    [House Report 104-563]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    104th Congress                                                   Report
                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
     2d Session                                                     104-563
    _______________________________________________________________________

            NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

                                   ----------

                                  R E P O R T

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 3230

                                 together with

                         ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND
                                DISSENTING VIEWS

          [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

      May 7, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
                  State of the Union and ordered to be printed

             NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

    104th Congress                                                   Report
                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
     2nd Session                                                    104-563
    _______________________________________________________________________

            NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

                                   __________

                                  R E P O R T

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                       ON

                                   H.R. 3230

                                 together with

                         ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND

                                DISSENTING VIEWS

          [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

      May 7, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
                  State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                      HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
                          One Hundred Fourth Congress

     FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina,
                 Chairman
    RONALD V. DELLUMS, California        BOB STUMP, Arizona
    G.V. (SONNY) MONTGOMERY, Mississippi DUNCAN HUNTER, California
    PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado         JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio
    IKE SKELTON, Missouri                HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia
    NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia             JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
    JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina  CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
    SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas              ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
    OWEN PICKETT, Virginia               JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
    LANE EVANS, Illinois                 JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
    JOHN TANNER, Tennessee               RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,
    GLEN BROWDER, Alabama                California
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             STEVE BUYER, Indiana
    NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii             PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts
    CHET EDWARDS, Texas                  TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida
    FRANK TEJEDA, Texas                  JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
    MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts      JAMES TALENT, Missouri
    ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam            TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
    JANE HARMAN, California              ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
    PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania            HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California
    PETE GEREN, Texas                    RON LEWIS, Kentucky
    PETE PETERSON, Florida               J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma
    WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana      MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
    ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut         JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
    MIKE WARD, Kentucky                  SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
    PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island     VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee
                                         JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida
                                         WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North
                                         Carolina
                                         JAMES B. LONGLEY, Jr., Maine
                                         TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
                                         RICHARD ``DOC'' HASTINGS,
                                         Washington
      Andrew K. Ellis, Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Explanation of the Committee Amendment...........................     1
    Purpose..........................................................     1
    Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations..................     2
    Summary of Authorization in the Bill.............................     2
    Summary Table of Authorizations..................................     2
    Rationale for the Committee Bill.................................    10
    Hearings.........................................................    17
      Continued Shortfalls...........................................    11
      Quality of Life................................................    12
      Modernization..................................................    13
      Ballistic Missile Defense......................................    15
      Innovation.....................................................    15
      Conclusion.....................................................    17

    Division A--Department of Defense Authorization..................    19
    Title I--Procurement.............................................    19

      Overview.......................................................    19
        Aircraft Procurement, Army...................................    21
          Overview...................................................    21
          Items of Special Interest..................................    24
        Missile Procurement, Army....................................    25
          Overview...................................................    25
          Items of Special Interest..................................    28
        Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army....................    29
          Overview...................................................    29
          Items of Special Interest..................................    32
        Ammunition Procurement, Army.................................    33
          Overview...................................................    33
          Item of Special Interest...................................    36
        Other Procurement, Army......................................    36
          Overview...................................................    36
          Items of Special Interest..................................    43
        Aircraft Procurement, Navy...................................    43
          Overview...................................................    43
          Items of Special Interest..................................    47
        Weapons Procurement, Navy....................................    48
          Overview...................................................    48
          Item of Special Interest...................................    52
        Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps....................    52
          Overview...................................................    52
          Item of Special Interest...................................    55
        Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................    55
          Overview...................................................    55
          Items of Special Interest..................................    57
        Other Procurement, Navy......................................    60
          Overview...................................................    60
          Items of Special Interest..................................    69
        Procurement, Marine Corps....................................    72
          Overview...................................................    72
          Items of Special Interest..................................    77
        Aircraft Procurement, Air Force..............................    77
          Overview...................................................    77
          Items of Special Interest..................................    82
        Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................    85
          Overview...................................................    85
        Missle Procurement, Air Force................................    88
          Overview...................................................    88
          Items of Special Interest..................................    92
        Other Procurement, Air Force.................................    93
          Overview...................................................    93
          Items of Special Interest..................................    99
        Procurement, Defense-Wide....................................    99
          Overview...................................................    99
          Items of Special Interest..................................   105
        National Guard and Reserve Equipment.........................   105
          Overview...................................................   105
        Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense...........   109
          Overview...................................................   109
          Items of Special Interest..................................   111
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   111
        Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   111
          Section 101-108--Authorization of Appropriations...........   111
        Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................   111
          Section 111--Repeal of Limitation on Procurement of Certain
            Aircraft.................................................   111
          Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army
            Programs.................................................   112
        Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................   112
          Section 121--Nuclear Attack Submarine Programs.............   112
          Section 122--Cost Limitations for Seawolf Submarine Program   112
          Section 123--Pulse Doppler Radar Modification..............   112
          Section 124--Reduction in Number of Vessels Excluded From
            Limit on Purchase of Vessels Built in Foreign Shipyards..   112
          Section 125--T-39N Trainer Aircraft for the Navy...........   112
        Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................   112
          Section 141--Repeal of Limitation on Procurement of F-15E
            Aircraft.................................................   112
          Section 142--C-17 Aircraft Procurement.....................   113

    Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E)....   114

      Overview.......................................................   114
        Defense-Wide Programs........................................   116
          Special Considerations.....................................   116
        Army RDT&E...................................................   131
          Overview...................................................   131
          Items of Special Interest..................................   140
        Navy RDT&E...................................................   148
          Overview...................................................   148
          Items of Special Interest..................................   157
        Air Force RDT&E..............................................   177
          Overview...................................................   177
          Items of Special Interest..................................   187
        Defense Agencies RDT&E.......................................   194
          Overview...................................................   194
          Items of Special Interest..................................   202
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   217
        Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   217
          Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations...............   217
          Section 202--Amount for Basic and Applied Research.........   217
          Section 203--Dual Use Technology Programs..................   217
        Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
          Limitations................................................   217
          Section 211--Space Launch Modernization....................   217
          Section 212--Live-Fire Survivability Testing of V-22
            Aircraft.................................................   217
          Section 213--Live-Fire Survivability Testing of F-22
            Aircraft.................................................   218
          Section 214--Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions,
            Explosives, and Rockets..................................   218
          Section 215--Research Activities of the Defense Advanced
            Research Projects Agency Relating to Chemical and
            Biological Warfare Defense Technology....................   219
          Section 216--Limitation on Funding for F-16 Tactical Manned
            Reconnaissance Aircraft..................................   219
          Section 217--Unmanned Aerial Vehicles......................   220
          Section 218--Hydra-70 Rocket Product Improvement Program...   220
          Section 219--Space-Based Infrared System Program...........   220
          Section 220--Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST)
            Program..................................................   220
          Section 221--Authorization of Joint United States-Israel
            Nautilus Laser/Theater High Energy Laser Program.........   220
          Section 222--Nonlethal Weapons Research and Development
            Program..................................................   220
        Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Programs...............   220
          Section 231--Funding for Ballistic Missile Defense for
            Fiscal Year 1997.........................................   220
          Section 232--Certification of Capability of United States
            to Defend Against Single Ballistic Missile...............   221
          Section 233--Policy on Compliance With the ABM Treaty......   221
          Section 234--Requirement That Multilateralization of the
            ABM Treaty be Done Only Through Treaty-Making Power......   222
          Section 235--Report on Ballistic Missile Defense and
            Proliferation............................................   222
          Section 236--Revision to Annual Report on the Ballistic
            Missile Defense Program..................................   223
          Section 237--ABM Treaty Defined............................   223
          Section 238--Capability of National Missile Defense System.   223
        Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   223
          Section 241--Uniform Procedures and Criteria for
            Maintenance and Repair at Air Force Installations........   223
          Section 242--Requirements Relating to Small Business
            Innovative Research Program..............................   224
          Section 243--Extension of Deadline for Delivery of Enhanced
            Fiber Optic Guided Missile (EFOG-M) System...............   224
          Section 244--Amendment to the University Research
            Initiative Support Program...............................   224
          Section 245--Amendments to Defense Experimental Programs to
            Stimulate Competitive Research...........................   224
          Section 246--Elimination of Report on the Use of
            Competitive Procedures for the Award of Certain Contracts
            to Colleges and Universities.............................   224
          Section 247--National Oceanographic Partnership Program....   225

    Title III--Operation and Maintenance.............................   226

      Overview.......................................................   226
      Items of Special Interest......................................   258
        Intelligence Programs........................................   258
          Defense Mapping Agency (DMA)...............................   258
          Over the Horizon Backscatter (OTH-B) Radar System..........   258
          Pacer Coin.................................................   259
          Senior Scout...............................................   259
        Morale, Welfare and Recreation Issues........................   259
          Appropriated Fund Support for Morale, Welfare and
            Recreation Programs......................................   259
          Defense Commissary Agency/Performance Based Organization...   261
          Distribution of Distilled Spirits..........................   261
        Other Issues.................................................   262
          Abrams Integrated Management XXI...........................   262
          Ammunition Management Program..............................   262
          Army After Next............................................   262
          Base Closure Transition....................................   263
          Base Operations Support Costs..............................   263
          Concept Development Center.................................   263
          Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores........   264
          Department of Defense Milk Plants..........................   265
          Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair.........................   265
          Electron Scrubber Technology...............................   266
          General Purpose Tents......................................   267
          Integrated Computer Framework..............................   267
          Manganese Dust Exposure Levels.............................   267
          Military Traffic Management Command's Reengineering
            Personnel Property Initiative Pilot Program..............   268
          Mobility Infrastructure Enhancement........................   269
          Operational Support Aircraft...............................   269
          Real Property Maintenance..................................   270
          Reserve Readiness..........................................   270
          Standard Missile Maintenance...............................   271
          Total Asset Visibility Program.............................   271
          Unobligated Balances.......................................   271
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   272
        Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   272
          Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding.............   272
          Section 302--Working Capital Funds.........................   272
          Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home..................   272
          Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile
            Transaction Fund.........................................   272
        Subtitle B--Depot-Level Activities...........................   272
          Section 311--Extension of Authority For Aviation Depots and
            Naval Shipyards to Engage in Defense-Related Production
            and Services.............................................   272
          Section 312--Exclusion of Large Maintenance and Repair
            Projects From Percentage Limitation on Contracting For
            Depot-Level Maintenance..................................   272
        Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions.........................   273
          Section 321--Repeal of Report on Contractor Reimbursement
            Costs....................................................   273
          Section 322--Payments of Stipulated Penalties Assessed
            Under CERCLA.............................................   273
          Section 323--Conservation and Readiness Program............   273
          Section 324--Navy Compliance With Shipboard Solid Waste
            Control Requirements.....................................   274
          Section 325--Authority to Develop and Implement Land Use
            Plans for Defense Environmental Restoration Program......   274
          Section 326--Pilot Program to Test Alternative Technologies
            for Limiting Air Emissions During Shipyard Blasting and
            Coating Operations.......................................   275
          Section 327--Navy Program to Monitor Ecological Effects of
            Organotin................................................   275
        Subtitle D--Civilian Employees and Nonappropriated Fund
          Instrumentalities..........................................   276
          Section 331--Repeal of Prohibition on Payment of Lodging
            Expenses When Adequate Government Quarters Are Available.   276
          Section 332--Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay
            Modification.............................................   276
          Section 333--Wage-Board Compensatory Time Off..............   276
          Section 334--Simplification of Rules Relating to the
            Observance of Certain Holidays...........................   277
          Section 335--Phased Retirement.............................   277
          Section 336--Modification of Authority for Civilian
            Employees of Department of Defense to Participate
            Voluntarily in Reduction In Force........................   277
        Subtitle E--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund
          Instrumentalities..........................................   278
          Section 341--Contracts With Other Agencies and
            Instrumentalities for Goods and Services.................   278
          Section 342--Noncompetitive Procurement of Brand-Name
            Commercial Items For Resale in Commissary Stores.........   278
          Section 343--Prohibition of Sale or Rental of Sexually
            Explicit Material........................................   278
        Subtitle F--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector
          Sources....................................................   278
          Section 351--Extension of Requirement For Competitive
            Procurement of Printing and Duplication Services.........   278
          Section 352--Requirement Regarding Use of Private Shipyards
            For Complex Naval Ship Repair Contracts..................   279
        Subtitle G--Other Matters....................................   279
          Section 360--Termination of Defense Business Operations
            Fund and Preparation of Plan Regarding Improved Operation
            of Working-Capital Funds.................................   279
          Section 361--Increase in Capital Asset Threshold Under
            Defense Business Operations Fund.........................   280
          Section 362--Transfer of Excess Personal Property to
            Support Law Enforcement Activities.......................   280
          Section 363--Storage of Motor Vehicles in Lieu of
            Transportation...........................................   280
          Section 364--Control of Transportation Systems in Time of
            War......................................................   281
          Section 365--Security Protection at Department of Defense
            Facilities in National Capitol Region....................   281
          Section 366--Modifications to Armed Forces Retirement Home
            Act of 1991..............................................   281
          Section 367--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that
            Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
            Department of Defense Civilian Employees.................   282
          Section 368--Retention of Civilian Employee Positions at
            Military Training Bases Transferred to National Guard....   282
          Section 369--Expansion of Authority to Donate Unusable Food   282

    Military Personnel Overview......................................   283

    Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations......................   285

      Items of Special Interest......................................   285
          Air National Guard Fighter Aircraft........................   285
          Army Military Personnel Account Shortfall for Fiscal Year
            1997.....................................................   285
          Army Reserve Full Time Manning Increase....................   285
          Navy Maritime Patrol Aircraft..............................   285
          Reserve Component Individual Training Funds................   286
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   286
        Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   286
          Section 401--End Strengths For Active Forces...............   286
          Section 402--Permanent End Strength Levels to Support Two
            Major Regional Contingencies.............................   286
          Section 403--Authorized Strengths For Commissioned Officers
            on Active Duty in Grades of Major, Lieutenant Colonel,
            and Colonel and Navy Grades of Lieutenant Commander,
            Commander, and Captain...................................   287
        Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   288
          Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............   288
          Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
            Support of the Reserves..................................   288
          Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians........   289
        Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   289
          Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations For Military
            Personnel................................................   289

    Title V--Military Personnel Policy...............................   290

      Items of Special Interest......................................   290
          Collection of Comparison Data on Gender-Neutral Training...   290
          Guidance to Commanders on Unexplained Absences of Personnel   290
          Increased Funding for Off-Duty Education...................   291
          Increased Funding for Recruiting...........................   291
          Minority Representation in Special Operations Forces.......   291
          New Parent Support Program.................................   292
          Personnel Tempo............................................   292
          Reduction in Permanent Change of Station Moves.............   293
          Report on Sentence Enhancements for Hate Crimes............   294
          Retention Standards for Permanent Medical Nondeployables...   294
          Survey of Attitudes Towards Expansion of Roles of Women in
            Combat and Combat Related Military Skills................   295
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   295
        Subtitle A--Personnel Management.............................   295
          Section 501--Authorization For Senior Enlisted Members to
            Reenlist for an Indefinite Period of Time................   295
          Section 502--Authority to Extend Entry on Active Duty Under
            Delayed Entry Program....................................   296
          Section 503--Permanent Authority for Navy Spot Promotions
            for Certain Lieutenants..................................   296
          Section 504--Reports on Response to Recommendations
            Concerning Improvements to Department of Defense Joint
            Manpower Process.........................................   296
          Section 505--Frequency of Reports to Congress on Joint
            Officer Management Policies..............................   296
          Section 506--Repeal of Requirement that Commissioned
            Officers be Initially Appointed in a Reserve Grade.......   297
          Section 507--Continuation on Active Status For Certain
            Reserve Officers of the Air Force........................   297
        Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters........................   297
          Section 511--Individual Ready Reserve Activation Authority.   297
          Section 512--Training for Reserves on Active Duty in
            Support of the Reserves..................................   298
          Section 513--Clarification to Definition of Active Status..   298
          Section 514--Appointment Above O-2 in the Naval Reserve....   298
          Section 515--Report on Number of Advisers in Active
            Component Support of Reserves Pilot Program..............   298
          Section 516--Sense of Congress and Report Regarding
            Reemployment Rights for Mobilized Reservists Employed in
            Foreign Countries........................................   298
        Subtitle C--Jurisdiction and Powers of Courts-Martial for the
          National Guard When Not in Federal Service.................   299
          Section 531--Composition, Jurisdiction and Procedures of
            Courts-Martial...........................................   299
          Section 532--General Courts-Martial........................   299
          Section 533--Special Courts-Martial........................   299
          Section 534--Summary Courts-Martial........................   299
          Section 535--Repeal of Authority For Confinement in Lieu of
            Fine.....................................................   300
          Section 536--Approval of Sentence of Bad Conduct Discharge
            or Confinement...........................................   300
          Section 537--Authority of Military Judges..................   300
          Section 538--Statutory Reorganization......................   300
          Section 539--Effective Date................................   300
          Section 540--Conforming Amendments to Uniform Code of
            Military Justice.........................................   301
        Subtitle D--Education and Training Programs..................   301
          Section 551--Extension of Maximum Age for Appointment as a
            Cadet or Midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers'
            Training Corps and the Service Academies.................   301
          Section 552--Oversight and Management of Senior Reserve
            Officers' Training Corps Program.........................   301
          Section 553--ROTC Scholarship Student Participation in
            Simultaneous Membership Program..........................   301
          Section 554--Expansion of ROTC Advanced Training Program to
            Include Graduate Students................................   301
          Section 555--Reserve Credit for Members of Armed Forces
            Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance
            Program..................................................   302
          Section 556--Expansion of Eligibility for Education
            Benefits to Include Certain Reserve Officers' Training
            Corps (ROTC) Participants................................   302
          Section 557--Comptroller General Report on Cost and Policy
            Implications of Permitting Up to Five Percent of Service
            Academy Graduates to be Assigned Directly to Reserve Duty
            Upon Graduation..........................................   302
        Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   302
          Section 561--Hate Crimes in the Military...................   302
          Section 562--Authority of a Reserve Judge Advocate to Act
            as a Notary Public.......................................   302
          Section 563--Authority to Provide Legal Assistance to
            Public Health Service Officers...........................   303
          Section 564--Excepted Appointment of Certain Judicial Non-
            Attorney Staff in the United States Court of Appeals for
            the Armed Forces.........................................   303
          Section 565--Replacement of Certain American Theater
            Campaign Ribbons.........................................   303
          Section 566--Restoration of Regulations Prohibiting Service
            of Homosexuals in the Armed Forces.......................   303
          Section 567--Reenactment and Modification of Mandatory
            Separation From Service For Members Diagnosed With HIV-1
            Virus....................................................   304

    Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits..............   306

        Items of Special Interest....................................   306
          Foreign Language Proficiency Pay...........................   306
          Privately Owned Vehicle Mileage Allowances During Permanent
            Change of Station Moves..................................   306
          Special Duty Assignment Pay for Army Special Operating
            Forces...................................................   307
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   307
        Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   307
          Section 601--Military Pay Raise for Fiscal Year 1997.......   307
          Section 602--Availability of Basic Allowance for Quarters
            for Certain Members Without Dependents Who Serve on Sea
            Duty.....................................................   307
          Section 603--Establishment of Minimum Monthly Amount of
            Variable Housing Allowance for High Housing Cost Areas...   308
        Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   308
          Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonuses for Reserve
            Forces...................................................   308
          Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay
            for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses, and
            Nurse Anesthetists.......................................   308
          Section 613--Extension of Authority Relating to Payment of
            Other Bonuses and Special Pays...........................   308
          Section 614--Special Incentives to Recruit and Retain
            Dental Officers..........................................   308
        Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............   309
          Section 621--Temporary Lodging Expenses of Member in
            Connection With First Permanent Change of Station........   309
          Section 622--Allowance in Connection With Shipping Motor
            Vehicle at Government Expense............................   309
          Section 623--Dislocation Allowance at a Rate Equal to Two
            and One-Half Months Basic Allowance for Quarters.........   309
          Section 624--Allowance for Travel Performed in Connection
            With Leave Between Consecutive Overseas Tours............   310
        Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related
          Matters....................................................   310
          Section 631--Increase in Annual Limit on Days of Inactive
            Duty Training Creditable Towards Reserve Retirement......   310
          Section 632--Authority for Retirement in Grade in Which a
            Member Has Been Selected for Promotion When a Physical
            Disability Intervenes....................................   310
          Section 633--Eligibility for Reserve Disability Retirement
            for Reserves Injured While Away From Home Overnight for
            Inactive-Duty Training...................................   310
          Section 634--Retirement of Reserve Enlisted Members Who
            Qualify for Active Duty Retirement After Administrative
            Reductions in Enlisted Grade.............................   311
          Section 635--Clarification of Initial Computation of
            Retiree COLA's After Retirement..........................   311
          Section 636--Technical Correction to Prior Authority for
            Payment of Back Pay to Certain Persons...................   311
          Section 637--Amendments to the Uniformed Services Former
            Spouses' Protection Act..................................   311
          Section 638--Administration of Benefits for So-Called
            Minimum Income Widows....................................   311
          Section 639--Nonsubstantive Restatement of Survivor Benefit
            Plan Statute.............................................   312
        Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   312
          Section 651--Technical Correction Clarifying Ability of
            Certain Members to Elect Not to Occupy Government
            Quarters.................................................   312
          Section 652--Technical Correction Clarifying Limitation on
            Furnishing Clothing or Allowances for Enlisted National
            Guard Technicians........................................   312

    Title VII Health Care Provisions.................................   313

      Overview.......................................................   313
      Items of Special Interest......................................   313
          Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) Network--Information
            Technology...............................................   313
          Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Program.............   314
          Comptroller General Study on the Department of Defense
            Family Member Dental Plan................................   314
          Congressional Budget Office Scoring of Medicare Subvention
            Demonstration Program....................................   315
          Global Infectious Disease Surveillance Program.............   315
          Pacific Medical Network....................................   316
          Provider Workstation.......................................   316
          TRICARE Alternative Financing..............................   316
          TRICARE Prime Portability..................................   316
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   317
        Subtitle A--Health Care Services.............................   317
          Section 701--Medical and Dental Care for Reserve Component
            Members in a Duty Status.................................   317
        Subtitle B--TRICARE Program..................................   317
          Section 711--Definition of TRICARE Program.................   317
          Section 712--CHAMPUS Payment Limits for TRICARE Prime
            Enrollees................................................   318
          Section 713--Improved Information Exchange Between Military
            Treatment Facilities and TRICARE Program Contractors.....   318
        Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities..........   318
          Section 721--Definitions...................................   318
          Section 722--Inclusion of Designated Providers in Uniformed
            Services Health Care Delivery System.....................   318
          Section 723--Provision of Uniform Benefit by Designated
            Providers................................................   318
          Section 724--Enrollment of Covered Beneficiaries...........   319
          Section 725--Application of CHAMPUS Payment Rules..........   319
          Section 726--Payment for Services..........................   319
          Section 727--Repeal of Superseded Authorities..............   319
        Subtitle D--Other Changes to Existing Laws Regarding Health
          Care Management............................................   319
          Section 731--Authority to Waive CHAMPUS Exclusion Regarding
            Nonmedically Necessary Treatment in Connection With
            Certain Clinical Trials..................................   319
          Section 732--Authority to Waive or Reduce CHAMPUS
            Deductible Amounts for Reservists Called to Active Duty
            in Support of Contingency Operations.....................   320
          Section 733--Exception to Maximum Allowable Payments to
            Individual Health-Care Providers Under CHAMPUS...........   320
          Section 734--Codification of Annual Authority to Credit
            CHAMPUS Refunds to Current Year Appropriation............   320
          Section 735--Exception to Requirements Regarding Obtaining
            Nonavailability-of-Health-Care Statements................   320
          Section 736--Expansion of Collection Authorities From
            Third-Party Payers.......................................   321
        Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   321
          Section 741--Alternatives to Active Duty Service Obligation
            Under Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and
            Financial Assistance Program and Uniformed Services
            University of the Health Sciences........................   321
          Section 742--Exception to Strength Limitations For Public
            Health Service Officers Assigned to the Department of
            Defense..................................................   322
          Section 743--Continued Operation of Uniformed Services
            University of the Health Sciences........................   322
          Section 744--Sense of Congress Regarding Tax Treatment of
            Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial
            Assistance Program.......................................   322
          Section 745--Report Regarding Specialized Treatment
            Facility Program.........................................   323

    Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and
      Related Matters................................................   324

      Items of Special Interest......................................   324
          Implementation of Acquisition Reform Legislation...........   324
          Truth in Negotiations Act Audit Rights.....................   324
          Tungsten Anti-Tank Penetrators.............................   325
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   325
        Subtitle A--Acquisition Management...........................   325
          Section 801--Authority to Waive or Modify Certain
            Requirements for Defense Acquisition Pilot Programs......   325
          Section 802--Exclusion From Certain Post-Education Duty
            Assignments for Members of Acquisition Corps.............   325
          Section 803--Extension of Authority to Carry Out Certain
            Prototype Projects.......................................   325
          Section 804--Increase in Threshold Amounts for Major
            Systems..................................................   326
          Section 805--Revisions in Information Required to be
            Included in Selected Acquisition Reports.................   326
          Section 806--Increase in Simplified Acquisition Threshold
            for Humanitarian or Peacekeeping Operations..............   326
          Section 807--Expansion of Audit Reciprocity Among Federal
            Agencies to Include Post-Award Audits....................   326
          Section 808--Extension of Pilot Mentor-Protege Program.....   327
        Subtitle B--Other Matters....................................   327
          Section 821--Amendment to Definition of National Security
            System Under Information Technology Management Reform Act
            of 1995..................................................   327
          Section 822--Prohibition on Release of Contractor Proposals
            Under Freedom of Information Act.........................   327
          Section 823--Repeal of Annual Report by Advocate for
            Competition..............................................   327
          Section 824--Repeal of Biannual Report on Procurement
            Regulatory Activity......................................   327
          Section 825--Repeal of Multiyear Limitation on Contracts
            for Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair..................   327
          Section 826--Streamlined Notice Requirements to Contractors
            and Employees Regarding Termination or Substantial
            Reduction in Contracts Under Major Defense Programs......   328
          Section 827--Repeal of Notice Requirements for
            Substantially or Seriously Affected Parties in Downsizing
            Efforts..................................................   328
          Section 828--Testing of Defense Acquisition Programs.......   328
          Section 829--Dependency of National Technology and
            Industrial Base on Supplies Available Only From Foreign
            Counties.................................................   328
          Section 830--Treatment of Department of Defense Cable
            Television Franchise Agreements..........................   328
          Section 831--Extension of Domestic Source Limitation for
            Valves and Machine Tools.................................   329

    Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management......   330

      Items of Special Interest......................................   330
          Unified Command Plan.......................................   330
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   330
          Section 901--Additional Required Reduction in Defense
            Acquisition Workforce....................................   330
          Section 902--Reduction of Personnel Assigned to Office of
            the Secretary of Defense.................................   330
          Section 903--Report on Military Department Headquarters
            Staff....................................................   331
          Section 904--Extension of Effective Date for Charter for
            Joint Requirements Oversight Council.....................   331
          Section 905--Removal of Secretary of the Army From
            Membership on the Foreign Trade Zone Board...............   331
          Section 906--Membership of the Ammunition Storage Board....   331
          Section 907--Department of Defense Disbursing Official
            Check Cashing and Exchange Transactions..................   332

    Title X--General Provisions......................................   333

        Counter-Drug Activities......................................   333
          Overview...................................................   333
          Items of Special Interest..................................   333
            National Guard Counter-Drug Program......................   333
            C-26 Aircraft Photo Reconnaissance Upgrades..............   334
            Gulf States Counter-Drug Initiative......................   334
            Southwest Border Fence Project...........................   334
        Other Matters................................................   334
          Defense Information Systems Network (DISN).................   334
          Military Affiliate Radio System............................   335
          National Defense University Chinese Translations...........   335
          Supercomputer Exports and Proliferation....................   336
          White House Communications Agency..........................   336
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   336
        Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   336
          Section 1001--Transfer Authority...........................   336
          Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex............   337
          Section 1003--Authority for Obligation of Certain
            Unauthorized Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Appropriations.....   337
          Section 1004--Authorization of Prior Emergency Supplemental
            Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996......................   337
          Section 1005--Format for Budget Request for Navy/Marine
            Corps and Air Force Ammunition Accounts..................   337
          Section 1006--Format for Budget Requests for Defense
            Airborne Reconnaissance Program..........................   337
        Subtitle B--Reports and Studies..............................   338
          Section 1021--Annual Report on Operation Provide Comfort
            and Operation Enhanced Southern Watch....................   338
          Section 1022--Report on Protection of National Information
            Infrastructure...........................................   338
          Section 1023--Report on Witness Interview Procedures for
            Department of Defense Criminal Investigations............   339
        Subtitle C--Other Matters....................................   339
          Section 1031--Information Systems Security Program.........   339
          Section 1032--Aviation and Vessel War Risk Insurance.......   340
          Section 1033--Aircraft Accident Investigation Boards.......   341
          Section 1034--Authority for Use of Appropriated Funds for
            Recruiting Functions.....................................   342
          Section 1035--Authority for Award of Medal of Honor to
            Certain African American Solders Who Served During World
            War II...................................................   342
          Section 1036--Compensation for Persons Awarded Prisoner of
            War Medal Who Did Not Previously Receive Compensation as
            a Prisoner of War........................................   342
          Section 1037--George C. Marshall European Center for
            Strategic Security Studies...............................   342
          Section 1038--Participation of Members, Dependents, and
            Other Persons in Crime Prevention Efforts at
            Installations............................................   343
          Section 1039--Technical and Clerical Amendments............   343
          Section 1040--Prohibition on Carrying Out SR-71 Strategic
            Reconnaissance Program During Fiscal Year 1997...........   343

    Title XI--Cooperative Threat Reduction...........................   344

      Overview.......................................................   344
      Items of Special Interest......................................   344
          Lack of Updated, Multi-Year Program Plan...................   344
          Chemical Weapons Destruction...............................   345
          Fissle Material Storage Facility...........................   346
          Program Overhead...........................................   347
          Concerns Regarding Presidential Certification..............   347
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   348
          Section 1101--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
            Programs.................................................   348
          Section 1102--Fiscal Year 1997 Funding Allocations.........   348
          Section 1103--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified
            Purposes.................................................   348
          Section 1104--Limitation on Funds..........................   348
          Section 1105--Availability of Funds........................   348

    Title XII--Reserve Forces Revitalization.........................   349

      Legislative Provisions.........................................   349
        Subtitle A--Reserve Component Structure......................   349
          Section 1211--Reserve Component Commands...................   349
          Section 1212--Reserve Component Chiefs.....................   349
          Section 1213--Review of Active Duty and Reserve General and
            Flag Officer Authorizations..............................   349
          Section 1214--Guard and Reserve Technicians................   349
          Section 1215--Technical Amendment Reflecting Prior Revision
            to National Guard Bureau Charter.........................   350
        Subtitle B--Reserve Component Accessibility..................   350
          Section 1231--Report to Congress on Measures Taken to
            Improve National Guard and Reserve Ability to Respond to
            Emergencies..............................................   350
          Sections 1232 Through 1234--Reporting Requirements.........   350
        Subtitle C--Reserve Forces Sustainment.......................   350
          Sections 1251 Through 1256--Improvements to Reserve
            Component Quality of Life and Benefits...................   350

    Title XIII--Matters Relating To Other Nations....................   351

      Items of Special Interest......................................   351
          Arms Control Implementation................................   351
          Chemical Weapons Convention................................   351
          Comprehensive Test Ban.....................................   352
          Department of Defense Activities With China................   353
          Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia.........................   353
          Russian Missile Detargeting................................   355
          Russian Threat Perceptions.................................   356
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   357
        Subtitle A--Miscellaneous Matters............................   357
          Section 1301--One-Year Extension of Counterproliferation
            Authorities..............................................   357
          Section 1302--Limitation on Retirement or Dismantlement of
            Strategic Nuclear Delivery Vehicles......................   357
          Section 1303--Certification Required Before Observance of
            Moratorium on Use by Armed Forces of Antipersonnel
            Landmines................................................   357
          Section 1304--Department of Defense Demining Program.......   359
          Section 1305--Report on Military Capabilities of People's
            Republic of China........................................   360
          Section 1306--United States-People's Republic of China
            Joint Defense Conversion Commission......................   361
          Section 1307--Authority to Accept Services From Foreign
            Governments and International Organizations for Defense
            Purposes.................................................   361
          Section 1308--Review by Director of Central Intelligence of
            National Intelligence Estimate 95-19.....................   361
        Subtitle B--Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat
          to the United States.......................................   363
          Section 1321--Establishment of Commission..................   363
          Section 1322--Duties of Commission.........................   364
          Section 1323--Report.......................................   364
          Section 1324--Powers.......................................   364
          Section 1325--Commission Procedures........................   364
          Section 1326--Personnel Matters............................   365
          Section 1327--Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions......   365
          Section 1328--Funding......................................   365
          Section 1329--Termination of the Commission................   365

    Title XIV--Sikes Act Improvements Amendments.....................   366

      Legislative Provisions.........................................   366
          Section 1402--Definition of Sikes Act for Purposes of
            Amendments...............................................   366
          Section 1403--Codification of Short Title of Act...........   366
          Section 1404--Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans.   366
          Section 1405--Review for Preparation of Integrated Natural
            Resource Management Plans................................   366
          Section 1406--Annual Reviews and Reports...................   366
          Section 1407--Transfer of Wildlife Conservation Fees From
            Closed Military Installations............................   366
          Section 1408--Federal Enforcement of Integrated Natural
            Resource Management Plans and Enforcement of Other Laws..   367
          Section 1409--Natural Resource Management Services.........   367
          Section 1410--Definitions..................................   367
          Section 1411--Cooperative Agreements.......................   367
          Section 1412--Repeal of Superseded Provision...............   367
          Section 1413--Clerical Amendments..........................   367
          Section 1414--Authorizations of Appropriations.............   367

    Divison B--Military Construction Authorizations..................   369

      Purpose........................................................   369
        The State of Military Infrastructure.........................   369
      Authorization For Military Construction........................   387

    Title XXI--Army..................................................   396

      Summary........................................................   396
      Items of Special Interest......................................   396
          Improvements of Military Family Housing....................   396
          Repair and Maintenance, Army...............................   396
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   397
          Section 2101--Authorized Army and Land Acquisition Projects   397
          Section 2102--Family Housing...............................   397
          Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   397
          Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........   397
          Section 2105--Correction in Authorized Uses of Funds, Fort
            Irwin, California........................................   397

    Title XXII--Navy.................................................   398

      Summary........................................................   398
      Items Of Special Interest......................................   398
          Improvements of Military Family Housing....................   398
          Naval Air Station Meridian, Mississippi....................   398
          Ordnance Storage Needs of Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma,
            Arizona..................................................   398
          Planning and Design........................................   399
          Power Plant Upgrade, Public Works Center, Guam.............   399
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   399
          Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
            Acquisition Projects.....................................   399
          Section 2202--Family Housing...............................   399
          Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   399
          Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........   399
          Secion 2205--Beach Replenishment, Naval Air Station, North
            Island, California.......................................   400
          Section 2206--Lease to Facilitate Construction of Reserve
            Center, Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi.........   400

    Title XXIII--Air Force...........................................   401

      Summary........................................................   401
      Items of Special Interest......................................   401
          Defense Access Road, Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado.......   401
          Improvements of Military Family Housing....................   401
          Planning and Design........................................   401
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   402
          Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
            Acquisition Projects.....................................   402
          Section 2302--Family Housing...............................   402
          Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   402
          Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force...   402

    Title XXIV--Defense Agencies.....................................   403

      Summary........................................................   403
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   403
          Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
            Land Acquisition Projects................................   403
          Section 2402--Military Housing Planning and Design.........   403
          Section 2403--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units   403
          Section 2404--Military Housing Improvement Program.........   403
          Section 2405--Energy Conservation Projects.................   403
          Section 2406--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
            Agencies.................................................   403

    Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Infrastructure.....   405

      Summary........................................................   405
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   405
          Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
            Acquisition Projects.....................................   405
          Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........   405

    Title XXVI--Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities..................   406

      Summary........................................................   406
      Items of Special Interest......................................   406
          Alternative Funding for Certain Guard and Reserve
            Facilities...............................................   406
          Armory Infrastructure Requirements.........................   406
          Battle Projection Center, Fort Dix, New Jersey.............   407
          Military Construction to Support the Beddown of Avenger Air
            Defense System Units, Various Locations, Mississippi.....   407
          Planning and Design........................................   407
          Planning and Design, Fiscal Year 1996......................   407
          Unspecified Minor Construction.............................   407
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   408
          Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and
            Land Acquisition Projects................................   408

    Title XXVII--Expiration and Extension of Authorizations..........   409

      Legislative Provisions.........................................   409
          Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
            Required to be Specified by Law..........................   409
          Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain
            Fiscal Year 1994 Projects................................   409
          Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
            Year 1993 Projects.......................................   409
          Section 2704--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
            Year 1992 Projects.......................................   409
          Section 2705--Effective Date...............................   409

    Title XXVIII--General Provisions.................................   410

      Items of Special Interest......................................   410
          Assessment of Certain Overhead Costs of Military
            Construction.............................................   410
          Efficient Utilization of Existing Facilities...............   410
          Infrastructure Requirements for Depot-Level Maintenance....   410
          Modular Utility Cores in Military Housing and Other
            Facilities...............................................   411
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   411
        Subtitle A--Military Construction and Military Family Housing   411
          Section 2801--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
            Investment Program.......................................   411
          Section 2802--Authority to Demolish Excess Facilities......   411
          Section 2803--Improvements to Family Housing Units.........   411
        Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment.............   412
          Section 2811--Restoration of Authority for Certain
            Intragovernmental Transfers Under 1988 Base Closure Law..   412
          Section 2812--Contracting for Certain Services at
            Facilities Remaining on Closed Installations.............   412
          Section 2813--Authority to Compensate Owners of
            Manufactured Housing.....................................   412
          Section 2814--Additional Purpose for Which Adjustment and
            Diversification Assistance is Authorized.................   412
          Section 2815--Payment of Stipulated Penalties Assessed
            Under CERCLA in Connection With Loring Air Force Base,
            Maine....................................................   412
        Subtitle C--Land Conveyances Generally.......................   412
          Part I--Army Conveyances...................................   412
          Section 2821--Transfer and Exchange of Jurisdiction,
            Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia....................   412
          Section 2822--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
            Rushville, Indiana.......................................   413
          Section 2823--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center,
            Anderson, South Carolina.................................   413
          Part II--Navy Conveyances..................................   413
          Section 2831--Release of Condition on Reconveyance of
            Transferred Land, Guam...................................   413
          Section 2832--Land Exchange, St. Helena Annex, Norfolk
            Naval Shipyard, Virginia.................................   413
          Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Calverton Pine Barrens,
            Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Calverton, New
            York.....................................................   413
          Part III--Air Force Conveyances............................   414
          Section 2841--Conveyance of Primate Research Complex,
            Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico......................   414
          Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Radar Bomb Scoring Site,
            Belle Forche, South Dakota...............................   414
          Part IV--Other Conveyances.................................   414
          Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Tatum Salt Dome Test Site,
            Mississippi..............................................   414
          Section 2852--Land Conveyance, William Langer Jewel Bearing
            Plant, Rolla, North Dakota...............................   414
        Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   415
          Section 2861--Easements for Rights-Of-Way..................   415
          Section 2862--Authority to Enter Into Cooperative
            Agreements for the Management of Cultural Resources on
            Military Installations...................................   415
          Section 2863--Demonstration Project for Installation and
            Operation of Electric Power Distribution System at
            Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio.....................   415
          Section 2864--Designation of Michael O'Callaghan Military
            Hospital.................................................   415

    Title XXIX--Military Land Withdrawals............................   416

        Subtitle A--Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon Military Lands
          Withdrawal.................................................   416
          Section 2902--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands at Fort
            Carson Military Reservation..............................   416
          Section 2903--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands at Pinon
            Canyon Maneuver Site.....................................   416
          Section 2904--Maps and Legal Descriptions..................   416
          Section 2905--Management of Withdrawn Lands................   416
          Section 2906--Management of Withdrawn and Acquired Mineral
            Resources................................................   416
          Section 2907--Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping...............   416
          Section 2908--Termination of Withdrawal and Reservation....   417
          Section 2909--Determination of Presence of Contamination
            and Effect of Contamination..............................   417
          Section 2910--Delegation...................................   417
          Section 2911--Hold Harmless................................   417
          Section 2912--Amendment to Military Lands Withdrawal Act of
            1986.....................................................   417
          Section 2913--Authorization of Appropriations..............   417
        Subtitle B--El Centro Naval Air Facility Ranges Withdrawal...   417
          Section 2921--Short Title and Definitions..................   417
          Section 2922--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands for El
            Centro...................................................   418
          Section 2923--Maps and Legal Descriptions..................   418
          Section 2924--Management of Withdrawn Lands................   418
          Section 2925--Duration of Withdrawal and Reservation.......   418
          Section 2926--Continuation of Ongoing Decontamination
            Activities...............................................   418
          Section 2927--Requirements for Extension...................   418
          Section 2928--Early Relinquishment of Withdrawal...........   418
          Section 2929--Delegation of Authority......................   418
          Section 2930--Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping...............   418
          Section 2931--Hold Harmless................................   419

    Division C--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
      and Other Authorizations.......................................   421

    Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs......   421

      Purpose........................................................   421
      Overview.......................................................   421
      Items of Special Interest......................................   436
          Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management.....   436
          Fissle Materials Protection, Control and Accountability....   438
          Independent Review.........................................   438
          Inertial Confinement Fusion................................   438
          Intelligence...............................................   439
          International Nuclear Safety...............................   439
          International Security.....................................   440
          Laboratory Review of Missile Defense.......................   440
          Naval Reactors.............................................   440
          Nuclear Emergency Search Team..............................   440
          Nuclear Smuggling..........................................   441
          Technology Transfer........................................   441
          Tritium....................................................   441
          Warhead Master Plan........................................   442
      Legislative Provisions.........................................   442
        Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations.........   442
          Section 3101--Weapons Activities...........................   442
          Section 3102--Environmental Restoration and Waste
            Management...............................................   442
          Section 3103--Defense Fixed Asset Acquisition..............   442
          Section 3104--Other Defense Activities.....................   443
          Section 3105--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal...............   443
        Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions.....................   443
          Section 3121--Reprogramming................................   443
          Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects.............   443
          Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects..............   443
          Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority......................   443
          Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction
            Design...................................................   444
          Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design, and
            Construction Activities..................................   444
          Section 3127--Funds Available for All National Security
            Programs of the Department of Energy.....................   444
          Section 3128--Availability of Funds........................   444
        Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
          Limitations................................................   444
          Section 3131--Stockpile Stewardship Program................   444
          Section 3132--Manufacturing Infrastructure for Nuclear
            Weapons Stockpile........................................   445
          Section 3133--Production of High Explosives................   446
          Section 3134--Limitation on Use of Funds by Laboratories
            for Laboratory-Directed Research and Development.........   446
          Section 3135--Prohibition on Funding Nuclear Weapons
            Activities With People's Republic of China...............   446
          Section 3136--International Cooperative Stockpile
            Stewardship Programs.....................................   446
          Section 3137--Temporary Authority Relating to Transfers of
            Defense Environmental Management Funds...................   447
          Section 3138--Management Structure for Nuclear Weapons
            Production Facilities and Nuclear Weapons Laboratories...   447
        Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   447
          Section 3141--Report on Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
            Memorandum...............................................   447
          Section 3142--Report on Plutonium Pit Production and
            Remanufacturing..........................................   447
          Section 3143--Amendments Relating to Baseline Environmental
            Management Reports.......................................   448
          Section 3144--Requirement to Develop Future Use Plans for
            Environmental Management Program.........................   448
        Subtitle E--Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup and
          Management.................................................   449
          Section 3151--Purpose......................................   449
          Section 3152--Covered Defense Nuclear Facilities...........   449
          Section 3153--Site Manager.................................   449
          Section 3154--Department of Energy Orders..................   449
          Section 3155--Deployment of Technology for Remediation of
            Defense Nuclear Waste....................................   449
          Section 3156--Performance-Based Contracting................   449
          Section 3157--Designation of Defense Nuclear Facilities as
            National Environmental Cleanup Demonstration Areas.......   450

    Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
      Authorization..................................................   451

      Legislative Provisions.........................................   451
          Section 3201--Authorization................................   451

    Title XXXIII--National Defense Stockpile.........................   452

      Legislative Provisions.........................................   452
          Section 3302--Authorized Uses of Stockpile Funds...........   452
          Section 3311--Biennial Report on Stockpile Requirements....   452
          Section 3312--Notification Requirements....................   452

    Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum Reserves............................   453

      Legislative Provisions.........................................   453
          Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations..............   453
          Section 3402--Requirement on Sale of Certain Petroleum
            During Fiscal Year 1997..................................   453

    Title XXXV--Panama Canal Commission..............................   454

      Legislative Provisions.........................................   454
        Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   454
        Subtitle B--Panama Canal Act Amendments of 1996..............   454
          Section 3521--Short Title; References......................   454
          Section 3522--Definitions and Recommendations for
            Legislation..............................................   454
          Section 3523--Administrator................................   454
          Section 3524--Deputy Administrator and Chief Engineer......   454
          Section 3525--Office of Ombudsman..........................   455
          Section 3526--Appointment and Compensation; Duties.........   455
          Section 3527--Applicability of Certain Benefits............   455
          Section 3528--Travel and Transportation Expenses...........   455
          Section 3529--Clarification of Definition of Agency........   455
          Section 3530--Panama Canal Employment System; Merit and
            Other Employment Requirements............................   455
          Section 3531--Employment Standards.........................   455
          Section 3532--Repeal of Obsolete Provision Regarding
            Interim Application of Canal Zone Merit System...........   456
          Section 3533--Repeal of Provision Relating to Recruitment
            and Retention Remuneration...............................   456
          Section 3534--Benefits Based on Basic Pay..................   456
          Section 3535--Vesting of General Administrative Authority
            of Commission............................................   456
          Section 3536--Applicability of Certain Laws................   456
          Section 3537--Repeal of Provision Relating to Transferred
            or Reemployed Employees..................................   456
          Section 3538--Administration of Special Disability Benefits   456
          Section 3539--Panama Canal Revolving Fund..................   456
          Section 3540--Printing.....................................   457
          Section 3541--Accounting Policies..........................   457
          Section 3542--Interagency Services; Reimbursements.........   457
          Section 3543--Postal Service...............................   457
          Section 3544--Investigations of Accidents or Injury Giving
            Rise to Claim............................................   457
          Section 3545--Operations Regulations.......................   457
          Section 3546--Miscellaneous Repeals........................   457
          Section 3547--Exemption....................................   458
          Section 3548--Miscellaneous Conforming Amendments to Title
            5, United States Code....................................   458
          Section 3549--Repeal of Panama Canal Code..................   458
          Section 3550--Miscellaneous Clerical and Conforming
            Amendments...............................................   458

    Departmental Data................................................   459
      Department of Defense Authorization Request....................   459
      Military Construction Authorization Request....................   459
    Committee Position...............................................   460
    Communications From Other Committees.............................   460
    Fiscal Data......................................................   466
      Congressional Budget Office Estimate...........................   466
      Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................   466
        Authorization of Appropriations..............................   469
      Committee Cost Estimate........................................   474
      Inflation-Impact Statement.....................................   474
    Oversight Findings...............................................   474
    Statement of Federal Mandates....................................   475
    Roll Call Votes..................................................   475
    Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............   482
    Additional, Supplemental, and Dissenting Views...................   705
      Additional views of James V. Hansen, Glen Browder, Tillie K.
        Fowler, Solomon P. Ortiz, Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Walter
        B. Jones, Jr., Saxby Chambliss, J.C. Watts, Jr., John N.
        Hostettler, Neil Abercrombie, Robert K. Dornan, Lane Evans,
        and James B. Longley, Jr.....................................   705
      Additional and dissenting views of Ronald V. Dellums...........   709
      Additional views of John Spratt................................   717
      Additional views of Chet Edwards...............................   718
      Additional views of Jane Harman, Rosa L. DeLauro, Ronald V.
        Dellums, Patricia Schroeder, Lane Evans, Neil Abercrombie,
        Martin T. Meehan, and Patrick J. Kennedy.....................   721
      Suplemental views of Patricia Schroeder........................   724

    104th Congress                                                   Report
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

     2d Session                                                     104-563
    _______________________________________________________________________

            NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

                                    _______

      May 7, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
                  State of the Union and ordered to be printed

    _______________________________________________________________________

      Mr. Spence, from the Committee on National Security, submitted the
                                   following

                                  R E P O R T

                                 together with

                 ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND DISSENTING VIEWS

                            [To accompany H.R. 3230]

          [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

        The Committee on National Security, to whom was referred
    the bill (H.R. 3230) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
    year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
    to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1997,
    and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
    favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill
    as amended do pass.
        The amendment to the text of the bill is a complete
    substitute therefor and appears in italic type in the reported
    bill.
        The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment
    to the text of the bill.

                     EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT

        The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
    substitute during the consideration of H.R. 3230. The remainder
    of the report discusses the bill, as amended.

                                    PURPOSE

        The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
    years 1997 through 2000 for procurement and for research,
    development, test and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize
    appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for operation and
    maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) Authorize
    for fiscal year 1997: (a) the personnel strength for each
    active duty component of the military departments; (b) the
    personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each reserve
    component of the armed forces; (c) the military training
    student loads for each of the active and reserve components of
    the military departments; (4) Modify various elements of
    compensation for military personnel and impose certain
    requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the
    defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
    year 1997 for military construction and family housing; (6)
    Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for the
    Department of Energy National Security Programs; (7) Modify
    provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (8)
    Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for the operation
    of the Panama Canal Commission.

                RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATIONS

        The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The
    bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts
    provide budget authority. The bill addresses the following
    categories in the Department of Defense budget: procurement;
    research, development, test and evaluation; operation and
    maintenance; working capital funds, military personnel; and
    military construction and family housing. The bill also
    addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs.
        Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in
    this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military
    personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of
    the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide
    authorization of specific dollar amounts for personnel.

                      SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL

        The President requested budget authority of $254.3 billion
    for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 1997.
    Of this amount, the President requested $242.5 billion for the
    Department of Defense (including $9.1 billion for military
    construction and family housing) and $11.1 billion for
    Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense
    Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
        The committee recommends an overall level of $266.7 billion
    in budget authority. This amount is an increase of
    approximately $12.4 billion from the amount requested for the
    national defense budget function by the President, and
    represents an increase of approximately $2.0 billion from the
    amount authorized for appropriation by the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106).
    Overall, the committee's recommendation is largely consistent
    with the amounts the committee expects to be established in the
    budget resolution for fiscal year 1997.

                        SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS

        The following table provides a summary of the amounts
    requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the
    bill (in the column labeled ``Budget Authority Implication of
    Committee Recommendation'') and the committee's estimate of how
    the committee's recommendations relate to the budget totals for
    the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the
    budget authority implications of committee action, the table
    reflects the numbers contained in the President's budget for
    proposals not in the committee's legislative jurisdiction.

                        RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

        HR 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 1997, reflects the committee's continued effort to
    revitalize America's defenses in oqder to meet the security
    requirements of the post-Cold War world. Now in its seventh
    year, the post-Cold War world is still largely defined by what
    it is not, as the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire
    created shock waves that continue to ripple through the
    international geopolitical system. Yet over the past year, the
    sharper contours of revived and new great-power competitions
    have begun to emerge from the rubble of the old bipolar, Cold
    War order. While these new struggles will certainly involve new
    challenges to U.S. security interests, the form of the
    competition will not be fundamentally new. Neither history, nor
    world politics, nor military competition ended with the Cold
    War.
        The primary mission of the American military establishment
    in this turbulent international environment is to protect the
    United States and its vital national security interests. These
    fundamental interests have not changed with the end of the Cold
    War. While the Soviet Union no longer exists, the United States
    retains enduring interests in defending the American homeland
    and in maintaining as stable and peaceful a political order as
    possible in Europe, in Asia, and in the vital energy-producing
    regions of the world. Yet we face a growing roster of failed
    and failing states, international terrorism, proliferation of
    weapons of mass destruction, and tribal and ethnic conflicts
    fed by the emergence of a new ``warrior class,'' for whom war
    too often becomes an end in itself.
        The events of the past year clearly demonstrate that new
    challenges to U.S. security interests are emerging on many
    fronts. China has demonstrated a disturbing willingness to use
    military force as a tool of coercive diplomacy, threatening
    stability, prosperity and the growth of democracy in East Asia.
    In turn, China's actions have caused America's allies and
    adversaries alike to question the nature and endurance of
    American's commitment to the region.
        If the Chinese challenge is that of a newly emerging great
    power, the challenge from Russia is that of a disintegrating
    military superpower. Russia careens from extreme nationalism to
    unreconstructed communism as it struggles to hold itself
    together. As it does, it wages a bloody and bitter war in
    Chechnya, brandishes nuclear threats in an attempt to thwart
    NATO expansion, reintegrates its former empire in Belarus and
    Central Asia and sells advanced weaponry of all kinds--
    including nuclear technologies--to anyone willing to pay in
    hard currency. Russia cannot protect its stockpile of nuclear
    materials and Moscow continues to maintain its strategic
    nuclear forces at Cold War levels of readiness as it invests
    scarce resources in strategic modernization. Disturbingly,
    Russia has even adopted a new military doctrine that relies
    more heavily on nuclear weapons than did Soviet doctrine.
        The compendium of recent U.S. peacekeeping and humanitarian
    missions testifies to the rise of ethnic violence, terrorism,
    and other challenges to international order and stability. In
    Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia, large contingents of American
    troops have been sent on missions with no direct or even
    apparent linkage to U.S. security interests, and with little
    hope of creating lasting stability. In Kurdistan, a mission of
    mercy has been transformed into a nearly permanent operation,
    planned and budgeted into the indefinite future. In general,
    the diffusion of power to smaller states and non-state actors,
    whether measured in political, economic or military terms, has
    further complicated the geopolitical transition brought on by
    the end of the Cold War.
        Perhaps most importantly, the threat of missile attack
    against the American homeland is becoming alarmingly real. The
    rest of the world recognizes the overwhelming advantage the
    United States enjoys in conventional forces, and the strategic
    freedom that results from that advantage. One of the lessons of
    Operations Desert Storm--that U.S. forces can project power
    virtually anywhere on earth--was not lost on our friends and
    enemies around the world. Thus, during the recent Taiwan
    crisis, a senior Chinese official threatened a nuclear attack
    on Los Angeles as a way of deterring American ``interference''
    in East Asia. The inability to defend our citizens against
    attack by even a single ballistic or cruise missile armed with
    nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction is increasingly
    recognized as one of our nation's greatest vulnerabilities.
        Standing in stark contrast to this troubling strategic
    landscape is the Administration's underfunding of our armed
    forces. The gap between the U.S. national military strategy and
    the resources committed by the Administration to executing that
    strategy, estimated by many analysts to be greater than $100
    billion, continues to widen.
        But as dangerous as the strategy-resources gap is the
    strategy itself. The Administration's conduct of foreign policy
    continues to elevate economic and moral concerns above security
    interests. It has continued to employ American military power
    in pursuit of ``peace'' operations that do little to preserve
    peace among great powers or even fit into any larger American
    security policy framework.
        The gaps between strategy, resources and forces that
    characterize the Administration's long-term defense plan are
    having a detrimental effect on American national security
    policy, and producing operational anomalies such as the
    deployment of an armored division, designed to maneuver over
    large spaces, to the hill country of Bosnia. While all
    Americans should be proud of the obvious professionalism with
    which Operation Joint Endeavor is being conducted, there are
    limits to the adaptability of any organization, even one as
    fine as the U.S. military. In sum, the Department of Defense
    has been designed to carry out one set of missions, is being
    called upon to execute another quite different set of missions,
    and is inadequately funded for either. Today, the result is a
    growing sense of confusion and disarray. The result tomorrow
    could be worse.

                              CONTINUED SHORTFALLS

        Consequently, the committee finds itself trying once again
    to address the shortfalls created by the internal
    contradictions of the Administration's defense program. In the
    report on HR 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996, (H. Rept. 104-131) the committee described
    the four pillars of a sound defense program: a decent quality
    of military life, to ensure America's compact with service
    members and their families and to attract and retain bright and
    dedicated men and women; high core readiness, to ensure well
    trained and properly equipped forces today; sufficient
    modernization, to ensure the technological edge enjoyed by
    American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines anywhere they
    fight or operate; and a smarter and streamlined defense
    bureaucracy, to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayers' dollars
    and to free additional resources to address shortfalls
    throughout the budget.
        The committee's actions last year did much to address these
    shortfalls. As a result, the readiness of U.S. forces today is
    better than it was less than two years ago when the committee
    uncovered troubling indications of a deepening, systemic
    readiness problem. All Americans should share the committee's
    pride in the meticulous care with which the U.S. armed forces
    trained for the arduous mission in Bosnia, the determination
    with which they deployed in the depths of winter, and their
    remarkable record of operations in a complex political and
    dangerous military environment. Yet, this large force will
    require significant retraining to meet its primary warfighting
    mission when the Bosnia operation is complete. In the
    committee's judgment, continued vigilance in regard to
    readiness is a ``first principle.''
        Despite the funds added last year by Congress to maintain
    minimum readiness levels, the President's budget request for
    fiscal year 1997 reduced a variety of operations and
    maintenance accounts below current spending levels. Key
    readiness areas such as real property maintenance, depot
    maintenance, base operations support and others remain
    underfunded. Thus, the committee has recommended additional
    funds above the President's request primarily to address the
    growing maintenance backlogs for facilities such as barracks
    and dormitories and for equipment, as well as for other
    critical health, safety and operational deficiencies. -
        Last year the Congress also approved a number of committee
    initiatives to reform the Pentagon bureaucracy. These centered
    on acquisition reform and reductions in oversized and
    inefficient bureaucracies such as the Office of the Secretary
    of Defense and acquisition workforce. These efforts continue in
    this year's legislation, which extends reform efforts, for
    example, to the military departments.

                                QUALITY OF LIFE-

        However, two of the pillars of a sound defense are in need
    of even more significant repair. One is to ensure that we
    provide for a decent quality of military life. While every
    Administration upholds the principle that ``people come
    first,'' the quality of military life continues to erode. After
    proposing to freeze military pay several years ago, this
    Administration has belatedly committed itself, at least for the
    next year, to addressing shortfalls in military pay. Yet by
    many other measures, and particularly in regard to reducing
    out-of-pocket expenses for military personnel and their
    families and improving military housing, standards are still
    slipping. Marine Corps Commandant General Charles Krulak told
    the Committee: ``I went with my godchild to his barracks. He is
    a lance corporal in the First Battalion, Third Marines, in
    Hawaii. I was appalled at what he was living in. `Appalled' is
    probably a mild word for it. . . . We are building some
    barracks, we are building some homes, we are doing some whole-
    house rehab, but it is not to the level that either I, as
    Commandant, or you as a public servant, would be very pleased
    about. It is simply a matter of available money.'' -
        In addition, the Committee continues to be concerned about
    the strains that the high pace of military operations,
    particularly those related to ongoing peacekeeping and
    humanitarian missions, are placing on service members and their
    families. The pace of military operations being maintained by
    the Administration results in added strains on a still-
    shrinking active-duty military force and growing problems for
    reservists being called more often to extended periods of
    active service. Despite the committee's efforts to preclude
    reductions in service endstrengths below the Bottom-Up Review
    levels, the Administration's long-term defense plan funds Army
    and Air Force end strengths at reduced levels due to budget
    constraints. The effects of reducing end strengths for an
    already over extended force would have devastating impacts on
    personnel tempo and retention rates. Army Chief of Staff
    General Reimer recounted a story from one of his visits to
    troops in the field: ``I said good-bye to a young soldier at
    Fort Bliss, Texas, about a year ago, and he was on his seventh
    deployment since Operation Desert Shield. His family, with a
    wife and two young kids, were out there [saying good-bye]. That
    is tough on them.''-
        The committee finds any erosion in the quality of military
    life to be intolerable and believes that it is already
    jeopardizing the services' ability to recruit, develop and
    retain the high quality of military professional this nation
    requires and has come to expect. In the committee's view,
    providing a decent quality of life is simply a matter of
    keeping faith with the men and women who serve the nation in
    uniform.
        Accordingly, the committee has approved the requested three
    percent pay raise in full, and added substantially to the
    Administration's request for the basic allowance for quarters
    and for several initiatives to reduce out-of-pocket costs
    incurred when military personnel make permanent change of
    station moves under government orders. In addition, the
    committee was deeply concerned with the Administration's
    reduction of eighteen percent in spending on military
    construction. Fully three-quarters of the construction funds
    added in this bill will be spent on quality-of-life projects
    such as family housing, barracks, and child care centers. Given
    the continuing reports of a slipping quality of life and the
    Administration's reductions in spending on these important
    initiatives, the committee is compelled to take these remedial
    steps.

