
addition, the Committee is aware that the Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness ASD(P&R) is developing a 
model that assesses readiness with respect to the Time Phased 
Force Deployment Document (TPFDD). The Committee understands 
that a critical objective of this model is to determine whether 
properly trained and equipped forces will be available in time 
to meet deployment plans. In order to better understand the 
Department's plans for assessing force readiness, the Committee 
directs the Department to submit a report to the congressional 
committees on defense, not later than April 30, 1996, which 
details progress on development of alternative readiness 
measures. The report should emphasize the role of the Senior 
Readiness Oversight Council (SROC), the Chairman's Readiness 
System (CRS), and the efforts to develop a TPFDD model by 
ASD(P&R) as described above.

                    dod financial management issues

    The Committee believes that the Department of Defense has 
met the intent of Section 8137 of the fiscal year 1995 
Appropriations Act. This section directed the Secretary of 
Defense to develop and implement a plan requiring that 
officials of the Department ensure that disbursements are 
matched to valid obligations before making such disbursements.
    However, the Committee believes that this plan represents 
the first of several steps required to implement permanent 
financial management improvements. For example, the Department 
has not fundamentally altered the business process that gives 
rise to the problems of unmatched disbursements and negative 
unliquidated obligations. The intricate web of relationships 
between program managers, contracting offices, accounting 
offices, paying offices, contract administration offices, and 
contractors has not been altered. While steps have been taken 
to improve communications between each participant in this 
process, the number and complexity of interactions remains the 
same. Similarly, the lack of integrated data systems to support 
this process will require a significant, and continuing effort 
within the Department to ensure that all the participants in 
this process have access to the same data.
    The Committee recognizes that making fundamental changes to 
this process is a time consuming endeavor. Further, in 
testimony before the Congress, the General Accounting Office 
has indicated that the resources needed to implement such 
change have not been identified. Therefore, the Committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, not later 
than April 30, 1996, which outlines those steps the Department 
will take to further improve financial performance. The report 
should address procedural changes designed to ensure the proper 
matching of low dollar value disbursements (those less than 
$1,000,000) to valid obligations, and the resourcing 
requirements (personnel, systems, and other) needed to 
implement such changes.

                   core depot maintenance capability

    The Committee views with caution the legislation that 
repeals the 60/40 provision of section 2466 of Title 10, United 
States Code, pending a review of core capability by the 
Department of Defense. The establishment and maintenance of a 
core depot-level maintenance and repair capability, including a 
skilled work force, equipment and facilities, owned and 
operated by the Department of Defense, is essential for 
national security. In order to strengthen the integrity of core 
capability, the Committee believes that the definition of 
``core capability'' must take into account protection of the 
military industrial base provided by publicly owned and 
operated facilities and a realistic assumption of future 
military contingencies, including the possibility of two Major 
Regional Contingencies (MRCs).

                          dod travel policies

    The Committee is distressed that there are instances of 
senior Department of Defense officials improperly using the 
Department's transportation assets for business related and 
personal travel. The Committee believes that the Department 
must strengthen its measures to ensure that adequate controls 
are placed on the use of such transportation assets, and that 
all DoD personnel are aware of applicable guidelines. 
Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report, not later than January 31, 1996, that explains 
in detail travel policies governing the availability and use of 
DoD transportation assets. This report shall also explain 
measures to ensure that all DoD personnel, both military and 
civilian, are aware of applicable policies.

                       household goods shipments

    The Department of Defense has taken action to implement the 
recommendations of the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
regarding increasing carrier liability for household goods 
shipments. These actions include, for domestic shipments, 
elimination of the separate charge now paid to carriers. For 
international shipments, carrier liability is increased to the 
$1.25 rate which is to be accompanied by a compensatory payment 
for three years. At the conclusion of this three year period, 
the GAO will evaluate the effectiveness of the increased 
carrier liability and make a recommendation to the Congress as 
to whether increased carrier liability should be continued or 
revert to the level in effect on September 30, 1995.

                            family advocacy

    The Committee supports the budget request for military 
family programs, such as child development, family advocacy, 
and family centers. The Committee recommends an additional 
$23,200,000 in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force 
accounts for the New Parent Support program, a program designed 
for the prevention of child/spouse abuse.

                         construction materials

    The Committee is concerned the Department of Defense may be 
purchasing cement which is contaminated by hazardous material. 
The Committee urges that DoD take appropriate and immediate 
action to ensure that any cement being purchased by the 
Department is not contaminated by hazardous material which may 
be the result of burning hazardous waste in the cement 
production process. The Committee further directs that the 
Department of Defense prepare a report for submission to the 
congressional defense committees not later than February 15, 
1996, on the steps it has taken to achieve this objective.

                        humanitarian assistance

    The Committee notes with some concern the increasing 
frequency with which the Department of Defense is called upon 
to provide a host of humanitarian assistance needs in its 
refugee assistance operations around the world. It is unclear 
to the Committee that the Department is sufficiently prepared 
to meet these growing demands, particularly in the area of 
temporary shelter. The Committee directs the Department to 
assess its capability in this area and report to the Committee 
by February 1, 1996, on the Department's long term plans to 
meet these emergency assistance requirements.

                     transfer of military equipment

    The Committee notes with concern the fact that federal 
officers this year seized eight armored personnel carriers 
formerly used at a Department of Energy facility. Evidently, 
these carriers had been transferred to private parties in a 
manner which may be inconsistent with applicable laws, 
including restrictions on authorized recipients of military 
style equipment and the requirement that such equipment be 
rendered inoperable. To lessen the chance of misuse of such 
military equipment, and to protect public safety, the Secretary 
of Defense is directed to review relevant policies and 
procedures, to assure that future transfers of military 
equipment governed by such policies and procedures will be in 
compliance with legal requirements. The Committee also directs 
the Secretary of Defense to report the results of that review, 
together with any appropriate recommendations for changes in 
law, to the congressional defense committees no later than 
January 1, 1996.

                          classified programs

    Adjustments to classified Operation and Maintenance 
programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this 
report.

                    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $18,443,688,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................  18,134,736,000
Committee recommendation................................  18,999,825,000
Change from budget request..............................    +865,089,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$18,999,825,000 for Operation and maintenance, Army. The 
recommendation is an increase of $556,137,000 above the amount 
appropriated for fiscal year 1995.

                           depot maintenance

    The Committee recommends increasing depot maintenance 
funding by $204,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee 
finds that, despite efforts in fiscal year 1995 to reduce the 
backlog of depot maintenance, the fiscal year 1996 budget 
request allows substantial growth in several areas. Most 
notably, the backlog of depot maintenance of equipment other 
than vehicles and aircraft almost reaches pre-1995 levels. 
Within this area of the Army depot maintenance backlog, the 
Committee is especially concerned about the maintenance of 
electronics and communications gear. Accordingly, $39,000,000 
of the total increase is allocated to such maintenance.

                        pre-positioned equipment

    The Committee recommends an increase of $51,000,000. This 
program has proved invaluable in past conflicts and adds an 
important dimension to America's force projection capabilities. 
Based on shortfalls identified by the Committee, an increase of 
$19,000,000 is provided for equipment in South Korea and 
$32,000,000 for the South West Asia region. Transferring any of 
these funds for any purpose other than that specified above is 
subject to normal reprogramming procedures.

                        national training center

    The Committee is deeply concerned by the Army's failure to 
follow the direction and intent of the Congress with respect to 
the airhead for the National Training Center (NTC), Fort Irwin, 
California. The Committee understands that, despite a 5-year 
study culminating in endorsement of Barstow-Daggett by the 
Secretary of the Army in November 1994, the Army has shelved 
its own analysis in favor of an entirely new study. The 
Committee questions the use of government resources to 
deliberately keep this previously studied and approved issue 
unresolved.
    In light of the Army's previous commitments, as well as 
prior Congressional intent, the Committee has included 
legislative language directing the Army to follow its original 
recommendations and establish a permanent facility at Barstow-
Daggett. Moreover, the Committee believes that, until Barstow-
Daggett is completed, the former George Air Force Base provides 
military, economic, and safety advantages over other NTC 
airhead options. Therefore, the Committee recommendation 
includes Section 8099, which provides $2,000,000 to establish 
George Air Force Base as the interim airhead and to ensure that 
the Army follows a consistent, mission compatible, and safe 
plan for an interim and permanent NTC airhead location.

                            training network

    The Committee recommends increasing funding by $4,000,000 
to support the Army TNET Program. The Committee recognizes the 
cost avoidance available by using a network to connect remote 
training site, and encourages the Army to consider expanding 
the application of this technology.

                    environmental cleanup and study

                            fort bliss texas

    The conference report on Department of Defense 
Appropriations for fiscal year 1995 included an allocation of 
$1,000,000 to clean up unexploded surface ordnance at Fort 
Bliss, Texas. The Committee understands that this is an ongoing 
effort which will require additional work in fiscal year 1996. 
Therefore, within available funds, the Committee directs the 
Army to continue with the cleanup of unexploded ordnance on 
Castner Range. In addition, the Committee has been advised that 
the Army currently leases McGregor Range, a parcel which makes 
up 62% of the acreage of Ft. Bliss. The Committee understands 
that the Army needs to prepare a study of environmental impact 
in order to retain this land. Within available funds, the 
Committee directs the Army to begin such an environmental 
impact study concerning McGregor Range. Further, the Committee 
directs that the Army submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees on these initiatives no later than June 30, 
1996.

                       white sands missile range

    The Committee has consistently expressed its support for 
the roundup and disposition of wild horses which populate White 
Sands Missile Range. While efforts during the past year have 
successfully reduced the herd, there is a significant 
population remaining that must be removed from the Range. 
Accordingly, the Committee directs that, within funds available 
in the Army service wide support budget activity, the Army 
allocate not more than $500,000 to continue its ongoing program 
to remove and dispose of the remaining wild horses.

                         information technology

    The Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 for the 
Digital Storage and Retrieval Engineering System (DSREDS) as 
recommended by the House National Security Committee.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    Depot maintenance:
        Electronics/Communications depot maintenance....         39,000 
        Other depot maintenance.........................        165,000 
    Base Support........................................
        George AFB......................................          2,000 
        Other Base Support..............................         28,000 
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
    Prepositioning and mobility upgrades................         89,000 
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    Specialized skill training:
        Chemical/biological defense training............         20,000 
        Enhanced simulation.............................         42,000 
        TNET............................................          4,000 
    Recruiting and advertising..........................          6,500 
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide 
    Support:
    Acquisition reform..................................        (12,000)
    Travel reengineering................................        (10,000)
    Other personnel support.............................         (6,000)
    Base support:
        New parent support program......................         10,000 
        Transition assistance program...................          8,500 
        Relocation assistance program...................          5,600 
Other Adjustments:
    Classified programs.................................          3,589 
    Civilian underexecution.............................        (65,000)
    Real Property Maintenance...........................        350,000 
    Foreign currency fluctuation........................        173,300 
    DSREDS..............................................          2,000 
    Printing efficiencies...............................         (3,000)
    Fraud investigation consolidation...................        (12,500)
    Reduced audits......................................        (10,000)
    Transportation improvements.........................        (26,200)
    AAFES second destination transportation.............        (17,500)
    Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch.............         87,300 
    Supply management reforms...........................         (8,500)

                    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $21,476,170,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................  21,175,710,000
Committee recommendation................................  20,846,710,000
Change from budget request..............................    -329,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$20,846,710,000 for Operation and maintenance, Navy. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $629,460,000 below the amount 
appropriated for fiscal year 1995.

                    defense business operations fund

    The Navy Operation and maintenance budget request included 
$695,100,000 to recover accumulated operating losses incurred 
by a number of activities scheduled for closure. While the 
Committee supports the Department's practice of including such 
losses in future year prices, the circumstances in this case 
appear to warrant special treatment. Given the Department's 
proclivity for using operation and maintenance funds to finance 
contingency operations, the Committee believes there is a 
strong possibility that these funds may be diverted to other 
activities other than recovering operating losses. Accordingly, 
the Committee recommends funding this requirement, and 
appropriating the funds directly to the Defense Business 
Operations Fund in title V.

                           depot maintenance

    The Committee recommends increasing depot maintenance 
funding by $130,000,000 to reduce generally increasing backlogs 
in the Navy. As noted elsewhere in this report, the Committee 
took measures in the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations Act to 
stem Service-wide increases in the backlog of depot 
maintenance. Despite these efforts, the Navy budget 
justification materials show steady growth in the backlog of 
aircraft and other depot maintenance. Additional funding is 
also warranted due to scheduling availabilities that allow for 
an increase in ship depot maintenance.

                        base operations support

    The Committee recommends an increase of $55,000,000 for 
base operations support costs at Navy installations. This 
increase will provide for full funding of port and air 
operations, fire fighting equipment and training, Morale 
Welfare and Recreation (MWR) facilities maintenance, security 
forces and grounds maintenance.

                               an/uyq-70

    The Navy requested no funding for installation support of 
the AN/UYQ-70. The Committee recommends $10,000,000, an 
increase of $10,000,000 to the budget request. The additional 
funding provided by the Committee shall be used only for 
logistics, software, and fleet support for the AN/UYQ-70.

                               css hunley

    The Committee is aware that the Confederate submarine CSS 
Hunley, which sunk off the South Carolina coast in 1864, is 
being recovered under the auspices of the Naval Historical 
Society. The Committee believes that as the Secretary of the 
Navy determines an appropriate display location for the CSS 
Hunley special consideration should be given to historical 
factors such as place of construction of the vessel, state of 
the vessel's homeport, and home state of the majority of the 
crew.

                             photogrammetry

    Despite the ability to obtain photogrammetry from 
commercial sources, the Navy continues to insist on maintaining 
an in-house capability. In its response to the Congress, the 
Department of the Navy indicates that photogrammetry is a 
``technology tool'' not a service. Beyond this statement, the 
Navy provides no reason why this technology tool cannot be 
obtained from the private sector. Similarly, the Navy's 
statement that photogrammetry is a core logistics function does 
not rule out the consideration of commercial sources.
    The Committee directs the Navy to obtain any future 
photogrammetric services from the private sector. 
Photogrammetric services currently available in Navy shipyards 
shall be used only to train Navy personnel on the proper use of 
this technology tool so that proper specifications can be 
written and the quality of work and proposals from the private 
sector can be evaluated. The Navy shall report to the 
Committees on Appropriations prior to issuing any requests for 
proposals or expending funds for the lease or purchase of any 
equipment or training related to the establishment of new in-
house photogrammetry capability or the expansion of existing 
capabilities.

                         information technology

    An increase of $9,000,000 is for the Navy Standard 
Integrated Personnel System as explained in the Information 
Technology section of this report.

                    tomahawk missile recertification

    The Committee recommends an addition of $60,000,000 in the 
Weapons Procurement, Navy appropriation to remanufacture 275 
older Block II Tomahawk missiles into the current Block III 
configuration. This action supplants the need to recertify 
those missiles in fiscal year 1996, resulting in a savings of 
$9,000,000 in the Operation and Maintenance, Navy 
appropriation. The Committee recommends a decrease of 
$9,000,000.

               PLASMA ELECTRIC WASTE CONVERTER TECHNOLOGY

    In the course of closing Department of Defense facilities 
pursuant to Base Closure and Realignment decisions, the 
Department has encountered significant environmental problems. 
Due to the extent of required cleanup, the process of divesting 
the Department of closed facilities has taken much more time, 
and been more costly than originally envisioned. However, the 
Committee understands that a technology exists, the plasma 
electric waste converter, that may simplify the process, and 
reduce the cost of environmental cleanup. The Committee 
strongly supports the Department of the Navy's application of 
this technology to shipboard wastes, and recommends that it be 
evaluated for applicability to the cleanup of activities slated 
for closure. Further, the Committee directs that the Secretary 
of the Navy submit to the Congressional defense committees a 
report concerning this technology no later than April 30, 1996.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:



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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    Aircraft depot maintenance..........................         50,000 
    Air operations base support.........................         27,500 
    Ship depot maintenance..............................         70,000 
    Ship operations base support........................         27,500 
    Weapons maintenance.................................         10,000 
    DBOF support........................................       (695,100)
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    Chemical/biological defense training................         10,000 
    Recruiting and advertising..........................          6,000 
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide 
    Activities:
    Travel reengineering................................        (10,000)
    Civilian personnel management.......................         (4,000)
    Base support:
        New parent support program......................          5,600 
        Transition assistance program...................          7,000 
        Relocation assistance program...................          6,000 
    Acquisition Reform initiatives......................        (17,000)
    AN/UYQ-70...........................................         10,000 
Other Adjustments:
    Classified programs.................................          1,000 
    NSIPS...............................................          9,000 
    Real property maintenance...........................        150,000 
    Foreign currency fluctuation........................         31,900 
    Printing efficiencies...............................         (4,000)
    Fraud investigation consolidation...................        (20,000)
    Reduced audits......................................        (10,000)
    Transportation improvements.........................         (7,200)
    NexCom second destination transportation............         (7,500)
    Civilian underexecution.............................         (5,000)
    Tomahawk Missile recertification....................         (9,000)
    Enhanced Southern Watch/Provide Comfort.............         75,300 
    Supply management reforms...........................        (37,000)

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $2,021,715,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   2,269,722,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,508,822,000
Change from budget request..............................    +239,100,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,508,822,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation 
is an increase of $487,107,000 above the amount appropriated 
for fiscal year 1995.

                        operating tempo training

    In order to fully fund the training requirements of the 
Marine Corps, the Committee recommends increasing funding by 
$25,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee views this 
increase as essential to enable increased participation in 
joint and combined exercises.

                           depot maintenance

    Due to a significant increase in the depot maintenance 
backlog, the Committee recommends increasing funding by 
$25,000,000 above the amount requested in the President's 
budget.

                              base support

    The Committee recommends an increase of $50,000,000 to fund 
additional personnel support equipment to complement other 
quality of life initiatives underway in fiscal year 1996. This 
increase also covers shortfalls identified in the Marine Corps 
budget for transportation services.

               initial issue personnel support equipment

    The Committee notes a significant shortfall in the Marine 
Corps budget for personnel initial issue gear and recommends 
increasing funding by $24,000,000 for the cost of this 
requirement.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    Operating tempo training............................         10,000 
    Depot maintenance backlog reduction.................         25,000 
     Base support:
        Personnel support equipment.....................         40,000 
        Servicewide transportation of things............         10,000 
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
     Chemical/biological defense training...............         10,000 
    Recruiting and advertising..........................          5,000 
    Special Support:
        New parent support program......................          4,000 
        Relocation assistance program...................          2,200 
        Transition assistance program...................          2,600 
Other Adjustments:
    Real property maintenance...........................        100,000 
    Foreign currency fluctuation........................          9,400 
    Initial issue personnel gear........................         24,000 
    Transportation improvements.........................         (3,100)

                  OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $19,613,927,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................  18,206,597,000
Committee recommendation................................  18,894,397,000
Change from budget request..............................    +687,800,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$18,894,397,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air Force. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $719,530,000 below the amount 
appropriated for fiscal year 1995.

               depot maintenance, excess funded carryover

    The Committee recommends reducing Air Force depot 
maintenance carryover by $80,000,000 to bring it back in line 
with Department of Defense standards. The Committee is aware of 
audit material indicating that the Air Force has funded 
carryover for depot maintenance work well in excess of the 
Department of Defense standard of 3 months.

                       mission readiness training

    The Committee recommends an increase of $25,200,000 to fund 
mission essential training such as: skills training, retraining 
during weapon systems conversions, mandatory force resizing 
training, and advanced career training.

                           precision weapons

    The Committee recommends increasing funding for this 
program by $1,000,000 above the requested amount. As described 
elsewhere in this report, the Committee strongly supports DoD 
efforts to increase stocks of precision weapons.

                                 spares

    The Committee recommends increasing the budgeted amount by 
$49,500,000 to improve the availability of spare parts for the 
maintenance of weapons systems. Of this amount, the Committee 
recommendends that $13,500,000 be allocated to the F100-229 
engine to ensure its reliability.

                        simulation enhancements

    To improve simulators which support mission related 
training, the Committee recommends an increase of $4,900,000 
above the requested amount. The Committee views such efforts as 
an important contributor to the overall readiness of US forces.

                         real property support

    As a complement to additional real property maintenance 
funding described elsewhere in this report, the Committee 
provides for an increase of $49,000,000 to fully fund 
facilities operations costs of the Air Force.

                       weapons system maintenance

    In an effort to control the growth in the backlog of depot 
maintenance, the Committee recommends increasing funding by 
$2,000,000 for the KC-135. Further, the Committee recommends 
increasing funding by $4,000,000 for maintenance of the B-1. 
These increases should reduce the backlog of airframe 
maintenance for each of these aircraft.

                      undergraduate pilot training

    The Committee believes that the Air Force should reduce the 
rate of pilot production, and recommends reducing the budget 
request by $60,000,000 accordingly. The Air Force has argued 
that there is an impending pilot shortage beginning in 1997. 
However, the General Accounting Office has determined that this 
shortage consists of non-flying positions that would be filled 
by personnel other than pilots. The audit material also 
suggests that these positions are in staff and administrative 
activities that do not have a clear requirement for pilots.

                           tuition assistance

    Recognizing the need to provide for off-duty and voluntary 
education, the Committee recommends increasing tuition 
assistance by $10,700,000. The Committee understands that this 
increase will allow the Air Force to maintain a consistent 
level of educational opportunity for its personnel.

                        combat search and rescue

    To fully fund operating tempo requirements for search and 
rescue, the Committee recommends an increase of $4,400,000 
above the request amount. Given the recent high visibility of 
this function, the Committee views adequate funding as critical 
to the readiness of US forces.

                            civil air patrol

    The Committee recommends an increase of $1,100,000 in 
funding for the Civil Air Patrol. This increase will fund fact 
of life cost increases associated with this program.

                         information technology

    A net increase of $100,000 is explained in the Information 
Technology section of this report. This amount includes a 
decrease of $10,400,000 to transfer funding for the Base Level 
Systems Modernization program to the RDT&E, Air Force 
appropriation, an increase of $500,000 for the Core Automated 
Maintenance System, and an increase of $10,000,000 for the 
Tactical Interim CAMS/REMIS Reporting System (TICARRS).
    The Committee also recommends an increase of $2,000,000 for 
the Engineering Data Computer Assisted Retrieval System 
(EDCARS) as recommended by the House National Security 
Committee.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    Primary combat forces:
        Air Guard functional transfer...................         (6,200)
        Excess funded carryover.........................        (20,000)
        Mission readiness training......................         25,200 
        Precision weapons...............................          1,000 
        Spare funding...................................         36,000 
        F100-229 Engine spares..........................         13,500 
        B-52 Force Structure............................         95,000 
    Excess funded carryover.............................        (20,000)
    Simulation enhancements.............................          4,900 
    Real property support...............................         49,000 
    Rivet Joint support.................................          8,200 
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
    Airlift operations:
        Excess funded carryover.........................        (20,000)
        KC-135 maintenance..............................          2,000 
    Payments to transportation business area:
        Excess funded carryover.........................        (20,000)
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    Chemical/biological defense training................         10,000 
    Undergraduate pilot training........................        (60,000)
    Recruiting and advertising..........................          6,000 
    Tuition assistance..................................         10,700 
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide 
    Support:
    Logistics operations:
        Acquisition reform..............................        (40,000)
        B-1 maintenance.................................          4,000 
    Administration:
        STRATCOM mission planning.......................          2,500 
        Travel reengineering............................        (10,000)
        Administrative efficiencies.....................         (8,000)
    Personnel management................................         (5,700)
    Combat search and rescue programs...................          4,400 
    Civil Air Patrol (CAP) cost increases...............          1,100 
    Base support:
        New parent support program......................          3,600 
        Relocation assistance program...................          6,200 
        Transition assistance program...................          6,500 
Other Adjustments:
    Classified programs.................................          2,000 
    Civilian personnel underexecution...................        (80,000)
    Information technology..............................            100 
    Real property maintenance...........................        320,000 
    Foreign currency fluctuation........................         20,600 
    EDCARS..............................................          2,000 
    Fraud investigation consolidation...................        (11,000)
    Reduced audits......................................        (13,000)
    Printing efficiencies...............................         (3,000)
    Transportation improvements.........................        (15,300)
    Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch.............        393,200 
    Supply management reforms...........................        (13,600)

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $10,477,504,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................  10,366,782,000
Committee recommendation................................   9,958,810,000
Change from budget request..............................    -407,972,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,958,810,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation 
is a decrease of $518,694,000 below the amount appropriated for 
fiscal year 1995.

                 defense business management university

    The Committee recommends reducing the budget request by 
$84,900,000 in accordance with action taken by the House 
National Security Committee concerning the establishment of new 
facilities for the Defense Business Management University.

                     defense acquisition university

    The Committee recommends reducing the budget request by 
$19,000,000 for the Defense Acquisition University (DAU). This 
reduction includes amounts for improved travel administration, 
a reduction to programmed student load growth, and a reduction 
to the proposed distance learning program.

                         defense mapping agency

    The Committee recommends reducing funding for this activity 
by $39,100,000. This reduction includes amounts for reduced 
minor equipment replacement, and productivity improvements. 
Further, the Committee recommends against establishing the 
proposed regional personnel support center.

                   federal energy management program

    The Committee recommends reducing this account by 
$114,700,000, an amount that would bring it back to a level 
between that of fiscal years 1994 and 1995. While the Committee 
commends the intent of this program, the increases of recent 
years must be balanced against other, higher priority DoD 
programs. In addition, it appears that the basic objective of 
the program, reducing DoD energy use, may be achieved in part 
through better design and execution of the myriad facilities 
maintenance and repair projects funded elsewhere in this 
report.

                     office of economic assistance

    The Committee views the efforts of this organization as 
essential to the communities affected by the Base Closure and 
Realignment process, and recommends increasing funding above 
the budgeted amount by $1,500,000.

                        alternative fuels study

    The Committee recognizes that federal law, executive orders 
and the need to comply with environmental standards require the 
Department to increase its share of alternatively fueled 
vehicles. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Department to 
engage in infrastructure engineering studies and related 
activities, to be administered by the Office of Environmental 
Security. The Committee believes that such work is necessary to 
ensure availability of the infrastructure required to support 
the changing composition of the fleet.
    The Committee is also aware that the Department must reduce 
energy consumption as a result of both federal law and 
executive order. To this end, the Committee urges the 
Department to study the use of natural gas-fired space 
conditioning equipment as an alternative to conventional 
equipment.

               Department of Defense Dependents Education

    The Department of Defense Dependents Education budget 
provides funds for five major programs: Overseas Dependents 
Schools, Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools 
(DDESS), Family Advocacy Program (FAP), Transition Assistance 
Program (TAP), and Relocation Assistance Program (RAP). The 
following changes to these programs were based upon the 
Committee's Surveys and Investigative Staff recommendations.
    The Family Advocacy, Transition Assistance and Relocation 
Assistance programs are not related in any way to education of 
dependents. The Committee's Surveys and Investigative Staff 
determined that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 
has recently set aside the funding for these programs to the 
Dependents Education account only because they are under the 
cognizance of the same principal staff assistant within the OSD 
office.
    The Committee, however, feels the Transition Assistance and 
Relocation Assistance programs can be administered by the 
Services, as they have in the past, and has recommended 
restoring these funds to the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air 
Force Operation and Maintenance accounts. The Committee does 
not feel that OSD needs to monitor and centrally fund these 
programs.

                      overseas dependents schools

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $42,000,000 from 
the budget request for the Overseas Dependents Schools. During 
the period of the drawdown of the military, the Department has 
been unable to control the cost of educating dependents 
overseas. Between 1991 and 1996, DoD comparable per pupil costs 
have increased 54.8 percent, while the national average per 
pupil cost has increased only 10.5 percent. On a comparable 
basis, the fiscal year 1996 estimated overseas schools and the 
national average per student cost are $8,107 and $6,504, 
respectively. Although enrollment has decreased by 57 percent, 
national headquarters and overseas administrative workyears 
have increased by 23.6 percent. To some extent, pupil-per-
teacher ratios have declined, thereby increasing per pupil 
costs. However, less than half the workyears in Overseas 
Dependents Schools are provided by classroom teachers. The 
Committee feels these workyears require better control and that 
further administrative and headquarters consolidations are 
required.

          Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools

    The Committee recommends a reduction of $12,000,000 for the 
Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS) due 
to large program growth between fiscal year 1995 and the fiscal 
year 1996 budget request.

    Transition Assistance Program and Relocation Assistance Program

    The Committee recommends a total reduction of $24,700,000 
within the Services Operation and maintenance accounts for the 
Transition Assistance Program, and a reduction of $600,000 for 
the Relocation Assistance Program. Transition Assistance was 
initiated to assist servicemembers and their families during 
the drawdown in transitioning to civilian life with separation 
counseling, resume and employment assistance. The Relocation 
Assistance Program assists servicemembers and their families in 
helping to adjust to the stresses of moving.
    There are currently 331 transition offices and 370 
relocation offices that the Services operate. The Committee's 
Surveys and Investigative Staff has found that there are 
instances where multiple offices are located on the same 
military installation, and that there is no attempt to 
consolidate operations among the Services. In fact, these 
programs have begun to take on ``a life of their own.''
    With the downsizing largely complete, the Committee feels 
the requirement for counseling, resume and employment 
assistance can begin to be curtailed. The Committee, therefore, 
directs the Department to provide a report, by March 31, 1996, 
on the possibility of phasing out these services starting in 
fiscal year 1997.