                                 MODERNIZATION

        The pillar of a sound American defense policy most in need
    of revitalization is the modernization of equipment,
    particularly weapons procurement. Despite the committee's
    concern, the Administration has done nothing to remedy the
    problem. In fact, the procurement request for fiscal year 1997
    was $5 billion lower than last year's Administration projection
    for fiscal year 1997. Moreover, the Administration has proposed
    spending amounts totaling more than fifty percent of the funds
    added for modernization by Congress last year to pay for the
    growing costs of the Bosnia operation, increased counter-
    narcotics efforts, the transfer of F-16 aircraft to Jordan, and
    other foreign policy initiatives. As a result, the
    recapitalization of U.S. military forces continues to be
    sacrificed and postponed.
        The drop in procurement funding has been dramatic since
    1990, especially during the past four years. By the
    Administration's own reckoning, there has been a real decline
    of 60 percent in procurement spending from fiscal year 1990 to
    fiscal year 1997. This year's requested level of procurement
    funding of $38.9 billion is the lowest since before the Korean
    War and reflects a substantial cut from the $42.3 billion in
    procurement authorized by Congress just last year.
        According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this level of
    procurement spending is only about two thirds of that needed to
    equip the current force structure. This past fall, the Chairman
    of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, concluded
    that beginning in FY 1998 the Department of Defense required
    $60 billion annually to keep the force modernized. Secretary of
    Defense William Perry acknowledged this problem in testimony
    before the committee, admitting that he ``would like to see,
    and General Shali would like to see, the increase in
    modernization reached sooner than we have in this budget.''
        This pattern of postponed procurement makes it difficult
    for the committee to have confidence in the Administration's
    future-years defense plan, which delays attainment of the $60
    billion-per-year goal for procurement spending until after the
    turn of the century. Moreover, the prospect of achieving this
    goal even by the year 2001, as currently projected by the
    Administration, is based upon optimistic assumptions of
    internal Pentagon savings generated through acquisition reform
    and base closings. While the committee will continue to work
    aggressively on such long-term cost-saving efforts, it is
    doubtful that the anticipated savings will be realized as fully
    or as rapidly as assumed. Accordingly, the need for more robust
    procurement spending is a pressing matter that must be
    addressed sooner, rather than later, and independent of process
    and overhead savings. Adequate funding for the modernization of
    aging equipment cannot depend upon assumed savings that may or
    may not materialize.
        In sum, the committee remains deeply concerned by the
    Administration's continuing lack of resource commitment to the
    modernization of our forces, which, if allowed to continue,
    will rapidly translate into obsolescent equipment that falls
    below the standards of performance, reliability and battlefield
    superiority established in the 1980s and demonstrated during
    the Gulf War. In his testimony before the committee, Admiral
    Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations, perhaps best summarized what
    modern equipment means to U.S. service members: ``Our men and
    women . . . don't ask you for very much and they don't ask us
    for very much. They want and require ships and weapon systems
    that are effective, and they need that not only today but they
    need it in the future. We talk about quality of life--that is
    the ultimate quality of life if you go in harm's way . . .''
        Because it is often the job of U.S. soldiers, sailors,
    airmen and Marines to go in harm's way, the current procurement
    program is untenable and indefensible. Consequently, the
    majority of the committee's actions taken to reshape the
    Administration's defense budget request are in the area of
    procurement. The committee has devoted substantial additional
    funding to modernization shortfalls, giving high priority to
    those programs identified by the services themselves as
    unfunded requirements. Fully ninety-five percent of the
    committee's increased procurement funding is for programs
    contained in the current future-years defense plan or
    identified as unfunded requirements by the service chiefs of
    staff.

                           BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

        The most glaring shortfall in the Administration's
    modernization program results from its antipathy to effective
    ballistic missile defenses. In light of the increasing
    proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles
    to deliver them over great distances, the lack of urgency in
    the Administration's missile defense program is startling.
    Congressional attempts to instill purpose, direction and focus
    in the Administration's moribund missile defense efforts were
    stymied last year by the President's veto of HR 1530, the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
        For the strategic reasons highlighted at the outset of this
    introductory section, the committee strongly believes that
    deployment of a national missile defense should be of the
    highest priority. Protection of the American homeland must be
    the first object of any national defense policy, as well as the
    cornerstone of any broader security strategy. The
    Administration's failure to aggressively pursue a national
    missile defense program that will field a viable, cost-
    effective missile defense system to discourage the development
    of ballistic missile threats or to defeat them is a grave
    concern. Consequently, the committee has added substantial
    funding to the Administration's underfunded request for
    ballistic missile defense programs, including national missile
    defense.
        The committee is equally disturbed by the Administration's
    retreat from even its own efforts to develop and deploy more
    robust theater missile defenses. Americans will not forget how
    a crude, conventionally-armed Scud missile resulted in the
    greatest single loss of American lives during the Gulf War. Yet
    the Administration has chosen to scale back efforts and reduce
    funding necessary to develop and deploy the most robust theater
    missile defense system possible. The result will be to leave
    American forces exposed to threats that are a clear and present
    danger today. Consequently, in response to the Administration's
    inexplicable spending reductions in several key theater missile
    defense programs, the committee has provided additional funding
    for the Army's THAAD system and the Navy's ``Wide Area''
    theater defense concept.

                                   INNOVATION

        The committee's commitment to modernization extends beyond
    bolstering inadequate levels of procurement spending. While it
    is essential to maintain the marked technological advantage
    enjoyed today by U.S. military forces, it is equally important
    to ensure that edge in the future. In the committee's judgment,
    the increasing pace and shifting pattern of technological
    change may well portend parallel changes in the conduct of war.
    These new technologies will not constitute a substitute for
    traditional military power and tactics. Rather, they represent
    an opportunity to leverage the effectiveness and adaptability
    of U.S. military forces into the next century.
        U.S. military forces already have begun to explore the
    effects of these new technologies, especially the effects of
    information technologies, on military affairs. They were
    clearly visible in Operation Desert Storm, for example, when
    the exploitation of the Global Positioning System of satellites
    provided the precision capability to conduct the ``left hook''
    that became the attack in the ground campaign. The Department
    of Defense has continued this effort to develop and exploit the
    military applications of information technology since the Gulf
    War.
        The committee recognizes both the need and the opportunity
    to support efforts within the military services to pursue
    innovative concepts and technologies as a hedge against an
    uncertain future and a rapidly changing global security
    environment. Consequently, the committee has made selected
    investments in two important areas to help determine the full
    promise of these new technologies and to realize their military
    applications. The first is in the technologies themselves, and
    particularly in those technologies that allow for the rapid
    collection, processing and dissemination of information and
    intelligence throughout the operational battlefield. Applied to
    current military systems and organizations, the more effective
    networking of available information can dramatically enhance
    the effectiveness of existing systems.
        A second set of initiatives will fund promising experiments
    designed to understand the operational and organizational
    implications of the technologies and their applications on the
    battlefield. Accordingly, the committee recommends funding a
    set of promising experiments designed to understand the
    operational and organizational implications of new technology
    and its application on the battlefield. These experiments are
    highly practical, putting new technologies directly in the
    hands of service members to allow them to create new tactics,
    new doctrine, and new types of units in an operational setting.
        The committee included substantial funding for initiatives
    such as the Army's ``Force XXI,'' the Marine Corps'
    Commandant's Warfighting Lab, the Navy's Arsenal Ship, an array
    of joint-service programs designed to explore the possibilities
    of a ``tactical internet'' for the sharing of intelligence and
    targeting data among units of all services and for command and
    control. Paralleling these ``internet'' technology efforts is a
    complementary set of programs to develop practical techniques
    and tactics for employing this information network to get the
    right information to the right units at the right time.
    Importantly, the committee also has recommended the creation of
    a ``Concept Development Center'' under the Department's Office
    of Net Assessment to conduct operational research to test new
    concepts, doctrines and organizations.
        The committee believes that maintaining American military
    supremacy is a key to the United States' standing as the
    world's sole superpower. This military supremacy rests on the
    technological edge U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines
    enjoy on any battlefield, and the innovative ways in which they
    employ advanced technologies. As the nature of war and military
    thought evolves from the influences of the industrial age to
    those increasingly reflective of the information age, the
    United States must continue to lead the way.-

                                   CONCLUSION

        This bill represents the second year that the committee has
    reshaped and reprioritize the Administration's defense budget
    in order to continue revitalizing the U.S. military following a
    decade of decline. However, the long-term revitalization of the
    U.S. military will be hard to sustain without a coherent
    national military strategy that responds to the world as it is
    rather than the world as some might wish it to be, and without
    an Administration committed to devoting the resources necessary
    to execute that strategy. In the interim, the committee is
    restricted to the difficult challenge of preserving the core
    competencies and capabilities needed to maintain U.S. military
    power as a force for peace and stability in the post Cold War
    World. Under the Constitution, this is the committee's and the
    Congress's fundamental responsibility.

                                    HEARINGS

        Committee consideration of the Defense authorization bill
    for fiscal year 1997 results from hearings that began on
    February 28, 1996 and that were completed on April 17, 1996.
    The full committee conducted 11 sessions, including markup
    meetings. In addition, a total of 34 sessions were conducted by
    five different subcommittees and two panels of the committee on
    various titles of the bill.
                DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                              TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

                                    OVERVIEW

        The committee's deep concern for the deterioration in
    defense modernization has been previously articulated in the
    ``Rationale for the Committee Bill'' section of this report.
    Clearly, modernization continues to be the one area of the
    defense budget most in need of thorough repair. This point is
    appropriately emphasized by the following statements from the
    Army's 1996 Modernization Plan:

              Overall, the assessment of the Army Modernization
            Program's ability to maintain capabilities required by
            the Modernization Objectives is rated AMBER in the Near
            Term, and becomes RED by the year 2000. Unless there is
            an infusion of new funds, the Army is clearly
            mortgaging its future technological edge, delaying
            fielding of key weapon systems well into the second
            decade of the twenty-first century, and placing its
            capability to fight at an unacceptably high risk. If
            the fiscal trends are not reversed, procurement of
            modern systems will be virtually non-existent during
            the current Program Objective Memorandum years.

        This state-of-affairs is equally true and publicly
    acknowledged by the other services. In fact, if the recent
    acknowledgment by the Marine Corps that it does not have enough
    ammunition to fight two major regional contingencies can be
    used as a barometer for measuring modernization woes, the
    situation among the other services may be even worse.
        Last year, the Department's underfunding of the procurement
    accounts compelled the committee to add more than $5.0 billion
    in modernization funding. This year, the committee has added
    more than $6.0 billion to these accounts--a robust 15 percent
    increase above the budget request. More importantly, however,
    is the fact that this year, like last, the committee will once
    again be required to add weapons and other critically needed
    items to properly address the vast inventory of unfunded
    priorities identified by the Department's uniformed leaders
    during testimony before the committee.
        The committee strongly identifies its actions with the
    admonishment of the immediate-past Vice Chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs of Staff, who, in his last public testimony to the
    Congress, declared that: ``We've got to stop promising
    ourselves (about increasing the procurement accounts) and start
    doing something.'' The committee emphatically agrees.

                           Aircraft Procurement, Army

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $970.8 million for Aircraft
    Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
    authorization of $1,556.6 million for fiscal year 1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                           Items of Special Interest

    AH-64D longbow apache -

        The budget request contained $357.0 million to modify 26
    AH-64A aircraft and procure 24 fire control radars. The request
    also contained $22.5 million in advance procurement.
        The committee has been advised that the Army intends to
    convert the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment from a light to a
    heavy force. Conversion of the regimental aviation squadron
    requires the procurement of 12 new AH-64Ds. The committee
    recommends an additional $260.0 million for this purpose and
    recommends a legislative provision (sec. 111) that would modify
    current law to permit this procurement. The committee also
    recommends $53.0 million for training devices to accelerate the
    delivery of these devices in accordance with the updated AH-64D
    fielding review.

    Airborne reconnaissance low (ARL)

        The budget request contained $24.7 million to procure the
    final ARL-M aircraft and mission equipment.
        The committee understands the Army reprogrammed fiscal year
    1996 funds which were authorized and appropriated for
    converting ARL-I and ARL-C aircraft to the multi-disciplined
    ARL-M configuration. These funds were applied to incorporate a
    moving target indicator (MTI) radar into the ARL. Although the
    reprogramming action was within the scope of the Department's
    authority, the committee is concerned with the Army's failure
    to inform the Congress of what it considers a major reorienting
    of the funds. The committee does, however, support the
    validated requirement for MTI on ARL, and is aware that funds
    have not been budgeted to complete the MTI purchase.
        Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $5.2
    million for completing the MTI upgrade. The committee directs
    the Army to provide the necessary funding to complete the ARL-
    I/-C conversion to ARL-M from within available resources.-

    CH-47D modifications-

        The budget request contained $7.8 million for CH-47D
    modifications.
        The CH-47D Chinook, the Army's only heavy lift cargo
    helicopter, will be 40 years old at the turn of the century. As
    modifications have added additional weight to the baseline
    configuration over its many years of service, the aircraft's
    lift capability has steadily decreased.
        The committee understands that upgrading the CH-47D engines
    will increase the aircraft's payload-carrying capability by up
    to 3,900 pounds. Additionally, aircraft safety will be enhanced
    and pilot workload reduced by adding the Full Authority Digital
    Electronic Fuel Control system as part of this engine upgrade.
        Consequently, the committee recommends an additional $52.0
    million to accelerate the CH-47D engine conversion and begin
    upgrading the active component contingency corps aircraft.-

    Depot maintenance plant equipment (DMPE)

        The budget request did not contain any funding for DMPE.
        The committee recognizes the importance of depot-level
    maintenance and other logistics support to the warfighting
    capability of the armed forces and is concerned about
    significant deficiencies in depot maintenance plant equipment
    modernization at several installations. Accordingly, the
    committee recommends $5.6 million for aviation DMPE. The
    committee directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct a
    comprehensive study of depot maintenance plant equipment
    modernization requirements and submit a report of his findings
    and recommendations to the congressional defense committees not
    later than March 1, 1997.

    OH-58D armed kiowa warrior-

        The budget request contained $9.1 million to fund the
    fielding of Kiowa Warriors procured in prior years.
        The committee notes that the current inventory of Kiowa
    Warriors is still well below the requirement for 507 aircraft.
    While the Army has sufficient Kiowa Warriors to equip all
    active component divisional cavalry squadrons, regimental
    cavalry squadrons, and light attack battalions, there are
    insufficient quantities to support active component target
    acquisition and reconnaissance platoons, as well as Army
    National Guard units.
        For these reasons, the committee supports continuation of
    the Armed Kiowa Warrior upgrade and recommends $190.0 million
    to fund an additional 24 aircraft. The committee also
    recommends a legislative provision (sec. 111) that would modify
    current law to permit this procurement.-

                           Missile Procurement, Army

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $766.3 million for Missile
    Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
    authorization of $1,027.8 million for fiscal year 1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Avenger-

        The budget request did not contain any funds to procure
    Avenger fire units for the Army National Guard.
        The Army has procured 674 Avenger fire units, which
    completes fielding of the Avenger in the active component and
    fields Avenger in one battalion of the Army National Guard.
        The committee notes that there are 93 Avenger fire units
    remaining on the fiscal year 1996 Avenger contract option and
    that most of the long lead items required for production of
    these remaining fire units have been purchased under the
    existing multiyear contract. Since purchasing the remaining 93
    fire units for the Army National Guard will fully utilize over
    $26 million of residual hardware and save $6 million in
    termination costs, the committee recommends $59.4 million for
    this purpose. The committee recommends a legislative provision
    (sec. 112) that would grant an extension of the Avenger
    multiyear procurement authority to accommodate the contract
    buyout. The committee agrees to this extension with the
    understanding that there will be no additional costs for
    stretching the delivery schedule. Finally, the committee
    directs the Secretary of the Army to maintain the mix of Army
    National Guard Avengers at levels appropriate to support
    current doctrine.--

    Javelin

        The budget request contained $162.1 million to procure
    1,020 Javelin antitank missiles. -
        The Javelin will be procured jointly by the Army and Marine
    Corps to replace the Dragon, which is no longer capable of
    defeating current armor threats. Although both services have
    urgent requirements to field the Javelin, the committee
    understands that combined procurement quantities do not support
    cost efficient production rates of the missile. The committee
    therefore recommends $196.0 million, an increase of $33.9
    million, to procure 300 additional missiles as well as to
    accelerate the production of command launch units and training
    devices.

    Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS)-

        The budget request contained $24.4 million for MLRS rockets
    and $38.0 million for MLRS launchers.
        The extended range MLRS rocket, with improved lethality and
    a new self-destruct fuze to minimize unintended casualties,
    enters production in fiscal year 1996. However, the committee
    notes that fiscal year 1997 production falls far short of an
    economic rate and does not leverage planned foreign military
    sales funding. Consequently, the committee recommends an
    additional $17.0 million to procure 822 more rockets and thus
    prevent a dip in production from fiscal year 1996 levels.
        The committee also recommends an increase of $66.2 million
    to complete the fielding of the MLRS to Army National Guard
    units--$36.3 million to rebuild 36 MLRS launchers and $29.9
    million for training equipment.

    Stinger modifications-

        The budget request contained $16.9 for Stinger missile
    modifications.
        The Stinger missile air defense weapon is deployed on a
    variety of platforms in the United States and 16 allied
    nations. The latest version of Stinger is the Block 1
    configuration, which provides an aviation user-friendly missile
    with greater lethality and improved resistance to
    countermeasures against unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise
    missiles, and attack helicopters operating in clutter.
        The committee notes that the request for the Block 1
    retrofit program does not sustain an economic production rate
    and does not allow for any platform modifications.
    Consequently, the committee recommends a $20.0 million increase
    for Stinger modifications--$15.0 million to retrofit an
    additional 1,000 missiles to the Block 1 configuration and $5.0
    million to modify both ground and airborne platforms to employ
    these missiles.

                   Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $1,102.0 million for
    procurement of Army weapons and tracked combat vehicles for
    fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends authorization of
    $1,334.8 million for fiscal year 1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Bradley fighting vehicle modifications-

        The budget request did not contain any funding for
    procurement of advanced reactive armor tiles for the Bradley.
        These tiles provide additional protection for the M2
    infantry and M3 cavalry fighting vehicles against direct-fire,
    chemical-energy munitions. The Army's current goal is to
    procure 178 sets of armor tiles to support a brigade combat
    team.
        Congress added funds in fiscal year 1995 to initiate
    procurement of the first 18 advanced armor tile sets from a
    foreign manufacturer. Congress again added funds in fiscal year
    1996 for technology transfer to and a limited production of
    advanced tiles by a domestic source. However, an immediate need
    for armor tiles in Bosnia necessitated an emergency, off-the-
    shelf buy of 50 sets from the current off-shore producer,
    leaving only enough funds to complete the technology transfer.
        The committee understands that buying out the remaining
    armor tile requirement will result in an estimated savings of
    $50,000 per set. Therefore, the committee recommends an
    additional $35.5 million to complete the procurement of the
    178-tile set requirement and to provide a U.S. source for the
    Army's future armor tile needs.

    M109A6 paladin/M992A2 field artillery ammunition support vehicle
            (FAASV)-

        The budget request did not contain any funds to procure
    Paladins/FAASVs for the Army National Guard.
        Despite the fact that within the next few years 75 percent
    of the Army's field artillery resources will reside in the Army
    National Guard, most guard 155mm self-propelled battalions will
    still be equipped with technologically obsolete howitzers and
    archaic M548 ammunition carriers. The committee notes that the
    National Guard Bureau and the Office of the Army's Deputy Chief
    of Staff for Operations and Plans have both stated that the
    Paladin is the cannon of choice for the Army National Guard.
    Consequently, the committee authorizes an additional $61.0
    million for the production of a battalion set of Paladins/
    FAASVs (24 of each) and directs that these systems be
    exclusively for the Army National Guard.

    M240B medium machine gun-

        The budget request did not contain any funds for the M240B
    medium machine gun.
        The Army recently selected and type-classified the M240B to
    replace its aging inventory of 7.62mm medium machine guns. The
    committee understands that the initial requirement to field the
    M240B to force packages 1-4 is a minimum of 11,000 guns. In
    order to provide our early deploying forces with the most
    modern weapons, the committee recommends $20.0 million to
    procure 2,100 M240Bs and strongly encourages the Army to
    consider a multiyear procurement of this medium machine gun.

    M88A1E1 improved recovery vehicle (IRV)-

        The budget request contained $28.6 million to procure 12
    IRVs.
        The M88A1E1 program was initiated in 1985 when the Army
    realized that its then-current M88A1 recovery vehicle would not
    be able to recover the heavier M1 tank. As demonstrated in
    subsequent operations, including Desert Storm, M1s can be
    safely recovered only by using either two M88A1s or an M88A1 in
    tandem with another M1 tank. This problem creates a significant
    operational deficiency as well as a safety hazard.
        Noting the shortage of IRVs in the field, Congress added
    $33.9 million to the Army's fiscal year 1996 budget request. In
    order to sustain higher production rates until force packages 1
    and 2 armored units are properly equipped, the committee
    recommends an increase of $27.1 million to procure an
    additional 12 IRVs.-

    M9 armored combat earthmover (ACE)-

        The budget request did not contain any funds for the M9
    ACE.
        The committee notes that the M9 ACE is a highly mobile
    tracked engineer vehicle designed to provide the tactical
    commander with earthmoving capability to prepare fighting
    positions, create tank ditches and other obstacles, defeat
    enemy barriers and obstacles, and maintain roads and supply
    routes. The unique ability of the M9 ACE to survive and perform
    these tasks in the forward battle area while keeping pace with
    the combat forces' forward momentum provides an indispensable
    combat multiplier.
        The committee recommends $50.7 million to procure 54
    vehicles in order to accelerate fielding to active component
    heavy divisions.

                          Ammunition Procurement, Army

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $853.4 million for Ammunition
    Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
    authorization of $1,160.7 million for fiscal year 1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                            Item of Special Interest

    Sense and destroy armor (SADARM)-

        The budget request contained $60.3 million to procure 322
    SADARM artillery projectiles.
        The committee is aware of the significant increase in
    combat effectiveness SADARM, the Army's first ``smart'' 155mm
    artillery munition, adds to the field artillery battalions.
    Because of its continuing concern with the Army's chronic
    shortage of combat ammunition, the committee recommends an
    increase of $33.5 million to produce an additional 316 SADARM
    rounds. The committee understands that this increased
    production will achieve significant price breaks from
    suppliers, as well as move the first-unit-equipped date from
    fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 1998.--

                            Other Procurement, Army-

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $2,627.4 million for Other
    Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
    authorization of $2,812.2 million for fiscal year 1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless other
    specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on
    affordability considerations.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Army data distribution system (ADDS)-

        The budget request contained $48.0 million for ADDS,
    including 900 sets of the Enhanced Position Location Reporting
    System (EPLRS).
        The committee has consistently added funding in previous
    fiscal years for the EPLRS because of its concern to eliminate
    ``friendly fire'' casualties on the battlefield. The committee
    understands that the Marine Corps, the Air Force and the Air
    Reserve forces have initiated an effort to integrate a modified
    EPLRS, called the Situation Awareness Data Link (SADL), into
    attack aircraft to increase the aviator's situational awareness
    of forces on the ground. The committee strongly supports this
    effort and recommends an additional $25.0 million for EPLRS/
    SADL procurement.-

    Forward area air defense ground based sensor (FAAD GBS)-

        The budget request contained $51.2 million to procure 16
    FAAD GBS systems.
        The FAAD GBS radar system provides detection of fixed wing
    aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise
    missiles and provides cueing to the Stinger MANPAD teams, as
    well as Avenger and Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle platforms.
        The committee recommends $68.8 million, an increase of
    $17.6 million, to procure an additional 12 FAAD GBS systems.
    This action is consistent with the committee's actions over the
    past several years to accelerate FAAD GBS production.

                           Aircraft Procurement, Navy

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $5,882.0 million for Aircraft
    Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
    authorization of $6,669.0 million for fiscal year 1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                           Items of Special Interest

    AV-8B remanufacture-

        The budget request contained $282.0 million to procure 10
    remanufactured AV-8B aircraft and $22.9 million for advance
    procurement of 12 aircraft in fiscal year 1998.
        The upgraded AV-8B, with its enhanced day/night, adverse
    weather, survivability, and improved multi-mission
    capabilities, will dramatically increase the Marine Corps'
    ability to project combat power from its amphibious ready
    groups. Moreover, the material improvements which result from
    this remanufacture are projected to reduce the aircraft's
    mishap rate dramatically. For these reasons, the committee
    recommends an additional $112. 0 million to procure four more
    AV-8B remanufactured aircraft in order to accelerate the
    fielding of this much-needed and safety-related improvement.

    EA-6B modifications -

        The budget request contained $100.6 million for EA-6B
    modifications.
        Fleet aviation continues to require a robust electronic
    warfare capability. The decision to retire the Air Force's EF-
    111s and rely on the EA-6B for the Department's tactical
    jamming mission makes it imperative that the EA-6B fleet be
    structurally sound and modernized to meet current requirements.
        The EA-6B's aluminum wing center sections have been found
    to be subject to embrittlement, which has led to stress cracks
    and resulted in the removal of a number of aircraft from active
    service. As a result of a Congressional initiative to address
    this problem, replacement wing center sections are currently
    being produced. However the Navy has a requirement for twenty
    more of these sections, since Congress added funds in fiscal
    year 1996 to upgrade an additional 20 EA-6Bs to support the Air
    Force's stand-off jamming needs. Consequently, the committee
    recommends an additional $55.0 million to purchase ten of the
    twenty new wing center sections in order to avoid a production
    break in the manufacture of this component.
        The current jamming transmitters on the EA-6B have not
    changed substantially since originally designed in the 1960s.
    There have been several generations of improved surface-to-air
    and air-to-air missiles since then, and many of these new
    systems operate at higher radio frequency signals than these
    jammers. Also, the great majority of current anti-ship missiles
    employ seekers in the band 9/10 frequency range. Since the EA-
    6B is a key component of the Navy's Cooperative Engagement
    Capability against these threats, equipping these aircraft with
    Band 9/10 electronic countermeasure transmitters will provide a
    potent and effective defensive screen against such missiles.
    Consequently, the committee recommends an additional $40.0
    million to procure 60 shipsets of these transmitters.

    V-22 Osprey-

        The budget request contained $500.9 million to procure the
    first four V-22s and $57.8 million for advance procurement of
    five aircraft in fiscal year 1998.
        The committee remains concerned about the Department's
    proposed 25-year V-22 production schedule. The Defense Science
    Board recommended that the Department adopt a more efficient V-
    22 production schedule, and the Department has stated that a
    minimum of $8 billion could be saved by accelerating the
    planned procurement and achieving a production rate of 36
    aircraft per year by the year 2000. In order to increase
    initial V-22 production rates, the committee recommends an
    additional $232.0 million to produce two more aircraft and an
    additional $10.0 million in advance procurement to maintain a
    production rate of six aircraft in fiscal year 1998. The
    committee recommends that the Department provide funds in the
    Future Years Defense Program submitted with the fiscal year
    1998 budget request to support V-22 accelerated production.

                           Weapons Procurement, Navy

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $1,400.4 million for Weapons
    Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
    authorization of $1,305.3 million for fiscal year 1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                            Item of Special Interest

    Trident II sea-launched ballistic missile (SLBM)-

        The budget request contained $267.5 million for procurement
    of Trident II SLBMs.
        The committee continues to strongly support the Trident II
    SLBM program, but recommends $259.8 million, a reduction of
    $7.7 million, to be applied against the reentry body
    downloading/arms control subactivity.

                   Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps

                                    Overview

        The budget request did not contain any funds for Ammunition
    Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps in fiscal year 1997. The
    committee recommends authorization of $599.2 million for fiscal
    year 1997 as reflected in the following table.

                            Item of Special Interest

    Ammunition

        The budget request contained $68.9 million for procurement
    of ammunition.
        Notwithstanding corrective action taken by the Congress
    last year to address the Corps' ammunition deficiency, the
    committee understands that the Marines still do not have
    sufficient ammunition to support the Administration's national
    military strategy of being capable to fight two nearly
    simultaneous major regional contingencies (MRCs). Therefore, to
    ensure that the Marine Corps has adequate combat ammunition to
    meet its two-MRC requirement, the committee recommends $449.9
    million, an increase of $381.0 million, to be distributed as
    follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    5.56mm, all types.................................................  30.0
    7.62mm, all types.................................................   8.0
    .50 caliber.......................................................   7.0
    81mm smoke screen.................................................  20.0
    81mm illumination M853............................................  10.0
    Fuze, ET, XM762...................................................  40.0
    Fuze, proximity...................................................   6.0
    Ctg, 25mm, all types..............................................   7.0
    Ctg, 120mm, APFSDS-T, M829A2......................................  12.0
    Ctg, 120mm, 120mm HEAT-MP.........................................  21.0
    9mm, all types....................................................   1.0
    Linear chg, all types.............................................  85.0
    Chg, demolition...................................................  98.0
    Grenades, all types...............................................   5.0
    Rockets, all types................................................  30.0
    Items less than $2 million........................................   1.0

                       Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $4,911.9 million for
    Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy in fiscal year 1997. The
    committee recommends authorization of $5,479.9 million for
    fiscal year 1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Fast combat support ships

        The budget request did not contain any funding for fast
    combat support ships (AOE).
        The committee is concerned that, despite a requirement for
    a minimum of nine station ships to travel with and resupply the
    carrier battle groups, the Navy continues to be one AOE short
    of fulfilling this requirement and instead uses a combination
    of several other ships for this purpose. Accordingly, the
    committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to re-examine the
    requirement for fast combat support ships and report his
    findings to the congressional defense committees by January 31,
    1997. If such a requirement still exists, the Secretary should
    include funding for the last AOE in the fiscal year 1998 budget
    request.

    Fast patrol craft

        The budget request contained no funds for a fast patrol
    craft.
        The committee continues to support efforts to acquire an
    advanced fast patrol craft for operations in littoral waters,
    thus obviating the need to place cruisers and destroyers in
    areas where they are vulnerable to shore-based cruise missiles,
    mines, and quiet diesel submarines. A craft of this nature
    would provide a highly capable, multimission adjunct to the
    service's current fleet, and the committee urges the Navy to
    move forward with the procurement of such a craft. However, the
    committee understands that additional funding is necessary and
    recommends $20.0 million for this purpose.

    National defense sealift fund (NDSF)

        The budget request contained $963.0 million for the NDSF,
    including $90.0 million to purchase and convert existing
    foreign-built, roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) ships for the Ready
    Reserve Force (RRF). No funds were requested for the second and
    third of three additional Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS)
    the Marine Corps wants to add to its MPS squadrons.
        The committee notes that the first four of the Army's 19
    Large, Medium-Speed RO/ROs (LMSR) will enter the fleet in 1996,
    allowing the return of most, if not all, of the seven RRF RO/
    ROs, which have been temporarily deployed as prepositioning
    ships prior to the delivery of the LMSRs, to stand-by status
    for future Army surge sealift requirements. The committee
    further notes that these RRF ships have the capacity to meet
    the Marine Corps' requirements for MPS.
        The committee recommends $1,123.0 million for the NDSF, an
    increase of $160.0 million, for the purpose of procuring a
    second MPS. Unlike the first of these three additional MPS
    ships, which, similar to recent purchases for the RRF, will
    likely be a used, foreign-built hull converted for MPS use, the
    committee intends that the second and third such ships be new
    vessels constructed in U.S. shipyards. Therefore, the committee
    recommends a provision (sec. 124) repealing the statutory
    authority which allows the Marine Corps to purchase and convert
    two additional foreign-built hulls.
        Recognizing that construction of a new ship may take longer
    than conversion of a used one, the committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense to use the RRF RO/ROs, which will be
    replaced by the LMSRs, to preposition Marine Corps equipment
    until the Corps takes delivery of its three additional ships.
    If these RRF ships are deemed adequate for the Army, then the
    committee assumes they are also adequate for the Marines.
        Finally, the committee notes that the Department is
    currently prohibited from using NDSF funds for the acquisition
    of ships for the RRF. Since the Department has requested $90.0
    million for this purpose, the committee denies the request and
    directs that this amount be combined with the $160.0 million
    added for a second MPS. The Department is reminded that in the
    statement of managers (H. Rept. 104-450) accompanying the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
    Law 104-106) the conferees declared a willingness to revisit
    this prohibition but only when the Department has established
    and funded a national defense features program and the Congress
    has had an opportunity to evaluate its effectiveness. -

    Nuclear attack submarines

        The budget request contained $699.1 million for continued
    construction of the third Seawolf-class submarine (SSN-23) and
    $296.2 million for advance procurement of the fiscal year 1998
    New Attack Submarine (NAS). The budget request also contained
    $489.4 million in Research and Development (R&D) funding to
    continue detailed design of the NAS. The committee recommends
    the requested amounts. In addition, the committee recommends a
    legislative provision (sec. 122) which would segregate the
    currently-existing cost cap on the three Seawolf-class
    submarines into two components: (1) a combined cost cap on the
    first two of these submarines and (2) a separate cost cap on
    the SSN-23.
        In its deliberations on the attack submarine program last
    year, the committee was aware that former Navy officials had
    originally intended to design several NAS prototypes,
    emphasizing key technologies such as electric drive, before
    settling on a final design for this submarine and that the
    prototype program, with its plans for technological advances,
    was stymied by the fact that the design of a new nuclear
    reactor had already been completed. In an attempt to remedy
    this situation, the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) required the Secretary of
    Defense to produce a plan, commencing in fiscal year 1998, to
    begin construction of four transition nuclear attack
    submarines, each of which would incorporate new technologies,
    leading to the design of and culminating with the first ship of
    a new class to be competed for construction in 2003. Although
    the Navy's Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) also projects
    commencing construction of four NASs between fiscal years 1998
    and 2003, the Navy maintains that the plan Congress required
    was unaffordable. Consequently, the Navy's FYDP does not fund
    either the second or fourth submarines of this plan--the two
    submarines that the plan required Newport News Shipbuilding
    (NNS) to construct in order to introduce competition for
    production of the first next-generation submarine in 2003. The
    committee is disturbed by the Navy's actions, especially in
    view of the fact that an LPD-17, not previously budgeted, was
    added in fiscal year 1999 in lieu of a second submarine, and in
    view of the fact that the LHD-7, previously budgeted in fiscal
    year 2001, was moved forward and funded in fiscal year 1996,
    thus making budget authority available for a fourth submarine.
    The committee recommends $504.0 million for advance procurement
    of the fiscal year 1999 transition submarine.
        To its credit, the Navy did convene a panel of experts to
    provide an independent evaluation of available and future
    submarine technologies, and the committee notes that the panel
    found the baseline NAS design ``lacked certain desirable
    features which would probably be needed in the future and could
    still be incorporated into an early NAS hull with vigorous
    action.'' Again to its credit, the Navy has signed a Memorandum
    of Agreement (MOA) with the two nuclear-capable shipyards to
    lay the groundwork for having both yards produce future nuclear
    attack submarines. However, the Navy has not shown any
    indications of responding to its independent panel's
    recommendation for a stable infusion of R&D funding for
    technology maturation by reprogramming fiscal year 1996 funds,
    (since the panel's report was not finished in time to include
    any funds in the fiscal year 1997 budget request). Neither has
    the Navy indicated that there will be any incorporation of new
    technology in the pre-competitive phase submarines, since the
    MOA states that ``design improvements by the shipbuilders will
    be reviewed by the Navy to determine which changes will be
    included in follow ships'' (i.e., those built after the
    competitive phase).
        The committee is perplexed by the Navy's resistance to
    recognize that the lack of sustained R&D funding has inhibited
    the insertion of state-of-the-art technology in current
    submarines and will prevent the maturation of advanced
    technology for future submarines. The committee is similarly
    puzzled that the shipyards are not more involved in the early
    stages of submarine technology planning and development.
    Finally, the committee is displeased that no efforts will be
    made to incorporate new technologies into the ``pre-
    competitive'' phase submarines.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec.
    121) which would take the following actions:
              (1) Authorize $60.0 million to mature and transition
            the technologies whose maturation the Navy's
            independent panel recommended be addressed:
            hydrodynamics, alternative sail designs, advanced
            arrays, electric drive, external weapons, and active
            controls and - - - - mounts. Of this amount, $10.0
            million is to be provided to each of the shipyards to
            ensure that they are principal participants in this
            process. The committee intends that the shipyards be
            allowed access to naval intelligence data and that
            there be continuing interaction among the shipyards,
            the Navy laboratories, and the Defense Advanced
            Research Projects Agency;
              (2) Authorize $38.0 million to fund development and
            testing of Category I and II - - - technologies, as
            described in the Secretary of Defense's March 1996
            report to the - - Congress on NAS Procurement and
            Submarine Technology;
              (3) Authorize $40.0 million, equally divided between
            the two shipyards, to fund design - - improvements
            proposed by them for incorporation into the four
            transition submarines. - - - Furthermore the provision
            stipulates that there will be four separately-
            maintained - - configurations, rather than the single
            design the Navy plans to ``update'' for the ``post-- -
            competitive'' phase of its NAS program; and
              (4) Authorize $50.0 million, equally divided between
            the two shipyards, to initiate the - - design of a
            completely new next-generation nuclear attack submarine
            in order to - - - - follow the independent panel's
            recommendation that the Navy overcome its aversion - -
            to investigate revolutionary technology options,
            despite instances in the past when it - - has been
            surprised by Russian innovation and advances.
        The committee has been impressed with the results of the
    Air Force's acquisition streamlining efforts, the so-called
    ``Lightning Bolts'' initiatives begun in May 1995. In less than
    a year, these initiatives have already led to approximately $13
    billion in savings and cost avoidance by reducing military
    specifications and standards, contract data requirements lists,
    and program office manpower. These impressive results have been
    achieved by, among other things, creating centralized teams of
    contracting, manufacturing, logistics, engineering, finance,
    test and evaluation, safety, and legal experts which are sent
    to program offices to help them in their streamlining efforts.
    Consequently, the committee directs a similar type of team be
    constituted by the Secretary of the Navy for the purpose of
    reducing costs of the nuclear attack submarine programs. With a
    congressionally-imposed cost cap on the SSN-23 and the
    overabiding emphasis on NAS affordability, the committee
    believes the Secretary should be sufficiently induced to
    embrace this undertaking.

                            Other Procurement, Navy

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $2,714.2 million for Other
    Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
    authorization of $2,871.5 million for fiscal year 1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Aegis support equipment -

        The budget request contained $30.4 million for Aegis
    support equipment.
        The committee supports the Aegis program's ongoing effort
    to utilize interactive electronic technical manuals (IETMs)
    that store paper manuals in electronic format. The committee is
    aware that the Navy is investigating the possibility of hosting
    the IETMs on flexible wearable computers. This system allows
    repair technicians to perform their tasks with hands-free
    access to the IETM maintenance information, while affording
    them maximum mobility to operate in confined spaces. In order
    to gain at-sea experience with the combined IETM/flexible
    wearable computer system, the committee recommends an
    additional $3.0 million to procure flexible wearable computers
    for deployment on Aegis ships as well as other ships that have
    IETMs available.

    Airborne mine countermeasures-

        The budget request contained $13.5 million for airborne
    mine countermeasures.
        The committee is aware of the progress and success of Magic
    Lantern, a helicopter-mounted laser mine detection system.
    Magic Lantern, as a prototype, was deployed in Desert Storm and
    provided unparalleled airborne mine detection and
    classification capability for moored and floating contact
    mines. Since that time Magic Lantern test results have met or
    exceeded specifications and demonstrated a greater probability
    of detection and classification, higher area coverage, and
    lower false alarm rate than any other mine countermeasure
    system. Magic Lantern is the Navy's only proven airborne laser
    mine detection system and the only effective counter against
    contact mines.
        Despite an urgent requirement for effective contact mine
    detection, the Navy requested no funds for Magic Lantern
    procurement. The committee views such action as short-sighted
    and recommends $25.0 million to procure three Magic Lantern
    systems and associated spares.

    AN/BPS-16 submarine radar--

        The budget request did not contain any funding for the AN/
    BPS-16 submarine radar.
        The committee recommends $16.0 million to complete the
    backfit of the AN/BPS-16 commercial-off-the-shelf radar into
    the SSN-688 Los Angeles-class submarine fleet. Installation of
    the AN/BPS-16 will dramatically improve the operational safety
    of the 688 fleet by providing a state-of-the-art, all-weather
    radar for navigating into and out of ports and for performing
    tactical operations at sea in adverse weather conditions.
    Moreover, additional procurement of this radar in fiscal year
    1997, rather than fiscal year 1998 or later, will result in
    significant cost savings to the Navy by ensuring its continuous
    production.

    Doppler sonar velocity log-

        The budget request did not contain any funding for a
    Doppler Sonar Velocity Log.
        The Navy has informed the committee that it has identified
    a need to develop a new Doppler Sonar Velocity Log for use on
    its next-generation attack submarines and warships. However,
    the committee has learned that there may be commercially-
    available systems that can satisfy the Navy's requirement for
    accuracy and shallow water performance. Therefore, the
    committee recommends an additional $1.0 million to purchase and
    test a non-developmental doppler velocity log.

    Integrated navigation, information, and ship control system -

        The budget request did not contain any funding for
    integrated navigation, information, and ship control systems.
        The Navy has an urgent requirement to modernize, automate,
    and fully integrate bridge and machinery monitoring and control
    systems on its cruisers and other surface ships with
    commercial-off-the-shelf, military-qualified systems. These
    systems include an Integrated Bridge System, Integrated
    Condition Assessment System, Damage Control System, and
    Standard Monitoring and Control System. The procurement and
    installation of these proven, demonstrated systems on surface
    combatant ships will offer major improvements in performance
    and reduce the size of the crew required to safely operate
    them. The committee understands that 45 to 55 positions can be
    eliminated from the present 370-person cruiser crew, and life
    cycle cost reductions of 50 percent are estimated for the
    systems replaced or augmented. Accordingly, the committee
    recommends an increase of $32.0 million for procurement and
    installation of four identical integrated navigation,
    information, and ship control systems on CG-47 class cruisers.

    Safety and survivability items-

        The budget request did not contain any funds for safety and
    survivability items.
        Congress provided funds in fiscal year 1996 to purchase
    commercial-off-the-shelf, non-developmental item (COTS/NDI)
    life safety items identified for priority procurement by the
    Navy's Office of Safety and Survivability (OSS) and the
    operational commands. As a result, OSS initiated the retrofit
    of flight data recorders (FDRs) on early model F/A-18 aircraft
    that do not have these crash-survivable instruments. The
    committee recognizes that additional funds are required to
    complete the F/A-18 FDR retrofit and to initiate retrofit of
    COTS/NDI FDRs on all Navy and Marine Corps passenger-carrying
    military aircraft but believes that such COTS/NDI applications
    provide a high return on investment. Consequently, the
    committee recommends $14.2 million to support the continued
    retrofit of FDRs on F/A-18 and other Navy and Marine Corps
    aircraft lacking them, as well as to accelerate the
    introduction of other life safety items identified for priority
    procurement.

    Shipboard stabilized platform system (SSPS)

        The budget request did not contain any funds for an SSPS.
        The committee understands that the Navy has not yet
    conducted the demonstration of a U.S. industry-developed
    shipboard gun system that was funded in fiscal year 1995.
    However, the committee notes that a fiscal year 1996 SSPS
    demonstration is planned, the results of which are to be
    available in fiscal year 1997. The committee also notes that
    both the U.S. Coast Guard and the Special Operations Command
    (SOCOM) have stated requirements for an SSPS. Consequently, the
    committee strongly urges the Navy, the Coast Guard, and SOCOM
    to select and fund production start-up in fiscal year 1998 of
    the non-developmental system which the planned demonstration
    indicates best meets their collective needs. Selection should
    be based on current and projected requirements for performance,
    survivability, and applicability to additional weapons. The
    selected gun mount should require no additional development
    funding except to accomplish service-unique tailoring.-

    Surface ship torpedo defense (SSTD) -

        The budget request contained $5.7 million for SSTD.
        The Navy informed the committee in 1995 of its restructured
    SSTD program, whose charter is to develop and produce a torpedo
    defense capability that contributes to surface ship survival.
    At that time, the Department stated that both the cost and the
    technical risk of the restructured effort had been
    significantly reduced. Consequently, the committee is perplexed
    that no funds were requested in fiscal year 1997 to move
    forward on this program. Accordingly, the committee recommends
    an additional $12.5 million to procure torpedo defense
    equipment for combatant, amphibious, and auxiliary ships,
    including towed array sensors, torpedo alertment processors,
    launched expendable acoustic devices, and torpedo
    countermeasure transmitting sets.

    Surface tomahawk support equipment-

        The budget request contained $75.6 million for surface
    Tomahawk support equipment.
        The Tomahawk afloat planning system (APS) successfully
    underwent extensive operational test and evaluation in 1994,
    and production system installations have been completed on the
    USS Carl Vinson and the USS George Washington. The APS
    significantly reduces Tomahawk strike planning response times.
    The APS also provides the centerpiece of the Joint Service
    Imagery Processing System-Navy which provides deployed planners
    real-time capability to receive, process, analyze and exploit
    tactical sensor imagery.
        The committee notes that the Congress has previously
    encouraged the Department to continue support and funding for
    the APS and to consider extending the APS's targeting and
    mission planning capabilities to other tactical command
    echelons. The committee is pleased with the APS program's
    development and production efforts, which have been on
    schedule, within cost, and have met or exceeded all
    specifications. Therefore, the committee recommends an
    additional $10.0 million to support continued fielding of the
    APS.

    WSN-7 Ring Laser Gyro (RLG)-

        The budget request contained $17.2 million for navigation
    equipment.
        The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for
    the procurement and installation of ten WSN-7 RLGs. This
    increase will allow the Navy to accelerate the replacement of
    obsolete, maintenance-intensive ship navigation systems in the
    surface and submarine fleets with the WSN-7 RLG ship navigator,
    which has been selected as the common RLG for all surface and
    submarine fleets. According to the Atlantic and Pacific fleet
    commanders, this accelerated procurement will not only improve
    fleet performance but also maximize cost savings to the Navy.

                           Procurement, Marine Corps

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $555.5 million for
    Procurement, Marine Corps in fiscal year 1997. The committee
    recommends authorization of $546.7 million for fiscal year
    1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                           Items of Special Interest

    AN/TPQ-36 firefinder radar upgrade

        The budget request contained $30.4 million to upgrade the
    AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar sets.
        The committee understands that, due to the non-standard
    configuration of these radar sets in Marine units, the program
    to upgrade all Firefinders is currently underfunded. Therefore,
    the committee recommends $34.2 million, an increase of $3.8
    million, to fully fund this upgrade.

    Javelin

        The budget request contained $28.2 million to procure 148
    Javelin antitank missiles and 48 command launch units (CLUs).
        As noted elsewhere in this report, the Javelin will be
    procured jointly by the Army and Marine Corps to replace the
    Dragon, which is no longer capable of defeating current armor
    threats. Although both the Army and Marine Corps have urgent
    requirements to field the Javelin, the committee understands
    that combined procurement quantities do not support cost
    efficient production rates of the missile. The committee
    therefore recommends $48.2 million, an increase of $20.0
    million, to procure an additional 120 missiles and 16 CLUs.

    Training devices

        The budget request did not contain any funds for
    procurement of the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System
    (MILES) 2000.
        The committee understands that the Marine Corps has a
    requirement for 10 battalion sets of MILES 2000 training
    devices and plans to begin procurement of these aids in fiscal
    year 1998. To accelerate procurement of these systems, the
    committee recommends $10.6 million to fund the first two
    battalion sets.

                        Aircraft Procurement, Air Force

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $5,779.2 million for Aircraft
    Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1997. The committee
    recommends authorization of $7,271.9 million for fiscal year
    1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                           Items of Special Interest

    B-1B conventional mission upgrade program

        The budget request contained $84.4 million for B-1B
    modifications.
        The committee is pleased with the improvements in mission
    capable rates of the B-1B fleet. However, the committee is
    discouraged by the slow pace of the effort to integrate
    conventional precision guided munitions (PGM) with the B-1B.
    Although additional funding was provided in fiscal year 1996 to
    accelerate arming of the B-1B with the Joint Direct Attack
    Munition (JDAM) and other PGM capabilities, the committee is
    not aware of any significant progress toward this objective.
    Consequently, the committee urges the Air Force to accelerate
    PGM integration with the B-1B and recommends an increase of
    $15.0 million for this purpose. Elsewhere in this report, the
    committee has also addressed this concern by accelerating
    production of the Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW) and the JDAM in
    order to provide increased quantities of PGMs for the bomber
    force.
        The committee understands that the Air Force is currently
    modifying existing conventional bomb modules (CBM) to carry SFW
    and other conventional submunitions dispensers. The committee
    supports the CBM modification and recommends an increase of
    $57.0 million to procure enough CBMs to equip two B-1B
    squadrons with SFW capability.

    C-17

        The budget request contained $1,919.3 million for
    procurement of eight C-17 aircraft.
        The committee commends the Department's continued emphasis
    on strategic airlift, is pleased with the current progress of
    the C-17 program in reducing costs and maintaining timely
    aircraft deliveries, and is supportive of the decision to
    procure an all-C-17 fleet to fulfill the Department's strategic
    airlift requirements.
        However, the committee understands that the C-17 budget
    request was prematurely reduced, based on the assumption that
    the committee would authorize the Administration's
    unprecedented request for a seven-year multiyear procurement of
    80 C-17s. While the committee strongly supports modernization
    of the strategic airlift fleet, it is disturbed by the
    unorthodox approach taken by the Administration in requesting
    authority to begin the largest and longest multiyear
    procurement in defense acquisition history as an attachment to
    a small supplemental appropriations request rather than await
    completion of the normal defense authorization and
    appropriations process.
        The committee is aware of an alternative multiyear option
    which saves at least $300 million more than the
    Administration's proposal and completes the C-17 program one
    year sooner. Such earlier completion not only enables faster
    fielding of the aircraft to redress serious airlift
    deficiencies, but also avoids the C-17 having to compete for
    procurement funds at the same time the F-22 fighter is
    scheduled to begin full-rate production. Therefore, the
    committee recommends a legislative provision (sec. 142)
    authorizing a six-year multiyear procurement of 80 C-17
    aircraft. The committee also recommends an increase of $380.0
    million to procure two additional aircraft in fiscal year 1997
    and to provide sufficient advance procurement funding for 12
    aircraft in fiscal year 1998. The committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional
    defense committees by February 1, 1997, specifying the actions
    necessary to achieve savings of at least $300 million greater
    then the amount offered in the Administration's seven-year
    proposal.

    Digital terrain system

        The budget request did not contain any funds for the F-16
    digital terrain system (DTS).
        The committee notes that although the Air Force has
    procured over 100 DTSs, approximately fifty have been leased to
    U.S. allies and the remainder put in storage. The committee is
    concerned that the Air Force has no plan to utilize this system
    on its own aircraft.
        The committee recommends $3.0 million to procure additional
    DTSs and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a
    report to the congressional defense committees by December 31,
    1996, which provides a utilization plan for this system.

    E-3 airborne warning and control systems (AWACS)

        The budget request contained $287.9 million for
    modifications to the E-3 AWACS aircraft and to ensure
    operational effectiveness of the 32-aircraft fleet.
        The committee notes that TF-33 engine failures currently
    account for unacceptably large numbers of AWACS mission aborts,
    but the budget request contained no funds for reengining
    efforts to address this problem. Therefore, the committee
    recommends $361.9 million for AWACS modifications, an increase
    of $74.0 million, to begin procurement of replacement engine
    kits.

    E-8C Joint surveillance and target attack radar system (JSTARS)

        The budget request contained $417.8 million to procure two
    E-8C JSTARS aircraft and $111.1 million advance procurement for
    two aircraft in fiscal year 1998.
        The committee notes the successful deployment of JSTARS to
    Bosnia and the strong endorsements provided by theater
    commanders in support of accelerating the procurement of these
    aircraft. Consequently, the committee recommends $642.8
    million, an increase of $225.0 million, to procure an
    additional JSTARS aircraft.

    F-15E

        The budget request contained $185.4 million to procure four
    F-15E aircraft.
        The committee commends the Air Force for continuing F-15E
    procurement, which was re-initiated by the committee in fiscal
    year 1996. The committee notes that, although the Air Force has
    a stated requirement for 12 more aircraft to replace attrition
    losses, only four were requested due to budget constraints.
    Consistent with its actions last year, the committee recommends
    $305.3 million, an increase of $119.9 million, to procure two
    additional aircraft and fund advance procurement for the six
    aircraft remaining to be procured in fiscal year 1998. The
    committee recommends a legislative provision (sec. 141) that
    would modify current law to permit this procurement.

    F-16 C/D

        The budget request included $105.5 million to procure four
    F-16 C/D aircraft.
        The committee commends the Air Force for funding additional
    F-16s in fiscal year 1997, thereby continuing the committee's
    fiscal year 1996 initiative to restart F-16 procurement. The
    committee recommends $164.9 million, an increase of $59.4
    million, to procure six aircraft in fiscal year 1997 and
    provide advance procurement for six more aircraft in fiscal
    year 1998.

    Joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS)

        The budget request contained $67.1 million to procure 12
    JPATS aircraft.
        The committee notes that procurement of these aircraft has
    suffered lengthy delays due to contract award protests. In
    order to recover months of fielding schedule time lost because
    of these delays, the committee recommends $82.2 million, an
    increase of $15.1 million, to procure three additional
    aircraft. Further, the committee directs the Secretary of the
    Air Force to obligate funds appropriated for JPATS prior to
    fiscal year 1997 to procure three additional aircraft in fiscal
    year 1996.

    Pacer Coin

        The budget request contained $2.6 million for the C-130
    PACER COIN special mission aircraft.
        The committee notes that the Department has been directed
    to determine if the PACER COIN aircraft could be configured to
    perform both intelligence and airdrop missions. Preliminary
    indications available to the committee indicate that
    modifications which would result in a multi-mission aircraft
    are not only possible but cost-effective as well. However, the
    budget request did not include any funds for such
    modifications. Accordingly, the committee denies the request
    for PACER COIN-unique mission support equipment.

    RC-135

        The budget request contained $66.2 million for support of
    the RC-135 fleet.
        The committee notes the increased emphasis placed on this
    intelligence collection asset and supports continuing the
    effort initiated by Congress last year to enhance existing RC-
    135s and augment the fleet with additional aircraft. The
    committee understands that the theater commanders-in-chief have
    a high priority requirement for two additional RC-135s and that
    this requirement has been validated by the Joint Requirements
    Oversight Council. To address this requirement, the committee
    recommends an increase of $39.3 million to accelerate the
    procurement of an additional aircraft. To continue the ongoing
    reengining effort, the committee also recommends an increase of
    $145.0 million to reengine six aircraft.

                       Ammunition Procurement, Air Force

                                    Overview

        The budget request did not contain any funds for Ammunition
    Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1997. The committee
    recommends authorization of $303.9 million for fiscal year 1997
    as reflected in the following table.

                         Missile Procurement, Air Force

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $2,733.9 million for Missile
    Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1997. The committee
    recommends authorization of $4,341.2 million for fiscal year
    1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Peacekeeper

        The budget request contained $8.3 million for procurement
    of missile replacement equipment, $72.8 million for procurement
    of Minuteman III modifications, and $44.6 million for
    procurement of spares and repair parts.
        The statement of managers accompanying the conference
    report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directed the Secretary of the
    Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense
    committees that outlines the Air Force's plans for retaining up
    to 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
    in an operational status beyond 2003, including the timing and
    funding required to implement this plan. Although the committee
    has not received the required report, the committee continues
    to firmly believe that steps must be taken now to sustain the
    Peacekeeper ICBM force in light of the fact that Russia has yet
    to ratify the START II treaty. Therefore, the committee
    recommends $32.0 million for Peacekeeper sustainment
    activities. This includes an additional $3.4 million for
    missile replacement equipment, $5.3 million for Minuteman
    modifications, and $300,000 for replacement spares and repairs.
    In addition, of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
    pursuant to Title III for Air Force operations and maintenance,
    $23.0 million is to be used for sustaining Peacekeeper
    operations.

    Precision guided munitions (PGMs)

        The budget request contained $23.0 million to procure 937
    Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), $131.1 million to procure
    400 Sensor Fuzed Weapons (SFW), and $18.4 million to procure
    161 GBU-28 hard target penetrator bombs. No funds were
    requested for procurement of the AGM-130 powered laser guided
    bomb, the AGM-86B conventional air-launched cruise missile
    (CALCM), or the AGM-142 HAVE NAP medium range tactical missile,
    even though these weapons represent the only current stand-off
    PGMs in the Air Force inventory.
        The committee noted its concern about the lack of PGMs
    during its fiscal year 1996 budget deliberations and continues
    to have reservations with the Air Force's strategy for
    procuring this much-needed capability. Therefore, the committee
    recommends $95.0 million for procurement of 250 AGM-130 laser-
    guided bombs, $15.0 million to modify 100 air-launched cruise
    missiles to the CALCM configuration, and $39.0 million to
    procure 50 HAVE NAP missiles. The committee also recommends an
    increase of $12.0 for procurement of 100 additional GBU-28 hard
    target penetrator bombs and $21.6 million for procurement of
    100 additional SFWs.
        Further, in order to accelerate deliveries of JDAM and
    provide the earliest possible operational capability to the
    bomber force, the committee also recommends an increase of
    $50.0 million for procurement of up to 3,000 additional JDAM
    kits. The committee notes that there is a requirement for more
    than 87,000 of these munitions and the Secretary of Defense has
    praised the JDAM program as one of the Department's most
    successful examples of acquisition streamlining. Consequently,
    the committee strongly urges the Department to consider
    multiyear procurement of this PGM.

                          Other Procurement, Air Force

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $5,998.8 million for Other
    Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1997. The committee
    recommends authorization of $6,117.4 million for fiscal year
    1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)

        The budget request contained $57.8 million for procurement
    of two Predator UAV systems.
        The committee is pleased with the performance of the
    Predator in support of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and
    understands that the Department has determined that the
    Predator's demonstrated military utility merits its fielding to
    meet identified requirements.
        The committee notes that theater commanders-in-chief
    (CINCs) have requirements for 17 Predator systems, but that the
    requested funding does not support production rates to meet
    these requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends $107.8
    million, an increase of $50.0 million, to procure up to four
    additional Predator systems. Consistent with the legislative
    provision recommended elsewhere in this report (sec. 217), the
    committee recommends that these funds be transferred from
    Procurement, Defense-Wide, to Other Procurement, Air Force.
        The committee also understands that the Air Force has
    identified a requirement to obtain a limited number of Predator
    systems to establish a training base for its Predator
    operators. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
    to conduct a cost analysis to determine whether leasing such
    systems (in addition to those procured) constitutes a cost-
    effective strategy for meeting this immediate training
    requirement. A report containing the details of this analysis
    and the Secretary's recommendations should be provided to the
    congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after
    enactment of this Act. Further, if leasing Predator systems
    proves to be a cost-effective solution to this requirement and
    is recommended by the Secretary, the committee urges the
    Secretary to immediately pursue such a lease arrangement.

    Tri-band precision landing receiver

        The budget request did not contain any funding for
    procurement of the Tri-Band Precision Landing Receiver (PLSR).
        The committee understands that the Air Force has invested
    approximately $50 million to develop this all-weather,
    worldwide landing capability for military aircraft but has not
    yet initiated procurement of the PLSR. Elsewhere in this
    report, the committee recommends $5.0 million in RDT&E funds to
    complete development of the program. Therefore, the committee
    recommends that the Secretary of the Air Force assess the cost
    and operational effectiveness for procurement of the PLSR and
    provide a report of the results of this assessment to the
    congressional defense committees by February 1, 1997.

                           Procurement, Defense-Wide

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $1,841.2 million for
    Procurement, Defense-Wide in fiscal year 1997. The committee
    recommends authorization of $1,890.2 million for fiscal year
    1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Automated document conversion system (ADCS)-

        The budget request did not contain any funds for the ADCS.
        -The committee is aware that the Department has made some
    progress in following its direction to begin the purchase of
    the UNIX-based software necessary to convert the Department's
    more complex engineering documents from raster files to an
    intelligent format. In addition, the committee is encouraged by
    the initial results of the PC-based ADCS testing, which will
    allow engineers to convert less complex and smaller engineering
    drawings. However, as the committee has noted in the past,
    significant cost savings can be achieved through the use of an
    ADCS; thus, the committee is disappointed that no funds were
    requested for this purpose.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends $38.8 million for
    ADCS, allocated as follows: $10 million for the purchase of
    UNIX-based conversion software; $5 million to purchase video
    tracing technology for those documents that require computer-
    aided design perfect/accurate conversion; $10 million for bulk
    conversion; and $3.8 million for system integration software.-

    Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)

        The budget request contained $10.6 million for procurement
    of attrition spares and support kits for the Pioneer UAV
    system.
        The committee understands that the Department has decided
    to terminate procurement of the Hunter UAV system and use the
    existing equipment for testing and maintaining a residual
    capability. This decision results in the Pioneer being the only
    UAV currently capable of meeting Navy and Marine Corps short-
    range requirements. The committee further understands that
    several initiatives necessary to ensure continued effectiveness
    of the Pioneer are ongoing but have been underfunded in
    anticipation of future fielding of the Tactical UAV, a new,
    advanced concepts technology demonstration program.
    Consequently, the committee recommends $40.6 million, an
    increase of $30.0 million, to fund these initiatives and
    maintain the Pioneer system at acceptable readiness levels.

                      National Guard and Reserve Equipment

                                    Overview

        The budget request did not contain any funds for National
    Guard and Reserve Equipment for fiscal year 1997. The committee
    recommends authorization of $805.0 million for fiscal year
    1997.

               Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $799.8 million for Chemical
    Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense for fiscal year 1997.
    The committee recommends authorization of $799.8 million for
    fiscal year 1997.
        The committee recommends approval of the request except for
    those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
    otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
    based on affordability considerations.

                            Item of Special Interest

    Chemical agents and munitions destruction

        The budget request contained $799.8 million for operation
    and maintenance, research and development, and procurement
    activities of the defense chemical agents and munitions
    destruction program.
        The committee is aware of concerns raised by several
    citizen groups about this program and whether there are
    alternative technologies that should be pursued to reduce what
    they consider to be the potential hazard of the Army's baseline
    incineration process. The committee notes that the Army is
    proceeding with the investigation of alternative technologies
    for potential use in accordance with the recommendations of the
    National Research Council (NRC). The committee believes there
    is potential for the implementation of these processes at
    selected future demilitarization and destruction sites.
    However, the committee supports the NRC's recommendation that
    the Army continue its current baseline incineration program
    until such time as the evaluation of these alternative
    technologies is concluded. Should the results of the
    alternative technologies investigation indicate that certain of
    them be adopted for particular sites or configurations of the
    stockpile, the committee would support inclusion of these
    processes in the program.
        The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
    (Public Law 104-106) requires the Secretary of Defense to
    conduct an assessment of the current chemical demilitarization
    program and of measures that could be taken to significantly
    reduce its cost, while ensuring maximum protection of the
    general public, the personnel involved in the demilitarization
    program, and the environment. The law requires the Secretary to
    submit a final report on this assessment and recommendations
    for revisions to the program with the submission of the fiscal
    year Department's budget request. The committee expects that
    should the Secretary recommend alternative technologies be
    adopted for use at selected demilitarization sites, the
    Department will submit a fiscal year 1997 reprogramming request
    to immediately implement this decision. The committee intends
    to review the status of the program and the Department's
    recommendations for any changes to it as a part of the
    committee's review of the fiscal year 1998 budget request.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                  Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

               Sections 101-108--Authorization of Appropriations

        These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year
    1997 funding levels for all procurement accounts.

                           Subtitle B--Army Programs

      Section 111--Repeal of Limitation on Procurement of Certain Aircraft

        This section would repeal prohibitions on the procurement
    of AH-64D Apache and OH-58D Armed Kiowa Warrior helicopters.

         Section 112--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Army Programs

        This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
    enter into a multiyear procurement contract for procurement of
    the Army Tactical Missile System. This section would also
    authorize the Secretary to extend the multiyear procurement
    contract for the Avenger air defense missile system through
    fiscal year 1997.

                           Subtitle C--Navy Programs

                 Section 121--Nuclear Attack Submarine Programs

        This section would authorize funding for both the Seawolf-
    class and the next-generation nuclear attack submarine
    programs; provide certain restrictions on the obligation of
    this funding; specify the basis for awarding of contracts for
    the fifth and subsequent next-generation submarines; and
    delineate design responsibility for the four transition
    submarines--all as described elsewhere in this report.

          Section 122--Cost Limitations for Seawolf Submarine Program

        This section would establish a separate cost cap for the
    final Seawolf-class nuclear attack submarine (SSN-23).

                 Section 123--Pulse Doppler Radar Modification-

        This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
    fund the SPS-48E pulse doppler radar upgrade from prior years'
    unobligated balances available to him.

      Section 124--Reduction in Number of Vessels Excluded From Limit on
                 Purchase of Vessels Built in Foreign Shipyards

        This section would repeal the statutory authority which
    allows the Marine Corps to purchase, using funds in the
    National Defense Sealift Fund, foreign-built hulls for
    conversion to maritime prepositioning ships.

                Section 125--T-39N Trainer Aircraft for the Navy

        This section would repeal subsection (a) of section 137 of
    the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
    (Public Law 104-106), thereby enabling the Secretary of the
    Navy to purchase the fleet of 17 currently-leased T-39N trainer
    aircraft used for naval flight officer training. However, the
    committee directs that the Navy pay a fair and reasonable price
    for these 17 aircraft and that such price not exceed $45.0
    million.

                         Subtitle D--Air Force Programs

     Section 141--Repeal of Limitation on the Procurement of F-15E Aircraft

        This section would repeal a prohibition on the procurement
    of the F-15E.

                    Section 142--C-17 Aircraft Procurement--

        This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
    to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for procurement
    of the C-17.-
             TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

                                    OVERVIEW

        The budget request for fiscal year 1997 contained $34,745.7
    million for research, development, test, and evaluation
    (RDT&E). This represents a $396.0 million decrease from the
    amount authorized for fiscal year 1996.
        The committee recommends authorization of $35,537.4
    million, an increase of $791.7 million from the fiscal year
    1997 request.
        The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997
    RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major issues
    are discussed following the table.

                             Defense-Wide Programs

                             Special Considerations

    Ballistic missile defense

        The budget request included $2,798.8 million in various
    program elements (PEs) for research, development, test, and
    evaluation (RDT&E), procurement, and military construction
    activities of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
    (BMDO). The committee-recommended changes to the request are
    summarized below:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    Corps SAM/MEADS (PE63869C)....................................   ($56.2)
    Navy Upper Tier (PE 63868C)...................................    246.0
    National Missile Defense (PE 63871C)..........................    350.0
    THAAD (PE 63861C).............................................    140.0
    Support Technology-AIT (PE 63173C)............................     40.0
    Cooperative Projects with Russia (PE 62XXXC)..................     20.0
    Management (General Reduction)................................    (15.0)

        A more detailed explanation is provided below.
                Advanced interceptor technology
        The budget request included $7.4 million in PE 63173C for
    Advanced Interceptor Technology (AIT). The committee recommends
    an additional $40.0 million in this PE for AIT. These
    additional funds would support a more aggressive schedule for
    development and testing of advanced kinetic kill vehicle
    technologies with potential applicability to various future TMD
    systems, such as THAAD and Boost Phase Interceptor.
                Arrow
        The committee continues to strongly support the U.S.-
    Israeli Arrow program. The committee recommends full funding of
    the Arrow and other U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense
    projects contained in the budget request. The committee notes,
    however, that $27.0 million in fiscal year 1996 and prior year
    funding for the U.S. portion of the Arrow Deployability Project
    remains unobligated as a result of the lack of a Presidential
    certification that a memorandum of agreement exists with Israel
    for the project, that the project provides benefits to the
    United States, that the Arrow missile has completed a
    successful intercept, and that the Government of Israel is
    adhering to export controls pursuant to the Missile Technology
    Control Regime.
                Cooperative projects with Russia
        The committee strongly endorses an expanded program of
    cooperative BMD-related projects with Russia as a means of
    building trust and confidence as both sides pursue development
    and deployment of TMD and NMD systems. U.S.-Russian cooperative
    BMD activities include various programmatic endeavors as well
    as a series of joint TMD simulation exercises, the first of
    which is to be held in June at the Joint National Test
    Facility, Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Russian-American
    Observational Satellite (RAMOS) program is one such high-
    payoff, cooperative technology development program, a point
    recognized by senior Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
    officials. For example, the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition and Technology has written to the First Deputy
    Minister of Defense in the Russian Ministry of Defense to
    apprise him of U.S. government approval and support of the
    program and to encourage timely final approval from the Russian
    government. Other U.S.-Russian cooperative BMD activities
    include the Active Geophysical Rocket Experiment (AGRE)
    project, and small-scale projects such as electric thrusters
    for spacecraft, photo-voltaic arrays, and energetic materials.
        To promote and highlight expanded U.S.-Russian BMD
    cooperation, the committee recommends establishment of a new
    program element (PE) for cooperation with Russia. The committee
    recommends consolidating all existing cooperation projects
    within this new PE, and recommends $20.0 million be made
    available within this PE.
                CorpsSAM/MEADS
        The budget request included $56.2 million for the Corps
    surface-to-air missile/Medium Extended Air Defense System
    (CorpsSAM/MEADS). The committee has in the past supported a
    cooperative multinational program, but notes that: a memorandum
    of understanding establishing the program has yet to be signed;
    there is a high degree of uncertainty as to which U.S. European
    allies will join in the project; and other programmatic changes
    have significantly delayed formal initiation of the program. As
    a result, the committee can no longer determine the total cost
    of the program, the U.S. cost-share percentage, or the program
    schedule, including key technical milestones. Furthermore, the
    committee notes that senior DOD officials have thus far chosen
    not to press support for the program during congressional
    consideration of the fiscal year 1997 budget request.
    Therefore, the committee recommends no funds for the program.
    The committee also notes that the Department has yet to submit
    a report on options associated with the use of existing systems
    technologies and program management mechanisms to satisfy
    validated CorpsSAM/MEADS requirements, as was requested in the
    statement of managers accompanying the conference report on S.
    1124 (H. Rept. 104-450). Therefore, only $5.0 million of the
    $20.0 million authorized in fiscal year 1996 has been obligated
    for CorpsSAM/MEADS. The committee urges the expeditious
    completion and submission of this report.
                Joint national test facility
        The budget request included $5.8 million for Joint National
    Test Facility (JNTF) modernization split among program elements
    63871C, 63872C, and 63173C. The committee recognizes the
    importance of the BMDO-sponsored JNTF as an essential joint
    missile defense modeling, simulation, and test center of
    excellence. The JNTF's focus is the joint inter-service,
    interoperability, and integration aspects of missile defense
    system acquisition. As the only missile defense modeling and
    simulation facility which is staffed by all the services and
    BMDO, the JNTF provides inter-service computational
    capabilities and wide area network communication networks with
    service-sponsored facilities such as the Army's Advanced
    Research Center, the Naval Surface Warfare Center, and the Air
    Force Theater Air Command and Control Facility. To adequately
    satisfy the complex missile defense integration requirements
    leading to successful joint tests, analysis, wargaming, CINC
    exercises, and acquisition support, the committee recommends
    $15.0 million be made available for modernization,
    computational and wide area network capabilities in support of
    the Ballistic Missile Defense Network (BMDN) within the program
    elements listed above. This modernization program will also
    support the JNTF's contribution to emerging international
    efforts with friends and allies for interoperability and in
    development of joint missile defense systems.
                Management
        The budget request did not contain a separate program
    element for management. The committee believes that greater
    management efficiencies can be achieved, and therefore
    recommends a general reduction of $15.0 million for management.
                National Missile Defense
        The budget request included $508.4 million in PE 63871C for
    National Missile Defense (NMD). The committee recommends an
    additional $350.0 million for NMD in an effort to accelerate
    hardware development, including a new common booster,
    accelerate and increase the number of exoatmospheric kill
    vehicle (EKV) flight tests, enhance systems engineering and
    integration, and accelerate planning and siting activities
    required for the deployment of an effective NMD system.
        The committee commends the Under Secretary of Defense
    (Acquisition and Technology) for his recent decision to
    establish an NMD joint-service program office (JPO), and
    directs the Director, BMDO to ensure full participation by the
    Army, Navy, and Air Force in the JPO. In addition, the
    committee directs the Director, BMDO to ensure that the EKV and
    associated booster designs are compatible with the widest
    possible range of NMD system architectures and basing modes.
    The committee directs that the Director, BMDO inform the
    committee of his plans in this regard not later than September
    15, 1996.-
        The committee notes that the prototype ground-based radar
    (GBR-P) is an important NMD system element, and that GBR-P is
    scheduled to begin testing at U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA)
    in 1998. This schedule must be maintained, or accelerated, in
    order to realize cost savings associated with leveraging the
    THAAD radar program and test schedule. Of the amounts
    authorized in PE 63871C, the committee recommends $68.0 million
    for GBR-P in order to ensure that the radar is available for
    integrated system testing in fiscal year 1998.
        The committee recognizes the importance of the Midcourse
    Space Experiment (MSX) for collecting and analyzing background
    data of use to future midcourse sensors such as the Space
    Missile and Tracking System. The committee is concerned,
    however, that BMDO has failed to budget funds to continue
    operations through the end of the expected lifetime of the
    satellite. Therefore, the committee strongly urges the
    Director, BMDO to provide adequate funds in the fiscal year
    1998 budget submission and over the Future Years Defense Plan
    (FYDP) for MSX satellite operations.
        The committee understands the importance of an effective
    battle management/command, control, and communications (BM/C3)
    architecture to overall NMD system performance and reliability.
    In this regard, the committee is aware of proposals to leverage
    existing theater missile defense (TMD) BM/C3 capabilities,
    including such capabilities being developed under the THAAD
    program, to support an NMD system. The committee therefore
    urges the Director, BMDO to study these proposals and inform
    the committee not later than October 15, 1996, of his views in
    this regard. -
        Finally, taking into account the various architectural
    options for providing a highly-effective defense of the United
    States against limited missile attacks, the committee directs
    the commander-in-chief, U.S. Space Command (CINCSPACE) to
    ensure that the NMD concept-of-operations is flexible enough to
    accommodate and support a wide range of NMD system
    architectures and basing modes. CINCSPACE shall inform the
    committee of his plans in this regard not later than September
    15, 1996.
                NATO cooperation
        The committee is aware of recent progress made within the
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance regarding
    the threat posed to members of the Alliance by the
    proliferation of ballistic missiles and response options,
    including the development and deployment of effective missile
    defenses. The committee strongly endorses this effort and
    directs the Secretary of Defense to keep the Congressional
    defense committees apprised of future activities and progress
    in this area.
                Navy upper tier
        The budget request included $58.2 million for Navy Upper
    Tier (PE 63868C). The committee recommends an additional $246.0
    million this high-priority project. The additional funds shall
    be used to accelerate the development, testing, and deployment
    of the Navy's theater-wide TMD system.
        The committee is dismayed by the Department's refusal to
    include Navy Upper Tier as a ``core'' TMD program--as required
    by section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)--and the Department's
    proposal to reduce funding for this project in fiscal year 1997
    by over $140.0 million as compared to the amount authorized by
    Congress in fiscal year 1996. Furthermore, the committee
    directs the Secretary of Defense to provide adequate resources
    in the fiscal year 1998 budget request to accelerate the
    schedule for Navy Upper Tier in accordance with previous
    congressional direction.
                New director, BMDO
        The committee was initially concerned by reports that, upon
    the retirement of the current Director, BMDO, the Department
    was planning to downgrade this position to a two-star billet.
    The committee is pleased to note that members of the committee
    expressed concern and strongly urged that the position remain a
    three-star billet. The Department has now agreed with the
    committee's recommendation. The committee looks forward to
    establishing a frank and open dialogue with the next BMDO
    Director, and expects that this individual will continue and
    expand upon the current, positive working relationship between
    the committee and the Director.
                Targets
        The committee directs the Director, BMDO to submit a report
    to the Congressional defense committees by December 1, 1996,
    describing BMDO target missile requirements, by number and
    types, and which target missiles are U.S.-built and which have
    been or will be acquired through the Foreign Military
    Acquisition (FMA) program. The report shall also discuss the
    issues associated with increasing reliance on missiles acquired
    through the FMA program for meeting BMDO target missile
    requirements.
                THAAD
        The budget request included $269.0 million in PE 63861C for
    THAAD demonstration/validation (dem/val), and $212.7 million in
    PE 64861C for THAAD engineering and manufacturing development
    (EMD). The committee continues to support the development,
    production, and fielding of THAAD as a matter of highest
    priority, and recommends an additional $140.0 million in PE
    63861C for the THAAD program.
        The committee endorses the acquisition, beginning in fiscal
    year 1997, of a second THAAD radar, in order to reduce risk and
    support operational ground-testing. Of the $140.0 million in
    additional funds authorized for THAAD, $65.0 million shall be
    used for long-lead funding for a second THAAD radar.
        The committee strongly objects to the Department's plan for
    THAAD that emerged from the BMD Program Review. That plan,
    which involves delaying the initiation of low-rate initial
    production (LRIP) and hence achievement of a first unit
    equipped (FUE) date of 2006, violates the letter and the spirit
    of section 234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106). The committee directs
    the Secretary of Defense to include the necessary resources in
    the fiscal year 1998-2003 program objective memorandum (POM) to
    significantly accelerate the THAAD schedule.-
                Theater missile defense of U.S. territories
        The committee strongly supports fielding highly effective
    TMD systems that are capable of protecting U.S. territories
    from ballistic missile attack, and directs the Secretary of
    Defense to review the TMD requirements for U.S. territories.
    The Secretary shall submit a report on the results of this
    review to the Congressional defense committees not later than
    November 15, 1996.

    Chemical-biological defense program

        The budget request included a total of $505.0 million for
    the chemical-biological defense program of the Department of
    Defense, including $296.8 million in research, development,
    test, and evaluation and $208.2 million in procurement.
        The continuing proliferation of weapons of mass
    destruction, the spread of chemical and biological weapons
    technology and delivery capabilities, and the threat posed to
    U.S. military forces by the potential use of chemical or
    biological weapons on the battlefield have resulted in repeated
    expressions of concern by the Congress about the chemical and
    biological defense readiness of U.S. forces. In response to the
    guidance provided in title XVII of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160),
    the Department has executed a number of management, research,
    development and acquisition, and training initiatives which
    over time and with proper emphasis and funding support should
    result in significant improvements in the chemical and
    biological defense readiness of U.S. armed forces. The
    committee is pleased that the Department has essentially
    implemented the requirements of the public law. Great strides
    have been made in establishing a consolidated chemical-
    biological defense program; however, much remains to be done.
        At the request of the Readiness Subcommittee, the General
    Accounting Office (GAO) has assessed the chemical and
    biological defense preparedness of early-deploying U.S. Army
    and Marine Corps ground forces. In testimony before the
    Military Research and Development Subcommittee in March, 1996,
    the GAO acknowledged the progress made by the Department of
    Defense, but stated that the Department had not done enough to
    overcome the chemical and biological defense shortcomings U.S.
    forces experienced in the Gulf War. The GAO concluded that
    ``U.S. forces still lack the ability to defend adequately
    against chemical and/or biological agents and a degrading war-
    fighting capability could still result from persistent
    equipment, training, and medical shortcomings.'' Many of the
    problems cited were similar to those cited in the ``Department
    of Defense Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (NBC) Warfare Defense
    Annual Report to Congress for fiscal year 1995.'' In the GAO's
    view, the principal reason for these shortcomings is that
    chemical and biological preparedness has a relatively low
    priority on a DOD-wide basis relative to traditional
    operational missions, as evidenced by the limited funding,
    staffing, and mission priority that chemical and biological
    defense activities receive. The committee understands that a
    warfighting analysis is now underway within the Joint Staff
    with input from the military services and the combatant CINCs
    that will provide an assessment of chemical and biological
    defense mission priorities in view of the evolving threat and
    that will recommend funding levels for consideration in the
    development of the fiscal year 1998 budget request and the
    future years defense plan.
        The committee strongly believes that some action must be
    taken in the fiscal year 1997 defense budget to address
    shortcomings in the current chemical and biological defense
    program. The committee believes that unless the Secretary of
    Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Department of
    Defense as a whole, down to individual unit commanders, all
    increase their emphasis on improving the armed forces' chemical
    and biological defense preparedness, many of the issues
    identified in the Department's annual report and by the GAO are
    likely to remain unresolved.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends a continuation of
    increased emphasis on chemical-biological defense training in
    units, joint training of commanders and chemical-biological
    defense specialists, and training of medical units and
    personnel which could be involved in the treatment of chemical-
    biological warfare casualties. The committee recommends an
    additional $16.2 million for shortfalls in operations and
    maintenance identified by the GAO as follows, and directs the
    Secretary of Defense to report to the Congressional defense
    committees on the plans for expenditure of these funds prior to
    their obligation:

              Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA)--$13.2 million
            for chemical-biological equipment maintenance support.
              Operations and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF)--$3.0
            million for sustainment and replacement of Air Force
            chemical protective equipment.

        To address shortfalls in chemical-biological defense
    research, development, testing, and evaluation, the committee
    recommends increased authorizations to the budget request as
    indicated below:

    PE 62384BP-.....................  Chemical/           $3.9 million
                                       biological
                                       defense.
                                      Medical biological  1.7 million
                                       defense.
    PE 63884BP......................  Medical biological  2.2 million
                                       defense.
    PE 64384BP-.....................  Contamination       2.0 million
                                       avoidance.
                                      Collective          6.6 million
                                       Protection-.
                                      Individual          200,000
                                       Protection.
                                      Medical biological  9.0 million
                                       defense.
    PE 65384BP......................  Management support  15.0 million
                                      Dugway Proving      3.7 million
                                       Ground.

        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to address
    shortfalls in chemical-biological defense procurement,
    identified by the GAO and to report actions taken to resolve
    these shortfalls as a specific area of interest in the next
    annual report to Congress on the NBC defense program.

    Chemical-biological defense--counter-terror and crisis response

        The Congress has repeatedly expressed its concern about
    domestic readiness to respond to a terrorist attack,
    particularly one that might involve the use of chemical or
    biological agents. Title XVII of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160)
    expressed the sense of Congress that ``. . . the President
    should strengthen Federal interagency planning by the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency and other Federal, State, and local
    agencies for development of a capability for early detection
    and warning of and response to (1) potential terrorist use of
    chemical or biological agents or weapons; and (2) emergencies
    or natural disasters involving industrial chemicals or the
    widespread outbreak of disease.''
        A Military Research and Development Subcommittee hearing on
    March 12, 1996, reviewed the preparedness of the United States
    to respond to the use of chemical or biological agents in
    domestic terrorism, or to a natural disaster involving
    industrial chemicals or the widespread outbreak of disease. The
    hearing also addressed the preparedness of local jurisdictions
    to respond to natural disaster and to terrorism in general, and
    the federal response that could be provided in such situations.
    Despite the magnificent response by federal, state, and local
    emergency response agencies to the terrorist bombing of the
    federal building in Oklahoma City, local law enforcement and
    emergency response capabilities would, in the event of a
    terrorist attack or natural disaster involving chemical or
    biological agents, be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the
    casualties that would result. The subcommittee heard testimony
    that local agencies ``are simply not prepared to deal with a
    chemical or biological terrorist incident. We have neither the
    training nor the resources to allow us to mitigate this sort of
    incident.'' Even in the most prepared local jurisdictions,
    chemical/biological incident training is limited to a very few
    highly specialized response teams, as is the availability of
    protective equipment and chemical agent antidotes. The
    capabilities of local medical teams and hospitals to treat
    chemical agent casualties are likewise severely limited.
        The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to assess
    the advisability of establishing a program for enhancing the
    capability of the Department of Defense to assist domestic law
    enforcement agencies response to terrorism or natural disasters
    involving chemical or biological agents. The Secretary of
    Defense should report to the Congressional defense committees
    by September 30, 1996, the Secretary's assessment and
    recommendations for such a program, including a specific
    discussion on the appropriate role of the Department of Defense
    in this area. To preserve the option of initiating such a
    program in fiscal year 1997, the committee recommends an
    increased authorization of $12.0 million in PE 65760D, and
    requests the Secretary to report to the Congressional defense
    committees on the plans for expenditure of these funds prior to
    their obligation.

    Combat casualty care

        The committee continues to support technology development
    to improve combat casualty care to ensure that higher quality
    medical treatment can be delivered. As a matter of policy the
    committee believes that the military should utilize, to the
    extent practical, commercial off-the-shelf technologies that
    are rapidly emerging in the commercial sector. This is
    particularly applicable with medical information and
    telecommunications technologies, commonly referred to as
    ``telemedicine'', when medical information is transmitted over
    long distances.
        The committee believes that telemedicine provides a unique
    opportunity to deliver combat care more rapidly, accurately and
    efficiently than by current methods. The challenge for the
    military is to tailor commercial equipment to meet the specific
    needs of the warfighter. This will require a commitment to
    pursue appropriate research and development initiatives to
    address the specific medical needs of the services whether it
    be on the battlefield, aboard ship, at remote air bases, or in
    search and rescue operations.
        However, the committee is concerned by the paucity of
    research and development funding and lack of insertion plans to
    move more actively to make military telemedicine a reality. The
    committee also notes that there appears to be no funding
    planned to transition to the services those high technology
    medical programs being pursued by the Defense Advanced Research
    Projects Agency (DARPA). Initiatives in development such as the
    personal status monitor, telesurgery, and other information
    based field systems offer radical change in the way medical
    monitoring, trauma assistance, clinical consultation, and
    medical command and control is administrated, substantially
    raising the probability of saving lives and optimizing
    logistics and medical assistance development. Also disturbing
    is the funding profile for the DARPA program which shows future
    funding ceasing after fiscal year 1999.
        The committee notes that establishing an institutionalized
    infrastructure in the combat telecommunications arena is
    mandatory if system integration is to be achieved smoothly.
    Therefore, the committee recommends that the telemedicine
    effort being pursued by the Army and DARPA be an active part of
    the Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiments (AWE), in both
    the simulated and full scale hardware experiments. The
    committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 63002A
    for this purpose.
        In addition to combat casualty care, the committee also
    sees an opportunity to reduce costs and improve capability by
    further fostering telemedicine in its overall military
    composite health care system (CHCS). The committee is aware of
    the ongoing support for a number of prototype programs and
    centers acting as Department of Defense telemedicine testbeds
    or participating in advanced patient care prototypes such as
    the Center for Total Access and the Pacific Medical Network
    (PACMEDNET). The committee recognizes that the integration of
    telecommunications can drastically reduce the requirement for
    medical evacuations as well as improve diagnostic
    effectiveness. Therefore, the committee urges the completion of
    the remaining phases of PACMEDNET, including the incorporation
    of open standards and the testing of other evolutionary medical
    information technology that can be integrated into the CHCS.
        The committee is further aware of the desire on the part of
    other civilian hospital facilities to participate in the
    military's fledgling telemedicine effort. The committee
    recognizes that trauma services delivery and management
    activities account for a major component of health care cost in
    the civilian sector as well as the military. In many ways,
    disaster relief requires similar rapid response to high
    casualty incidents as the military is geared to effectively
    respond. Therefore, the Department should seize every
    opportunity for technology transfer or co-development of some
    facets of casualty care through the use of military-civilian
    testbeds or demonstration projects.

    Composite materials insertion for fielded weapons systems

        The committee notes the substantial past and current
    federally funded research investments in composite materials,
    as well as the slow pace in which these materials are being
    used in system upgrades and new systems. The committee believes
    that a robust program by the Department to insert new materials
    into fielded weapon systems would accelerate the potential for
    advanced composites to lower the life cycle costs of weapons
    systems by solving difficult and costly maintenance problems,
    as well as strengthening the composite materials industrial
    base. The Secretary of Defense is directed to institute a
    composite materials insertion program in the military services
    that includes projects that: propose lightweight metals,
    intermetallics, superalloys, metal matrix composites, ceramic
    and ceramics matrix composites; quantify mission benefits--
    improved performance, readiness, or reduced supportability
    costs; compare proposed new materials solutions with competing
    component improvement or preplanned product improvement
    programs; outline a design to cost approach; and incorporate
    materials suppliers who are domestically based, preferably U.S.
    owned, and committed to production. The technical and
    programmatic management of the project should include both
    laboratory technical and cognizant field authority (program
    office or repair depot) personnel. Projects pursued through the
    program should include design, prototype component fabrication,
    testing, and technical data package preparation.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
    the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
    on National Security on the plan for the directed program by
    April 1, 1997.

    Countermine technology development and demonstration program

        The budget request included $4.7 million in PE 62712A for
    exploratory development of countermine technology; $15.2
    million in PE 63606A for advanced development of countermine
    technologies; $16.4 million in PE 63619A for development,
    prototyping, and demonstration of advanced countermine systems;
    and $7.7 million in PE 63120D for development and demonstration
    of technologies for use in humanitarian demining. The fiscal
    year 1997 budget request separates funding for the humanitarian
    demining program from the Army's countermine advanced
    technology development program where countermine development
    for military operations other than war were previously managed.
        The Congress has previously expressed concerns that the
    military services lacked an effective means to address the
    significant threat posed by anti-personnel land mines to future
    force projection operations and military operations other than
    war (H. Rept 103-499). In fiscal year 1995, $10.0 million was
    added to the budget request to initiate an Army-led, integrated
    mine countermeasure research program which would concentrate on
    mine clearance in operations other than war. In the statement
    of managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H.
    Rept. 104-450), the conferees added $3.0 million to the fiscal
    year 1996 budget request for land mine detection and clearance
    technology development.-
        In the wake of the President's decision to deploy U.S.
    military forces to Bosnia as a part of the NATO peacekeeping
    operation and heightened concerns about the threat to U.S.
    forces posed by an estimated two million land mines left in
    Bosnia by the opposing forces, the Military Research and
    Development and Military Procurement subcommittees held a joint
    hearing in January 1996. The hearing focused on the landmine
    threat facing deploying U.S. forces and their capability for
    dealing with that threat, and on research, development, and
    acquisition programs and technologies that could improve the
    capabilities of U.S. forces in Bosnia and in the future. The
    hearing found that:
              (1) The lessons of the Gulf War, Somalia, and Bosnia
            are that the countermine problem is difficult and
            improved countermine capabilities are required before
            the troops deploy, not after the fact.
              (2) Measures have been taken to improve the
            countermine capabilities of U.S. forces deployed to
            Bosnia; however, there is no single countermine system
            or technology solution to the problem posed by non-
            metallic anti-personnel landmines that will provide
            near 100 percent detection with a near zero false alarm
            rate.
              (3) Historically, the U.S. tactical countermine
            program has focused on ``breaching'' of landmine
            barriers with little attention to technologies and
            capabilities for area mine clearance. Increased
            emphasis needs to be placed on the development of
            countermine technologies and procedures for area
            clearance.
              (4) Area clearance is a problem common to tactical
            countermine operations and to humanitarian demining.
            The technologies and capabilities developed for one are
            generally applicable to the other.
              (5) Countermine, unexploded ordnance and humanitarian
            demining programs within the Department of Defense are
            fragmented among several different agencies. There is
            no single agency representing the ``user'' that has
            joint authority over policy, doctrine, or operational
            requirements in these closely related areas; nor is
            there a single developmental activity with authority
            for oversight and coordination of the Department's
            countermine program.
        The committee strongly believes that increased emphasis
    needs to be placed on the Department's countermine program.
    There is a high probability that U.S. forces will encounter the
    problem of uncleared landmines in most of the world's land
    areas where U.S. forces might be employed. New technologies are
    needed to detect and clear these weapons. The program must
    address the development of feasible near-term improvements in
    countermine capabilities and the longer term development of
    advanced technologies which would promise more comprehensive
    solutions to the countermine problem. Because evolving military
    requirements for wide-area clearance of landmines parallel the
    needs of many humanitarian demining operations, specific
    emphasis needs to be placed on development of countermine
    technologies that can be applied to both military wide-area
    mine clearance requirements and humanitarian demining needs.
    Developing solutions to the countermine problem will require
    the best efforts of the military services; the Department's
    countermine, unexploded ordnance clearance and explosive
    ordnance disposal research and development activities;
    industry; and academia. In particular, the committee encourages
    the Department to use the resources of the National Research
    Council of the National Academy of Sciences in attacking this
    difficult problem.
        The committee reiterates the view expressed in the
    statement of managers accompanying the conference report on S.
    2182 (H. Rept. 103-701) that the Department of Defense should
    develop a coordinated program for countermine warfare, and
    believes that an executive agent should be designated to
    coordinate all aspects of the countermine program. The
    committee believes that the actions taken by the Department
    with regard to integration and coordination of the chemical-
    biological defense program may provide an example of how the
    countermine efforts of the Department could be better
    coordinated and managed.
        The committee recommends increases of $10.0 million in PE
    62712A, $15.0 million in PE 63606A, and $25.0 million in PE
    63619A for the development, demonstration, and validation of
    near-term and far-term improvements in the countermine
    capabilities of U.S. forces for tactical countermine and
    demining operations. In order to facilitate the integration of
    the program, the committee directs the reassignment of
    humanitarian demining development from PE 63120D to PE 63606A.
    The committee directs the Department to put increased emphasis
    on developing technologies that can be applied to both military
    wide-area clearance requirements and demining needs, as well as
    on the other elements of countermine operations, and to consult
    with both the combatant commanders-in-chief and the interagency
    working group for humanitarian demining to ensure that
    technologies are developed and shared that meet their
    countermine, wide-area clearance, and demining needs.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a
    plan for a countermine program which addresses the issues
    discussed above and report this plan to the Congressional
    defense committees by March 1, 1997.

    Cruise missile defense

        The committee recommends additional funding in fiscal year
    1997 for various cruise missile defense activities. The
    committee's recommendation builds upon the actions taken in
    section 274 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) wherein the Congress
    launched the cruise missile defense initiative.
        Specifically, to enhance the ability of the Airborne
    Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft to detect the
    launch of cruise missiles, the committee recommends an increase
    of $5.0 million in PE 63226E and $5.0 million in PE 27417F. The
    committee also recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
    63226E and $5.0 million in program element 64770F, in order to
    upgrade the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System
    (JSTARS) and an additional $20.0 million in PE 23801A for
    continued development of improved cruise missile defense
    capabilities of the Patriot Advanced Capability-2 (PAC-2)
    missile.
        Finally, the committee notes with concern that the
    Department has yet to provide the report required by section
    274(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), and strongly urges the
    Department to complete and submit this report promptly.

    Department of Defense justification of estimates

        The committee continues to note the Department's lack of
    timeliness in and the accuracy of the annual budget materials
    submitted to the Congressional defense committees. Once again,
    the materials were found to be less than satisfactory. Program
    elements and budget activity placement continue to
    miscategorize and misrepresent the content of the programs
    requested. Funding data, particularly for fiscal year 1996, is
    either missing or inaccurate. The committee again emphasizes to
    the Department the need to provide accurate and timely
    justification materials to the Congress if it expects full and
    favorable consideration of the Department's request.

    Department of Defense--Veterans' Administration (DOD-VA)

        The committee notes with approval the beneficial research
    conducted under the DOD-VA cooperative medical research program
    and the benefits this program has provided our service
    personnel and veterans. The committee expects the Department to
    continue to fund this joint cooperative medical research
    program in fiscal year 1997.

    Dual-use and commercial integration programs

        The budget request contained $250.0 million in PE 63805E
    for dual-use, cost-shared programs managed by the Defense
    Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In addition, the
    budget request included $6,970.6 million for Department of
    Defense science and technology programs, a significant portion
    of which has dual-use application.
        The civilian leadership in the Department of Defense has
    continued to emphasize the importance of dual-use technologies.
    The committee commends the Defense Advanced Research Projects
    Agency for its leadership in this area. However, the committee
    believes that to achieve its goals and objectives for dual-use
    programs, the Department needs to make dual-use and dual-use,
    cost-shared programs an integral part of each of the military
    services' science and technology programs. This view is
    supported by a recently completed report, ``Military and
    Industry Panel Dual-Use Research Project,'' commissioned by
    DARPA and conducted under the leadership of the Potomac
    Institute. This would provide the ability to leverage billions-
    of-dollars to the advantage of the Department's core
    development programs instead of an independent office within
    DARPA or the Office of the Secretary of Defense pursuing
    relatively small, stand-alone dual-use projects that have
    lesser service standing.
        Various representatives of the Department have indicated
    that a separate program is required to demonstrate to the
    military services the advantage of dual-use technology. They
    have indicated, in part, that this is the case because the
    military services' ``acquisition cultures'' have been resistant
    to embrace dual-use technologies and the innovative acquisition
    authorities provided in title 10, United States Code.
        The committee notes, however, that the Air Force has
    already recognized the potential of dual-use, cost-shared
    programs in leveraging its science and technology budget.
    Through its leadership, the Air Force initiated an extensive
    training and indoctrination program for its senior acquisition
    personnel at field locations. As a consequence, the Air Force
    has begun to change its acquisition culture, making relatively
    extensive use of cooperative agreements and other innovative
    acquisition procedures for science and technology programs.
        During consideration of the fiscal year 1996 budget
    request, the committee, in its report on H.R. 1530 (H. Rept.
    104-131), encouraged the Department to, among other steps, use
    authorities provided in sections 2371, 2501, and 2511 of title
    10, United States Code for specific science and technology
    programs to pursue dual-use projects, to leverage funding
    available for dual-use programs by making cost-sharing an
    element of solicitation criteria to be considered in making
    project selections, to incorporate dual-use solicitations into
    the normal technology project solicitation process, and to
    appoint an individual, reporting directly to the Under
    Secretary for Acquisition and Technology, to oversee all of the
    Department's dual-use programs, and to conduct outreach
    activities for communicating to the business community those
    technologies and processes associated with the Department's
    program.
        Instead of following the committee's recommendation, the
    Department has chosen to again request additional funds over
    and above the nearly $7.0 billion in its science and technology
    request for a stand alone dual-use applications program.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 203) that
    would direct the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior
    official, reporting directly to the Undersecretary of Defense
    for Acquisition and Technology, whose sole responsibility would
    be to develop policy and ensure effective execution of dual-use
    programs and integration of commercial technologies into
    military systems. This official would serve as the approval
    authority for dual-use, cost-shared projects and would have the
    authority to reprogram funds among the military services' and
    defense agencys' budgets to achieve maximum leverage of
    existing funds.
        In addition, for fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000,
    the provision would require that not less than five, seven,
    ten, and 15 percent, respectively, of each service's science
    and technology program be available only for dual-use, cost-
    shared programs. This would result in approximately $350.0
    million being available only for dual-use, cost-shared programs
    in fiscal year 1997 and would result in at least an equal
    amount being made available from non-federal sources to benefit
    the Department's science and technology programs.
        The committee recommends no authorization for PE 63805E and
    recommends $5.0 million for the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense Dual-Use Program Office.

    Federally funded research and development university affiliated
            research centers

        The committee has provided significant attention to the
    management of federally funded research and development centers
    and university affiliated research centers (UARCs). Although
    the committee supports the Department's need for FFRDCs, the
    committee believes the FFRDCs should be assigned work
    consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation guidelines. The
    committee commends the Department for its effort to meet the
    requirements for competition for research work to facilitate
    the acquisition and modernization process. The committee
    insists on appropriate management of the centers, but agrees
    not to burden the Department nor the centers with nonproductive
    management ceilings and unneeded detailed reporting. The
    Department is urged to recommend in its fiscal year 1998
    legislative proposal more streamlined reporting procedures that
    increase productivity, reduce management burdens, and provide
    an assurance that work loads at the centers are essential,
    defendable and definable. The committee believes that the
    definition of ``core'' work for FFRDCs and UARCs may be subject
    to change as work demands by the Department change. Therefore,
    the committee directs that an unambiguous definitive
    identification of ``core'' work for each FFRDC and UARC be
    included as part of the Department's annual proposal. The
    committee directs that a UARC be defined as a university
    receiving more than $5.0 million in sole source non-competitive
    contracts.

    Intelligence data support systems

        The budget request included the following amounts for
    intelligence data support systems:

    All Source Analysis System-.....  PE 63745A.........  $2.0 million
    Joint Maritime Combat             PE 64231N.........  11.3 million
     Information System--.
    Intelligence Analysis System....  PE 26313N-........  1.2 million
    Combat Information System.......  PE 27431F-........  7.7 million

        These individual military service efforts provide the
    specific combat users with similar, but uniquely tailored
    intelligence systems, and are logical acquisitions. However,
    the committee also believes there is a need to capitalize on
    specific system strengths and increase service cooperation to
    improve the collective capabilities of these individual
    systems. Such synergies of effort could lead to better
    interoperability, improved data fusion, reduced operator work
    loads and possibly reduced development costs.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Army to lead a joint
    service intelligence system group to explore and initiate
    efforts to improve such interoperability and determine the
    applicability of, and where possible, implement existing
    capabilities. Specifically, the committee recommends the
    following increases for the Army's All Source Analysis System;
    the Navy's Joint Maritime Combat Information System; the Marine
    Corps' Intelligence Analysis System; the Air Force's Combat
    Information System; and the Special Operations Command's
    Research, Analysis, and Threat Evaluation System to examine and
    integrate correlation/fusion algorithms such as the Integrated
    Battlespace Server and the Generic Monitoring System
    capabilities developed under the Defense Advanced Research
    Projects Agency Warbreaker program:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    PE 63745A.........................................................  $2.0
    PE 64231N.........................................................   1.0
    PE 26313M.........................................................   1.0
    PE 27431F.........................................................   1.0
    PE 1160405BB......................................................   1.0

    Joint advanced strike technology (JAST) program

        The budget request included $246.8 million in PE 63800N,
    $263.8 million in PE 63800F, and $78.4 million in PE 63800E for
    a total of $589.1 million for the Joint Advanced Strike
    Technology (JAST) program and initiation of the Joint Strike
    Fighter (JSF) program. An additional $71.0 million is
    anticipated to be available for fiscal year 1997 from the
    United Kingdom.
        The committee remains concerned that the Department is
    initiating a major acquisition program without adequate
    consideration of other alternatives, acquisition strategy, and
    roles and missions considerations. Accordingly, the committee
    recommends a provision (sec. 220) that would provide the
    requested amounts only for advanced technology development,
    preclude the obligation of funds for the Advanced Short Takeoff
    and Vertical Landing variant of JAST, and require an analysis
    of force structure alternatives and associated costs.

                                   Army RDT&E

                                    Overview

        The budget request for fiscal year 1997 included $4,320.6
    million for Army RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization
    of $4,670.0 million, an increase of $349.3 million, for fiscal
    year 1997.
        The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997 Army
    RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
    to the Army request are discussed following the table.

                           Items of Special Interest

    122mm rocket/mortar threat

        The committee has been apprised that the Army has a number
    of opportunities to counter 122mm rocket and mortar threats for
    which it now has no countermeasure. Several systems in
    development could possibly be refined to meet this threat if
    further development work were conducted. Among those competing
    systems are the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL), the Nautilus
    laser and the Depressed Altitude Guided Gun Round (DAGGR)
    program.
        The committee believes that the potential performance of
    these and other countermeasure system options should be
    explored through a detailed systems analysis and a
    recommendation made to the Secretary of the Army prior to any
    actual evaluation.
        The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE
    65103A to be available for this study by the Army's Rand Arroyo
    Center.

    155mm XM982 projectile

        As a result of the lessons learned from Operation Desert
    Storm, the Congress accelerated the development of a 155mm
    extended range artillery projectile, the XM982, to provide
    accurate, cost effective delivery of submunitions to 40
    kilometers. Since the Crusader program is likely to be delayed
    due to a significant program alteration, XM982 development is
    the only way to achieve the extended range requirement of 40
    kilometers. The committee recommends an additional $12.0
    million in PE 63004A for accelerated development and cautions
    the Department that its continued delay in releasing funds
    authorized and appropriated for this program from prior years
    is wasteful and causing unnecessary delays in achieving program
    goals.

    Advanced field artillery tactical data system

        The advanced field artillery tactical data system (AFATDS)
    is a multi-service program which will provide the fire support
    command and control system for the Army and Marine Corps. The
    committee is aware that the Army has a shortfall of $1.0
    million to complete the common hardware porting effort which
    was delayed due to fiscal year 1996 funding decreases. The
    committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE 23726A
    for this purpose.

    Advanced individual weapon anti-armor system (ALAWS)

        The committee strongly supports the development of the
    advanced individual weapon system for the 21st Century as
    outlined in the Joint Service Small Arms Master plan. The
    committee recommends that the Secretary of the Army reprogram
    sufficient funds to permit the demonstration and evaluation of
    advanced warhead technologies that would significantly increase
    the individual soldier capability for attack of light armored
    vehicles. The committee notes that these technologies have been
    proposed in the ALAWS concept. The committee believes that
    these warhead technologies are appropriate for inclusion in the
    objective individual combat weapon (OICW) program, or in a
    stand alone or crew served system.

    Assault breach marking system

        Operation Desert Storm revealed a significant deficiency in
    the current minefield breach marking capability that has yet to
    be resolved. The committee recommends an additional $1.0
    million in PE 64808A for rapid acquisition and fielding of an
    assault breach marking system to mark safe paths through
    minefields for the following forces.

    Atmospheric and hydrologic research

        The committee is aware of the Army Research Laboratory's
    effort in atmospheric and hydrologic research to satellite
    detect, decipher and model soil and weather conditions that
    influence effective performance on the battlefield. The
    committee understands that Army progress in these efforts has
    been successful in considering rainfall and temperature
    profiles only. The committee recommends an additional $3.0
    million in PE 61102A for the Army Research Laboratory to expand
    the measurement and predictive work to include more complex
    atmospheric conditions such as fog and haze as well as other
    remote sensing devices.

    Battlefield combat identification system (BCIS)

        The committee continues to follow with interest the Army's
    plan to field a battlefield combat identification system (BCIS)
    as a means of preventing friendly fire casualties through
    electronic interrogation and identification of potential
    targets as ``friend or foe''. The committee notes the
    successful performance reported by Army field personnel who are
    using the BCIS system, but find it difficult to understand the
    Army's delay in initiating procurement beyond those units
    identified for the Force XXI advanced warfighting experiments
    (AWE). The Army has testified that situational awareness is
    valuable in tactical situations so that operational decisions
    can be enhanced, noting that knowledge of the location of
    friendly forces can ``change the way we fight ground combat,''
    further citing a desire to accelerate and field a combat
    identification system ``as soon as possible.'' The Army,
    however, believes that the current cost estimates for BCIS are
    prohibitive and plans to wait until after the AWE with BCIS are
    complete in late 1997 to make a procurement decision.
        The committee reminds the Army leadership that further
    postponement of a procurement decision will keep a friendly
    fire capability out of the Army inventory in any significant
    number until calendar year 2000. The committee urges the
    Secretary of the Army to raise the priority of procurement and
    fielding of the BCIS system so that early fielding can begin in
    fiscal year 1998.

    CH-47 system upgrade

        The Chinook helicopter is the Army's only heavy lift cargo
    helicopter. The original CH-47D programs to extend the life of
    the CH-47 A, B and C models for another 20 years has reached
    the point where the original air frames will be nearly forty
    years old at the turn of the century.
        The committee is concerned that, beyond overhauls, the Army
    continues to consider a modernization program unaffordable. The
    committee understands that the Army is seeking a replacement
    for the Chinook as part of a joint service transport rotocraft
    program to field a new cargo helicopter beginning in 2015.
    These plans, however, are currently unfunded.
        The committee is further concerned that future budget
    pressures may force postponement of any new start development
    program. Therefore, the committee believes that the CH-47 must
    be sustained through the year 2025 to ensure readiness. The
    committee recommends an additional $22.7 million in PE 23744A
    to conduct the improved cargo helicopter program concept
    formulation and technology demonstrations that includes system
    health monitoring and vibration reduction technologies.

    Comanche

        The committee understands that the Army leadership is
    satisfied with the current acquisition profile of the Comanche
    in spite of attempts on the part of the Congress to accelerate
    development. The current program will yield full system
    development with initial operational capability (IOC) by the
    year 2006, and with the field deployment of six experimental
    operational capability (EOC) aircraft during fiscal years 2002-
    2003.
        The committee continues to believe there is an opportunity
    to make an early determination of the value of an accelerated
    Comanche program and recommends an additional $50.0 million in
    PE 64223A for early flight performance demonstrations of one or
    more of the EOC aircraft. Therefore, the Secretary of the Army
    is directed to provide the Congressional defense committees a
    report on early performance demonstration alternatives prior to
    the obligation of the additional funding.

    Combat vehicle laser warning equipment

        The committee recommends an additional $4.9 million in PE
    23735A for the continued remanufacture of combat vehicle laser
    warning equipment as a part of the suite of survivability
    enhancement systems.

    Countermine system improvement

        The Army countermine program is designed to maintain combat
    maneuver unit mobility by detecting minefields and provide a
    means to breach or mark the minefields. The committee
    recommends an additional $1.5 million in PE 64808A for
    battalion countermine set improvements.

    Crusader program

        The budget request for the Crusader program was $258.8
    million. The committee has been informed of the decision by the
    Army to change from liquid propellant for the cannon
    projectiles to an advanced solid propellant. Although the Army
    made an informed decision to change the development plan for
    the projectile propellant, the committee believes that cost
    savings can be realized in the program by utilization of the
    lower risk propellant alternative.
        The committee believes that the program should be
    restructured and approved by the Congressional defense
    committees before proceeding further into the demonstration/
    validation (dem/val) phase. The importance of fielding a
    superior field artillery system for the twenty-first century
    cannot be overstated. The committee recommends a reduction of
    $50.0 million in PE 63854A to take advantage of the cessation
    of high cost liquid propellant development and directs the
    Secretary of the Army to restructure the development program
    and report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
    House Committee on National Security by March 1, 1997 the
    results of the program restructure.

    Diesel engine advanced development

        The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in PE
    63005A to continue the industry cooperative agreement for the
    advanced development of a four-stroke, direct injected, diesel
    engine and modification of the standard 6.2 liter diesel engine
    by the Army's National Automotive Center.

    Diesel/gas turbine project

        The committee recommends an additional $3.5 million in PE
    63005A for continued development and Army testing of the
    combined-cycle diesel/gas turbine engine program.

    Force XXI initiatives

        In testimony provided to the Military Procurement and
    Military Research and Development Subcommittees, the Army
    presented its program to rapidly move new technology
    demonstrated in the Army's Force XXI initiative by, in effect,
    streamlining the acquisition process by being able to fund
    proven compelling technologies needed by the Army that result
    from the program. The current time delay caused by the lead
    time required in the development of the Department's Program
    Objective Memorandum (POM) invites a missed opportunity in many
    cases to rapidly field critical new capability to the forces.
    The committee understands that the Army Systems Acquisition
    Review Council (ASARC) will identify and approve for rapid
    acquisition, those technologies that have warfighting impact.
        The committee approves the request of the Army leadership
    and recommends an additional $100.0 million in a new program
    element for this purpose. The committee understands that the
    Army will provide a similar funding line in its fiscal year
    1998 and beyond requests. The committee directs that a report
    of the fiscal year 1997 activity be provided to accompany
    subsequent annual requests.

    Hardened materials

        The committee recognizes the work in advanced composite
    materials conducted by the Army Research Laboratory that will
    yield performance advantages in future Army systems. The
    committee is concerned that adequate funding is not being
    applied for the range of planned uses for hardened materials in
    the Army's modernization plan. The committee recommends an
    additional $4.0 million in PE 62105A for the hardened materials
    development program and urges Army program managers to seek
    opportunities for materials insertion into existing Army
    systems to accelerate technical maturity and acceptance.

    Heavy assault bridge

        The current configuration of the Wolverine heavy assault
    bridge is based on the M1A1 chassis configuration which will be
    out of production for eight years before the first Wolverine
    comes off the production line at the Lima Army Tank Plant.
    However, the primary system that will be on that production
    line at that point will be the M1A2 Abrams tank. In addition,
    the primary tank system the Wolverine will support and be
    fielded within the M1A2 program.
        The committee understands that by aligning the
    configuration of these vehicles, program efficiencies and cost
    reduction can be realized.
        The committee recommends an additional $12.3 million in PE
    64649A to design Wolverine unique line replaceable units and to
    integrate software for the new configuration.

    High modulus polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber

        High modulus polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber is a
    critical component of the Theater High Altitude Air Defense
    (THAAD) system's kill vehicle. In addition, it is a critical
    material in the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) kill
    vehicle which is designed to advance lightweight technologies
    necessary for future hypersonic hit-to-kill vehicles. In fiscal
    year 1996, $4.0 million was added to the Army's manufacturing
    technology program in order to fund the first year of a multi-
    year program designed to support the development of a domestic
    source for this material. The committee recommends an
    additional $8.0 million in PE 78045A to complete the funding
    requirements for this program.

    Hydra-70 product improvement program

        The Department of the Army continues to place insufficient
    management attention on correcting Hydra-70 rocket problems.
    Non-development composite rocket motors are available for
    competitive evaluation, yet the Army has failed to act.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $15.0
    million in PE 23802A for testing and integration of at least
    one composite motor type required to achieve an operational
    capability on the Apache helicopter. The committee directs that
    the Secretary of the Army provide a detailed progress report to
    the committee by March 31, 1997, on its progress and to submit
    additional funding requirements in the fiscal year 1998
    request.

    Instrument factory for gears

        The committee is aware of the weapon systems being
    supported by the industrial manufacturers participating in the
    Army Manufacturing Technology programs through the Instrumented
    Factory for Gears (INFAC) Technology Center of Excellence. The
    committee is concerned that congressional support for the INFAC
    and a number of other manufacturing technology programs has
    been essentially ignored by the Department. The committee
    believes that programs like INFAC provide a focal point for
    industrial participation and a concentrated effort to solve
    difficult manufacturing problems that when solved, contribute
    to the control of acquisition cost of military systems. The
    committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE 78045A
    for the INFAC program.

    Line-of-sight, anti-tank (LOSAT)

        The committee believes continuation of the line-of-sight,
    anti-tank (LOSAT) program is unaffordable in view of other Army
    priorities. The committee recommends a reduction of $18.0
    million in 63654A.

    Liquid propellant

        The committee has been informed that the Army leadership
    chose to discontinue development of projectile liquid
    propellant (LP) for the Crusader advanced field artillery
    system. Although the committee concurs with this decision, it
    believes that there should be an orderly conclusion to the LP
    program, especially while technical teams and test equipment
    are in place.
        The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
    62618A to conclude those experiments that are required to
    enhance the program's orderly conclusion and documentation.

    M1A2 tank compact autoloader program

        The committee is aware of new technology to implement a
    compact autoloader for the M1A2 Abrams tank. The committee
    recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE 23735A for
    insertion of a compact autoloader and the conduct of firing
    demonstrations.

    Manufacturing technology (MANTECH)

        The committee is concerned that the Army is not focusing
    sufficient MANTECH resources on key manufacturing cost drivers
    in the organic maintenance of weapon systems. The committee
    believes that the potential exists to address manufacturing
    applications that could have a significant modernization and
    cost reduction impact on the maintenance of mission essential
    equipment and systems in the Department's depots. The committee
    urges the Secretary of the Army to continue the industrial-
    academic partnerships for repair technology development and
    insertion for maintenance of rotary winged aircraft that was
    identified in the statement of managers accompanying the
    conference report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-450).

    MK-19 modifications

        The committee recommends an additional $1.6 million in PE
    64802A to develop a change barrel to adapt a 50 caliber machine
    gun, and to develop an adaptor for a MK-19 installation in an
    up-armored high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV).

    MLRS extended range enhancement

        The committee supports the Army's need to accelerate the
    multiple launch rocket system, extended range (MLRS-ER)
    enhancement. The committee recommends an additional $12.0
    million in PE 63313A to support test flights and other risk
    reduction efforts leading to engineering and manufacturing
    development in fiscal year 1998.

    Objective individual combat weapon (OICW)

        The committee supports the development of the OICW as a key
    element in the Joint Service Small Arms Program which is
    designed to give the 21st Century land warrior a small arms
    overmatch capability well into the next century. The committee
    directs the Secretary of the Army to continue development of
    current competing technologies through phase III of the program
    and to down select to a final contractor at that point. The
    committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 63607A to
    support this acquisition strategy.

    Optical correlators

        The committee is aware of the potential of optical
    correlators for signal processing and anomaly detection in
    military systems. The committee believes optical correlators
    also have similar potential in medical research such as for the
    detection of tumors. The Secretary of the Army is to provide a
    report to the House Committee on National Security on potential
    benefits of optical correlators in medical research. The report
    shall be provided by March 1, 1997.

    Precision guided mortar

        The precision guided mortar is an Advanced Technology
    Demonstration (ATD) within the Department of Defense's Rapid
    Force Projection Initiative (RFPI). The basic purpose of the
    program is to develop and demonstrate a 120mm mortar projectile
    that bridges the range gap between existing mortars and field
    artillery systems, and is capable of attacking with precision
    important point targets in areas of high collateral damage
    sensitivity.
        The committee understands that the current development
    schedule has been extended due to funding limitations within
    the Army. The committee believes that the program can be
    accelerated and recommends an additional $6.0 million in PE
    63004A to provide precision munitions for testing in the RFPI
    program.

    Projectile detection and cueing (PDCue) acoustic fire finder system

        The committee supports ongoing evaluations at the Army
    Research Laboratory (ARL) to detect and localize sniper
    gunfire. The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in
    PE 62120A for the procurement and testing of additional
    projectile detection cueing systems.