                         Information Technology

    An increase of $112,000,000 is explained in the Information 
Technology section of this report. This includes increases of 
$100,000,000 for the Joint Services Logistics Center and 
$12,000,000 for the Defense Information Systems Agency's 
continuity of operations (COOP) program.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


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

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    Mobility enhancements...............................         62,000 
    Provide Comfort/Enhanced Southern Watch.............         10,100 
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
    WHS/Disaster relief.................................        (45,438)
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
    Defense Acquisition University (DAU)................        (19,000)
    Defense Business Management Univ (DBMU) BOS.........        (15,700)
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide 
    Support:
    Classified programs.................................         (9,668)
    Defense Civilian Personnel Management Service.......         (4,800)
    DCAA/Acquisition reform.............................        (10,800)
    Defense Investigative Service (functional transfer 
      in)...............................................         (3,900)
    Defense Logistics Agency (DLA):
        Career management office........................           (700)
        Acquisition reform..............................        (26,000)
        Warstoppers (peacetime use).....................         (2,600)
        Procurement Technical Assistance Program........         10,000 
    Defense Mapping Agency (DMA):
        Minor equipment reduction.......................        (27,400)
        Internet........................................           (600)
        Productivity improvement........................         (9,000)
        Regional personnel support center...............         (2,100)
    Federal Energy Management Program...................       (114,682)
    Department of Defense Dependents Education:
        Overseas schools administrative overhead........        (42,000)
        Relocation assistance program...................        (20,559)
        DDESS schools...................................        (12,000)
        Transition assistance program...................        (49,300)
    Office of Economic Adjustment.......................          1,500 
    Office of the Secretary of Defense:
        Acquisition reform..............................           (400)
        Civilian/military programs......................        (59,830)
        Staffing reduction..............................         (6,400)
        Acquisition program growth......................         (4,200)
        Consulting services growth......................        (20,700)
        JRAP............................................         10,000 
    Washington Headquarters Service (inventory growth)..         (9,600)
Budget Activity 6: Capital Lease........................        (69,195)
Other Adjustments:
    Civilian personnel underexecution...................        (60,000)
    Information technology..............................        112,000 
    Joint market research program.......................          2,000 
    Foreign currency fluctuation........................         24,200 
    Impact Aid..........................................         35,000 
    Transportation improvements.........................        (18,200)
    Travel reengineering................................        (10,000)

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $1,237,009,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   1,068,591,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,119,191,000
Change from budget......................................     +50,600,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,119,191,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation 
is a decrease of $117,818,000 below the $1,237,009,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 1995.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:



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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    Training Operations, Ground OPTEMPO.................         33,000 
Other Adjustments:
    Military/Civilian Technician Restoration............          5,000 
    Reserve Component Automation System.................         (4,400)
    Real Property Maintenance...........................         17,000 

                OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $846,619,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     826,042,000
Committee recommendation................................     857,042,000
Change from budget request..............................     +31,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $857,042,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation 
is an increase of $10,423,000 above the $846,619,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 1995.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:



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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    Aircraft Depot Maintenance..........................         10,000 
Other Adjustments:
    NSIPS...............................................          9,000 
    Real Property Maintenance...........................         12,000 

            OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................     $81,862,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................      90,283,000
Committee recommendation................................     104,783,000
Change from budget request..............................     +14,500,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $104,783,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The 
recommendation is an increase of $22,921,000 above the 
$81,862,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


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

                        [In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
    Training, M1A1 tank.................................             900
    Operating Forces, Initial Issue.....................           6,400
    Depot Maintenance, DLR's............................           1,400
Budget Activity 4: Administrative and Servicewide 
    Activities:
    Base Support, Unit Relocations......................           1,000
    Base Support, Environmental Compliance..............           3,300
    Real Property Maintenance...........................           1,500

              OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $1,471,505,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   1,485,947,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,519,287,000
Change from budget request..............................     +33,340,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,519,287,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The 
recommendation is an increase of $47,782,000 above the 
$1,471,505,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


    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:
    WC-130 Weather Reconnaissance.......................             340
    KC-135 Depot Maintenance............................           1,500
    910th Airlift Group.................................          10,000
Other Adjustments:
    Military/Civilian Technicians.......................           8,000
    Real Property Maintenance...........................          13,500

             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $2,424,888,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   2,304,108,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,344,008,000
Change from budget request..............................     +39,900,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,344,008,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $80,880,000 below the 
$2,424,888,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


    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:
    Training Operations, Ground OPTEMPO.................         40,000 
Budget Activity 4: Administrative and Servicewide 
    Activities:
    Information Management..............................        (30,100)
Other Adjustments:
    Military/Civilian Technicians.......................          9,000 
    Real Property Maintenance...........................         21,000 

             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $2,772,928,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   2,712,221,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,737,221,000
Change from budget request..............................     +25,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,737,221,000 
for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $35,707,000 below the 
$2,772,928,000 appropriated for fiscal year 1995.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


    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:
    KC-135 Depot Maintenance............................           1,500
    159th ANG Fighter Group.............................           1,500
Other Adjustments:
    Military/Civilian Technicians.......................           7,000
    Real Property Maintenance...........................          15,000

                    REFUGEE/DISASTER RELIEF MISSIONS

    The Committee is concerned about the increased amount of 
time spent by the active component on disaster response and 
humanitarian efforts. These are missions more readily done by 
the Reserve components, thereby freeing the active forces to 
focus on military training and combat missions. The Air 
National Guard possesses a cost effective rapid deployment 
capability to provide disaster recovery/refugee relief. This 
has been demonstrated in actions such as Hurricane Andrew and 
the recent Mississippi River Basin flood. The Air National 
Guard Civil Engineers are directed to test this rapid 
deployment capability to support disaster recovery and refugee 
relief missions during fiscal year 1996. A report on the 
results of this test should be provided to the Committee by 
March 31, 1996.

                 159th Air National Guard Fighter Group

    The Committee has recommended $1,500,000 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.

        NATIONAL BOARD FOR THE PROMOTION OF RIFLE PRACTICE, ARMY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................      $2,544,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................................
Committee recommendation................................................
Change from budget request..............................................

          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................      $6,126,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................       6,521,000
Committee recommendation................................       6,521,000
Change from budget request..............................................

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,521,000 for 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The 
recommendation is an increase of $395,000 above the $6,126,000 
appropriated for fiscal year 1995.

                   ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $1,480,200,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   1,622,200,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,422,200,000
Change from budget request..............................    -200,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,422,200,000 
for Environmental Restoration, Defense as proposed in the 
House-passed National Defense Authorization bill. The 
recommendation is a decrease of $58,000,000 below the amount 
appropriated for fiscal year 1995.

                            asbestos removal

    The Committee recognizes the need to remove asbestos from 
the former defense site at the Ottumwa Industrial Airport. 
Therefore, within available funds, the Committee encourages the 
Department to assist the City of Ottumwa in the matter of 
asbestos removal and structure demolition.

                  naval air warfare center warminister

    The Committee recognizes the economic significance of the 
closure of NAWC Warminister as well as the need for prompt 
redevelopment of this parcel. The Committee is also aware that 
the Department has included, in the fiscal year 1996 budget 
request, funds for the cleanup of this site. The Committee 
therefore urges the Department to execute the budget as 
requested to expedite cleanup of NAWC Warminister.

                  defense fuels supply point, norwalk

    The Committee is aware of the ongoing concern of the 
Norwalk citizens regarding fuel contamination at Defense Fuel 
Supply Point (DFSP) Norwalk, California. The Committee urges 
the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Fuel Supply Center 
to take every step possible to fully fund and expedite the 
environmental remediation activities at DFSP Norwalk. Further, 
the Committee believes that any claim by Norwalk residents 
arising from environmental contamination at the site should be 
processed and dispensed with in an expeditious fashion.

                           ordnance road site

    The Committee recognizes the need to complete cleanup 
measures concerning a defense site formerly used by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers. Accordingly, within available funds, 
the Committee urges the Department of the Army to work with 
Anne Arundel County officials on the task of cleaning up the 
Ordnance Road site.

                   massachusetts military reservation

    The Committee is aware that DoD activities around the 
Massachusetts Military Reservation have caused serious 
environmental problems that threaten to contaminate the 
groundwater that supplies several communities in the vicinity 
of Cape Cod. To rectify this problem, the Committee urges the 
Department to give priority to this site, and use funds 
available in this account to undertake appropriate cleanup 
measures.

                            SUMMER OLYMPICS

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................     $14,400,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................      15,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,000,000
Change from budget request..............................................

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000 
for support of the 1996 Games of the XXVI Olympiad. These funds 
will be used for expenses of logistical support and personnel 
services provided by the Department of Defense for the Summer 
Olympic games.
    The Department is directed to follow normal reprogramming 
procedures for funds appropriated in this account.

             OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................................
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................................
Committee recommendation................................     $50,000,000
Change from budget request..............................     +50,000,000

    The Committee notes that the Department of Defense budget 
request contains significant amounts for various relief efforts 
such as disaster assistance, humanitarian relief and civic aid. 
Despite the fact the Department has unique equipment assets and 
manpower which are useful in such endeavors, this does not 
imply that the Department of Defense budget request should 
include funding for this aspect of U.S. foreign policy. The 
Committee agrees with the position taken in the House-passed 
Defense authorization bill that such efforts should be combined 
into a single account and funded at a more modest level.

                        HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................     $65,000,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................      79,790,000
Committee recommendation................................................
Change from budget request..............................      79,790,000

    The budget requested funds for humanitarian relief 
activities including the acquisition, transportation, and 
distribution of humanitarian supplies and excess non-lethal 
property and other activities as authorized. The Committee 
recommends merging funds to support this request into a newly 
established account for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and 
Civic Aid as described previously

                  FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $380,000,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     371,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     200,000,000
Change from budget request..............................    -171,000,000

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $200,000,000 
for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction program, a 
decrease of $171,000,000 from the budget request. The funds 
provided are at the level in the House-passed Defense 
Authorization bill. The reduction is applied against funds to 
begin construction of a Russian chemical weapons destruction 
facility and fissile material storage facility, the 
Demilitarization Enterprise Fund and other program support 
activities. The funds provided will enable an aggressive 
program to continue for the dismantling and destruction of 
nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union.

  CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING AND PEACE ENFORCEMENT 
                               ACTIVITIES

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................................
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     $65,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
Change from budget request..............................     -65,000,000

    The budget requested funding for expenses of the United 
Nations peacekeeping and peace enforcement forces when the 
Department of Defense has primary responsibility. Consistent 
with the recommendations of the House-passed Authorization 
bill, the Committee recommends no funding for this account.
                               TITLE III

                              PROCUREMENT

                  Estimates and Appropriation Summary

    The fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense procurement 
budget request totals $38,662,049,000. The accompanying bill 
recommends $42,898,305,000. The total amount recommended is an 
increase of $4,236,256,000 above the fiscal year 1996 budget 
estimate, and is $226,331,000 less than the total provided for 
fiscal year 1995. The Committee recommendation includes 
$908,125,000 for National Guard and Reserve Equipment. The 
table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee's 
recommendations:


                         Multiyear Procurement

    The budget proposes to delete Section 8010 of the bill 
which deals with multiyear procurement. The Committee instead 
has included Section 8010 in the bill and has provided 
authority for the Department of the Navy to pursue multiyear 
procurement on the AV-8B, T-45, and E-2C aircraft programs, 
should it elect to do so and only within the general parameters 
for multiyear procurement as defined in law. The Committee also 
recommends an additional $100,000,000 in Aircraft Procurement, 
Navy which may be used only for multiyear procurement of any or 
all of these 3 programs and for no other purpose.
    A Department of Defense Inspector General report dated June 
3, 1994 stated that the AV-8B remanufacture program meets all 
the criteria required by Congress for multiyear procurement. 
The report also stated that at the time savings of $123,000,000 
million in the AV-8B airframe and $33,700,000 in the engine 
could have potentially been achieved through multiyear 
procurement of aircraft through the year 2000. While the AV-8B 
program today is not the same one which the Inspector General 
reviewed, which means the potential savings may now be 
different, it remains a fact that the Navy has stretched out 
the program in the near term and has not yet reached annual 
production of 12 aircraft per year where the most savings from 
multiyear procurement would occur. The Committee further 
understands that elements of AV-8B and T-45 aircraft production 
have been combined at the airframe prime contractor's facility, 
which means that there could also potentially be significant 
savings in the T-45 program as well. The E-2C aircraft program 
has a very stable production rate of 4 aircraft annually for a 
number of years, making it too an attractive candidate for 
multiyear procurement. The Committee directs the Navy to 
solicit bids from each of the contractors on the AV-8B, T-45, 
and E-2C programs for multiyear procurement of these programs. 
The Committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to 
report to the Congressional defense committees prior to 
obligation of additional funds within the $100,000,000 
allowance recommended by the Committee on the Navy's rationale, 
costs, and savings from multiyear procurement on any of these 
programs. The Committee suggests that the Navy solicit 
multiyear bids that have some degree of flexibility--such as a 
core multiyear annual quantity with annual options for higher 
levels of procurement--where practicable and that the bids 
address the all known aircraft production quantities as opposed 
to just the production forecast in the most recent Future Years 
Defense Plan.
    The conferees managing the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations 
Act strongly encouraged the Army to consider requesting multi-
year procurement authority for Phase II of the M1 tank upgrade 
program if it could be fully documented that such a multi-year 
program met all the standard requirements of law, including 
guidelines for cost savings and outyear funding commitments. 
Although the Army has expressed an interest in pursuing this 
concept, the Committee has yet to be provided with sufficient 
justification materials to show that this program has reached 
the level of maturity and stability necessary to justify multi-
year authority. The Committee continues to believe that a 
properly structured multi-year upgrade program could result in 
substantial cost savings. The Committee strongly urges the Army 
to fully consider this option for future budget requests. The 
Committee expects any multi-year proposal to be supported with 
the standard multi-year budget justification materials.
    The fiscal year 1996 budget provides a stable program for 
the modification of Apache A models to the more capable Apache 
Longbow. Based on the Apache Longbow funding profile, the 
Committee believes it may be a good candidate for a multi-year 
contract and encourages the Army to pursue a multi-year 
contract within the guidelines established by law.
    The Committee believes that cost savings and accelerated 
fielding may be achieved through a multi-year contract for 
Apache Longbow. The Committee believes that a multi-year 
contract is possible within the current budget.

            joint forces command, control and communications

    During the year, the Committee heard testimony from the 
Service Chiefs, Commander in Chiefs from the various Unified 
and Specified Commands, and the Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. All witnesses discussed critical deficiencies in 
command, control and communications systems. The Committee has 
provided an additional $103,300,000 to correct interoperability 
deficiencies identified by DoD. The additional funds improve 
the ability of the services to tactically exploit sensor data 
from other service sensors, improve situational awareness and 
allow the automatic dissemination of air tasking orders. The 
Committee recommends increases for the following programs:

Theater Battle Management...............................     +$5,000,000
Sensor sharing:
    Guardrail...........................................      +9,000,000
    Commander's Tactical Terminal (Army)................     +18,000,000
    EP-3 (Reef Point-Storyteller).......................      +3,500,000
    Intel support equipment (USMC)......................     +12,500,000
    JSTARS Datalink.....................................     +20,000,000
TADIL J/LINK 16:
    FAAD C2.............................................      +7,400,000
    LINK 16 Hardware....................................     +11,400,000
    JSTARS (USMC).......................................     +16,500,000

                      high capacity air ambulance

    The Committee is deeply concerned by the failure of the 
Army to address the need for a high capacity air ambulance. The 
Army Surgeon General has stated that this is one of his highest 
priorities. The Committee urges the Army to seek an appropriate 
solution and advise the Committee no later than September 15, 
1995.

                          classified programs

    Adjustments to classified procurement programs are 
addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.

                       AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $1,028,753,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   1,223,067,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,468,067,000
Change from budget request..............................    +245,000,000

    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 mission flight 
simulators, and production base support.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
          Item            Budget request    recommended       request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackhawk...............               0          75,000         +75,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Fixed Wing Aircraft

                             c-xx aircraft

    In fiscal year 1995, the Congress appropriated $11,000,000 
for the C-XX medium range aircraft. The Committee understands 
that the original requirements outlined in the Operational 
Requirements Document for medium range aircraft have been 
modified. The Committee requests that the Army provide a report 
no later than January 15, 1996 outlining the original 
requirements, modified requirements, and rationale for any 
modifications.

                             c-26 aircraft

    The Committee recognizes that a requirement exists to 
replace the U-21's in the Army's fleet assigned against short 
range mission profile requirements. The Committee urges the 
Army National Guard to complete the replacement of the U-21 
with more capable and modern short range aircraft, such as the 
C-12 or C-26.

                          Rotary Wing Aircraft

                       uh-60 blackhawk helicopter

    The Army requested no advanced procurement funds for 
Blackhawk production. The Committee recommends $75,000,000 only 
for Blackhawk advance procurement items. Fiscal year 1996 is 
the last year funds are budgeted for Blackhawk production 
despite the fact that only 70% of the requirement for Blackhawk 
helicopters has been met. The Committee believes that 
maintaining the production line is crucial to ensure that the 
Army and National Guard's utility helicopter deficiencies are 
alleviated. Before obligating these funds, the Army is directed 
to provide to the Committee a procurement/production strategy 
and funding profile for Blackhawks. The Committee encourages 
the Army to provide Blackhawk production funds in the fiscal 
year 1997 budget request.

                        Modification of Aircraft

                               guardrail

    The Army requested $48,969,000 for Guardrail modifications. 
The Committee recommends $57,969,000, an increase of $9,000,000 
only to provide a Tactical Information Broadcast System 
capability for Guardrail as discussed in the beginning of the 
procurement section of this report.

                             kiowa warrior

    The Army requested $71,334,000 for the Kiowa Warrior. The 
Committee recommends $211,334,000, an increase of $140,000,000 
to procure 20 Kiowa Warrior helicopters. The Committee believes 
that until the Comanche helicopter is fielded it is imperative 
that soldiers are provided with an interim armed scout 
helicopter to support today's battlespace dominance 
requirement.

                    Support Equipment and Facilities

                    Aircraft survivability equipment

    The Army requested $22,304,000 for aircraft survivability 
equipment. The Committee recommends $43,304,000, an increase of 
$21,000,000 only for Aircraft Survivability Equipment Trainers 
(ASET-IV) systems.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:




                       MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $813,795,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     676,430,000
Committee recommendation................................     842,830,000
Change from budget request..............................    +166,400,000

    This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to-
air, surface-to-surface, and antitank/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 to the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
          Item            Budget request    recommended       request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hellfire................         209,460         249,460         +40,000
Javelin.................         171,428         210,428         +39,000
MLRS rockets............           3,086          46,086         +43,000
MLRS Launchers..........          48,158          64,558         +16,400
ATACMS..................         106,971         124,971         +18,000
Stinger Mods............          10,095          20,095         +10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Anti-Tank/Assault Missile Systems

                                javelin

    The Army requested $171,428,000 for Javelin. The Committee 
recommends $210,428,000, an increase of $39,000,000 only for 
the procurement of Javelin. The Committee notes that 
$18,000,000 of fiscal year 1994 funds for Javelin are not 
obligated. The Army is directed to report to the Committee, no 
later than September 15, 1995, the obligation status of the 
fiscal year 1994 funds and the Army's plan and schedule for 
obligating available funds.

                 multiple launch rocket system rockets

    The Army requested $3,086,000 for Multiple Launch Rocket 
System rockets. The Committee recommends $46,086,000, an 
increase of $43,000,000 only for the production of Extended-
Range rockets. The Committee directs the Army to submit a 
report outlining the technical risks associated with 
accelerating the production of the Extended Range rocket and 
revised procurement/production scheduled by September 15, 1995.

                multiple launch rocket system launchers

    The Army requested $48,158,000 for Multiple Launch Rocket 
System launchers. The Committee recommends $64,558,000, an 
increase of $16,400,000 only for the refurbishment of existing 
launchers. Furthermore, the Committee directs the Army to 
transfer the refurbished launchers to the National Guard to 
correct shortfalls.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


        PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $1,151,914,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   1,298,986,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,616,964,000
Change from budget request..............................    +317,978,000

    This appropriation finances the acquisition of tanks; 
personnel and cargo carriers; fighting vehicles; tracked 
recovery vehicles; self-propelled and towed howitzers; machine 
guns; mortars; modifications of in-service equipment; initial 
spares; and production base support.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
          Item            Budget request    recommended       request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M1 Abrams tank (MOD)....          77,076          46,754         -30,322
9mm Personal Defense                                                    
 Weapon.................               0           2,000          +2,000
Machine Gun, 5.56 (SAW).               0          28,500         +28,500
MK-19...................               0          20,000         +20,000
M16 Rifle...............               0          13,500         +13,500
M4 Carbine..............               0           6,500          +6,500
Medium Machine Gun......               0           6,500          +6,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Modification of Tracked Combat Vehicles

                         carrier modifications

    The Army requested $48,067,000 for carrier modifications. 
The Committee recommends $49,667,000, an increase of $1,600,000 
only for Opposing Forces Surrogate Vehicle modifications.

                 bradley fighting vehicle modifications

    The Committee notes that fiscal year 1996 is the last year 
funding has been budgeted to upgrade A0 configuration Bradleys 
to the improved A2 model which is more survivable and less 
costly to maintain. Upon completion of the current program, 
2,000 A0 vehicles will remain in the fleet. The Committee 
believes that the Army should consider the continuation of the 
A0 to A2 upgrade program. The Army is directed to submit a 
production/funding profile to complete the A0 upgrade program 
with the fiscal year 1997 budget request. Furthermore, the 
Committee directs that the fiscal year 1996 and any future 
programs be executed as currently structured.

                         howitzer modifications

    The Army requested $220,239,000 for the modification of 
Paladins. The Committee recommends $302,039,000, an increase of 
$81,800,000. Of the increase, $14,800,000 is only for the 
Automated Fire Control System upgrade and $67,000,000 is only 
for the modification of two battalion sets of Paladins for the 
National Guard to modernize artillery support units.

                                 FAASV

    The Army requested no funds for Field Artillery Ammunition 
Supply Vehicle (FAASV) production. The Committee recommends 
$44,000,000 only for the production of two battalion sets of 
FAASV's for the National Guard to correct artillery 
deficiencies.

                       improved recovery vehicle

    The Army requested $23,492,000 for the Improved Recovery 
Vehicle (M-88) modifications. The Committee recommends 
$57,392,000, an increase of $33,900,000 only for M-88 
modifications. The additional funds enable the Army to field M-
88 at the same rate as the M1A2 tank alleviating logistics 
shortfalls in the armored units.

                   abrams tank upgrade program (MCR)

    The Army's request does not include the transfer of M1A1 
tanks to the Marine Corps. The Committee recommends that 24 
tanks be transferred to the Marine Corps and provides an 
additional $110,000,000 to the Army Abrams upgrade program as 
reimbursement.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


                    PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $1,125,321,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     795,015,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,019,315,000
Change from budget request..............................    +224,300,000

    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

                                overview

    In its fiscal year 1994 and 1995 reports, the Committee 
expressed concern about the health of the industrial base for 
ammunition and the Army's ammunition inventory levels. In 
response, the Army and DoD conducted various studies which all 
came to the same conclusion: ammunition inventories were 
inadequate and the industrial base was in trouble. One study, 
the Army's Functional Area Analysis (FAA) examined both Army 
and industrial base requirements. The FAA included recommended 
funding levels for ammunition in order to satisfy Army 
inventory shortfalls and retain core functions of the 
industrial base. To satisfy critical deficiencies 
in ammunition inventory levels, the Committee recommended an 
additional $400 million in fiscal year 1995. The Committee also 
directed DoD to adequately fund ammunition in future budget 
requests. The fiscal year 1996 budget did not include funding 
for 11 of the 17 required munitions identified in the FAA. The 
Committee is disappointed that DoD did not provide the 
additional funds required to satisfy the Army's critical 
requirements for ammunition. The Committee believes that 
adequate funding is necessary not only to ensure that the 
industrial base is maintained, but more importantly that 
sufficient quantities of ammunition are available to satisfy 
training and wartime requirements. Therefore, the Committee 
directs that DoD provide the funding necessary in future 
budgets to satisfy critical ammunition requirements.

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
          Item            Budget request    recommended       request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40MM....................          40,278          50,278         +10,000
60MM (M721).............          13,021          23,021         +10,000
81MM (M880).............               0           6,600          +6,600
120MM (XM929)...........          47,704          69,704         +22,000
120MM (M829A2)..........               0          82,100         +82,100
155MM (M795)............          37,040          57,040         +20,000
Bunker Defeat Munition..               0          15,000         +15,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         ammunition shortfalls

    The Committee provided an additional $189,100,000 to 
satisfy critical ammunition shortfalls identified by the Army. 
The Committee provided funds for the following items:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
          Item            Budget request    recommended       request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 MM...................          35,139          45,139         +10,000
40MM....................          40,278          50,278         +10,000
120MM (XM929)...........          47,704          69,704         +22,000
120MM (M829A2)..........               0          82,100         +82,100
155MM (M795)............          37,040          57,040         +20,000
Provision of Industrial                                                 
 Facilities.............          41,906          66,906         +25,000
Layaway of Industrial                                                   
 Facilities.............          13,663          23,663         +10,000
Demilitarization........          96,280         106,280         +10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Mortar Ammunition

                         60mm mortar ammunition

    The Army requested no funds for the procurement of 60mm \1/
10\ practice (M766) ammunition. The Committee recommends 
$3,600,000 only for 60mm \1/10\ practice (M766) ammunition.

                          Artillery Ammunition

                                 sadarm

    The Army requested $24,284,000 for SADARM and has 
identified a $10,900,000 shortfall in the program. The 
Committee fully supports SADARM and recommends the requested 
amount. The Committee believes that until contractor 
verification testing is completed in March 1996, it is 
premature to conclude that the submunition collision problem 
has been fixed. Given the program's history of technical 
problems, the Committee does not believe that it is prudent to 
accelerate production at this time.

                                Rockets

                                hydra 70

    The Army requested $28,087,000 for the Hydra 70 rocket and 
subsequently identified an additional $20,000,000 shortfall in 
funding. The Committee recommends the budgeted amount. The 
Hydra 70 contract is currently under protest; therefore, none 
of the fiscal year 1995 funds have been obligated and 
production has been delayed. Upon resolution of the protest the 
Army is directed to provide to the Committee the revised 
production schedule and funding profile for the Hydra 70.

                       Special Purpose Ammunition

    The Army requested no funds for 7.62mm XM993, 5.6mm XM995, 
or .50 caliber MK211 ammunition rounds. The Committee directs 
the Army to provide no later than September 15, 1995 a report 
stating if there is a validated requirement for each round. If 
a validated requirement exists, inventory requirements, funds 
budgeted through 2000, and production schedules are also to be 
provided with the report.

                Conventional Ammunition Demilitarization

    The Army requested $96,280,000 for conventional ammunition 
demilitarization. The Committee recommends $106,280,000, an 
increase of $10,000,000 to alleviate ammunition 
demilitarization backlogs.
    The Committee is concerned about the Army's continuing 
practice of demilitarizing ammunition by open-air burning and 
detonation. The Committee believes other demilitarization 
methods may prove to be economically and environmentally sound 
alternatives, including technology which recycles and reuses 
waste products from the demilitarization of ammunition. The 
Army is directed to submit by March 1, 1996 an analysis of this 
proposal. The analysis should include: feasibility, benefits, 
costs and savings of the recycle and reuse technologies 
compared to open burning and detonation. The revenue derived 
from selling the recycled and reusable products and the 
ultimate cost of clean up for open burning and detonation sites 
are also to be included in the analysis.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


                        OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $2,649,348,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   2,256,601,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,570,125,000
Change from budget request..............................    +313,524,000

    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 communications equipment, (c) other support equipment, 
such as chemical defensive equipment, tactical bridging, shop 
sets, and construction equipment, floating and rail equipment, 
generators and power units, material handling equipment, 
medical support equipment, special equipment for user testing, 
and nonsystem 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 Recommendations

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in the 
budget estimate, in accordance with House authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Committee       Change from 
          Item           Budget request  recommendations      request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family of Medium                                                        
 Tactical Vehicles.....          39,692          149,692        +110,000
Family of Heavy                                                         
 Tactical Vehicles.....             596          100,596        +100,000
Army Data Distribution                                                  
 System................          19,968           44,968         +25,000
Commanders Tactical                                                     
 Terminal..............          11,314           30,014         +18,700
FAAD GBS...............          44,678           63,878         +19,200
Integrated Family of                                                    
 Test Equipment........          26,449           46,449         +20,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           tactical vehicles

                                overview

    Last year, the Committee requested that the Army submit an 
investment strategy for tactical vehicles. The Committee 
believed that the decreasing tactical vehicle budget, 
shortfalls, and fragile industrial base all warranted the 
formulation of an investment strategy. The Army's report stated 
that a viable tactical vehicle program which satisfied both 
critical Army and industrial base requirements needed annual 
funding levels of $600,000,000 to $800,000,000. The Army's 
fiscal year 1996 budget request for tactical vehicles is less 
than $100,000,000. During testimony this year, the Committee 
learned that a tactical vehicle program was virtually non-
existent for the Army.

              high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles

    The Army requested $57,690,000 for High Mobility Multi-
purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV's). The Committee proposes 
$109,690,000, an increase of $52,000,000 only for the 
production of HMMWV's. The budget request does not maintain the 
HMMWV production line. Given the Army's current and growing 
requirement for HMMWV's, the Committee believes that 
maintaining the production capability is essential. The 
Committee believes that the manufacturer of HMMWV's has done an 
exceptional job of reducing costs and working with the Army to 
determine optimum fielding and production levels. The Committee 
directs the Army to submit, no later than September 15, 1995, 
the annual production level and funding required to satisfy 
both Army requirements and maintain the production line.

                   family of medium tactical vehicles

    The Army requested $39,692,000 for the Family of Medium 
Tactical Vehicles (FMTV's). The Committee recommends 
$149,692,000, an increase of $110,000,000 only for the 
production of FMTV's. The Committee does not believe that it is 
prudent to cancel the last year of the FMTV program. Although 
the FMTV program was initially riddled with schedule delays and 
testing failures, the Committee believes that the majority of 
the testing problems have been corrected. The Army's current 
fleet is over twenty years old and terminating the program will 
only delay the delivery of new vehicles. The Committee believes 
that the recommended funding minimally sustains the production 
line for FMTV's. Based on the availability of previously 
appropriated funds and the uncertainty of the funding required 
to complete the contract, the Committee does not believe it 
makes sense to provide all of the funding for the contract at 
this time. The Committee believes that the medium tactical 
fleet is one of the most critical Army's modernization 
shortfalls and directs the Army and the manufacturer to 
determine the funding required to complete the first limited 
production contract. The Committee directs the Army to submit 
no later than September 15, 1995, a report that will provide 
the following information: the obligation status of previously 
appropriated funds, the schedule for obligating available funds 
and the schedule for modifications to already manufactured 
trucks for Army acceptance. The Army is also directed to 
provide a production/funding schedule to complete the first 
limited production contract based on full funding and the 
recommended level of funding by September 15, 1995. The 
Committee directs the Army to adequately fund the FMTV program 
in the fiscal year 1997 and subsequent budget requests.

                   family of heavy tactical vehicles

    The Army requested $596,000 for the heavy tactical vehicle 
program. The Committee recommends $100,569,000, an increase of 
$100,000,000. Although the Army's current requirement for heavy 
vehicles is not as critical as for light and medium, future 
requirements dictate that the production capability must be 
maintained. The Committee believes that the manufacturer for 
heavy vehicles has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that 
the military is provided with an affordable, quality vehicle, 
by redesigning the production line to ensure that costs are 
stable, even when production is not. The Committee believes 
that the heavy tactical vehicle capability must be maintained 
and finds it unacceptable to terminate production in fiscal 
year 1996. The Committee directs the Army to submit adequate 
funding in the fiscal year 1997 program to sustain production 
and meet future requirements.

                    service life extension programs

    The Committee believes that a service life extension may be 
a cost effective method for replacing old trucks in the fleet. 
Because of fiscal constraints, the Committee believes it would 
be impossible to field new trucks at a rate which would satisfy 
military requirements for tactical vehicles. A service life 
extension program would enable the services to replace old 
trucks with modified trucks at a reduced cost. Because all of 
the services have inventories of old tactical vehicles, the 
Committee believes that even more cost savings and efficiencies 
can be achieved through a joint program. The Committee directs 
the Army, with the approval of the other services, to submit a 
joint service life extension plan for tactical vehicles with 
the fiscal year 1997 budget. The plan is to include the 
feasibility and benefits of a service life extension program; 
estimated price per tactical vehicle; and production and 
funding requirements.