    Rapid battlefield visualization program

        The budget request included $9.6 million in PE 63734A,
    project DT 12, for the Joint Precision Strike Demonstration's
    Rapid Battlefield Visualization program. The committee
    recommends an increase of $4.5 million to continue the
    development and evaluation of advanced large screen, automated
    graphical displays; high performance computers and networks;
    and terrain databases to provide enhanced situation awareness
    for tactical commanders.

    Starstreak missile evaluation

        The budget request contained no funding for the
    continuation of the air-to-air Starstreak missile evaluation on
    the Apache attack helicopter. The committee is aware that the
    Department is withholding $8.0 million of fiscal year 1995
    funding and $4.0 million of fiscal year 1996 funding that is
    planned for this evaluation. The phase one feasibility study of
    the air-to-air assessment is due to be completed in May, 1996.
    The committee anticipates the study results to be positive and
    recommends proceeding immediately with the subsequent phase two
    hardware evaluations. The committee directs the Department of
    Defense to release the prior year funding to the Army for this
    evaluation and recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE
    63003A to conduct the phase two testing.

    Solid state dye lasers

        The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
    62705A for continued research into advanced solid state dye
    lasers.

    Trajectory correctable munitions

        The Army has been pursuing trajectory correctable munitions
    (TCMs) as well as low cost competent munitions (LCMs) as
    potential means of guiding artillery projectiles in flight. The
    committee recommends an additional $2.0 million in PE 63004A
    for continued development.

    Trichloromelamine (TCM) testing

        The Secretary of the Army is directed to conduct toxicity
    studies of trichloromelamine (TCM) disinfectant that include a
    90 day feeding study in a non-rodent species. The purpose of
    this testing is to provide appropriate Environmental Protection
    Agency registration for Army future procurement from TCM
    suppliers, thus ensuring competition. The committee recommends
    an additional $500,000 in PE 63003A for this purpose.

    Under armor auxiliary power unit

        The committee understands that the Army has encountered
    higher than expected development cost for the under armor
    auxiliary power unit for the SEP/GEN II FLIR for the Abrams
    tank. The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in
    PE 23735A to meet this shortfall.

    Unexploded ordnance remediation

        The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE
    62720A for continuation of research, testing and analysis work
    at the Army Environmental Center for unexploded ordnance
    remediation programs.

    X-ROD

        The X-ROD is a millimeter wave guided, fire and forget,
    rocket boosted, kinetic energy tank round. The committee notes
    that significant progress has been made in seeker hardware,
    acquisition and track, and kill round terminal velocity.
        The committee believes the X-ROD can fulfill the emerging
    requirement for a long range, highly accurate tank kill round
    envisioned for the Tank Extended Range Munition-Kinetic Energy
    (TERM-KE) advanced tank round and recommends an additional
    $16.5 million in PE 63639A for continued development.

                                   Navy RDT&E

                                    Overview

        The budget request for fiscal year 1997 contained $7,334.7
    million for Navy RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization
    of $8,190.0 million, an increase of $855.2 million, for fiscal
    year 1997.
        The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997 Navy
    RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
    to the Navy request are discussed following the table.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Advanced amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV)

        The budget request included $40.1 million in PE 63611M to
    continue development of the advanced amphibious assault vehicle
    (AAAV) for the Marine Corps. The committee recommends an
    increase of $20.0 million to the authorization to accelerate
    the schedule for engineering and manufacturing development, and
    accelerate fielding of the AAAV. The committee directs the
    Secretary of the Navy to identify the additional funding
    required to continue acceleration of the AAAV development and
    insure its fielding at the earliest feasible date. The
    committee directs that the program plan and funding required
    for such an accelerated schedule be reported to the
    Congressional defense committees with the submission of the
    fiscal year 1998 defense budget request.

    Advanced gun systems technology program

        The budget request included $4.8 million in PE 62111N for
    applied research in advanced gun and projectile technologies in
    support of the naval surface fire support (NSFS) program. The
    committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million to accelerate
    development of advanced miniaturized, gun-hardened global
    positioning system/inertial navigation (GPS/INS) guidance and
    control technology and development of advanced technologies for
    next-generation gun systems.

    Advanced lightweight influence sweep system (ALISS)

        The budget request included $42.8 million in PE 63782N for
    development and demonstration of mine countermeasures advanced
    technology, including $6.4 million for continued development of
    the advanced lightweight influence sweep system (ALISS). The
    committee understands that the Navy's shallow water system
    threat assessment identifies an influence-fused sea mine threat
    which cannot effectively be swept without a new sweep system,
    and that the ongoing ALISS program has shown that
    superconducting magnet technology can emulate ships' magnetic
    signatures and is an essential part of an advanced mine sweep
    system. However, funding shortfalls have seriously impacted the
    ALISS development program. The committee recommends
    authorization of an additional $5.0 million in PE 63782N to
    complete development, fabrication and testing of a full-scale
    superconducting magnet that is one of the two major subsystems
    of the ALISS and recommends that the Navy provide funding in
    future budget requests to complete advanced technology
    development and demonstration of the ALISS. The committee
    understands that with higher priority, an influence sweep
    system based on conductively-cooled superconducting magnetic
    technology could be available to the fleet in the near-term.

    Advanced submarine technology and new submarines

        In the statement of managers accompanying the conference
    report on S. 1124 (H.Rept. 104-450), the conferees directed the
    Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for a long-term
    submarine research and development program aimed at ensuring
    U.S. technological superiority. On March 15, 1996, the
    Submarine Technology Assessment Panel (also referred to as the
    Baciocco panel, after its chairman Vice Admiral Albert J.
    Baciocco, Jr., U.S. Navy (retired)) submitted to the Assistant
    Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and
    Acquisition an independent evaluation of available and future
    submarine technologies and an assessment of their feasibility,
    cost and potential benefits or drawback with respect to their
    incorporation into the new submarine, and recommended a
    technology insertion plan for submarines. On March 26, 1996,
    the Secretary submitted a report to the Congress, entitled
    ``Report on Nuclear Attack Submarine Procurement and Submarine
    Technology,'' which identified specific emerging technologies
    that could be pursued, the priority assigned to each
    technology, and the estimated risk involved in accelerating the
    technology. Recommended technology areas included
    hydrodynamics, alternative sail designs, advanced arrays,
    electric drives, external weapons, and active controls and
    mounts.
        The committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million in PE
    63508N for applied research and exploratory development in
    advanced submarine concepts, including Baciocco committee
    recommendations, and transition of advanced ship and submarine
    technologies developed under the Defense Advanced Research
    Projects Agency (DARPA). Of the additional amount provided in
    PE 63508N, $8.0 million is to complete the transfer to the Navy
    of the technology for actively controlled machinery platforms
    demonstrated in DARPA Project ``M''.
        The committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million to
    the budget request for demonstration and validation of core
    technologies identified in the Secretary of Defense's report
    including improved acoustic sensors and processing,
    hydrodynamics, structural acoustics (including active controls
    and mount), and propulsors (including integrated stern and
    electric drive). The recommended increase shall be distributed
    as follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    PE 63504N, Advanced submarine combat systems development:
        Advanced Acoustic Sensors-....................................  10.0
        Advanced Acoustic Signal Processing-..........................  10.0
    PE 63561N, Advanced submarine systems development:
        Hydrodynamics.................................................   5.0
        Structural Acoustics..........................................  15.0
        Propulsors....................................................  20.0

        Of the recommended $60.0 million increase, a total of $20.0
    million shall be equally divided between the two submarine
    construction shipyards, Electric Boat Division and Newport News
    Shipbuilding, for the purpose of ensuring that the shipyards
    are principal participants in the process of addressing the
    inclusion of considering the technologies in the design and
    construction of the submarines at their respective shipyards.
    The Secretary of the Navy shall ensure that those shipyards
    have access for such purpose to the Navy laboratories and the
    Office of Naval Intelligence.
        The committee recommends a further increase of $38.0
    million to the budget request for demonstration and validation
    of the Category I and Category II technologies described in the
    Secretary's report. The recommended increase shall be
    distributed as follows:
              PE 63504N: $19.0 million for demonstration and
            validation of passive ranging/target motion analysis,
            large aperture processing, matched environmental
            processing, total ship monitoring system improvements,
            near-term multi-line towed array, high gain multi-line
            towed array, lightweight wide aperture array fiber
            optics, and high gain hull array.
              PE 63561N: $19.0 million for demonstration and
            validation of electro-mechanical/electro-hydraulic
            actuators, advanced welding processes, power electronic
            building blocks, advanced propulsor fabrication,
            advanced hybrid propulsors, advanced coatings, rim
            driven motors, and elastomeric ejection system.
        The committee also recommends an increase of $50.0 million
    in PE 63563N, Ship Concept Advanced Design, to initiate the
    design of new, next-generation nuclear attack submarines. The
    design should represent a ``new start'' and is not intended to
    be constrained by or to be an outgrowth of the designs for the
    fiscal year 1998 submarine built by Electric Boat Division and
    the fiscal year 1999 submarine built by Newport News
    Shipbuilding, and previously designated by the Navy as the New
    Attack Submarine. The $50.0 million in increased funding shall
    be equally divided between the two shipyards for this purpose.
        An increase of $40.0 million is recommended in PE 64558N,
    New Design SSN, to support the development of improvements in
    submarine design. Each of the two shipyards involved in the
    design and construction of the four submarines described in
    section 131, of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), shall be allowed to
    propose to the Secretary of the Navy any design improvement
    that the shipyard considers appropriate for the submarines
    being built at that shipyard as part of those four submarines.
    The $40.0 million in increased funding shall be equally divided
    between the two shipyards for this purpose.-
        An increase of $2.0 million is also recommended in PE
    11224N, SSBN Security and Survivability Program, for further
    development and evaluation of wake trail sensors.

    Advanced surface machinery program--intercooled recuperated engine

        The budget request included $59.8 million in PE 63573N for
    the advanced surface machinery program, including $34.1 million
    to continue advanced development of the intercooled recuperated
    (ICR) gas turbine engine. The ICR is the next generation marine
    gas turbine for the DDG-51 destroyer and the SC-21 next
    generation surface combatant. Current plans call for
    introduction of the ICR into the fleet as the propulsion system
    for the future DDG-51 class ships. The ICR promises 30 percent
    propulsion fuel savings compared to the current Navy gas
    turbine, increased range, and environmental emissions
    compliance. The engine is also being considered as the
    propulsion system for the multi-national European ``Horizon''
    frigate. The program is a collaborative effort among United
    States, British, and French navies.
        The ICR has been in advanced development since December
    1991, and is now undergoing development full scale system
    testing at Pyestock, England. Tests to date confirm engine
    design prediction and the 30 percent fuel savings benefits of
    recuperation have been demonstrated. During the engine tests in
    early 1995, the recuperator developed air leaks which required
    its removal and return to the manufacturer. Intensive
    investigation revealed both design flaws and manufacturing
    process problems. A recuperator recovery plan was instituted by
    the management team and full scale engine tests resumed in
    January 1996 using a redesigned recuperator. A second test site
    is to be established at the Navy's Ship Systems Land Based
    Engineering Site (LBES) to support ICR engine endurance and
    qualification testing in the United States, integration of the
    ICR engine into the DDG-51, and integrated power system
    development and integration for the SC-21.
        The committee recommends an increase of $12.5 million to
    the budget request to complete preparations for supporting ICR
    engine endurance and qualification test at the LBES. The
    committee is concerned that the Navy's decision to proceed with
    the 500 hour endurance test and the final 1000 hour
    qualification test at the LBES has not been funded adequately,
    and directs the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that these
    funds are included in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
        Success in the ICR program is dependent upon the successful
    resolution of the recuperator design and manufacturing
    problems. The committee notes the progress to date in the
    recovery program. However, successful completion of the next
    series of performance milestones will be key to the future of
    the program. Accordingly, the committee directs that not more
    than 25 percent of the fiscal year 1997 funds authorized for
    the ICR program may be obligated until the Secretary of the
    Navy reviews the results of the developmental testing and
    progress in resolving the recuperator problem and reports the
    results of this review to the Congressional defense committees.
    The committee requests the Secretary's report no later than
    December 31, 1996.

    Advanced technology transition

        The budget request included $104.4 million in PE 63792N for
    the Navy's Advanced Technology Transition program, and reflects
    a growth of approximately $33.0 million from the fiscal year
    1995 program and $29.0 million from the fiscal year 1996
    program. The purpose of the program is to demonstrate high-
    risk/high payoff technologies that could significantly improve
    the warfighting capabilities of the fleet and joint forces and
    provides the opportunity to identify and move emerging
    technologies quickly and efficiently from the laboratory to the
    fleet. Demonstration projects are selected by a combined user-
    laboratory team and are generally three years in duration and
    cost approximately $15.0 million each. The fiscal year 1996
    program includes 20 projects and 23 are proposed for fiscal
    year 1997. The committee commends the leadership of the Navy's
    science and technology community for this initiative and the
    potential that it presents for accelerating the application of
    technology base solutions to fleet and joint warfighting
    requirements. The committee believes, however, that the program
    should continue to be highly selective and sharply focused on a
    relatively limited number of projects that are aimed at
    solutions to some of the Navy's most critical problems. The
    committee believes, therefore, that the growth in the program
    should be capped, and recommends a reduction of $20.0 million
    to the budget request.

    Air deployed low frequency projector

        The budget request included $5.2 million in PE 63254N for
    development and demonstration of advanced anti-submarine
    warfare sensors and processors, including $2.5 million for the
    Advanced Deployable Low Frequency Projector (ADLFP). ADLFP is a
    candidate for the active project source of the Advanced
    Explosive Echo Ranging Sonobuoy. The committee recommends an
    increase of $2.5 million in PE 63254N for the development and
    demonstration of risk reduction technologies for the ADLFP to
    insure that shallow water performance requirements are met and
    system cost is minimized.

    Air systems advanced technology development

        The committee believes that the Advanced Anti-Radiation
    Guided Missile (AARGM) that evolved from a Small Business
    Innovative Research program provides the potential for a
    critical capability to meet the military services suppression
    of enemy air defense requirements.
        The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to proceed
    with this development program and recommends $50.0 million for
    fiscal year 1997 in PE 25601N to continue seeker development,
    analyses, demonstrations and test support. The committee
    directs that use of these funds by the Navy be limited to
    design reviews and support for test and evaluation. The
    committee also encourages the Secretaries of the Navy and Air
    Force to fund the fiscal year 1998 requirement for this
    program.

    AN/AQS-20 airborne mine countermeasures system

        The budget request included $14.5 million in PE 64373N for
    development of airborne mine countermeasures systems required
    to counter known and projected mine threats in shallow and deep
    water, including $13.2 million to continue development of the
    AN/AQS-20 Sonar Mine Detecting Set for shallow and deep water
    minehunting and reconnaissance for both bottom and moored
    mines. The committee recommends an increase to the budget
    request of $6.0 million to support completion of developmental
    testing and technical evaluations.

    Anti-submarine warfare technology initiative

        The budget request included $49.6 million in PE 62314N for
    exploratory development of advanced undersea warfare
    surveillance technologies. The committee recommends an increase
    of $21.0 million to the budget request to accelerate the
    development of advanced anti-submarine warfare technologies,
    including those leading to the development of more effective
    and affordable towed arrays, long-endurance, off-board active
    sources; environmentally adaptive active and passive sonars;
    bi-static/multi-static active sonar systems; and anti-submarine
    warfare (ASW) signal processors and algorithms for detection
    and classification of submarines in high cluttered shallow
    water environments. Of the amount authorized, the committee
    recommends $10.0 million to accelerate the development of
    bistatic/multistatic active sonar systems; $5.0 million for the
    development of environmentally adaptive passive and active
    sonar technology; $5.0 million for ASW data fusion and
    integration; and $1.0 million for competitive research and
    development of advanced low and low-low frequency active
    sources. Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends
    several measures to improve U.S. ASW capabilities and to place
    higher priority on the development and demonstration of
    advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities for the Navy.
        The committee notes that the concerns it expressed in the
    classified annex to the report on H.R. 1530 (H. Rept. 104-131)
    regarding the apparent decline in priority of the Navy's ASW
    program have been echoed by the Chief of Naval Operations and
    by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the statement
    of managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H.
    Rept. 104-450), the conferees directed the Secretary of Defense
    to conduct and report to the Congressional defense committees
    an assessment of the current and project United States ASW
    capability in light of the continuing development of quieter
    nuclear submarines, the proliferation of very capable diesel
    submarines, the sale of sophisticated submarine launched
    weapons, and the declining trend in budget resources associated
    with ASW programs. The committee understands that the Chief of
    Naval Operations has assigned responsibility for such an
    assessment to the Inspector General of the Navy. The committee
    further understands that the assessment, which should be
    completed by July 1, 1996, may recommend changes in the staff
    of the Department of the Navy and potential realignment of ASW
    program priorities. The committee intends to address the
    results of the assessment during the conference between the
    defense authorizing committees on H.R. 3230.

    Arsenal ship

        The budget request included $25.0 million in PE 64310N for
    the Department of the Navy to initiate a ``new start''
    development for the Arsenal Ship. The budget request for the
    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) also included
    $16.4 million in PE 63226E for development of technologies for
    application to future surface warfare and fast sealift ships,
    including the Arsenal Ship.
        Arsenal Ship development is a joint DARPA-Navy program to
    develop a ``proof-of-principle'' prototype for operational
    demonstration and exercise with the fleet. In concept forward
    deployed Arsenal Ships would combine the massive firepower and
    virtually unsinkable characteristic of the battleship with the
    relatively low cost and very small crew of modern commercial
    tankers and cargo ships. The Arsenal Ship would contain 500
    vertical launch system cells, accommodating weapons for strike,
    anti-air warfare, and naval surface fire support. The
    capability of the prototype would be limited to a small number
    of vertical launch system (VLS) cells. At-sea test and trials
    of the prototype would begin in fiscal year 2000. A successful
    operational demonstration would be followed by refitting of the
    prototype and installation of the remaining VLS cells and by
    construction and deployment of up to five additional Arsenal
    Ships to the fleet beginning as early as fiscal year 2001. The
    estimated cost of the program for development of the prototype
    Arsenal Ship is $500.0 million.
        The committee commends the Navy's leadership and
    development community and participating activities of the
    Department of Defense for the innovative way in which the
    concept for the Arsenal Ship has been developed. Maximum use of
    available weapons systems, newly demonstrated command and
    control capabilities, automation, best commercial practices,
    advanced design and simulation tools, and the best features of
    acquisition reform could lead to the development of a
    significant operational capability for support of the regional
    joint combatant commanders-in-chief.
        The committee has a number of concerns about the concept,
    however, which lead it to recommend that the budget request for
    $25.0 million to begin development of the Arsenal Ship be
    included in PE 63563N, Ship Concept Advanced Design, rather
    than PE 64310N. The committee does not believe the Arsenal Ship
    concept is ready for engineering and manufacturing development.
    Although committee reviews of the fiscal year 1997 budget
    request for the program indicate overall agreement of the
    combat capability being sought for the Arsenal Ship, there
    appears to be a lack of general agreement on how to get there.
    Estimates that have been made of the cost of the Arsenal Ship
    (in excess of $1.0 billion per ship, including weapons load)
    indicate that the Arsenal Ship will be a major defense
    acquisition program. The committee believes that there are a
    number of issues that must be answered before a decision is
    made to proceed into engineering and manufacturing development,
    including analysis of the operational requirement, tradeoffs
    against existing operational capabilities, force structure,
    realism of the development schedule, system cost,
    affordability, and others.
        The committee strongly supports the concept of the advanced
    concept technology demonstration and the desirability of early
    user involvement in the development and evaluation of emerging
    technologies. The committee also supports the need to break out
    of bureaucratic practices, and make maximum use of best
    commercial practices, streamlined acquisition procedures, and
    modern design and analytical tools to develop new defense
    acquisition paradigms. This, however, does not relieve the DOD
    and the DON of the need to answer the issues outlined above.
    Their challenge is to establish new paradigms for operational,
    technical, and fiscal analysis which will provide the answers
    to the continuing questions of ``what is the operational
    requirement and what is the most cost-effective way of
    fulfilling that operational requirement?'' The committee
    expects the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy
    to review these and other core acquisition management issues
    identified in DOD Directive 5000.1 and DOD Regulation 5000.2
    during the conduct of the Arsenal Ship program. The committee
    directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit the initial results
    of this review with the fiscal year 1998 budget request.

    Battle group passive horizon extension system--surface terminal

        The budget request included $1.9 million in PE 64721N for
    continued research and development of the Battle Group Passive
    Horizon Extension System--Surface Terminal (BGPHES-ST)
    capabilities.
        The committee is convinced of the utility of the BGPHES-ST
    and is gratified that the Navy has elected to procure ground
    station capabilities already developed by the Air Force to keep
    costs down. However, the committee is concerned that the Navy
    has not yet provided a capability to fully exploit the ability
    of airborne systems to collect the class of threats known as
    ``PROFORMA.'' Therefore, the committee recommends an additional
    $1.0 million be provided for the Navy to procure existing USAF
    processing capabilities and algorithms. Specifically, this
    funding will be used to integrate EPR-157 or EPR-208 functional
    capabilities in existing BGPHES-ST hardware.

    Blood storage research

        The committee is aware that the Navy has supported
    development of a process which would freeze-dry blood platelets
    for the purpose of extending shelf life, destroying potential
    contaminating viruses and reducing space required for storage
    of blood stocks. The committee recognizes the potential of this
    technology in treating combat casualties and encourages
    continued funding of this research.

    Commandant's warfighting laboratory

        The budget request included $24.2 million in PE 63640M,
    including $3.5 million for the Commandant of the Marine Corps
    Warfighting Laboratory. The committee recommends an increased
    authorization of $5.0 million for this initiative.

    Communications technology

        The budget request included $56.2 million in PE 62232N to
    continue development of key communications technologies for
    air, ship and submarine platforms. The committee recommends an
    increase of $2.0 million for support of wireless and satellite
    communications research in the areas of integrated antenna
    systems, communications hardware design, communication
    algorithm development and high-frequency device modeling and
    measurements.

    Composite engineered materials

        The committee supports research and development of new long
    life, low maintenance materials to address the future needs of
    naval shore facility maintenance and repair. The committee
    recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE 62234N to be
    matched with an equal or greater level of private sector in a
    dual-use partnership for material research that includes coal
    and/or pitch derived carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic
    engineered lumber.

    Cooperative engagement capability

        The budget request included $164.5 million in PE 63755N to
    continue development of the cooperative engagement capability
    (CEC), focusing on the development of shipboard and airborne
    cooperative engagement systems (CES), initial operational test
    and evaluation of shipboard CES, and development of organic
    integrated logistic support for the CES. The committee
    recognizes the CEC as a top priority program for the Navy and
    for the Department of Defense. The committee notes the superb
    results of the Mountain Top experiment and demonstration of the
    ability of CEC to provide a common tactical engagement picture
    to ground, sea, and air systems. The committee urges the
    continued acceleration and expansion of joint service
    integration efforts, including application to the Airborne
    Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) aircraft; Patriot and
    Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) missile systems;
    Marine Corps TPS-59 radar and HAWK missile system; and among
    other efforts planned by the Navy. The committee recommends an
    increase of $27.0 million for the CEC program.

    CV-22 special operations tiltrotor aircraft

        The budget request included $576.8 million in PE 64262N for
    development of the V-22 tiltrotor aircraft to meet the medium
    lift amphibious/vertical needs of the Marine Corps and the
    special operations needs of the Special Operations Command
    (SOCOM). The committee understands that the Navy and the SOCOM
    have reached agreement on a program that will develop an
    aircraft capable of meeting the SOCOM's needs for the CV-22.
    The committee also understands that this program provides for
    remanufacture of a MV-22 test aircraft to CV-22 standards for
    test and evaluation, rather than providing a new aircraft off
    the production line. This represents a significant challenge
    for the program office to complete the CV-22 program with the
    agreed on capabilities by the date of the required special
    operations initial operational capability. Notwithstanding the
    agreement between the Department of the Navy and SOCOM
    Acquisition Executives, the committee considers this to be an
    unacceptable risk to CV-22 program, and recommends an increase
    to the authorization of $37.0 million for development of the
    special operations variant of the V-22. The committee expects
    the Secretary of the Navy to include the total of $47.0 million
    required to complete the CV-22 test and evaluation aircraft in
    the Navy's budget requests for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

    CVX-78 technology development and demonstration

        The budget request included $12.7 million in PE 63512N for
    carrier systems development, including $8.3 million for
    development and demonstration of technologies that may be used
    in the future aircraft carrier (CVX-78), now planned to begin
    construction contract award in fiscal year 2006. To accelerate
    development and demonstration of technologies for the CVX-78
    and to establish a more reasonable ramp to ship design,
    component development, and the production decision for the CVX-
    78, the committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million to
    the budget request. Based on information provided by the
    Department of the Navy, the committee expects that the
    increased authorization would be used for development of
    technologies for advanced aircraft launch systems, and advanced
    armor concepts, integrated topside design, initial computing
    plant systems architecture analysis, and development of
    advanced modeling and simulation tools for analysis of ship
    alternatives.

    Doppler sonar velocity log

        The committee recommends an additional authorization of
    $1.0 million in PE 64562N for evaluation of a commercially
    available, non-developmental doppler sonar velocity log as a
    potential replacement for standard Navy electromagnetic logs on
    next generation submarines and surface ships.

    Dredge spoil disposal

        One of the elements of the Department's mobilization plan
    is the assurance of the continuous availability and expeditious
    use of port facilities. The Navy cites 15 port locations that
    will require dredging in the next 15 years which will result in
    the generation of an estimated 44 million cubic yards of dredge
    material from both construction and maintenance dredging. Of
    this amount, approximately eight million cubic yards are
    estimated to be contaminated and require specialized disposal
    or reclamation, both of which are extremely costly.
        The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million in PE
    62233N to investigate potential low cost alternatives to the
    current methods of disposal or reclamation of dredge spoils.
    The investigation should consider a continuing program of
    investigation with the Army Corps of Engineers and other
    relevant agencies.

    Explosive ordnance disposal

        The budget request included $7.3 million in PE 64654N for
    the joint services Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD)
    development program. The program provides for the technical
    development and validation of EOD render-safe procedures for
    all known domestic and foreign conventional and nuclear
    ordnance. The committee recommends an increase to the
    authorization of $1.1 million for the accelerated development
    of EOD procedures for countering high threat unexploded
    ordnance found in the field.

    Fixed distributed system

        The budget request included $35.2 million in PE 64784N for
    continued development of the Distributed Surveillance System.
    The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million to the
    budget request for a Fixed Distributed System commercial-off-
    the-shelf/non-development initiative fiber optics upgrade.

    Free electron laser

        The budget for fiscal year 1996 included $8.5 million in PE
    62111N to continue design, fabrication, and activation of a one
    kilowatt average power free electron laser operating in the
    infrared spectrum for evaluation for ship defense. The
    committee recommends $9.0 million for fiscal year 1997 to
    continue this effort.

    Helicopter ground proximity warning systems

        The budget request included $24.7 million in PE 64215N for
    engineering and manufacturing systems development of joint
    service and Navy standard avionics components and subsystems.
    The committee is aware that helicopter ground proximity warning
    system (GPWS) technology is maturing into a useable end product
    which has faired well in both developmental and operational
    tests. Flight tests of GPWS have demonstrated a real potential
    for GPWS to warn pilots of an impending impact with the ground
    during controlled flight, thus saving lives and aircraft. The
    committee recommends an increase of $2.4 million in PE 64215N
    to continue development of the GPWS in anticipation of its
    fielding on Navy and Marine heavy and medium lift helicopters.

    High speed anti-radiation missile

        The committee is aware of shortfalls that exist in the
    funding for the High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile program and
    recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 25601N and an
    additional $3.5 million in PE 27161F to accomplish risk
    reduction efforts to be accomplished for the block VI program
    and ensure successful fielding of the block V software.

    High temperature superconductivity propulsion

        The committee recommends an additional $3.5 million in PE
    62121N, $2.0 million to investigate large-scale superconducting
    applications for shipboard propulsion and auxiliary systems and
    $1.5 million for the fabrication of proof-of-principle
    cryogenic power devices.

    Insensitive munitions

        The budget request included $7.3 million in PE 63609N for
    insensitive munitions advanced development. The committee is
    concerned that this level of funding is insufficient to
    ultimately provide adequate levels of safety aboard ships and
    recommends an additional $3.0 million for fiscal year 1997.

    Integrated surveillance system improvements

        The budget request included $14.0 million in PE 24311N for
    research and development support of the Integrated Undersea
    Surveillance System (IUSS,) including $3.3 million for research
    and development support of the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor
    System (SURTASS) and $10.7 million for the (IUSS) detection/
    classification system. The committee recommends an increase of
    $22.1 million to the budget request to continue development and
    integration of SURTASS twin line arrays, reduction in the size
    of transmit arrays, fiber optic array development; expanding
    the frequency processing capability, and sea test of these
    developments, for the low frequency array program and
    development of more reliable low frequency active transmitters;
    and for adoption of SURTASS software algorithms for submarine
    sonar systems.

    Joint target support system testbed

        In the statement of managers accompanying the conference
    report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-450), the conferees agreed to
    an additional authorization of $4.0 million in PE 24229N to
    initiate development of a joint targeting support system
    testbed (JTSST) for demonstration of potential joint targeting
    operations. The conferees expected that the results of the
    initial JTSST study and follow-on demonstrations would
    contribute to the definition of long-term objectives,
    guidelines, and schedule milestones for convergence of the
    Navy/Marine Corps tactical aircraft mission planning systems
    and the Air Force mission support system, and lead to the
    development of a joint mission planning system architecture for
    the military services. The conferees directed the Secretary of
    Defense to report to the Congressional defense committees, as
    soon as possible (but no later that the submission of the
    fiscal year 1998 budget request), the Department's plan for
    implementing the recommendations that resulted from the study.
    The committee has not yet received the Secretary's report, and
    in the absence of that report recommends an increase of $8.0
    million to the fiscal year 1997 budget request to continue
    development and demonstration of the JTSST.

    Link 16 integration

        The budget request included $6.7 million in PE 64231N to
    continue development of the Navy Tactical Command System-Afloat
    (NTCS-A). The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million
    for development of an integrated two-way Link 16 processing
    capability in the Joint Maritime Command Information System
    (JMCIS) software. Integration of two-way Link 16 with all-
    source intelligence fusion will provide a common tactical
    picture between weapon systems and command, control,
    communications and intelligence (C3I) systems and will permit
    the exchange of tactical data with the C3I systems of the other
    military services and U.S. NATO allies.
        The budget also included $37.3 million in PE 25604N for
    development of improvements in tactical data links in
    operational Navy systems. The committee recommends an increase
    of $11.6 million in PE 25604N for further development of Link
    16 and related tactical data link programs for surface ship
    applications; $13.6 million in Other Procurement, Navy; and
    $2.2 million in Operations and Maintenance, Navy (OMN 0205604N
    4B7N) to accelerate the installation of Link 16 tactical data
    links in AEGIS surface combatants. Elsewhere in this report the
    committee has recommended similar measures to accelerate the
    development and fielding of Link 16 capability in tactical and
    bomber aircraft.

    Littoral warfare advanced technology demonstration

        The budget request included $43.6 million in PE 63747N for
    undersea warfare advanced technology development. The committee
    encourages the Navy to continue its efforts in the development
    and demonstration of advanced technologies for support of joint
    littoral warfare. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0
    million to the budget request for at-sea demonstration and
    evaluation of broad band, low low frequency active (LLFA)
    acoustic technology for the detection of quiet, slow moving
    submarines operating in the widely variable environment of the
    world's littoral regions. Of the $53.6 million authorized, $3.0
    million is to be used only for at-sea testing of commercial-
    off-the-shelf, multipulse LLFA technology.

    Maritime avionics subsystems and technology program

        The budget request did not include specific funding for the
    maritime avionics subsystems and technology (MAST) program.
    MAST is a program which focuses on the development of
    scaleable, open, fault-tolerant and common avionics
    architectures, and was a fiscal year 1995 ``new start''. In the
    statement of managers accompanying the conference report on S.
    1124 (H. Rept. 104-450), the conferees authorized $10.0 million
    to continue the MAST program and recommended that the Secretary
    of the Navy consider requirements for continuation of the MAST
    program in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. The committee
    believes that the Navy must continue to place emphasis on the
    development of advanced avionics architectures and systems and
    recommends an increased authorization of $10.0 million in PE
    63217N to continue the MAST program in fiscal year 1997.
    Because of the congressional interest that has been expressed
    in this program and the importance of advanced avionics
    architectures to future aircraft systems, the committee expects
    the Secretary of the Navy to include funding for the program in
    the fiscal year 1998 budget request.

    Medical mobile monitor

        The delivery of state-of-the-art, cost effective, medical
    care to deployed forces continues to be a top priority for the
    committee. A key to supporting this priority is the development
    and deployment of portable technologies to assist physicians
    and other medical personnel in the diagnosis and treatment of
    injuries and illness. The committee is aware of technologies
    that can provide vital sign monitoring that can be interfaced
    with portable personal computers already being acquired by the
    military services, and are logistically interfaced to existing
    military communications systems. The committee recommends an
    additional $4.0 million in PE 63706N to develop prototypes for
    mission critical deployments.

    Microwave power module research

        The committee notes the progress made with the tri-service
    vacuum electronics research program which resulted from the
    1990 Special Technology Area Review (STAR) conducted by the
    Department's Advisory Group on Electron Devices. This program
    has advanced the development of microwave power modules (MPMs),
    which are revolutionary devices linking advances in solid-state
    and vacuum-electronics radio frequency power amplification
    technologies. The effective performance of our military forces
    now and in the near future is irrevocably linked to the
    performance and availability of microwave tubes to provide the
    high frequency, high power required for radars and satellite
    communications.
        The committee is concerned that the Department's declining
    investment in MPM design and application research is both
    threatening the industry and denying the military of the wider
    variety of microwave tube designs for emerging systems. The
    committee recommends that the Department vigorously review its
    research and industrially funded developments to ensure that an
    appropriate balance of its electronics investment is made. The
    committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report
    on its MPM findings to the Congressional defense committees
    prior to submission of the fiscal year 1998 budget request.

    Mobile off-shore base

        The budget request included $9.2 million in PE 63238N to
    continue concept development of the mobile off-shore base
    (MOBS). The committee has repeatedly expressed its concern
    about the potential cost of the MOBS program, which has been
    based upon estimates that a single MOBS system could cost
    approximately $2.0 billion and that the next step in the MOBS
    program, an advanced concept technology demonstration, could
    cost an estimated $700.0 million. The committee notes that the
    Secretary of Defense has not reported to the Congressional
    defense committees the plan and schedule for incorporating MOBS
    into the defense acquisition board process and accomplishing a
    Milestone O review, as was directed in the statement of
    managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H.
    Rept. 104-450). The committee understands that MOBS program
    funds have been identified by the Navy as a source for various
    fiscal year 1996 unprogrammed funding requirements and that the
    Navy is not seriously considering continuation of the MOBS
    program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of
    $9.2 million in the budget request.

    Molecular design

        The committee is aware of the initiatives of the Office of
    Naval Research (ONR) in molecular synthesis and processing
    research, making it possible to tailor new materials, atom by
    atom, to achieve a desired set of properties. Molecular
    manipulation at the atomic level into material nanostructures
    requires a crosscut of biochemists, inorganic chemists,
    physicists, and molecular biologists which can lead to a
    ``culture shift'' revolutionizing material science. The
    committee commends ONR for its leadership in this nationally
    important program. The committee recommends an additional $10.0
    million in PE 61153N for continuation of the program in
    molecular design.

    Naval joint surveillance and targeting attack radar system

        The budget request included no funding for providing U.S.
    Naval forces the ability to receive, process, or utilize the
    Joint Surveillance and Attack Radar System (JSTARS) moving
    target indicator (MTI) synthetic aperture radar (SAR) system.
        The JSTARS MTI will soon reach initial operating
    capability. However, neither the Air Force nor Navy is
    adequately prepared to make efficient use of the JSTARS
    product. As a result, neither will be able to effectively
    utilize the advanced, standoff weapons that will soon be
    fielded to attack large numbers of mobile targets. In the Air
    Force, the key technical limitation is the requirement to use
    low-capacity and unreliable voice communications to provide
    target and threat information to attack aircraft. The Air Force
    is equipping JSTARS platforms with Link 16 and appropriate
    message sets, but until this year showed little interest in
    procuring data links sets for its ground attack aircraft.
        The Navy, in contrast, is already committed to procuring
    Link 16 capabilities for all of its tactical aircraft, but has
    shown no appreciation of the enormous improvements that JSTARS
    could make to Navy interdiction capabilities.
        Furthermore, the Navy is seeking approval for so-called
    ``arsenal'' ships based in large part on their presumed ability
    to help halt massed attacks with missiles such as the Tomahawk.
    However, the Navy has almost no ability to acquire moving
    targets at long range, pass the data to Tomahawk mission
    planning cells, and update the missiles in flight as target
    dispositions change. While the Tomahawk program office has
    proposed a program to correct these deficiencies (including
    JSTARS, Link 16, and smart submunitions), the corporate Navy
    has yet to define an end-to-end architecture.
        The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in a
    new PE 64770N to develop these capabilities aboard ship, and to
    ensure that Navy attack aircraft can receive and display JSTARS
    Link 16 data for use in standoff weapons targeting. The
    committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report
    to the Congress on the status of this initiative by April 15,
    1997, which includes an estimate of the total funding required
    to equip appropriate Navy ships, aircraft, and missiles with a
    JSTARS targeting capability.

    Naval surface fire support program

        The budget request included $42.2 million in PE 63795N for
    the naval surface fire support (NSFS) program. The committee is
    pleased that the Navy has addressed the overall funding
    shortfall in the NSFS program that was evident in previous
    budget requests, and has provided an increased level of funding
    for the program through the period of the future years defense
    plan. The committee notes the near-term focus of the program on
    upgrading the capability of existing Mark 45 5-inch gun systems
    and on the development and demonstration of an extended range
    guided projectile (ERGM) which would incorporate advanced, low
    cost global positioning system/inertial navigation system (GPS/
    INS) guidance.
        The committee is aware that some advanced gun concepts are
    under consideration by the Navy's development community, but
    notes little programmatic emphasis on the development and
    demonstration of advanced gun propulsion and system
    technologies that could be applied to next-generation gun
    systems. To partially address this shortfall, the committee
    recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE 62111N. The
    committee believes that increased emphasis must be placed on
    this area in future budget requests.
        The committee believes that the advanced GPS/INS guidance
    and control technology is absolutely key to the NSFS program.
    The success of this program, especially in terms of
    affordability, can be significantly enhanced by micro-electro-
    mechanical systems (MEMS) technology used in the guidance unit.
    MEMS technology has the potential of significantly reducing the
    cost of the GPS/INS guidance unit for ERGM and for other
    Department of Defense programs. The committee recommends an
    increased authorization of $5.0 million in PE 63795N to build
    on the Navy's guidance risk reduction program; accelerate
    development and qualification of MEMS-based GPS/INS guidance
    and control; and ensure the availability of that technology for
    the ERGM production program and for other guided munitions,
    rocket, and missile programs.

    Navy manufacturing technology (MANTECH)

        The committee encourages the continuation of programs
    currently funded in the MANTECH account designed to demonstrate
    the effectiveness of comprehensive career analysis and
    retraining models for military and civilian personnel who have
    been or will be terminated as a consequence of base closure
    decisions.

    Navy mine countermeasures research

        The committee notes the significance to the Navy's mine
    countermeasures program of the oceanography program that is
    discussed elsewhere in this report. The committee encourages
    the Secretary of the Navy to consider the establishment of a
    mine warfare undersea research program at the Mine Warfare
    Center of Excellence that could promote oceanographic research
    in areas of significance to the mine warfare program and
    capitalize on the integrated efforts of the center, industry,
    and academia.

    Ocean nuclear dumping monitoring program

        For decades, nuclear capable countries have dumped low
    level nuclear waste into the oceans as a means of disposal.
    This practice has ceased in recent years with exception of the
    States of the former Soviet Union (FSU) who have continued to
    dispose of radioactive materials in the northern seas,
    particularly in the Arctic. It was revealed in a Military
    Research and Development Subcommittee hearing that the FSU had
    discontinued ocean dumping in the hope that Western assistance
    would provide alternative disposal technology and facilities.
    However, such assistance has been slow in coming. The committee
    is concerned that without sufficient international assistance,
    the FSU will have no alternative other than the resumption of
    open ocean disposal.
        Since the effect of undersea disposal of nuclear material
    is not known, the committee directs the Office of Naval
    Research to continue its assessment program and employ other
    agency assistance to monitor ocean dumping activity, assess
    impacts on ocean health, and ice structures, and other national
    security elements. The committee recommends an increase of
    $10.0 million in PE 62435N and an increase of $2.5 million in
    PE 63716D for these purposes.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
    the Congressional defense committees not later than February 1,
    1997 on activities to coordinate international assistance to
    the FSU to find and implement an effective program for disposal
    of nuclear waste stockpiled and generated during Cold War
    activities.

    Ocean research partnerships program

        Knowledge of the ocean environment is essential for
    successful military operations in both the open seas and in the
    increasingly important littoral zone. Ocean acoustic paths are
    strongly affected by surface and bottom characteristics,
    currents, temperature, and other factors. In addition, the
    effects of oceanographic phenomenon on climatology, both
    diurnal and long-term, is becoming better understood and
    predicted with degrees of accuracy that can impact future
    military strategic planning. Many advanced weapons systems in
    use today require accurate and timely environmental data to
    effectively strike military targets. Therefore, by remaining on
    the leading edge of oceanographic science, naval forces can
    better use the ocean environment for military advantage.
        Given the continued funding pressures for critical
    oceanographic survey and research efforts, the committee
    recognizes that non-military oceanographic capabilities exist
    which, if leveraged, could also benefit or satisfy military
    requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision
    (sec. 247) that would establish a National Oceanographic
    Partnership Program for the purpose of leveraging all U.S.
    oceanographic efforts to the benefit of the military. For
    example, under this provision, the Navy would be able to
    leverage the existing university oceanographic fleet to help
    reduce its ocean survey backlog requirements of 240 ship-years.
    This approach would expand the Navy's survey effort and
    concurrently provide much needed research by academia who could
    not otherwise afford the voyages.
        While the committee recognizes that knowledge and mastery
    of the oceans and its littorals are fundamental to naval
    operations, numerous non-defense benefits are derived from
    oceanographic research. For this reason, the Oceanographic
    Partnership Program would also enhance ongoing survey and
    research efforts of universities and industries involved in
    oceanographic survey and research.
        The committee finds that it is important that the
    components of the oceanographic community within the United
    States (university, government, and industry) maintain a close
    working relationship to meet common national goals and provide
    new capabilities. Therefore, the Partnership Program would
    establish the following goals and initiatives:
              (1) Establish a National Oceanographic Leadership
            Council to coordinate national oceanography programs,
            partnerships and facilities;
              (2) Identify and build partnerships to leverage
            resources among government, civil, academic,
            industrial, allied and international oceanographic
            organizations.
              (3) Coordinate policy efforts of all federal
            activities involved in oceanographic surveys and
            research to maximize current financial investments and
            ensure the wisest use of resources;
              (4) Ensure the future of oceanographic research by
            focusing recruiting, educating, and training a highly
            skilled military and civilian work force which
            complements all aspects of oceanography education,
            including at-sea training and experience on board Navy
            and university oceanographic survey and research ships;
              (5) Preserve a robust ``at-sea'' research and survey
            capability for the expressed purpose of expediting
            naval survey and research in littoral regions deemed
            critical;
              (6) Provide a comprehensive plan to ensure
            development of oceanography science and technology, and
            modeling and simulation programs throughout government,
            university and industry will be available to support
            military requirements in the future;
              (7) Create a national ocean data and remote sensing
            center to centralize all unclassified, classified and
            sensitive compartmented information databases, models
            and product synthesis capabilities in support of
            national oceanographic requirements, and
              (8) Create a national natural littoral laboratory
            that would lead to a deeper fundamental understanding
            of these areas and act as surrogate models of foreign
            coastal zones for military and research purposes.
        Accordingly, the committee recommends an authorization of
    an additional $15.0 million in PE 61153N and an additional
    $15.0 million in PE 62435N for the National Oceanography
    Partnership Program. The committee recommends that these funds
    be used for the following purposes:
              (1) $5.0 million to promote partnerships between
            industry, universities and government agencies in
            support of the goals outlined for the program. All
            partnerships are to be cost shared by participating
            organizations and awarded after peer-review.
              (2) $7.5 million to fund 1\1/2\ ship-years in the
            university research ship fleet to supplement U.S. Navy
            oceanographic survey efforts. University survey efforts
            should be conducted in international waters in an area
            considered high priority by the Navy.
              (3) $2.0 million to create a Federal Ocean Data and
            Ocean Sensing Center for centralized ocean sensor
            information (unclassified, classified sources) for
            analysis and modeling by all U.S. Government and
            government-sponsored civilian research. On-line
            connectivity to databases approved for public release
            shall be provided. Site selection shall be determined
            by the council.
              (4) $2.0 million to create a National Natural
            Littoral Laboratory to coordinate U.S. Navy's modeling
            and oceanographic analysis effort in support of unique
            and emerging littoral warfare requirements.
              (5) $1.0 million to continue the Medea Ocean Panel to
            declassify and disseminate the Navy's ocean data.
              (6) $2.5 million to create educational and cross-
            decking opportunities; recruit, educate, and train a
            highly skilled military and civilian scientific work
            force; and complement military and civilian
            oceanography education with at-sea training and
            experience on board Navy and university oceanographic
            survey and research ships.
              (7) $500,000 to establish a program office to
            administer partnership activities.
              (8) The balance of funding shall be utilized for
            other leveraged oceanographic activity that provides
            military benefits as well as a strengthened research
            program as determined by the council.
        The committee urges the council to explore the potential
    for international partnerships in the same thesis as has been
    set forth in the National Oceanographic Partnership Program
    that would be established herein.

    Power electronics building blocks

        The budget request for the power electronics building
    blocks (PEBB) program contained $6.5 million. The committee
    believes that the opportunity exists to manage electric power
    systems efficiently and provide reliable uninterruptible power
    with a tenfold reduction in size, weight and cost of military
    systems. The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million in
    PE 62121N for the PEBB program for the development of
    prototyping tools and simulations to evaluate performance and
    reconfigurable ship electric power systems.

    Precision targeting and location

        The committee is aware of the potential vulnerability of
    the global positioning system (GPS) signals to collateral
    interference and intentional jamming. The committee recommends
    an additional $3.5 million in PE 64270N for the demonstration
    of a flyable prototype of a currently available technology
    capable of rapid, precision location of sources of GPS
    interference to assess the technical feasibility and utility of
    such a targeting system on operational aircraft and unmanned
    aerial vehicles.

    Safety and survivability

        The committee recognizes the Navy's Office of Safety and
    Survivability (OSS) for its high leveraged return on investment
    by supporting the timely assessment and insertion of commercial
    safety and survivability technology and systems into the Navy's
    operational units. As an example, the OSS's non-developmental
    item (NDI) program provided the leadership role in replacing
    the 50-year-old oxygen breathing apparatus for shipboard
    firefighting and accelerated the introduction of other critical
    shipboard life safety items to the fleet at a significant cost
    savings to the Navy. The committee recommends an additional
    $2.0 million in PE 65864N to support ongoing NDI operational
    assessments. Further, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
    Agency (DARPA) continues to examine high leverage technologies
    for fire fighting and personnel protection. Accordingly, the
    committee recommends as additional $4.0 million in PE 63226E
    for the DARPA program.

    SSBN security/survivability technology program

        The budget request included $21.3 million in PE 11224N for
    the SSBN Security and Survivability Program, a reduction of
    $9.2 million from the amount authorized and appropriated for
    the program in fiscal year 1996, and a two-thirds reduction in
    the program since fiscal year 1993. In view of the critical
    role of strategic deterrence in the U.S. national military
    strategy provided by the U.S. SSBN force, the committee
    considers this an imprudent reduction. The committee believes
    that a sustained funding level of approximately $30.0 million
    is required to maintain a credible SSBN security and
    survivability program. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
    increase to the budget request of $6.0 million, in addition to
    the $2.0 million increase recommended as a part of the
    committee's advanced submarine technology initiative. Further
    guidance regarding the SSBN security program is contained in
    the classified annex.

    Standard missile ``Terrier'' target

        The budget request included $1.6 million in PE 64366N for
    development of improvements to the Standard missile. The
    committee notes that the Navy's inventory of supersonic sea-
    skimming targets (SSST) is insufficient to meet both test and
    evaluation and fleet training needs. Development of a follow-on
    SSST is necessary to ensure production units are available when
    needed. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase to
    the budget request of $8.0 million for a proof of concept
    demonstration and evaluation of the potential effectiveness of
    the Terrier missile as an SSST.

    Submarine combat system multi-purpose processor

        The budget request included $61.4 million in PE 64503N,
    including $33.6 million for development of submarine sonar
    improvements. The committee recommends an increase to the
    budget request of $11.0 million for advanced development and
    rapid introduction of Multipurpose Processor (MPP) technology
    into the U.S. submarine fleet. The MPP is a clear success story
    for the Small Business Innovative Research Program, for which
    both the Navy and the developer should be commended. Using
    commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware and an open software
    architecture, the MPP has capitalized on the exponential
    improvement in commercial hardware and software to facilitate
    rapid improvements in submarine acoustic data processing.
    Fundamental to the MPP is the concept of protecting the Navy's
    investment in processor software through software
    transportability: the ability to transport new, advanced
    software to existing hardware utilizing an open operating
    system. The committee understands that the New Attack Submarine
    Program and the Submarine Combat Systems Program have selected
    the MPP as the cornerstone of sonar upgrades for the existing
    SSN 688, 688I, and SSBN 726 class submarines.

    Surface and shallow water mine countermeasures

        The budget request included $87.0 million in PE 63502N for
    development, demonstration, and validation of surface and
    shallow water mine countermeasures. The committee recommends an
    increase of $12.0 million in the budget request to accelerate
    development of the integrated combat weapon system (ICWS).

    Tactical electronic reconnaissance processing and evaluation system

        The budget request included $2.5 million in PE 26313M for
    upgrades to, and communications integration testing within the
    Tactical Electronic Reconnaissance processing and evaluation
    system (TERPES) system.
        The committee is aware that TERPES is currently fielded to
    Aviano Air Base in Italy and the Adriatic in support of multi-
    service operations in Bosnia. The committee is also aware of
    the unfunded and immediate need to improve TERPES
    interoperability with the Global Command and Control System
    (GCCS) and Tactical Air Mission Planning System (TAMPS).
    Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $855,000 to
    provide required communications software and interoperability
    upgrades.

    Towed array receive system (TARS)

        The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 25620N for
    the surface anti-submarine warfare systems improvement program.
    To address shortcomings in the Navy's capability for detecting
    slow-moving diesel-electric submarines in shallow water, the
    committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to the budget
    request for integration of the Navy's towed array receiving
    system (TARS) upgrade in the AN/SQQ-89 surface ship sonar
    suite.

    Training systems development

        The budget request included $36.7 million in PE 24571N for
    Consolidated Training Systems Development, including $3.4
    million for continued development of the Navy's Surface
    Tactical Team Trainer and $6.0 million for development of
    training and training devices systems. Overall, the budget
    request represents a reduction of $29.2 million from the fiscal
    year 1996 budget for development of Navy training systems. The
    committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to continue
    integration and evaluation of the cryptologic systems trainer
    in the Battle Force Tactical Training system, leading to a
    decision of procurement of the trainer.

    Undersea weapons advanced technology demonstration

        The budget request included $43.6 million in PE 63747N for
    undersea warfare advanced technology development. The committee
    recommends an increase of $5.0 million for development and
    demonstration of advanced technology prototype improvements to
    current undersea weapon systems, including environmentally
    compliant alternative torpedo fuels and advanced broadband
    homing system technologies and software algorithms to improve
    the countermeasure resistance of U.S. undersea weapons.

    Undersea weapons technology

        The budget request recommended $33.9 million in PE 62633N
    for exploratory development of undersea warfare weapon
    technology. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0
    million to accelerate the development and demonstration of
    technologies applicable to quick reaction anti-submarine
    weapons for close-range engagements and to defensive systems
    for protecting surface ships and submarines against torpedo
    attack.

    Wide bandgap semiconductors

        The committee recognizes the potential of wide bandgap
    semiconductors, that operate at higher power, higher frequency
    and temperature and have the ability to operate in high
    radiation environments. The committee recommends an additional
    $10.0 million in PE 62234N for a wide bandgap electronics
    program that involves industry and academia and that targets
    gallium nitride and silicon carbide material growth,
    characterization, surface behavior and device development.

                                Air Force RDT&E

                                    Overview

        The budget request for fiscal year 1997 contained $14,417.5
    million for Air Force RDT&E. The committee recommends
    authorization of $13,271.1 million, a reduction of $1,146.4
    million, for fiscal year 1997.
        The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997 Air
    Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major
    changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the
    table and in the classified annex to this report.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Airborne warning and control system

        The budget request includes $18.3 million of the $57.6
    million in PE 27417F for the Airborne Warning and Control
    System aircraft to correct deficiencies that reduce aircraft
    availability. The Air Force indicates that significant
    improvements could be made in aircraft availability,
    performance and life cycle cost savings achieved if
    reliability, maintainability and reengining initiatives
    approved by the Secretary of Defense could begin in fiscal year
    1997. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $64.2
    million for these purposes as recommended by the Chief of Staff
    of the Air Force.

    Aircraft ejection seats

        The committee continues to be concerned that inadequate
    emphasis is being placed on aircrew protection for light-weight
    crew members, ejections at higher air speeds, and low altitude-
    high sink rate ejections. Leadership is also lacking within the
    Department of Defense to ensure military service coordinated
    programs and adequate emphasis on correcting deficiencies in
    currently fielded systems. It is incredulous that the Air
    Force's recently published ``New World Vistas'' report
    recommended the Air Force stop ejection seat research and
    development.
        The committee therefore provides an additional $5.0 million
    in PE 63231F and $5.0 million in 64264N for testing of
    potential upgrades to current ejection seats and an additional
    $3.5 million in PE 64706F to evaluate the ACES II ejection seat
    with stabilization, limb restraints, and expanded crew member
    accommodation. The committee directs continued tests on
    existing Navy, USMC, and Air Force front-line trainer and
    tactical aircraft ejection seats for the purpose of verifying
    their predicted performance and identifying problems and
    required corrective action. In addition, up to $2.0 million of
    the additional authorization in PE 64706F is authorized for a
    competitively awarded study to gain additional information
    regarding the integration of tactical aircrew-worn
    technologies, such as helmets with helmet mounted visual
    displays, chemical biological defense equipment, and sustained
    acceleration protection with upgraded ejection seats. All
    testing should be conducted at the most economical and readily
    available government or commercial test facility. In conducting
    these tests, high priority shall continue to be given to the
    sustainment of the U.S. ejection seat industrial base. Finally,
    the committee strongly believes that the Air Force should
    continue its ejection seat research and development.

    B-1B bomber

        The budget request contained $220.9 million in PE 64226F
    for research and development of the B-1B bomber. The committee
    continues to strongly support a modern, capable long-range
    bomber force, and recognizes that the B-1B will serve as the
    workhorse of such a force well into the 21st century. In order
    to enhance the warfighting capabilities of the B-1B, the
    committee recommends an additional $8.3 million for the
    defensive system upgrade.

    B-2 conventional capability enhancements

        The budget request contained $528.4 million in PE 64240F
    for continued engineering and conversion of existing B-2 test
    aircraft to the combat configuration.
        Although the Department plans to equip the current B-2
    fleet with a conventional precision guided munitions (PGM)
    capability, the committee is concerned with the slow pace of
    this effort. Furthermore, the committee understands that the
    Air Force has identified initiatives which would provide
    enhanced information distribution capability and improved
    conventional weapons accuracy but these efforts are not funded
    in the fiscal year 1997 request. Consequently, the committee
    recommends $818.4 million, an increase of $290.0 million in PE
    64240F, and directs the Air Force to use funds appropriated
    pursuant to this additional authorization only for acceleration
    of PGM integration and enhanced conventional capability for the
    existing B-2 fleet.

    Cryoelectronics for tactical systems

        The committee is aware of the potential payoff in
    electrical circuit efficiency, size and capacity if low
    temperature circuits such as precision band pass filters can be
    cost-effectively developed, manufactured, and operated.
        The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE
    62203F for cryogenic power devices.

    Digital data link

        The budget request includes $11.1 million in PE 64754F for
    a digital data link system known as ``Link 16'' that provides
    high capacity, jam resistant communications and navigation
    information among aircraft that greatly improve situational
    awareness of the tactical environment, mission effectiveness,
    and significantly reduces the likelihood of combat fratricide.
    The committee recommends an additional $55.7 million in fiscal
    year 1997 to accelerate fielding of this capability in F-15E,
    B-1, F-16, and RC-135 aircraft as recommended by the Chief of
    Staff of the Air Force.
        In addition, the committee is concerned that the Air Force
    has not given adequate consideration to the significantly
    increased capability potentially provided to the F-16 for
    beyond visual range weapons employment through the integration
    of the APX-113, already developed in the F-16 mid-life upgrade
    program. The committee therefore directs that the Secretary of
    the Air Force provide a report to the committee by not later
    than October 1, 1996, detailing the requirement, options and
    plan, to include schedule and cost, for providing advanced
    identification friend or foe or similar capabilities for its
    tactical aircraft.

    Electronic countermeasures

        The budget request provided no funding for the F-15E ALQ-
    135 electronic countermeasures system, lower band, because of
    fiscal constraints even though the development is 90 percent
    complete. The committee recommends an additional $17.0 million
    in PE 27134F for completion of RDT&E for the system, to include
    integration, developmental flight test, and modification of
    intermediate level test equipment as recommended by the Chief
    of Staff of the Air Force.

    Global positioning system sensor

        The budget request included $13.6 million in program
    element 35913F for nuclear proliferation and detection sensors
    aboard the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite system.
    The committee recommends an additional $13.9 million to be used
    for electromagnetic pulse (EMP) sensor and ground system
    development. This added capability will assist in detecting
    foreign nuclear tests and, therefore, in monitoring a
    comprehensive test ban treaty. The committee directs the
    Secretary of the Air Force to include sufficient resources in
    the fiscal year 1998 budget submission to continue this
    important project.

    Helmet mounted displays

        The budget request included $19.7 million for the Air Force
    and Navy for the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System.
    Integration of weapon systems and situational awareness data
    into a pilot's helmet gives significant leverage to operational
    capability. With a relatively small amount of additional
    funding the program schedule can be advanced by nearly two
    years. Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $2.0
    million for PE 64201F.

    Joint air-to-surface stand-off missile

        The budget request included $198.6 million in PE 27325F for
    development of the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile
    (JASSM). The committee supports the budget request. The
    committee also shares the belief expressed in the statement of
    managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H. Rept
    104-450) that JASSM could evolve from an existing, or planned
    interim weapons systems. If the Department of Defense believes
    that a new weapon development is appropriate, the new
    development program should be based on technologies that have
    already been developed in the Tri-Service Standoff Attack
    Missile (TSSAM) program, or in other existing or planned stand-
    off weapons systems, including technologies relating to low and
    very low observability and stealth.
        The committee believes that while affordability is a
    central consideration in the development of JASSM, it expects
    the program to yield a superior capability which includes a
    highly maneuverable, low- or very low-observable airframe,
    highly lethal warhead, and precision guidance. The committee
    believes that this capability is necessary for Air Force bomber
    and Navy carrier strike aircraft now and well into the 21st
    Century. The JASSM development must be a truly joint program,
    in which the Air Force and the Navy work closely together to
    meet the requirements of the two services.