                     Communications and Electronics

                   navstar global positioning system

    The Army requested $32,502,000 for the Navstar Global 
Positioning System (GPS). The Committee recommends $50,002,000, 
an increase of $17,500,000. The additional funds are to 
complete the procurement and integration of Navstar GPS on 
fielded Army aircraft.

                                sincgars

    The SINCGARS program has proven to be one of the more 
successful DOD acquisition programs. The Army's dual source 
strategy has led to lower unit costs, higher quality and faster 
fielding. The Committee commends the Army for its efforts in 
assuring that soldiers are provided with the most modern radio. 
Given the benefits of the program, the Committee encourages the 
Army to accelerate the SINCGARS program.

                              joint stars

    The Army requested $82,984,000 for the Joint Stars (JSTARS) 
program. The Committee recommends $99,484,000, an increase of 
$16,500,000 only for the procurement of two JSTARS ground 
station modules. The Committee directs the Army to transfer 
these two JSTARS ground station modules to the Marine Corps. 
Further details are provided in the beginning of the 
procurement section.

             advanced field artillery tactical data system

    The Army requested $30,897,000 for the Advanced Field 
Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS). The Committee 
recommends $29,397,000, a decrease of $1,500,000. Subsequent to 
the preparation of the budget, the Army changed its plan for 
the type of Army units to be equipped in fiscal year 1996. This 
resulted in a change of the mix of some of the hardware 
procured in the AFATDS program and a subsequent lower cost of 
those items.

                                faad c2

    The Army requested $32,942,000 for the FAAD C2 program. The 
Committee recommends $40,342,000, an increase of $7,400,000 
only for Patriot TADIL J/LINK 16 modifications as discussed in 
the beginning of the procurement section.

                  automated data processing equipment

    The Army requested $132,751,000 for automated data 
processing equipment. The Committee recommends $130,351,000, a 
decrease of $2,400,000. This includes a decrease of $12,000,000 
as recommended by the House National Security Committee in its 
fiscal year 1996 report and an increase of $9,600,000 only for 
distance learning as explained in the Information Technology 
section of this report.

                  reserve component automation system

    The Army requested $83,174,000 for the Reserve Component 
Automation System. The Committee recommends $113,174,000, an 
increase of $30,000,000 as explained in the Information 
Technology section of this report.

                          information systems

    The Army requested $64,142,000 for Information Systems. The 
Committee recommends $40,142,000, a decrease of $24,000,000. 
The budget request for this program, which installs new 
switching systems at Army bases, is almost triple the program 
level of the current year. The Committee also notes that some 
of the installations scheduled to receive upgrades are ranked 
very low on the Army's sequence list to receive 
telecommunications upgrades.

                           Local Area Network

    The Army requested $61,547,000 for the Local Area Network 
Program. The Committee recommends $41,547,000, a decrease of 
$20,000,000. The Committee notes that the request for this 
program, which improves data transfer capability, is almost 
triple the fiscal year 1995 level. Additionally, funds are 
requested to provide a LAN upgrade at the Schofield Barracks, 
however funds were provided for this project in fiscal year 
1995. Despite the reduction, the LAN program will proceed at a 
very aggressive pace in fiscal year 1996.

                  general defense intelligence program

    Details of the Committee's recommendation appear in the 
classified annex to this report.

                  integrated family of test equipment

    An electro-optical capability should enhance the 
performance of the Integrated Family of Test Equipment (IFTE). 
The Army recently completed development and testing on the 
Electro Optics Augmentation (EOA) system. The Committee 
understands that the Army is not considering the EOA as a 
candidate for IFTE. By January 15, 1996, the Army is directed 
to provide to the Committee justification for eliminating EOA 
for integration into IFTE. The justification is to include 
comparisons of EOA to other systems in price, capability, and 
logistics support requirements.

                        Other Support Equipment

                         combat support medical

    The Army requested $14,310,000 for the Combat Support 
Medical program. The Committee recommends $8,810,000, a 
decrease of $5,500,000. The reduction is applied to the Field 
Medical Oxygen Generating and Distribution system (FMOGDS). 
There has been slippage in this program because of technical 
problems and funds provided in the past remain available. The 
Committee restates its direction of last year that the funds 
available for FMOGDS may not be expended until the Army 
certifies to the congressional defense committees that FMOGDS 
has successfully passed production testing and has received 
Milestone III approval. If the FMOGDS fails to receive 
Milestone III approval due to test failure, the committee 
recommends that the available funds be used to competitively 
procure the Liquid Oxygen Production, Storage and Distribution 
system.

                items less than $2,000,000 (float/rail)

    The Army requested $3,602,000 for ``Items Less than 
$2,000,000 (FLOAT/RAIL).'' The Committee recommends $2,602,000, 
a decrease of $1,000,000. The budget request included funds to 
procure 50 ton railway flatirons. Since the procurement will be 
of used rather than new railway cars, a savings of $1,000,000 
is available.

                  generators and associated equipment

    The Army requested $13,761,000 for Generators and 
Associated Equipment. The Committee recommends $8,761,000, a 
decrease of $5,000,000. The Committee is supportive of this 
program and recognizes its importance. Unfortunately, the 
program is undergoing considerable turbulence including 
cancellation of the 3 kW generator contract, changing emission 
standards bid protests and stop work orders.

                  Simnet/close combat tactical trainer

    The Army requested $30,655,000 for the Close Combat 
Tactical trainer. The Committee recommends denial of the funds. 
The Committee notes that research and development funds of 
$60,000,000 are requested for this program for fiscal year 
1996. An additional $33,000,000 is planned for research and 
development beyond fiscal year 1996. Furthermore, Initial 
Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) of 49 developmental 
units procured with R&D funds is not scheduled for completion 
until April, 1997.

                  Modification of in service equipment

    The Army requested $21,911,000 for Modification of In 
Service Equipment. The Committee recommends $14,411,000, a 
decrease of $7,500,000. Included in the request is $7,500,000 
for hardware and installation costs for upgrading three of the 
Army's seven CONUS based 100 foot tugs. This work is presently 
planned to be done overseas. In order to save transportation 
costs of having the tugs go overseas and return, the Committee 
recommends that the funds be deferred and the Army develop 
specifications for the event to be conducted in U.S. shipyards.

                        Fire fighting equipment

    The Army currently has twelve remaining fossil fueled fire 
fighting training facilities which are scheduled to close in 
the near future. Computer controlled, natural gas/propane fire 
fighting training systems are in operation in the other 
Services. The Committee directs the Army to develop a plan 
which identifies the appropriate locations for regional fire 
fighting training facilities using the natural gas, computer 
controlled system. The plan should include a funding profile 
and a schedule to replace the existing sites over a four year 
period.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


                       AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $4,627,645,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   3,886,488,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,310,703,000
Change from budget request..............................    +424,215,000

    This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of 
aircraft and related supporting 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 spares 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 authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
                          Budget request  recommendation      request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV-8B (V/STOL) Harrier..         148,163         308,163        +160,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Combat Aircraft

                             f-18C/D Hornet

    The Navy requested $609,904,000 for procurement of 12 F-
18C/D aircraft. The Committee recommends $583,204,000, a 
reduction of $26,700,000 for procurement of ALR-67(V)3 radar 
warning receivers. The General Accounting Office indicates that 
the Navy plans to award the low rate production contract in 
March, 1996 even though operational evaluation of production 
representative units of the ALR-67(V)3 will not be completed 
until at least August, 1996. GAO warns that the original 
version of the ALR-67, which was already in production when 
operational testing began, failed to meet requirements. This 
resulted in the need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars 
to procure the ALR-67(V)2, but several hundred ALR-67(V)2 units 
were then placed in storage until they could be modified after 
operational tests showed that the ALR-67(V)2 did not meet 
requirements. In light of the history of this program, in the 
context of the Defense Department's history of troubled 
electronic warfare acquisitions (such as the B-1B defensive 
avionics system, the Airborne Self-Protection Jammer, ALQ-135 
pods, ALQ-181 pods, the ALR-69I radar warning receiver, and the 
EA-6B Advanced Capability Upgrades) the Committee urges 
caution. The Committee recommends that fiscal year 1996 funds 
for ALR-67(V)3 production be denied.

                                 ah-1W

    The Navy requested $10,385,000 to close down the AH-1W 
helicopter line. The Committee recommends $75,000,000, an 
increase of $64,615,000 for the procurement of 6 aircraft which 
will complete the Marine Corps Reserve requirement to replace 
the Vietnam era AH-1J helicopters.

                        Modification of Aircraft

                              f-14 engines

    In 1992 and again in 1993, the Congress provided funds to 
the Navy to install F-110 engines on early model F-14A aircraft 
to replace the original TF-30 engines introduced to the fleet 
with 
F-14A deliveries in the mid-1970s. This was done to improve the 
F-14A fleet's safety and reliability, and to afford full use of 
the 
F-14 envelope in air-to-air engagements. At the time TF-30 
engine compressor stall susceptibility was the number one 
operational and safety concern within the F-14 community. This 
initiative was very successful, resulting in 47 reengined F-14B 
aircraft for the fleet that would have not been fielded had 
Congress not acted.
    This year the Committee examined the F-14 reengining issue 
in detail. The Navy testified that over the past ten years, 
there have been a total of 52 F-14A Class A mishaps, of which 
12 (23 percent) were related to TF-30 malfunction. Over the 
past 21 years, there have been 34 Class A TF-30 engine-related 
F-14A mishaps which have claimed the lives of five Naval 
aviators. Mishap causes were undetermined in other F-14A 
mishaps which resulted in ten fatalities. This year, the Navy 
lost its first female pilot in an F-14 crash, which the Navy 
indicates resulted from a number of factors but principally 
left-engine failure due to engine stall. The Navy further 
testified that it will keep F-14A aircraft in the active 
inventory for nine more years and for an additional six years 
in the reserves. In the year 2004, the Navy will, under current 
plans, still have 24 
TF-30 equipped F-14A aircraft to support one 14-aircraft 
squadron, which would be retained until at least the year 2010.
    The Committee is concerned that the Navy has no plan to 
address reengining the remaining F-14A aircraft in the fleet 
that will be retained well past the turn of the century. The 
Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan to 
the congressional defense committees by January 1, 1996 on 
reengining at least 24 F-14As beginning in fiscal year 1997. 
The plan should address cost, benefits, schedule, and funding 
required to accomplish this objective.

                               h-1 series

    The Navy requested $54,530,000 to modify H-1 series 
helicopters. The Committee recommends $66,530,000, an increase 
of $12,000,000 only for installation of 40 navigational thermal 
imaging system mission kits on Marine Corps' UH-1N helicopters. 
The Navy indicated to the Committee that there is a requirement 
for this equipment which has high military value, especially 
since the UH-1N helicopter will assume supporting arms 
coordination and forward air control missions once OV-10s are 
deactivated. The increase will result in 93 of the 105 aircraft 
inventory being equipped with this equipment which is essential 
to employment of the 
UH-1H helicopter during both day and night, during periods of 
reduced visibility or adverse weather, without degradation of 
air crew or aircraft mission performance.

                               p-3 series

    The Navy requested $178,557,000 to modify P-3 aircraft. The 
Committee recommends $217,857,000, an increase of $39,300,000. 
This increase includes $31,800,000 to modify an additional 5 
aircraft with the Antisurface Warfare (ASUW) Improvement 
Program upgrades, and an additional $4,000,000 only for a test 
of the AN/AAQ-22 thermal imager on the aircraft and $3,500,000 
only for the integration of Storyteller on REEF POINT aircraft 
as discussed in the beginning of the procurement section. The 
Committee is disturbed with the Navy's acquisition profile for 
P-3 AIP modification kits, which is unnecessarily stretched 
out. Over the life of the current program, an increase of 27 
percent to the program funding (about $172 million over 6 
years) would more than double the amount of aircraft delivered 
to the fleet with this modern capability. The Committee's 
recommendation to increase the AIP funding is intended to move 
the program into an affordable production rate of 12 
modifications per year.

                        trainer aircraft series

    The Navy requested $727,000 for trainer aircraft 
modifications. The Committee recommends $45,727,000, an 
increase of $45,000,000 for procurement of T-39N aircraft and 
ground based training systems. The Navy has been funding with 
Operation and Maintenance funds a purchase of service contract 
for aircraft and logistical support for the Undergraduate Naval 
Flight Officer (UNFO) program. Significant savings in operation 
and maintenance and administrative costs would be realized by 
eliminating the continued requirement to pay for non-recurring 
development costs resulting from a follow-on services 
procurement. The Committee therefore directs the Department of 
the Navy to procure in fiscal year 1996 17 UNFO T-39N aircraft 
and eight ground based training systems (four air-to-air and 
four air-to-ground) and has included $45,000,000 for that 
purpose. The Committee also directs the Navy to transition from 
a single purchase of services contract for aircraft and 
logistical support to an aircraft procurement 
(T-39N) and a competitive purchase of services contract for 
logistical support.

               Aviation Support Equipment and Facilities

                        common ground equipment

    The Navy requested $367,017,000 for common ground 
equipment. The Committee recommends $397,017,000, an increase 
of $30,000,000 only for procurement of 50 AN/APR-39A(V)2 radar 
signal detection sets. The Navy indicated to the Committee that 
there is a requirement for these units which are of high 
military value.

                        Aviation Multiyear Fund

    The Committee recommends $100,000,000 and legislative 
authority in the bill which may be used by the Secretary of the 
Navy to enter into multi-year procurements for AV-8B, T-45, 
and/or E-2C aircraft as discussed in the Procurement Overview 
section of this report.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:



                       WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $2,159,080,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   1,787,121,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,736,211,000
Change from budget request..............................     -50,910,000

    This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of 
strategic and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes, 
guns, associated support equipment, and modification of in-
service missiles, torpedoes, and guns.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
                          Budget request  recommendation      request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harpoon.................          46,368          86,368         +40,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Strategic Missiles

                                tomahawk

    The Navy requested $161,727,000 for procurement of Tomahawk 
missiles. The Committee recommends $201,727,000, an increase of 
$40,000,000 for phased cut-in to the production line of 
reliability improvements for Tomahawk Block III missiles. By 
integrating certain Block IV reliability improvement components 
into the current production line earlier than the Navy's fiscal 
year 1996 budget plan allows, the Block III missiles that are 
produced in fiscal year 1997 and beyond will have greater 
reliability, enhanced collateral damage avoidance, and over 
$100,000,000 of life cycle cost savings. The Navy indicated to 
the Committee that these reliability changes would result in 
increased operational lethality, flexibility, and 
responsiveness.

                           Tactical Missiles

                                 amraam

    The Navy requested $81,691,000 for production of AMRAAM 
missiles. The Committee recommends $77,491,000, a reduction of 
$4,200,000 due to contract savings in fiscal year 1995 as 
reported by the General Accounting Office.

                                penguin

    The Navy requested no funds to procure Penguin missiles. 
The Committee is concerned that the Navy has failed to complete 
a commitment to procure 193 Penguin missiles in spite of an 
identified, on-going requirement. This could have an impact on 
readiness of Navy combat forces as well as future foreign 
military sales of U.S. weapon systems. The Committee directs 
the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the 
Congressional defense committees by February 1, 1996 on the 
status of the Penguin program, to include the success rate of 
the missile under the mandated rules of the insensitive 
munitions specification, the requirement to procure additional 
Penguin missiles, the unit cost of the missile, and the overall 
funding required to economically procure additional missiles to 
meet Navy requirements and to augment the Navy's current 
capability.

                        Modification of Missiles

                                tomahawk

    The Navy requested $684,000 for modification of Tomahawk 
missiles. The Committee recommends $60,684,000, an increase of 
$60,000,000. Within this increase, the Navy can remanufacture 
120 Block IIC missiles to the Block IIIC configuration and 155 
Block IID missiles into the Block IIID configuration. 
Concerning the Block IIC missiles, this action provides a 
modern configuration of the missile at about half the cost of 
manufacturing a new missile, replaces the unitary warhead with 
a lighter insensitive munition warhead which increases missile 
range 30 percent, and saves $9,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 
Operation and Maintenance, Navy and an additional $18,000,000 
in O&M costs over the life of the 120 missiles due to changes 
in recertification of the missiles. Concerning the Block IID 
missiles, this action provides a modern configuration of the 
missile at about one-third the cost of manufacturing a new 
missile. Both actions increase the operational capability and 
mission flexibility of these inventory missiles by providing 
on-board Global Positioning System guidance, thereby reducing 
mission response time from days to hours.

                    Torpedoes and Related Equipment

                vertical launched anti-submarine rocket

    The Navy requested no funds for the vertical launched 
ASROC. The Committee recommends $14,000,000 to procure up to 
twenty missiles. This quantity, coupled with those to be 
manufactured in fiscal year 1996 for foreign military sales, 
should sustain the production line at an economical rate. The 
Navy indicated to the Committee that it has a requirement for 
these missiles that has not been met due to fiscal constraints 
and that this program has high military value.

                       Procurement of Ammunition

    In fiscal year 1995, Congress directed that ammunition 
funds be budgeted in a new appropriation, ``Procurement of 
Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps''. The Navy did not comply 
with Congressional direction; therefore, the Committee 
recommends the transfer of $200,710,000 from Weapons 
Procurement to the Procurement of Ammunition appropriation.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


            PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $417,779,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................................
Committee recommendation................................     483,779,000
Change from budget request..............................    +483,779,000

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

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
          Item            Budget request    recommended       request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Navy                                                          
                                                                        
5 inch gun..............          21,501          51,701         +30,200
                                                                        
      Marine Corps                                                      
                                                                        
7.62 MM.................           2,082          12,082         +10,000
.50 caliber.............           8,588          66,688         +58,100
.81 MM (XM816)..........               0           6,700          +6,700
155 MM Red Bag..........               0          32,000         +32,000
Fuze (XM762)............               0          10,000         +10,000
Grenades................             474           1,174            +700
Items less than $2                                                      
 million................           8,711          11,211          +2,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           munitions transfer

    In fiscal year 1996, Congress directed that ammunition 
funds be budgeted in a new appropriation, ``Procurement of 
Ammunition Navy and Marine Corps.'' The Navy and Marine Corps 
did not comply with Congressional direction; therefore, the 
Committee recommends the transfer of $200,710,000 from Weapons 
Procurement Navy and $110,869,000 from Procurement, Marine 
Corps to the Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.

                    Procurement of Ammunition, Navy

                             practice bombs

    The Navy requested $11,195,000 for practice bombs. The 
Committee recommends $26,195,000, an increase of $15,000,000 
only for the procurement of the laser guided training round.

                     air expendable countermeasures

    The Navy budgeted $22,828,000 for Air Expendable 
Countermeasures. The Committee recommends $24,828,000, an 
increase of $2,000,000 only for the procurement of LAU-138/A 
(Bol Chaff).

                       other ship gun ammunition

    The Navy requested $5,148,000 for other ship gun 
ammunition. The Committee recommends $10,148,000, an increase 
of $5,000,000, only for the procurement of M72 Light Anti-armor 
Weapons for Special Forces requirements.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


                   SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $5,412,464,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   5,051,935,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,577,958,000
Change from budget request..............................    +526,023,000

    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 
communications systems.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
                          Budget request  recommendation      request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSN-21..................       1,507,477               0      -1,507,477
Enhanced SSN Capability.               0       1,000,000      +1,000,000
LPD-17..................               0         974,000        +974,000
Fast Patrol Craft.......               0           9,500          +9,500
T-AGS-64................               0          70,000         +70,000
Outfitting..............         144,791         134,791         -10,000
Post Delivery...........         174,991         164,991         -10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    shipbuilding funding allocations

    This year the Committee closely examined the issue of 
earmarking funds in the bill for specific ship programs in the 
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy appropriation. There 
generally have been no bill language earmarks in any other Navy 
acquisition appropriation or in any other service acquisition 
appropriation except on rare occasion due to a specific and 
limited issue. The implication of this policy is that the Army 
and Air Force can be trusted to manage large acquisition 
programs, but the Navy cannot. It appears that the issues which 
prompted the Congress originally to earmark shipbuilding funds 
in the bill many years ago are gone. The Committee believes 
this policy has outlived its usefulness.
    Some assert that earmarking funds for specific ships in 
bill language imposes management discipline on the Navy. The 
opposite is true: a system has been created which imposes 
burdens on both the legislative and executive branches with no 
benefit to either. Each year, the Congress has earmarked funds 
in Title IV of the bill for specific shipbuilding programs, yet 
in a general provision at the end of the bill there are 
annually multiple pages of bill language which modify 
legislative ship funding limitations from previous 
Appropriation Acts. The bill language earmarks are not cost 
ceilings in any sense because they are modified annually, 
without formal presentation in a budget request or a 
reprogramming request. Sometimes a funding earmark for a 
specific ship in an earlier Appropriation Act is modified 
multiple times in subsequent Appropriation Acts in the general 
provisions. The bottom line is that the Navy cannot move even a 
penny between programs within the Shipbuilding and Conversion, 
Navy appropriation without legislation and it can make such 
changes only once a year. Besides the fact that the Navy 
shipbuilding community is not afforded the same management 
flexibility that is afforded to all other Defense acquisition 
programs to move minor amounts of funds between programs 
without Congressional approval (so-called ``below-threshold'' 
reprogramming) or to move major amounts of funds through a 
formal reprogramming request, the Navy has experienced 
difficulty in implementing the account-closing legislation 
(which eliminated the ``M'' accounts) in instances where valid 
payments must be made for accounts that have been closed for 
older programs which are no longer in production.
    The Navy has also developed a procedure where it withholds 
funding sources from the annual DoD-wide omnibus reprogramming 
request to pay for ship cost adjustments for which it requests 
adjustments only from the Appropriations Committees. This 
procedure distorts the omnibus reprogramming process which is 
supposed to reflect the Secretary of Defense's highest 
priorities, which may or may not include all the Navy's 
proposed ship cost adjustments and which may or may not require 
financing from just Navy programs. The Committee feels that 
both the Secretary of Defense and the Congress would be better 
served if the Navy's ship cost adjustment increases and the 
sources of funds that it would use to finance them are part of 
the Secretary of Defense's omnibus reprogramming request.
    In order to eliminate unnecessary paperwork and to give the 
Navy increased management flexibility, the Committee has 
included no legislative earmarks of funds in the Shipbuilding 
and Conversion, Navy appropriation in this bill. The Committee 
has also modified Section 8005 of the bill, which provides 
general transfer authority to the Department of Defense, to 
allow use of general transfer authority to move funds only for 
valid ship cost adjustments using the prior approval 
reprogramming process for either funds appropriated in the bill 
or a previous Appropriations Act. The Committee directs that 
the reprogramming limitations which apply to procurement 
appropriations generally be applied to programs in the 
Shipbuilding and Construction, Navy appropriation as well.
    The Committee believes this action will provide the Navy 
with more flexibility to rapidly respond to financial 
situations and the opportunity to eliminate unnecessary 
administrative workload and paperwork. If the Navy abuses this 
authority, the Committee expresses its intention to revert back 
to legislative earmarks for Navy shipbuilding programs in 
future Appropriation Acts.

                          new attack submarine

    Last year the Committee in its report and again in 
conference expressed grave concern about the cost of the New 
Attack Submarine. The conferees noted that the first ship will 
cost $3.4 billion to procure, nearly $1 billion more than the 
price of the Seawolf, a program the Navy truncated in part 
because it was too expensive. The conferees further stated that 
they are aware of no cost saving techniques or innovative 
manufacturing processes that can be expected to reduce follow-
on submarine costs from $3.4 billion to $1.54 billion per ship. 
The conferees also indicated that the costs of the nuclear 
reactor represent 35% of the production costs of the ship, and 
believe the Navy should seriously consider designing a more 
cost effective reactor and making other non-mission changes to 
lower the overall cost of the submarine. In April, 1995 the 
Navy submitted a ``business as usual'' report to the Committee 
which did not address these goals. The Committee is disturbed 
that the Navy apparently ignored both Appropriations Committees 
and the concerns expressed in the conference report. The 
Committee directs the Navy to submit a responsive report to the 
Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate prior to the 
conference on this fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act that addresses in a comprehensive manner the 
concerns expressed in the fiscal year 1995 Appropriations 
conference report.

                                 aegis

    The Committee is concerned that the Navy's current 
acquisition strategy for Aegis ships is not focused on long 
term savings. The Navy plans to buy 23 more Aegis ships after 
fiscal year 1996. The Navy may be able to both introduce more 
stability into the Aegis shipbuilding program and obtain 
significant cost savings by formally examining more longer term 
acquisition strategies, such as multiyear procurement of ships 
and/or government furnished equipment, establishing contract 
options covering a number of years, or other economic order 
quantity procurements for major ship components. The Committee 
directs the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology to report the congressional defense committees by 
February 1, 1996 on alternatives to annual procurement of Aegis 
ships, the costs and benefits of each alternative, and the 
Defense Department's preferred strategy.

             alternatives to aluminum in ship construction

    Both the British Navy during the conflict in the Falklands 
and the U.S. Navy when the U.S.S. Stark was attacked 
experienced fatalities from ship fires after missile attacks. 
The aluminum in the superstructures of the ships that were 
attacked was ignited. While the use of aluminum is now the 
traditional method to reduce weight on combat ships, the 
Committee understands that new steel alloys have been developed 
that may offer similar weight savings and provide better 
protection from fire hazards aboard ships. The Committee 
directs the Navy to provide a report to the Committee by March 
1, 1996 on the feasibility of making design changes to the 
superstructure of the LHD-6 amphibious ship and to the designs 
of all future Navy combat ships now under design to incorporate 
the increased use of new steel alloys that can better protect 
personnel and sensitive areas of each ship. The report shall 
address the amount of aluminum and steel now planned for use in 
each ship, the degree of risk of aluminum fire during combat 
attacks, the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of 
substituting modern steel alloys in lieu of aluminum in vital 
areas of each ship, and recommendations for any changes to the 
current designs of each ship based on the results of this 
review.

                            Amphibious Ships

                                 lpd-17

    The Navy requested no funds for construction of the LPD-17, 
the first in a new class of amphibious ships to support Marine 
Corps combat operations. The Committee recommends $974,000,000 
as recommended by the House National Security Committee. The 
Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy 
testified before the Committee this year that the LPD-17 was 
one of the Navy's top unfunded priorities. The LPD-17 class, 
consisting of 12 ships, will when fielded replace a total of 41 
older ships (LSTs, LKAs, LSDs, LPDs) and reduce manning 
requirements from 13,000 personnel to 5,000 personnel. The Navy 
informed the Committee that funding the LPD-17 ship in fiscal 
year 1996 will save the government $828,000,000. This consists 
of $650,000,000 in reduced escalation costs, and operation and 
maintenance savings of $30,000,000 to retire LPD-4 ships two 
years earlier than the current plan and savings of $140,000,000 
to retire reserve LKA-LSTs. No other ship offers as much future 
operation and maintenance savings than does the LPD-17 in terms 
of accelerated funding in fiscal year 1996. The Committee notes 
that this ship will be subject to competitive bidding among a 
number of shipyards.
    The Committee reiterates its direction contained in the 
fiscal year 1995 conference report concerning radio 
communications systems for LPD-17 class ships. The Committee 
urges the Navy to locate LPD-17 ship radio communication 
engineering, production, integration, testing and training at 
the Navy facility currently used to perform these functions for 
DDG-51 class ships.

                     Mine Warfare and Patrol Ships

                       minehunting combat system

    The Committee views the hunting and neutralization of mines 
as one of the Navy's most critical operational shortcomings, 
and notes that the Navy has been considering ways to improve 
the situation. The combat weapon system currently on 
minehunting ships consists of a minehunting sonar (AN/SQQ-32), 
a mine neutralization system (AN/SLQ-48), and a navigation 
system (AN/SYQ-13). Each of these systems uses different 
architecture, hardware, display units and maintenance schemes, 
leading to a number of operational shortcomings and 
unnecessarily high maintenance costs. Concurrent improvements 
in all three would allow pursuit of an integrated approach to 
architecture and hardware selection. The Committee encourages 
the Navy to structure a competitive program for integrated 
development of a minehunting integrated combat weapon system 
which uses commercial off-the-shelf equipment and streamlined 
acquisition procedures.

              Auxiliaries, Craft, and Prior Year Programs

                             service craft

    The Committee is very concerned with the age and safety of 
the Navy's single-hulled fuel barge (YON) service craft fleet. 
The Navy has stated that it currently operates more than 40 
YON's in its fleet to meet petroleum requirements, yet only two 
of these craft will have double hulls. The Committee believes 
there is an urgent need for the Navy to plan and budget for a 
replacement program of its old, single-hulled YON fleet now if 
it is to be in compliance with the national environmental and 
safety laws by the year 2015. The Committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense 
committees by February 1, 1996 on Navy plans to ensure that its 
active YON fleet will be equipped with double hulls by 2015.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:



                        OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

    This appropriation finances the procurement of major 
equipment and weapons other than ships, aircraft, missiles, and 
torpedoes. Such equipment range from the latest electronic 
sensors for updating our naval forces to trucks, training 
equipment, and spare parts.

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $3,329,171,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   2,396,080,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,480,670,000
Change from budget request..............................     +84,590,000

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in the 
budget estimate, in accordance with House authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
          Item            Budget request    recommended       request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elec Suspended Gyro                                                     
 Navigator..............           4,108           \1\ 0          -4,108
Other Navigation                                                        
 Equipment..............          17,688          27,688         +10,000
HM&E Items Under $2                                                     
 million................          43,389          33,389         -10,000
Fleet Modernization                                                     
 Program................               0           3,000          +3,000
Radar Support...........             466      \2\ 14,446     \2\ +14,000
Surface Sonar Windows                                                   
 and Dome...............               0           6,000          +6,000
Safety & Survivability                                                  
 Items..................               0          20,000         +20,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This recommendation is made without prejudice.                      
\2\ This includes an increase of $9,000,000 for the AN/BPS-16 submarine 
  radar. The Committee has made an additional adjustment in this line as
  detailed later in the report.                                         

                          equipment shortfalls

    The Committee recommends the following adjustments to fund 
a portion of the shortfalls in the Other Procurement, Navy 
account.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee                  
          Item            Budget request  recommendation      Changes   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radar Support (AN/SPA-                                                  
 25G Radar Display).....             466           5,466          +5,000
Navy Tactical Data                                                      
 System.................             301          12,301         +12,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Ship Support Equipment

                         minesweeping equipment

    The Navy requested $12,985,000 for the procurement of AN/
SLQ-53 minesweeping systems. The Committee recommends 
$6,985,000, a decrease of $6,000,000. The Committee notes that 
research and development for a subcomponent of this program is 
ongoing. Initial tests on this component are scheduled to begin 
in fiscal year 1996 and operations tests are to follow. 
Considering the current status of development and the testing 
required before a production decision is made, the Committee 
recommends the above-mentioned reduction.