    Joint situational awareness system

        The committee is aware of the significant progress being
    made in providing theater-wide situational awareness to joint
    force decision-makers through fusion systems like the Joint
    Situational Awareness System (JSAS). However, the committee is
    concerned about the possible duplication of effort in other
    programs. Accordingly, the committee directs that no funds be
    obligated for the Battlefield Awareness System (BAS) until JSAS
    has been fielded and evaluated to determine whether further
    development of the BAS is required.

    Landing systems

        The budget request included $3.9 million in PE 35114F for
    air traffic control, approach, and landing systems. The Air
    Force and Navy are currently studying alternatives to determine
    the best option for future precision landing systems using
    commercial off the shelf technology or systems that would offer
    minimal development cost for military use. The committee
    recommends an additional $5.0 million to complete the
    development of the precision landing systems receiver and
    directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide the results
    of the Joint Precision Approach Alternatives Study to the
    Congressional defense committees upon its completion, currently
    scheduled for September 1997.

    Measurement and signal intelligence

        The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE
    31315F for developing an integrated measurement and signature
    intelligence (MASINT) software maintenance and training
    facility.

    Metal fatigue monitoring

        The committee recommends an additional $2.5 million in PE
    63112F for the metal fatigue monitoring program.

    Milstar automated communication management system

        The budget request included $700.3 million for the Milstar
    satellite communications system. The committee recommends an
    additional $20.0 million in PE 64479F for the automated
    communication management system (ACMS), which will perform
    essential network planning and management of Milstar
    communications resources for a wide range of users. The Army's
    tactical terminal field operators and planners, in particular,
    will benefit from a capability to directly task the satellite
    constellation, move antennae, and change network
    configurations. ACMS will enable all users to fully utilize the
    flexibility and responsiveness of the Milstar system.

    Minuteman safety enhanced reentry vehicle

        The budget request included $198.6 million in PE 64851F for
    intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) engineering and
    manufacturing development (EMD). The budget request did not
    include funds for the safety enhanced reentry vehicle (SERV)
    program, however.
        The Minuteman guidance replacement program (GRP) currently
    preserves the option of incorporating the Mark-21 safety
    enhanced reentry vehicle on Minuteman III if Peacekeeper
    intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are retired.
    However, no hardware or software prototyping has been
    accomplished to date for this purpose as part of GRP. In fact,
    integrating this effort with current design and development
    work in GRP would save money and provide greater confidence in
    the overall system design and performance. Therefore, the
    committee recommends an additional $13.7 million in PE 64851F
    to perform hardware and software prototyping and testing
    associated with incorporation of the Mark-21 reentry vehicle on
    the Minuteman III ICBM. The committee directs the Secretary of
    the Air Force to submit a report to the committee not later
    than September 15, 1996, on the Air Force's plan to deploy the
    Mark 21 reentry vehicle on Minuteman and on the status of
    funding for this effort.

    Missile conversion

        The National Space Transportation Policy requires Secretary
    of Defense approval for the use of excess ballistic missiles
    for the launch of U.S. Government research and development
    payloads into orbit. The converted excess ballistic missiles
    would provide relatively low cost flight opportunities for
    research and scientific payloads as well as training and
    readiness opportunities for military personnel.
        The committee views with concern the significant delay that
    has occurred in the Secretary of Defense's approval of a pilot
    program requested by the Secretary of the Air Force that would
    convert five excess ballistic missiles for such purposes. This
    delay has imposed an unnecessary planning burden on potential
    users.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
    immediately approve, as a pilot case, the use of five excess
    Minuteman missiles to launch small government research and
    development satellites and encourages the Secretary to delegate
    future approval authority for all similar uses to the Commander
    of the Space and Missile Systems Center.

    Munitions adaptor kit

        The Air Force is currently conducting tests as the result
    of a competitive evaluation, of a promising non-developmental
    adaptor kit for in-inventory munitions that could provide low
    cost increased stand-off employment and accurate guidance
    capability to current unguided direct attack munitions. There
    is no budget request for fiscal year 1997 to conduct
    developmental or operational testing should these tests prove
    successful and the Air Force concludes further development is
    warranted. Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional
    $28.5 million in PE 64602F, for further developmental and
    operational testing of 90 adaptor kits with in-inventory
    munitions on F-16, F-15, B-1, and/or B-52 aircraft. Testing
    should provide full envelope aircraft certification,
    statistical verification accuracy, operational validation of
    weapon use and mission planning verification.

    National polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system

        The budget request included $34.0 million in PE 63434F for
    the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
    System (NPOESS). As a result of significant delays in the
    schedule for this converged national weather satellite program,
    the committee recommends $19.0 million for NPOESS, a reduction
    of $15.0 million.

    Reusable launch vehicles

        The committee is committed to supporting the potential of
    ``triple-use'' reusable launch vehicle technologies that
    demonstrate the potential of high payoff benefits to military,
    civil, and commercial space launch capability and associated
    sectors of the U.S. industrial base. The committee supports the
    NASA-DOD-industry team effort for a reusable launch vehicle
    program by recommending an additional $50.0 million in PE
    63401F for fiscal year 1997.

    Sensor fuzed weapon

        The committee recommends an additional $19.1 million in PE
    27320F for the sensor fuzed weapon as recommended by the Chief
    of Staff of the Air Force to accelerate pre-planned product
    improvement.

    Space and missile rocket propulsion technology

        The budget request included $46.0 million for rocket
    propulsion technology, including the Integrated High Payoff
    Rocket Technology (IHPRT) initiative. The committee commends
    the Department for its leadership in establishing a government-
    industry cost shared program for rocket and missile
    technologies similar of the successful Integrated High Payoff
    Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) program. However, if the
    IHPRT initiative is to be successful, all government agencies
    as well as private contractors that expect to benefit from
    government programs must be willing to be active participants
    in the program. The committee notes that the Army is the only
    military service not actively participating in the program and
    cautions that in the future the committee will not accept
    military services conducting totally independent rocket
    technology development efforts. The committee also notes the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration's interest in
    integrating elements of its rocket technology program with
    IHPRT and supports this initiative. The committee recommends an
    additional $19.0 million for launch vehicle and tactical
    missile rocket technology programs to be authorized as follows:
    $7.0 million for PE 62601F, project 1011; $5.0 million for PE
    63302F, projects 4373, 6339, and 6340; $2.0 million in PE
    63302F for disposal of highly toxic obsolete pentaborane rocket
    fuel; $3.0 million for PE 62111N and $2.0 million for PE
    63217N, project R0447. The additional authorization shall only
    be used for direct support costs of these technology projects.

    Space architect

        The budget request included $15.0 million in PE 63855F for
    the space architect's office. The committee is disappointed
    that the Secretary of Defense would create yet another office
    to do studies on space architecture without consolidating the
    responsibility for military and intelligence space requirements
    in one office. The committee finds the justification material
    inadequate to justify the request and recommends a reduction of
    $4.0 million to include any ``pass-through'' funding intended
    for the Office of the Secretary of Defense for which there was
    no request.
        Further, the committee is following with interest the DOD
    Space Architect's on-going reviews of the appropriate military
    satellite communications (milsatcom) architecture and the
    architecture for space control. The committee expects to be
    kept apprised of progress during the conduct of these important
    reviews. The committee also strongly urges the Architect to
    consult closely with the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space Command
    during these reviews.

    Space-based infrared system program

        The budget request included $113.2 million for the low
    component of the space-based infrared system (SBIRS) program
    and $6.9 million for Cobra Brass in PE 63441F, and $173.3
    million in PE 64441F for the high component. The committee
    recommends $247.2 million, an increase of $134.0 million, for
    SBIRS low (the Space and Missile Tracking System), $180.3
    million, an increase of $7.0 million, for the high component,
    and the requested amount for Cobra Brass.
        The committee reaffirms support for the Space and Missile
    Tracking System (SMTS) program baseline established in section
    216 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    1996 (Public Law 104-106). However, the committee is dismayed
    by the Department's continued withholding of $51.0 million of
    the total amount authorized and appropriated by Congress in
    fiscal year 1996 for SMTS. These funds are needed to support
    and implement the Department's own strategy of increasing
    competition within the program. The committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense to release these funds immediately.
        The statement of managers accompanying the conference
    report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-450) endorsed giving the Block
    I SMTS a missile defense focus. The committee is interested in
    learning more about how the Department has interpreted this
    guidance. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
    Defense to provide a report to the Congressional defense
    committees on the functional allocation of requirements among
    the highly-elliptical orbit (HEO), geosynchronous (GEO), and
    low earth orbit (LEO) components of SBIRS. The report shall
    describe the planned design configuration of the SMTS Block I
    satellite constellation, and the HEO and GEO components,
    including the extent to which each component will be capable of
    performing portions of the missile warning, missile defense,
    technical intelligence, and battlespace characterization
    missions, and the assumed lifetime of these satellites. The
    report shall be submitted not later than October 30, 1996.
        Finally, the committee understands that the Joint
    Requirements Oversight Council is reviewing the appropriate
    level of system survivability and nuclear hardness for the
    elements of the SBIRS program. The committee believes that
    adequate nuclear hardness should be a design feature of the
    SBIRS program, given the critical importance of assured
    tactical warning/attack assessment for national decision
    making. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
    inform the committee promptly of the Department's plan for
    providing a sufficient amount of nuclear hardness for the SBIRS
    program. The Secretary is strongly urged to consult closely
    with the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space Command and the
    Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Strategic Command before rendering a
    decision on this matter.

    Test and evaluation investments

        The committee recommends an additional $7.0 million in PE
    64759F for wind tunnel and air induction system improvements
    and engine test facility data acquisition and processing
    systems.
        Further, the committee is aware that the Air Force uses
    different procedures and criteria for funding real property
    maintenance (RPM) for its test and evaluation bases and
    facilities than that used for those installations which receive
    RPM funds through the operation and maintenance accounts. This
    practice results in these bases getting significantly less in
    RPM funding, as a percent of the facility present value,
    annually for maintenance and repair of these facilities. The
    committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to fund the
    RPM requirements of its test and evaluation facilities, using
    the same procedures and criteria as that used for all other
    bases. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec.
    241) that would require the Secretary of the Air Force to use
    the same procedures and criteria for allocating RPM to test and
    evaluation installations as it does for its other non-test and
    evaluation installations.

    Variable stability in-flight simulator test aircraft

        The committee recommends an additional $1.4 million in PE
    64237F for the Variable Stability In-Flight Simulator Test
    Aircraft program to complete and test phase I of the program.

                             Defense Agencies RDT&E

                                    Overview

        The budget request for fiscal year 1997 contained $8,672.8
    million for Defense Agencies RDT&E. The committee recommends
    authorization of $9,406.4 million, an increase of $733.5
    million, for fiscal year 1997.
        The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1997
    Defense Agencies RDT&E program are identified in the table
    below. Major changes to the Defense Agencies request are
    discussed following the table.

                           Items of Special Interest

    Common imagery ground/surface system

        The budget request included $47.0 million in PE 35154D for
    continued migration of the numerous ground stations to the
    Common Imagery Ground/Surface System (CIGSS) compliant
    standards.
        The committee strongly supports both the technical
    solutions and the management approach for migrating the various
    imagery ground stations to the CIGSS configuration and
    standards as outlined in the published handbook. The committee
    is aware that insufficient funds are available in fiscal year
    1997 to modify core components to ensure the CIGSS common,
    interoperable baseline is achieved by fiscal year 1998. The
    committee therefore recommends an additional $11.0 million for
    this purpose. The committee directs the Defense Airborne
    Reconnaissance Office (DARO) to provide a report to the
    Congressional defense and intelligence committees on
    specifically how this funding would be used, and on how and
    when the CIGSS baseline will be realized. The committee further
    directs the DARO to ensure full funding for this program is
    provided in future requests.

    Command intelligence architecture program

        The budget request included $2.0 million in PE 35898L for
    the Command Intelligence Architecture Program (CIAP) program to
    provide the unified commands with an intelligence planning
    process that documents and links requirements, intelligence
    operations and future intelligence capabilities.
        The committee is pleased with the success of this effort
    and, more so, by the fact that the Command and Control,
    Communications and Computers Integration (C4I) Support Activity
    (CISA) has expanded CIAP to include C4I, surveillance and
    reconnaissance (C4ISR) programs. The committee endorses this
    broader CIAP focus designed to maximize joint service
    operations and intelligence support. In view of the expanded
    role of the CIAP, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
    million to ensure the CIAP effort is fully expanded to all DOD
    services and agencies.

    Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research
            (DEPSCoR)

        The committee recommends continuation of the DEPSCoR
    program to strengthen infrastructure, enhance research, and
    develop human resources to assist the EPSCoR states to become
    more competitive for regular research and training grants. The
    committee recommends an additional $20.0 million in PE 61103D.

    Defense mapping agency

        The budget request included $100.0 million in PE 35139B for
    continued research and development of Defense Mapping Agency
    (DMA) production systems and capabilities.
        The committee is aware of a recent Defense Science Board
    (DSB) recommendation that DMA re-engineer its production
    processes to focus on creating and maintaining digital
    geospatial databases vice its current primary production of
    paper maps. One of the DSB's most critical findings was that
    DMA should focus its development funding on a course that
    continues to provide for the near-term paper products, but that
    provides an evolutionary path that moves the DMA to becoming a
    center for maintaining digital products. While the committee
    understands that DMA cannot discontinue map production in the
    near-term, it does believe DMA must pursue a course for the
    digital future. The fiscal year 1997 budget submission appears
    to continue research and development focus on improved
    production of government developed products, therefore the
    committee recommends a $10.0 million reduction in new mapping,
    charting and geodesy products. Of this reduction, none is to be
    applied to the alternate source development effort. The
    committee stresses its belief that DMA, as the DSB recommended,
    should evolve to a digital geospatial product server vice a
    paper product developer.

    Defense modeling and simulation program

        The budget request included $60.0 million in PE 63832D for
    the Joint Wargaming Simulation Management Office. The committee
    recommends the budget request.
        The committee notes that the Department of Defense
    continues to improve its management of modeling and simulation.
    Establishment of service headquarters' modeling and simulation
    management offices and their cooperation in inter-service
    initiatives are commendable. Adoption of a common DOD-wide,
    high level modeling and simulation architecture should
    facilitate interoperability among the services and reduce the
    proliferation of service-unique models. Efforts by the
    Department to ensure that individual modeling and simulation
    programs work cooperatively and support joint needs should
    contribute to the establishment of a common modeling and
    simulation framework for the evaluation and development of new
    weapons systems concepts and force structure assessments, to
    more effective intra-service and joint training, and to
    operational planning. The interlinking of these new service
    models and simulations, which are funded separately in the
    service and joint budgets, means that the potential impact on
    other service's efforts must be considered and coordinated
    among the proponent activities when changes are considered in
    individual service programs. The committee also notes that the
    Department has designated modeling and simulation executive
    agents in the Defense Mapping Agency, the Air Force, and the
    Navy to support the common needs of the community in
    coordinating and standardizing terrain, aerospace, and ocean
    data bases.
        Just as in the acquisition of materiel systems, the
    committee considers modeling and simulation to be an area to
    which acquisition reform initiatives may be applied. The
    committee encourages the Department to adopt methods used
    successfully within the commercial sector to keep pace with
    rapidly evolving software technology. The committee believes
    that the Department has made considerable strides in its
    modeling and simulation management and will continue to monitor
    the Department's program.

    Defense nuclear agency

        The budget request included $195.1 million in PE 62715H and
    $26.2 million in PE 63711H for a total of $221.3 million for
    the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA). The committee recommends a
    total of $192.1 million in PE 62715H, a reduction of $3.0
    million from the requested amount, and $26.2 million, the
    requested amount, in PE 63711H.
        The budget request included $6.0 million in PE 62715H for
    the electrothermal (ETC) gun technology program, which supports
    Navy and Army applied research in next-generation gun
    technologies. During consideration of the fiscal year 1996
    budget request for DNA, all four of the Congressional defense
    committees recommended an increase of $4.0 million to the
    agency's request of approximately $10.5 million for the ETC gun
    technology program. The committee notes that DNA's fiscal year
    1996 program plan for the ETC gun technology program fails to
    reflect the $4.0 million in additional funding for the program
    that was authorized and appropriated. The committee expects DNA
    to use these funds for the purpose for which they were
    authorized and appropriated and to sustain the ETC gun
    technology program at a funding level of approximately $10.0
    million per year through fiscal year 1998.
        Section 217 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) also provided $4.0
    million to initiate a counterterrorist explosives research
    program. The objective of this program was to make available to
    U.S. law enforcement authorities DNA technology and expertise
    in the prediction and analysis of explosive effects. The fiscal
    year 1997 budget request did not include funds to continue the
    program. The committee believes that the extensive data base
    and expertise on nuclear and conventional weapons effects
    acquired by the agency over the last fifty years constitute a
    unique foundation for predicting explosive and blast effects
    and for assisting forensic investigations of terrorist
    incidents. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increased
    authorization of $4.0 million in PE 62715H to continue the DNA
    program. The committee further directs the Secretary to submit,
    no later than February 28, 1997, a report to the Congressional
    defense committees which provides recommendations for
    continuation of the program and appropriate levels of funding
    for the period covered by fiscal year 1998 budget request and
    the future years defense plan.
        The committee recommends that the Department take
    additional steps to sustain nuclear expertise within the
    military and civilian personnel of the Department. Archival of
    data, manufacturing processes, and test procedures, while
    important, cannot in themselves assure future nuclear
    expertise. Immediate action should be taken by the Department
    to establish attractive career paths, including formal
    education and training, in the services and DOD civilian
    workforce to ensure that the future nuclear deterrent can be
    responsibly supported. Whereas DOE's stockpile stewardship and
    management program focuses on the nuclear device itself, the
    DOD effort should focus on the remaining components of the
    nuclear weapon system and should be complementary rather than
    duplicative of the DOE effort. The committee is encouraged by
    and strongly supports the Alliance for Nuclear-Related Defense
    Technologies in its efforts to sustain the scientific and
    engineering skills underlying the nation's nuclear deterrent.
    DNA, Sandia National Laboratory, Los Alamos National
    Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and Phillips
    Laboratory are commended for their initiative in creating the
    Alliance to ensure that the nation retains its core
    competencies in the nuclear-related defense technologies and
    successfully passes this knowledge base and critical skills to
    future nuclear defense-oriented scientists, engineers, and
    weapon system developers. This effort is a timely response to
    both an aging nuclear workforce and an aging nuclear deterrent.
    The Alliance is encouraged to find ways of introducing relevant
    science and technology to appropriate undergraduate and
    graduate educational institutions, including making use of
    scholarships and fellowships. Training programs for service and
    industry personnel at DNA's Defense Nuclear Weapons School and
    other Alliance organizations should also be explored. The
    Departments of Defense and Energy are expected to build upon
    the progress made to date by the Alliance.
        Finally, the committee remains unconvinced of any technical
    or ``defense conversion'' benefits that would accrue to the
    United States from the Topaz International Program (project
    AX). Therefore, the committee denies the $7.0 million request
    for this project.

    Digital battlefield medical x-ray system

        The committee believes that current commercial development
    of direct digital x-ray detection for mammography combined with
    current telemedicine initiatives, offers a ``spin on''
    opportunity to direct digital battlefield imaging to reduce
    combat mortality through timely and accurate diagnosis and
    earlier, more efficient treatment. The committee recommends an
    increase of $5.0 million in PE 63226E to build a compact,
    portable direct detection digital x-ray system with
    telemedicine access, and to conduct evaluations of this
    filmless technology.

    Direct fuel cells

        The committee recognizes the potential of carbonate-based
    direct fuel cells for high efficiency power plants for future
    naval ships. The committee recommends an additional $2.4
    million in PE 63226E to complete the fixed base power plant
    development and an additional $4.0 million in PE 63573N for
    competing conceptual ship service power plant design studies.

    Electric drive for combat vehicles

        The committee believes that the next generation of military
    vehicles will contain electric prime power and drive mechanism
    for a number of reasons; among them arrangements, weight
    savings, stealth and supportability. The committee believes
    that there is a broader range of electric power applications
    for military uses than have been requested in this budget. The
    committee hopes to see this technology addressed in the fiscal
    year 1998 budget request.
        The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to seek
    immediate release of fiscal year 1996 funding for these
    technologies, which is being withheld by the Comptroller of the
    Department of Defense and apply them to the continued
    development of military electric vehicle technologies.

    Electronic commerce resource centers

        The budget request for electronic commerce resource centers
    (ECRC) in PE 63739E is $20.7 million. The ECRC program has been
    directed by the Department to support implementation of the
    electronic commerce component of the Federal Acquisition
    Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355). The committee
    understands that the ECRC program has been very successful in
    fostering innovative acquisition processes with industry,
    especially small businesses, and the Department. The committee
    believes that the ECRC concept should be expanded to facilitate
    access to a broader range of industrial suppliers. The
    committee recommends an additional $15.0 million in PE 63739E
    for the creation of five new centers.

    Electronic materials research

        The committee understands the importance of advanced
    materials for microchip modules that enhance miniaturization,
    dissipate heat and reduce the cost of microcircuit
    manufacturing. The committee recommends an additional $8.0
    million in PE 62712E for Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) and
    Chemical Vapor Composite (CVC) synthetic diamond.

    Electro-optic camera framing technology

        The committee believes there is demonstrated potential for
    electro-optical (EO) framing technology with on-chip forward
    motion compensation (FMC) for providing precision point target
    imaging and location. The committee strongly supports the
    continuation of this technology and the earliest application of
    these sensors on manned and unmanned tactical reconnaissance
    platforms.
        The committee recommends an additional $15.0 million in PE
    35154D for continuation of the EO framing technologies with on-
    chip FMC. Specifically, $3.0 million is provided for the
    operational insertion and testing of the medium altitude wide
    area coverage ``step frame'' sensor, $2.2 million is provided
    to develop enhanced data compression algorithms that provide
    higher compression ratios and provide equal or better video/
    image fidelity and at equal or higher throughput rates than
    currently fielded technologies to support the ultra high
    resolution EO framing reconnaissance sensors, $5.8 million is
    to fund an initial study and device development of a high
    quantum efficiency large area EO framing infrared charge
    coupled device with on-chip FMC, and $4.0 million is for multi-
    spectral EO framing technologies with on-chip FMC.

    Flat panel displays

        The budget request included $45.0 million in PE 62708E for
    flat panel displays. The committee believes that opportunities
    exist for acceleration of development of display devices that
    focus on cost and performance goals. The committee endorses the
    work of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency industry
    teams and recommends an additional $20.0 million in PE 63739E.

    Joint Airborne Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) System (JASS)

        The budget request included $51.8 million for the
    continuation of the Joint Airborne SIGINT System (JASS).
        The committee is concerned about the current and long-term
    capability of airborne SIGINT reconnaissance assets. These
    platforms provide not only direct tactical support, but also
    provide valuable products used by the national intelligence
    community. These systems require continuous sensor and system
    improvements to maintain pace with the constantly evolving
    threats against which they are tasked.
        Past SIGINT upgrades have been inadequately coordinated
    between the military services and defense agencies. The costs
    of independent upgrades, even when similar capabilities were
    being developed, were borne individually by each service and
    platform. The intent of the statements of managers accompanying
    the conference report on H.R. 2401 (H. Rept. 103-357) and S.
    1124 (H. Rept. 104-450) was that the architecture of existing
    SIGINT platforms be evolved to a common architecture and that
    the Department of Defense develop a testbed aircraft which
    could be used to evaluate commercial and evolving SIGINT
    architectures, standards and interface protocols such that all
    airborne SIGINT systems could benefit from the sensor upgrades
    developed by any service or agency. The statements of managers
    also endorsed ``maximum commonality'' of equipment to minimize
    duplication and enhance interoperability. There was no
    congressional intent for the Department to choose, or exclude,
    any architecture, including those already fielded, for
    application on the existing operational platforms.
        The Department's current development approach for JASS has
    been controversial, appears to be extremely costly and has not
    been well supported by the military services primarily due to
    cost concerns. Concern also exists that the current approach
    does not satisfy near-term operational needs, and the technical
    approach does not appear to fully capitalize on commercial
    standards and developments. The committee believes the current
    JASS acquisition strategy could benefit from the early
    establishment of commercial standards, thereby allowing rapid
    evolution of capability through the use of commercial
    components to satisfy changing requirements. Additionally, the
    committee understands that even under the current schedule,
    JASS will not provide new functional capabilities until after
    the turn of the century. The committee believes this does not
    constitute an effective upgrade program for the resources being
    spent, nor does it believe there is sufficient use of
    commercial, off-the-shelf technologies. Finally, the committee
    understands that JASS is better defined as a sensor function or
    subsystem that could be applicable to the various SIGINT
    systems as all the functional subsystems including the sensors,
    the antennas, the radio frequency distribution systems, the
    recorders, and the operator consoles. JASS does not include
    these other functions, and therefore should be appropriately
    defined as such, particularly in terms of budget requests and
    total system costs submitted to the Congress.
        The committee fully supports the tenets of a Joint Airborne
    SIGINT Architecture (JASA) and believes there is a need to
    develop a formal set of standards and interface protocols that
    allow the platform program offices to build open architecture
    systems. The committee also believes that, as capabilities are
    developed or procured off-the-shelf that meet the established
    platform requirements, these functions must comply with
    established architectural and technical guidelines. This would
    allow these capabilities or functions to be portable from one
    platform to the next without separate development efforts and
    associated costs. Finally, the committee also believes there
    must be a central authority to enforce such commonalities.
        There is a need for a centralized architecture standards
    vision and joint development of new capabilities, with
    decentralized procurement and system integration. Fiscal
    constraints and threat phasing suggest an evolutionary upgrade
    approach to systems, based on specific and enforced interface
    standards. The approach should build on the strengths of each
    of the fielded systems and should be focused on the individual
    mission requirements. The committee is committed to ensuring
    the services and agencies share these sensor developments and
    believes this approach will increase industry competition by
    focusing on commercial products, decrease risk, and most
    importantly, effectively ensure near and mid-term requirements
    satisfaction and decrease costs.
        Finally, due to the amounts of money already expended on
    the JASS high band prototype (HBP) and its predecessor, the
    committee does not believe terminating this prototype effort
    prior to test would be appropriate.
        Therefore, the committee authorizes up to $25.1 million of
    the request to continue and conclude JASS HBP functional
    development and testing. The committee does not authorize the
    obligation and expenditure of any funding for a follow-on JASS
    high band effort until the HBP has completed flight test, and
    has effectively proven its utility. The Department of Defense
    is authorized to obligate and expend fiscal year 1997
    appropriated funds for airborne SIGINT functional or subsystem
    developments provided they are coordinated through, and for use
    by, multiple services and agencies. However, the committee
    directs the Secretary not to obligate or expend any fiscal year
    1997 funds for such airborne SIGINT system research and
    development upgrades until the Secretary provides the defense
    and intelligence authorization committees a report which:
              (1) clearly identifies the airborne SIGINT system
            standards and protocols which the platform offices will
            use to build their architectures and functional
            capabilities;
              (2) provides a plan for ensuring the operational and
            intelligence requirements communities have the final
            authority for expending intelligence funds;
              (3) provides a plan for maximizing use of commercial
            off-the-shelf technologies;
              (4) provides a plan for ensuring the services
            collaborate on sensor improvements;
              (5) provides an upgrade plan which satisfies both the
            near-term and long-term operational requirements in a
            coordinated architectural approach;
              (6) provides a plan for the National Security Agency
            (NSA), under its Executive Order 12333 tasking, to
            review and approve platform sensor developments to
            ensure technical standards compliance;
              (7) provides a ``level of effort'' funding necessary
            to ensure continuous upgrades to the existing
            platforms; and
              (8) provides a detailed description of those
            functional capabilities, resulting from the HBP efforts
            which could be effectively used by the various platform
            offices.
        An interim copy of this report should be provided to the
    Congressional defense committees before June 10, 1996 and a
    final report will be provided not later than April 1, 1997.

    Joint and commercial technology insertion

        The budget request included $14.5 million in PE 63726D and
    $48.4 million in PE 63752D for the Department of Defense to
    make greater application of commercial technology in its
    military systems. The committee fully supports programs
    designed to reduce life cycle costs as well as enhance system
    reliability, maintainability, and capability. The committee
    views this type of activity as integral to the acquisition
    process for individual programs and projects and not as a
    distinct type of activity. However, as with dual use technology
    programs, personnel from the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    cite the need for these additional funds because the
    ``acquisition culture'' within the military services refuses to
    adequately embrace what is in its own best interests. The
    committee recommends a provision (sec. 203) that would require
    the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior official,
    reporting directly to the Undersecretary of Defense for
    Acquisition and Technology whose sole responsibilities would be
    to develop policy and ensure effective execution of dual-use
    programs and integration of commercial technologies into
    military systems to the maximum extent practicable. The
    committee further recommends that the civilian and military
    leadership in the Department consider personnel promotion,
    bonus, and pay incentives to further the use of commercial
    technologies in weapon system development and modernization
    programs. No authorization is provided for either PE 63726D or
    PE 63752D.

    Joint command, control, communications, and computers/intelligence,
            surveillance, and reconnaissance

        The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE
    33149K for development of improved capabilities for concept
    development, analysis, and evaluation of advanced technologies
    and concepts for joint command, control, communications, and
    computers/intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
    (C4ISR). Of this amount $10.0 million is recommended for the
    establishment of a C4ISR Battle Laboratory and $5.0 million for
    the development of advanced C4ISR modeling and simulation.
    These programs are designed to investigate improvements in
    collection and distribution of targeting and intelligence data
    among commanders and weapons systems of all the military
    services, with the goal of permitting joint commanders to
    conduct operations as swiftly and effectively as possible.

    Joint surveillance targeting attack radar system

        The committee is committed to properly classifying those
    systems which are logically classified as tactical, joint or
    national intelligence systems. The Joint Surveillance Targeting
    Attack Radar System (JSTARS) platform and associated ground
    stations are currently contained in the Tactical Intelligence
    and Related Applications (TIARA) aggregation. While the
    committee realizes there are direct intelligence applications
    of the JSTARS associated Ground Support Modules (GSM) and the
    follow on Common Ground Stations (CGS), the committee believes
    the JSTARS aircraft is a direct battle management and targeting
    applications weapon system, and not an intelligence system.
    While it is true the JSTARS moving target indicator (MTI) radar
    system provides critical data to the operational and
    intelligence communities, the committee believes the primary
    mission is direct weapon system targeting and should,
    therefore, not be contained within the TIARA aggregation.
    Conversely, since the associated ground stations are direct
    multi-source intelligence support applications with a
    definitive need to remain part of the entire intelligence
    support architecture, the committee believes these must
    continue to be funded within TIARA aggregation.

    Lithography

        The budget request included $51.4 million for
    microelectronic lithography. The committee recommends an
    additional $10.0 million in PE 63739E for the support of
    ongoing nanofabrication and extreme ultraviolet (EUV)
    lithography activities aimed at the fabrication of 100
    nanometer design rule device structures. Key to these
    developments are support for nanowriters, nanofabrication
    prototypes, and the facilities for short wavelength
    metrologies, calibrations and standards.
        In addition, the committee believes there are benefits to
    pursuing ion beam research related to its potential as a future
    technology for advanced lithography. The committee believes
    that there are several technical challenges that include mask
    and reticle systems, overlay accuracy and scattering effects
    that should be addressed by industry in collaboration with
    university researchers. The committee recommends an additional
    $1.0 million in PE 61101E for this purpose.

    Materials nanostructures

        The committee recognizes the potential of the emerging
    field of material nanostructures. This regime of science offers
    the opportunity to integrate inorganic and organic chemistry
    and physics at a material formative dimension that will have
    impact in micro-electronics, micromachines, molecular level
    controllers and switches, among many other applications, and
    that have the potential to revolutionize military technological
    superiority in the future.
        The committee recommends an additional $1.0 million in PE
    61101E to accelerate the Defense Advanced Research Agency's
    nanostructures program.

    Metal castings

        The budget request for metal castings was $1.0 million. The
    committee has been apprised of the return on the military's
    investment in metal casting technology as a replacement for
    many machined and welded parts. Metal casting provides an
    opportunity to realize cost and weight savings in military
    component fabrication. The committee recommends an additional
    $2.0 million in PE 78011S for the Defense Logistics Agency to
    continue its program at prior year levels.

    Mobile detection assessment response systems--exterior

        The committee recommends an additional $8.0 million in PE
    63709D for the advanced robotics program to continue
    development of the mobile detection assessment response system
    (MDARS).

    Multifunction self aligned gate technology

        A total of $18.0 million dollars has been authorized and
    appropriated in prior years to develop active array ``smart
    skins'' for unmanned aerial vehicles that permit high density
    packaging of multi-function communications and radar antennae.
    The committee recommends an additional $8.0 million in PE
    35154D to demonstrate multifunction self aligned gate
    technology on unmanned aerial vehicles and to complete this
    program.

    Non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare

        The budget request included $24.0 million in PE 63714D for
    the Advanced Sensor Applications Program (ASAP), the
    independent non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare (NAASW) research
    program managed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The
    committee has repeatedly expressed its views of the need for
    two viable, independent, and coordinated NAASW programs, one in
    the Navy and one in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The
    committee notes that the funding level requested for the ASAP
    program is approximately $6.0 million or 20 percent less than
    the level appropriated for fiscal year 1996 and approximately
    10 percent of the level originally programmed in the fiscal
    year 1996 future years defense plan for fiscal year 1997. In
    view of the increased capabilities of advanced nuclear
    submarines, the proliferation of modern, quiet diesel
    submarines and advanced non-nuclear submarine technology, and
    significant strides in submarine operational proficiency being
    made by several Third World submarine navies, the committee
    believes these reductions are imprudent. Increased emphasis
    needs to be placed on improving the anti-submarine warfare
    capabilities of U.S. forces in general, and on the NAASW
    program in particular. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
    increase of $6.0 million to the budget request for the ASAP
    program. Of this increase, $1.0 million shall be used for
    additional investigations of foreign technology and systems
    relevant to the missions of the ASAP program. The committee
    directs that plans for expenditure of the increased
    authorization be reported to the Congressional defense
    committees before the additional funds are obligated.
        The committee believes that the ASAP program office should
    begin transitioning the more mature technology it has developed
    to the Navy. The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy
    and the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control,
    Communications, and Intelligence) to develop plans for such
    transition and report the plans to the Congressional defense
    committees with the submission of the fiscal year 1998 Defense
    budget request.

    Passive millimeter wave camera

        The committee recognizes the early development by the Army
    of the passive millimeter wave camera and recommends an
    additional $12.0 million in PE 63226E for integration on an
    aircraft with specific application to airborne wide-area
    surveillance.

    Quiet Knight advanced technology demonstration

        The budget request did not include any funding for
    continuation of the Quiet Knight advanced avionics technology
    demonstration program. In its consideration of the fiscal year
    1996 budget request for Special Operations Tactical Systems
    Development, the committee expressed strong support in the
    committee report on H.R. 1530 (H. Rept 104-131) for a Phase I
    (component development and demonstration) of an advanced
    concept technology demonstration of Quiet Knight low
    probability of intercept/low probability of detection (LPI/D)
    avionics for both fixed and rotary wing aircraft and
    continuation to a Phase II full scale demonstration and flight
    test of the Quiet Knight capability. In the statement of
    managers accompanying the conference report on S. 1124 (H.
    Rept. 104-450), the conferees supported completion of the Quiet
    Knight technology demonstration, and encouraged the Department
    of Defense to validate the requirements for advanced LPI/D
    avionics for special operations aircraft.
        The committee understands that initial studies on
    requirements for low-level penetration aids have been completed
    which recommend reducing aircraft electronic emissions and that
    further LPI/D studies will be completed by December 1996.
    Flight demonstrations will follow in the Summer of 1997. The
    committee understands that sufficient funds are available from
    prior years to support the completion of the advanced
    technology demonstration and that no additional funds are
    required for the program through fiscal year 1997. The
    committee understands that the program will compete for funding
    in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.

    Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts

        The Rapid Acquisition of Manufactured Parts (RAMP) program
    is being transferred from the Department of the Navy to the
    Defense Logistics Agency. As a consequence, the Department
    failed to request funding for fiscal year 1997. Accordingly,
    the committee recommends an additional $12.0 million in PE
    63736D for fiscal year 1997 to provide transition funding to
    support the program until fiscal year 1998.

    Rigid hull inflatable boat

        The budget request included $5.0 million for procurement of
    special warfare equipment, including $4.1 million for
    procurement of the Naval Special Warfare 10 meter Rigid Hull
    Inflatable Boat (RHIB). The committee recommends an increase of
    $2.75 million in PE 1160404BB to complete development and
    operational testing of competing prototype RHIBs, a downselect
    decision to a single contractor, and other activities relative
    to a Milestone III decision in fiscal year 1997. To offset the
    increase, the committee recommends a corresponding reduction in
    the procurement account for special warfare equipment.

    Special operations M4A1 carbine modifications

        The budget request included $2.0 million in PE 1160404BB
    for Special Operations Weapons and Support Systems Advanced
    Development, including $1.7 million for development of the
    integrated night/day/observation/fire control device (INOD) for
    the M4A1 carbine. The committee recommends an increase of $1.9
    million to the budget request to accelerate the development of
    the INODS and provide integrated day/night target acquisition
    and fire control out to a range of 500 meters for the special
    operations version of the M4 carbine.

    Specialty metals

        For several years the committee has provided both guidance
    and funding for specialty metals development such as alloys of
    beryllium and titanium to ensure that the unique properties of
    these metals could enhance the effectiveness of military
    systems and strengthen the industrial base as a by-product. The
    committee has relied on the programs of the Defense Advanced
    Research Projects Agency in its advanced material partnerships
    program which has been very successful in achieving those
    objectives.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to continue
    these partnerships in its fiscal year 1997 materials program
    and to effectively transition the specialty metals program to
    an appropriate military service applied science program element
    in fiscal year 1998.

    Tactical fiber optic communications

        The committee recommends an increase to the budget request
    of $3.0 million in PE 32019K to investigate the military
    applications of the planned world wide commercial fiber optic
    grid. This increase is intended to support the Defense
    Information Systems Agency proof of concept demonstration of
    the ability to establish Department of Defense ``splices'' into
    the planned worldwide fiber optic grid before it is fully
    deployed. The committee also recommends an increase $1.75
    million in PE 63640M for the Navy and the Marine Corps to
    exploit commercial advances in lightweight fiber optics for
    communications purposes and demonstrate the use of lightweight
    tactical fiber optics for communications in a littoral
    scenario.

    U-2 aircraft

        The budget request included $28.3 million in PE 35154D for
    sensor upgrades to the U-2 aircraft.
        The committee is deeply concerned about the technical
    health of the various sensors carried on the U-2. The special
    sensors, for example, have not been upgraded since 1991 and are
    currently in several different configurations. Also, the multi-
    sensor role of the aircraft is limited because the Advanced
    Synthetic Aperture Radar System (ASARS) and Senior Year
    Electro-optical Reconnaissance Systems (SYERS) sensors cannot
    operate simultaneously. Finally, because of older technologies
    and implementations, geolocation accuracy for precision strike
    targeting is insufficient for required operations.
        Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $57.0
    million for critical U-2 sensor upgrades. Of this amount, $10.0
    million is specifically for improving and downsizing the SYERS
    sensor such that SYERS and ASARS can be flown simultaneously.
    These funds should also be used to improve geolocational
    accuracies. The committee directs that up to $7.0 million be
    used for the ASARS Improvement Program (AIP) to ensure this
    upgrade can be fielded by fiscal year 1998. The remainder of
    the funding is to be applied to SENIOR RUBY, SENIOR SPEAR, and
    SENIOR GLASS commonality upgrades. Specifically, the committee
    directs that the Air Force upgrade the SPEAR/RUBY sensors to
    the GLASS configuration, and upgrade the SENIOR GLASS systems
    to an open architecture configuration consistent with an
    architectural approach approved by the Defense Cryptologic
    Program manager.
        Further, the committee directs the Department to determine,
    and program for, the necessary future years level-of-effort
    funding to continue evolutionary U-2 sensor upgrades.

    Unmanned aerial vehicles

        The committee has been and continues to be concerned about
    the Department's UAV program because of the lack of validated
    requirements and the frequency with which ``requirements''
    change; lack of substantive analysis or the failure to provide
    the analysis, if it exists, to the Congress; affordability of
    the UAV program within the context of the Department's overall
    reconnaissance program; the ineptness and lack of preparation
    of the Department in preparing for the transition of the
    Predator UAV from an advanced concepts technology demonstration
    (ACTD) to a procurement program; and the claims made by the
    Department regarding ``joint'' programs versus the reality of
    very different requirements for those programs.
        Major changes were made to the Department's priority for
    UAV programs in 1995. Following what became the final change in
    the Fall of 1995 as a result of a Joint Requirements Oversight
    Council (JROC) meeting, the committee twice requested and was
    refused the analysis from which the JROC recommendations were
    based.
        The committee understands that what at one point was the
    first priority for the UAV program, the Hunter UAV, was
    canceled by the Department. The Maneuver Variant UAV and Hunter
    UAV requirements were merged to become the JTUAV, and
    notwithstanding the claim of jointness, the Army and Marine
    Corps requirements for this system are significantly different.
    In an attempt to incorporate the Navy requirement, the range
    has been increased four-fold. The acquisition strategy calls
    for a down-select from nine to one contractor with no apparent
    concern over maintaining competitiveness in the program. The
    committee has to question that, if the Department's contention
    is correct that the payload and not the vehicle is what is
    important, if there is to be a JTUAV, why would it not be
    prudent to select two contractors to proceed to procurement? A
    heavy fuel engine for the tactical UAV's has been a continuing
    requirement for several years, yet the Department appears
    several years away from achieving this requirement. Close to
    $1.0 billion was expended on the Hunter UAV before it was
    canceled. The budget for the JTUAV is $900.0 million. Yet,
    there is uncertainty with regard to the requirement and its
    affordability.
        The Predator UAV ACTD has been relatively successful, but
    has become a symbol of bureaucratic ineptness as a procurement
    program. Fiscal year 1995 funding for procurement of additional
    vehicles has yet to be put on contract and the Department
    indicates it will be August 1996, before contract negotiations
    can be concluded. Further, the Department has requested funding
    for ``marinization'' of Predator. Other than ensuring that
    Predator UAV data is made available to ships in an area of
    operation, the committee opposes any modification of Predator
    for the purpose of operating the vehicle from ships.
        The committee also notes that the UAV program has been
    limited solely to reconnaissance payloads and questions whether
    adequate consideration has been given to operational
    applications such as laser target designators for UAV's for use
    with stand-off delivery of precision guided munitions. Such use
    would provide significant advantages to the operational users
    in high threat environments.
        Because of these numerous concerns with regard to the
    Department's UAV program, the committee recommends a provision
    (sec. 217) that would prohibit the obligation of funds for the
    Joint Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle until the Secretary of
    Defense meets several certification requirements to the
    Congress, prohibit the obligation of funds for marinization of
    the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, require an advanced
    concept technology demonstration of a laser technology
    designator with a Pioneer, Predator, or Hunter unmanned aerial
    vehicle with air-to-surface precision guided munitions,
    transfer the management and resources for the Predator UAV to
    the Department of the Air Force, and for fiscal year 1998,
    transfer the responsibility for UAV procurement to the military
    departments.
                Dark Star unmanned aerial vehicle
        The budget request included $17.4 million in PE 35154D for
    the ``Dark Star'' unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
        Notwithstanding the recent loss of the first Dark Star
    vehicle, the committee continues to support the objectives of
    the Dark Star program. The committee remains convinced that the
    Dark Star UAV holds significant promise for providing unique
    UAV support to the operational users.
        The committee is aware that the current linear scanning
    array sensor does not provide the integrated multi-disciplined
    imagery capabilities nor geolocation accuracies that an
    integrated electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) framing camera
    could provide. The committee therefore recommends an additional
    $3.5 million for integrating existing EO framing with on-chip
    forward motion compensation technology into the aircraft and
    associated ground processing equipment. Further, the committee
    is aware of the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) coverage problem
    due to the use of a non-developmental antenna. The committee
    understands the required design is completed, but no funds to
    implement the correction are available. Because the committee
    believes there is a need to ensure full ground coverage within
    the radar's field of view, it recommends an additional $10.0
    million be provided to develop and install the necessary radar
    antenna.
        Finally, in the statement of managers accompanying the
    conference report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-450), the conferees
    directed the Department to assess user needs against a more
    capable Dark Star air vehicle. The Defense Airborne
    Reconnaissance Office (DARO) responded specifically to this
    directed action by stating that major improvements could be
    realized. However, the DARO has shown no further interest in
    pursuing such improvements. As representatives from several
    committees were told, the DARO wanted to fly and test this
    aircraft before they would consider any improvements. Yet, this
    same philosophy does not seem to pertain to the Global Hawk
    UAV, as the DARO is pursuing many upgrades to this vehicle's
    capabilities--long before its first scheduled flight in
    December 1996.
        The committee authorizes an additional $4.0 million for
    developing a concept of operations and design of an improved
    Dark Star UAV. This funding is to be specifically used to
    pursue the designs necessary to develop a Dark Star aircraft
    with a unit fly away cost of $20.0 million. The intent of this
    additional authorization is to provide the option for a more
    capable aircraft to potential users that satisfies the
    survivable long dwell reconnaissance need in a high threat
    environment.
                Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle
        The committee directs that no funds authorized for
    appropriation for the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
    be used to develop, procure, integrate or install a signals
    intelligence UAV until the vehicle has completed Phase III of
    the advanced concepts technology demonstration (ACTD) and a
    system procurement decision has been made. Accordingly, all
    funds for such sensor development and procurement should be
    applied to the upgrade of U-2 sensors. All U-2 upgrades are to
    be fully designed and built for compatibility with the Global
    Hawk vehicle.
        Further, the committee is aware of existing state-of-the-
    art imagery technologies which provide both electro-optic (EO)
    and infrared imagery within the same camera. The committee is
    concerned by the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office's
    (DARO) decision to allow the Global Hawk contractor to develop
    a new EO-only camera for the UAV rather than using off-the-
    shelf technologies. The committee directs the DARO to provide a
    report to the Congressional defense and intelligence committees
    that details the analysis that went into this decision, and
    furthermore, provides the rationale establishing why existing
    camera(s) could not be more cost effectively procured. This
    report should be transmitted to the Congress no later than July
    1, 1996.
                Joint tactical unmanned aerial vehicle
        The budget request included $51.4 million for the Joint
    Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (JTUAV). As previously noted,
    the program has evolved from the close range UAV and maneuver
    UAV to the current program. It is one of at least six UAV's
    under development or operational use.
        The Department has issued requests for proposals and
    intends to make an award in May 1996, for the joint tactical
    unmanned aerial vehicle--a program for which there has been no
    authorization or appropriation.
        The committee recommends $33.4 million for this project, a
    reduction of $18.0 million, because of the availability of
    prior year funds.

    Vectored thrust technology development

        The committee is aware of the Defense Advanced Research
    Projects Agency's outyear interests in the Vectored Thrust
    project. The committee understands that the DP-2, as part of
    this project, requires additional funding to complete testing
    and demonstration. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
    additional $12.0 million in PE 62702E to complete testing of
    the DP-2 project.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                  Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

                  Section 201--Authorization Of Appropriations

        This section would authorize Research, Development, Testing
    and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for fiscal year 1997.

               Section 202--Amount For Basic And Applied Research

        This section would specify the amount authorized for fiscal
    year 1997 for technology base programs.

                   Section 203--Dual Use Technology Programs

        This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
    designate a senior official, reporting directly to the
    Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, whose
    sole responsibility would be to develop policy and ensure
    effective execution of dual use programs and integration of
    commercial technologies into military systems. Further, the
    provision would require that not less than five, seven, ten,
    and fifteen percent, respectively for fiscal years 1997-2000,
    of each service's science and technology program be available
    only for dual-use cost-shared programs.

        Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

                    Section 211--Space Launch Modernization

        This section would authorize $50.0 million for a
    competitive reusable space launch vehicle (RLV) program and
    permit obligation of the authorized funds only to the extent
    that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
    current operating plan allocates at least an equal amount for
    the RLV program.

         Section 212--Live-Fire Survivability Testing of V-22 Aircraft

        This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to waive
    the survivability testing requirements of section 2366, title
    10, United States Code, notwithstanding the fact that the V-22
    tilt-rotor aircraft program has already entered engineering and
    manufacturing development. The section would also require the
    Secretary to the report to the Congress on how the Secretary
    plans to evaluate the survivability of the V-22 aircraft, his
    assessment of possible alternatives to realistic survivability
    testing of the aircraft, and alternative survivability test
    requirements for the conduct of any alternative live-fire test
    program.

         Section 213--Live-Fire Survivability Testing of F-22 Aircraft

        This section would amend section 2366(c) of title 10,
    United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to
    exercise the waiver authority in such section, with respect to
    the application of survivability tests for the F-22 aircraft,
    notwithstanding that such program has entered full-scale
    engineering development.

     Section 214--Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions, Rockets, and
                                   Explosives

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
    establish a five-year program for the development and
    demonstration of environmentally compliant technologies for the
    disposal and demilitarization of conventional munitions,
    explosives, and rockets, and would authorize an appropriation
    of $15.0 million in fiscal year 1997 for that purpose.
        The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
    (Public Law 104-106) made available $15.0 million to establish
    an integrated program for the development and demonstration of
    environmentally compliant technologies for the demilitarization
    and disposal of conventional munitions, explosives, and
    rockets. In the statement of managers accompanying the
    conference report on S. 1124 (H. Rept. 104-150), the conferees
    expressed their concern about requirements for disposal of
    growing numbers of unserviceable, obsolete, or non-treaty
    compliant munitions, rocket motors and explosives. As
    environmental constraints increasingly restrict the traditional
    disposal methods of open burning or open detonation,
    development and demonstration of environmentally compliant
    technologies for this purpose become even more urgent. The
    conferees directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
    to the Congressional defense committees of the DOD plan for
    establishment of such a program. That report has not yet been
    received, nor have the funds for this program that were
    authorized and appropriated by the Congress been released by
    the DOD Comptroller.
        The committee notes that the report ``Joint
    Demilitarization Study'', September 1995, prepared by the Joint
    Ordnance Commanders Group (JOCG), forecasts growth in the
    current U.S. inventory of excess, obsolete, and unserviceable
    conventional munitions, tactical missiles and large solid
    propellant rocket motors from 449,308 tons (as of March 31,
    1995) to 730,420 tons by the end of fiscal year 2001, if the
    then current demilitarization funding trends were maintained.
    This obsolete stockpile occupies 4.1 million square feet of
    storage space in 27 states and costs an estimated $12.0 million
    per year to store.
        The committee is aware that procurement funding for
    conventional munitions demilitarization has decreased annually
    since fiscal year 1995. The committee notes that with the
    exception of funding provided for the Joint Service Large
    Rocket Motor Demilitarization Program and congressionally
    directed activities, less than $5.0 million has been available
    annually since fiscal year 1992 for research and development of
    technologies for the demilitarization of conventional munitions
    and explosives. The committee is also aware that in response to
    direction from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
    Joint Ordnance Commanders Group (JOCG) developed a five-year
    plan for conventional ammunition demilitarization research and
    development and recommended a $15.0 million annual program,
    although the annual requirement was $30.0 million. The JOCG
    proposal was approved but was not funded.
        The committee believes that procurement funding must be
    provided to support ongoing demilitarization programs; however,
    a sustained and adequately funded demilitarization technology
    development and demonstration program must be established as a
    matter of urgency in the Department of Defense. In such a
    program, the committee encourages the consideration of a range
    of competitively selected potential resource recovery and
    alternative demilitarization technologies, including (but not
    limited to) cryogenic washout, supercritical water oxidation,
    molten metal pyrolysis, plasma arc, catalytic fluid bed
    oxidation, molten salt pyrolysis, incineration, critical fluid
    extraction and ingredient recovery, and underground contained
    burning. The committee believes that an annual funding level of
    approximately $15.0 million is required for the duration of
    such a program.-

       Section 215--Research Activities of the Defense Advanced Research
      Projects Agency Relating to Chemical and Biological Warfare Defense
                                   Technology

        This section would amend the provisions of section 1701 of
    the National Defense Authorization Action for Fiscal Year 1994
    (Public Law 103-160) and clarify the role of the Defense
    Advanced Research Projects Agency in the Department of Defense
    chemical and biological warfare defense technology research and
    development program. The intent of the amendment is to
    capitalize on the traditional function and flexibility of the
    Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in research,
    development, and exploitation of advanced technologies for the
    most difficult defense problems, while insuring that the DARPA
    program is coordinated and integrated with the overall defense
    chemical and biological warfare defense research and
    development program.

          Section 216--Limitation on Funding for F-16 Tactical Manned
                            Reconnaissance Aircraft

        This section would limit total obligations for research,
    development, test, and evaluation; procurement; and
    modifications for the F-16 Tactical Manned Reconnaissance
    aircraft to $50.0 million, plus the amounts required for
    incorporating the Common Data Link into the system.

                     Section 217--Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

        This section would prohibit the authorization of
    appropriations for the Joint Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle,
    prohibit the authorization of appropriations for marinization
    of the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, and require an
    advanced concept technology demonstration of a laser technology
    designator with a Pioneer, Predator, or Hunter unmanned aerial
    vehicle with air-to surface precision guided munitions.

            Section 218--Hydra-70 Rocket Product Improvement Program

        This section would authorize $15.0 million for completion
    of the Hydra 70 rocket product improvement program.

                Section 219--Space-Based Infrared System Program

        This section would authorize funds for the Space-Based
    Infrared System (SBIRS) program, prohibit the obligation or
    expenditure of funds until the Secretary of Defense issues a
    certification to Congress, and direct the Secretary to consider
    the appropriate management responsibilities for the Space and
    Missile Tracking System program.

          Section 220--Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) Program

        This section would authorize funding for the Joint Advanced
    Strike Technology program only for advanced technology
    development, preclude obligation of any development funding for
    the Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing derivative
    aircraft, and require an analysis of alternative force
    structures and program costs.

      Section 221--Authorization for Joint United States-Israeli Nautilus
                    Laser/Theater High Energy Laser Program

        This section would state that the Congress strongly
    supports the Joint U.S.-Israeli Nautilus Laser/Theater High
    Energy Laser programs and encourages the Secretary of Defense
    to request authorization to develop these programs as agreed to
    April 28, 1996, in the statement of intent signed by the
    Secretary of Defense and the Prime Minister of the State of
    Israel.

        Section 222--Nonlethal Weapons Research and Development Program

        This section would authorize $3.0 million of the funds
    requested in PE 63640M to be used only for nonlethal weapons
    research and development.

                 Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Programs

    Section 231--Funding for Ballistic Missile Defense for Fiscal Year 1997

        This section would authorize funding for ballistic missile
    defense research and development activities in fiscal year
    1997.

      Section 232--Certification of Capability of United States to Defend
                        Against Single Ballistic Missile

        This section would require the President to submit to the
    Congress a certification stating whether the United States has
    the military capability to intercept and destroy a single
    ballistic missile launched at the territory of the United
    States.

             Section 233--Policy on Compliance With the ABM Treaty

        The current dispute between the Congress and the President
    over theater missile defense (TMD) ``demarcation'' hinges
    largely on the issue of whether U.S. obligations under the
    Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty as a whole and under
    article VI(a) of the Treaty in particular are sufficiently
    clear such that the Secretary of Defense, who is charged by the
    President with the responsibility, can certify in good faith
    that the TMD systems currently under development by the United
    States can be tested and deployed in compliance with those
    obligations. In Article VI(a), each party undertakes not to
    give non-ABM systems ABM capabilities and not to test non-ABM
    systems in an ABM mode.
        The Secretary of Defense in the previous Administration
    took the position that the obligations of the parties under
    article VI(a) of the Treaty were sufficiently well understood
    that a standard of compliance could be developed unilaterally
    so as to enable the development and deployment of TMD systems
    then under development by the United States, including the
    Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and Navy
    Upper Tier. Furthermore, this approach would have allowed full
    exploitation of data derived from space-based sensors, such as
    the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS), for TMD purposes.
        The current Administration has rejected adopting on a
    unilateral basis the compliance standard recommended by the
    Secretary of Defense from the previous Administration. Instead,
    it chose to revise the standard and then seek Russian agreement
    to that revised standard in order to permit the development and
    deployment of U.S. TMD systems such as THAAD and Navy Upper
    Tier. By choosing to seek Russian concurrence in what should
    have been a unilateral decision, the Administration has
    effectively granted Russia a veto over the technical
    capabilities of U.S. TMD systems. Further, pending the outcome
    of the negotiations, the Administration has artificially
    constrained the design and performance of THAAD and Navy Upper
    Tier, in effect ``dumbing down'' these systems in order to
    comply with alleged, perceived obligations under article VI(a)
    that do not exist.
        Therefore, the committee once again endorses the approach
    to a compliance standard recommended by the Secretary of
    Defense in the previous Administration, and which was adopted
    by the 103rd Congress in section 234(a)(7) of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-
    160) and reaffirmed by the 104th Congress in section 235 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public
    Law 103-337). The committee recommends a provision (sec. 233)
    that would codify this standard for assessing compliance of
    systems with the ABM Treaty, state certain prohibitions, and
    define an ABM-qualifying flight test. The committee notes that
    this standard is entirely consistent with U.S. obligations
    under the Treaty. Finally, the committee finds that
    continuation of negotiations with the Russians on this subject
    is both unnecessary and potentially deleterious to U.S.
    national security interests.

    Section 234--Requirement That Multilateralization of the ABM Treaty Be
                     Done Only Through Treaty-Making Power

        The committee remains deeply concerned by the
    Administration's proposal to multilateralize the Anti-Ballistic
    Missile (ABM) Treaty by adding a dozen or more signatories from
    the states of the former Soviet Union. To date, the
    Administration has failed to provide a compelling case for why
    multilateralization is necessary or in the security interests
    of the United States.
        Among the republics of the former Soviet Union, only the
    Russian Federation has fielded an ABM system or possesses the
    technological capacity to develop and deploy such a system. The
    remaining former Soviet republics have no equities in the
    Treaty. In addition, multilateralizing the Treaty would
    increase the probability that a single former Soviet republic
    could block any amendment, modification, or clarification to
    the Treaty, including agreements that the United States and
    Russia might find in their interest to adopt. The
    Administration's proposal to multilateralize the ABM Treaty
    would grant to Russia and other former Soviet republics a right
    of veto over any Treaty modifications needed to permit
    deployment of a highly-effective NMD system.
        For these reasons, the committee recommends a provision
    (sec. 234) that would state that any addition of a new
    signatory party to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (in
    addition to the United States and the Russian Federation)
    constitutes an amendment to the treaty that can only be agreed
    to by the United States through the treaty-making power of the
    United States. This section would prohibit the obligation or
    expenditure of funds for any fiscal year for the purpose of
    implementing or making binding upon the United States the
    participation of any additional nation as a party to the ABM
    Treaty unless that nation is made a party to the treaty by an
    amendment to the Treaty that is made in the same manner as the
    manner by which a treaty is made. Finally, the committee notes
    that this section is fully consistent with section 232 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public
    Law 103-337).