                     Communications and Electronics

                    surface electro-optical systems

    The Navy requested $3,542,000 for surface electro-optical 
systems. The Committee recommends $9,542,000, an increase of 
$6,000,000 to procure MK-46 MOD 0 optical sight systems for CG-
47 class cruisers.

                             SSN Acoustics

    The Navy requested $42,269,000 for the SSN Acoustics 
program. The Committee recommends $33,269,000, a decrease of 
$9,000,000. Funds were requested to procure TB-29 Towed Array 
Systems which have undergone technical problems in research and 
development. Because of the delay in procuring this system, the 
Committee recommends the above reduction.

                  surface ship torpedo defense (sstd)

    The Navy requested $13,751,000 for the Surface Ship Torpedo 
Defense program. The Committee recommends $11,051,000, a 
decrease of $2,700,000. The request included funds for Launch 
Subsystems for Expendable Acoustic Devices (LEAD).
    The schedule for this subsystem is very ambitious and 
assumes that the continued development, development testing, 
operational test and evaluation, availability of performance 
specifications, approval for service use and procurement 
contract can all be concluded by August of 1996. Because of 
doubts that this schedule can be met, the Committee recommends 
the above mentioned reduction.

                          c-3 countermeasures

    The Navy requested $9,540,000 for the C-3 Countermeasures 
program. The Committee recommends $24,540,000, an increase of 
$15,000,000. Details of the Committee's recommendation appear 
in the classified annex to this report.

                       navy tactical data system

    The Navy requested $301,000 for navy tactical data systems. 
The Committee recommends $12,301,000, an addition of 
$12,000,000 to the budget request. These funds shall be used 
only to support the replacement of mil-spec equipment ashore 
with low cost commercial emulator systems as well as upgrade 
existing emulator equipment at shore-based sites such as the 
fleet test and training ranges, fleet air control and 
surveillance facilities and Aegis training sites. The Committee 
directs the Naval Audit Service to oversee the obligation of 
these funds to ensure that these funds are used in accordance 
with the specific purpose directed by the Committee. The 
Committee designates this project to be an item of specific 
Committee interest.

                            link 16 hardware

    In fiscal year 1995, Congress provided $41,911,000 for Link 
16 hardware. Because the Navy was able to procure JTIDS 
terminals at a reduced price, $11,400,000 of the fiscal year 
1995 funds are still available for obligation. The Committee 
directs that the unobligated fiscal year 1995 funds be used to 
procure Link 16 items for four CVBG ships. Further details are 
provided in the beginning of the procurement section.

                               id systems

    The Navy requested $10,202,000 for the Identifications 
Systems program. The Committee recommends $9,702,000, a 
decrease of $500,000 because of lower than projected costs fort 
the AN/WPN-155 MK/XII Test Sets.

                   shipboard tactical communications

    The Navy requested $6,635,000 for shipboard tactical 
communications. The Committee recommends $12,935,000, an 
increase of $6,300,000. Of the available funds, $3,000,000 is 
only for the procurement of one SHINCOM prototype system and 
$3,300,000 is for the procurement of shipboard integrated 
communication systems. The Committee directs that the 
$3,300,000 may not be obligated until the Navy has conducted a 
competition for shipboard integrated communications systems.

                        an/sps--48 radar upgrade

    The Committee directs that the funds previously 
appropriated for Pulse Doppler Mod Kits for the AN/SPS-48E 
radars be released. The Navy is also directed to submit to the 
Committee, as soon as it is completed, the ongoing study to 
quantify the advantages of the PDM Upgrade to the AN/SPS-48E 
Radar when it operates in littoral waters.

                enhanced modular signal processor (emsp)

    The budget request includes $26,100,000 for the fifth and 
final year of the multiyear procurement for EMSP units to 
support various Navy Anti-Submarine programs which include 
SURTASS, BSY-2, SQQ-89 and ALFS (LAMPS). The Committee remains 
concerned that the LAMPS program will still have a shortage of 
EMSP units even with this procurement. The Committee 
understands that the LAMPS program is authorized 188 SH-60R 
aircraft and that only 108 EMSP units will be available to 
equip these aircraft after the fiscal year 1997 procurement. 
Consequently the Committee directs that these fiscal year 1996 
funds only be spent for this procurement and that any effort to 
do otherwise must be approved by the congressional defense 
committees. In addition, the Committee believes the Navy should 
budget for the remaining 80 units in its fiscal year 1997 
budget request.

                       Aviation Support Equipment

                               sonobuoys

    The Navy requested $8,902,000 for Sonobuoys. The Committee 
recommends a total of $26,200,000, a net increase of 
$17,398,000 to the budget request. The Committee notes that a 
recent Navy report revealed that a significant portion of the 
inventory is over five years old and thus unusable. The ``mix'' 
of sonobuoys recommended by the Committee follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee  
                                          Budget request    recommended 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AN/SSQ-36...............................               0        $200,000
AN/SSQ-53...............................      $8,902,000               0
AN/SSQ-62...............................               0       4,090,000
AN/SSQ-110..............................               0      21,910,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    weapons range support equipment

    The Navy requested $40,280,000 for the Weapons Range 
Support Equipment program. The Committee recommends 
$38,080,000, a decrease of $2,200,000. The reduction is to be 
applied to the Electronic Warfare Response Monitor subprogram 
which has experienced technical problems and slipped.

                    lamps mk-iii shipboard equipment

    The Navy requested $17,914,000 for the LAMPS MK-III 
Shipboard Equipment program. The Committee recommends 
$16,714,000, a decrease of $1,200,000 to the budget request 
based on projected savings from lower than budgeted costs for 
installation.

                       Ordnance Support Equipment

         rolling airframe missile guided missile launch system

    The Navy requested $50,037,000 for the Rolling Airframe 
Missile Guided Missile Launch System (RAM-GMLS) program. The 
Committee recommends $39,337,000 for this program, a decrease 
of $10,700,000. The reduction is based on contract savings of 
$8,700,000 in this program in the current fiscal year and 
projected savings of $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.

                        ship self defense system

    The Navy requested $15,643,000 for the Ship Self Defense 
System. The Committee recommends $35,643,000, an increase of 
$20,000,000 for incorporation of a Ship Self Defense System 
(SSDS) MK-1 unit into construction of the LSD-52 amphibious 
ship. The Committee has been a strong proponent for a number of 
years of providing adequate self-defense capability for 
amphibious assault ships that deploy Marine Corps forces. While 
the budget provides production funds to allow backfit of the 
SSDS MK-1 on already deployed amphibious assault vessels, the 
Committee recommendation will accelerate the fielding of this 
vital equipment earlier than Navy plans would otherwise allow.

                     anti-ship missile decoy system

    The Navy requested $15,199,000 for the Anti-Ship Missile 
Decoy System. The Committee recommends $2,599,000, a decrease 
of $12,600,000. The Committee notes that the first production 
contract for the NUKLA decoy system is scheduled to occur 
almost half a year prior to completion of testing. The 
Committee recommends delaying the contract until fiscal year 
1997.

                        Supply Support Equipment

                     special purpose supply systems

    Details of the Committee's recommendation appear in the 
classified annex.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996.


                       PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $422,410,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     474,116,000
Committee recommendation................................     480,852,000
Change from budget request..............................      +6,736,000

    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 Recommendations

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in the 
budget estimate, in accordance with House authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
          Item            Budget request    recommended       request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Recon Vehicle.....               0           2,000          +2,000
Training devices........          17,792          51,792         +34,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       procurement of ammunition

    In fiscal year 1995, the Congress directed that ammunition 
funds be budgeted in a new appropriation, ``Procurement of 
Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps.'' The Marine Corps did not 
comply with Congressional direction. Therefore, the Committee 
recommends the transfer of $110,869,000 from Procurement, 
Marine Corps to the Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine 
Corps.

                        ground system shortfalls

    During testimony this year, the Committee discovered that 
the Marine Corps acquisition accounts were severely 
underfunded. Therefore, the Committee recommends an additional 
$103,105,000 to satisfy inventory requirements for the 
following ground support systems:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
          Item            Budget request    recommended       budget    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mod Kits (Tracked                                                       
 vehicles)..............           3,273          15,573         +12,300
HAWK Launch mod.........           3,040           4,688          +1,648
Manpack radio...........           9,735          12,735          +3,000
AFATDS..................          12,140          23,140         +11,000
Night vision goggles....           3,401           6,401          +3,000
Trailers................           4,932          10,439          +5,507
Modification kits                                                       
 (IDASC)................           6,496           7,496          +1,000
Water equipment.........              75           1,975          +1,900
Training devices (IMST).          17,792          51,792         +34,000
Precision Gunnery                                                       
 Training Systems.......               0           5,900          +5,900
M240 mods...............               0           2,200          +2,200
Asset Tracking Logistics                                                
 System.................               0          17,850         +17,850
Lightweight computer....               0           3,800          +3,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Intelligence and Communications Equipment

                     intelligence support equipment

    The Marine Corps requested $6,283,000 for intelligence 
support equipment. The Committee recommends $18,783,000, an 
increase of $12,500,000 only for Commander's Tactical Terminals 
(CTT). Further details are provided in the beginning of the 
procurement section.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


                    AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $6,352,462,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   6,183,886,000
Committee recommendation................................   7,162,603,000
Change from budget request..............................    +978,717,000

    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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Committee      Change from 
                      Item                        Budget request       HNSC         recommended       request   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F-15E...........................................               0         250,000         250,000         250,000
F-15 Post Production Support....................          13,955               0               0         -13,955
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Strategic Strike Requirements Study

    The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit an 
analysis of the military capabilities of the B-2 bomber force 
to include range, payload, stealthiness and cost as compared to 
the same characteristics of an aircraft carrier battlegroup. 
The analysis should also address the weapons to be utilized and 
provide a comparison of the ability of B-2's and carrier strike 
aircraft to attack mobile targets using submunitions like the 
sensor fuzed weapon. The Committee notes the extensive 
background of the Rand Corporation and the Center of Naval 
Analyses in the study and research of strategic issues. The 
Committee therefore directs the Secretary to utilize these two 
institutions to conduct this study. The Committee also directs 
that this analysis shall be submitted to the congressional 
defense committees no later than May 1, 1996.

                            Combat Aircraft

                                  b-2

    The Air Force requested $279,921,000 for the B-2. The 
Committee recommends $772,921,000, an increase of $493,000,000 
to the budget request. The Committee has included an additional 
$540,000,000 for non-recurring costs and long lead components 
associated with continued production of the B-2 aircraft. The 
Committee has also reduced the budget request by $47,000,000 
for B-2 curtailment costs.

                                  f-16

    The Air Force requested no funding for procurement of the 
F-16 aircraft. The Committee recommends $50,000,000, an 
increase of $50,000,000 to the budget request. The additional 
funding provided by the Committee can be used either for 
continued procurement of F-16 fighters in fiscal year 1996 or 
for advanced procurement of F-16 fighters in fiscal year 1997.

                            Trainer Aircraft

             Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS)

    The Air Force requested $54,968,000 for the acquisition of 
three JPATS aircraft. The Committee recommends $44,968,000, a 
decrease of $10,000,000 to the budget request. The Committee is 
encouraged that the Air Force has completed the JPATS down 
selection and can now proceed with the acquisition program. The 
Committee notes, however, that the Air Force budgeted 
engineering change orders (ECOs) for JPATS using a planning 
factor of 70 percent of recurring airframe costs. This amount 
would be excessive for a highly experimental aircraft program 
much less one that takes a commercial ``off-the-shelf'' 
approach as called for by the JPATS program acquisition 
strategy. In making this recommendation, the Committee has 
provided sufficient funding for potential ECOs required by the 
JPATS program.

                   Modification of Inservice Aircraft

                                  B-1B

    The Air Force requested $75,383,000 for modifications to 
the B-1B bomber fleet. The Committee recommends $82,593,000, an 
increase of $7,210,000 to the fiscal year 1996 budget request. 
The additional funds provided by the Committee are available 
only to implement reliability, maintainability, and process 
improvements to the B-1B fleet as identified in the B-1B 
Operational Readiness Assessment Final Report.

                                  B-52

    The Air Force requested $4,908,000 for B-52 modifications. 
The Committee recommends $24,908,000, an increase of 
$20,000,000 to the budget request. The purpose of the 
additional funding is discussed in the Operations and 
Maintenance section of this report.

                                  F-15

    The Air Force requested $79,488,000 for F-15 modifications. 
The Committee recommends $78,288,000, a decrease of $1,200,000 
from the budget request. The Air Force requested $1,200,000 to 
install modification kits for a landing gear wiring switch in 
fiscal year 1996. It is the Committee's understanding that the 
schedule for this modification indicates that the kits will not 
be delivered until fiscal year 1997; therefore these 
installation funds are not required in fiscal year 1996.

                                  C-5

    The Air Force requested $45,431,000 for C-5 modifications. 
The Committee recommends $51,631,000, an increase of $6,200,000 
to the budget request. The additional funding provided by the 
Committee is available only for reliability modifications 
related to the TF39 high pressure turbine, corrosion 
prevention, and outflow drain valves.

                                 C-130

    The Air Force requested $84,399,000 for C-130 
modifications. The Committee recommends $94,399,000, an 
increase of $10,000,000 to the budget request. In making this 
recommendation the Committee notes the increasingly hostile 
environments the airlift fleet is being asked to operate in on 
a regular basis. In particular, the Committee is concerned that 
the C-130 fleet is inadequately equipped with defensive 
countermeasures for the threat environment in which it often 
performs its missions. The Committee therefore recommends an 
additional $10,000,000 only to equip C-130 aircraft with threat 
defensive systems.

                          C-135 Modifications

    The Air Force requested $142,764,000 for C-135 
modifications. The Committee recommends $334,764,000, an 
increase of $192,000,000 to the budget request. The additional 
funding provided by the Committee shall be available only for 
the continued reengining of KC-135E tankers to the ``R'' 
configuration for the Air National Guard. The Committee has 
provided sufficient funding for eight reengining kits and 
directs the Air Force to proceed expeditiously with the 
program.

                                  E-4

    The Air Force requested $957,000 for E-4 modifications. The 
Committee recommends $957,000, the amount of the budget 
request. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 
to provide a report to the Committee detailing the present 
acquisition strategy for the high power transmit set 
modification program for the E-4 aircraft. This report shall be 
provided no later than January 30, 1996.

         Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program Modifications

    Details of this adjustment are discussed in the classified 
annex to this report.

               Aircraft Support Equipment and Facilities

                               Common AGE

    The Air Force requested $216,048,000 for common aerospace 
ground equipment. The Committee recommends $212,510,000, a 
decrease of $3,538,000 to the budget request. The Committee 
makes this recommendation without prejudice noting that the Air 
Force has reduced its requirements for the F-16 Improved 
Avionics Intermediate Test Shop (IAIS).

                      F-15 Post Production Support

    The Air Force requested $13,955,000 for F-15 post 
production support. The Committee recommends no funding, a 
decrease of $13,955,000 to the budget request. The Committee 
has recommended continuing production of the F-15 in accordance 
with the authorization committee.

                      F-16 Post Production Support

    The Air Force requested $194,672,000 for F-16 post 
production support. The Committee recommends $94,672,000, a 
decrease of $100,000,000 to the budget request. The Committee 
believes that the amount provided coupled with prior year 
funding for F-16 production support will be sufficient for the 
Air Force's fiscal year 1996 requirements.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


                     MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $3,560,762,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request........................\1\ 3,647,711,000
Committee recommendation................................   3,223,265,000
Change from budget request..............................    -424,446,000

\1\ Fiscal year 1996 request reduced by $321,328,000 and transferred to 
``Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force''.

    This appropriation provides for the 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 
support equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial 
facilities, machine tool modernization, and special programs 
support.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         Authorization Changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Budget     Committee   Change from           
         Item             request    recommended    request             
-------------------------------------------------------------           
HAVE NAP..............            0       39,000       39,000           
AGM-130...............       69,303      109,303       40,000           
CALCM.................            0       27,200       27,200           
Minuteman III                                                           
 Modifications........       19,344       29,344       10,000           
Space Boosters........      464,953      459,953       -5,000           
Defense Satellite                                                       
 Communications System       25,666       23,166       -2,500           
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Tactical Missiles

           Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM)

    The Department of the Air Force requested $190,672,000 for 
the advanced medium range air-to-air missile program (AMRAAM). 
The Committee recommends $178,366,000, a decrease of 
$12,306,000 to the fiscal year 1996 budget request. According 
to the General Accounting Office, prior year funds originally 
budgeted for engineering change orders or otherwise excess to 
contractual requirements are available for use in fiscal year 
1996. The Committee therefore makes this recommendation without 
prejudice.

                             target drones

    The Department of the Air Force requested $39,150,000 for 
target drones. The Committee recommends $36,150,000, a decrease 
of $3,000,000 to the budget request due to unjustified growth 
in aircraft withdrawal costs for the QF-4 aerial target drone 
program.

                             Space Programs

                    Global Positioning System (GPS)

    The Air Force requested $38,412,000 for advance procurement 
of the Global Positioning System (GPS) Block IIF follow-on 
satellite. The Committee recommends no funding, a decrease of 
$38,412,000 to the fiscal year 1996 budget request. It is the 
Committee's understanding that the present GPS Block IIR 
program is experiencing technical problems involving the 
navigation payload, and ground support software which may 
impact upon the launch date of the first Block IIR satellite. 
The Committee therefore believes it is premature to proceed 
with concurrent development and advance procurement of the 
Block IIF satellite until outstanding technical issues 
associated with the Block IIR are resolved and the impact to 
the GPS launch schedule is fully assessed.

                     Defense Support Program (DSP)

    The Air Force requested $102,911,000 for the Defense 
Support Program (DSP). The Committee recommends $67,011,000, a 
decrease of $35,900,000 to the fiscal year 1996 budget request. 
This decrease is made without prejudice as the cancellation of 
DSP satellites 24 and 25 has made excess prior year funding 
available to fund fiscal year 1996 program requirements.

                            special programs

    Details of this recommendation are found in the classified 
annex to this report.

                           munitions transfer

    In fiscal year 1995, Congress directed that ammunition 
funds be budgeted in a new appropriation, Procurement of 
Ammunition, Air Force. The Air Force did not comply with 
Congressional direction; therefore, the Committee recommends 
the transfer of $321,328,000 from Missile Procurement to the 
Procurement of Ammunition appropriation.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


                  PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $288,401,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................................
Committee recommendation................................     321,328,000
Change from budget request..............................    +321,328,000

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

                       Committee Recommendations

                           munitions transfer

    In fiscal year 1996, Congress directed that ammunition 
funds be budgeted in a new appropriation, ``Procurement of 
Ammunition, Air Force.'' The Air Force did not comply with 
Congressional direction; therefore, the Committee recommends 
the transfer of $321,328,000 from Missile Procurement, Air 
Force to the Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


                      OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $6,959,101,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   6,804,696,000
Committee recommendation................................   6,508,425,000
Change from budget request..............................    -296,271,000

    This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapon 
systems and equipment other than aircraft and missiles. 
Included are vehicles, electronic and telecommunications 
systems for command and control of operational forces, and 
ground support equipment for weapons systems and supporting 
structure.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following change in the budget 
estimate, in accordance with action taken by the National 
Security authorization action.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
          Item            Budget request    recommended       request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Based IR Sensor                                                   
 Program................          19,895               0         -19,895
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Vehicular Equipment

                             60k a/c loader

    The Air Force requested $35,336,000 for the 60K A/C Loader. 
The Committee recommends $42,336,000, an increase of 
$7,000,000. Testimony before the Committee indicated that the 
current 40K loader used for unloading and loading the supplies 
carried in transportation aircraft are an average of twenty 
three years old even though they had a design life of ten 
years. They are reportedly breaking down an average of every 20 
hours of usage. Given the high priority of the Committee to 
upgrade the overall strategic and transportation capability of 
the DoD, the Committee has recommended an increase.

                       items less than $2,000,000

    The Air Force requested $2,352,000 for ``Items Less Than 
$2,000,000'' within the Base Maintenance Support subaccount. 
The Committee recommends $14,176,000, an increase of 
$11,824,000. The increase is for a wide variety of equipment--
snow plows, cranes, water distributors--identified by the Air 
Force as shortfalls within this line item.

              Electronics and Telecommunications Equipment

                  automatic data processing equipment

    The Air Force requested $23,958,000 for the Automatic Data 
Processing Equipment program. The Committee recommends 
$32,458,000, an increase of $8,500,000. A total of $4,500,000 
of the increase is to expand the computing capacity of the Air 
Force Equipment Management System. This system is responsible 
for inventory control, tracking and reporting for 250,000 stock 
numbered items. The addition of this capacity will greatly 
increase the Air Force's ability to accurately compute 
equipment requirements, track assets and forecast future 
equipment needs. The additional increase of $4,000,000 is for 
the core automated maintenance system as explained in the 
Information Technology section of this report.

                    base information Infrastructure

    The Air Force requested $73,138,000 for the Base 
Information Infrastructure program. The Committee recommended 
$56,538,000, a decrease of $16,600,000. Included within this 
request is $16,600,000 for the Digital Switching System (DSS). 
The Committee is supportive of this program but notes that the 
funds provided for this program in fiscal year 1994 and fiscal 
year 1995 are unexpended because of ongoing contract protests. 
The Committee recommends a deferral of the fiscal year 1996 
request pending resolution of the bid protest. This deferral 
will allow for a restructuring of the fiscal year 1994 and 1995 
programs and provide for a more orderly planned contract 
execution schedule.

                communications--electronic modifications

    The Air Force requested $20,424,000 for Communications--
Electronics Modifications. The Committee recommends $9,724,000, 
a decrease of $10,700,000. Within this program are funds for a 
subprogram entitled Atmospheric Early Warning System (AEWS). 
The Committee is supporting of the AEWS program but notes that 
there has been slippage in the program because of the delay of 
software reconfigurations and slippage in the delivery of 
equipment.

                         Base Support Equipment

                           Mobility Equipment

    The Air Force requested $17,670,000 for Mobility Equipment. 
The Committee recommends $31,770,000, an increase of 
$14,100,000. Of the increased funds $2,200,000 are to provide 
additional Reverse Osmosis Desalinators, which the Air Force 
has identified as an equipment shortfall. The additional 
$11,900,000 is for equipment for Harvest Eagle pre-positioning 
sets.

                    intelligence production activity

    The Air Force requested $67,928,000 for Intelligence 
Production Activity. The Committee recommends $69,128,000, an 
increase of $1,200,000. Details of the Committee's 
recommendation are included in the classified annex to this 
report.

                          selected activities

     Details of the Committee's recommendation appear in the 
classified annex to this report.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


                       PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $2,056,230,000
Fiscal year 1996 appropriation..........................   2,179,917,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,187,085,000
Change from budget request..............................      +7,168,000

    This appropriation provides for the procurement of capital 
equipment for the Defense Communications Agency, the Defense 
Logistics Agency, the Defense Mapping Agency, and other 
agencies of the Department of Defense. The fiscal year 1996 
program includes procurement of automatic data processing 
equipment, mechanized materials handling systems, general and 
special purpose vehicular equipment, communications equipment, 
chemical and biological defense equipment, and many other 
items.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in the 
budget estimate, in accordance with House authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
          Item            Budget request  recommendation      request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Light Strike Vehicle....  ..............           6,000          +6,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Mentor-Protege Program

    The Committee understands that $30,000,000 has been 
budgeted to continue the Mentor-Protege program. This program 
has benefited many small business firms, including those that 
provide opportunities for disabled and handicapped individuals 
to use their valuable talents and abilities in the workplace. 
The Committee strongly supports the ideals and intents of this 
program and has fully funded the budget request.

                          classified programs

    Details of the Committee's recommendation appear in the 
classified annex to this report.

               defense air reconnaissance program (DARP)

    Details of the Committee's recommendation appears in the 
classified annex to this report.

                   defense information infrastructure

    The Defense Department requested $54,234,000 for the 
Defense information infrastructure. The Committee recommends 
$58,734,000, an increase of $4,500,000 for the Defense 
Information Systems Agency continuity of operations (COOP).

              chemical-biological warfare defense program

    The Committee is concerned that chemical and biological 
monitoring and detection systems be designed to meet the 
various needs of the Services. It appears that specific needs 
can best be met through the use of CB detectors linked by a 
hybrid fiber optic/radio transmission based sensornet system. 
Procurement should be initiated in fiscal year 1996 to meet 
urgent and immediate operational requirements of the Services.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


                  NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $770,000,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................................
Committee recommendation................................     908,125,000
Change from budget request..............................     908,125,000

    This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of 
tactical aircraft and other equipment for the National Guard 
and Reserve.

                       Committee Recommendations

    The Committee has identified shortfalls in the inventories 
of the National Guard and Reserve in the amount of 
$12,504,908,000, which were not included in the fiscal year 
1996 budget. The Committee recommends a total of $908,125,000 
to meet high priority requirements.

                          program recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


                         INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

    The Defense Department requested $9,080,491,000 for 
information technology. The Committee recommends 
$9,234,491,000, an increase of $154,000,000 as explained below.

                     engineering data repositories

    The Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 for the 
Digital Storage and Retrieval Engineering System (DSREDS)/
Engineering Data Computer Assisted Retrieval System (EDCARS) as 
recommended by the House National Security Committee, for 
technology refreshment upgrades to the existing systems to 
guard against further delays in the development of Joint 
Engineering Data Management Information Control System 
(JEDMICS) which is to replace them. This action in no way 
diminishes the Committee's support for expeditious fielding of 
JEDMICS.

                             Army Programs

                  reserve component automation system

    The Army requested $155,800,000 for the Reserve Component 
Automation System. The Committee recommends $147,900,000, a net 
reduction of $7,900,000, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
                          Budget request  recommendation      request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O&M, Army Reserve.......          18,300          13,900          -4,400
O&M, Army National Guard          54,300          20,800         -33,500
Other Procurement, Army.          83,200         113,200         +30,000
                         -----------------------------------------------
      Total.............         155,800         147,900          -7,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee notes that the Army is restructuring the 
program, which has resulted in a temporary delay. Reductions 
can be made in the Operation and Maintenance appropriations to 
reflect the Army's most recent estimate in requirements. 
Additional funds are recommended in the Other Procurement 
appropriation to field equipment to more Army Guard and Reserve 
units than envisioned in the President's Budget. The Committee 
recommends that Section 8022 of the bill be retained until such 
time as the Office of the Secretary of Defense has approved the 
proposed restructure and formally requests the Congress to make 
changes to the bill language. Of the funds provided, the 
Committee recommends that at least $1,500,000 be provided for 
equipment for the Puerto Rico National Guard.
    The Committee directs that not more than half of the fiscal 
year 1996 procurement funds for the RCAS system may be 
obligated until the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve 
Affairs certifies to the Congressional defense committees that 
the Defense Department has a fully funded program that is 
executable, that meets the requirements of the Army National 
Guard and the Army Reserve, and there is a plan to eventually 
field the equipment to all operational units which have valid 
requirements for the system. The Committee also directs that 
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs conduct 
an independent technical assessment by the Defense Science 
Board, an FFRDC, or another organization which is independent 
of the Army.

                           distance learning

    The Army National Guard requested no funds for distance 
learning. The Committee recommends $12,000,000 only to continue 
the multi-state distance learning initiative conducted by the 
National Guard Bureau. The Committee recommends $3,400,000 in 
the Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard and 
$8,600,000 in the Other Procurement, Army appropriations.

                             Navy Programs

               naval standard integrated personnel system

    The Navy requested no funds for the Naval Standard 
Integrated Personnel System. The Committee recommends 
$18,000,000. The Committee continues to consider 
standardization and single source data collection of personnel 
information critical to management savings. The additional 
funding is only for the accelerated development and 
implementation, including rapid prototyping and adaptive 
oversight methodologies critical to migration and standard 
systems development, for the Naval Standard Integrated 
Personnel System (NSIPS). The Committee believes that parallel 
development of NSIPS is critical and directs the Navy, the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, 
Communications and Intelligence to continue NSIPS development 
as a joint active and reserve project and as a parallel or core 
migration system for development of an ultimate Defense 
standard personnel system or military personnel management 
system. The Navy shall be designated as the executive agent for 
the pay and personnel integrated field system.
    The Committee is aware of previous Naval audit reports and 
other studies that demonstrate savings by reducing overhead and 
other costs associated with multiple organizations performing 
information technology services. To realize further cost saving 
and efficiencies, the Committee directs the Department of Navy 
to place the collocated Naval Telecommunications and 
Communications Station under the operational control and 
command of the Naval Reserve Information Systems Office.

                           Air Force Programs

                     automated maintenance systems

    The Air Force requested $900,000 for continued development 
of automated maintenance systems. The Committee recommends 
$29,700,000, an increase of $28,800,000 as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
                          Budget request  recommendation      request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and                                                           
 Maintenance:                                                           
    Core Automated                                                      
     Maintenance System.             900           1,400            +500
    Tactical Interim                                                    
     CAMS/REMIS                                                         
     Reporting system...               0          10,000         +10,000
Other Procurement:                                                      
    Core Automated                                                      
     Maintenance system.               0           4,000          +4,000
Research, Development,                                                  
 Test and Evaluation:                                                   
    Integrated                                                          
     Maintenance Data                                                   
     System.............               0          15,200         +15,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    base level systems modernizaton

    The Air Force requested $10,400,000 for the Base Level 
Systems Modernization program in the Operation and Maintenance, 
Air Force appropriation. The Committee is concerned that this 
program has simply become a billpayer to the Air Force 
operating commands, which continue to divert funds from this 
program to meet operating expenses. This prolongs the time it 
will take to modernize computers at all Air Force bases. The 
Committee therefore recommends that $10,400,000 be transferred 
to the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation appropriation 
where the program can be managed for what it is--a major 
acquisition.

                         Defense-Wide Programs

                     joint logistics systems center

    The Joint Logistics Systems Center's business areas of 
Materiel Management and Depot Maintenance support Department of 
Defense mission assets totaling $600 billion with an annual 
cost of operations of over $50 billion. Work performed today is 
predominately being accomplished with aging legacy computer 
systems based on 1970's technology. Older mainframe computers, 
batch processing, and incomplete or incompatible interfaces 
drive up costs of operations. Multiple, single-service business 
practices rely on hard-to-maintain, proprietary software. There 
is little opportunity to wring further improvements from these 
inflexible ``stovepipe'' systems by incremental upgrades.
    To correct these inefficiencies and nonstandard business 
practices, the Joint Logistics Systems Center is implementing 
functional process improvements and a standard information 
systems infrastracture to provide dramatic cost savings. The 
Joint Logistics Systems Center has demonstrated the proven 
payoffs of modern systems approaches to logistics automation 
and has already deployed portions of the ten element suite of 
Materiel Management Systems and the nine element suite of Depot 
Maintenance systems, with dramatic savings in dollars and with 
marked improvements in inventory reduction, flow time, and 
responsiveness to warfighters. Joint Logistics Systems Center 
success in deploying Depot Maintenance and Materiel Management 
systems range from improved throughput equal to two additional 
B-1s at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center to a 52 percent 
labor reduction in E-2 propeller repair at Naval Aviation Depot 
Norfolk.
    The Committee recommends an increase of $100,000,000 which 
will have a positive impact on readiness through early 
reduction in inventory levels, decreased cycle time in 
mainframe and supply activities, and faster materiel delivery 
from vendors to warfighters. Also, the advantages of 
information technology modernization of on-line, real-time 
asset and capacity visibility, common technical platforms and 
software, locating materiel instead of buying, elimination of 
outdated legacy systems, and standard data for interoperability 
would be achieved much earlier than the current plan.
    Within the additional funding, $30,000,000 is for Depot 
Maintenance to improve the manufacturing resource planning 
capability and $70,000,000 is for Materiel Management to 
accelerate deployment of the requirements computation system, 
the stock control system and the configuration management 
information system. When fully implemented, the estimated 
steady state savings for Materiel Management and Depot 
Maintenance respectively are $900,000,000 and $345,000,000 per 
year. The additional dollars saved from earlier deployments can 
be used to support readiness enhancements.
    In summary, investing $100,000,000 will result in greater 
long-term savings, integrated systems are delivered at least 
two years earlier, overall cost to modernize Depot Maintenance 
and Materiel Management is reduced, and readiness is enhanced.

                     disa continuity of operations

    The Defense Information Systems Agency requested no funds 
for continuity of operations. The Committee recommends 
$16,500,000, of which $12,000,000 is in Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide and $4,500,000 is in Procurement, 
Defense-Wide.

                         other defense agencies

    The Committee strongly supports the Department of Defense's 
data processing and megacenter consolidation efforts as long as 
these consolidations are based on the most cost effective 
rationale, military readiness, and mission needs. While the 
Committee believes that maximizing efforts to outsource defense 
data processing capabilities to the private sector is 
meritorious, the Committee cannot, at this time, support 
provisions in the House National Security Committee's fiscal 
year 1996 bill to conduct a pilot program for the private 
operation of all information technology services currently 
being consolidated in DoD megacenters. The Committee directs 
the Secretary of Defense not to conduct any pilot or 
demonstration programs for the private sector operation of the 
information technology functions performed by the DoD 
megacenters, or shift any workload to the private sector, until 
the legacy workload or data processing functions approved for 
consolidation into megacenters in previous base closing and 
realignment recommendations is completed. The Committee notes 
that no funds were requested by the President nor contained in 
this bill to outsource megacenter workload, and to use funds 
for this purpose would therefore require a prior approval 
reprogramming request to the Congress. The Committee directs 
the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) to submit a 
detailed report to the Committee by January 1, 1996 that: (1) 
provides a detailed economic feasibility analysis of 
outsourcing such functions; (2) provides an impact statement on 
outsourcing military essential activities, services, and 
functions; and, (3) provides a detailed assessment and breakout 
of the information technology functions and services performed 
by DoD megacenters that are not military essential and 
commercial versus military essential functions, information 
security functions and military readiness, training, or 
warfighting missions or functions. The Committee firmly 
believes restrictions on further DoD megacenter consolidations 
are not warranted and directs the Department to proceed with 
further consolidations if it deems it necessary and only if 
these consolidations are based on the most cost effective 
rationale and military readiness and mission needs.

          integrated recruiting information management systems

    Last year's House and conference reports directed that 
prior to making any final decisions on the Department's efforts 
to standardize or choose a migration system for its recruiting 
functions, the Department was to submit to Congress a fair and 
full evaluation report on the Navy Reserve's Command Integrated 
Recruiting Information Management System (CIRIMS), a proven 
system that is currently deployed and is cost effective. The 
Committee still stands by the direction in last year's report 
(House Report 103-562, page 59) and directs the Department to 
submit this report prior to the conference on the fiscal year 
1996 bill.
                                TITLE IV

               RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

                  Estimates and Appropriation Summary

    The fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense research, 
development, test and evaluation budget totals $34,331,953,000. 
The accompanying bill recommends $35,879,560,000. The total 
amount requested is an increase of $1,547,607,000 above the 
fiscal year 1996 budget estimate, and is $748,961,000 above the 
total provided for fiscal year 1995. The table below summarizes 
the budget estimates and the Committee's recommendations:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget       Committee    Change from
                                   request     recommended     request  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recapitulation:                                                         
    RDTE, ARMY................     4,444,175     4,742,150      +297,975
    RDTE, Navy................     8,204,530     8,715,481      +510,951
    RDTE, Air Force...........    12,598,439    13,110,335      +511,896
    RDTE, Defense-wide........     8,802,881     9,029,666      +226,785
    Developmental test and                                              
     evaluation...............       259,341       259,341  ............
    Operational test and                                                
     evaluation...............        22,587        22,587  ............
                               -----------------------------------------
      Grand total, RDTE.......    34,331,953    35,879,560    +1,547,607
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         special interest items

    Items for which funds have specifically been provided in 
this report using the phrases ``only for'' or ``only to'' are 
Congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for 
Reprogramming (DD Form 1414) for the Research, Development, 
Test and Evaluation programs. Each of these items must be 
carried on the DD Form 1414s at the stated amount, or a revised 
amount if changed during conference action on this bill, unless 
the item is denied in conference or if otherwise specifically 
addressed in the conference report.

                          classified programs

    Adjustments to classified RDT&E programs are addressed in a 
classified annex accompanying this report.

            RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $5,478,413,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   4,444,175,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,742,150,000
Change from budget request..............................    +297,975,000

    This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation activities of the Department of the Army.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request in accordance with House authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
          Item            Budget request    recommended       request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensors and Electronic                                                  
 Survivability..........          21,918          27,918          +6,000
Logistics Advanced                                                      
 Development............          10,569          13,669          +3,100
Tractor Hike............          14,588          31,588         +17,000
Industrial Preparedness                                                 
 Manufacturing                                                          
 Technology.............          17,776               0         -17,776
Artillery Propellent                                                    
 Development............          10,946          30,546         +19,600
Engineer Mobility                                                       
 Equipment, Adv Dev.....           5,615          10,115          +4,500
Tactical Elect Supt                                                     
 Systems................           2,937           5,937          +3,000
Aviation Adv Dev........           8,430          14,430          +6,000
Javelin.................               0           2,000          +2,000
Heavy Tactical Vehicles.               0           2,745          +2,745
Armored Systems                                                         
 Modernization..........          38,465          43,825          +5,360
Engineer Mobility                                                       
 Equipment..............          21,831          35,984         +14,153
Tactical Surveillance                                                   
 System.................               0           3,100          +3,100
Automotive Test Equip                                                   
 Development............           5,437          15,437         +10,000
Tractor Bat.............         193,303         200,303          +7,000
Combat Vehicle                                                          
 Improvement Programs...         197,669         198,978          +1,309
Maneuver Control System.          38,327          51,327         +13,000
Missile Air Defense Prod                                                
 Improvement............          17,069          26,869          +9,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Exploratory Development

                combat vehicle and automotive technology

    In fiscal year 1995, $6,000,000 was appropriated for the 
U.S. Army Ground Vehicle Simulation Upgrade Program at the 
Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering 
Center. The Committee understands since the funds will be 
obligated late in fiscal year 1995, no additional funding is 
required for fiscal year 1996. The Committee urges the Army to 
provide adequate funds in the fiscal year 1997 budget request.

                         ballistics technology

    The Army requested $28,126,000 for ballistics technology. 
The Committee recommends $39,126,000, an increase of 
$11,000,000. Of the additional funds, $9,000,000 are only for 
the development of electric gun technologies, and $2,000,000 
are only to continue the Army Electrothermal-Chemical 
Technology (ETC) program with a goal of demonstrating a 40% 
performance improvement in a 60mm tank-scale fixture by fiscal 
year 1998. Furthermore, the Committee directs the Army to 
continue the ETC program with a goal of demonstrating 25% 
performance improvement in a 60mm tank-scale fixture by fiscal 
year 1996.

                   electronics and electronic devices

    The Army requested $17,525,000 for electronics and 
electronic devices development. The Committee recommends 
$19,025,000, an increase of $1,500,000 only for the testing of 
battery maintainer systems.

                  human factors engineering technology

    The Army requested $12,534,000 for human factors 
engineering technology. The Committee recommends $20,034,000, 
an increase of $7,500,000 as explained in the medical research 
(title VI) section of this report.

                 army environmental quality technology

    The Committee supports the Army budget request for 
environmental quality technology of $21,304,000. The Committee 
directs that none of these funds may be used by the Department 
of Defense for activities that duplicate the work of the 
National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence.

                           medical technology

    The Army requested $56,658,000 for medical technology. The 
Committee recommends $58,658,00, an increase of $2,000,000 as 
explained in the medical research (title VI) section of this 
report.

                          Advanced Development

                      medical advanced technology

    The Army requested $11,760,000 for medical advance 
technology. The Committee recommends $88,760,000, an increase 
of $77,000,000 as explained in the medical research (title VI) 
section of this report.

                      aviation advanced technology

    The Army requested $48,593,000 for aviation advanced 
technology. The Committee recommends $59,093,000, an increase 
of $10,500,000. Within this increase, $4,000,000 is only for 
evaluation of the Chinook helicopter to determine the 
feasibility of a service life extension program and $6,500,000 
is only to evaluate the Starstreak missile on the Apache 
helicopter. The Committee notes that unobligated fiscal year 
1995 funds are also available to complete the Starstreak 
evaluation.

               weapons and munitions advanced technology

    The Army requested $18,518,000 for weapons and munitions 
advanced technology. The Committee recommends $21,518,000, an 
increase of $3,000,000. Of the additional funds $2,000,000 is 
only for XM982 and $1,000,000 is only for Electro-Rheological 
Fluid Recoil System development.

           combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology

    The Army requested $30,616,000 for combat vehicle and 
automotive advanced technology. The Committee recommends 
$31,616,000, an increase of $1,000,000 only for the armored 
vehicle self-protection program.

                 missile and rocket advanced technology

    The Army requested $123,913,000 for missile and rocket 
advanced technology. The Committee recommends $126,413,000, an 
increase of $2,500,000 only for the development of a Low Cost 
Autonomous Attack Submunition.

                      Demonstration and Validation

                army missile defense systems integration

    The Army requested $2,985,000 for Army missile defense 
systems integration. The Committee recommends $30,785,000, an 
increase of $27,800,000. Of the available funds, $5,000,000 is 
only for THEL, $5,000,000 is only for the Nautilus Laser, and 
$17,800,000 is only for the Battle Integration Center.

               Engineering and Manufacturing Development

                                comanche

    The Comanche helicopter will be an integral part of Force 
XXI's combat capabilities. Comanche technologies will not only 
give the warfighter a clear advantage on the battlefield, but 
reduced maintenance requirements will drastically decrease 
operation and support costs. The Committee believes that the 
development and fielding of Comanche should be one of DoD's top 
priorities; however, the Comanche program is viewed by DoD as a 
``billpayer.'' Because of DoD's reduction to the Comanche 
fiscal year 1996 program, production has been slipped once 
more. The Committee is extremely frustrated at DoD's lack of 
commitment to the Comanche program and believes this program 
should be accelerated in subsequent budget requests.
    The Committee understands that Comanche test and evaluation 
activities could be carried out at the Navy's Patuxent River 
complex. The Committee directs the Army to submit an analysis 
of this proposal, along with the Army's planned testing 
schedule, location, and related costs.

                    light tactical wheeled vehicles

    The Army requested $2,187,000 for light tactical wheeled 
vehicles. The Committee recommends $4,187,000, an increase of 
$2,000,000 only for the development of a High Mobility Multi-
purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) service life extension program. 
The Army is directed to provide to the Committee a plan 
outlining the feasibility, cost benefits, funding, and 
production schedule for a HMMWV service life extension program.

                     weapons and munitions--eng dev

    The Army requested $15,928,000 for weapons and munitions 
engineering development. The Committee recommends $17,528,000, 
an increase of $1,600,000 only for the development of the XM-
931.

                        RDT&E Management Support

                  dod high energy laser test facility

    The Army requested $3,000,000 for the High Energy Laser 
Test Facility (HELSTF). The Committee recommends $24,808,000, 
an increase of $21,808,000 only for the operation of the Sea 
Lite Beam Director and the development, planning and execution 
of a laser technology demonstration program. The Committee 
directs that none of these funds may be used for any other 
purpose without prior approval from the Congress.

                    Operational Systems Development

             aircraft engine component improvement program

    The Army requested $3,012,000 for the aircraft engine 
component improvement program. The Committee recommends 
$4,112,000, an increase of $1,100,000 only for the development 
of a liquid or light-end air boost pump to improve the T700 
fuel system.

                    industrial readiness activities

    The Army requested no funds for industrial preparedness 
activities. The Committee recommends $17,776,000. These funds 
are transferred from the industrial preparedness manufacturing 
technology program as recommended by the House National 
Security Committee.
    The Committee believes that optics and optoelectronics 
technologies play an important role in the Army's modernization 
efforts. Therefore, the Committee directs the Army to maintain 
optic and optoelectronics programs that includes strong 
industry involvement.

                          program recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


            RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $8,727,368,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................   8,204,530,000
Committee recommendation................................   8,715,481,000
Change from budget request..............................    +510,951,000

    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 authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
                          Budget request  recommendation      request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface/Aerospace                                                       
 Surveillance and                                                       
 Weapons Technology                                                     
 Exploratory Development          32,658          36,658          +4,000
Aircraft Technology                                                     
 Exploratory Development          22,238          24,738          +2,500
Materials, Electronics,                                                 
 and Computer Technology                                                
 Exploratory Development          74,849          77,849          +3,000
Ship Propulsion System..          43,544          17,986         -25,558
Environmental Quality                                                   
 and Logistics Advanced                                                 
 Technology Development.          21,504          33,504         +12,000
Industrial Preparedness                                                 
 Manufacturing                                                          
 Technology.............          41,251               0         -41,251
Advanced Submarine                                                      
 Combat Systems                                                         
 Development............          21,281          28,181          +6,900
Surface and Shallow                                                     
 Water Mine                                                             
 Countermeasures........          54,527          56,177          +1,650
Advanced Submarine                                                      
 System Development.....          35,748          55,748         +20,000
Marine Corps Assault                                                    
 Vehicles...............          34,157          40,157          +6,000
Retract Maple...........          82,932          90,932          +8,000
Gun Weapon System                                                       
 Technology.............          12,028          37,028         +25,000
ASW and Other Helicopter                                                
 Development............          91,803          80,175         -11,628
AV-8B Aircraft..........          11,309          26,909         +15,600
S-3 Weapon System                                                       
 Improvement............          12,872          27,872         +15,000
P-3 Modernization                                                       
 Program................           1,945          16,945         +15,000
Aircrew Systems                                                         
 Development............           9,788          17,688          +7,900
Aegis Combat Systems                                                    
 Engineering............         105,683          89,883         -15,800
Submarine Combat System.          43,302          37,151          -6,151
Submarine Tactical                                                      
 Warfare System.........          38,479          20,487         -17,992
Test and Evaluation                                                     
 Support................         245,911         247,911          +2,000
Consolidated Training                                                   
 Systems Development....          48,058          51,058          +3,000
Free Electron Laser.....               0           9,000          +9,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Exploratory Development

              vectored thrust combat agility demonstrator

    The Committee provided $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 for 
the vectored thrust combat agility demonstrator (VTCAD) program 
(PE 602122N) which, when combined with $1,000,000 in fiscal 
year 1994 funding (PE 602211A), would allow the Navy to 
accomplish the full-scale vectored thrust ducted propeller 
(VTDP) ground testing. The Committee understands that the Navy 
Program Executive Office has developed a program to accomplish 
the design, fabrication and testing of the full-scale VTDP and 
has requested the release of funds for these efforts. The 
Commitee continues its interest in the VTCAD program, and 
suggests the implementation of this VTDP effort so that the 
technology is postured for possible insertion into the AH-1W 
mid-life upgrade program, anticipated to start as soon as 
fiscal year 1997.

                        surface ship technology

    The Navy requested $36,786,000 for surface ship technology 
exploratory development. The Committee recommends $46,786,000, 
an increase of $10,000,000 for submarine technology as 
recommended by the House National Security Committee.

       Readiness, Training, and Environmental Quality Technology

    The Navy requested $40,511,000 for readiness, training, and 
environmental quality technology. The Committee recommends 
$45,311,000, an increase of $4,800,000 only for aircrew and 
chemical/biological protection.

           mine countermeasures, mining, and special warfare

    The Navy requested $43,384,000 for mine countermeasures, 
mining, and special warfare. The Committee recommends 
$51,384,000, an increase of $8,000,000 only to continue 
development of the Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System.

                oceanographic and atmospheric technology

    The Navy requested $45,526,000 for oceanographic and 
atmospheric technology. The Committee recommends $60,526,000, 
an increase of $15,000,000. Within this amount, $10,000,000 is 
only for continued development and application of sensing 
systems and unmanned underwater vehicles for land margin 
continental shelf oceanographic and environmental measurements 
for mine countermeasures and other applications, and $5,000,000 
is only for continued development of POAM-II.

                          Advanced Development

              air systems and weapons advanced technology

    The Navy requested $17,082,000 for air systems and weapons 
advanced technology. The Committee recommends $71,082,000, an 
increase of $54,000,000. Within this amount, an additional 
$35,000,000 is only for the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided 
Missile as recommended by the House National Security 
Committee, an additional $10,000,000 is only for continuation 
of the Navy's Maritime Avionics Subsystems and Technology 
(MAST) program within Naval Air Systems Command to provide 
valuable avionics technologies for future Navy aircraft as well 
as upgrades of existing Navy aircraft, and an additional 
$9,000,000 is to be used by the Chief of Naval Operations to 
make emerging technologies available to operational forces 
through the Technologies for Rapid Response initiative.

                         ship propulsion system

    The Navy requested $43,544,000 for ship propulsion system 
advanced development, of which $25,558,000 was requested for 
the Intercooled Recuperative (ICR) Gas Turbine Engine. The 
Committee recommends $17,986,000, a decrease of $25,558,000 and 
directs that the ICR gas turbine development be terminated.
    In the past, a number of Congressional Committees expressed 
concern over the Navy's lack of commitment to install the ICR 
engine on any class of ships. Last year, the Navy committed to 
put the ICR engine on 10 Aegis ships as reported in the 
December, 1994 DDG-51 Selected Acquisition Report to Congress. 
The Navy recently informed the Committee that the report was in 
error, and that it actually meant 13 ships. Through the end of 
fiscal year 1995, the Navy has spent $199,420,000 to develop 
the ICR engine and plans to spend at least an additional 
$197,600,000 to complete its development for a total 
development cost of $397,000,000. The December, 1994 Selected 
Acquisition Report to Congress for the Aegis ship program 
included $250,000,000 to install ICR on just 13 ships, which is 
about $19,000,000 each. The pro-rata share of development cost 
based on the same number of ships is about $30,500,000 each. 
The total ICR acquisition cost per ship is therefore about 
$49,500,000. However, the Navy has indicated that the ICR 
program will save only $650,000 per ship annually in fuel 
costs. Given these Navy estimates, it would take 76 years just 
to reach the break-even point to pay back the investment in 
this program, which is twice as long as the service life of 
Aegis ships.
    In the fiscal year 1996 budget the ICR development has 
reverted from demonstration/validation to advanced development 
as the Navy has detected serious technical problems in the 
program. The more time the system spends in advanced 
development, the less able the Navy would be to actually 
install the device on Aegis ships. The Committee also 
understands that the ICR engine requires approximately three 
times the volume and twice the weight of the current turbine 
engine system on Aegis ships. This greatly reduced ``power 
density'' alone makes the program questionable, but when 
coupled with the serious technical problems exhibited in system 
testing and the inability of the system to reach an investment 
payback over the life of the ships on which it is to be 
installed makes continuation of the ICR development program 
unwise. The Committee specifically denies all funds for ICR 
development and recommends that the program be terminated. This 
action will save the Government $25,558,000 in fiscal year 1996 
and $422,000,000 in subsequent fiscal years.

                          medical development

    The Navy requested $27,754,000 for medical development. The 
Committee recommends $62,754,000, an increase of $35,000,000 as 
explained in the medical research (title VI) section of this 
report.

                  Advanced Undersea Warfare Technology

    The Navy requested and the Committee recommends $51,816,000 
for advanced undersea warfare technology. The Committee has 
been interested in work being done to develop low low frequency 
active technology since fiscal year 1992 and understands that 
the Navy has sufficient funding available in prior years to 
complete the testing and evaluation planned for fiscal year 
1996. The Committee would support a Navy plan, upon successful 
completion of testing, to move low low frequency active 
technology to the LFA SURTASS program. The Committee believes 
that the very broad frequency band LLFA projector offers the 
most promising frequency regime for the positive detection of 
quiet, slow moving diesel submarines operating in the widely 
variable acoustic environment of shallow littoral waters. The 
Committee therefore expresses its interest in the continuation 
of this project.

                        shallow water mcm demos

    The Navy requested $50,958,000 for shallow water mine 
countermeasure demonstrations. This is about ten times the 
amount appropriated in fiscal year 1995. The Committee 
recommends $25,000,000, a reduction of $25,958,000 due to 
fiscal constraints.

                     advanced technology transition

    The Navy requested $96,825,000 for advanced technology 
transition. This is an increase of 29 percent from the fiscal 
year 1995 appropriated level. The Committee recommends 
$78,000,000, a reduction of $18,825,000 due to fiscal 
constraints.

                      Demonstration and Validation

                    air/ocean tactical applications

    The Navy requested $16,621,000 for air/ocean tactical 
applications. The Committee recommends $19,821,000, an increase 
of $3,200,000 only to continue research and further 
development, validation, and demonstration efforts for the 
Navy's oceanographic remotely controlled automation system, to 
increase the productivity of the Navy's littoral nautical 
charting efforts.

                         aviation survivability

    The Navy requested $7,477,000 for aviation survivability. 
The Committee recommends $16,377,000, an increase of 
$8,900,000. Within the increase, $7,400,000 is only to continue 
development of the advanced integrated life support system and 
for an advanced technology aircrew escape system for aircrews 
as recommended by the House National Security Committee, and 
$1,500,000 is only for the Naval Biodynamics Laboratory to 
continue at the fiscal year 1995 level of effort.

                   submarine tactical warfare systems

    The Navy requested $5,070,000 for submarine tactical 
warfare systems. The Committee recommends $8,570,000, an 
increase of $3,500,000 only for continued development of the 
Passive Subsurface Topographical Defense and Navigation System 
submarine tactical navigation system.

                      ship concept advanced design

    The Navy requested $16,736,000 for ship concept advanced 
design. The Committee recommends $53,736,000, an increase of 
$37,000,000 only for a Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) service 
life extension.
    The Committee recognizes the critical role of the LCAC in 
making operational maneuver from the sea a reality and in 
addressing the Navy's evolving multimission needs. Given the 
absence of a planned follow on program, the LCAC must maintain 
its high levels of combat readiness for Marine Corps missions 
beyond the current 20 year design life. The Committee believes 
that comprehensive corrosion control and service life extension 
programs and plans must be addressed and initiated immediately 
to maintain the Marine Corps' only over-the-horizon landing 
capability and to take advantage of existing industrial base 
capabilities. Modifications and improvements of certain craft 
components are necessary to reverse the current upward 
maintenance cost trends as the LCAC fleet ages. These 
improvements may include upgrading the crew station 
electronics, replacing the existing skirt system with an 
improved design, upgrading the propulsion system, and other 
structural modifications. The Committee has provided 
$37,000,000 for the Naval Sea Systems Command only for use in 
advanced planning and the engineering necessary to begin 
incorporating changes that ensure a 30 plus year design life 
and accomplish possible life cycle cost initiatives and 
structural modifications. These initiatives will be phased into 
craft 91 during production and into existing fleet craft 
beginning in fiscal year 1996 as an expansion of the current 
corrosion effort. No more than $20,000,000 of this amount shall 
be obligated until the Secretary of the Navy provides a report 
to the Committee by January 1, 1996, on the Navy's plan for an 
ongoing and comprehensive program to extend the service life of 
the LCAC fleet beyond its current 20 year design and service 
life.

                           ship self-defense

    The Navy requested $245,620,000 for ship self-defense 
technology programs. The Committee recommends $365,120,000, an 
increase of $119,500,000. Within this increase: $26,500,000 is 
to convert a Naval Research Laboratory P-3 aircraft to 
facilitate cooperative engagement airborne testing; $11,500,000 
is to use a fleet P-3 for cooperative engagement airborne 
testing; $8,000,000 is to facilitate E-2 aircraft cooperative 
engagement airborne testing; $49,000,000 is only for 
demonstration of the feasibility of integrating the cooperative 
engagement system with other defense weapon systems such as 
Patriot, Theater High Altitude Air Defense, Hawk, E-3 AWACS, E-
8 JSTARS, and national sensors; $4,500,000 is for integration 
of high definition displays into the cooperative engagement 
system; $16,000,000 is only for continued adaptation of the AN/
UYQ-70 to support cooperative engagement capability 
applications including a P-3C AIP demonstration; and $4,000,000 
is for continued self-defense sensor integration at the Aegis 
communications test and checkout site. The Committee notes that 
the Defense Department currently plans to spend $2,600,000,000 
to develop, test, and acquire the cooperative engagement system 
and a total of over $5,000,000,000 during its lifecycle. After 
at-sea tests last summer, the Secretary of Defense directed 
that development of the cooperative engagement system be 
accelerated. The additional funds recommended by the Committee 
are intended to capitalize on this huge warfighting investment 
by keeping the test program on-track and facilitating the 
systems' use in services other than the Navy.

                    joint advanced strike technology

    The Navy requested $149,295,000 for Joint Advanced Strike 
Technology. The Committee recommends $143,795,000, a decrease 
of $5,500,000. This consists of a decrease of $25,500,000 as 
recommended by the House National Security Committee in its 
fiscal year 1996 report and an increase of $20,000,000 only to 
ensure the evaluation of two propulsion concepts from competing 
engine companies.
    The history of recent fighter engine propulsion plants 
demonstrates that development of new engines is difficult. The 
Navy has generally been dissatisfied with the engine 
performance of early model F-14s, and it eventually upgraded 
later model F-14s with an Air Force engine. The Air Force in 
the late 1970s and early 1980s was dissatisfied with both the 
performance and cost of engines on early models of the F-15 and 
the F-16, and it spent over a billion dollars to bring a second 
engine manufacturer into a position where competition could be 
conducted between two companies for future Air Force fighter 
aircraft. The new engine for the F-22 has suffered technical 
problems and is undergoing a redesign.
    The Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program 
envisions building a common aircraft to satisfy the needs of 
the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps for fighter aircraft in 
the next century. Yet, it has selected a single power plant 
design, a derivative of the F-22 engine which has yet to be 
proven. Given the engine performance difficulties experienced 
over the last two decades, this is unwise. To cede the 
manufacture of all jet engines for three services' future 
aircraft without any additional competition is not likely to be 
cost effective. For these reasons, the Committee believes it is 
imperative for the JAST program to actively pursue an engine 
design from a second manufacturer and has provided an 
additional $20,000,000 only for this purpose.
    The Committee is also concerned that the JAST program 
intends to build demonstrator aircraft which are not full-sized 
nor powered at full thrust. Understanding that this is planned 
in order to save development costs, it nevertheless postpones 
development risk into the next phase of the program 
(engineering/manufacturing development). The Committee would 
like the Department to provide a detailed justification of this 
strategy, and clearly explain the costs, benefits, and risks of 
the current JAST plan compared to demonstrating aircraft and 
engine performance through construction of full scale 
demonstrator aircraft. The Committee directs the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 
1996 on the Department's strategy for development of engine and 
construction of full-sized/full-powered demonstrator aircraft 
in the JAST program.
    The Committee understands that the JAST program office is 
housed in a temporary location. The Committee directs the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to report 
to the congressional defense committees of the Department's 
plan for permanent location of the JAST program office. The 
plan should address cost and ability to best utilize the in-
place acquisition workforce, laboratories, and technology 
infrastructure.

               Engineering and Manufacturing Development

                            standard missile

    The Navy requested $8,572,000 for Standard missile 
improvements. The Committee recommends $2,572,000, a decrease 
of $6,000,000 reported by the General Accounting Office due to 
savings in fiscal year 1995.

                   enhanced modular signal processor

    The Navy requested $8,342,000 for the enhanced modular 
signal processor. The Committee recommends $14,842,000, an 
increase of $6,500,000 only to develop a commercial/off-the-
shelf variant of the system.

                    navy tactical computer resources

    The Navy requested $5,499,000 for tactical computer 
resources. The Committee recommends $15,499,000, an increase of 
$10,000,000 only to support the continued adaptation of the AN/
UYQ-70 equipment for candidate shipboard, subsurface and 
airborne applications.

               unguided conventional air-launched weapons

    The Navy requested $40,517,000 for unguided conventional 
air-launched weapons. The Committee recommends $43,517,000, an 
increase of $3,000,000 to accelerate development of the 
Extended Range Standoff Land Attack Missile. This increase is 
necessary to capture ``lessons-learned'' from Operation Desert 
Storm and to compensate in part for the Defense Department's 
decision to terminate the Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile.

                           ship self-defense

    The Navy requested $165,997,000 for ship self-defense 
programs. The Committee recommends $201,997,000, an increase of 
$36,000,000. Within the increase, $7,900,000 is for 
modifications to the ship self-defense test ship; $2,500,000 is 
for Quick Reaction Combat Capability; $4,500,000 is for 
electronic support measures; $9,500,000 is for infrared search 
and track; $4,800,000 is for the SPQ-9 system development; and 
$6,800,000 is for the Enhanced Sea Sparrow missile. An 
additional $14,300,000 is recommended in the RDT&E, Defense-
wide appropriation for ARPA to continue research into advanced 
ship self-defense concepts.