       Section 235--Report on Ballistic Missile Defense and Proliferation

        This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
    submit a report to Congress by December 31, 1996, on ballistic
    missile defense and proliferation. In requiring the report, the
    committee directs the Director, Ballistic Missile Defense
    Organization to address the various relationships between
    theater ballistic missile defense, national ballistic missile
    defense, and U.S. counterproliferation objectives.
        The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including
    nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and the missiles
    that can be used to deliver them, constitutes a serious and
    growing threat to the security of the United States and U.S.
    allies. To date, traditional arms control and nonproliferation
    measures to prevent proliferation have met with limited
    success. The committee believes that insufficient attention is
    being given by the Administration to the role that ballistic
    missile defense can play in preventing proliferation. The
    ability to counter ballistic missiles once launched devalues
    the political and military utility of these weapons as
    instruments of terror or military significance. This was
    recognized by former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, who noted
    that ``effective missile defenses can reduce incentives for
    proliferators to develop, acquire, or use ballistic missiles
    and weapons of mass destruction.'' In the committee's view, it
    is reasonable to assume that nations with scarce resources may
    think twice about investing in expensive military means that
    can be easily countered.
        In addition to its role as a preventive, ballistic missile
    defense can also protect against the effects of proliferation
    should efforts to prevent it fail. However, the
    Administration's Defense Counterproliferation Initiative,
    announced in December 1993, failed to consider the role that a
    national missile defense can play in achieving the
    counterproliferation mission. In addition, the Administration's
    recent report on ``Proliferation: Threat and Response'' notes
    that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the
    missile that can deliver them ``presents a grave and urgent
    risk to the United States and our citizens * * *.'' However,
    the report makes no mention of national missile defense.

    Section 236--Revision to Annual Report on the Ballistic Missile Defense
                                    Program

        Section 224(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189) established
    a reporting requirement for the Strategic Defense Initiative
    program. With the changed focus of the program, several of the
    reporting requirements are no longer valid. This provision
    would update the requirement for the annual ballistic missile
    defense report to Congress.

                        Section 237--ABM Treaty Defined

        This section would define the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)
    Treaty for the purposes of this subtitle.

           Section 238--Capability of National Missile Defense System

        This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
    ensure that any national missile defense system deployed by the
    United States is capable of defeating the threat posed by the
    Taepo Dong II missile of North Korea.

                           Subtitle D--Other Matters

    Section 241--Uniform Procedures and Criteria for Maintenance and Repair
                           at Air Force Installations

        This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
    to allocate real property maintenance and repair funds for all
    of its bases and facilities using the same procedures and
    criteria. Under current procedures and criteria the test and
    evaluation bases and facilities within the Air Force are at a
    significant disadvantage in the allocation of resources for
    this purpose.

        Section 242--Requirements Relating to Small Business Innovation
                                Research Program

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
    ensure that the Small Business Innovation Research program be
    managed and executed, for each program element for research and
    development for which $20.0 million or more is authorized, by
    the program manager for the program element.

    Section 243--Extension of Deadline for Delivery of Enhanced Fiber Optic
                         Guided Missile (EFOG-M) System

        This section would extend the time for the conduct of the
    EFOG-M program to include critical field evaluation testing
    that occurs after September 1998.

     Section 244--Amendment to the University Research Initiative Support
                                    Program

        This section would propose changes in the data base for
    calculation of university eligibility for the University
    Research Initiative Support Program. Current law requires the
    Department of Defense to use prior fiscal year data in
    determining eligibility. Since complete data is not available
    until the second quarter of the current fiscal year, the
    program is forced to expend funds in the next fiscal year. The
    proposed change would remove this restriction and allow the
    Department of Defense to use the most recent complete fiscal
    year data in determining eligibility. In practice, the two
    years to be used would be the third and second years prior to
    appropriations. This would allow ample time for a competitive
    award cycle with expenditures in the year of appropriations.

     Section 245--Amendments to Defense Experimental Programs to Stimulate
                              Competitive Research

        This section would allow the Department more flexibility to
    customize the defense experimental program to stimulate
    competitive research (DEPSCoR) program for defense needs and
    help to improve the administration of the program. The
    eligibility analysis can be performed within the Office of the
    Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) using the
    same data as the National Science Foundation, thus allowing for
    more timely execution of the program.

    Section 246--Elimination of Report on the Use of Competitive Procedures
        for the Award of Certain Contracts to Colleges and Universities

        This section would eliminate the annual reporting
    requirement on the use of competitive procedures for award of
    research and development contracts, and the award of
    construction contracts, to colleges and universities. This
    report is of limited value and duplicates action required on
    the part of the Department to inform the Congress of contracts
    and awards made to those entities non-competitively prior to
    the award.

            Section 247--National Oceanographic Partnership Program

        This section would establish a mechanism whereby federal
    agencies and the Department of the Navy can leverage all U.S.
    oceanographic efforts to the benefit of the Department of
    Defense, other federal agencies, and non-federal organizations.
    This section would also establish a National Oceanographic
    Leadership Council to coordinate national oceanography
    programs, partnerships and facilities; establish an Oceans
    Research Partnership Coordinating Group; and an Ocean Research
    Advisory Panel to conduct the program management activities of
    the partnership program.
                      TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

                                   OVERVIEW-

        Less than two years ago, members of the committee uncovered
    troubling indications that defense budget cuts, force structure
    reductions, increased operating tempo, and the diversion of
    readiness funds to pay for unplanned and unbudgeted
    contingencies, were resulting in what could only be described
    as the early stages of a downward readiness spiral. Routine
    training was being canceled, maintenance of weapons, equipment
    and facilities was being deferred, spare parts were not being
    bought, and overall readiness levels were suffering.
        Readiness is a perishable commodity and sustaining it
    demands constant attention. Consequently, the committee
    embarked on a multifaceted strategy for maintaining readiness
    which included addressing funding shortfalls in key readiness
    accounts, improving internal Pentagon readiness reporting,
    crafting mechanisms for funding contingency operations in order
    to preclude the diversion of funds from readiness accounts, and
    pushing for reform of the defense support infrastructure
    necessary to free additional resources for readiness and
    modernization efforts.
        The committee's actions have helped to address the
    unacceptable trends in short-term readiness. Nevertheless, the
    committee notes that the underlying root causes that led to
    recent readiness problems still exist today. The Administration
    continues to reduce defense spending while it struggles with a
    severely underfunded defense program. Force structure is still
    declining and for the first time, the President's budget
    envisions reducing endstrength below the Bottom-Up Review
    levels. The pace of military operations has not slowed and is,
    in fact, higher than during the Cold War. The result is a shell
    game where modernization of the forces--future readiness--is
    sacrificed to protect near-term readiness. The committee does
    not believe that funding near and long-term readiness can be
    mutually exclusive propositions.
        While intended to shore up near term readiness, this shell
    game strategy has a debilitating effect on key readiness
    accounts. In response, for fiscal year 1996 the Congress added
    approximately $1.1 billion in the areas of real property
    maintenance, depot maintenance, base operations support,
    mobility enhancements and reserve readiness. However, the
    President's request reduces funding in these accounts by over
    $1.5 billion from fiscal year 1996 levels. The committee is
    disturbed by the degree to which Congress' attempts to bolster
    readiness funding in key accounts last year was ignored in the
    budget request.
        The committee believes that continued underfunding of these
    key readiness accounts will only perpetuate the degradation of
    force readiness. Therefore, to address these and other
    shortfalls, the committee recommends a funding increase of $1.9
    billion above the operation and maintenance budget request of
    $88.9 billion for a total of $90.7 billion. In key readiness
    accounts, the committee has added $1 billion for real property
    maintenance, $190 million for depot maintenance, $190 million
    for base operations support, $100 million for mobility
    enhancements, and $90 million for reserve component training.

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                             Intelligence Programs

                          Defense Mapping Agency (DMA)

        The budget request included $698.9 million for continued
    operations of the DMA. Of this amount approximately $30 million
    was designated for funding a future National Aeronautics and
    Space Agency (NASA) Space Shuttle (STS) to conduct earth
    imaging operations for mapping purposes.
        The committee supports this STS mission effort, but is not
    aware of a firm availability of a shuttle flight to carry the
    mapping payload. Therefore, the committee fences $30 million of
    DMA operations and maintenance funding until DMA has a firm
    commitment and date for the STS mapping mission from NASA.
        Additionally, the Defense Science Board (DSB) recently
    provided some study recommendations for improving DMA business
    practices and operations. Specifically, the DSB recommended DMA
    production processes be reengineered to move away from making
    maps and toward maintaining multi-source digital geospatial
    information data bases--this includes incorporating commercial
    products. While the committee recognizes that DMA cannot
    terminate its paper map products in the short-term, it does
    recognize the fact that the DSB stressed that DMA needs to move
    in this direction. Therefore, the committee directs DMA to
    provide the Congressional defense and intelligence committees
    with a detailed evaluation of the DSB report, and a plan for
    implementing those DSB recommendations it considers
    appropriate. An interim report of this plan should be provided
    to the Congressional defense and intelligence committees prior
    to the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization conference, with
    a final report provided no later than April 1, 1997.
        Finally, the committee notes the budget request for DMA did
    not include funding for the lease of the DMA Reston Center
    which had, prior to fiscal year 1997, been included in the
    National Reconnaissance Program (NRP).
        The statement of managers accompanying the conference
    report on S. 1124 (H. Rept 104-450), directed that costs for
    this facility should not be maintained in the NRP, and directed
    that these funds be moved from the NRP into the Joint Military
    Intelligence Program (JMIP) DMA accounts. Therefore, the
    committee recommends this program be increased by $27.1 million
    from funds transferred from the NRP.

               Over The Horizon Backscatter (OTH-B) Radar System

        The budget request included $5.693 million for continued
    ``warm storage'' maintenance of the two OTH-B radars. These
    radars are being maintained as part of NORAD's ``reconstitution
    assets.''
        The committee understands that it will require at least 24
    months to bring these first generation OTH-B radars out of
    caretaker status and into an operational status--if such a
    decision were made. The committee also understands that major
    upgrades, costing millions of dollars, will be necessary to
    bring out-dated technology up to modern standards.
        When considered with the totality of terrestrial and space
    based warning systems, the committee is not convinced the
    projected threat, or the technical capabilities of these older
    systems, warrants continued caretaker maintenance. The
    committee does, however, understand the potentially high costs
    to the U.S. Government of closing these systems down and
    returning the lands to the individual states.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
    to conduct a study that determines the viability of retaining
    or terminating these radars. This study should include fully
    identified costs for all recommendations. The Secretary is to
    provide an interim report on the results of this study before
    the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization conference, with a
    completed report no later than April 1, 1997.

                                   Pacer Coin

        The budget request included $8 million for operations of
    the PACER COIN special missions C-130.
        In the statement of managers accompanying the conference
    report on S. 1124 (H. Rept 104-450), the conferees directed the
    Department of Defense to determine if PACER COIN could be
    configured to perform multiple missions including the PACER
    COIN, SENIOR SCOUT and airdrop missions. This direction was
    based on the condition that a PACER COIN-only mission would not
    be supported by the House.
        Preliminary indications are that such modifications are not
    only possible, but cost effective and would provide a viable
    and unique multi-role aircraft. However, the President's
    request included no funds for such modifications, and this
    committee has received no indication from the National Guard
    Bureau that this was an effort they wished to pursue.
    Therefore, the committee denies the PACER COIN funding request.

                                  Senior Scout

        The budget request included $1.3 million for operations of
    the SENIOR SCOUT intelligence support system.
        The committee recognizes the capability provided by the
    SENIOR SCOUT system, and also recognizes that this system could
    be effectively used to backfill systems such as the RC-135 and
    EP-3 that are being pressed into crisis and contingency areas.
    The committee therefore recommends an additional $600,000 be
    provided for the National Guard CINC's ``initiative fund'' to
    pay for C-130 transport flying hours to carry the SENIOR SCOUT
    package.

                     Morale, Welfare and Recreation Issues

        Appropriated Fund Support For Morale, Welfare And
    Recreation Programs.
        The military services' morale, welfare and recreation (MWR)
    programs are a vital part of the overall quality of life
    offered our servicemen and women. These programs are also
    fundamental to force readiness.
        In reviewing the MWR program for the coming fiscal year,
    the committee received testimony from the military services'
    MWR managers and noted a disparity in the degree of
    appropriated fund support afforded these programs by each of
    the services, particularly in the area of Category A, mission
    sustaining, and Category B, community support programs. While
    MWR programs are funded through a combination of appropriated
    and nonappropriated funds, the committee understands that it is
    Department of Defense (DOD) policy guidance to use appropriated
    funds for 100 percent of Category A requirements and 65 percent
    for Category B requirements. While the committee notes that the
    services all increased appropriated fund (APF) support in the
    budget request over the fiscal year 1996 level, only the Air
    Force comes close to meeting the DOD goals, funding 98.6
    percent of Category A and 57.3 percent of Category B.
        Shortfalls in APF support for MWR programs authorized to
    use APF requires the use of nonappropriated funds (NAF) to meet
    requirements. It is the committee's view that the use of NAF
    resources--soldier, sailor, airmen and Marine money--to
    subsidize APF activities should be minimized, and encourages
    the services to meet the DOD policy goals. To address these
    quality of life shortfalls, the committee recommends an
    increase of $60 million for the military services to help
    offset APF shortfalls in the budget request for Category A and
    B MWR programs. These funds may only be used for those programs
    for which appropriated fund support is authorized, and are not
    to be used to replace already budgeted funds thereby releasing
    those funds for other purposes. The committee recommends that
    these additional funds be used, in part, to address shortfalls
    in the areas of fitness centers, libraries, child development
    and other service priorities and directs the military service
    secretaries to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
    and House Committee on National Security no later than March
    31, 1997 on how these additional funds have been allocated. The
    committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to report
    annually to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
    House Committee on National Security, no later than when the
    budget is submitted to the Congress, describing how each
    military service is progressing with maximizing APF support to
    Category A and B programs.
        On a related matter, the Defense Science Board's Task Force
    on Quality of Life, in its October 1995 report, recommended
    reinstatement of appropriated fund reimbursement of non
    appropriated fund services performed in support of activities
    authorized to receive APF support, such as staffing for fitness
    and day care centers. This recommendation was viewed as a means
    to maximize quality of life services. This practice was
    terminated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 1989 (Public Law 100-456) based on concerns about improper
    reimbursements and fund accountability and a lack of
    definitive, uniform guidance by the Secretary of Defense to the
    military services.
        The committee is sensitive to the challenges that exist in
    managing MWR programs in a budget constrained environment and
    wants to provide the necessary tools to facilitate the delivery
    of these critical programs. Therefore, the committee directs
    the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on
    Armed Services and the House Committee on National Security no
    later than June 15, 1996, on a policy for how the Department of
    Defense would implement reinstatement of appropriated fund
    reimbursement, including the circumstances under which such a
    practice would be appropriate and the necessary procedures to
    ensure adequate oversight, control and accountability of
    appropriated funds.

            Defense Commissary Agency/Performance Based Organization

        The committee notes the nomination of the Defense
    Commissary Agency (DeCA) to be a Performance Based Organization
    (PBO) as part of the Vice President's National Performance
    Review government-wide reinvention program. The committee
    understands that PBO's are designed to generate efficiencies
    through the removal of restrictive regulations and statutes and
    the facilitation of best business practices.
        The committee has long recognized the imperative to
    generate efficiencies in the delivery of the commissary,
    exchange, and morale, welfare and recreation (MWR) benefits.
    Streamlining operations, improving business practices, gaining
    efficiencies, and reducing the need for taxpayer support are
    goals which the committee not only strongly supports, but has
    acted upon to provide the tools to accomplish. The committee
    believes that if there are options for delivering these
    benefits that require less appropriated fund support, then they
    should be identified, investigated, validated and implemented.
    The PBO model for DeCA may be such an option.
        As important as the imperative is to generate efficiencies
    in the delivery of these benefits, a more important imperative
    is the protection of these benefits for our servicepeople and
    their families. As the Department of Defense continues to
    pursue the DeCA/PBO concept, the committee expects to be a full
    partner in the decision-making and implementation process. As
    such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report
    to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
    Committee on National Security on any action to implement any
    aspect of the DeCA/PBO concept prior to its implementation.

                       Distribution Of Distilled Spirits

        Section 333 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) required the computation
    of the full cost to the military exchanges for the distribution
    of distilled spirits, including the costs associated with
    management, logistics, administration, depreciation and
    utilities. The purpose of this provision was to ensure that
    distilled spirits are distributed in the most economical
    manner. The committee is interested in the extent to which this
    requirement has resulted in a change in distribution methods.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
    report by December 31, 1996, on the extent to which distilled
    spirits sold on military installations are distributed through
    the exchange distribution system or through private
    distributors, and any costs savings which have resulted from
    this requirement. Additionally, the committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense, in the same report, to discuss the
    advantages and disadvantages of requiring purchases and
    delivery of distilled spirits, for resale on a military
    installation located in the United States, to be made from a
    source within the state in which the military installation is
    located.

                                  Other Issues

                        Abrams Integrated Management XXI

        The committee notes with interest that the Army has adopted
    a comprehensive strategy for M1A1 tank fleet sustainment. To
    address the possibility of latent deficiencies in M1A1 tanks
    that are not detected during readiness inspections, but, due to
    the age of these tanks, could affect their operational
    capabilities during a conflict, the Abrams Integrated
    Management XXI (AIM XXI) proof of principle test program was
    begun in fiscal year 1996. This program would bring 17 M1A1
    tanks to a public depot which, in a partnership with the
    private sector, would completely rebuild and update them with
    the latest modifications. The Army intends to place these re-
    built tanks at the National Training Center along with other
    tanks that have not received any depot level maintenance for a
    test and evaluation period of approximately nine months. On the
    basis of this test, the Army would decide whether to continue
    with this program.
        The committee commends the Army for providing the funding
    in the fiscal year 1996 operation and maintenance account to
    begin this innovative and potentially cost effective
    initiative. If the proof of principle tests are successful, the
    committee expects the Army to provide adequate funding in
    fiscal year 1998 and beyond to continue the AIM XXI program.

                         Ammunition Management Program

        The budget request funds the Army's Ammunition Management
    Program at only 74 percent of the requirement, down from the 96
    percent of the requirement funded in fiscal year 1996. The
    impact of this funding shortfall, if not addressed, will be
    increased backlogs of inspections and maintenance which will
    degrade the confidence of ammunition stockpile managers in the
    readiness of the war reserve stockpile. This situation will
    also preclude efforts to improve the efficient management of
    the ammunition stockpile. Therefore, to address this shortfall
    the committee recommends an increase of $50 million.

                                Army After Next

        The committee is concerned about long-term direction of the
    Army's future modernization and innovation efforts. While it is
    generally supportive of the Army's ``Force XXI'' program, the
    committee notes that the process of fielding the Force XXI Army
    is a long and laborious one. Current Army plans will not result
    in the fielding of any substantial units--even for the Army's
    ``Force Package One'' rapid-response units--under the current
    Force XXI program until the year 2012, just at the point when
    major systems will be in danger of block obsolescence. Moving
    ``Force Package Two''--the rest of the active-duty Army--to the
    Force XXI design would not occur until 2023.
        These projections conflict with the Army's estimates on the
    emergence of potential ``peer competitor'' threats capable of
    challenging the position of the United States as global leader.
    Thus, around the year 2010, the Army foresees the possibility
    of a fundamental shift in the nature of land combat, yet its
    modernization program allows only for the partial fielding of
    Force XXI initiatives throughout the service.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Army that, of the
    amounts authorized for Operations and Maintenance, Army, Force-
    Related Training/Special Activities under Budget Authority 1,
    $5 million be made available to conduct an analysis for ``The
    Army After Next.'' This will allow Army Training and Doctrine
    Command to investigate the possibilities of more radical
    change, both in strategic and operational requirements for land
    combat, than envisioned under Force XXI. The committee
    considers the small amount of funding required to conduct
    wargame analysis of potential concepts a wise investment to
    ensure that the Army's modernization program is fully
    responsive to future threats.

                            Base Closure Transition

        The committee supports a study to determine the need for a
    pilot project to evaluate the personnel implications of
    transitioning Department of Defense employees at facilities
    directed to be privatized by the 1995 Base Realignment and
    Closure Commission. These installations include the Naval
    Surface Warfare Center, Louisville, Kentucky and the Naval Air
    Warfare Center, Indianapolis, Indiana. The Base Realignment and
    Closure Commission recommended that highly skilled employees be
    retained to facilitate the successful transition of these
    facilities to commercial enterprise. The committee believes
    that a pilot project may be useful in addressing personnel
    issues involved with the privatization of highly specialized
    military facilities.

                         Base Operations Support Costs

        The committee is aware that, subsequent to the closure of
    the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and Naval Station, the Navy has
    not adequately budgeted for the base operations support (BOS)
    costs of the remaining tenant commands at the Philadelphia
    Naval Base. The committee is concerned that the Navy has failed
    to identify adequate financial resources to properly fund the
    BOS costs at the Philadelphia Naval Base and urges the Navy to
    act expeditiously to resolve these BOS shortfalls and to ensure
    adequate funds are available in the future to support common
    base services.

                           Concept Development Center

        The committee is concerned about the manner in which the
    Department of Defense, specifically the Office of the Secretary
    of Defense, will manage and evaluate the process of innovation
    tied to new technologies, operational concepts and military
    organizations, especially those innovations linked to
    information processing and ``information warfare.'' The
    committee has learned that initial, experimental efforts
    conducted by the services are being judged by traditional
    measures of effectiveness. The committee is concerned that
    these measures may not be appropriate for evaluating what may
    be a fundamental shift in the paradigm of warfare.
        Therefore, the committee directs that the Department make
    available $10 million of the amounts authorized for Operations
    and Maintenance, Defense Wide, for Washington Headquarters
    Services in Budget Authority 4, to establish a ``Concept
    Development Center'' (CDC) under the Office of Net Assessment.
    Like the RAND Corporation of the early 1950s, the CDC would
    facilitate the intellectual breakthroughs in operational
    concepts, military systems and organizations needed for future
    warfare. Such an office is a necessary bureaucratic device both
    to foster innovation and to contest established bureaucratic
    mechanisms which will seek to tailor revolutionary ideas to
    meet current paradigms of strategy, analysis, testing and
    evaluation. The CDC staff also would be charged with assessing
    the impact of innovation on Pentagon restructuring, service
    roles and missions, alliance relationships, defense structures
    and budgeting processes, and will report to the Secretary of
    Defense.

              Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores

        The Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores
    (COCESS) program was initiated in 1970 to improve the
    efficiency and effectiveness of material management, and
    relieve the military from maintaining large inventories of
    parts and supplies needed for repair and maintenance of
    facilities. The COCESS contractors maintain centralized stores
    located on military installations to provide off-the-shelf
    parts and supplies, similar to the commercial equivalent of a
    hardware store, needed for the day-to-day operations and
    maintenance of real property primarily on Air Force
    installations. The committee is concerned that after many years
    of successful and less costly operation of these stores by
    commercial contractors, the Air Force intends to return these
    stores to government operation without competition. The
    committee understands the existing contracts for these stores
    have been competitively awarded through the OMB Circular A-76
    process with the commercial contractor consistently providing
    this service at a savings to the government of 10 percent or
    higher. At a time when there is great emphasis on outsourcing
    functions that are not inherently a governmental function, the
    committee questions the wisdom of returning these stores to
    government operation. Further, given the apparent and proven
    cost savings of this program, the committee questions the
    failure of the Air Force to initiate a COCESS or other similar
    cost savings programs at all of its U.S. installations, and
    also questions the failure of the other military departments to
    consider COCESS or other cost reduction programs.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
    Force to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed
    Services and the House Committee on National Security not later
    than January 30, 1997, that details the current and future
    plans, to include economic analyses, for the operation of civil
    engineering supply stores on Air Force installations. Further,
    the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to not
    change the current operation of these stores, or to permit any
    alternative procurement methods in violation or circumvention
    of the tenets of any COCESS contractual agreement. In addition,
    the committee directs the Secretary of the Army and the
    Secretary of the Navy to consider the application of the COCESS
    program as a means to further reduce the cost of essentially
    non-governmental functions.

                       Department Of Defense Milk Plants

        Since the end of World War II, the Department of Defense
    (DOD) has operated government-owned, contractor operated milk
    plants in Okinawa, Japan, mainland Japan, and Korea. Operation
    of these milk plants was deemed necessary because fresh milk
    and other dairy products, being highly perishable, could not be
    economically shipped from the United States without spoiling,
    and local dairy sources did not meet U.S. health standards.
    Recent technological advances have led to the development of
    extended-shelf-life milk, with a shelf-life of more than 60
    days. This development provided the DOD with a viable
    alternative to operating the Pacific milk plants.
        The Air Force, which is responsible for managing the
    Okinawa milk plant, decided to close the plant when the current
    contract expired. The Air Force decision was based on the
    availability of the extended-life fresh milk from the United
    States and was viewed as a quality of life issue. The DOD
    Inspector General (IG) conducted an audit and validated the Air
    Force decision. On March 31, 1996, the milk plant on Okinawa
    closed.
        The committee is concerned that U.S. military personnel and
    their families serving in Korea and mainland Japan receive
    equal consideration with respect to their quality of life as it
    relates to access to fresh milk. The committee understands that
    the DOD IG is currently reviewing the requirement to operate
    the remaining DOD milk plant operations in Korea and Japan.
    Given the ability to provide U.S. produced fresh milk in an
    economical manner to U.S. forces on Okinawa, the committee
    questions the need for the remaining milk plants. Therefore,
    the Secretary of Defense is directed to report to the Senate
    Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on National
    Security, no later than December 31, 1996, on the requirement
    for further operation of milk plants in Korea and Japan and
    plans to provide military personnel and their families the same
    quality of life considerations with respect to access to fresh
    milk and dairy products being afforded to U.S. personnel in
    Okinawa.

                       Depot-Level Maintenance And Repair

        While the committee supports privatization of some depot
    maintenance and repair activities, it does not support the
    wholesale privatization of those functions. Current law
    (sections 2466 and 2469 of Title 10, United States Code)
    requires that not more than 40 percent of all funds provided to
    a military department for depot-level maintenance and repair
    may be expended in the private sector, and that prior to the
    movement of any workload valued at $3 million or more presently
    being accomplished by a public depot, competitive procedures
    must be used.
        After significant debate, Congress laid the groundwork for
    the repeal of these provisions with the enactment of section
    311 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    1996 (Public Law 104-106), pending the Department of Defense
    (DOD) providing Congress with a new depot maintenance policy.
    The primary objective of this provision was to provide the DOD
    with increased flexibility to manage its depot-level
    maintenance and repair requirements while ensuring the
    readiness of military forces.
        The requirements of section 311 included a comprehensive
    policy on depot maintenance activities which met certain
    criteria. These included a clear definition of the core
    workload that must be performed in public depots, providing for
    sufficient public depot workload to ensure cost-efficiency and
    technical proficiency, providing for competition for above core
    workloads between public and private entities to achieve cost
    savings, and providing for the maintenance and repair for new
    weapons systems defined as core in public facilities. The
    committee is disappointed that the DOD failed to address these
    and other issues. Additionally, the committee regrets that the
    DOD failed to provide the Congress with information regarding
    the detailed methodology used to determine core requirements
    and specific weapons systems and equipment which support
    mobilization, contingency and emergency scenarios under the
    National Military Strategy, and failed to provide mandated data
    on workload as measured by direct labor hours. The committee
    believes that the DOD response to section 311 appears to have
    been developed without proper consideration of future readiness
    implications.
        Further, DOD has assumed cost savings will be achieved by
    privatization and outsourcing of depot-level maintenance, but
    has offered no concrete data to support that assertion. The
    only data provided to Congress on this matter shows that costs
    savings are achieved when there is competition between the
    public and private sector. In fact, in those competitions, more
    than 50 percent were won by the public sector. Yet, the DOD
    policy does not provide for such competitions. The committee
    believes that competition rather than direct privatization may
    achieve the greatest degree of potential savings.
        Accordingly, the committee will consider changes to
    existing limitations when the DOD provides Congress with an
    acceptable policy for the future accomplishment of depot-level
    repair and maintenance.-

                          Electron Scrubber Technology

        The Department of Defense (DOD) has developed electron
    scrubbing technology, which may be used to eliminate or reduce
    pollutants causing acid rain, air toxins, and volatile organic
    compounds from off gas generated by incinerators, including
    those employed in the chemical demilitarization process. This
    technology may also be a cost effective treatment for waste
    water, such as red/pink water found in trinitrotoluene (TNT)
    manufacturing, storage and disposal facilities. The technology
    involves combining electron beam flue gas scrubbing treatment
    with high average electron beam technology. Developmentally,
    electron scrubbing technology has met its technical milestones
    and is now ready for prototyping and demonstrations at major
    DOD maintenance and operations facilities, most of which face
    significant air and water pollution problems as a result of
    military operations. The committee directs the Department to
    spend up to $10 million for the purpose of demonstrating the
    validity of electron scrubbing technology and its utility for
    large scale application at military installations. The
    committee expects that any contracts awarded pursuant to this
    direction would be made on a fully competitive basis.

                             General Purpose Tents

        During the initial deployment of forces to Bosnia in
    support of Operation Joint Endeavor, U.S. troops experienced a
    leaking problem with the general purpose tents being used. The
    apparent cause of the leakage was a design flaw that
    incorporated seam construction intended for cotton fabric,
    rather than for polyester, which has been in use since 1990 and
    does not have the same self-sealing properties that cotton has
    when exposed to moisture. The approximately 3,000 tents
    deployed to Bosnia were field-repaired with heat-sealed tape
    and enhanced with weather resistant fly covers. However, there
    are approximately 20,000 of these general purpose tents in the
    Department of Defense inventory which require a permanent fix
    to avoid the problems experienced by U.S forces in Bosnia.
        When deployed to the field, tents become a fundamental
    quality of life issue for our forces. The committee understands
    that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is reviewing several
    options for addressing this leakage problem. The committee
    urges DLA to utilize the method that best achieves the repair
    of these tents in the most economical and effective manner and
    recommends an increase of $5 million for this purpose.

                         Integrated Computer Framework

        The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
    may not be taking advantage of currently available computer
    software technology that could be useful in coordinating its
    environmental activities. Therefore, the committee directs the
    Department to spend up to $5 million for the acquisition and
    installation of a computer software framework for defense
    environmental activities that has the capability to integrate,
    analyze and communicate cleanup cost, risk and other related
    information to site managers, regulatory agency personnel, the
    public and others involved in the cleanup decision making
    process. The committee expects that any contract for such a
    system would be awarded on a competitive basis.

                         Manganese Dust Exposure Levels

        The committee is aware of the Department of Defense's (DOD)
    initiative to utilize commercial specifications and standards
    whenever possible. The committee is also aware of the American
    Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist's
    recommendation to lower the Permissible Exposure Level (PEL)
    for all forms of airborne manganese dust and fumes. Manganese
    is a key alloying ingredient in nearly all grades of steel and
    stainless steel as well as most grades of aluminum and
    magnesium, and as such, is used in aircraft, ship and vehicle
    construction, as well as providing power systems for computers
    and communications equipment.
        The committee is concerned that a significant lowering of
    the manganese dust standard may have a serious impact on DOD in
    the area of cost, material availability, flexibility, and
    productivity. Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of
    Defense to consult with the Occupational Safety and Health
    Administration (OSHA) as it proceeds with its rulemaking
    process to reduce the current PEL for manganese. The Department
    should make efforts to avoid costly mandates where they may not
    be necessary. In addition, the committee recommends that the
    DOD provide OSHA with any existing manganese studies to include
    current worker exposure and protective measures currently
    employed, and to begin discussions with industry
    representatives to ascertain how industry can be helpful in
    determining the cost of compliance should a lower PEL be
    adopted by OSHA.

    Military Traffic Management Command's Reengineering Personnel Property
                            Initiative Pilot Program

        The statement of managers accompanying the conference
    report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), directed the Secretary of
    Defense to initiate a pilot program to reengineer household
    goods moves. Congress, the Department of Defense and the
    household goods moving industry recognized the requirement to
    take action to reform the current system in order to improve
    the quality of service to military personnel and their
    families, and, therefore, their quality of life. The conferees
    further directed the Secretary of Defense to report on the
    pilot program and to include comments from industry prior to
    implementation of any aspect of the pilot program.
        After reviewing the required report on this matter, the
    committee is concerned that the Military Traffic Management
    Command's (MTMC) Reengineering Personnel Property Initiative
    Pilot Program does not satisfactorily address concerns raised
    by the small moving companies which comprise much of this
    industry. The committee understands the Department's desire to
    proceed with its pilot program, and remains committed to the
    reengineering effort. However, the committee also believes that
    the concerns of small businesses need to be addressed.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
    to establish a working group of military and industry
    representatives from all facets of the industry to develop an
    alternative pilot program. The working group shall be chaired
    by the MTMC commander, and shall include those Department of
    Defense representatives he deems necessary, not to exceed six
    in number. Industry shall be represented by no more than six
    people, including one each from the American Movers Conference
    and the Household Goods Forwarders Association of America. The
    working group shall submit the alternative program, along with
    the current pilot program proposed by MTMC, to the General
    Accounting Office (GAO) by June 15, 1996 for review. The
    committee directs the GAO to report to the Congressional
    defense committees by July 15, 1996 the results of its review.
    The Department of Defense may not proceed with the formal
    solicitation for, or implementation of, any pilot program prior
    to August 1, 1996.
        The committee further directs that the working group
    established by the Secretary of Defense review the execution of
    the pilot program as it proceeds and recommend solutions to
    problems that might emerge. The committee directs GAO to
    monitor implementation of the pilot program, and any
    recommendations or alternative approaches identified by the
    working group, industry or others, and analyze its
    effectiveness in improving service to military personnel and
    its impact on components of the industry providing moving
    services to military personnel. The committee directs GAO to
    report to the Congressional defense committees the results of
    its analysis as soon as feasible.

                      Mobility Infrastructure Enhancement

        The committee recommends authorization of $100 million to
    improve deployment and mobility of military forces and supplies
    through investment in en-route infrastructure, including
    ammunition loading areas, cargo staging areas, pier and port
    facilities, railheads, aerial port facilities, fuel systems
    repairs, runway, taxiway, ramp repairs, and automated
    information systems and automatic identification technology
    equipment, such as radio frequency tags and bar codes, to
    improve intransit visibility. The funding is authorized in the
    operation and maintenance defense-wide accounts for high
    priority projects with the potential for multiple mobility
    improvements. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
    report on the expenditure of these funds to the Congressional
    defense committees prior to the allocation of these funds, and
    should seek the views of the Commander in Chief, U.S.
    Transportation Command, in determining how these funds should
    be applied.

                          Operational Support Aircraft

        The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
    (DOD) is prematurely rushing to implement a reduction of
    operational support aircraft (OSA) as recommended by the
    Commission on Roles and Missions (CORM) and reviewed by the
    Joint Chiefs of Staff. The committee continues to support the
    overall reduction in OSA aircraft and the need to establish OSA
    needs based on war time requirements. However, the Army appears
    to be making significant program cancellations and re-
    alignments of its aircraft without a clear understanding of the
    impact caused by these actions. The committee is concerned that
    insufficient attention has been given to current missions that
    are cost effective and provide significant flexibility. It also
    appears to the committee that the Army is retiring, replacing,
    or cannibalizing OSA aircraft that have just completed
    significant and expensive upgrades and modernization and
    replacing them with less capable aircraft in need of
    modernization.
        To insure there is no premature and costly loss of
    government assets and capabilities due to the changes currently
    under consideration by the DOD, the committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense to provide to the Congressional defense
    committees, a detailed plan for the reduction and re-
    distribution of all OSA aircraft to include a cost analysis and
    rationale for each action to be taken. Further, the committee
    directs the Secretary of the Army to make no changes in the
    Army OSA program, in existence on March 31, 1996, until the
    submission of the report by the Secretary of Defense.

                           Real Property Maintenance

        The committee is disappointed in the President's request
    for real property maintenance (RPM). As the backlog of
    maintenance and repair of facilities has grown to nearly $13
    billion, the budget request for RPM continues to decrease. The
    RPM budget request for each military service is lower than that
    requested for fiscal year 1996 and ignores the priority
    Congress placed on RPM in adding $700 million in additional
    funding last year. The committee views this situation as a
    serious quality of life issue which demands increased resources
    to reduce the backlog of maintenance and repair of facilities
    that are critical to force readiness and the safety of military
    and civilian personnel.
        The budget request contained $4.6 billion for RPM. The
    committee recommends an increase of $1.0 billion, for a total
    of $5.6 billion. The committee further recommends that the
    increase be distributed as follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    Army..........................................................     320.0
    Navy..........................................................     200.0
    Marine Corps..................................................     180.0
    Air Force.....................................................     200.0
    Army Reserve..................................................      20.0
    Navy Reserve..................................................      15.0
    Marine Corps Reserve..........................................       2.0
    Air Force Reserve.............................................      16.0
    Army National Guard...........................................      29.0
    Air National Guard............................................      18.0
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total Increase..........................................   1,000.0

        The committee directs the military services to apply the
    recommended increase in funding for RPM to required repair and
    maintenance of barracks and dormitories, critical health and
    safety deficiencies, and mission critical operational
    deficiencies.

                               Reserve Readiness

        Reserve forces are increasingly and successfully being used
    to augment active duty units experiencing high operational
    tempo. These forces also provide critical support capabilities
    needed for mission accomplishment. The importance of these
    forces, however, is not reflected in the budget request where
    funding for training falls short. For example, the budget
    request funds Army Reserve and Army National Guard ground
    OPTEMPO at 61 percent and 63 percent respectively, compared to
    92 percent and 80 percent respectively, in fiscal year 1996.
    Therefore, to alleviate these shortfalls, the committee
    recommends an increase of $40 million for the Army Reserve and
    $50 million for the Army National Guard.

                          Standard Missile Maintenance

        The committee is concerned that the Navy has not requested
    sufficient funds for Standard missile intermediate level
    maintenance to meet peacetime operational requirements.
    Additionally, the committee understands that the Navy is
    considering abandoning its current practice of maintaining a
    facility on each coast and consolidating all Standard missile
    maintenance activities at a single site . In order to ensure
    that the Navy has a sufficient number of Standard missiles
    available for deploying ships in peacetime and that adequate
    capacity is maintained on both coasts to support surge
    requirements in time of war or mobilization, the committee
    directs that $8.5 million of the additional funds provided for
    weapons maintenance shall only be available for Standard
    missile intermediate level maintenance processing to be
    performed at both facilities.

                         Total Asset Visibility Program

        The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in
    Operations and Maintenance, Army for the development of joint
    applications of commercial standards and practices to service
    logistics systems and improve the tracking of personnel,
    materiel, and other shipments. The committee notes the progress
    made in the Army's Total Asset Visibility Program and believes
    this initiative should be extended throughout the Department of
    Defense. Commercial firms such as Federal Express have
    pioneered the electronic tracking of parcels both to improve
    service and cut cost. The committee believes that adoption of
    similar practices and technologies throughout the Department of
    Defense can lead to personnel and logistics efficiency, reduced
    costs, and greater operational effectiveness.

                              Unobligated Balances

        The committee notes that the level of unobligated balances
    from prior year operations and maintenance appropriations
    continues to increase, totaling $2.2 billion for all three
    military departments, as of September 30, 1995. The committee
    believes that most of the unobligated funds emanate from
    liquidation of prior years' contracts for which the amount
    initially obligated was in excess of requirements. For this
    reason, the committee recommends a reduction in operations and
    maintenance funding of $50.0 million for the Army, $ 37.5
    million for the Navy, and $37.5 million for the Air Force, to
    be applied to the services' contracts and services budget
    request. The committee expects that this reduction will result
    in the services focusing more attention on the estimating of
    their contract and services needs so that their budget requests
    more accurately reflect requirements.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                  Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

                 Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding

        This section would authorize $90.7 billion in operation and
    maintenance funding for the Armed Forces and other activities
    and agencies of the Department of Defense.

                       Section 302--Working Capital Funds

        This section would authorize $947.9 million for the Defense
    Business Operations Fund (for DeCA) and $1.1 billion for the
    National Defense Sealift Fund.

                   Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home

        This section would authorize $57.3 million from the Armed
    Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund for the operation of the
    Armed Forces Retirement Home, including the U.S. Soldiers' and
    Airmen's Home and the Naval Home.

     Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund

        This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
    transfer not more than $250 million from the amounts received
    from sales in the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
    to the operation and maintenance accounts of the military
    services.

                       Subtitle B--Depot-Level Activities

       Section 311--Extension of Authority for Aviation Depots and Naval
         Shipyards to Engage in Defense-Related Production and Services

        This section would extend through fiscal year 1997 the
    authority provided by section 1425 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for 1991 (Public 101-510) for naval shipyards
    and aviation depots of all the services to bid on defense-
    related production and services.

     Section 312--Exclusion of Large Maintenance and Repair Projects From
        Percentage Limitation on Contracting for Depot-Level Maintenance

        This section would exclude from the restrictions contained
    in section 2466 title 10, United States Code, a single
    maintenance or repair project that represents five percent or
    more of the total amounts made available to a military service
    for depot-level maintenance and repair. When there is a large
    single maintenance project, such as the complex overhaul of a
    nuclear aircraft carrier, the size of the project alone can
    cause an unintended imbalance in the mix of workload between
    the public and private sector. Under current law, not more than
    40 percent of the total funds allocated to a military service
    for depot-level repair and maintenance may be expended for work
    in the private sector. The committee is concerned that a large
    single project should not cause inadvertent disruptions in the
    mandated percentages.

                      Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions

        Section 321--Repeal of Report on Contractor Reimbursement Costs

        This section would repeal subsection (c) of section 2706 of
    title 10, United States Code. That section requires an annual
    report to Congress on the environmental restoration activities
    of the Department of Defense. Subsection (c) requires the
    submission of a report detailing payments made by the Secretary
    of Defense to contractors for the costs of environmental
    response actions. Compiling the data has proved unduly
    burdensome and costly for both contractors and the Department
    of Defense. Moreover, the data provided has not proved
    particularly useful in assessing the Department's management of
    its contracting process or the extent to which contractors may
    be seeking exorbitant or inappropriate reimbursement for
    response action costs.

      Section 322--Payments of Stipulated Penalties Assessed Under CERCLA

        This section would authorize the payment from the Defense
    Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) of stipulated civil
    penalties assessed under the Comprehensive Environmental
    Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
    (Public Law 96-510) at five military installations--Fort Riley,
    Kansas ($34,000), the Massachusetts Military Reservations
    ($55,000), F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming ($10,000), the
    Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island
    ($30,000), and the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, Missouri
    ($37,500). This section would also allow the Department of
    Defense (DOD) to complete environmental restoration projects in
    lieu of stipulated penalties at the Massachusetts Military
    Reservation. Civil penalties are assessed upon a failure to
    achieve cleanup milestones that have been established in
    agreements between DOD, the state, and the Environmental
    Protection Agency. Pursuant to these agreements, separate
    legislation authorizing the payment of such penalties is
    required.

                Section 323--Conservation and Readiness Program

        This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to
    establish and execute a ``Conservation and Readiness Program''
    in order to address natural resources and cultural issues
    affecting military installations or operations on a regional or
    national scale. With the disestablishment of the Legacy
    Resource Management Program, each military service inherited
    the responsibility to manage the natural and cultural resources
    under its jurisdiction. However, many such conservation-related
    activities cut across services lines and have Department of
    Defense-wide significance or are necessary to support joint
    military requirements. For example, assessing bird migratory
    patterns so that operational flights may avoid high bird volume
    transit areas at certain times of the year enhances the safety
    of flight operations for all the services, and it would not
    make sense for each service to perform its own separate study
    of such migratory patterns. Section 323 would allow the
    Department of Defense to conduct regionally significant, multi-
    component, operationally or legally compelled natural and
    cultural activities in a coordinated and uniform and efficient
    fashion.

        Section 324--Navy Compliance With Shipboard Solid Waste Control
                                  Requirements

        The MARPOL Convention (an international treaty) requires
    countries who are parties to that agreement to adopt measures
    requiring their warships to comply with certain garbage
    discharge restrictions to the extent reasonable and practical.
    However, in the United States, the Act to Prevent Pollution
    from Ships (Public Law 96-478) requires Navy surface ships to
    comply with MARPOL special area (the Baltic Sea, the North Sea,
    and the Antarctic Ocean) discharge requirements by the end of
    2000. These special area discharge requirements prohibit all
    but food waste discharges from surface vessels. The Navy is
    required to submit to Congress a plan for achieving compliance
    with this law by the end of 1996.
        Analysis shows that cost of achieving full compliance with
    MARPOL and U.S. standards creates significant problems of
    expense, weight and space aboard ships. For example, the fleet-
    wide cost of installing incinerators would approach $1.2
    billion. Installing compactors would cost approximately $1.1
    billion and could hinder naval operations because of the need
    to rely on garbage collection ships. The Navy has identified
    the use of pulpers and shredders as the preferred alternative
    for special area shipboard solid waste management. This
    approach has the advantages of affordability ($300 million
    fleet-wide) and the preservation of operational capability. In
    addition, this approach is consistent with American obligations
    under international law.
        Section 324 would amend the Act to Prevent Pollution from
    Ships to authorize discharges resulting from the use of pulpers
    and shredders, consistent with the MARPOL Convention. Pulpers
    and shredders would be used by U.S. naval vessels in non-
    special areas, as well as special areas, rather than discharge
    unprocessed trash. All plastics and hazardous garbage materials
    would be returned to shore.

      Section 325--Authority to Develop and Implement Land Use Plans for
                   Defense Environmental Restoration Program

        This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to
    conduct a limited pilot program to develop and implement, as a
    part of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, a land
    use plan for up to ten defense sites where the Secretary is
    planning or implementing environmental restoration activities.
    In developing these plans, the Secretary would be required to
    consult with technical review committees, restoration advisory
    boards, local land use redevelopment authorities or other
    appropriate agencies knowledgeable about the site and land use
    planning. The committee expects that reaching agreement with
    local authorities about the anticipated future land use
    associated with contaminated sites once they are remediated
    should result in cleanup activities that are appropriate to
    that future land use and more expeditious transfer of the
    property upon completion of the remediation. This section would
    require the submission of a report to Congress on the success
    of this program by December 31, 1998.

        Section 326--Pilot Program to Test Alternative Technologies for
     Limiting Air Emissions During Shipyard Blasting and Coating Operations

        The committee is aware of the development of a new
    technology that would allow the control of pollutant by-
    products of abrasive blasting and coating of Navy ships during
    periodic overhaul work. This section would direct the Secretary
    of the Navy to establish a pilot program to test this
    alternative technology, which is designed to capture, destroy
    or remove particulate emissions and volatile air pollutants
    that occur during abrasive blasting and coating operations at
    naval shipyards. The Secretary would be required to test the
    validity of this technology, assess its cost effectiveness and
    the extent to which its use would facilitate compliance with
    environmental laws and regulations, and report back to Congress
    with a recommendation about whether the technology can or
    should be implemented at naval shipyards on a large scale.

      Section 327--Navy Program to Monitor Ecological Effects of Organotin

        The Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988 (OAPCA)
    (Public Law 100-333) was enacted by Congress to protect marine
    life by reducing the quantities of organotin, a highly toxic
    ingredient in antifouling paints used on Navy and other
    vessels, entering the waters of the United States. Despite the
    fact that the Act imposed a March 30, 1989 deadline on the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the certification of
    organotin release rates and water quality criteria, such
    criteria have yet to be established. As a result, states and
    the military are left without uniform national guidance about
    water quality standards for organotin.
        OAPCA also directed the EPA to implement a 10 year
    organotin monitoring program and to submit to Congress annual
    reports on that program. Only one report has ever been
    submitted. The committee is concerned with the lack of progress
    in meeting the requirements of the law.
        This section would require the Secretary of the Navy, in
    consultation with the EPA, to develop and implement a program
    to monitor the concentrations of organotin in the water column,
    sediments, and aquatic organisms of representative estuaries
    and near-coastal waters of the United States, as described in
    OAPCA. The program would be designed to produce high quality
    data to enable the EPA to develop water quality criteria
    concerning organotin compounds. In addition, the Secretary of
    the Navy would be required to submit to Congress, no later than
    June 1, 1997, a report explaining the monitoring program and
    describing the results of the analysis performed pursuant to
    that program.

            Subtitle D--Civilian Employees and Nonappropriated Fund
                               Instrumentalities

    Section 331--Repeal of Prohibition on Payment of Lodging Expenses When
                   Adequate Government Quarters Are Available

        This section would provide Department of Defense civilian
    personnel with the flexibility to make more efficient lodging
    decisions based on overall mission requirements by considering
    overall travel costs. Under current law, the DOD is prohibited
    from paying lodging expenses to a civilian employee who does
    not use adequate available government quarters while on
    temporary duty. The committee believes that this prohibition
    can actually increase DOD costs because consideration is only
    given to lodging costs rather than overall travel costs. There
    are instances when temporary duty requirements involve business
    on and off-base. In those instances, the cost-effective
    business decision, when other factors such as rental car costs
    are considered, may be to use commercial lodging
    accommodations. Additionally, in those instances where there is
    a mix of military and civilian personnel and group integrity is
    deemed important, the use of commercial lodging accommodations
    may be required. The provision would repeal the current
    restrictions and allow civilian personnel to make cost
    efficient decisions when on official travel.

          Section 332--Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay Modification

        This section would allow civilian employees who have
    previously received separation or incentive pay to leave
    federal employment to volunteer for government service without
    the loss of their separation or incentive pay. Under the
    Federal Workforce Restructuring Act (Public Law 103-226),
    civilian employees who receive separation or incentive pay must
    return these payments if they return to government employment
    within five years after separation. There are instances,
    however, where employees are asked to return to government
    service, on a voluntary basis, to serve as advisors or as
    participants on special boards or councils. These employees
    serve without compensation (salary) but do receive
    reimbursement for travel expenses and for per diem. The
    provision would allow such appointments and provide for the
    waiver of the repayment of incentive pay previously received.

                 Section 333--Wage-Board Compensatory Time Off

        This section would provide federal managers of wage-board
    employees the same flexibility to use compensatory time off
    afforded federal managers of general schedule employees. Under
    current law, federal employees who are paid wages determined by
    prevailing rates in a particular geographical area are
    prohibited from receiving compensatory time off in lieu of
    overtime pay. Such compensatory time off has been a cost
    effective method for compensating federal employees paid under
    the general schedule. The committee believes that the provision
    would assist in meeting work demands while reducing costs and
    increasing the morale and safety of employees.

      Section 334--Simplification of Rules Relating to the Observance of
                                Certain Holidays

        This section would allow the head of an agency within the
    Department of Defense to change the federal day off from Monday
    to an alternate day for those employees who would normally have
    Monday off under a compressed work schedule. Under compressed
    work schedules, some federal employees have Monday or Friday as
    a normal day off. When a federal holiday falls on a Monday,
    those employees who would normally have the Monday off are
    required to take the previous Friday off resulting in a
    manpower shortage on Fridays. The Department of Defense has
    reported that the current statutory requirements governing the
    observance of holidays that fall on nonworkdays of employees on
    compressed work schedules has seriously disrupted the operation
    of depots and other industrially-funded organizations. With
    this change, the Secretary of Defense would be able to
    promulgate regulations or policies to deal with such problems
    in all or any individual components of the Department. Other
    agency heads would have similar authority, but those who have
    experienced no problems with the status quo would not be
    required to alter existing procedures.

                         Section 335--Phased Retirement

        This section would authorize the Department of Defense to
    establish a pilot program to encourage some civilians to retire
    in stages by changing current annuity offset rules. Under
    current law, financial penalties are imposed on federal
    civilians who wish to mix retirement with part-time federal
    employment. This section would allow an employee to continue to
    receive his or her full annuity while working 20 to 30 hours
    per week. The re-employed annuitant would also receive a salary
    without offset until reaching a maximum total income, salary
    plus annuity, equal to what the annuitant would have made
    before full-time without retiring. The pilot program would
    allow the period of phased retirement to be limited to no more
    than two years, would be limited to 50 participants at any one
    time, and would terminate on September 30, 2001.

       Section 336--Modification of Authority for Civilian Employees of
     Department of Defense To Participate Voluntarily in Reduction in Force

        This section would allow employees who are not affected by
    a reduction-in-force (RIF) action to volunteer to be separated
    in place of other employees who are scheduled for RIF
    separation. The provision is designed to determine whether
    providing employees with the opportunity to volunteer to be
    part of a RIF action would be an effective downsizing tool.
    Section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) provided this authority
    for a period of one year. The provision would extend this
    authority through September 30, 2001.

      Subtitle E--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities

     Section 341--Contracts With Other Agencies and Instrumentalities for
                               Goods and Services

        This section would provide authority for exchanges and
    morale, welfare and recreation systems (MWR) to enter into
    contracts or other agreements with another department, agency
    or instrumentality of the Department of Defense or another
    federal agency to provide goods and services beneficial to the
    efficient management and operation of exchange and MWR systems.
    Greater efficiencies in the operation of the military exchanges
    and other morale, welfare and recreation activities are
    required. These activities engage in commercial activities that
    can be more efficiently conducted if contracts and agreements
    are permitted among all the activities and with other federal
    agencies. Current law allows contracts with other agencies and
    instrumentalities for the benefit of the commissary system.
    This section would remove impediments to methods for gaining
    efficiencies in the exchange and MWR systems.

    Section 342--Noncompetitive Procurement of Brand-Name Commercial Items
                        for Resale in Commissary Stores

        Brand-name, commercial items are excepted from competition
    in contracting requirements when their procurement is for
    resale in the commissary system. This section would clarify
    that, in order to receive the exception, the commercial item
    has to be regularly sold outside the commissary store under the
    same brand-name as it would be sold in the commissary store.

        Section 343--Prohibition of Sale or Rental of Sexually Explicit
                                    Material

        This section would prohibit the sale or rental of sexually
    explicit written or videotaped material on property under the
    jurisdiction of the Department of Defense to include
    commissaries, all facilities operated by the Army and Air Force
    Exchange Service, the Navy Exchange Service Command, the Navy
    Resale and Services Support Office, Marine Corps exchanges, and
    ship stores.

         Subtitle F--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources

     Section 351--Extension of Requirement for Competitive Procurement of
                       Printing and Duplication Services

        Section 351 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directed the Defense
    Printing Service (DPS) to competitively procure from private
    sector sources at least 70 percent of its printing and
    duplication work. The late enactment of Public Law 104-106
    precluded full implementation of section 351. The section would
    extend section 351 for one additional year and would require a
    report on DPS compliance.

    Section 352--Requirement Regarding Use of Private Shipyards for Complex
                          Naval Ship Repair Contracts

        This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
    award complex ship repairs and overhauls only to qualified
    shipyard contractors. This section would not apply to repairs
    and overhauls performed on the Pacific Coast of the United
    States. Currently, the Navy has a policy for the complex repair
    and overhaul of ships based on a Master Ship Repair Agreement
    (MSRA) system whereby private sector shipyards wanting to
    compete for these repairs are inspected and certified by the
    Navy as being qualified to accomplish the intended ship
    repairs. This pre-qualification of ship repair contractors has
    saved the Navy the expense of having to qualify private
    contractors each time it needs repairs or overhauls for its
    ships. The committee is supportive of this program as it has
    incentivised many private shipyards to make the necessary
    investments in infrastructure and facilities, such as dry-
    docks, additional pier space to accommodate large ships, and
    crew support facilities. The committee believes these upgraded
    shipyards will ensure a ready access to capable and qualified
    repair facilities during times of emergency.
        The committee is concerned that the Navy will soon revise
    its requirements for MSRA shipyards, allowing private shipyards
    who do not have the extensive facilities and capabilities to
    compete for complex overhauls. The committee believes that
    legislatively establishing the current Navy policy for the
    establishment of MSRA requirements will provide stability to
    the Navy ship repair and overhaul program.

                           Subtitle G--Other Matters

       Section 360--Termination of Defense Business Operations Fund and
      Preparation of Plan Regarding Improved Operation of Working-Capital
                                     Funds

        This section would terminate the operations of the Defense
    Business Operations Fund (DBOF) effective October 1, 1998. It
    also would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
    Congress a plan to improve the management and performance of
    the industrial, commercial, and support activities currently
    managed by the DBOF not later than September 30, 1997.
        The committee takes this strong action in order to focus
    the attention of the Department of Defense (DOD) upon serious
    problems created for operational commanders and government
    owned DBOF service providers by the current system. While the
    committee is fully supportive of the concept of providing full
    visibility of the total costs of industrial and support
    services, some consistent level of activity by service
    providers must be maintained in order to provide stability to
    both providers and customers. The committee strongly urges DOD
    to develop a plan which replaces the DBOF with a successor
    activity to provide such stability while protecting unique
    capabilities critical during war or mobilization.

    Section 361--Increase in Capital Asset Threshold Under Defense Business
                                Operations Fund

        This section would raise the capital asset threshold in a
    Defense Business Operations Fund (DBOF) activity from $50,000
    to $100,000. Currently, there is a difference in the capital
    asset threshold between DBOF funded activities and operation
    and maintenance funded activities. Historically, these
    thresholds have been standardized in order to simplify training
    and management requirements. The Department of Defense
    Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-61)
    established the capital asset threshold, the maximum unit cost
    of an item that can be purchased using operation and
    maintenance appropriations, at $100,000. The higher threshold
    reflects the impact of inflation upon equipment and software
    purchases. The provision would standardizes the capital asset
    threshold for DBOF and operations and maintenance activities at
    $100,000.

       Section 362--Transfer of Excess Personal Property To Support Law
                             Enforcement Activities

        This section would provide permanent authority for the
    Department of Defense (DOD) to provide excess personal property
    to state level law enforcement agencies. This property includes
    vehicles, helicopters, weapons, ammunition and other property
    that is needed by law enforcement agencies. Section 1208 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1990 and
    1991, (Public Law 101-189) established a one year program to
    provide excess personal property to law enforcement agencies
    for use in drug enforcement activities. This provision was
    extended until September 30, 1997 by section 1005 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991,
    (Public Law 101-510).
        The committee believes that this program has been
    successful and notes that the overall program responsibility
    was recently moved from the DOD Drug Policy Office to the
    Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The committee is pleased to
    note that several programmatic changes have been made by DLA
    that appear to strengthen the overall program. As this programs
    appears to be beneficial to many law enforcement agencies, the
    committee recommends that the program be made permanent and
    that it be expanded to include all law enforcement activities
    with a priority for drug enforcement activities.

       Section 363--Storage of Motor Vehicles in Lieu of Transportation-

        This section would provide storage, at government expense,
    of privately-owned vehicles for service members when there are
    restrictions on the normal shipment of these vehicles, and
    would also provide storage of vehicles for service members who
    are deployed between 30 and 180 consecutive days. When a
    service member is transferred to an overseas location and is
    authorized to ship his privately-owned vehicle to that
    location, there are times when the location the service member
    is being transferred to prohibits the entry of the particular
    vehicle, or requires extensive modifications be made to the
    vehicle. In these cases, the government does not pay for the
    storage of the service members vehicle if he elects not to ship
    or modify the vehicle. Additionally, when a service member is
    deployed for an extended period of time, usually more than one
    month and less than six months, there currently are no
    provisions for the storage of privately-owned vehicles. The
    committee is aware that frequently, especially for single
    service members, privately-owned vehicles have been vandalized
    and/or stolen while they are on these extended deployments.

         Section 364--Control of Transportation Systems in Time of War

        This section would shift the responsibility for all systems
    of transportation during the time of war from the Secretaries
    of the Army and the Air Force to the Secretary of Defense.
    Current law provides that during times of war, the Army and the
    Air Force assume control independently of transportation
    systems for its service members, munitions, and equipment,
    exclusive of the other services. For efficiency purposes, the
    Department of Defense has established the United States
    Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) as the single manager for
    transportation. The committee believes that the provision is in
    keeping with the single manager for transportation concept.