                        RDT&E Management Support

                   studies and analysis support--navy

    The Navy requested $9,281,000 for studies and analysis 
support, an increase of over 50 percent from the fiscal year 
1995 appropriated amount. The Committee recommends $7,000,000, 
a decrease of $2,281,000 due to fiscal constraints.

            management, technical, and international support

    The Navy requested $20,371,000 for management, technical, 
and international support, about a 50 percent increase from the 
fiscal year 1995 appropriated amount. The Committee recommends 
$12,000,000, a decrease of $8,371,000 due to fiscal 
constraints.

                      strategic technical support

    The Navy requested $3,584,000 for strategic technical 
support, about a 30 percent increase from the fiscal year 1995 
appropriated amount. The Committee recommends $3,000,000, a 
reduction of $584,000 due to fiscal constraints.

                    Operational Systems Development

                    ssbn security technology program

    The Navy requested $25,078,000 for the SSBN security 
technology program. The Committee recommends $30,578,000, an 
increase of $5,500,000. The increase is for projects to explore 
the potential for detecting submarines acoustically in shallow 
water: shallow water forward barrier, passive automation, and 
active acoustics.

                            f/a-18 Squadrons

    The Navy requested $919,484,000 for F/A-18 squadrons. The 
Committee recommends $923,984,000, an increase of $4,500,000 
only to allow integration of the BOL chaff system into the F-18 
aircraft.

             tomahawk and tomahawk mission planning system

    The Navy requested $141,440,000 for Tomahawk systems. The 
Committee recommends $176,440,000, an increase of $35,000,000. 
This includes an increase of $25,000,000 to allow acceleration 
of development and test of the more accurate Block IV variant, 
and an increase of $10,000,000 for a joint targeting test bed 
as proposed by the House National Security Committee. The 
increase for Tomahawk accelerates development of the Block IV 
navigation and mission computer assembly, anti-jam GPS, and a 
satellite data link.

                  marine corps combat services support

    The Marine Corps requested $3,915,000 for Marine Corps 
combat services support. The Committee recommends $6,915,000, 
an increase of $3,000,000 only for the development of a 
lightweight, all-terrain, high performance vehicle.

                     integrated surveillance system

    The Navy requested $16,440,000 for the integrated 
surveillance system. The Committee recommends $32,640,000, an 
increase of $16,200,000. The additional funds are for 
development of full system integration of twin-line towed 
arrays, expanding SURTASS twin-line array signal processing 
into frequency regions common with tactical surface combatant 
and submarine processing systems, and development of additional 
low frequency active littoral performance improvements.

                        industrial preparedness

    Funds for manufacturing technology were requested in 
another line. The Committee recommends $88,000,000. This 
includes $51,251,000 as recommended by the House National 
Security Committee and an increase of $36,749,000 to continue 
ongoing projects.

                              Other Items

                           general reduction

    An October, 1994 DOD Inspector General report indicates 
that the Navy has contracted over $6,000,000,000 on a sole-
source basis to the Johns Hopkins University since World War 
II. The fee paid to the Johns Hopkins' Applied Physics 
Laboratory has not been evaluated since 1962. In response to 
the report, the Navy decided after the fiscal year 1996 budget 
was submitted to Congress to compete about ten percent of the 
work that would have gone to Johns Hopkins, for which the 
fiscal year 1996 budget includes up to $383,000,000 (the 
contract ceiling). The Committee recommends a general reduction 
of $10,000,000 in anticipation of savings through improved 
management of this contract.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


         RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation.......................... $12,011,372,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................  12,598,439,000
Committee recommendation................................  13,110,335,000
Change from budget request..............................    +511,896,000

    This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation activities of the Department of the Air Force.

                       Committee Recommendations

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Change  
                Item                   Budget     Committee      from   
                                       request   recommended    request 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace Propulsion...............      78,592       81,592      +3,000
Advanced Weapons...................     124,446      130,446      +6,000
Command, Control and Communications      98,477       96,477      -2,000
Crew Systems and Personnel                                              
 Protection........................      18,953       21,953      +3,000
Space and Missile Rocket Propulsion      15,203       20,203      +5,000
Ballistic Missile Technology.......       3,085        8,785      +5,700
Conventional Weapons Technology....      31,637       34,137      +2,500
Industrial Preparedness                                                 
 Manufacturing Technology..........      53,332            0     -53,332
NPOOESS............................      23,861       18,861      -5,000
Joint Advanced Strike Technology-                                       
 Dem/Val...........................     151,186      125,686     -25,500
UHF Sat Com........................      15,568       13,068      -2,500
Test and Evaluation Support........     454,067      444,167      -9,900
Environmental Conservation.........      14,169        4,169     -10,000
AMRAAM.............................      42,311       50,311      +8,000
Industrial Preparedness............           0       53,332     +53,332
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              program growth/budget execution adjustments

    The budget request included amount for some programs which 
exceed by an unjustifiably large margin the amounts provided 
for fiscal year 1994 or 1995. Other programs had significant 
prior year unobligated balances, and budget adjustments are 
necessary due to poor budget execution. The Committee therefore 
recommends the following reductions:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Budget     Committee   Change from  
              Item                 request    recommended    request    
----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Materials......................       74,534       71,000       -3,534  
Aerospace Flight Dynamics......       66,268       62,768       -3,500  
Human Systems Technology.......       90,311       86,911       -3,400  
Advanced Avionics Integation...       20,421       17,621       -2,800  
EW Technology..................       25,079       20,079       -5,000  
Civil and Environmental                                                 
 Engineering Technology........        9,835        7,835       -2,000  
Satellite Control Network......       89,717       82,717       -7,000  
Nudet Detection System.........       16,277       13,277       -3,000  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 computer assisted technology transfer

    The Committee directs that from within funds available to 
the Air Force research and development appropriation for fiscal 
year 1996 efforts related to the Computer Assisted Technology 
Transfer program should be continued.

                             Basic Research

                       defense research sciences

    The Air Force requested $239,893,000 for defense research 
sciences. The Committee recommends $254,393,000, an increase of 
$14,500,000. The Committee recommendation includes the 
requested amount of $650,000 for support to the Sacramento Peak 
Observatory. The Committee directs that the full amount be 
provided to Sacramento Peak and designates this project to be 
an item of specific Committee interest. Of the total increase, 
$5,000,000 is provided by the Committee only for the adaptive 
optics project.
    The Committee has also provided an increase of $9,500,000 
only for the Global Seismographic Network and the Joint Seismic 
Program which provides an expanded capability to seismically 
monitor potential nuclear tests and a more robust monitoring 
research program. The Committee has serious concerns regarding 
the Department's delay in releasing $12,000,000 in fiscal year 
1995 funds made available for this program. These funds, 
provided in P.L. 103-335, are not available for reprogramming. 
The Committee directs the Department to obligate these funds 
promptly.

                          Advanced Development

               advanced materials for weapons development

    The Air Force requested $23,283,000 for advanced materials 
for weapons development. The Committee recommends $25,283,000, 
an increase of $2,000,000 to the budget request. The additional 
funding provided by the committee is only for the infrared 
signature control program.

                     advanced spacecraft technology

    The Air Force requested $32,627,000 for advanced spacecraft 
technology. The Committee recommends $83,627,000, an increase 
of $51,000,000 to the budget request. The additional funding 
provided by the Committee is allocated as follows: $1,000,000 
only for the miniature satellite threat reporting system 
project and $50,000,000 only for the continued involvement of 
the Defense Department in developing reusable launch vehicle 
technologies under the management of the Air Force Phillips 
Laboratory.

                     advanced computing technology

    The Air Force requested $11,005,000 for advanced computing 
technology. The Committee recommends $36,605,000, an increase 
of $25,600,000 as explained in the Information Technology 
section of this report.

                      Demonstration and Validation

                space based infrared architecture (SBIR)

    The Department requested $130,744,000 for Space Based 
Infrared Architecture. The Committee recommends $230,744,000, 
an increase of $100,000,000 only for the Space and Missile 
Tracking System (SMTS).

               Engineering and Manufacturing Development

                                  b-1b

    The Air Force requested $173,838,000 for the B-1B 
conventional upgrade program. The Committee recommends 
$197,438,000, an increase of $23,600,000 to the budget request. 
The additional funding is allocated as follows: $7,000,000 only 
to support early integration of the JDAM munition on the B-1 
aircraft and $6,600,000 only for electronic countermeasures 
upgrade risk reduction activities. In addition, the Committee 
has provided $10,000,000, for the B-1 virtual umbilical 
demonstration program (BVUD).
    The Committee directs that none of the funds appropriated 
for BVUD may be obligated until the Secretary of the Air Force 
provides the Committee the following certifications: (a) A 
certification from the Commander of the Air Combat Command and 
the Air Force Director of operational requirements that a 
documented requirement for BVUD on the B-1 bomber exists; (b) A 
certification from the Commander of the Air Force Operational 
Test and Evaluation Center that BVUD has completed all testing 
and been found operationally suitable for integration on the B-
1 aircraft; (c) A certification that BVUD will be incorporated 
as part of the B-1 conventional upgrade program.
    The Committee also directs that if the Air Force determines 
that a requirement for BVUD exists, the acquisition of such a 
capability will be conducted on the basis of a full and open 
competition.

                     f-22 advanced tactical fighter

    The Air Force requested $2,138,718,000 for F-22 
development. The Committee recommends $2,338,718,000, an 
increase of $200,000,000 to the budget request. It is the 
Committee's understanding that the additional funding provided 
will mitigate the cost growth that resulted from the last 
program rephase. The Department of the Air Force estimates that 
the restoration of funds to the F-22 program will result in a 
cost savings of approximately $350 to $400 million on the total 
F-22 EMD contract. The funding provided by the Committee will 
also enable the Air Force to maintain the original production 
and initial operational capability schedules for the F-22. The 
Committee supports this top unfunded priority of the Air Force 
and makes its recommendation accordingly.

                              submunitions

    The Air Force budgeted $4,953,000 for submunitions 
development. The Committee recommends $14,953,000, an increase 
of $10,000,000 to the budget request. The additional funding is 
available only for the sensor fuzed weapon enhancement program.

                                 jstars

    The Air Force budgeted $169,702,000 for JSTARS development. 
The Committee recommends $189,702,000, an increase of 
$20,000,000 to the budget request. The additional funding 
provided by the Committee is for projects related to data link 
development and data dissemination technologies.

                        RDT&E Management Support

                navigation/radar/sled track test support

    The Air Force requested no funds for the Navigation/Radar/
Sled Track Test Support program. The Committee recommends 
$3,000,000, an increase of $3,000,000 to the budget request. 
The Committee is aware of the progress being made in 
modernizing the Holloman Air Force Base High Speed Test Track 
which is used for hypersonic lethality testing. The Committee 
supports this program and recommends the additional funding to 
accelerate the Holloman Test Track modernization.

                            Base operations

    The Air Force requested $117,083,000 for base operations. 
The Committee recommends $120,683,000, an increase of 
$3,600,000 to the budget request. The recommended amount 
includes an increase of $9,900,000 transferred from the test 
and evaluation support program element as requested by the Air 
Force and a reduction of $6,300,000 due to unjustified program 
budget growth from prior fiscal years.

                    Operational Systems Development

             aircraft engine component improvement program

    The Air Force requested $103,700,000 for the aircraft 
engine component program. The Committee recommends 
$101,730,000, a decrease of $1,970,000 to the budget request. 
The Committee recommends that funds requested for the B-2 
engine be denied without prejudice since there are no known 
deficiencies in the engine at this time.

                     theater battle management C41

    The Air Force requested $24,813,000 for theater battle 
management. The Committee recommends $29,813,000, an increase 
of $5,000,000 only for Air Tasking Order format improvements. 
The additional funds will provide the capability to generate 
and automatically disseminate Air Tasking Orders. Further 
explanation is provided in the beginning of the Procurement 
section of this report.

                          classified programs

    Details of this adjustment are discussed in the classified 
annex to this report.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


        RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal Year 1995 appropriation..........................  $8,662,942,000
Fiscal Year 1996 budget request.........................   8,802,881,000
Committee recommendation................................   9,029,666,000
Change from budget request..............................    +226,785,000

    This appropriation provides funds for the Research, 
Development, Test and Evaluation activities of centrally 
managed programs and the Defense Agencies.

                       Committee Recommendations

                          information security

    Computers and communication networks are the backbone of 
DoD command and control, logistics, personnel systems, and even 
weapons acquisition activities. Protecting the information 
carried on these systems from attack is essential for national 
security. The fiscal year 1996 budget requests additional funds 
over the fiscal year 1995 budget for information security 
activities. The majority of the funds are infrastructure and 
encryption product costs; only a small portion of the requested 
funds are to protect, detect and react to attacks on DoD's 
information network. Although DoD's Joint Security Commission 
has recommended an increase of funding to decrease the risk of 
attack on information systems, the Committee has learned that 
the Department has no budgeted funds to correct this major 
deficiency. The Committee understands that it is impossible to 
totally protect information systems from attacks; however, more 
emphasis should be put on the detection and response to attacks 
on information systems, not just the protection of classified 
systems. The Department is directed to provide with the fiscal 
year 1997 budget request a plan for an information security 
program that satisfies major deficiencies in the detection and 
response to attacks. The plan is to include identified 
shortfalls, required funding, and implementation schedule. The 
Committee believes that no additional funding is required to 
implement an information security protection, detection and 
response program, but merely a shift in priorities from 
infrastructure and classified programs.

                         stu-iii modernization

    The Committee understands that the current secure 
telephone, the STU III, is not compatible with future digital 
switches. Although the development and fielding of a 
replacement telephone is crucial to ensure secure 
communications in the near future, the Department will not have 
a replacement when communication networks move from analog to 
digital. In the fiscal year 1993, 1994, and 1995 reports, the 
Committee requested that DoD provide a plan and funding in 
subsequent budget requests for a realistic STU-III 
modernization program. The Committee provided seed monies to 
begin the program; however, it appears this effort is no 
further along than it was three years ago. The Committee 
directs that the DoD, with the concurrence of the Services, 
submit a STU-III modernization plan that includes the funding 
required and the development and procurement schedule with the 
fiscal year 1997 budget. The Committee notes that previous 
plans have not been supported by the services, deemed too 
costly, and not supported in the budget.

                         authorization changes

    The Committee recommends the following changes in 
accordance with authorization action:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Change  
                                   Budget       Committee        from   
                                   request   recommendations    request 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Research Sciences......      89,732         84,732        -5,000
Focused Research Initiatives...      14,009          9,009        -5,000
Chemical and Biological Defense      23,947         28,547        +4,600
Lincoln Laboratory Research....      19,903         10,000        -9,903
Chemical and Biological Defense      60,665         84,165       +23,500
Chemical and Biological Defense                                         
 Program.......................      25,684         38,284       +12,600
Advanced Submarine Technology..       7,473         30,473       +23,000
Defense Laboratory Partnership                                          
 Program.......................      16,106  ...............     -16,106
Defense Reinvestment...........     500,000  ...............    -500,000
Advanced Sensor Applications                                            
 Program.......................      25,923         35,923       +10,000
Chemical and Biological Defense                                         
 Program.......................      32,461         36,861        +4,400
Chemical and Biological Defense                                         
 Program.......................      95,324        107,324       +12,000
Technical Studies, Support &                                            
 Analysis......................      39,302         24,302       -15,000
Special Operations Advanced                                             
 Technology Development........      13,288         14,788        +1,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             basic research

    The Department requested $236,165,000 for University 
Research Initiatives. The Committee recommends $221,165,000, a 
reduction of $15,000,000. This includes an increase of 
$20,000,000 only for the Experimental Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Research (EPSCOR) and a reduction of $35,000,000 
due to program growth in multidisciplinary and young-
investigator programs.

                      focused research initiatives

    The Department requested $14,009,000 to continue the 
Focused Research Initiative. The Committee recommends 
$9,009,000 due to fiscal constraints. The Committee believes 
that ARPA should give priority to continuing programs already 
initiated in conjunction with the National Medical Technology 
Testbed.

                      counterproliferation support

    The Department requested $9,952,000 for 
counterproliferation support. The Committee recommends 
$14,452,000, an increase of $4,500,000 only for continuing 
research on and systematic monitoring of the proliferation of 
missile technology and biological, chemical and nuclear 
weapons.

  historically black colleges, universities, and minority institutions

    The Department requested $14,779,000 for historically black 
colleges, universities, and minority institutions (HBCU/MI). 
The Committee approves this amount. The Committee fully concurs 
with the House National Security Committee that these funds 
should be focused on encouraging students to pursue combined 
studies in critical languages and international affairs and 
advanced science and engineering degrees.

                        Exploratory Development

            computing systems and communications technology

    The Department requested $403,875,000 for computing systems 
and communications technology. The Committee recommends 
$402,875,000, a net reduction of $1,000,000. This includes an 
increase of $11,000,000 only for nuclear monitoring 
technologies, an increase of $10,000,000 only for continued 
operation of the software managers network, $5,000,000 only for 
natural language text, an increase of $8,000,000 only for the 
Global Broadcast Service and a decrease of $25,000,000 as 
proposed by the House National Security Committee in its 1996 
report.
    The Committee recommends a reduction of $10,000,000 for 
seismic monitoring research. The Committee believes that, in 
general, ARPA should pursue cutting edge, high risk/high pay 
off research and advanced technologies. The Committee notes 
that this is not the case with seismic monitoring--which has 
been a long-term project which ARPA has performed for decades.
    In light of increased international terrorism as well as 
violations of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and 
attempted acquisition of weapons-grade nuclear materials by 
criminal groups, the Committee believes it is imperative that 
the development of improved nuclear detection and forensics 
analysis capabilities be accelerated. The Committee therefore 
appropriates an additional $11,000,000 only for the Monitoring 
Technologies sub-element of the Computing Systems and 
Communications Systems program. Of this amount $5,000,000 is 
only for an industry-based program to accelerate development of 
nuclear detection systems, $3,000,000 is only for an industry-
based laboratory for forensic analysis in support of counter 
terrorism, and $3,000,000 is only for the acceleration of the 
development of nuclear sensor data analysis capabilities.
    The Committee believes that communications planning, 
especially for the tactical forces, needs to be improved. In 
the past the Committee has added funds to facilities of the DOD 
Commercial Satellite Communications initiative and has also 
required that DOD develop a comprehensive architecture for all 
space-based communications systems. Although some improvements 
have been made, the Committee is concerned over the slow pace 
of the progress.
    The Global Broadcast Service (GBS) is one technology that 
promises dramatic improvements in the quality and timeliness of 
information available to the battlefield commander. Several 
such systems are already commercially available for audio and 
video broadcast service. To date, several DOD organizations 
have begun planning to incorporate a GBS capability in future 
years. The Navy has run some preliminary demonstrations of the 
GBS concept.
    The Committee believes that DOD should be more aggressive 
in pursuing a GBS capability. The Committee provides the 
additional $8,000,000 with the following stipulations;
          (a) in order to ensure that the initiative is 
        compatible with other existing space-base 
        communications systems, the initiative is to be managed 
        by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
        Technology (USD(A&T));
          (b) by October 15, 1995, the Undersecretary of 
        Defense (Comptroller) shall certify to the Committee 
        that $8,000,000 has been released to the Navy and that 
        the USD(A&T) has approved a plan for the Navy to 
        conduct a near-term GBS pilot program; and
          (c) no later than March 1, 1996 the USD(A&T) shall 
        provide a long-term master architecture for fielding a 
        comprehensive GBS system and also provide a plan for 
        commercially available GBS hardware, technology, and/or 
        services to support tactically deployed forces, 
        including the Guard and Reserve.

                          tactical technology

    The Department requested $113,168,000 for tactical 
technology. The Committee recommends $132,168,000, an increase 
of $19,000,000. Within this increase, $5,000,000 is only for 
simulation based design, $7,000,000 is only for the tactical 
landing system, and $7,000,000 is only for the multiple object 
tracking sensor system.
    The Committee supports the Ship System Automation (SSA) 
program and believes that priority should be given to programs 
like SSA which are making serious inroads in the reduction of 
personnel requirements for Naval combatants.

               integrated command and control technology

    The Department requested $48,000,000 for integrated command 
and control technology. The Committee recommends $50,000,000, 
an increase of $2,000,000 only for high definition 
optoelectronic digital cameras.
    The Committee recognizes the potential value of field 
emission displays (FEDs) for military applications. The 
Committee therefore encourages ARPA to examine the benefits of 
FEDs versus active matrix liquid crystal display (AMLCD) 
technology for reducing the size and power requirements of flat 
panel displays.

                  materials and electronics technology

    The Department requested $226,045,000 for materials and 
electronics technology. The Committee recommends $236,045,000, 
an increase of $10,000,000 only for high temperature 
superconducting materials.
    The Committee is also interested in seamless high off-chip 
connectivity technology which may reduce cost and increase 
performance of advanced military electronic systems by 
increasing manufacturing yields of highly complex electronic 
circuits. The Committee directs ARPA to provide a report on the 
feasibility of this technology by April 1, 1996.
    The Committee supports the effort to maintain the Synthetic 
Theater of War (STOW) demonstration program as proposed by the 
House National Security Committee.
    The Committee directs that within available funds, 
$4,000,000 be used only for the Life Support for Trauma and 
Transport (LSTAT) concepts and technologies. In addition, the 
Committee directs that an additional $500,000 be available only 
for the Navy and the Air Force to reconcile joint LSTAT 
requirements.

                         defense nuclear agency

    The Department requested $219,003,000 for the Defense 
Nuclear Agency. The Committee recommends $231,703,000, an 
increase of $12,700,000. Within this increase, $4,700,000 is 
available only for high power microwave technology, $4,000,000 
is only for counter-terrorist explosive research, and 
$4,000,000 is only for the development of electrothermal gun 
technology.

                     radiation hardened electronics

    The Committee recognizes the continued need for radiation 
hardened electronics for DOD space and strategic applications. 
The Committee is also concerned there is a serious erosion of 
the U.S. Radiation Hardened Micro-Electronics Technology Base. 
The Committee, therefore, directs that of the funds made 
available to the Defense Nuclear Agency in fiscal year 1996, 
not less than $15,000,000 shall be allocated to radiation 
hardened electronics research and development. Additionally, 
the Defense Nuclear Agency is directed to increase future 
funding allocated to radiation hardened electronics research 
and development in equal annual increments in order to achieve 
a funding level of $20,000,000 per year by fiscal year 2000.

                      ballistic missile technology

    The Department requested $2,442,199,000 for Ballistic 
Missile Defense in the Research, Development, Test and 
Evaluation title of the bill. The Committee recommends 
$3,041,138,000 for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's 
(BMDO) research and development programs, an increase of 
$598,939,000. The Committee recommends specific changes in 
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs as detailed in 
the table below.

                        BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE                       
                        [In thousands of dollars]                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Committee      Change from 
                          Budget request  recommendation      request   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Missile Defense        $370,621        $820,621       +$450,000
Navy Upper Tier.........          30,442         200,442        +170,000
MEADS (Corps SAM).......          30,442          20,442         -10,000
Other TMD...............         460,470         423,470         -37,000
Ballistic Missile                                                       
 Management.............         185,542         165,542         -20,000
Theater High-Altitude                                                   
 Area Defense (EMD).....  ..............          50,000         +50,000
Navy Lower Tier.........         237,473         282,473         +45,000
Boost Phase Intercept...          49,061  ..............         -49,061
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        theater missile defense

    The Committee believes that Theater Missile Defense (TMD) 
is a top national security priority and that TMD systems should 
be deployed at the earliest possible date. The Committee 
therefore recommends an increase of $45,000,000 to Navy Lower 
Tier and an increase of $50,000,000 to the Army's Theater High-
Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) to ensure that these 
programs remain on schedule. In addition, the Committee 
believes that the Navy Upper Tier program will provide a 
substantial defense capability and therefore recommends an 
increase of $170,000,000 over the budget request.
    The Committee is concerned about the lack of focus in the 
Medium Extended Area Defense System (MEADS) program, formerly 
Corps SAM, and the Boost Phase Interceptor (BPI) program. While 
the Committee supports the general concept underlying both 
programs, it believes that neither program is workable or 
affordable as currently conceived. Therefore, the Committee 
recommends no appropriation for BPI. Furthermore, the Committee 
recommends a reduction to Other TMD and Follow-on activities of 
$37,000,000 as proposed by the House National Security 
Committee.
    While the Committee understands and endorses the Army 
requirement for Corps SAM, the Committee questions the expense 
and risk associated with a multinational codevelopment program. 
Consequently, the Committee recommends the program be reduced 
by $10,000,000 and that within 90 days the Department of the 
Army propose a restructured program consisting of current 
technology and ongoing efforts that will provide ground forces 
with mobile 360 degree protection against cruise missiles and 
very short range tactical ballistic missiles. The Army should 
consider cost reduction measures which streamline acquisition 
and capitalize on the current PAC-3 development activities.
    The Committee is concerned that the Arrow program has not 
been successful. Since 1986, the U.S. has spent nearly $500 
million on the Arrow program. However, the program has been 
plagued with serious technical problems and has had few 
successes--including only one successful intercept out of six 
tests. While the Committee supports efforts to defend Israel 
from ballistic missile attack, the track record of the Arrow 
program suggests it will not readily accomplish that goal. 
Furthermore, the Committee is concerned about the total cost of 
the system, which some estimate to be as high as $10 billion. 
There has also been some question about Israel's commitment to 
deploy Arrow, as well as the degree to which U.S. funds would 
be used to support procurement of a deployed system. Based on 
these factors, the Committee seriously considered terminating 
the Arrow program. However, based on assurances from the 
Israeli government about its commitment to deployment and its 
recognition of its responsibility for production costs, the 
Committee approves the requested amount of $56,500,000. 
However, the Committee strongly believes that U.S. funding 
support for Arrow is more appropriately regarded as foreign 
assistance rather than a program requiring direct funding from 
the Department of Defense. Therefore, the Committee directs 
that any future funding request for the Arrow Weapon System 
should be budgeted within function 150 and should be considered 
by the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on Appropriations for 
funding.
    The Committee believes that the Wide Area Missile (WAM) 
concept should be considered for inclusion in the Navy's TMD 
Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA). The 
Committee further believes that the WAM concept has not 
received a thorough objective analysis of its potential in the 
area of missile defense. The Navy is directed to work in close 
consultation with the concept developers to provide a complete 
analysis of the WAM concept, including its relative costs, 
operational effectivness, and compatibility within the Navy's 
TMD architecture as part of the Navy COEA.
    The Committee recognizes the importance of the Extended 
Airborne Global Launch Evaluation (EAGLE) program. Therefore, 
the Committee strongly recommends that $19.9 million, as 
requested in the fiscal year 1996 budget, be obligated for this 
program.

                        national missile defense

    The Committee believes that National Missile Defense (NMD) 
is one of the highest national security priorities. The 
Committee is concerned about the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction and the possible emergence of a ballistic 
missile threat from a rogue nation. However, the Committee does 
not believe that the Administration's program of ``technology 
readiness'' is sufficient to address this threat. Therefore, 
the Committee recommends an increase of $450,000,000 to 
significantly accelerate the development of a national missile 
defense system that will be capable of defending the United 
States from a limited ballistic missile attack. Furthermore, 
the Committee agrees with the House National Security Committee 
that the NMD program should be structured so as to support 
deployment of an NMD system at the soonest possible date--now 
estimated to be within four to six years.

                          Advanced Development

                 explosives demilitarization technology

    The Department requested no funding for explosives 
demilitarization technology. The Committee recommends 
$15,000,000 only for explosives demilitarization technology, as 
proposed by the House National Security Committee.

                    counterterror technical support

    The Defense Department requested $12,044,000 for the 
Counterterror Support program. The Committee recommends 
$24,044,000, an increase of $12,000,000 to the budget request. 
The increase is for the Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis (PFNA) 
program for detecting chemical agents, biological and nuclear 
material, and a wide range of toxic substances through non-
intrusive means. The additional funds are for a field 
demonstration of the PFNA cargo inspection system under the 
direction of the Technical Support Working Group of the Defense 
Department.

        experimental evaluation of major innovative technologies

    The Department requested $618,005,000 for Experimental 
Evaluation of Major Innovative Technologies (EEMIT). The 
Committee recommends $671,005,000, an increase of $53,000,000 
only for the following projects:

Shallow water ASW.......................................      $5,000,000
Classified programs.....................................      35,000,000
Small Satellites........................................       1,000,000
Safety and Survivability................................       2,000,000
GEOSAR..................................................      10,000,000

    The Committee believes ARPA should give consideration to 
continuing the thermophotovoltaic electric power generator 
program which was begun in fiscal year 1995.

                chemical and biological defense program

    As noted in the table earlier in this section, in 
accordance with the House authorization action the Committee 
has provided an additional $12,600,000 for ``Chemical and 
Biological Defense Program--Advanced Development''. The 
Committee is impressed with the progress made by the Navy in 
the areas of chemical and biological warfare detection. Of the 
total increase provided for this program, $10,000,000 is to 
accelerate the development of ongoing programs, provide for 
potential civil applications of these technologies, and 
initiate new programs with a similar focus. The Committee 
encourages the Department of Defense to budget additional 
resources in support of these programs in fiscal year 1997.

                     advanced submarine technology

    The Department requested $7,473,000 for advanced submarine 
technology. The Committee recommends $30,473,000, an increase 
of $23,000,000 as recommended by the House National Security 
Committee. The increase includes funds to continue the active 
structural control helicopter program.

        Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

    The Department requested $58,435,000 for the SERDP program. 
The Committee recommends $58,155,000, a decrease of $280,000. 
This represents a reduction of $4,280,000 as proposed by the 
House National Security Committee, and an increase of 
$4,000,000 to allow the Army Materiel Command Advanced Systems 
Integration Directorate under the Program Executive Office 
(PEO) Armament Research and Development Life Cycle Readiness 
Initiative to continue efforts to develop environmentally 
sound, cost effective ordnance/armaments production, 
maintenance, use and disposal technologies, and pollution 
prevention programs as they relate to the armament acquisition 
cycle, environmentally damaging munitions, and environmental 
compliance issues of the military industry base.

                   advanced electronics technologies

    The Department requested $419,863,000 for Advanced 
Electronics Technologies. The Committee recommends 
$434,863,000, a net increase of $15,000,000. Within this amount 
is a $25,000,000 increase only for advanced lithography, and a 
decrease of $10,000,000 for U.S.-Japan management training.
    The Committee notes that the execution plan underlying the 
fiscal year 1996 budget for the Electronic Commerce Resource 
Centers (ECRC) Program provides continued funding at the fiscal 
year 1995 level of effort for a National ECRC as the electronic 
commerce standards and technologies development, deployment, 
training and education hub for the ECRC Program; and a network 
of eleven Regional ECRCs. The successful maturation of this 
program now justifies moving it to the Defense Logistics Agency 
to better integrate the EC needs of the Department and its 
suppliers. The Committee directs that this program be shifted 
to DLA accounts beginning in the FY 1997 budget cycle. The 
Committee concurs in the Department's decision to direct the 
Regional ECRCs to play a direct role in the Department's 
implementation of the EC component of the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act of 1994.
    The Committee also reaffirms its intent that the Department 
establish a five-year contract with the current nonprofit 
organization operating the National ECRC to implement the ECRC 
Program in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated 
in the fiscal year 1995 Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act and accompanying conference report. The Committee also 
encourages the Department to coordinate its ECRC initiative 
with the Manufacturing Technology Center (MTC) program and to 
explore the possibility of collocating its MTCs with existing 
ECRC locations.

                 semiconductor manufacturing technology

    The Department requested $89,554,000 for semiconductor 
manufacturing technology (SEMATECH). SEMATECH, a consortium of 
eleven companies, was formed in 1987 to address the long-term 
semiconductor requirements of the nation and of the military 
and specifically to rectify problems of U.S. competitiveness in 
the worldwide semiconductor market. The Committee notes that 
nearly $800 million has been provided by DoD to SEMATECH to 
support this effort. By all accounts this program has achieved 
its goals. U.S. industry has now recaptured its leadership role 
in this arena with over 45 percent of the market share. Current 
plans are to transition this effort to private industry by 
1997. However, the Committee believes this transition can be 
accelerated by one year and therefore recommends no 
appropriation.

               advanced concept technology demonstrations

    The Department requested $63,251,000 for advanced concept 
technology demonstrations (ACTDs). The Committee recommends 
$32,251,000, a reduction of $31,000,000 due to unsubstantiated 
program growth.

                         joint robotics program

    The Department requested $17,382,000 for the joint robotics 
program. The Committee recommends $22,382,000, an increase of 
$5,000,000 only for the mobile detection assessment response 
system (MDARS).

                     nato research and development

    The Department requested $45,642,000 for NATO Research and 
Development. The NATO Research and Development program is an 
example of a well intentioned federal program which once begun, 
never ends. This program, which provides initial funding for 
international cooperative research and development projects, 
began in fiscal year 1986 at the height of the Cold War. Since 
that time, over $800,000,000 has been spent to start 
cooperative projects, very few of which have actually resulted 
in systems being fielded to U.S. troops. In addition, the 
military departments are required to finance outyear costs. The 
Committee believes that this type of program is no longer 
affordable, particularly as the Department and Services are 
trying to find ways of financing higher priority requirements 
in areas such as readiness and modernization. The Committee 
recommends no appropriation.

           environmental security and technical certification

    The Department requested $14,939,000 for environmental 
security and technical certification. The Committee recommends 
$26,939,000, an increase of $12,000,000 only for a competitive, 
cost-shared, alternative fuel cell program initiated in Fiscal 
Year 1995 under the same guidelines, limitations, and 
directives established for this program in House Report 103-
747.

                    Operational Systems Development

                defense airborne reconnaissance program

    Details of this recommendation are discussed in the 
classified annex to this report.

            special operations tactical systems development

    The Department requested $101,602,000 for Special 
Operations tactical systems development. The Committee 
recommends $105,602,000, an increase of $4,000,000. Of the 
additional funds $1,500,000 is only for the development of an 
lightweight, all-terrain reconnaissance/light strike vehicle 
and $2,500,000 is only for the design and development of the 
Full Authority Digital Electronic Control system for the Army's 
AH-6 helicopter.
    The Committee fully supports the Quiet Knight advanced 
concept technology demonstration for both fixed and rotary wing 
aircraft. The Committee encourages the DOD to budget for the 
completion of the Phase II demonstration in the fiscal year 
1997 budget request.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:



               DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $238,003,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     259,341,000
Committee recommendation................................     259,341,000
Change from budget request..............................................

    This appropriation funds Developmental Test and Evaluation, 
Defense activities, for direction and supervision of test and 
evaluation, joint testing, improvement of the effectiveness and 
efficiency of the DoD major ranges and test facilities, and 
technical and/or operational evaluation of foreign nations' 
weapons systems, equipment, and technologies.

                       Committee Recommendations

                          program recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Budget     Committee   Change from
                                     request    recommended    request  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of test and evaluation                                         
 defense.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Central test and evaluation                                             
 investment development (CT).....      119,714      119,714  ...........
Foreign comparative testing......       34,062       34,062  ...........
Development test and evaluation..      105,565      105,565  ...........
      Total, director of test and                                       
       evaluation defense........      259,341      259,341  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................     $12,501,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................      22,587,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,587,000
Change from budget request..............................................

    This appropriation funds the activities of the Office of 
the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation.

                       Committee Recommendations

                          program recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Change 
                                         Budget    Committee      from  
                                        request   recommended   request 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of operational test and                                        
 evaluation..........................  .........  ...........  .........
Operational test and evaluation......     12,183      12,183   .........
Live fire testing....................     10,404      10,404   .........
      Total, director of operational                                    
       test and evaluation...........     22,587      22,587   .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                TITLE V

                     REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

                    DEFENSE BUSINESS OPERATIONS FUND

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $945,238,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     878,700,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,573,800,000
Change from budget request..............................    +695,100,000

    Acquisition Reform.--As described in Title II, Operation 
and maintenance, the Department has begun a series of 
initiatives to improve acquisition efficiency. The Committee 
recommends transferring $59,100,000 from the supply management 
business area of the Defense Business Operations Fund in 
anticipation of the savings realized from these initiatives.
    Cash Management.--The committee shares the concerns 
expressed in the House passed authorization bill regarding the 
management of DBOF cash balances and the level of cash required 
to ensure the solvency of the Fund. It appears, with the return 
of cash management responsibilities to the Military Services, 
there is a perception that the requirements for cash will 
necessarily increase thus leading to the most recent round of 
advance billings.
    However, it is not clear what level of cash is required. 
The current practice appears to be to advance bill in an amount 
sufficient to ``buy time'' to get to the end of the current 
fiscal year. Ultimately, the Committee is concerned about the 
methods the Department will use to resolve the problem. There 
have been a number of suggestions including higher productivity 
(and attendant cost reductions), continuing to rely on cash 
generated as supply management sells off inventory, and 
increasing prices in future years. Unfortunately, the Committee 
believes that the last alternative, higher prices to DBOF 
customers, is the most plausible outcome.
    A concept outlined early in the deliberations over DBOF, 
the use of intrafund transactions, appeared to represent a 
method of reducing the cash requirements of the DBOF compared 
to the previous regime of nine stock and industrial funds. 
These transactions are based on the recognition that 
significant amounts of DBOF sales are transacted between the 
business areas of the Fund. The Department had argued that 
modifying the accounting procedures for such transactions could 
result in the Department recognizing the costs and revenues of 
such transactions as well as the movement of inventory, but 
that cash would not have to flow along with such transactions. 
While the Committee recognizes that the Department has numerous 
accounting system problems which make implementation of such 
procedures very difficult, it seems appropriate to pursue 
development of such procedures because of the benefit they 
promise in driving down the total resource requirements of the 
Department.
    Prior Year Gains and Losses.--The Navy O&M budget includes 
a request for $695,100,000 to fund prior year accumulated 
operating losses at a number of depot maintenance activities. 
The Committee recognizes, and supports the general practice 
followed by the Department in such matters, that prior year 
accumulated gains or losses should be resolved in subsequent 
year pricing. However, the Committee believes that the 
Department's request in this case is reasonable because these 
losses were accumulated at activities now scheduled for 
closure. Further, the Committee recommends appropriating these 
funds directly to the DBOF rather than Navy. Operation and 
maintenance noting that the Navy O&M accounts (along with those 
of all other services) have been the source of funding for 
contingency operations.
    Defense Business Operations Fund Implementation Report.--A 
report, due March 31, 1996, should be provided to the 
congressional defense committees addressing the following 
issues: methods and results of calculating the cash 
requirements of DBOF; fiscal year 1996 advance billing 
requirements; progress on resolving prior year advance 
billings; a review of net and accumulated operating results by 
component and business area from the inception of DBOF to the 
present (i.e., fiscal year 1992-1996); a review of the 
definition of operating results as portrayed in the President's 
Budget request versus the definition used in preparing the DoD 
Chief Financial Officers' Statements; a complete review of 
progress toward finalizing implementation of revised DBOF 
policies; and, progress on identifying intrafund transactions 
and implementing revised accounting procedures for such 
transactions.

               aviation fuel reimbursement pricing study

    The Committee directs an independent review by the General 
Accounting Office evaluating the reimbursement pricing policies 
of the Defense Logistics Agency's Bulk and Into-plane aviation 
fuel programs administered by the Defense Fuel Supply Center 
(DFSC) to be completed by March 30, 1996. The study should 
include an analysis of the costs which are included in the 
rates billed to government aircraft operators for purchases 
under the Bulk Fuel program. Elements to be evaluated include, 
but are not limited to the costs associated with personnel, 
training, equipment, environmental compliance, inventory, 
maintenance, insurance, consumables and Federal excise taxes.

                     NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $724,400,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     974,220,000
Committee recommendation................................     974,220,000
Change from budget request..............................................

    This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation, 
and supply of prepositioning ships; operation of the Ready 
Reserve Force; acquisition of large medium speed roll-on/roll-
off ships for the Military Sealift Command; and acquisition of 
ships for the Ready Reserve Force.
    The Committee reiterates its strong support for improving 
the nation's strategic sealift capability and commends the 
Department for its commitment to this effort. Due to fiscal 
constraints, the Committee was unable to provide additional 
funds above the request for procurement of additional large 
medium-speed roll-on/roll-off ships (LMSRs), as proposed by the 
House National Security Committee. The Committee notes its 
recommendation does provide for acquisition of two LMSRs as 
requested by the Department and does not impede the 
Department's program to procure a total of 19 LMSRs as planned. 
The Committee shares the views of the House National Security 
Committee, as expressed in the report accompanying the fiscal 
year 1996 House-passed Defense Authorization bill, regarding 
the LMSR acquisition strategy and encourages the Department to 
follow that guidance.
                                TITLE VI

                  OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

                         Defense Health Program

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................  $9,943,959,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................  10,153,558,000
Committee recommendation................................  10,205,158,000
Change from budget request..............................     +51,600,000

    The Department requested $10,153,558,000 for the Defense 
Health Program. The Committee recommends $10,205,158,000, an 
increase of $51,600,000 in operations and maintenance only for 
the following:

PACMEDNET...............................................     $16,000,000
Beaumont Army Medical Center Computer Support...........       1,500,000
Currency Fluctuation....................................       8,100,000
Breast Cancer...........................................      25,000,000
American Red Cross Emergency Support Communications.....       1,000,000

                            Medical Research

    The Committee recommends increases to research and 
development accounts only for the following programs:

602716A:
    Med Teams...........................................      $4,000,000
    Rural Health........................................       3,500,000
602787A:
    Wound Healing.......................................       2,000,000
603002A:
    Breast Cancer.......................................      75,000,000
    Blood Analyzer......................................       2,000,000
603706N:
    Bone Marrow.........................................      24,000,000
    Prostate Cancer.....................................       7,500,000
    DoD Head Injury.....................................       1,000,000
    Blood Storage.......................................       1,000,000
    Naval Biodynamics Laboratory........................       1,500,000

                                tricare

    The Department has done a commendable job in meeting 
Congressional guidance to develop a comprehensive managed care 
program, known as TRICARE, with a defined standard benefit, 
health care choices and an equitable beneficiary cost share 
structure. The Committee recognizes that implementing TRICARE 
throughout the country by the end of fiscal year 1997 is an 
ambitious endeavor and is concerned about the Department's 
ability to meet this milestone given the complex contract 
requirements, effects of the new benefit structure on the 
demand for services and costs, and the incomplete fielding of 
the Composite Health Care Computer System (CHCS). The Committee 
understands that as the military medical infrastructure is 
reduced due to base closing and downsizing, access to health 
care for active duty members and their families will also be 
reduced unless TRICARE is implemented. Nonetheless, the 
Committee believes that a balance must be struck between 
meeting the growing needs of the defense medical population and 
proceeding in a reasoned fashion with TRICARE. The Committee 
believes moving toward this system should not be driven by an 
arbitrary date for full implementation but rather a phased 
approach that takes advantage of lessons learned from earlier 
regional awards. The Committee directs the Department to 
provide a report on the status of TRICARE implementation by 
February 15, 1996.
    The Committee continues to be concerned about the quality 
of care for children as DoD moves to the TRICARE managed care 
program. The Committee believes that DoD should ensure that the 
system has a sufficient number of pediatric providers. 
Furthermore, the Committee believes that the TRICARE program 
should include specialized care for children with complex and 
chronic conditions and provide access to care in areas where a 
military facility has closed or will close. The Committee 
directs the Department to provide a report to the Committee by 
January 15, 1996 on pediatric care and the implementation of 
the TRICARE managed care program.

                uniformed services treatment facilities

    The Department requested $315,900,000 for Uniformed 
Services Treatment Facilities. The Committee recommends the 
budgeted amount.

                          bone marrow research

    The Navy requested $10,000,000 for bone marrow research, 
donor recruitment, and tissue-typing activities. The Committee 
recommends $34,000,000, an increase of $24,000,000. The 
Committee is aware of the continuing success of the Navy's 
Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program and the National 
Marrow Donor Program, a life-saving program for military 
contingencies and civilian patients which now includes 
1,600,000 potential volunteer donors. The DOD donor center has 
recruited 80,000 DOD volunteers, and provides more marrow 
donors per week than any other donor center in the nation. The 
funds provided by the Committee are for the continuation of 
contingency support for marrow and platelet donation in the 
event of a national or international emergency, national donor 
recruitment, research to improve tissue typing, and formal 
international agreements with foreign donor registries. DD Form 
1414 shall show this is a special Congressional interest item.

                             breast cancer

    The Committee has provided an increase of $100,000,000 only 
for breast cancer prevention, treatment and research. The 
Committee notes that funds appropriated to the Army in prior 
years for breast cancer research have been well used. This year 
the Committee has provided funds to continue valuable research, 
as well as help improve access to care and improve treatment 
for military members and their dependents with breast cancer.
    The Committee recognizes that breast cancer is the most 
commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer 
deaths for women between the ages of 15 to 54. The Committee 
also notes that the incidence of breast cancer has steadily 
risen over the past several decades. The risk of getting breast 
cancer has gone from 1 in 20 to 1 in every 8 women today.
    The Committee is concerned about these statistics 
particularly as they affect active duty and retired military 
members and their dependents. The Department of Defense has 
worked to encourage screening tests for breast cancer to 
include clinical examination, self-examination and mammography.
    Of funds appropriated last year by this Committee, 
$20,000,000 was used for mammography to include extremely 
promising work in advanced detection techniques such as digital 
mammography. The Committee applauds this work and urges 
continuation of the highly promising digital mammography 
efforts begun in previous years.
    In addition, the Committee is concerned that military 
members and their dependents have timely access and immediate 
care in cases involving breast cancer. The Committee is aware 
of instances where access to care was wholly inadequate and 
strongly urges the Department to improve this problem. The 
Committee understands that TRICARE may well help to solve 
overall problems of access to essential care. However, the 
Committee believes that special attention should be given to 
addressing access to care for breast cancer patients. 
Accordingly, in view of the exceedingly small number of cancer 
specialists in the military medical community the Committee has 
provided $10,000,000 for increased recruitment, training and 
education for cancer specialists.
    In addition, the Committee believes that military 
facilities should have appropriate diagnostic equipment to help 
improve detection and treatment, as well as improved detection 
technologies such as digital mammography equipment, and has 
recommended $10,000,000 for these efforts.
    Education and awareness are critical to the prevention and 
early detection of breast cancer. The Committee encourages the 
Department to begin a program of breast cancer prevention and 
education for military members and their dependents and 
recommends $5,000,000 for such a program.
    Finally, the Committee recommends an increase of 
$75,000,000 to continue the Army's highly successful peer-
reviewed breast cancer research program.

          american red cross emergency communications support

    The Committee recognizes the excellent services that the 
Red Cross provides to our service members in times of 
emergency. Therefore, the Committee recommends an increase of 
$1,000,000 only for the Red Cross Emergency Communications 
Service for members of our Armed Forces and their families.

                            dental readiness

    The Committee supports the efforts of the House National 
Security Committee to begin addressing the reserve dental 
readiness problems as identified by the GAO and in lessons 
learned from Desert Storm. The Committee believes that a 
viable, long term solution to these problems must be achieved.

                       uncompensated health care

    In 1993 and 1994 the Committee expressed its concern 
regarding the fact that many military treatment facilities 
provide emergency health and trauma care to indigent civilians 
for which billing costs are uncollected. The most recent data 
available to the Committee suggests this has created an annual 
funding shortfall approaching $10,000,000. This situation is 
particularly acute at William Beaumont Army Medical Center. The 
Committee urges the Department of Defense to develop a 
mechanism to provide annual funds for military facilities 
affected by these unforeseen expenses, and requests the 
Department to report back to the Committee on its 
recommendations to address this problem.

           CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $575,449,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     746,698,000
Committee Recommendation................................     746,698,000
Change from budget request..............................................

                       Committee Recommendations

                              cost savings

    The chemical demilitarization program is marked with 
schedule delays and escalating costs. The Committee believes 
that cost savings and delays can be achieved through innovative 
approaches for chemical demilitarization. The Committee directs 
the Department to provide with the fiscal year 1997 budget 
request, suggestions for cost reductions, alternative 
demilitarization methods, and acceleration of the program while 
minimizing the risk to the environment and public.

                          Program Recommended

    The total program recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Budget request         Committee       Change from request
                                                  ---------------------     recommended     --------------------
                                                                       ---------------------                    
                                                   Quantity    Amount   Quantity    Amount   Quantity    Amount 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chem Agents and Munitions Destruction,                                                                          
 Destruction, DEF:                                                                                              
    Chem demilitarization--RDTE..................  ........     53,400  ........     53,400  ........  .........
    Chem demilitarization--PROC..................  ........    299,448  ........    299,448  ........  .........
    Chem demilitarization--O&M...................  ........    393,850  ........    393,850  ........  .........
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, chem agents and munitions                                                                          
       destruction, Def..........................  ........    746,698  ........    746,698  ........  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $721,266,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     680,432,000
Committee Recommendation................................     688,432,000
Change from budget request..............................      +8,000,000

    This appropriation provides funds for Military Personnel; 
Operation and Maintenance; Procurement; and Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation for drug interdiction and 
counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense.

                       Committee Recommendations

    The Department of Defense requested $680,432,000 for Drug 
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee 
recommends $688,432,000, an increase of $8,000,000. The 
recommendation includes a reduction of $8,236,000 for community 
outreach programs and an increase of $1,500,000 in the Southern 
Command Radars project as proposed by the House National 
Security Committee. The Committee also recommends an increase 
of $1,150,000 to the Caribbean Regional Operations Center 
communications project, an increase of $1,200,000 to the Civil 
Air Patrol for additional flying hours, an increase of 
$1,841,000 to the Gulf States Counterdrug Initiative for 
additional command, control, communications, and computer 
support to local law enforcement counternarcotics efforts, and 
an increase of $2,545,000 to the Southwest Border Information 
Systems project.

                          classified programs

    Classified programs under the Drug Interdiction and 
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense, are addressed in the 
classified annex accompanying this report.

                          Program Recommended

    The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the 
following program in fiscal year 1996:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Committee   Change from
                                      Budget    recommended     budget  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel...............     $152,787     $152,787  ...........
Operation and Maintenance........      442,633      441,633       -1,000
    South Comm Radars............       20,282       21,782        1,500
    CARIBROC Communications......          206        1,356        1,150
    Community Outreach...........        8,236            0       -8,236
    Gulf States CI-C4I...........        2,059        3,900        1,841
    Southwest Border Info Systems        4,000        5,545        1,545
    Civil Air Patrol.............        2,224        3,424        1,200
Procurement......................       48,659       57,659        9,000
    Southwest Border Info systems        5,265        6,265        1,000
    Classified program...........  ...........  ...........        8,000
RDT&E............................       36,353       36,353  ...........
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total, Drug Interdiction...      680,432      688,432        8,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $140,872,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     139,226,000
Committee Recommendation................................     178,226,000
Change from budget request..............................     +39,000,000

    The Committee recommends an increase of $39,000,000 in 
order to consolidate fraud investigation with the DoD Inspector 
General as described elsewhere in this report.
                               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, and include political trends, military balance 
trends, economic trends, treaty monitoring and support to 
military theater commanders.
    The National Foreign Intelligence Program budget funded in 
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily 
of resources of the Central Intelligence Agency; the Defense 
Intelligence Agency; the National Reconnaissance Office; the 
National Security Agency; the intelligence services of the 
Departments of the Army, Navy and the Air Force; the 
Intelligence Community Management Staff; and the CIA Retirement 
and Disability System Fund.

                           Classified Report

    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 
report. The intelligence community, Department of Defense and 
other organizations are expected to comply fully with the 
recommendations and directives in the classified report 
accompanying the fiscal year 1996 DOD Appropriations Act.

   CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................    $198,000,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................     213,900,000
Committee recommendation................................     213,900,000
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.

               INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................     $92,684,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................      93,283,000
Committee recommendation................................      75,683,000
Change from budget request..............................     -17,600,000

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) requested 
$93,283,000 for the Intelligence Community Management Account. 
The Committee recommends $75,683,000, a decrease of 
$17,600,000.

                        environmental task force

    The DCI requested $17,600,000 for the Environmental Task 
Force. The Committee does not believe that this program should 
be funded by the Intelligence Community. The Committee believes 
the NFIP-collected data provided by the Intelligence Community 
to environmental agencies beyond the national security arena 
should be budgeted by the recipient agencies. The costs 
associated with retaining approximately 60 scientists, 
processing and declassifying intelligence data for use by 
environmental agencies and scientists, and supporting the 
management and coordination of the Environmental Program should 
no longer be supported by the intelligence budget. For these 
reasons, the Committee denies the funds for the Environmental 
Task Force.

                 NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND

Fiscal year 1995 appropriation..........................      $8,500,000
Fiscal year 1996 budget request.........................      15,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
Change from budget request..............................     -15,000,000

    The Department requested $15,000,000 for the National 
Security Education Trust Fund (NSETF). The Committee recommends 
no funds be appropriated and termination of the NSETF.
    In fiscal year 1991 the Congress appropriated $150,000,000 
for the NSETF. The NSETF 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. The Committee 
believes that funding for programs of this nature should fall 
under the jurisdiction of other Federal agencies and not the 
Department of Defense.
                               TITLE VIII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The accompanying bill includes 106 general provisions. Most 
of these provisions were included in the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1995 and many have been 
included in the Defense Appropriations Acts 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 definition 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, 1996, 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 annexes, 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 the Military Personnel and the Operations 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.

                      contractor software charges

    An October, 1994 DOD Inspector General Report on contractor 
software charges indicates that defense contractors charge the 
government $5 billion annually, through indirect rates, for 
internal contractor automatic data processing activities. The 
report indicates that the Defense Contract Management Command 
provided insufficient priority to effectively monitor 
contractor automatic processing costs that are charged to DOD 
contracts. As a result, DOD was exposed to potential 
unwarranted contractor automatic data processing costs. The 
Inspector General estimated that the Defense Department could 
reduce costs by $164,000,000 during fiscal years 1995 to 1999 
through improved technical oversight of contractor ADP 
activities. In Section 8089, the Committee recommends a general 
reduction of $30,000,000 in anticipation of savings resulting 
from improved management of contractor ADP charges in fiscal 
year 1996.

                          incremental funding

    The Congress and the Secretary of Defense have insisted on 
full funding for the procurement of Department of Defense 
weapon systems for many years. Because it requires full 
disclosure of all likely costs before Congress appropriates 
funds for an item, the full funding policy imposes a financial 
discipline at all levels of management to ensure that cost 
goals are met or, when significant changes occur, that all 
oversight required by the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
and the Congress is conducted through the reprogramming process 
prior to committing to significant new increases. This is a 
sound and time-proven policy that has worked well since it was 
first implemented in a Defense appropriation in 1951. In a 
letter to the Committee dated April 17, 1995 Secretary of 
Defense Perry informed the Committee:

          Let me also reiterate again the Department's 
        opposition to incremental funding of weapon systems. I 
        know that you are facing great pressure to start new 
        commitments with small initial increments to cover 
        first year outlays. But that would reverse a well 
        founded twenty-year old policy for full funding of 
        weapons systems. That policy protects the Department 
        and the taxpayer. I have observed the pressures you 
        face because of deficits, and I doubt that our budget 
        will be increased in future years. Thus any incremental 
        of new commitments only constitutes a threat to future 
        readiness or modernization programs. I have resisted 
        this easy path as I develop a budget. I ask you to do 
        the same.

For these reasons, the Committee applauds the House National 
Security Committee for its thoughtful restatement of the full 
funding policy for Department of Defense weapon system 
acquisitions in Section 1007 of its fiscal year 1996 bill. The 
Committee has included a new general provision (Sec. 8090) in 
this bill to complement that legislation.

                           spent nuclear Fuel

    The Committee recommends a new general provision (Section 
8094) to facilitate shipments of spent nuclear fuel from 
nuclear ship overhauls, refuelings, and decommissionings that 
are funded in the Operation and Maintenance, Navy 
appropriation. Since 1992, the State of Idaho and the United 
States Government have been involved in a legal dispute 
concerning shipments of spent nuclear fuel to the Idaho 
National Engineering Laboratory. In 1993, both parties entered 
an agreement concerning interim shipments during the time a 
court injunction was in place. The injunction was planned to 
end in June, 1995 but has recently been extended for an 
indefinite period. The Navy has informed the Committee that 
this situation will have an adverse impact on impending 
overhauls of its nuclear warships, both in terms of orderly 
completion of the overhauls and in order to get the ships back 
into service on schedule. The Committee understands that 
representatives of the State of Idaho and of the United States 
Government will meet soon in an attempt to reach an agreement 
for interim shipments of spent nuclear fuel to the Idaho 
National Engineering Laboratory for national security reasons. 
The Committee recognizes that reaching an agreement is vital to 
avoid an adverse impact to Navy ship overhauls which could 
affect readiness. The authority provided by the new general 
provision is temporary and can only be used if the parties 
cannot reach a timely agreement and if the Secretary of Defense 
so certifies in writing to the congressional defense 
committees.

                 military sealift command ship charters

    The Military Sealift Command leases commercial ships to 
move fuel in support of military operations. Federal law 
requires that by the year 2015 all commercial tankers operating 
in United States waters be constructed with double hulls which 
afford additional protection to the environment from oil 
spills. Few of the ships which the Military Sealift Command 
leases today are double hull tankers and the military is not 
required by law to meet the 2015 deadline. However, the 
Committee strongly feels that the Federal Government should 
lead by example in the area of environmental protection, and 
that the Government should not impose standards on industry 
which it is not willing to impose on itself. The Committee 
therefore recommends a new general provision (Section 8095) 
which requires that: (1) when the Military Sealift Command 
leases or charters a commercial ship on a long-term basis 
involving construction of a new ship, the ship must be double 
hulled; (2) that by 1997 at least 20 percent of the ships which 
the Military Sealift Command leases or charters must involve 
ships of new construction; and (3) that the Military Sealift 
Command must plan to eliminate all single hull ship leases and 
charters by the year 2015.

                     lpd-17 main propulsion engines

    The Committee recommends a new general provision (Section 
8096) which requires that none of the funds appropriated or 
made available to the Department of the Navy shall be used to 
develop or procure main propulsion engines for the LPD-17 class 
of ships unless such equipment is powered by a diesel engine 
manufactured in the United States by a domestically operated 
entity, unless the Secretary of Defense waives the restriction 
on a case-by-case basis for national security reasons or due to 
significant price or quality differences.

              new attack submarine emergency generator set

    The Committee recommends a new general provision (Section 
8097) which requires that none of the funds appropriated or 
made available to the Department of the Navy shall be used to 
develop or procure an emergency generator set for the New 
Attack Submarine class of ships unless such equipment is 
powered by a diesel engine manufactured in the United States by 
a domestically operated entity, unless the Secretary of Defense 
waives the restriction on a case-by-case basis for national 
security reasons or due to significant price or quality 
differences.

                      energy and water efficiency

    The Committee recommends a new General Provision (Section 
8086) proposed in the budget that allows the Department 
flexibility with respect to energy conservation projects which 
may need to be funded from appropriations other than the ones 
in which they are realized.
            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 Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following statements are submitted 
describing the effect of provisions which directly or 
indirectly change the application of existing law.
    Language is included in various parts of the bill to 
continue ongoing 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 
such 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 earmarkings.
    The bill includes a number of provisions which make 
portions of the appropriations subject to enactment of 
authorizing legislation.
    Those additional changes in the fiscal year 1996 bill, 
which might be interpreted as changing existing law, are as 
follows:

                         appropriation language

    Language has been included in ``Reserve Personnel, Army'', 
``Reserve Personnel, Navy'', ``Reserve Personnel, Marine 
Corps'', ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'', ``National Guard 
Personnel, Army'', and ``National Guard Personnel, Air Force'', 
which amends statutory citations due to the enactment of the 
Reserve Officers, Personnel Management Act.
    Language has been included in ``Court of Military Appeals, 
Defense'' which changes the title of the appropriation to, 
``United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces''.
    A new appropriation paragraph ``Overseas Humanitarian, 
Disaster, and Civic Aid Programs'' has been added that provides 
funds for relief efforts and activities other than war.
    Language has been amended in the ``Former Soviet Union 
Threat Reduction'' paragraph to delete some of the activities 
previously funded under this program.
    Language has been included in ``Other Procurement, Army'' 
which provides for the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
replacement.
    Language has been included in ``Research, Development, Test 
and Evaluation, Navy'' which provides that V-22 funds may be 
used to meet requirements of the Special Operations Forces.
    Language has been included in ``Research, Development, 
Test, and Evaluation, Air Force'' that earmarks funds for 
reusable space launch technology.
    Language has been included in ``Research Development, Test 
and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' that amends funds available for 
the Sea-Based Wide Area Defense program.
    Language has been included in ``Defense Business Operations 
Fund'' that earmarks funds for the liquidation of prior year 
operating losses of the Department of the Navy.
    Language has been included in ``National Defense Sealift 
Fund'' for the operation of the Ready Reserve Fleet.
    Language has been included in ``National Security Education 
Trust Fund'' which rescinds prior year funds.
    Language has been included in ``Community Management 
Account'' which amends the appropriation to read ``Intelligence 
Community Management Account''.