    Section 365--Security Protection at Department of Defense Facilities in
                            National Capital Region

        This section would permit the Defense Protection Service
    (DPS) to provide emergency protection and security services to
    sensitive defense activities in the National Capital Region
    (NCR). Currently, the DPS provides security services for the
    Pentagon. If emergency protection and security services are
    required at any of the other sensitive defense activities in
    the NCR, the Department of Defense is required to meet these
    needs on a case-by-case, patchwork basis by a variety of legal
    methods. One of these methods is obtaining special deputation
    of DPS officers by the US Marshal Service. Another is by
    requesting delegation of authority for specific functions from
    the Administrator of General Services. Each time these services
    are required, substantial administrative expenses and process
    are involved. The committee is concerned that the present
    situation is not conducive to emergency responses and urgently
    required security requests by NCR defense activities. The
    provision is revenue neutral and would improve responsiveness
    in providing emergency security assistance in the NCR.

     Section 366--Modifications to Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991

        This section would amend the Armed Forces Retirement Home
    Act of 1991 (Pubic Law 101-510) to update the terms of office
    for members of the armed forces or federal civilians who are
    appointed as members of the Retirement Home Board, authorize
    the disposal of real property, and establish annual evaluation
    procedures for the directors of the individual retirement
    homes.

      Section 367--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies That Benefit
      Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
                               Civilian Employees

        This section recommends the authorization of $58 million
    for educational assistance to local education agencies where
    the standard for the minimum level of education within the
    state could not be maintained because of the large number of
    military connected students or the effects of base realignments
    and closures.
        The Department of Education impact aid program provides
    supplementary funds to school districts nationwide to support
    the education of over 540,000 military dependents. The quality
    of the education within the school districts that receive
    impact aid is directly dependent on the payments from the
    program. The committee notes that the level of impact aid
    benefits has been eroded by inflation and that school districts
    impacted by military connected students receive only 40 percent
    of the impact aid that would be paid if the program were fully
    funded.
        The committee supports the recent effort by the Secretary
    of Defense to seek greater support for the impact aid program
    by the Department of Education. The committee believes that the
    ultimate responsibility for providing support for the education
    of the nation's children rests with the Department of
    Education. The committee recognizes there are unique problems
    within the military impact aid program and this section would
    address those concerns. However, the committee does not support
    an increased level of support for the program beyond that
    already addressed in this section.

       Section 368--Retention of Civilian Employee Positions at Military
                  Training Bases Transferred to National Guard

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
    retain civilian employee positions at installations being
    transferred to the National Guard during fiscal year 1997 to
    provide transitional support to active and reserve component
    training missions on the installations. The maximum number of
    employees retained at each installation would not exceed 20
    percent of the federal civilian workforce employed at the
    installation as of September 8, 1995. The requirement to
    maintain a civilian employee position would terminate upon
    departure or retirement of the employee filling the retained
    position, or upon certification by the Secretary of Defense
    that the position is no longer required to support a training
    mission on the installation.

          Section 369--Expansion of Authority To Donate Unusable Food

        This section would expand the list of eligible recipients
    for donations of unusable food items from the Department of
    Defense to include state and local governments, many of whom
    operate their own shelters and food kitchens to assist local
    efforts to feed homeless citizens. The section would also allow
    the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to participate in this
    program. Currently, section 2485 of title 10, United States
    Code, does not include state and local governments among the
    entities eligible to receive donations of unusable and surplus
    food items such as meals-ready-to-eat (MREs), and only allows
    the individual military departments to donate unusable food.
    This section would allow DLA to donate MREs and other excess
    food items from various Defense agencies to cities and states
    who, in turn, could distribute them to homeless individuals and
    families.

                          MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW

        The committee believes that the military personnel budget
    submitted by the President reflects the growing stress of
    attempting to fund a military strategy to fight and win two
    Major Regional Contingencies (MRCs) without the commitment to
    provide the funding necessary to implement it. As a result, the
    Administration's budget request shortchanges the military
    personnel accounts and denies, delays or diminishes manpower,
    compensation, and quality of life initiatives known by the
    administration to be so critical to promoting and protecting
    the quality force needed for a smaller military to win
    decisively on the battlefield. The overall effect of an
    underfunded defense budget is a repeated inability by the
    Administration's military and civilian leaders to keep the
    promises they have made.
        The most glaring example of this can be found in the
    statements of numerous Administration witnesses before the
    committee. While touting that the nine-year military personnel
    drawdown was nearly over, these witnesses also acknowledged
    that the President's budgets for 1998 and 1999 were likely to
    require Army manpower reductions of at least 20,000, and Air
    Force reductions of at least 6,000 below the end-strength
    floors required by law and recommended by the Administration's
    Bottom Up Review (BUR).
        Other trends also illustrate the committee's concern
    regarding the inadequacy of the overall military personnel
    budget request. For example, while the committee is gratified
    that the President, for the first time, is requesting a
    military pay raise that keeps pace with inflation, the
    committee is disappointed that the proposed pay raise appears
    to be funded at the expense of one of the Administration's most
    visible and enlightened 1996 quality of life initiatives: The
    much touted Secretary of Defense commitment to a six-year
    effort to reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses by at least one
    per cent annually. Unfortunately for the 70 percent of military
    members and their families who reside off base in local
    communities and depend on their basic allowance for quarters to
    at least keep pace with housing cost increases, the fiscal year
    1997 defense budget request largely reneges on that commitment.
        Similarly, despite a vocal commitment to improving quality
    of life, the Department remains unable due to lack of funds to
    relieve the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by service members
    who are reimbursed for only two of the three dollars they
    expend during permanent change of station (PCS) moves.
        An inadequate fiscal year 1997 budget request also
    undercuts the Department's oft-stated commitment to quality
    health care. The internal Department struggle to find
    modernization funding resulted in nearly a $500 million
    shortfall in the Defense Health Program. Such a shortfall, if
    left unchanged, would guarantee that most space-available care
    for military retirees at military treatment facilities would
    disappear.
        In contrast to public claims by the Department that the
    fiscal year 1997 budget preserves readiness, the Army personnel
    budget, for example, is underfunded for the second year in a
    row by more than $100 million. To find internal savings to make
    up the difference, the Army, as it did in 1996, proposes to
    delay non-commissioned officer (NCO ) promotions causing
    readiness levels in Army divisions to drop. Also, the Army
    would increase the rate of officer separations and delay
    promotions, thereby exacerbating a 30% officer shortage that
    Congress identified last year. In addition, the Army would also
    delay paying 1996 Congressional initiatives in housing and
    special pays for recruiters.
        Another indicator of the Administration's inadequately
    funded personnel accounts is the absence of initiatives to
    address long-standing major problems confronting personnel
    managers within the Pentagon. For example, even as the United
    States increases the use of the reserve components to augment
    and supplement the active forces in a range of operations, the
    level of full-time manning in the reserve components remains
    insufficient to provide adequately for reserve readiness.
        The committee fears that the ``robbing peter to pay paul''
    budget philosophy pursued by the Administration will ultimately
    destroy the morale of service members and their families, lead
    to a hemorrhage of quality career members and a decline in the
    quality of recruits. In the end, without Congressional action
    to intercede, the committee is concerned that the
    Administration unwillingness to adequately fund military
    personnel needs will ultimately undermine readiness by setting
    the military on the same course to a hollow force as was
    experienced in the late 1970s.
        The committee has acted to reverse the major shortfalls in
    the Administration's fiscal year 1997 military personnel budget
    request. Among the committee initiatives are:
              (1)  A 4.6% increase in the Basic Allowance for
            Quarters in lieu of the 3% increase sought in the
            President's budget, and the establishment of a floor on
            variable housing allowance payments to protect the
            adequacy of housing for junior enlisted families in
            high cost areas.
              (2)  Restrictions on end-strength reductions below
            the floors set in 1996.
              (3)  A package of enhanced reimbursements for
            permanent change of station moves that reduce out of
            pocket expenses.
              (4)  Restoration of the nearly $500 million shortfall
            in the Defense Health Fund.
        Details of these and other initiatives are contained in the
    report that follows related to the military personnel titles of
    the bill.
                  TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                      Air National Guard Fighter Aircraft

        The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
    increase the Air National Guard personnel end strength
    authorizations (576 part-time personnel, 249 active guard/
    reserves, 343 military technicians) above the budget request
    and recommends an increase of $9 million to the personnel
    authorization to provide Air National Guard fighter squadrons
    with 15 primary authorized aircraft (PAA) per squadron vice the
    requested 12.

         Army Military Personnel Account Shortfall for Fiscal Year 1997

        To help rectify a nearly $500 million shortfall, the
    Congress approved an $130 million addition to the Army military
    personnel accounts in the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106). Much to its dismay,
    the committee again finds itself confronted with serious
    underfunding in the Army. Despite efforts to find internal
    savings and efficiencies, the Army's fiscal year 1997 military
    personnel budget request is approximately $190 million short of
    required levels. As a result, the Army declined to fund a range
    of quality of life and recruiting initiatives authorized by
    Congress last year, and has opted for reduced readiness in a
    number of active duty divisions because of an inability to
    promote sufficient non-commissioned officers. Moreover, the
    Army chose to accelerate officer reductions and slow the pace
    of promotions, thereby exacerbating officer manning shortages
    that the committee identified during fiscal year 1996 as being
    as high as 30 percent across the Army.
        In order to minimize the readiness impact of continued Army
    military personnel account shortfalls, and to provide the Army
    the ability to fund key quality of life and recruiting
    initiatives, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
    increase the Army military personnel account and recommends an
    increase of $148 million over the President's budget request.

                    Army Reserve Full Time Manning Increase

        In recognition of the expanded role of the Army Reserve in
    the early-deploying contingency forces and the chronically low
    levels of full time support within the Army Reserve, the
    committee directs the Secretary of the Army to increase the
    number of Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) by 254 personnel and
    recommends an increase of $8 million above the President's
    request for reserves on active duty to support the reserves.
    With this increase, the committee believes that the Army
    Reserve will better be able to support increased operations
    tempo and readiness requirements.

                         Navy Maritime Patrol Aircraft

        The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to increase
    the number of Navy P3C maritime patrol aircraft squadrons by
    two (1 active, 1 reserve) above the 12 active and 8 reserve
    squadrons requested in the President's budget. As a
    consequence, the committee directs the following increases:
    Navy active personnel accounts (End Strength: 418 personnel,
    and $7 million); Naval Reserve personnel accounts (End
    Strength: 97 Training and Administration of the Reserves (TAR)
    personnel, 266 part-time personnel, and $3 million).

                  Reserve Component Individual Training Funds

        One of the overriding lessons learned from the experience
    of reserve components during Operation Desert Storm was the
    fundamental requirement that individuals be properly trained in
    their particular military occupations, and that non-
    commissioned officers (NCO) receive the required professional
    development. Reserve component individual training remains
    significantly underfunded in the President's budget request.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
    increase funding by $31 million over the President's budget
    request for national guard personnel account to fund schools
    and special training for military occupational skill training,
    new equipment training for the Multiple Launch Rocket System
    and Bradley Fighting Vehicle training, as well as NCO
    professional development. In addition, the committee directs
    the Secretary of the Army to increase funding within the Army
    Reserve personnel account to provide troop program unit
    professional development training, as well as individual skills
    training, by $30 million.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                           Subtitle A--Active Forces

                  Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces

        This section would authorize end strengths for active
    forces as indicated in the table below:

        Section 402--Permanent End Strength Levels to Support Two Major
                             Regional Contingencies

        The committee was disturbed to learn that the Secretary of
    Defense is now planning end strength levels for active forces
    in fiscal year 1998 and beyond that are well below the floors
    mandated by
    Congress in the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act
    (Public Law 104-106). In mandating these floors at the end
    strengths developed as a result of the Administration's Bottom
    Up Review (BUR), Congress sought to ensure that the military
    manpower levels remained at the absolute minimums necessary to
    implement national military strategy. In addition, Congress
    sought to retain sufficient manpower so that the military
    services could more adequately manage the negative effects of
    high operations and personnel tempos. Finally, the Congress
    sought to ratify the message that the Administration and the
    military services had repeatedly conveyed to service members
    and their families: The nine-year drawdown that had eliminated
    more than 600,000 active duty personnel was over. Without that
    ratification, Congress believed that a continuing, open-ended
    free-fall of active end strength would exacerbate tensions and
    uncertainties within the force and lead to serious negative
    consequences for recruiting and retention.
        For these reasons, the committee finds it difficult to
    understand why the Secretary of Defense has consented to allow
    the Air Force, beginning in fiscal year 1998, to drop 6,000
    below the mandated BUR end strength level. Equally mystifying
    to the committee is the Secretary of Defense's plan to
    underfund the Army manpower accounts by nearly $300 million in
    fiscal year 1998 and $230 million in fiscal year 1999. Such
    underfunding would require the Army to reduce end strength by
    at least 20,000, unless the Army can find internal savings and
    efficiencies to buy back the manpower. The committee finds such
    a strategy as unrealistic because it would require, by
    Congressional Budget Office estimates, the Army to find savings
    in excess of $770 million over two years. Therefore, in an
    effort to provide Congress a full opportunity to examine the
    rationale for any end strength reductions below the BUR levels,
    this section would require that annual defense budget requests
    submitted to Congress must provide at least enough funding to
    maintain the minimum active end strengths prescribed in the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
    Law 104-106). In addition, no funds appropriated to the
    Department of Defense could be used to implement a reduction in
    the mandated end strengths unless specifically authorized by
    law.

        Section 403--Authorized Strengths for Commissioned Officers on
    ActiveDuty in Grades of Major, Lieutenant Colonel, and Colonel and Navy
             Grades of Lieutenant Commander, Commander, and Captain

        The President's budget request included a provision that
    would modify section 523 of title 10, United States Code to
    raise the grade ceilings of active duty Army, Air Force, and
    Marine Corps majors and lieutenant colonels and active duty
    Navy lieutenant commanders, commanders, and captains relative
    to the total number of commissioned officers on active duty.
    The committee recognizes that there has been an increase in
    requirements for officers in grades 0-4, 0-5, and 0-6 since the
    tables were implemented in 1980. Further, the committee notes
    that the increase in officer requirements, when coupled with
    the force reductions since 1990, has limited the ability of
    services to comply with statutory requirements for promotion
    timing and opportunity rates.
        Sections 402 and 403 of the National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) authorized the
    Army and the Marine Corps, respectively, to temporarily vary
    from end strength limitations for majors and lieutenant
    colonels. Similarly, section 402 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)
    authorized the Navy and the Air Force to vary from end strength
    limitations for lieutenant commanders, commanders, and
    captains, in the case of the Navy, and majors and lieutenant
    colonels, in the case of the Air Force.
        This section would permanently raise the grade ceilings of
    active duty Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps majors and
    lieutenant colonels and active duty Navy lieutenant commanders,
    commanders, and captains relative to the total number of
    commissioned officers on active duty, as requested by the
    President.

                           Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

                Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve

        This section would authorize selected reserve end strengths
    as indicated in the table below:

     Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
                                  the Reserves

        This section would authorize the end strengths of reserves
    on active duty in support of the reserves as indicated in the
    table below. These end strengths are included within the total
    end strengths authorized for the selected reserve above.

              Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians

        This section would authorize military technician end
    strength as indicated in the table below:

        The committee notes that the above authorizations include
    both dual-status and single-status technicians. As redefined in
    section 1214 of this act, only those federal civilian employees
    hired under title 5 or 32, United States Code, who are required
    to maintain a dual status as drilling reserve component members
    as a condition of their federal employment shall henceforward
    be considered military technicians for the purpose of annual
    authorizations. Thus, this section would also require the
    Secretary of Defense to provide in subsequent annual budget
    requests military technician end strengths that delineate the
    numbers of both single- and dual-status technicians. Subsequent
    military technician authorizations and floors shall only be
    based on the number of dual status technicians.

                  Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

      Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel

        This section would authorize $70,206 million to be
    appropriated for military personnel, an increase of $423.2
    million from the budget request.
                       TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

            Collection of Comparison Data on Gender-Neutral Training

        The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
    (Public Law 103-160) required the Secretary of Defense to
    ensure that entrance into any military occupational career open
    to both men and women be evaluated on the basis of common,
    relevant performance standards without different standards or
    evaluation on the basis of gender. Congressional concern
    focused then, and continues to focus, on the question of
    whether standards are being reduced in order to move women into
    roles that traditionally have been closed to them.
        In response to growing Congressional concerns about
    maintaining adequate performance standards to ensure the safe
    and effective accomplishment of demanding combat or combat-
    related missions only recently opened to women, the committee
    requested the Comptroller General of the United States to
    assist in determining how the increasing role of women is being
    managed by each of the services. Unfortunately, efforts to
    evaluate the services' use of gender-neutral performance
    standards and the effectiveness of coed basic training have
    been hindered by the Department of Defense and each of the
    services' substantial lack of comparison data. The dearth of
    information is so significant it almost implies an intention to
    dissuade comparison of the performance of integrated units with
    those of non-integrated units.
        In response to the concerns raised by the services'
    apparent lack of efforts to collect effective data to support
    their contentions that training standards have not been
    compromised, the committee directs Secretary of Defense to
    establish uniform requirements for collecting and evaluating
    data on the performance of recently integrated units, coed
    basic training and aviation training. To facilitate comparison
    between integrated and non-integrated units, the information
    collected shall include performance data on non-integrated
    training and operational units.

          Guidance to Commanders on Unexplained Absences of Personnel

        The committee is concerned that unit commanders are not
    routinely seeking the assistance of professional criminal
    investigators when evaluating the circumstances surrounding
    unexplained absences of service members under their command.
    Particularly in cases in which reliable individuals with
    exemplary service records disappear without explanation, common
    sense would seem to dictate that commanders should do more than
    handle the case administratively as though it were a routine
    unauthorized absence. The committee's investigation suggests
    that unit commanders who fail to involve criminal investigators
    at the beginning of cases in which the circumstances
    surrounding an unexplained disappearance are suspicious run the
    risk of losing important investigative leads and of not
    discovering or preventing criminal activity that could result
    in harm to their subordinates. The committee notes that
    existing regulatory guidance for commanders does not even
    mention the option of enlisting professional investigative help
    for cases of this nature.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review
    the regulations of the Department of Defense and the military
    departments applicable to this problem. The committee further
    directs that the Secretary require, as necessary, amendments to
    those regulations urging commanders to seek the assistance of
    professional criminal investigators when the commander's
    preliminary investigation suggests that a service member's
    absence is inconsistent with the member's prior record or
    behavior, or when the commander does not develop sufficient
    information upon which to make an informed judgment about the
    nature of the absence. Additionally, the committee directs the
    secretaries of the military departments to modify the curricula
    of unit commander training programs to ensure that commanders
    and those selected to become commanders understand the
    importance of seeking professional investigative assistance in
    appropriate cases.

                    Increased Funding for Off-Duty Education

        The committee, responding to letters from both the Chief of
    Staff of the Air Force and the Commandant of the Marine Corps
    which identified service funding needs, recommends the addition
    of $4.5 million in off-duty education funds for the U.S. Marine
    Corps, and $9.5 million in tuition assistance for the U.S. Air
    Force.

                        Increased Funding for Recruiting

        For the last several years, the committee has taken a range
    of action, including substantial increases over the requested
    amounts for recruiting advertising funds, to improve the
    ability of the military services to recruit quality people in
    sufficient numbers. The committee attributes the ability of the
    services to meet recruiting goals in a very difficult market in
    no small part to increased advertising that has helped to
    mitigate the public perception that the military was no longer
    hiring. Nevertheless, the committee believes a targeted effort
    is required to address areas of concern conveyed to the
    committee by the services. Therefore, the committee directs the
    Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy to increase
    funding for recruiting and advertising above the amount
    requested in the President's budget by $11 million for the U.S.
    Army Reserve and by $4.7 million for the U.S. Marine Corps,
    respectively.

              Minority Representation in Special Operations Forces

        The committee is aware that there may be a significant
    under-representation of minorities in certain areas of the
    special operations forces of the Department of Defense. The
    committee desires to understand better the reasons for and
    implications of any under-representation. Therefore, the
    committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the racial
    representation, both officer and enlisted, in the special
    operations forces of each of the military departments. In
    addition, if the Secretary determines that a significant racial
    imbalance exists, the committee directs the Secretary to report
    the reasons for the imbalance to the Congress, together with a
    plan to correct the imbalance.

                           New Parent Support Program

        The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
    (Public Law 104-106) added $25.6 million to fund the New Parent
    Support Program (NPSP). The statement of managers accompanying
    the conference report (H. Rept. 104-450) on the act explained
    that the conferees took this action because they ``consider the
    . . . NPSP critical to the readiness and retention of quality
    people.'' The statement of mangers also stated that, ``if the
    Department or a service attempt to reduce, divert, or reprogram
    the . . . NPSP funding for some other purpose, the conferees
    would consider such an action to be in direct contravention of
    congressional intent.'' Despite this unequivocal guidance, the
    committee understands that the Secretary of Defense reduced
    NPSP funding as part of internal Department reprogramming
    efforts. Moreover, the fiscal year 1997 budget request
    contained no funding for the NPSP.
        Both these actions show contempt for Congressional intent,
    and help to highlight the inability of the Department
    leadership, in the face of inadequate defense budgets, to
    fulfill promises to protect the quality of life of service
    members and their families. To correct the funding shortfall,
    the committee authorizes an increase of $20 million for NPSP,
    and directs that it be allocated as follows: Army, $7.8
    million; Navy, $5.5 million; Marine Corps, $2.9 million; Air
    Force, $3.8 million. In addition, the committee unequivocally
    restates its previous position that the NPSP funds shall not be
    diverted, reduced or reprogrammed and strongly urges the
    Department not to allow another violation of Congressional
    intent.

                                Personnel Tempo

        The committee is concerned that marked increases in the
    time key units are spending away from home on deployments--
    commonly called PERSTEMPO--is undermining morale and readiness.
    In testimony before the committee, General Dennis J. Reimer,
    Chief of Staff, United States Army, stated ``Excessive time
    away from home is often cited by quality professionals as the
    reason for their decision to leave the military. . . .'' Yet,
    recent reports by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the
    Defense Science Board Task Force on Quality of Life found that
    Department of Defense (DOD) systems are not adequate to measure
    PERSTEMPO's full scope and impact, and DOD does not have a
    clear policy to provide the guidance needed for its long term
    management.
        For example, unit officials and combatant commanders in
    chief told GAO that while many personnel were coping with the
    divorces, missed birthdays and holidays, and other hardships,
    some may have reached their saturation point. Any further
    increases in PERSTEMPO could create significant retention,
    substance abuse, and family problems. In addition, DOD
    officials acknowledged that many commanders believed that
    turning down deployments would reflect negatively on their
    units and/or their own careers, and others may have been
    competing for deployments to underscore the value of their
    units during the current drawdown. However, these concerns
    generally did not manifest themselves in the statistics GAO
    reviewed. Many of the statistics DOD compiles are not useful
    for analyzing the impact of PERSTEMPO on high-deploying units
    because they are not collected consistently across the services
    or are compiled only at major command levels. Similarly, while
    DOD has taken a number of actions to study and mitigate the
    impact of high PERSTEMPO, it has not directed the services to
    have goals or policies to limit PERSTEMPO, and the services--
    with the exception of the Navy--have no clear regulations on
    this issue. There is also no DOD-wide definition of a
    deployment, and credit for deployments is granted
    inconsistently across the services.
        These reports provided a variety of recommendations. For
    example, the Defense Science Board recommended that DOD issue a
    single, simple formula for counting deployed time: one day away
    equals one day away. GAO recommended that DOD develop the data
    needed to improve its research on the effects of PERSTEMPO, and
    issue regulations to guide service management of PERSTEMPO,
    including whether each service should have goals or policies
    stipulating the maximum amount of time units and/or personnel
    may be deployed. DOD's position on many of these issues is not
    clear to the committee. Accordingly, the committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on Armed
    Services and the House Committee on National Security on the
    policies DOD plans to establish to better monitor and manage
    high PERSTEMPO, no later than December 31, 1996.

                 Reduction in Permanent Change of Station Moves

        The committee is encouraged that each of services has
    conducted in-depth analyses of their respective permanent
    change of station (PCS) programs and launched independent
    initiatives to reduce the number of PCS moves. The committee
    believes that a reduction in PCS moves will not only reduce
    military personnel costs, but will also enhance morale by
    increasing stability in the force that would be much welcome to
    service members and their families. The committee was most
    impressed with the Navy's program to encourage sailors to
    homestead at locations where the service member can serve more
    than one tour of duty. The committee also believes that the
    Secretary of Defense should take action to develop and manage a
    joint service program to share information about initiatives
    that successfully reduce the number of PCS moves.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
    to consolidate military service data on efforts to reduce the
    number of PCS moves and to study the feasibility of developing
    a joint system to share information about initiatives that
    successfully reduce the number of PCS moves. The committee
    directs the Secretary of Defense to report the consolidated
    data and the findings of the feasibility study to the Congress
    not later than September 30, 1997.
        The Secretary is also directed to include in the report
    information on locations within the contiguous United States
    where service members are mandatorily moved after a specified
    maximum tour. The committee is concerned that such maximum
    tours detract from efforts to reduce the number of PCS moves
    and stabilize the force. For example, the committee is aware of
    service policies that require members to leave the Washington
    D.C. region after a specified tour has been served. The report
    should identify locations and units with maximum tours and
    provide the rationale to support such tours.

                Report on Sentence Enhancements for Hate Crimes

        The committee has concerns regarding crimes against persons
    or property committed in the military motivated by the victim's
    status as categorized by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (Public
    Law 101-275). The U.S. Supreme Court, in Wisconsin v. Mitchell,
    ruled that in the case of a crime where the person or property
    was intentionally selected because of the victim's status or
    the status of the owner or occupant of a property, the sentence
    for the underlying crime may be enhanced.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the
    efficacy of sentence enhancement as it would apply to service
    members if such enhancements as allowed under Wisconsin v.
    Mitchell were incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military
    Justice, and to submit to Congress the results of this study no
    later than February 1, 1997.

            Retention Standards for Permanent Medical Nondeployables

        The committee notes that there are considerable differences
    in the retention standards for permanent medical nondeployables
    employed by the military departments for medical conditions
    other than HIV-positive status. Of the 5,734 permanent medical
    nondeployables currently serving on active duty (other than
    HIV) reported to the committee in June 1995, only 237 (4
    percent) were assigned to the Navy and Marine Corps. Of the
    remaining 5,497, 1,883 (33 percent) were on active duty in the
    Air Force and 3,614 (63 percent) were on active duty in the
    Army. The committee is very concerned that the differences in
    retention standards demonstrated by these statistics is
    creating inequities as to the treatment of similarly situated
    service members and their families.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
    Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the military
    departments, to study the retention standards being employed by
    the military departments and report the results of the study to
    the Congress not later than March 31, 1997. The report shall,
    at a minimum, address the differences in retention standards,
    the reasons given by the military departments to justify the
    differences, an assessment of the scope of inequitable
    treatment of service members by the military departments, and
    the position of the Secretary of Defense regarding his
    willingness to continue to allow the services to employ
    different retention standards for permanent medical
    nondeployables.

     Survey of Attitudes Towards Expansion of Roles of Women in Combat and
                         Combat Related Military Skills

        The committee believes that before the Secretary of Defense
    undertakes any further attempts to move women into new direct
    ground combat specialties, to which they have not heretofore
    been permitted, the impact of such an effort should be
    thoroughly evaluated. Therefore, the committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense to obtain an independent study on this
    impact by a federally funded research and development center
    (FFRDC) and to report the results of this study to Congress by
    March 1, 1997.
        The study shall include, but not be limited to, a written,
    anonymous survey based on a statistically-valid sample of all
    military personnel, including company grade officers, field
    grade officers and senior non-commissioned officers in both
    direct ground combat units such as infantry, armor, artillery,
    special operations and combat engineering, and combat support
    units to assess the potential impact of assigning women to
    combat and other specialties traditionally closed to them. The
    study should address the impact of such an effort on unit
    readiness, cohesion, morale, recruiting and retention.
        Furthermore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
    to report to the Congressional defense committees by January 1,
    1997, on the Department's plans to advance the assignment of
    women in direct-combat and direct-combat support roles, and
    report on the rationale of excluding ``risk of capture'' as a
    criteria for determining assignment of women to both combat and
    non-combat positions.
        The committee also directs the Secretary to obtain an
    independent study by an FFRDC evaluating the performance of
    each military service in integrating women into military
    occupations previously closed until the enactment of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992 (Public
    Law 102-190), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160), and the Secretary's January
    1994 action rescinding the Department's ``risk rules''
    governing the assignment of women to non-combat military
    positions.
        As part of the study, the FFRDC shall evaluate the effect
    on defense readiness and morale of integrating women into
    newly-opened occupations and positions as well as factors
    affecting the pace at which the military services are
    integrating women.
        The Secretary shall report to the Congressional defense
    committees on the finding of this study no later than March 1,
    1997.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                        Subtitle A--Personnel Management

     Section 501--Authorization for Senior Enlisted Members to Reenlistfor
                          an Indefinite Period of Time

        Currently, title 10, United States Code, authorizes the
    service secretaries to periodically reenlist military
    personnel, including senior non-commissioned officers (NCO) for
    periods of at least two but not more than six years. Thus,
    several reenlistments are necessary to complete a 20-year or
    longer career. This section would permit the secretaries of the
    military departments to reenlist NCOs with 10 or more years of
    service for indefinite periods of time.

      Section 502--Authority to Extend Entry on Active Duty Under Delayed
                                 Entry Program

        At present, the secretaries of the military departments can
    the delay for up to a year the entry to active duty of a person
    who has signed an enlistment contract. Thus, the Delayed Entry
    Program typically permits high school students to be contracted
    at the end of their junior year and to enter active duty upon
    graduation from high school. If for some reason (delay in
    graduation, for example) active duty entry is delayed beyond
    one year, the enlistment contract must be renegotiated. This
    section would permit the secretaries of the military
    departments, on a case-by-case basis, to extend to 18 months
    the maximum period that a person can remain in the Delayed
    Entry Program.

     Section 503--Permanent Authority for Navy Spot Promotions for Certain
                                  Lieutenants

        This section would make permanent the authority for the
    Navy to temporarily promote certain lieutenants in skills for
    which there is a shortage of qualified officers.

        Section 504--Reports on Response to Recommendations Concerning
          Improvements to Department of Defense Joint Manpower Process

        In November 1995, the Department of Defense Inspector
    General issued a highly critical report as a result of its
    inspection of the Department of Defense joint manpower process.
    The report raised serious questions regarding the department's
    ability to effectively determine, validate, approve and manage
    military and civilian manpower requirements and resources in
    joint organizations. The section would require the Secretary of
    Defense to provide a semi-annual report to Congress on the
    status of actions taken to implement the Inspector General
    recommendations. The section would also require that the
    General Accounting Office assess the adequacy and completeness
    of the Department's corrective actions and report to Congress
    not later than one year after enactment of this act.

        Section 505--Frequency of Reports to Congress on Joint Officer
                              Management Policies

        The current provisions of the Goldwater-Nichols Department
    of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433),
    require the Secretary of Defense to make semi-annual reports to
    Congress on promotion rates of officers who are serving in, or
    have served in, joint duty assignments. This section would
    amend the requirement so as to provide for an annual report.
        The committee notes that this change implements a
    recommendation of the Department of Defense Inspector General
    contained in a November 1995 report on the joint officer
    management process. That report also found that the Secretary
    of Defense, starting with the fiscal year 1993 report on joint
    officer promotions, had discontinued providing complete
    promotion statistics for all categories of officers as required
    by the law. The committee directs that, beginning with the
    first annual report under the revised requirement, the
    Secretary of Defense report the full range of data required by
    law.

       Section 506--Repeal of Requirement That Commissioned Officers Be
                     Initially Appointed in a Reserve Grade

        This section would remove the barrier to officers receiving
    initial appointments in the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular
    Air Force and Regular Marine Corps by repealing subsection (e)
    of section 532 of title 10, United States Code as added by
    section 501 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993.

    Section 507--Continuation on Active Status for Certain Reserve Officers
                                of the Air Force

        This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
    to retain beyond dates of mandatory retirement for years of
    service up to 50 reserve officers who are designated judge
    advocates. This authority would expire on September 30, 2003.

                     Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters

           Section 511--Individual Ready Reserve Activation Authority

        Under current law the President may involuntarily recall to
    active duty, at times other than during war or national
    emergency, up to 200,000 reservists for up to 270 days from
    units of the Selected Reserve. This authority is known as the
    Presidential Selective Reserve Call-up (PSRC). However, under
    PSRC, individuals who are members of the Individual Ready
    Reserve (IRR) cannot be recalled to active duty.
        During Operation Desert Storm, the lack of authority to
    recall members of the IRR as part of the PSRC compelled the
    mobilization of portions of late-deploying selected reserve
    units in order to fill manpower shortfalls in early deploying
    units. This strategy had two major disadvantages. First, unit
    cohesion of the later deploying units was damaged. Second, the
    military services, particularly the Army, faced the significant
    challenge of having to rebuild the late deploying units upon
    their mobilization.
        This section would build on the lessons learned from
    Operation Desert Storm by authorizing the President, under
    PSRC, to recall up to 30,000 members of a new category of the
    IRR that would be created by this section. The new category of
    the IRR would consist of those personnel, in the military
    skills and occupations designated by the Secretary of Defense,
    who had volunteered prior to leaving active duty to become part
    of this new IRR category. Such volunteers could remain in the
    new IRR category for no longer than 24 months and could be
    provided such benefits (less pay and training) as the Secretary
    of Defense deemed appropriate.

      Section 512--Training for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of the
                                    Reserves

        This section would clarify that a reservist on active duty
    in support of the reserves may receive training and
    professional development in the same manner as any other member
    on active duty. Current law limits such a reservist to only
    receiving periodic refresher training.

           Section 513--Clarification to Definition of Active Status

        This section would expand the definition of the term
    ``active status'' in section 101(d)(4) of title 10, United
    States Code to include both officers and enlisted members of
    the reserve components.

            Section 514--Appointment Above O-2 in the Naval Reserve

        This section would permit members of the Naval Reserve who
    are selected for commissioned service as part of the Seaman to
    Admiral Program to be promoted above the grade of lieutenant
    (junior grade) even though they have not completed the
    baccalaureate degree requirements which normally must be met by
    the time Naval Reserve officers are considered for promotion to
    lieutenant (O-3).

     Section 515--Report on Number of Advisers in Active Component Support
                           of Reserves Pilot Program

        Section 414 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190), as amended,
    requires the Secretary of the Army, after September 30, 1996,
    to assign no fewer than 5,000 active component advisors to the
    reserve components. This section would require the Secretary of
    Defense to determine the appropriate number of active component
    advisors and recommend changes to Congress.

    Section 516--Sense of Congress and Report Regarding Reemployment Rights
             for Mobilized Reservists Employed in Foreign Countries

        Approximately 2,000 members of the U.S. reserve components
    now live in foreign countries and work for U.S. or foreign
    companies. If mobilized, these people would not qualify for the
    reemployment rights extended to other mobilized reservists by
    chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, known as the
    Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. This
    section would express the sense of Congress about the lack of
    reemployment rights facing these reservists and direct the
    Secretary of Defense, together with the Secretaries of State
    and Labor, to provide the Congress with recommendations to
    alleviate the reemployment problems of this group of
    reservists.

    Subtitle C--Jurisdiction and Powers of Courts-Martial for the National
                       Guard When Not in Federal Service

    Section 531--Composition, Jurisdiction and Procedures of Courts-martial

        This section would amend section 326 of title 32, United
    States Code, to clarify the composition, jurisdiction and
    procedures of courts-martial for the National Guard when those
    components are not in federal service. This section would
    clarify that such courts-martial do not have jurisdiction over
    service members who may be tried pursuant to section 802 of
    title 10, United States Code. National Guard courts-martial
    would be required to substantially follow the forms and
    procedures required in courts-martial in the active components.
    Finally, this section would clarify that the jurisdiction and
    powers of National Guard courts-martial not in federal service
    are established by state law.

                      Section 532--General Courts-martial

        This section would amend section 327 of title 32, United
    States Code, to provide for the convening of a general court-
    martial for the National Guard not in federal service in a
    manner more like courts-martial conducted in the active
    components. State adjutants-general, in addition to the
    President and state and territorial governors, would be
    authorized to convene general courts-martial. In addition,
    punishments that could be imposed by such courts-martial would
    be modernized to increase authorized fines, allow bad conduct
    discharges to be adjudged, clarify that all enlisted personnel
    may be reduced in rank by a general court-martial, and allow
    confinement for not more than 180 days to be adjudged. Finally,
    this section would authorize the adjudication of punitive
    discharge only in cases in which counsel was detailed to
    represent the accused and a military judge was detailed to the
    trial. As is the case in courts-martial conducted pursuant to
    title 10, United States Code, a verbatim record of trial would
    be required in cases in which the adjudged sentence includes a
    punitive discharge.

                      Section 533--Special Courts-Martial

        This section would amend section 328 of title 32, United
    States Code, to modernize the punishments that may be imposed
    by National Guard special courts-martial conducted when those
    components are not in federal service. In addition, this
    section would clarify that these special courts-martial may try
    a commissioned officer. Finally, this section would incorporate
    the same requirements for the imposition of a National Guard
    bad conduct discharge as is the case for those adjudicated by
    active component special courts-martial.

                      Section 534--Summary Courts-Martial

        This section would amend section 329 of title 32, United
    States Code, to modernize the punishment authority of summary
    courts-martial conducted by the National Guard when those
    components are not in federal service. The limit on fines that
    may be imposed by these courts-martial would be increased. In
    addition, this section would clarify that all enlisted members,
    not just noncommissioned officers, may be reduced in rank and
    that a summary court-martial may not try a commissioned
    officer. As is the case with respect to summary courts-martial
    convened under title 10, United States Code, an accused would
    have the right to object to trial by summary court-martial. In
    that event, a special or general court-martial could be
    convened.

        Section 535--Repeal of Authority for Confinement in Lieu of Fine

        This section would repeal section 330 of title 32, United
    States Code. That section permits a court-martial to sentence
    an accused to confinement in lieu of a fine at the rate of one
    day for each dollar of the authorized fine. This procedure is
    obsolete and does not comport with modern court-martial
    practice.

         Section 536--Approval of Sentence of Bad Conduct Discharge or
                                  Confinement

        Section 536 would amend section 331 of title 32, United
    States Code, by adding a requirement that the governor of a
    state or territory approve a sentence that includes a bad
    conduct discharge or confinement of three months or more before
    that sentence may be executed. Under current law, governors
    approve only sentences that include a dismissal or dishonorable
    discharge.

                   Section 537--Authority of Military Judges

        This section would amend section 332 of title 32, United
    States Code, to authorize military judges to compel the
    attendance of the accused, witnesses, or the production of
    documents at National Guard courts-martial. Current law vests
    this authority only in the president of a court-martial or a
    summary court officer. The inclusion of military judges is
    consistent with modern court-martial practice.

                     Section 538--Statutory Reorganization

        This section would administratively reorganize title 32,
    United States Code, by creating a new Chapter 4 of that title.
    Chapter 4, titled Courts-Martial for the National Guard when
    not in Federal Service, would consolidate all those sections of
    title 32 related to the military justice process for the
    National Guard into a single chapter, making reference and use
    by practitioners easier.

                          Section 539--Effective Date

        This section would cause the amendments made by this
    subtitle to be effective upon the date of enactment of this
    Act, except that for an offense committed before that date, the
    maximum punishment would be the maximum punishment in effect at
    the time of the commission of the offense.

     Section 540--Conforming Amendments to Uniform Code of Military Justice

        This section would make a clarifying amendment to sections
    820 and 854 of title 10, United States Code.

                  Subtitle D--Education and Training Programs

      Section 551--Extension of Maximum Age for Appointment as a Cadet or
       Midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps and the
                               Service Academies

        This section would increase the maximum age for appointment
    in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC),
    permitting the appointment of persons under 27 years of age
    (vice under-25 years of age). The section would also permit
    former enlisted members who had served on active duty to be
    appointed in the Senior ROTC program even though they were
    older than 27, so long as on the date of their commissioning
    they would be under 30 years of age. Current law requires such
    persons to be under 29 when commissioned.
        With regard to the service academies, this section would
    increase the maximum allowable age at entry from 22 to 23.

       Section 552--Oversight and Management of Senior Reserve Officers'
                             Training Corps Program

        This section would clarify existing law with regard to the
    operation of Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC)
    programs. It would give priority for enrollment in ROTC to
    students who were qualified for advanced training, and would
    prohibit anyone who was ineligible for advanced training from
    participating in practical military training, field training,
    or practice cruises, unless the ineligibility was waived by the
    service secretary. The section would also permit civilians
    attending ROTC or other course of military instruction to wear
    military uniforms only when the individual service regulations
    specifically authorize such wear.

      Section 553--ROTC Scholarship Student Participation in Simultaneous
                               Membership Program

        This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
    establish a program to permit ROTC scholarship cadets to serve
    simultaneously as a member of a Selected Reserve unit. At
    present, such simultaneous membership is precluded by
    Department policy.

      Section 554--Expansion of ROTC Advanced Training Program to Include
                               Graduate Students

        This section would modify section 2107, title 10, United
    States Code, to permit the initial award of Reserve Officers'
    Training Corps (ROTC) scholarships to people who already have
    received a baccalaureate degree, provided the recipient
    executes the required contractual commitments, including
    enrollment in the ROTC advanced course.

        Section 555--Reserve Credit for Members of Armed Forces Health
            Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program

        This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
    provide discretionary authority to the secretaries of the
    military departments to award service credit toward a non-
    regular retirement for certain members of the armed forces
    health professions scholarship and financial assistance
    programs.

    Section 556--Expansion of Eligibility for Education Benefits to Include
          Certain Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Participants

        This section would expand the eligibility for the
    Montgomery GI Bill education benefits to include ROTC
    scholarship students who received scholarships with values of
    less than $2,000 annually.

    Section 557--Comptroller General Report on Cost and Policy Implications
      of Permitting up to Five Percent of Service Academy Graduates To Be
               Assigned Directly to Reserve Duty Upon Graduation

        This section would require the Comptroller General to
    analyze and report to Congress the cost and policy implications
    of requiring that up to five percent of the graduating class of
    each of the service academies to serve in the reserve
    components, and that there be a corresponding increase in the
    number of ROTC graduates each year placed on active duty.

                           Subtitle E--Other Matters

                    Section 561--Hate Crimes in the Military

        This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
    require each of the military services to conduct human
    relations training designed to promote a thorough awareness of
    equal opportunity issues, as well as a sensitivity to ``hate
    group'' activity. It would also require the Secretary to ensure
    that prospective recruits, both officer and enlisted,
    understand the full implications of the oath of office or oath
    of enlistment in terms of the equal protection and civil
    liberties protection of the Constitution. Finally, this section
    would require the Secretary to conduct an annual survey on race
    relations, gender discrimination and hate group activity.

     Section 562--Authority of a Reserve Judge Advocate To Act as a Notary
                                     Public

        This section would amend section 1044a of title 10, United
    States Code, to authorize all judge advocates of the military
    services, adjutants, assistant adjutants, and other service
    members designated by regulation to act as notaries public,
    without regard to whether they are on active duty or are
    performing inactive duty for training. Under current law,
    reserve component judge advocates and other authorized
    personnel such as adjutants do not have the general powers of a
    notary public unless they are on active duty or are performing
    inactive duty for training. However, National Guard and reserve
    judge advocates frequently are asked to perform notarial acts,
    both on and off duty, in preparing other reserve component
    service members for mobilization or deployment. If civilian
    authorities question a notary's authority or duty status in
    order to assure compliance with section 1044a before accepting
    a power of attorney, will or other notarized document, service
    members often have no way of learning the whereabouts of the
    individual who notarized a document and cannot provide
    information on that person's duty status, resulting in
    rejection of the document. This section would authorize
    appropriate personnel to have the general powers of a notary
    public regardless of duty status, resulting in greater
    uniformity and flexibility among the services and eliminating
    litigation, particularly in cases involving will contests.

      Section 563--Authority to Provide Legal Assistance to Public Health
                                Service Officers

        This section would amend section 1044 of title 10, United
    States Code, to authorize active duty or retired officers of
    the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service and their
    dependents to be eligible for legal assistance at military
    installations. These individuals perform valuable public
    service and often serve in remote localities such as Indian
    reservations where legal advice on personal affairs may not be
    readily obtained. This section would allow these persons to
    receive legal advice at military bases, subject to the
    availability of legal staff resources.

      Section 564--Excepted Appointment of Certain Judicial Non-Attorney
        Staff in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

        This section would amend Article 143(c) of the Uniform Code
    of Military Justice (section 943(c) of title 10, United States
    Code) to allow judges of the United States Court of Appeals for
    the Armed Forces to make excepted service appointments to non-
    attorney positions on the personal staff of a judge. Under
    current law, only attorney positions with the court are
    excepted from the competitive service. Non-attorney positions
    established on a judge's personal staff would include such
    positions as confidential assistant, secretary, paralegal, and
    law student intern.

     Section 565--Replacement of Certain American Theater Campaign Ribbons

        This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
    replace upon request the American Theater Campaign Ribbon
    awarded to certain veterans of World War II

        Section 566--Restoration of Regulations Prohibiting Service of
                        Homosexuals in the Armed Forces

        This section would rescind the current Department of
    Defense policy and relative directives and regulations
    concerning homosexuality in the armed forces and related
    Department of Defense and military department regulations and
    would reinstate the regulations that were in effect on January
    19, 1993. The provision would also require the Secretary of
    Defense to resume the questioning of potential new entrants
    into the armed forces about homosexuality and would repeal a
    provision included in section 571 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160)
    that expressed the Sense of Congress that the questioning of
    potential new entrants about homosexuality could be resumed
    upon the decision of the Secretary of Defense. The provision
    would also clarify that in the event of a perceived conflict
    between the reinstated regulations and section 654 of title 10,
    United States Code, the provision of law, including application
    of well-settled rules of statutory construction, shall be given
    effect.
        The committee notes that an April 5, 1996 decision by the
    United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the
    case of Paul G. Thomasson, Lieutenant, United States Navy,
    Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense;
    John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy, Defendants-Appellees,
    included a concurring opinion written by Judge Luttig (Five of
    the remaining twelve judges joined Judge Luttig in his
    opinion). The following quotes are taken from Judge Luttig's
    opinion.

               ``Despite Congress' clear mandate requiring the
            discharge of all known homosexuals, the Department of
            Defense has, by it regulatory redefinition of the
            statutory term `propensity,' created what is in effect
            a sanctuary for known homosexuals whom the military
            determines are not likely to engage in homosexual
            acts.''
              ``The requirement that, in order to be discharged,
            one must at least demonstrate a likelihood to engage in
            homosexual acts exists only in a regulation promulgated
            by the Administration, ostensibly in implementation of
            the statute.''
              ``Through this regulation the Administration has
            effectively secured the very policy regarding military
            service by homosexuals that it was denied by the
            Congress.''
              ``Rather than continue to indulge the politically
            expedient fiction that the congressionally-mandated
            policy bars from service only those known homosexuals
            who are likely to engage in homosexual acts--a fiction
            that both parties urge upon us because it serves their
            mutual interest in creating a sanctuary for homosexuals
            within the military--I would simply invalidate the
            Administration's regulation as in excess of its
            statutory authority.''

        The committee believes that Judge Luttig has presented a
    compelling argument to reinstate the regulations that were in
    effect on January 19, 1993. The committee considers the failure
    to reinstate the January 19, 1993 regulations as a betrayal of
    the policy and principles that were so clearly specified by the
    Congress in section 654 of title 10, United States Code.

    Section 567--Reenactment and Modification of Mandatory Separation From
                 Service for Members Diagnosed With HIV-1 Virus

        This section would restate, with modifications, section 567
    of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
    (Public Law 104-106) to require the separation of members
    determined to be HIV-positive. The modifications include the
    following:
              (1) In lieu of requiring separation of HIV-positive
            service members not later than the last day of the
            sixth month following determination that the service
            member is HIV-positive, they would be required to
            separate not later than the last day of the second
            month following determination that the service member
            is HIV-positive.
              (2) In lieu of requiring separation of previously
            identified HIV-positive service members not later than
            the last day of the sixth month following the date of
            enactment of the provision, they would be required to
            separate not later than the last day of the second
            month following the date of enactment of the provision.
              (3) In lieu of authorizing the retention of HIV-
            positive service members within two years of retirement
            eligibility, this provision would require separation of
            HIV-positive service members with less than 15 years of
            service as of the date the service member is determined
            to be HIV-positive.This provision would not address the
            authority to provide the service member the same
            medical benefits as would be provided to a member
            granted a disability retirement.
        The committee recommends separation within 60 days of the
    determination that the service member is HIV-positive because
    such period is more consistent with the separation notice
    provided to many service members who are involuntarily
    separated for other reasons. The committee recommends that
    service members with 15 or more years of service be excluded
    from the requirement to be separated because it would maximize
    the training and experience that these service members possess
    at a point in their careers when the need to deploy is
    generally diminished.
        The committee believes that it is important to provide
    separating HIV-positive service members with the full
    complement of benefits associated with disability retirement.
    In particular, the committee is concerned that separating HIV-
    positive service members receive monthly incomes and individual
    and family medical benefits to assist in their transition from
    active duty. The committee believes that the most appropriate
    method for achieving these objectives is to mandate disability
    retirement for separating HIV-positive service members under
    sections 1201 and 1204 of title 10, United States Code.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
    designate a disability rating of 30 percent for separating HIV-
    positive service members, unless the service member is
    otherwise entitled to a higher rating. The committee also
    directs the Secretary of Defense to deem separating service
    members determined to be HIV-positive as meeting all other
    requirements for disability retirement under section 1201 or
    1204 of title 10, United States Code, as applicable to the
    member.
              TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                        Foreign Language Proficiency Pay

        The committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on
    Intelligence both believe in the importance of recruiting and
    maintaining qualified linguists in the military services. The
    committees understand that proficiency pay, tied to achievement
    of agreed upon standards of competence, is an important
    ingredient in the linguistic readiness of both the active and
    reserve components.
        Three years ago, the committee considered, but did not
    adopt, a proposal to increase the maximum monthly amount of
    foreign language proficiency pay to $450 from $150. If
    implemented today, such an increase would cost the Department
    of Defense between $18 million and $24 million, according to
    the Congressional Budget Office. With such a price tag, the
    committee believes that any proficiency pay initiative must be
    incorporated into a comprehensive language program that has the
    necessary recruiting, training, and career development
    infrastructure, as well as the management oversight, to ensure
    any new financial incentives accomplish the intended effect.
    Although there have been positive developments in the
    Department of Defense language programs, the committee believes
    that the programs are not yet mature.
        Should progress continue and should the Secretary of
    Defense propose a comprehensive plan for an increase, including
    credible cost estimates and objective data, the committee will
    be prepared to give it fair consideration. -

     Privately Owned Vehicle Mileage Allowances During Permanent Change of
                                 Station Moves

        The committee is concerned that the mileage allowances set
    by the Administrator of General Services for reimbursement of
    federal civilian employees and military personnel for use of
    privately owned vehicles during permanent change of station
    moves cause most employees to personally absorb a portion of
    the cost of transporting their own vehicle. The committee
    recommends that the rates be increased to more appropriate
    levels such as the rates for use of privately owned vehicles
    accepted by the Internal Revenue Service.
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
    Defense, in coordination with the Administrator of General
    Services, to study the appropriateness of increasing the rate
    per mile allowance for use of privately owned vehicles in lieu
    of actual expenses during permanent change of station moves.
    The study shall also address the requirement to provide a
    mechanism for the annual increase in the rate to compensate for
    increases in costs caused by inflation. The Secretary of
    Defense shall report the results of the study to the Congress
    not later than the September 30, 1997.

         Special Duty Assignment Pay for Army Special Operating Forces

        The committee understands that the Secretary of the Army
    and the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, have
    reached an agreement that will permit, for the first time,
    payment of special duty assignment pay (SDAP) to certain
    enlisted members of U.S. Army Special Operations Command
    beginning in fiscal year 1998. The agreement is contingent upon
    U.S. Army Special Operating Command providing all funding for
    the new payments in fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
        The committee strongly endorses this agreement, believing
    that the Army special operating forces, like the special
    operating forces of the other services, should receive the
    SDAP. Therefore, the committee authorizes a $6.4 million
    increase in the Army's military personnel authorization, and
    directs that the Army begin paying SDAP in fiscal year 1997.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                         Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

              Section 601--Military Pay Raise for Fiscal Year 1997

        This section would provide a 3.0 percent military pay raise
    as proposed in the President's budget. The committee welcomes
    the Administration's first request in four years for a pay
    raise that keeps pace with inflation as measured by the
    Employment Cost index. The committee hopes that this request is
    motivated by a genuine concern for the welfare of military
    members and their families and not the enhancement of the
    Administration's image in an election year.
        This committee notes that the President's budget request
    did not include an increase in the Basic Allowance for Quarters
    above the level of the pay raise as was included in the
    President's fiscal year 1996 budget request. The committee is
    disappointed that the Secretary of Defense has elected to defer
    his promise to continue a six year program to incrementally
    reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for members and families
    from the 20.6 in 1995 to the Congressionally established
    objective of 15 percent. Accordingly, this section would
    provide a 4.6 percent increase in the basic allowance for
    quarters to fully fund a one percent reduction in out-of-pocket
    housing expenses to 18.2 percent in fiscal year 1997.

     Section 602--Availability of Basic Allowance for Quarters for Certain
                Members Without Dependents Who Serve on Sea Duty

        This section would include the following actions:
              (1) A repeal of the current prohibition against
            authorizing a single service member continuous basic
            allowance for quarters and variable housing allowance
            when they execute a permanent change of station to a
            unit already deployed at sea.
              (2) An authorization for quarters ashore or basic
            allowance for quarters for service members in the grade
            of E-5 without dependents while they are assigned to
            sea duty.
              (3) An authorization for the senior member of a
            married couple comprised of two military members to
            receive basic allowance for quarters at the without
            dependents rate when both service members are assigned
            to sea duty.

       Section 603--Establishment of Minimum Monthly Amount of Variable
                 Housing Allowance for High Housing Cost Areas

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
    establish a minimum amount of variable housing allowance to
    ensure all members are compensated at a level that is
    sufficient to acquire safe and adequate housing in high cost
    areas.

               Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

          Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonuses for Reserve Forces

        This section would extend the authority for the selected
    reserve reenlistment bonus, the selected reserve enlistment
    bonus, the selected reserve affiliation bonus, the ready
    reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus, and the prior
    service enlistment bonus until September 30, 1998.

      Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay for Nurse
         Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses, and Nurse Anesthetists

        This section would extend the authority for the nurse
    officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for
    registered nurses, and the incentive special pay for nurse
    anesthetists until September 30, 1998.

       Section 613--Extension of Authority Relating to Payment of Other
                            Bonuses and Special Pays

        This section would extend the authority for the aviation
    officer retention bonus, special pay for health care
    professionals who serve in the selected reserve in critically
    short wartime specialties, reenlistment bonus for active
    members, enlistment bonuses for critical skills, special pay
    for enlisted members of the selected reserve assigned to
    certain high priority units, special pay for nuclear qualified
    officers extending the period of active service, and nuclear
    career accession bonus. The provision would also extend the
    authority for repayment of educational loans for certain health
    professionals who serve in the selected reserve and the nuclear
    career annual incentive bonus until October 1, 1998.

     Section 614--Special Incentives to Recruit and Retain Dental Officers

        This section would amend title 37, United States Code, to
    increase the amount of special pay for dental officers, to
    establish an entitlement to special pay for reserve dental
    officers consistent with special pay entitlements for
    physicians, and to establish an accession bonus for dental
    officers. Additionally, this section would require the
    Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the feasibility
    of increasing dental participation in the Armed Forces Health
    Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program.
        The military services continue to have severe problems with
    retention and recruitment of dentists. The significant decrease
    in retention, especially in the first 10 years of service, has
    occurred due to the steady decline in their military
    compensation relative to civilian earnings. In 1986, dentist
    earnings ratio (military/civilian) was 68 percent and retention
    through the first 10 years was 42 percent. By 1994, the ratio
    decline to 49 percent and retention is now 32 percent.
    Concurrently, recruitment has dropped from 75 percent to 38
    percent attainment.
        Furthermore, prior to 1980, dentists serving in the
    military reserves received a prorated portion of ``special
    pay'' when performing annual training (AT), active duty for
    training (ADT), or active duty for special work (ADSW).
    However, at the present time, reserve dentists can only receive
    special pay if called to active duty for more than 30
    consecutive days. Reserve physicians currently receive special
    pay when on AT, ADT or ADSW. Without this provision, authorized
    billets for reserve dentists will continue to be unfilled.

                Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances

     Section 621--Temporary Lodging Expenses of Member in Connection With
                       First Permanent Change of Station

        The temporary lodging expense allowance partially offsets
    the cost of temporary lodging, meals, and incidental expenses
    for members and their families arriving at a new duty station.
    Currently, service members traveling to their first permanent
    duty station are not authorized to receive temporary lodging
    expense allowance. This section would authorize service members
    traveling to their first permanent duty station to receive a
    temporary lodging expense allowance.

      Section 622--Allowance in Connection With Shipping Motor Vehicle at
                               Government Expense

        Current law only authorizes service members an allowance to
    reimburse the cost for one leg of a trip to either deliver a
    privately owned vehicle for transportation at a port of
    embarkation or to pick up a vehicle at a port of debarkation.
    This section would authorize an allowance to reimburse members
    for round-trip costs that are incurred in delivering a vehicle
    for transportation or picking up a vehicle after
    transportation.

    Section 623--Dislocation Allowance at a Rate Equal to Two and One-Half
                      Months Basic Allowance for Quarters

        This section would increase the amount of dislocation
    allowance paid to service members to partially offset otherwise
    non-reimbursable costs incurred during permanent change of
    station moves from two months of basic allowance for quarters
    to two and one half months basic allowance for quarters.

     Section 624--Allowance for Travel Performed in Connection With Leave
                       Between Consecutive Overseas Tours

        This section would authorize service members assigned to
    critical operational missions, as determined by the secretary
    concerned, to defer government funded travel between
    consecutive overseas assignments until one year after their
    assignment to the critical operational mission is terminated.
    The committee is concerned that this provision apply to service
    members serving in the Former Yugoslavia during Operation Joint
    Endeavor. Accordingly, the provision would apply to members of
    the uniformed services participating, on or after November 1,
    1995, in critical operational missions designated by the
    Secretary of Defense.

        Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters

    Section 631--Increase in Annual Limit on Days of Inactive Duty Training
                     Creditable Towards Reserve Retirement

        Current law now limits the annual amount of retirement
    points that a reservist can earn as a result of inactive
    training to 60. In 1988, the Department of Defense's Sixth
    Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC) determined
    that at least 95 percent of the members in the selected reserve
    lose at least three points per year because of the 60 point
    limit. The sixth QRMC recommended that the annual limit be
    increased to 75. This section would implement that
    recommendation. In addition, it would direct the Secretary of
    Defense to evaluate the other recommendations of the sixth QRMC
    and to report to Congress with regard to their adoption.

     Section 632--Authority for Retirement in Grade in Which a Member Has
       Been Selected for Promotion When a Physical Disability Intervenes

        This section would permit service members who have been
    selected for promotion to the next higher grade to be retired
    at that higher grade if a physical disability that intervenes
    between selection for promotion and retirement is the only
    reason preventing eventual promotion.