                           general provisions

    Section 8002 has been amended which deletes the reference 
to foreign national employees of the DoD in the Republic of 
Turkey.
    Section 8004 has been amended which limits appropriations 
in the last two months of a single fiscal year, and which 
deletes reference to the National Board for the Promotion of 
Rifle Practice, Army.
    Section 8005 has been amended which provides authority to 
transfer prior year funds for valid ship cost adjustments 
related to the ``Shipbuilding and Construction, Navy'' 
appropriation.
    Section 8009 has been amended which prohibits funds 
available for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
Uniformed Services for payments to physicians and other non-
institutional health care providers in excess of the amount 
allowed in fiscal year 1995.
    Section 8010 has been amended that changes notification to 
the ``Congressional Defense Committees''; and amends language 
on multiyear procurement contracts.
    Section 8011 has been amended which deletes a provision 
allowing the Secretary of the Army to authorize certain medical 
services.
    Section 8012 has been amended which excludes military 
(civilian) technician personnel from being managed on the basis 
of any end strength.
    Section 8015 has been amended to make permanent that Army 
Reserve military (civilian) technicians shall be required to be 
dual status members of the troop program unit as a condition of 
employment.
    Section 8016 has been amended to make permanent which 
allows military (civilian) technicians who have, as a condition 
of employment membership in the selected reserve, to be 
retained in an active status in the reserve until they qualify 
for a Civil Service retirement.
    Section 8018 has been amended to make permanent limitations 
on tuition assistance for reserve officers for postsecondary 
educational expenses.
    Section 8022 has been amended to revise funding for the 
Reserve Component Automation System.
    Section 8033 has been amended which deletes a provision 
prohibiting the relocation of the medical support function from 
Brooks Air Force Base.
    Section 8041 has been amended to increase the amount of 
obligations authorized for DoD to incur in anticipation of 
receiving contributions from the Government of Kuwait, and to 
credit those accounts which incurred obligations upon receipt 
of those contributions.
    Section 8042 has been amended to earmark funds for 
financing activities of Federally Funded Research and 
Development Centers; and amends the reduction for non-FFRDC 
consulting services.
    Section 8050 has been amended to make permanent the 
authority that allows DoD to make voluntary separation 
incentives payable from the Voluntary Separation Incentive 
Fund.
    Section 8051 has been amended which makes amounts deposited 
for non-excess property leases available for the current fiscal 
year only.
    Section 8053 has been amended which deletes the proviso 
concerning investigations by the Secretary of the Navy with the 
Tailhook Association.
    Section 8056 has been amended to make permanent the 
authority that allows DOD to make early retirement payments for 
reserve component personnel.
    Section 8059 has been amended to make permanent the 
authority that allows DOD to make early retirement payments for 
active duty members.
    Section 8063 has been amended to change the percentage of 
personnel which are assigned to the National Foreign 
Intelligence programs.
    Section 8068 has been amended concerning the High 
Performance Computing Modernization program.
    Section 8074 has been amended which earmarks funds for 
development of a new family of expendable launch vehicles.
    Section 8078 has been amended which deletes the proviso 
requiring DOD to report on reductions of civilian technician 
force structure.
    Section 8079 has been amended which amends statutory 
citations due to the enactment of the Reserve Officers' 
Personnel Management Act.
    Section 8081 has been amended which changes the estimated 
Federal cost of construction, or improvement to any facility 
used primarily by personnel of the intelligence community.
    Section 8086 has been added that allows transfer of 
appropriations to DOD for projects related to increasing energy 
and water efficiency.
    Section 8087 has been added which directs that funds 
reimbursed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
to the Department of the Air Force be available for obligation 
only for Titan IV vehicles and related activities.
    Section 8088 has been added which appropriates $44,000,000 
to DOD and then transfers those funds to the U.S. Coast Guard 
for national security activities.
    Section 8089 has been added that reduces amounts 
appropriated elsewhere in this bill by $30,000,000 for savings 
from contractor automatic data processing costs charged to DoD 
weapon system acquisitions.
    Section 8090 has been added that prohibits acquisition or 
advance procurement of weapon systems on an incremental funding 
basis.
    Section 8091 has been amended to delete language concerning 
the United States Army Engineer's Waterways Experiment Station.
    Section 8093 has been added which releases funds available 
for the HAVE GAZE program.
    Section 8094 has been added which facilitates shipments of 
spent nuclear fuel from nuclear ship overhauls, refuelings, and 
decommissionings.
    Section 8095 has been added concerning lease or charter of 
double hull ships by the Military Sealift Command which involve 
the construction of new ships, and which requires that by 1997 
at least 20 percent of annual leases and charters be for ships 
of new construction and that the Military Sealift Command shall 
plan to eliminate single hull leases by 2015.
    Section 8096 has been added which requires that main 
propulsion engines for the LPD-17 Class be manufactured in the 
United States.
    Section 8097 has been added which requires that emergency 
generator sets for the New Attack Submarine Class be 
manufactured in the United States.
    Section 8098 has been added which provides for 
establishment of an interim National Training Center airhead at 
the former George Air Force Base, and a permanent airhead at 
Barstow-Daggett Airfield.
    Section 8099 has been added which provides additional 
transfer authority for interim funding of unfunded contingency 
operations.
    Section 8100 has been added which restricts certain funds 
from being used to finance Operation Southern Watch and 
Operation Provide Comfort unless the costs are included in the 
budget request for fiscal year 1997.
    Section 8101 has been amended to require a quarterly report 
of costs incurred by DOD in implementing or supporting 
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council to the 
congressional defense committees, and deletes the proviso which 
included the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
Representatives.
    Section 8102 has been amended which prohibits funds for new 
international peacekeeping, humanitarian, or disaster relief 
operations unless the President consults with Congress.
    Section 8103 has been added which places a prior 
notification requirement on the transfer of defense articles 
and services in support of international peackeeping, 
humanitarian, or disaster relief operations.
    Section 8104 has been amended to prohibit funds to deploy 
United States troops to Bosnia to help implement a negotiated 
peace settlement without Congressional authorization.
    Section 8105 has been amended which prohibits defense funds 
from being used to finance activities which are the 
responsibility of other Federal agencies.
    Section 8106 has been added which prohibits defense funds 
from being used to finance United Nations assessed 
contributions or arrearages.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

    Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of 
Representatives, the following 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
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Environmental Restoration, Defense
Summer Olympics
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
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
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 Business Operations Fund
National Defense Sealift Fund
Defense Health Program
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
Office of the Inspector General
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System 
    Fund
Intelligence Community Management Account
General Provision--Section 8088.

                           Transfer of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 1(b), rule X of the House of 
Representatives the following is submitted describing the 
transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Appropriations to                   Appropriations from               
  which transfer is       Amount       which transfer is       Amount   
         made                                 made                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and           $50,000,000  National Defense       $150,000,000
 maintenance, Army.                   Stockpile                         
                                      Transaction Fund.                 
Operation and            50,000,000  .....................              
 maintenance, Navy.                                                     
Operation and            50,000,000  .....................              
 maintenance, Air                                                       
 Force.                                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, 
Defense'' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and 
into this account.
    Language has been included in ``Drug Interdiction and 
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'' which transfers funds to 
other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense.
    Seven provisions (Section 8005, 8006, 8020, 8024, 8051, 
8084 and 8086) contain language which allows transfers of funds 
between accounts.
    Section 8088 has been included which appropriates 
$44,000,000 to DoD for transfer to the Coast Guard for 
activities relating to national security.
    Section 8099 has been included which provides transfer 
authority of not to exceed $200,000,000 for interim funding of 
unfunded contingency operations.

                          Rescission of Funds

    Pursuant to clause 1(b), rule X of the House of 
Representatives, the following table is submitted describing 
the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:

                   RESCISSIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amounts   
                 Department and activity                    recommended 
                                                          for rescission
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related agencies:                                                       
    National Security, Education Trust Fund, fiscal                     
     years 1993, 1994, 1995.............................     $78,100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4), Rule XI of the House of 
Representatives, the following statement is made:
    The bill reported will provide $244,119,400,000 in new 
budget obligational authority. This is an increase of 
$7,775,383,000 above the budget request for fiscal year 1996 
and $2,516,329,000 above the fiscal year 1995 funding level.
    The appropriation as proposed by the Committee should not 
cause inflation to increase greatly. This level of Defense 
spending will have little inflationary effect in comparison to 
the forecasted size of the gross national product for 1996.

                   Comparison With Budget Resolution

    Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), requires 
that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget 
authority contain a statement detailing how the authority 
compares with the reports submitted under section 602(b) of the 
Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on 
the budget for the fiscal year. This information follows:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 602(b) allocation        This bill     
                               -----------------------------------------
                                  Budget               Budget           
                                authority   Outlays  authority   Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary.................    243,910   244,072    243,906   243,959
Mandatory.....................        214       214        214       214
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The bill provides no new spending authority as described in 
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended.

                    Five-Year Projection of Outlays

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget 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.

                                                (In millions of dollars)
Budget authority in the bill............................        $244,119
    1996................................................         164,455
    1997................................................          46,522
    1998................................................          17,554
    1999................................................           7,861
    2000................................................           5,804

    The bill will not affect the levels of revenues, tax 
expenditures, direct loan obligations, or primary loan 
guarantee commitments under existing law.

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

    In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of the 
Congressional Budget 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.
                            Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
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:

                           ROLLCALL NUMBER: 1

    Date: July 25, 1995.
    Measure: Defense appropriations, fiscal year 1996.
    Motion by: Mr. Obey.
    Description of Motion: To reduce funding to procure the F-
22 fighter and to require Defense to submit a plan for reduced 
procurement for the outyears.
    Results: Rejected 8 to 32.
        Members Voting Yea            Member Voting Nay
Mr. Durbin                          Mr. Bevill
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Obey                            Mr. Bunn
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Callahan
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Coleman
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. Dicks
Mr. Stokes                          Mr. Fazio
Mr. Yates                           Mr. Forbes
                                    Mr. Frelinghuysen
                                    Mr. Hefner
                                    Mr. Hobson
                                    Mr. Hoyer
                                    Mr. Kingston
                                    Mr. Knollenberg
                                    Mr. Kolbe
                                    Mr. Lewis
                                    Mr. Lightfoot
                                    Mr. Livingston
                                    Mr. McDade
                                    Mr. Murtha
                                    Mr. Nethercutt
                                    Mr. Neumann
                                    Mr. Packard
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Thornton
                                    Mrs. Vucanovich
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wilson
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                            Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI 
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:

                           ROLLCALL NUMBER: 2

    Date: July 25, 1995.
    Measure: Defense appropriations, fiscal year 1996.
    Motion by: Mr. Obey.
    Description of Motion: To reduce funding for national 
missile defense.
    Results: Rejected 10 to 33.
        Members Voting Yea            Member Voting Nay
Mr. Chapman                         Mr. Bevill
Mr. Durbin                          Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Fazio                           Mr. Bunn
Mrs. Lowey                          Mr. Coleman
Mr. Obey                            Mr. DeLay
Ms. Pelosi                          Mr. Dicks
Mr. Sabo                            Mr. Forbes
Mr. Skaggs                          Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Stokes                          Mr. Hefner
Mr. Yates                           Mr. Hobson
                                    Mr. Hoyer
                                    Mr. Kingston
                                    Mr. Knollenberg
                                    Mr. Kolbe
                                    Mr. Lewis
                                    Mr. Lightfoot
                                    Mr. Livingston
                                    Mr. McDade
                                    Mr. Murtha
                                    Mr. Nethercutt
                                    Mr. Neumann
                                    Mr. Packard
                                    Mr. Porter
                                    Mr. Regula
                                    Mr. Rogers
                                    Mr. Skeen
                                    Mr. Thornton
                                    Mrs. Vucanovich
                                    Mr. Walsh
                                    Mr. Wicker
                                    Mr. Wilson
                                    Mr. Wolf
                                    Mr. Young
                                    
                                    
                   DISSENTING VIEWS OF HON. DAVE OBEY

    It will come as no surprise to any Member that I am opposed 
to this bill. But I really believe that Members who make 
military spending their first priority and others who call 
themselves ``Cheap Hawks'' ought to think twice about where 
this bill is taking us.
    This bill, because it tracks so closely with the 
authorizing bill, is out of touch with what has happened around 
the world. It seems that some of our friends on the authorizing 
committees don't want to admit this, but the Cold War is over. 
And the hard truth is that we better start adjusting our 
priorities towards the challenges of the future instead of the 
past because, if nothing else, there simply won't be money 
available to continue all these weapon systems that were 
designed to fight Cold War enemies.

                 seven-year plan for military spending

    If you look at the Republican seven-year military spending 
plan, you will find that Republican ``doomsday'' rhetoric on 
defense is not matched by their own budget numbers. The 
majority party gnashes its teeth and sheds crocodile tears 
about the inadequacy of President Clinton's seven-year defense 
budget, even going so far as to imply that it puts our national 
security at risk.
    Yet when you look at the Republican's seven-year military 
spending plan in the Budget Resolution, you find it adds 96-one 
hundredths of one percent to President Clinton defense budget. 
Apparently, the Republicans can solve all of the national 
security inadequacies of the President's defense budget by 
increasing it be less than one percent.

              military spending comparison (function 050)

                           1996 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET RESOLUTION VS. PRESIDENT'S BUDGET                          
                                    [Budget authority in billions of dollars]                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 1996    1997    1998    1999    2000    2001    2002      cum  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Budget............................   257.8   253.4   259.6   266.3   276.0   286.5   286.5   1,886.1
1996 Budget Resolution........................   264.7   267.3   269.0   271.7   274.4   277.1   280.0   1,904.2
Bud Res. over/under President.................    +6.9   +13.9    +9.4    +5.4    -1.6    -9.4    -6.5      18.1
      Change (in percent).....................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......     +0.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data supplied by Department of Defense.                                                                         

    The Military Spending ``Roller Coaster''. Instead of making 
unfounded attacks on the President's Budget, our defense 
committees should turn their attention to a very real problem 
caused by the new Republican budget plan. In what I can only 
guess was a political decision, the Republican seven-year 
Budget Resolution front loads its military spending increases 
the Pentagon's Budget over the first two years of the plan and 
then sets into place very steep cuts for the remaining five 
years. The Republican Military Budget is actually below the 
Clinton defense budget in each of the last three years of the 
plan by a total of $17.5 billion.
    In fact, if it weren't for the first several years of 
needlessly piling in excess military spending increases before 
the next election, it is a plan that I find hard to criticize.
    The following chart illustrates the roller coaster ride we 
can expect to see for Pentagon budgets over the next seven 
years. It compares the annual amounts that military spending 
levels set in the 1996 Budget Resolution (function 050) will be 
over or under the amounts set forth in the President's defense 
budget. It also shows the added shortfall that would be 
experienced if the Congress committed to buy 20 additional B-2 
bombers under the contractor's proposal to finance three planes 
a year. All data for this chart were supplied by the Defense 
Department.




    Excessive Multi-Year Commitments. This Republican ``roller 
coaster'' military budget will cause very severe problems in a 
few short years because of the multi-year spending commitments 
we are being asked to make this year.
    The Republican Congress this year and next will attempt to 
load up the Pentagon with:
          extra B-2 bombers;
          extra Aegis destroyers and other Navy and Marine 
        surface ships funded on an incremental basis;
          extra aircraft, helicopters and tanks funded under 
        new multi-year contracts;
          acceleration of the F 22 program;
          more for National Missile Defense;
and a host of other new multi-year commitments.
    This is going to put the Pentagon in an incredible box in 
the last five years of the seven-year plan because all the 
bills for these new commitments will come due just as the total 
of available defense dollars compared to the President's Budget 
begins to plummet.
    The Pentagon will then have to choose between more cuts in 
troop strength, more base closures, or the wasting literally 
billions of dollars by canceling some of these procurements in 
mid-stream. The other option would be to cut Medicare even 
further to pay for the excesses that we commit to now.
    The self-styled ``Cheap Hawks'' in the House ought to think 
twice about what we are buying in our military spending bills 
this year and take a hard look at what it means for the future. 
We should stop these big new multi-year commitments before they 
begin.
    I offered amendments in the full committee mark-up to start 
bringing this problem under control by slowing down development 
of the F-22 fighter and by cutting the excessive 121 percent 
increase to the budget request for national missile defense 
research and development. The combined multi-year impact of 
these amendments would be to take out roughly $12 billion in 
future cost over the next seven years ($6.5 billion for F-22, 
and at least $5.6 billion for national missile defense). My 
substantive reasons for these proposals are explained more 
fully below.
    Although, the Committee did not accept these amendments, I 
believe support for them will grow as the Pentagon's funding 
mismatch becomes more fully understood.
    In addition, I plan to co-sponsor an amendment when this 
bill is considered on the House floor to strike $493 million 
provided in the bill for a down payment on 20 more B-2 bombers. 
This would save $18.5 billion in added cost over the next seven 
years and $38 billion over the next twenty years.

                  deferring the F-22 fighter aircraft

    My F-22 amendment would have cut $1 billion out of the 
$2.34 billion appropriation in the bill to continue research 
and development for the F-22 fighter program. My amendment 
would also have directed the Air Force to use the remaining 
$1.34 billion to restructure and delay this program by five 
years in line with recommendations of the GAO that this program 
should be delayed by 7 years.
    The reason for this is simple. The Air Force and F-22 
supporters want to spend billions of tax dollars we don't have 
for a plane whose time has not yet come.
    We already have the best air superiority fighter in the 
world--the F-15E--and the threat to that plane has been 
shrinking, not growing. The GAO tells us the 743 F-15Es we have 
on hand will last at least until the Year 2015 and probably a 
whole lot longer than that. The Air Force wants to spend $73.5 
billion to buy 442 F-22 replacements planes for deployment 
between 2004 and 2010. Each plane is now projected to cost $162 
million and we all know that this cost has nowhere to go but 
up. The GAO believes there is at least a seven year overlap 
that is unnecessary.
    Program Slow Down, Not Termination. We hear all kinds of 
scary talk from the F-22 proponents. For instance, we are told 
that spending only $1.34 billion next year instead of $2.34 
billion will kill the program. Only in the dream world of the 
Pentagon and $600 dollar toilet seats do they believe that 
spending nearly a billion and a half dollars on a program will 
kill it. It will be restructured and slowed down but not 
killed.
    The ``Threat''. We also hear that even though this plane 
was designed specifically to fight Soviet planes in an old Cold 
War scenario where our people would be vastly outnumbered and 
face ultra-sophisticated defenses, there are now new 
``threats'' from some 20 other countries who possess aircraft 
that are nearly as sophisticated as the F-15E. What they don't 
tell you that those ``threats'' include such countries as 
Switzerland, Israel, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Brazil 
and Argentina. They also won't tell you that much of this so-
called ``threat'' is from our own aircraft that we sell to 
these countries--particularly the 1,700 F-16s we have sold to 
our friends and allies.
    For the countries that are legitimate concerns, like Iraq 
or North Korea, we learned in Desert Storm that possession of a 
few sophisticated aircraft does not necessarily represent a 
legitimate, serious ``threat'' to our Air Force. Many other 
things are necessary besides fancy planes such as highly 
trained air crews, AWACs air control systems, and other support 
infrastructure.
    In fact, the trend is going sharply in the other direction. 
The GAO reports that the break up of the Warsaw Pact and the 
Soviet Union has greatly lessened the quantity and quality of 
the potential fighter threat to United States forces. Compared 
to over 740 F-15's in the US inventory, potential foreign 
adversaries have only a handful of expensive high performance 
fighters that come close to matching the F-15's performance.
    Other experts agree with this assessment. The RAND think 
tank is reported to have said the following about the threat to 
our air security:

          The airpower forces of the former Soviet Union have 
        fragmented and their recovery would take many years. 
        The air fleets fielded by other potential adversaries 
        are small and aging.

    Another RAND study concludes that China will retire about 
half of its fighters and attack aircraft within the next ten 
years, and cannot afford to replace them.
    This situation is not expected to change in the foreseeable 
future. Because of their expense, the GAO reports that the 
Defense Department does not believe that our potential 
adversaries will buy more than a few high performance fighter 
aircraft anytime soon.
    Potential F-22 Cost Growth. We also hear that not spending 
billions of dollars now will actually cost us billions of 
dollars later. This is a standard Pentagon response when they 
can't argue the facts. It's like telling your son or daughter 
that they better go out and trade in their Ford for that shiny 
new Mercedes now even though they're up to their ears in debt, 
because if they put it off for several years that Mercedes is 
going to cost more. And of course the Air Force takes this one 
step better by saying that you should buy two new Mercedes now 
because you will save that much more.
    The bottom line is we should buy what we need, when we need 
it. We don't need the F-22 right now when we already have the 
best plane around, the best pilots around, and the best command 
and control structure around. There simply is no threat to 
justify putting this on the fast track.
    F-22 Foreign Sales. Last, for those of you who scratch your 
heads about how our military-industrial complex works, I would 
commend to you the July 15, 1995 issue of the National Journal 
which reports that the President of Lockheed Martin 
Aeronautical Systems plans to begin foreign sales of the F-22 
at the Paris Air Show next year. One must question the Air 
Force's burning need for this new plane if it is willing to 
disseminate this technology across the world. Of course, as is 
the case with the F-15 and F-16, selling this technology to 
foreign governments perpetuates the ``threat'' and justifies 
the next 100 billion dollar project.

             excessive growth for national missile defense

    The Administration requested almost $2.44 billion for the 
ballistic missile defense activities of the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization. The bill increases that amount by $600 
million, or about 25%. Within this increase, the Committee more 
than doubled the President's request for national missile 
defense (commonly referred to as ``Son of Star Wars'') from 
$371 million to $821 million. I proposed an amendment in full 
committee to strike this $450 million increase designated for 
national missile defense while still leaving $2.6 billion for 
missile defense work focused mainly against the immediate 
threat to our troops--which is theater ballistic missiles. The 
Committee did not agree to this amendment.
    We must Focus Our Limited Resources on Countering The Most 
Urgent Threats. This ``Star Wars'' debate is at heart a debate 
over perceptions. The perception clearly is that the threat of 
a ballistic missile attack against the US is so great that we 
need to embark on a crash program to build a very limited 
national missile defense (NMD) system within perhaps six years. 
By contrast, the Administration proposes to fund activities 
leading to a more effective system in a decade or so.
    Most experts, including Secretary Perry and General 
Shalikashvili, simply disagree with Congressional advocates of 
this crash program about the increased urgency and immediacy of 
this particular threat. Right now only two potentially hostile 
countries can reach the continental US with ballistic 
missiles--China and Russia. And these are two countries that 
have been able to hit us with missiles for decades. The new 
national missile defense system being developed would not 
address this threat, since not even the most enthusiastic 
supporters of missile defense claim this new system could 
protect against a full-fledged nuclear attack.
    Ironically, the best way to address the Russian missile 
threat is to continue to dismantle them under the Nunn-Lugar 
program. Unfortunately, the Committee proposes to cut the 
request for the Nunn-Lugar program almost in half. It is a far 
higher National priority to invest our limited funds to 
dismantle existing missiles that could obliterate our country 
tomorrow than to accelerate a haphazard crash program of very 
limited effectiveness with the added consequence of unraveling 
several very important nuclear weapons treaties.
    Proponents of this multi-billion dollar crash program for a 
limited NMD system talk about the 20 or so other countries that 
may have or are working on ballistic missile capabilities. But 
there are two important points here. First, most of these 
countries pose no threat to the US. They are countries like the 
United Kingdom, Brazil, and Israel. In reality we are talking 
about a handful of rogue countries like Libya and North Korea.
    The second point in that within this rouge country 
category, the most common missile is the short and medium range 
SCUD ``theater'' missile that cannot reach the continental US. 
The unpleasant fact is, if these nations wish to unleash 
weapons of mass destruction on our territory, chemical or 
biological weapons represent more of a near term threat than 
intercontinental ballistic missiles.
    The Administration has set the right priorities by robustly 
funding programs that counter the real threats we face today; 
the massive arsenal of nuclear ICBM's in the former Soviet 
Union; chemical and biological warfare defense; and theater 
missile defense.
    A Crash NMD Program Will End Up Hunting Theater Missile 
Defense Efforts. I am also concerned that overlaying a new 
multi-year, multi-billion NMD requirement on the existing 
missile defense program will end up sucking funds away from the 
higher priority threater missile defense program in just few 
short years. Given the seven-year budget plan in the Republican 
Budget Resolution, it's clear we don't have the money to 
sustain both a large theater missile defense program and a 
hyped-up national missile defense program unless we cut other 
weapons systems. And I see no willingness for the leadership of 
this Congress to do that.
    Crash NMD Program Could Be Obsolete Before It Is 
Implemented. We are told by the Administration that their 
current NMD program is keeping pace with technology rather than 
outstripping it. A crash effort to deploy a national missile 
defense before this technology is fully developed will end up 
costing more, delivering less, and saddling us with a system 
that will quickly become obsolete. And in the absence of an 
immediate or even mid-term threat, we simply shouldn't go down 
that road.
    I fully recognize that the world is still a dangerous 
place. I also know that some hostile states such as North Korea 
are probably pursuing more advanced missile development 
programs. But the fact remains--and the intelligence community 
agrees--that we don't face any credible threat for at least a 
decade. That is the time frame being proposed for national 
missile defense by the Pentagon experts.
    Many things could change in the next decade both good and 
bad. There is certainly a chance that North Korea will be 
peacefully unified with South Korea. A peace process that moves 
forward in the Middle East could further isolate and weaken 
Iran, Iraq, and Libya.
    The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is serious 
and deserves constant vigilance. But our decisions in this area 
should be based on careful and reasoned assessments, not on the 
basis of polls that are ginned up to make this a political 
issue. Let's take a step back and spend our money wisely. We 
should bring the national missile defense budget back down to 
the level requested by the Administration.

                Strike $493 Million for More B-2 Bombers

    When this bill is considered on the floor, I plan to 
cosponsor an amendment to eliminate half a billion dollars of 
waste in this bill by simply reaffirming the decision of 
President Bush's Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, and the 
former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell.
    Those gentlemen proposed to cap the B-2 bomber fleet at 
twenty airplanes. That decision has been reviewed in depth by a 
variety of defense experts including Secretary Perry and 
General Shalikashvili, and they strongly concur with Secretary 
Cheney's basic decision--that 20 airplanes is the right number.
    Ever since the Cheney decision, we have had Congressional 
B-2 advocates on both sides of the aisle try to knock holes in 
the Defense Department's decision with little success.
    Heavy Bomber Study. Last year, after meeting a stone wall, 
the B-2 advocates pushed through a requirement for the Defense 
Department to spend $3 million for an independent study on the 
future heavy bomber force and another $1.5 million for a study 
on the B-2 industrial base. Those studies were indeed conducted 
and the results are now out.
    And much to the chagrin of the B-2 advocates, these studies 
completely refute their position.
    The Heavy Bomber Force Study was conducted by an 
independent study group--the Institute for Defense Analysis--
under the overall direction of a highly-respected DoD official 
who has been involved with bomber issues since 1977. That study 
assessed the results of numerous other studies--including the 
RAND study that B-2 advocates talk about. The Heavy Bomber 
Force Study is widely hailed as one of the most complete and 
objective studies of its type ever conducted. Contrary to 
assertions of B-2 lobbyists, this study assessed numerous 
alternative scenarios (called ``excursions'') including short 
warning time, no available carriers, and the denial of tactical 
airbases for 8 to 15 days.
    What did this study conclude?
          (1) ``the planned force [which includes 20 B-2s] can 
        meet the national security requirements of two nearly 
        simultaneous major regional conflicts'';
          (2) ``additional quantities of accurate guided 
        munitions would be more cost effective than procuring 
        20 additional B-2s''; and
          (3) ``planned conventional upgrades to the B-1, 
        [which are already bought and paid for,] are more cost 
        effective than procuring an additional 20 B-2s''.
    In other words, if you want to do what's right for the 
defense of this country and what's right for the safety of our 
fighting men and women, you won't buy more B-2s. Instead, if 
additional funds are available, you will spend them on buying 
more smart bombs and making upgrades to the B-1. This study 
makes an overwhelming case that what makes the critical 
difference isn't so much the platform as it is what is dropped 
from the platform. And our efforts should be directed at better 
and cheaper smart munitions that can be dropped from longer 
ranges. That is in fact what the Pentagon plans to do.
    B-2 Industrial Base Study. The second independent study on 
the B-2 industrial base was released in June. That study also 
makes an overwhelming case that no unique industrial 
capabilities will be lost when the B-2 production line is shut 
down after 20 planes.
    Stealth and other key technologies will continue to be 
produced and improved through the ongoing F-22 and JAST 
programs. Industrial capabilities exist at all other prime 
aircraft manufacturing contractors to build next generation 
bombers. If necessary, steps have been taken so that the B-2 
production line could be restarted in the future. So the 
argument that we need to buy more B-2s to preserve a unique 
technology just doesn't hold up.
    Faulty B-2 Force Comparisons. Many Members have seen charts 
from B-2 advocates stating that the B-2 is a cost-saver because 
``each pair of B-2s replaces 75 other aircraft and 132 other 
crew members.'' The assumption is that all of the various 
support aircraft in a typical Air force ``strike package'' 
would be made unnecessary by the B-2 and therefore could be 
eliminated.
    The Defense Department tells us this is just plain wrong. 
They say:

          (1) These comparisons assume that the B-2 would not 
        have fighter or air suppression escorts. This may be 
        true for the bombing runs on lightly defended targets, 
        but fighters and enemy defense suppression aircraft 
        will still be required for other missions in the 
        theater and cannot be struck from the inventory. It is 
        unlikely that a two billion dollar B-2 aircraft will be 
        sent to heavily defended areas without escort.
          (2) The comparisons used are faulty because they 
        assume only B-2s carry smart weapons, and that the B-2 
        carries 8 times the payload of light bombers. In 
        reality other aircraft have precision guided weapons 
        capability as good or better than the B-2, and the B-2 
        carries closer to 4 times the payload of light bombers. 
        B-1s on the other hand have a larger payload and a 
        better suite of available weapons than the B-2 .
          (3) The B-2 advocates conveniently forget about the 
        higher sortie rate of lighter bombers that reduces even 
        further the impact of the B-2s payload advantage.
          (4) The aircraft the B-2 is compared to are already 
        in the inventory and do not have to be purchased as the 
        B-2 does.

    If the B-2 advocates truly believe their own argument, they 
should clearly and specifically identify the Air Force, Navy, 
and Army units that they would deactivate because of the 
addition of more B-2 aircraft.
    Affordability. Last, I want to point out that, even under 
the new Republican budget plan, we can't afford this new bomber 
without cutting out one or two other major procurements. And no 
one on the majority side has shown any inclination to do that 
when it comes to military spending.
    The Defense Department tells us that Republican budget plan 
provides only $18 billion more than the President's defense 
plan for the next seven years. The B-2 procurement alone will 
cost an additional $18.5 billion over that time period. The 
outyear funding commitments for this program combined with the 
other new multi-year commitments for ships, tanks, and other 
planes will simply wash away the Republican increase. Two years 
from now we will either have to cut off half-paid-for 
procurements resulting in a tremendous multi-billion dollar 
waste, or cut back on troop strength and close more bases.
    For all these reasons, we should do the right thing when 
this bill reaches the floor. We will have a chance to vote for 
sound defense policy and to reduce the deficit. We should vote 
to strip out this money and cap the B-2 fleet at 20 planes.
                                                         Dave Obey.

                                