    Section 633--Eligibility for Reserve Disability Retirement for Reserves
       Injured While Away From Home Overnight for Inactive-Duty Training

        Section 702 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) authorized for reservists
    the same death and disability benefits as active duty members
    during off-duty periods between successive inactive duty
    training periods performed at locations outside the reasonable
    commuting distance from the member's residence. This section
    would authorize disability retirement benefits to reservists
    serving under the same conditions as those defined in the
    section cited above.

      Section 634--Retirement of Reserve Enlisted Members Who Qualify for
      Active Duty Retirement After Administrative Reductions in Enlisted
                                     Grade

        This section would permit a reserve enlisted member who
    qualifies for an active duty retirement and who is reduced in
    grade for reasons other than misconduct to retire in the
    highest enlisted grade held. Such a person's retired pay would
    be based on the highest grade held, rather than the base pay of
    the lower grade held at retirement.

      Section 635--Clarification of Initial Computation of Retiree Colas
                                After Retirement

        This section would make a technical correction to the
    method used to calculate the initial cost-of-living adjustment
    for new retirees whose retirement pay was calculated using the
    average of the highest 36 months of basic pay.

      Section 636--Technical Correction to Prior Authority for Payment of
                          Back Pay to Certain Persons

        This section would make a technical correction to section
    634 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    1996 (Public Law 104-106) to clarify the level of compensation
    to be paid to certain veterans.

       Section 637--Amendments to the Uniformed Services Former Spouses'
                                 Protection Act

        This section would amend the Uniformed Services Former
    Spouses' Protection Act (Public Law 97-252) to simplify the
    processing of court orders related to retirement pay by
    allowing court orders to be delivered by facsimile, electronic
    transmission, or by mail instead of only by certified mail or
    registered letter, or in person. The section would also clarify
    that the Secretary of Defense could not accept a court order
    from a state that modifies a previous court order from another
    state unless the court issuing the modifying court order has
    jurisdiction over both the military member and the spouse or
    former spouse.

     Section 638--Administration of Benefits for So-Called Minimum Income
                                     Widows

        The committee has noted that payments to widows of military
    retirees under the minimum income widows program have been
    disrupted because of difficulty in coordinating minimum income
    widows program payments from the Department of Defense with
    payments from pension programs for widows of veterans paid by
    the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
        This section would transfer the responsibility for making
    payments under the minimum income widows program to the
    Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Department of Defense
    would reimburse the Department of Veterans' Affairs for all
    costs associated with assuming responsibility for making such
    payments, including increased administrative costs. The
    committee believes that moving all related widows pension
    programs under a single agency will eliminate inter-agency
    coordination problems.

       Section 639--Nonsubstantive Restatement of Survivor Benefit Plan
                                    Statute

        This section would restate the Military Survivor Benefit
    Plan statute (subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United
    States Code) in its entirety. This restatement is
    nonsubstantive and is intended to provide greater readability,
    clarity and organizational sense in the statute. The
    restatement would include amendments to the statute through the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
    Law 104-106). Changes to current law that would be made by this
    section are technical in nature and consist principally of the
    use of headings, indentations, and the subdivision of existing
    sections. In order not to disturb or render inaccurate
    statutory references and citations in existing regulations,
    court decisions, and legal opinions, the order and numerical
    distribution of sections would not change. However, the order
    of paragraphs in the definition section (section 1447 of title
    10, United States Code) would be altered to put the definitions
    in a more logical order.

                           Subtitle E--Other Matters

    Section 651--Technical Correction Clarifying Ability of Certain Members
                   To Elect Not To Occupy Government Quarters

        This section would clarify the authority for the
    Secretaries of the military departments to deny the election
    not to occupy inadequate government quarters made by a service
    member in the grade of E-6.

     Section 652--Technical Correction Clarifying Limitation on Furnishing
         Clothing or Allowances for Enlisted National Guard Technicians

        This section would correct an erroneous reference included
    in section 1038 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106).
                       TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

                                    OVERVIEW

        The committee has determined that the President's request
    for fiscal year 1997 did not provide adequate funding for the
    Defense Health Program (DHP)--it left it under-funded by nearly
    a half billion dollars. Without relief, there will be a serious
    degradation in the Department's ability to meet the medical
    needs of military beneficiaries, particularly military retirees
    who faithfully served their government with the understanding
    that their medical requirements would be adequately met.
        The committee understands that in an effort to identify
    additional funding for a decimated Army modernization program,
    unrealistic ``savings'' from the implementation of utilization
    management were factored into the DHP budget. This short-
    sighted, ill-conceived action seriously shortchanges the DHP
    and ultimately military personnel and their families, both
    active and retired. This disingenuous effort will result in
    disastrous consequences to the military health services system
    and it's ability to meet the medical needs of all those
    entitled to care if not addressed by this Congress.
        The significant shortfall in the Defense Health Program
    reflects not only a serious lack of commitment to important
    quality of life issues--service members consistently rank
    medical care as a top quality of life issue--but rather, it is
    indicative of a budget request not fully supportive of national
    defense needs. The need for this ``steal from the healthy to
    heal the weak'' approach to budgeting clearly emphasizes the
    Administration's poor support of modernization efforts in
    recent years. If adequate efforts had been made to address the
    Department's modernization needs, the DHP would not have to be
    robbed to fill in the substantial gaps being experienced in
    military modernization.
        The committee is very concerned that the DHP not be viewed
    by the Department's leadership as a potential source of funding
    for programs under-funded in the President's budget. The DHP
    provides a critical benefit to millions of men and women who
    devotedly serve or have served our country. Therefore, the
    committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure
    that the DHP is fully funded in fiscal year 1998 and the future
    year defense plan.

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

         Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) Network--Information Technology

        The committee recognizes the potential benefits that better
    information technology can provide to the delivery of effective
    health care. The core thrust of the MEDCOM network is to ensure
    24-hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week support to the users of the
    health information system and to support network enhancements,
    network security and disaster recovery efforts. The committee
    supports the Department's execution of the program in fiscal
    year 1997 to overcome the noted shortfalls and to serve as a
    model for DOD and other federal agencies.

                 Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Program

        The committee commends the Department of Defense for
    establishing the Chiropractic Health Care Demonstration Program
    (CHCDP) at 10 military installations, and for the work of the
    Oversight Advisory Committee in ensuring that the demonstration
    has been well designed and implemented. Twenty chiropractors
    and 20 chiropractic assistants are providing treatment for
    those eligible beneficiaries who select chiropractic care for
    spine-related neuromusculoskeletal complaints. Early
    indications are that chiropractic care is proving to be a
    popular option for beneficiaries at the demonstration sites. A
    comprehensive evaluation plan has been developed to assess the
    feasibility and advisability of providing chiropractic care
    within the military health services system. The demonstration
    will continue through fiscal year 1998. The committee strongly
    encourages the Department of Defense to continue its positive
    work with the CHCDP and the Oversight Advisory Committee.

     Comptroller General Study on the Department of Defense Family Member
                                  Dental Plan

        The Department of Defense Family Member Dental Plan, which
    provides comprehensive dental benefits to family members of
    active-duty military personnel, has been a very popular and
    successful plan. However, the contract for the program recently
    was awarded to a new provider who began administering this
    benefit on February 1, 1996.
        Since the change in contractors occurred, the committee has
    heard concerns from military beneficiaries and dental providers
    about the ability of the new contractor to effectively
    establish a network adequate to support the needs of military
    active-duty dependents. Additionally, concerns have been raised
    about the manner in which the program is being administered.
        In response to these concerns, the committee directs the
    Comptroller General of the United States to evaluate the family
    member dental plan and to report its findings to the committee
    by February 1, 1997. The evaluation should:
              (1) assess the ability of the contract provider to
            establish an adequate dental provider network;
              (2) evaluate the administration of the plan to
            include the claims processing systems and its
            effectiveness, marketing efforts and the accuracy of
            dental provider lists;
              (3) review the Department's oversight
            responsibilities and ability to ensure contract
            requirements are being sufficiently met.
              (4) analyze the appropriateness of the provider
            reimbursement rate structure.-
        The family member dental plan is a well-received, much-
    needed quality of life benefit. The committee remains committed
    to ensuring its successful continuation.

          Congressional Budget Office Scoring of Medicare Subvention
                             Demonstration Program

        The committee believes that legislation introduced in the
    House to conduct a demonstration of the concept of Medicare
    reimbursement to the Department of Defense for care provided to
    military Medicare-eligible beneficiaries is a critical step
    toward ensuring that the health care promised to our military
    retirees is available when they need it. This legislation would
    require the demonstration to be budget neutral and has been
    coordinated with the Department of Defense and the Health Care
    Financing Administration.
        However, despite provisions in the legislation designed to
    ensure the demonstration is budget neutral, the Congressional
    Budget Office (CBO) continues to score it with substantial
    direct-spending implications. The committee understands that
    these direct spending estimates are based upon the scoring of a
    demonstration ``concept'' using unsubstantiated assumptions.
        Therefore, the committee directs the Congressional Budget
    Office to:
              (1) score the specific Medicare subvention
            demonstration bills introduced by Mr. Hefley (H.R.
            3142) and Mr. Watts (H.R. 3151);
              (2) provide specific justification for any direct-
            spending implications identified in the score;
              (3) evaluate the impact that ``fencing'' the Medicare
            dollars to ensure the Department cannot use the money
            for other purposes would have on the scoring of the
            demonstration program;
              (4) assess the impact on scoring the legislation, of
            a provision that would direct the Comptroller General
            of the United States to conduct an independent audit of
            the demonstration.
              (5) provide recommendations to the Congress regarding
            the specific measures required in the proposed
            legislation to alleviate the direct-spending
            implications.
        Making sure the medical needs of the millions of men and
    women who have served and who continue to serve are adequately
    met is of tremendous importance to this committee. The
    committee believes Medicare subvention may be a cost-effective
    method for meeting this need and therefore strongly supports a
    demonstration program to test this concept.

                 Global Infectious Disease Surveillance Program

        The committee recognizes the need to minimize the negative
    effect that infectious diseases have on the combat readiness of
    the military force. Therefore, the committee encourages the
    Department of the Army to develop a global infectious disease
    surveillance and response program. This type of program could
    minimize the impact of disease on operational readiness by
    rapid communication of systematically gathered information and
    prompt intervention through a coordinated response program.

                            Pacific Medical Network

        The committee urges the immediate completion of the Pacific
    Medical Network (PACMEDNET) telecommunications test-bed program
    to develop an inclusive transportable computerized patient
    records and a network to transmit medical information which are
    indispensable capabilities of the Composite Health Care System
    (CHCS). Testing of evolutionary medical information technology
    which can be usefully integrated into CHCS should continue and
    work should be done to achieve the capability to transmit
    computer-based medical information between the systems of the
    Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs
    which will facilitate the resource sharing encouraged by the
    committee.

                              Provider Workstation

        The committee recognizes the importance of implementing a
    computer-based patient record (CPR) in the Department of
    Defense. Data derived from the CPR is critical to the success
    of TRICARE by assuring the delivery of the highest quality care
    at the lowest possible operational cost. The committee is aware
    of and encouraged by the prototype development of the Provider
    Workstation (PWS) at the Air Force Medical Center located at
    Scott Air Force Base (AFB), Illinois. The committee strongly
    urges the Department to build quickly on the successes at Scott
    AFB and rapidly incorporate the concepts validated under PWS
    into military health services system information systems.

                         TRICARE Alternative Financing

        The committee believes that the alternative financing
    concept for the TRICARE program should be fully developed and
    tested in one TRICARE region prior to being implemented
    program-wide. While the concept potentially offers a more
    appropriate and cost-effective approach to financing the
    TRICARE program in each of the sizable managed-care regions,
    there are many questions about the concept that remain
    unanswered. The committee believes the concept needs to be
    fully developed into an effective operational plan before
    attempting to implement it nationwide. Therefore, the committee
    directs the Secretary of Defense to further develop and test
    the concept in one yet-to-be-procured TRICARE region, as
    originally planned, and for lessons learned to be incorporated
    prior to implementing alternative financing in additional
    TRICARE regions.
        Congressional concerns about the TRICARE program have
    centered around the pace under which the program is being
    implemented. Many have expressed concern that the Department is
    implementing the program so fast that lessons learned are not
    being incorporated into successive TRICARE regional contracts.
    The committee is concerned that rushing to refit any TRICARE
    contract with an untested, under-developed concept could
    adversely affect the success of the entire TRICARE program.

                           TRICARE Prime Portability

        The committee strongly believes that as the TRICARE program
    is implemented nationwide, beneficiaries should have seamless
    enrollment in the health maintenance organization (HMO) option,
    TRICARE Prime, of the program. Currently, active-duty
    beneficiaries who accompany their sponsor on a permanent change
    of station from one TRICARE region to another must disenroll
    from their current region and may not enroll in the new region
    until the sponsor has reported at the new duty station. Such
    beneficiaries are liable for the high deductibles and
    copayments of the TRICARE Standard (fee-for-service) option
    while in transit or on leave status.
        Further, retirees are unable to enroll family members
    residing in a different region than the retiree under the
    family enrollment fee. Retirees with college student dependents
    or dependent children from a prior marriage may actually have
    to pay two family enrollment fees to cover their dependents.
        Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary
    of Defense to publish policies to ensure that TRICARE Prime
    enrollees may transfer their enrollment from one TRICARE region
    to another in any area where the TRICARE program has been
    implemented. Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary
    to modify the TRICARE program to ensure that a sponsor with
    dependents who reside in one or more TRICARE regions different
    from the TRICARE region of the sponsor, shall pay no more than
    a single family enrollment fee to secure TRICARE coverage of
    the sponsor's entire family.

                            LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS-

                        Subtitle A--Health Care Services

    Section 701--Medical and Dental Care for Reserve Component Members in a
                                  Duty Status

        This section would amend section 1074(a) of title 10,
    United States Code, to clarify the medical and dental care
    members of the reserve are entitled to while in a duty status
    or traveling directly to and from their duty location. The
    amendment defines the entitlement to medical and dental care
    for reserve component members in a specific military duty
    status and the authority to continue such care until the member
    is returned to full military duty, or if unable to return to
    military duty, the member is processed for disability
    separation. It clarifies that members on active duty, active
    duty for training, annual training, full-time National Guard
    duty or traveling directly to or from such duty may request
    continuation on active duty while hospitalized, and that all
    members receiving care are eligible to apply to receive pay and
    allowances.

                          Subtitle B--TRICARE Program

                   Section 711--Definition of TRICARE Program

        This section would define the Department's managed-care
    TRICARE program.

        Section 712--CHAMPUS Payment Limits for TRICARE Prime Enrollees

        This section would permit health care providers who are not
    participating in the TRICARE network to be paid higher amounts
    than now permitted in the limited circumstances in which they
    might provide care to TRICARE Prime, the health maintenance
    organization (HMO) option, enrollees. This section would
    protect TRICARE Prime enrollees from ``balance billing'' by
    such providers. As is standard for HMOs, enrollees receive most
    care from network providers, but in limited circumstances
    receive covered services from non-participating providers. This
    section also would apply in cases where enrollees are referred
    to a non-network provider because no network provider is
    available.

     Section 713--Improved Information Exchange Between Military Treatment
                   Facilities and TRICARE Program Contractors

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
    field a uniform version of the Composite Health Care System
    (CHCS) throughout the military health services system. It also
    would require the Department to amend one TRICARE regional
    contract to require the TRICARE contractor to use government
    furnished CHCS software for military treatment facility (MTF)
    provider appointments and to record TRICARE MTF enrollment. The
    committee believes that a successful TRICARE program must fully
    incorporate the successful features of CHCS to ensure an
    effective two-way exchange of information between the MTF and
    TRICARE civilian care contractors.

              Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities

                            Section 721--Definitions

        This section would define various terms pertaining to the
    Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities.

     Section 722--Inclusion of Designated Providers in Uniformed Services
                          Health Care Delivery System

        This section would provide for the inclusion of the
    Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities (USTFs) in the health
    care delivery system of the uniformed services. It would
    establish the terms under which the USTFs would become
    designated providers of managed health care services to
    military beneficiaries and would require the USTFs to comply
    with the administrative requirements established by the
    Secretary of Defense for health care providers.-

       Section 723--Provision of Uniform Benefit by Designated Providers

        This section would require the designated providers that
    would be established under section 722 of this act to implement
    the TRICARE uniform benefit, including the uniform cost-sharing
    requirements, upon implementation of TRICARE in the designated
    provider's region or October 1, 1996, whichever date is later.

                Section 724--Enrollment of Covered Beneficiaries

        This section would limit the number of beneficiaries
    enrolled in managed care programs of the designated provider in
    fiscal year 1997 to the number enrolled as of October 1, 1995.
    It also would provide the Secretary of Defense with the
    authority to waive the enrollment limit to accommodate
    enrollment of active-duty dependents. Additionally, this
    section would establish a permanent limitation on the number of
    enrollees in the programs of the designated providers, would
    prohibit the disenrollment of current participants except in
    certain, specified cases and would establish additional
    enrollment criteria for designated providers.

               Section 725--Application of CHAMPUS Payment Rules

        This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
    clarify a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) to ensure that it
    applies to military beneficiaries, rather than active-duty
    members. It would also clarify that the Civilian Health and
    Medical Care Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) rules
    may apply even in situations when the health care provided to
    military beneficiaries is not provided outside the Uniformed
    Services Treatment Facility's catchment area.

                       Section 726--Payment for Services

        This section would require the payments made to the
    designated provider to be full-risk capitation based on the
    utilization experience of enrollees and competitive market
    rates for equivalent health care services. It also would limit
    payments to a designated provider to no more than the
    government would pay if enrollees received their care through
    the TRICARE program or through Medicare.

                 Section 727--Repeal of Superseded Authorities

        This section would repeal previous Uniformed Services
    Treatment Facilities (USTFs) legislative provisions effective
    October 1, 1997, the date on which the USTFs would become
    ``designated providers'' under the TRICARE program.

       Subtitle D--Other Changes to Existing Laws Regarding Health Care
                                   Management

          Section 731--Authority To Waive CHAMPUS Exclusion Regarding
     Nonmedically Necessary Treatment in Connection With Certain Clinical
                                     Trials

        This section would amend section 1079(a) of title 10,
    United States Code, to permit the Secretary of Defense,
    pursuant to an agreement with the Secretary of Health and Human
    Services, to waive the exclusion of non-medically necessary
    treatment with respect to clinical trials sponsored or approved
    by the National Institutes of Health. Participation in these
    clinical trials will improve access to promising therapies for
    CHAMPUS-eligible beneficiaries when their conditions meet
    protocol eligibility criteria.

     Section 732--Authority To Waive or Reduce CHAMPUS Deductible Amounts
        for Reservists Called to Active Duty in Support of Contingency
                                   Operations

        This section would amend section 1079(b) of title 10,
    United States Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense the
    authority to waive or reduce CHAMPUS deductible amounts in the
    case of the dependents of a member of a reserve component of
    the uniformed services who is on active duty under a call or
    order to active duty of less than one year. This provision
    would eliminate an existing inequity in the treatment of
    reserve component personnel and avoid unusual out-of-pocket
    costs, disruption of continuity in care, impaired access and
    problems with beneficiary satisfaction for activated
    reservists.

      Section 733--Exception to Maximum Allowable Payments to Individual
                      Health-Care Providers Under CHAMPUS

        This section would amend section 1079 of title 10, United
    States Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense the authority
    to authorize the commander of a military treatment facility, a
    TRICARE lead agent, or a civilian, at-risk health care
    contractor to modify the CHAMPUS payment limitations to ensure
    the availability of care for military beneficiaries.
        In many rural or semi-rural communities, limited managed
    care providers limit the application principles. The CHAMPUS
    Maximum Allowable Calculation (CMAC) level, which frequently is
    viewed as too low, becomes a major stumbling block to securing
    contract providers for TRICARE Prime, the HMO option, and
    TRICARE Extra, the preferred provider organization. For those
    providers who refuse participation in TRICARE, reimbursement
    then reverts to the standard CHAMPUS rate which can be higher
    than the CMAC level for some services. Given the limited
    availability of certain providers in selected rural and semi-
    rural regions, some flexibility in paying more than CMAC within
    the TRICARE system would facilitate the availability and
    accessibility of health care services, while at the same time
    implementing managed-care utilization and quality assurance
    measures.-

    Section 734--Codification of Annual Authority to Credit CHAMPUS Refunds
                         to Current Year Appropriation

        This section would amend chapter 55 of title 10, United
    States Code, to make permanent the authority outlined in
    section 8144 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act
    for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-335), which allows the
    Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services
    (CHAMPUS) to credit refunds and similar collections to the
    current-year appropriations and thus be available to pay
    current-year obligations.

          Section 735--Exceptions to Requirements Regarding Obtaining
                   Nonavailability-of-Health-Care Statements

        This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
    prohibit the requirement for non-availability statements for
    outpatient services for military beneficiaries who chose the
    TRICARE Standard (fee-for-service) option. The committee
    believes that beneficiaries who decline enrollment in the HMO
    option of the TRICARE program do so in order to retain their
    freedom of providers, at a much greater cost to them in the
    form of deductibles and copayments. The requirement for
    obtaining non-availability statements may compromise these
    beneficiaries' freedom of choice, as well as their continuity
    of care when an extensive outpatient procedure is required.
    Additionally, beneficiaries unable to enroll in the HMO option
    of TRICARE, either because of space limitations or non-
    availability in an area, should not have their choices further
    limited by the requirement for a non-availability statement.

       Section 736--Expansion of Collection Authorities From Third-Party
                                     Payers

        This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
    adopt several refinements to the Third Party Collection Program
    under which military medical facilities collect from third-
    party payers for health care services provided to beneficiaries
    who are also covered by the third-party payers' plans, and to
    the related CHAMPUS Double Coverage Program, under which
    CHAMPUS is secondary payer to other health plans that also
    cover CHAMPUS beneficiaries. These refinements are consistent
    with the long-standing Congressional policy of containing
    health care spending by assuring that third-party payers, who
    generally have collected full premiums for coverage of insured
    persons who are also DOD beneficiaries, do not shift their
    costs to the federal taxpayers.

                           Subtitle E--Other Matters

    Section 741--Alternatives to Active Duty Service Obligation Under Armed
    Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program
            and Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

        This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
    establish new alternatives in cases of members of the Health
    Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program who do
    not, or cannot, complete their active-duty service obligations.
    Currently, the only alternative, assignment to a health
    professional shortage area designated by the Secretary of
    Health and Human Services, has never been used because neither
    the Department of Defense nor the Department of Health and
    Human Services has an effective mechanism to administer such an
    alternative obligation.
        This section would establish four options for alternative
    obligations for the member:
              (1) a reserve component assignment of a duration
            twice as long as the remaining active-duty obligation;
              (2) service as a health professional civil service
            employee in a facility of the uniformed services;
              (3) transfer of the active-duty service obligation to
            an equal obligation under the National Health Services
            Corps;
              (4) repayment of a percentage of the total cost
            incurred by the Department under the program equal to
            the percentage of the member's total active-duty
            service obligation being relieved, plus interest.

       Section 742--Exception to Strength Limitations for Public Health
             Service Officers Assigned to the Department of Defense

        This section would amend section 207, title 42, United
    States Code to exclude commissioned officers of the Public
    Health Service (PHS) assigned to duty in the Department of
    Defense from being counted when computing the maximum number of
    commissioned PHS officers authorized by law. This would
    facilitate a continuation of the long-standing practice of
    assigning a number of PHS officers to duty with the Department
    of Defense.

     Section 743--Continued Operation of Uniformed Services University of
                              the Health Sciences

        The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
    (Public Law 104-106) directed the Secretary of Defense to
    budget for ongoing operations at the Uniformed Services
    University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). This section
    restates that directive.
        The service surgeons general have consistently reported on
    the importance of USUHS in effectively training military
    physicians to meet both peacetime and wartime medical readiness
    requirements. The committee believes USUHS is vital to the
    medical readiness training of a substantial number of military
    health-care providers and therefore strongly supports the
    continued operation of USUHS. Congress clearly stated its
    support of USUHS through actions taken in both the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and the
    Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996
    (Public Law 104-61).
        However, the committee recently learned that the Department
    of Defense has been directed to not budget for the continued
    operation of the Uniformed Services University of the Health
    Sciences after fiscal year 1997. The Administration's decision
    to not budget for USUHS is yet another example of its
    inadequate commitment to ensuring the total readiness of the
    U.S. armed forces.

    Section 744--Sense of Congress Regarding Tax Treatment of Armed Forces
        Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program

        The Department of Defense has approximately 4,000 medical,
    dental, optometric, psychology and nurse anesthesia students
    enrolled in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship
    Program. Prior to 1986, DOD payments for tuition and related
    expense to and on behalf of program participants were tax
    exempt. Only the monthly stipend was, and continues to be,
    treated as taxable income subject to withholdings and student
    payment of individual tax liability. However, as a result of
    section 117, title 26, United States Code, which was amended by
    the Tax Reform Act of 1986, DOD payments for tuition and
    related expenses became taxable income subject to withholdings.
        This section would express the sense of Congress that the
    Secretary of Defense should continue to work with the Secretary
    of the Treasury to seek relief from this problem from the
    Internal Revenue Service. The decision to tax health
    professions scholarships seems to be based on a selective
    interpretation of the law.

      Section 745--Report Regarding Specialized Treatment Facility Program

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
    provide Congress with a report on the impact of reducing the
    catchment areas for specialized treatment facilities from 200
    miles to 100 miles.
      TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
                                    MATTERS

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                Implementation of Acquisition Reform Legislation

        In a span of two legislative years, Congress has enacted
    three major acquisition reform initiatives: the Federal
    Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355), the
    Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 (Division D of Public
    Law 104-106) and the Information Technology Management Reform
    Act of 1996 (Division E of Public Law 104-106). This assertive
    legislative effort reflects a recognition by the Congress of
    the urgent need to simplify, streamline and reduce the cost
    associated with the federal acquisition process. The Committee
    on National Security and the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight, in particular, have aggressively pursued such
    reforms to maximize the return on each taxpayer dollar used to
    procure the billions in goods and services the federal
    government procures annually.
        The committee strongly believes that the burden for
    continuing this effort has now shifted to the executive branch
    as it begins the lengthy and complex process of implementing
    the many statutory changes contained in the aforementioned
    legislation. The committee notes that this legislation, in
    general, intentionally refrained from prescriptive statutory
    direction in order to maximize flexibility and effective
    regulatory implementation. Therefore, the committee strongly
    urges the appropriate agencies of government to take maximum
    advantage of the flexibility and opportunity provided by this
    legislation during the process of developing and implementing
    the necessary regulations and guidance.

                     Truth in Negotiations Act Audit Rights

        The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
    (Public Law 104-106) eliminated certain rights by the
    government to audit information to be supplied by commercial
    suppliers in lieu of certified cost or pricing data. In taking
    this action, Congress clearly and willfully did not intend that
    this statutory change permit federal agencies to subsequently
    determine through agency supplements to the Federal Acquisition
    Regulation whether and to what extent post award audit access
    is appropriate on commercial item contracts. The committee
    strongly reiterates previously stated congressional intent that
    the only remaining authority for the government to pursue such
    information is the authority of the General Accounting Office
    to audit contractor records.

                         Tungsten Anti-Tank Penetrators

        The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
    entered into an agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany
    in 1979 concerning requirements for the next generation combat
    tanks. This agreement has led to the manufacture by Germany of
    tungsten anti-tank penetrator components for use in M1 Abrams
    anti-tank munitions manufactured in the United States. The
    committee is concerned with the potential impact that this
    arrangement could have on an important segment of the North
    American munitions industrial base. Therefore, the committee
    strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to review this
    situation and reconsider whether U.S. manufactured tungsten
    anti-tank penetrators should be used once the agreement between
    the United States and Germany expires in 1997.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                       Subtitle A--Acquisition Management

      Section 801--Authority to Waive or Modify Certain Requirements for
                       Defense Acquisition Pilot Programs

        This section would expand existing authorities provided to
    the Secretary of Defense to waive or modify certain acquisition
    laws in executing programs designated under the defense
    acquisition pilot program. The committee is aware of the
    initial results realized through the streamlined acquisition
    procedures utilized for those programs designated under the
    defense acquisition pilot program. The committee is pleased
    with the reported cost savings and urges the Department to
    continue aggressively pursuing this pilot effort to validate
    further reform concepts for possible broader application to the
    defense acquisition process.

    Section 802--Exclusion From Certain Post-Education Duty Assignments for
                          Members of Acquisition Corps

        This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
    exclude from the mandatory joint duty requirement military
    members of the acquisition corps who have graduated from the
    senior acquisition course at the Industrial College of the
    Armed Forces (ICAF). Such exemption would be permitted if these
    officers are assigned to critical acquisition positions upon
    graduation. The committee recognizes the conflict that exists
    between the dual imperatives of the Goldwater-Nichols
    Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law
    99-433) and the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act
    (title XII of Public Law 101-510) in how ICAF graduates should
    be assigned. The committee's action, however, should in no way
    be interpreted as a reduction of commitment to the joint
    officer management provisions of the Goldwater-Nichols Act.

      Section 803--Extension of Authority to Carry Out Certain Prototype
                                    Projects

        This section would reauthorize and expand to the military
    services the authority provided by section 845 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-
    160) to allow additional flexibility in the acquisition of
    prototype technologies and systems.

          Section 804--Increase in Threshold Amounts for Major Systems

        This section would update the existing statutory threshold
    for the definition of ``major systems'' to fiscal year 1990
    constant dollars from fiscal year 1980 dollars. It would also
    allow the Secretary of Defense to further adjust this
    definition threshold to reflect inflation after notification to
    the Congressional defense committees. These changes would
    conform the definition for ``major systems'' to that used for
    ``major defense acquisition program'' in title 10, United
    States Code.

       Section 805--Revisions in Information Required to be Included in
                          Selected Acquisition Reports

        This section would adjust and improve the terminology and
    references used in the acquisition reporting process of major
    defense acquisition programs. The provision would add
    ``procurement unit cost'' as an additional reporting element of
    the selected acquisition report to provide a more meaningful
    measure of recurring unit cost. The provision would also
    eliminate the reporting element for completion status for a
    program since, as presently defined, it provides statistical
    measures of marginal utility for program oversight.

         Section 806--Increase in Simplified Acquisition Threshold for
                    Humanitarian or Peacekeeping Operations

        This section would expand the current authority that
    doubles the simplified acquisition threshold for purchases made
    outside of the United States in support of a contingency
    operation to humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. The
    committee takes this action not as an endorsement of the
    expansion of these kind of operations by the Department of
    Defense, but as a recognition of the utility and benefit of
    allowing the Department additional contracting flexibility when
    engaged in such operations abroad.

     Section 807--Expansion of Audit Reciprocity Among Federal Agencies to
                           Include Post-Award Audits

        The committee recognizes the need to avoid duplicative
    contract audit requirements arising from federal, state, and
    local government agencies. In order to reduce administrative
    burdens and duplication of efforts by different governmental
    entities, this section would expand upon current statutory
    authorities in two ways. First, it would extend audit
    reciprocity considerations to post-award audit to expedite the
    contract close out process and the issuance of final contract
    payments. Secondly, it would require the Office of Management
    and Budget to issue guidance to ensure that state and local
    entities accept cognizant federal agency audits in order to
    minimize duplication of effort and reduce cost for contractors
    engaged in contracting at various levels of government.

             Section 808--Extension of Pilot Mentor-Protege Program

        This section would extend the authority for the Department
    of Defense to conduct the Pilot Mentor-Protege program through
    fiscal year 1997.

                           Subtitle B--Other Matters

    Section 821--Amendment to Definition of National Security System Under
              Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1995

        This section would expand the definition of national
    security systems items waived for the purposes of application
    of the centralized management provisions of the Information
    Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (Division E of Public
    Law 104-106) to include all classified systems.

       Section 822--Prohibition on Release of Contractor Proposals Under
                           Freedom of Information Act

        This section would exempt contractor proposals provided to
    the federal government from release under the Freedom of
    Information Act (Public Law 89-554). The committee is aware
    that the current Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process
    imposes a significant administrative burden on federal agencies
    receiving requests for release of contractor proposals even
    though most if not all of the information is exempt under the
    FOIA process. This provision is intended to allow federal
    agencies to dispense with the lengthy line-by-line reviews
    which are presently required to arrive at the non-disclosure
    determination for this material. The committee does not intend
    for this provision to affect information available to be placed
    under a General Accounting Office protective order pursuant to
    section 3553(f) of title 31, United States Code.

        Section 823--Repeal of Annual Report by Advocate for Competition

        This section would repeal the requirement for agency
    competition advocates to submit an annual report to agency
    senior procurement executives.

       Section 824--Repeal of Biannual Report on Procurement Regulatory
                                    Activity

        This section would repeal the requirement for the
    Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to publish a
    semiannual regulatory activity report on procurement
    regulations. The committee recognizes that much of the
    information contained in this report can already be found in
    the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations published
    semiannually in the Federal Register by the Office of
    Management and Budget.

         Section 825--Repeal of Multiyear Limitation on Contracts for
                      Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair

        This section would repeal the current statutory limitation
    on multiyear contracts for inspection, maintenance, and repair
    functions allowing the multiyear policy provisions of the
    Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-
    355) to govern such contracts.

        Section 826--Streamlined Notice Requirements to Contractors and
     Employees Regarding Termination or Substantial Reduction in Contracts
                          Under Major Defense Programs

        This section would streamline and simplify the notification
    process resulting from termination or substantial reduction in
    defense contract funding required by the Defense Conversion,
    Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance Act of 1992 (Division D
    of Public Law 102-484). The committee understands that the
    current process is unnecessarily cumbersome and complex. This
    provision would modify the notification process to occur upon
    actual contract termination or substantial reduction rather
    than prematurely during the budget process as currently
    required.

        Section 827--Repeal of Notice Requirements for Substantially or
                Seriously Affected Parties in Downsizing Efforts

        This section would repeal the requirement for the Secretary
    of Defense to notify federal, state, county, local and labor
    officials if the annual budget of the President submitted to
    Congress, or long-term guidance documents, or public
    announcements of base or facility closures or realignments, or
    cancellation or curtailment of a major contract will have a
    serious and substantial effect. The committee concurs with the
    Administration's assessment that this statutory requirement is
    overly prescriptive, confusing, and unnecessary.

              Section 828--Testing of Defense Acquisition Programs

        This section would modify existing statutes governing live
    fire testing of major defense systems to provide additional
    flexibility without compromising the benefits accrued through a
    responsible testing program.

     Section 829--Dependency of National Technology and Industrial Base on
                 Supplies Available Only From Foreign Countries

        This section would direct the Department of Defense to
    conduct an assessment of the degree of dependency on foreign
    sources for key components of defense systems.

      Section 830--Sense of Congress Regarding Treatment of Department of
                 Defense Cable Television Franchise Agreements

        Section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directed the Chief Judge
    of the United States Court of Federal Claims to transmit to
    Congress a report answering certain questions concerning the
    treatment of cable television franchise agreements under part
    49 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the
    Communications Act of 1934. The report is to be submitted no
    later than August 10, 1996.

      Section 831--Extension of Domestic Source Limitation for Valves and
                                 Machine Tools

        This section would delay the expiration of the current
    statutory domestic source restriction for valves and machine
    tools from October 1, 1996 to October 1, 2001.
          TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                              Unified Command Plan

        The committee is aware of the recent changes to the Unified
    Command Plan (UCP) which resulted in changes in the geographic
    area of responsibility for the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM)
    and the U.S. Atlantic Command (USACOM). In particular, the
    committee notes that the proposed UCP changes would shift the
    responsibility for the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and
    the island nations within these regions from USACOM to
    SOUTHCOM. The committee considers these proposed changes to be
    significant and wishes to have a better understanding of all
    possible implications. Therefore, the committee directs that
    the General Accounting Office (GAO) conduct a review of the
    issues reported by USACOM to the Secretary of Defense and to
    the Committee on National Security at its hearing of March 28,
    1996 regarding the proposed UCP changes. A report on the GAO's
    findings and conclusions should be provided to the committee no
    later than January 1, 1997.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

       Section 901--Additional Required Reduction in Defense Acquisition
                                   Workforce

        This section would require a reduction in the number of
    personnel assigned to defense acquisition organizations of
    25,000 during fiscal year 1997. This provision results from the
    committee's ongoing effort to reduce the size and cost
    associated with the Department's significant administrative
    overhead. The committee is disturbed that the Department has
    failed to produce the report required by section 906 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
    Law 104-106) regarding downsizing and restructuring options for
    the defense acquisition infrastructure. The committee strongly
    believes that the Department must aggressively pursue such
    structural changes in order to reduce the significant overhead
    cost associated with the procurement of defense goods and
    services.

    Section 902--Reduction of Personnel Assigned to Office of the Secretary
                                   of Defense

        This section would clarify that the 25 percent, five year
    reduction in personnel assigned to the Office of the Secretary
    of Defense required by section 901 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)
    must be implemented on an annual basis. The committee notes
    with concern that the Department has yet to submit the report
    and recommendations required by section 901 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
    106) regarding the downsizing and restructuring of the Office
    of the Secretary of Defense.

         Section 903--Report on Military Department Headquarters Staffs

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
    conduct a comprehensive assessment on the management and
    functional responsibilities of the offices of the military
    department secretaries and chiefs of staff. This provision also
    results from the committee's ongoing effort to reduce the size
    and cost associated with the Department's significant
    administrative overhead.

        Section 904--Extension of Effective Date for Charter for Joint
                         Requirements Oversight Council

        This section would delay the effective date of the
    statutory charter for the Joint Requirements Oversight Council
    (JROC) from January 1, 1997 to January 1, 1998. The committee
    notes with concern the difficulties it has encountered in
    receiving the most cursory information associated with analysis
    performed by the JROC resulting in decisions to terminate or
    rephase military programs. Repeated attempts by the committee
    to conduct legitimate program oversight have been frustrated by
    consistent refusal by the Joint Staff to provide the committee
    with supporting rationale for recent decisions on theater
    missile defense and unmanned aerial vehicle programs. While the
    committee recognizes that direct involvement in acquisition
    program decisions is a relatively new role for the Joint Staff,
    the committee is nevertheless committed to pursuing all
    necessary information to carry out its constitutional oversight
    responsibilities. As such, the committee urges the Chairman of
    the Joint Chiefs of Staff to promptly revisit this matter and
    engage the committee in a dialogue to avoid similar occurrences
    in the future.

     Section 905--Removal of Secretary of the Army From Membership on the
                            Foreign Trade Zone Board

        This section would repeal the requirement for membership by
    the Secretary of the Army on the Foreign Trade Zone Board.
    Participation on the Board is no longer necessary as a result
    of the changing nature of foreign trade zones and the fact that
    current issues facing the Board rarely involve engineering or
    construction issues of interest to the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers.

            Section 906--Membership of the Ammunition Storage Board-

        This section would amend section 172(a) of title 10, United
    States Code, to permit qualified civilian employees of the
    Federal Government to serve as board members on the ammunition
    storage board which is currently named the Department of
    Defense Explosives Safety Board. Section 172(a) limits the
    board membership to ``officers'' who, in accordance with the
    definition set forth in section 101(b)(1), must be commissioned
    or warrant officers and not civilian employees. This limitation
    restricts the secretaries of the military departments from
    selecting the most qualified person available to represent
    their departments. To ensure the secretaries have the
    flexibility to be represented by the most qualified
    professional, the option to select civilian board members must
    be available to them.

     Section 907--Department of Defense Disbursing Official Check Cashing
                           and Exchange Transactions

        This section would permit Department of Defense disbursing
    officials to provide check cashing services and exchange
    services to U.S. chartered federal credit unions serving U.S.
    military personnel and their dependents in foreign countries
    where military banking facilities are not available.
                                    TITLE X

                            Counter-Drug Activities

                                    Overview

        The budget request contained $782.0 million for Department
    of Defense counter-drug activities. This represents a net
    decrease of $32.3 million from the fiscal year 1996
    appropriated level of $814.3 million. To ensure that the
    Department of Defense effort in this important national
    priority is not diminished, the committee recommends an
    increase of $40.0 million for fiscal year 1997 counter-drug
    activities for a total authorization of $822.0 million
    allocated as follows:

                            [In thousands of dollars]

    FY97 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request.................  $782,019
        Source Nation Support.....................................   153,961
        Dismantling Cartels.......................................    57,055
        Detection and Monitoring..................................   232,129
        Law Enforcement Agency Support............................   254,979
        Demand Reduction..........................................    83,895
    Recommended Increases:
        Laser Strike (Project #9497)..............................    10,000
        Riverine Operations (Project #9201).......................     4,900
        Southwest border support (Project #9499)..................     2,500
        Signal intelligence equipment (Project #1313).............     3,000
        SOUTHCOM support (Project #9497)..........................     1,500
        Enhanced JTF-6 DLEA support (Project #2435)...............     5,000
        Gulf States Counterdrug Initiative (Project #7406)........     4,800
        Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force (Project #7408)...........     1,000
        Spare TARS (Project #4110)................................     3,800
        C-26 reconnaissance upgrade (Project #7403)...............     3,500
    Recommendation................................................   822,019

                           Items of Special Interest

    National guard counter-drug program

        The committee continues to strongly endorse the
    contributions of the National Guard to the defense counter drug
    program. The unique role and status of the National Guard in
    the war on drugs makes the men and women of the National Guard
    an invaluable asset to the overall effort. National Guard
    counter drug activities take place in every state and virtually
    every community of the United States. Accordingly, with the
    exception of the increases noted above, the committee
    recommends the requested authorization for the fiscal year 1997
    National Guard counter drug program and fully expects the
    Department to execute the program at this level of
    authorization. The committee strongly believes that the
    National Guard component of the defense counter drug program
    should be properly resourced to ensure the continued successful
    contribution of the National Guard to this national priority.

    C-26 aircraft photo reconnaissance upgrades

        The committee is aware of a shortfall in funding for the
    National Guard C-26 aircraft photo reconnaissance and infrared
    surveillance upgrade program. Therefore, the committee
    recommends an increase of $3.5 million to restore the number of
    aircraft involved in the C-26 photo reconnaissance upgrade
    program to its previous level.

    Gulf states counterdrug initiative

        The committee continues to support the Gulf States
    Counterdrug Initiative (GSCI) and is pleased to note that the
    budget request contains $3.2 million for this initiative.
    However, the committee is concerned that this funding level
    does not adequately cover the required costs for the Regional
    Counterdrug Training Academy, integrating the state of Georgia
    into the program and other priority initiatives. Therefore, the
    committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million over the
    requested amount. The committee notes that none of these funds
    should be utilized for construction or other infrastructure
    related costs. The committee strongly believes that funds
    provided for this program should remain focused on training and
    improving command, control, communications and computer (C4)
    capabilities.

    Southwest border fence project

        The committee continues to have a strong interest in
    facilitating support for the border fence project along the San
    Diego-Tijuana border area in Southern California. The committee
    is aware of the efforts of JTF-6 and the California National
    Guard in sustaining an adequate level of support to enhance
    this important barrier. The committee notes the growing support
    in Congress and within the Administration for upgrading the
    existing fence to a more capable design and endorses the
    decision to fund this effort from within the immigration
    control budget. However, to ensure that the existing program to
    extend the length of fence coverage is not unnecessarily
    interrupted, the committee recommends that, of the amounts
    authorized for Law Enforcement Agency Support, $5.0 million be
    made available for continued support of this national project.
    Further, the committee believes that improvements to the San
    Diego fence should receive priority consideration as Congress
    entertains Administration proposals to utilize up to $250
    million in fiscal year 1996 Department of Defense funds for the
    national counternarcotics effort.

                                 Other Matters

                   Defense Information Systems Network (DISN)

        The committee continues to strongly support the
    Department's efforts to upgrade its information technology
    infrastructure by rapidly transitioning to the Defense
    Information Systems Network (DISN). While the committee had
    hoped that the Department would have had the full DISN program
    in place and operational by now, the committee expects
    implementation of the DISN program to move forward
    expeditiously to ensure widespread availability of state-of-
    the-art telecommunications for military users. Accordingly, the
    committee expects that the fifteen month extension of the
    current Defense Commercial Telecommunications Network (DCTN)
    end no later than the planned date of May, 1997.
        To facilitate the rapid migration of the Department's vast
    collection of telecommunication systems into DISN, the
    committee directs the military services to finalize plans to
    extend DISN operational concepts within their base
    infrastructure and within operationally deployed forces. The
    committee notes that DISN implementation must reflect the end-
    to-end nature of the program and elimination and migration of
    legacy systems in order to for the program to attain its full
    potential. Further, the committee believes that the aggressive
    integration of land, space, and deployable assets is essential
    to this strategy and should receive priority consideration
    during future budgeting and implementation decisions.

                        Military Affiliate Radio System

        The committee notes that the Military Affiliate Radio
    System (MARS) provides the Department of Defense and U.S. armed
    forces with an auxiliary and emergency communications
    capability on a local, national, and international basis as an
    adjunct to normal communications. It has also been used to
    handle morale and quasi-official record and voice
    communications traffic for the armed forces and authorized U.S.
    government civilian personnel stationed throughout the world.
    The MARS program operates at little cost to the government and
    has provided the U.S. armed forces with a reserve of qualified
    and well-trained radio communications personnel, including
    civilian ``affiliates'' who volunteer their time to provide a
    valuable service to U.S. troops and their families at home or
    overseas. The committee further notes that the Army MARS
    support plan for Operation Joint Endeavor was held in abeyance
    due to the use of other communications means to meet morale
    support requirements for U.S. armed forces deployed in Bosnia.
    However, these other means may take time to establish, may not
    always be reliable or available, or may result in out-of-pocket
    costs to U.S. service personnel. Because of this, the committee
    supports the continuation and expanded use by all services of
    an active MARS program.

                National Defense University Chinese Translations

        The committee understands that the Director, Office of Net
    Assessment has acquired and translated open source articles and
    journals written by People's Liberation Army (PLA) military
    officers and officials. These articles provide important
    insights into the PLA's vision of the future of warfare,
    including the meaning of the revolution in military affairs.
    The committee further understands that the National Defense
    University (NDU) Press is planning to publish one or more books
    containing these articles, in the interest of broadening
    understanding of Chinese military thinking. The committee
    strongly supports this initiative, and directs the President,
    National Defense University to ensure that these important
    papers are published in a timely manner.

                    Supercomputer Exports and Proliferation

        The committee continues to be troubled by the
    Administration's relaxation of export controls on sensitive
    items with military application and reiterates the directive
    contained in the statement of managers accompanying the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
    Law 104-106) directing the Secretary of Defense to submit a
    report on the Administration's relaxation of export
    restrictions on supercomputers. The conferees expressed concern
    regarding the potential impact of the Administration's decision
    on United States nonproliferation efforts and the ability of
    the United States to maintain its military technological edge.
    Specifically, the Secretary was directed to submit a report
    that ``describes the impact of the export decision on the
    ability of nations to acquire and use high-performance
    computing capabilities to develop advanced conventional
    weaponry, weapons of mass destruction, and delivery vehicles.''
    This report has not been submitted and is now overdue. The
    committee calls on the Secretary to submit the required report
    as soon as possible.

                       White House Communications Agency

        The committee is aware of ongoing work by the Committee on
    Government Reform and Oversight, the Department of Defense
    Inspector General and the General Accounting Office to review
    the operations of the White House Communications Agency (WHCA).
    The committee is concerned that although funded exclusively
    through DOD appropriations of over $100 million a year, WHCA
    has functioned outside DOD operational control and with little
    or no Defense Department oversight.
        Operating under the direction of the White House, WHCA's
    budget requests have gone largely unreviewed, its annual
    performance plan has failed to meet DOD requirements, its
    acquisition planning has fallen short of the Federal
    Acquisition Regulation standards resulting in wasteful
    purchases, and the agency's staffing needs have not been
    adequately supported or justified. In addition, the agency's
    functions and activities appear to have expanded greatly beyond
    its initial mission of providing communications support to the
    President in his role as commander-in-chief.
        While the need for reform is clear, the committee is
    encouraged by the recent indications by the Assistant Secretary
    of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and
    Intelligence, the Director of the Defense Information Systems
    Agency, and the Commander of WHCA of a willingness to undertake
    corrective actions. Together with the Committee on Government
    Reform and Oversight, the committee will pursue a further
    review of the agency's operations in the coming year to ensure
    that necessary reforms are adopted.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                         Subtitle A--Financial Matters

                        Section 1001--Transfer Authority

        This section would permit the transfer of amounts of
    authorizations made available in Division A of the bill for any
    fiscal year to any other authorization made available in
    Division A upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that
    such a transfer would be in the national interest. The
    provision would provide the authorization for reprogramming
    involving the transfer of authorization between amounts
    authorized as set out in bill language.
        The authority to transfer could only be used to provide
    authorization for higher priority items than the items from
    which authorization was transferred and could not be used to
    provide authorization for an item that was denied authorization
    by the Congress. The Secretary of Defense would be required to
    notify Congress promptly of transfers. The total amount of
    transfers would be limited to $2 billion. Historically, the
    transfer authority authorized has changed as follows:

                                                                    Billions
    Fiscal year:
        85-88......................................................... $2.00
        89-91.........................................................  3.00
        92............................................................  2.25
        93............................................................  1.50
        94-96.........................................................  2.00

                Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex

        This section would incorporate the classified annex
    prepared by the Committee on National Security into the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.

     Section 1003--Authority for Obligation of Certain Unauthorized Fiscal
                        Year 1996 Defense Appropriations

        This section would authorize certain fiscal year 1996
    programs that received appropriations but no authorization.

          Section 1004--Authorization of Prior Emergency Supplemental
                      Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996

        This section would extend authorization to those items
    appropriated by the fiscal year 1996 emergency supplemental
    appropriations legislation.

     Section 1005--Format for Budget Request for Navy/Marine Corps and Air
                           Force Ammunition Accounts

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
    request funding for Navy/Marine Corps and Air Force ammunition
    in separate appropriation accounts.

         Section 1006--Format for Budget Requests for Defense Airborne
                             Reconnaissance Program

        The Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program (DARP) budget
    currently consolidates all research and development projects
    within one program element and all procurement programs within
    four generic procurement line item numbers in the Air Force and
    Defense-wide procurement accounts. Therefore, to overcome this
    lack of budget justification presentation detail and provide
    the Congressional defense committees sufficient information to
    conduct appropriate oversight, the committee recommends a
    legislative provision (sec. 1006) that directs the Secretary of
    Defense to identify all DARP research and development projects
    and procurement programs by unique program element numbers and
    procurement line items, respectively, in all future budget
    requests beginning with fiscal year 1998.

                        Subtitle B--Reports and Studies

    Section 1021--Annual Report on Operation Provide Comfort and Operation
                            Enhanced Southern Watch

        This section would require an annual report on the conduct
    of Operations Provide Comfort and Enhanced Southern Watch over
    and within Iraq. Sections 1004 and 1005 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)
    conditionally authorized funding operations Provide Comfort and
    Enhanced Southern Watch over and in Iraq pending a report by
    the Department of Defense establishing the fundamental
    objectives and parameters of these ongoing operations. Despite
    this requirement and the fact that funding for these operations
    is being diverted from military service operational readiness
    accounts, the Department has not yet provided these reports.
        In response to the Department's casual response to the
    preparation and release of these reports and the enlarged scope
    of the operations in question, the committee recommends a
    provision (sec. 1021) that would require the Department to
    provide Congress with a consolidated annual report on Operation
    Provide Comfort and Operation Enhanced Southern Watch, for as
    long as the operations continue.

          Section 1022--Report on Protection of National Information
                                 Infrastructure

        Section 1053 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) established a requirement
    for a report from the President on national policy concerning
    protection of the national information infrastructure (NII)
    from strategic attack, and on the future role of the National
    Communications System (NCS) in implementing a strategy to
    protect the NII.
        To date, Congress has not received the required report and
    overall it is clear that the Administration's response to this
    statutory requirement has been lackluster at best. One
    encouraging development is the recent creation of a White House
    task force to establish policies for indications and warning,
    protection, assessment, and reconstitution with respect to a
    strategic attack on key sectors of the U.S. infrastructure
    through the nation's networked information systems.
        Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1022)
    that would define what Congress expects from the President out
    of this task force process. The committee stresses that this
    effort cannot be regarded narrowly as a problem of counter-
    terrorism, law enforcement, emergency preparedness,
    intelligence, or national defense. Rather, it is a problem in
    all of those domains, requiring central direction and
    coordination. The committee also believes that the mandated NCS
    assessment has concluded correctly that the focus for analysis
    and corrective action should be on the telecommunications,
    transportation, finance, power, and energy sectors of the U.S.
    national infrastructure.

    Section 1023--Report on Witness Interview Procedures for Department of
                        Defense Criminal Investigations

        The committee continues to receive allegations of illegal,
    unnecessary and inappropriate harassment and intimidation of
    individuals by the criminal investigative agencies of the
    Department of Defense. Such allegations deeply concern the
    committee. Therefore, this section would require the
    Comptroller General to survey and report on the policies and
    practices of the military criminal investigative agencies with
    respect to the manner in which interviews of witnesses and
    suspects are conducted, the views of persons who were subjects
    and witnesses in military investigations, as well as the degree
    to which actual practice deviates from Department policy.
    Furthermore, the section would require the Comptroller General
    to report on a range of potential corrective actions that have
    been suggested to the committee.

                           Subtitle C--Other Matters

               Section 1031--Information Systems Security Program

        Judging by the results of the large and steadily growing
    volume of studies originating within the Department of Defense
    and its various scientific advisory boards, and by the
    recommendations and testimony of DOD's functional managers for
    information systems and information security, the Department is
    devoting woefully insufficient resources to protecting the
    Department's information systems.
        The problem is a familiar one. Despite widespread
    recognition of a problem, there are no volunteers to provide
    funds to correct it. The senior DOD leadership is reluctant to
    impose a solution to a non-traditional threat, particularly
    when functional managers and information systems developers
    present plans that would require funding from outside their own
    budgets, and therefore entail difficult tradeoffs. In other
    words, the military services, and the managers of the
    logistics, medical, personnel, transportation, finance, and
    other functions within DOD have thus far chosen to maximize
    capabilities rather than sacrifice capabilities slightly in
    order to ensure minimum critical requirements are met in
    wartime conditions.
        As a result, over the last two years, the DOD leadership
    has added only modest resources for information security. The
    level of funding was not based on a rigorous analysis of
    requirements, nor were funds limited because advocates failed
    to make a strong case for additional resources. Rather, the
    allocation appears to have been determined by the amount of
    funds that could be easily extracted from the overall budget
    for command, control, and communications after the normal
    budget review process.
        The potential consequences are that DOD may not be able to
    generate, deploy, and sustain military forces during a major
    regional conflict in the event of information warfare attacks
    on critical support functions controlled by networked
    computers. According to various studies within DOD, including
    several recent Defense Science Board reviews, such a threat
    could be mounted by virtually any nation or even sophisticated
    non-governmental organizations, with inexpensive, commercially
    available equipment. Past and present Directors of the National
    Security Agency have expressed grave concerns about this
    emerging threat and likened it to ``an electronic Pearl
    Harbor.''
        The committee strongly believes that additional investments
    in information security are required given the growing
    dependence on networked computer systems. Therefore, in order
    to assure that DOD will sustain additional investments in
    future budget submissions, the committee recommends a provision
    (sec. 1031) that would require the Secretary of Defense to
    allocate an additional half-percent of the total appropriations
    for the defense information infrastructure (DII) to security
    each year through the remainder of the Future Years Defense
    Plan, for a total allocation of approximately 4.0 percent in
    fiscal year 2001. These funds are in addition to the funds
    available to the National Security Agency and the Defense
    Advanced Research Projects Agency for information security
    technology. This provision would also require a report from the
    Secretary annually through 2001 that describes specific,
    measurable goals and objectives, the progress made over the
    previous year in reaching them, and plans for the coming fiscal
    year.
        The committee would of course prefer that the Secretary of
    Defense develop a detailed information systems security
    investment plan and submit annual funding requests to the
    Congress. In the absence of executive branch leadership,
    however, the committee has no choice but to impose a specified
    funding allocation.

              Section 1032--Aviation and Vessel War Risk Insurance

        This section would authorize the Department of Defense to
    transfer funds to the Department of Transportation in the event
    of a loss incurred incident to aviation insurance issued by the
    Federal Aviation Administration pursuant to title 49, United
    States Code, or vessel war risk insurance issued by the
    Maritime Administration pursuant to title 46, United States
    Code, when reimbursement is required by those statutes or
    implementing agreements. In the case of a reimbursement
    required as the result of an aviation incident, reimbursement
    to the Secretary of Transportation is required within 30 days
    following the presentment of a valid claim to the Administrator
    of the Federal Aviation Administration. For vessel war risk
    claims, such reimbursement shall be made not later than 90 days
    following adjudication of the claim by the Administrator of the
    Maritime Administration. Because of the inability of the
    Department of Defense to promptly indemnify for claims arising
    out of activities or operations requested by the Department of
    Defense, a number of air carriers have withdrawn from the Civil
    Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF). Without continued significant
    participation by a number of carriers in the CRAF program, the
    ability to provide adequate airlift during critical periods
    will be in jeopardy.

              Section 1033--Aircraft Accident Investigation Boards

        As a result of concerns about military flight safety raised
    by the committee, the General Accounting Office (GAO) produced
    a report in February 1996 entitled ``Military Aircraft Safety:
    Significant Improvements Since 1975'' (GAO/NSIAD-96-69BR). The
    report concluded that since 1975, the annual number of serious
    DOD aviation accidents and the resulting fatalities and
    destroyed aircraft has declined significantly. In fiscal year
    1995, DOD reported its safest year in its aviation history in
    both the total number of Class A mishaps and the number per
    100,000 flying hours. Even though fiscal year 1995 was the
    safest year, the services still sustained 76 class A mishaps
    resulting in 85 fatalities and 67 destroyed aircraft. In fiscal
    year 1995, aircraft accidents cost the Department of Defense
    $1.3 billion in equipment losses and claims of damages against
    the government.
        As a result of the report, the committee believes there are
    several areas within the flight safety program where
    improvements could be made. First, the findings of the GAO
    review and an Air Force Blue Ribbon Panel on flight safety
    suggest that mishap investigation boards are perceived as
    lacking the necessary independence from the operational chain
    of command with management responsibility for the aircrew,
    support personnel, and aircraft involved in the accident. The
    GAO has made recommendations in the past to address concerns
    about accident investigation board independence and some
    changes have been made as a result. For example, the Air Force
    has recently changed its policy to require a representative
    from the Air Force safety center be included as a voting member
    of mishap investigation boards and to limit the authority to
    change mishap investigation board reports to the board members.
        Accordingly, this section would require the secretaries of
    the military departments to appoint a minimum of one
    representative of the service's safety center as a voting
    member on all accident investigation boards and to appoint a
    majority of the membership of accident investigation boards
    from units outside the chain of command of the unit involved in
    the mishap. The secretaries of the military departments are
    also encouraged to issue regulations specifying that the
    authority to change accident investigation board reports be
    vested only in the membership of the accident investigation
    boards.
        Second, the committee believes that the Secretary of
    Defense should take action to develop and manage a joint
    service effort to address flight safety issues which have
    application across service lines. For example, with human error
    reported as a contributing factor in about 70 percent of
    aircraft accidents, it may be appropriate for DOD to take the
    lead in assuring that the services jointly address the problem.
        The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the
    feasibility of operating a joint service program to address
    safety issues which have application across service lines and
    report the findings of the study to the Congress not later than
    March 31, 1997. At a minimum, the study should include an
    assessment of a joint program to require a standardized process
    for reporting and assessing the causes of accidents,
    disseminating universal lessons learned to help prevent
    accidents, and developing new approaches to reduce the
    incidence of recurring safety problems, such as human error.
        Finally, the committee recommends that the Secretary of
    Defense coordinate a review of the training of aviation
    managers, aircrew, and maintenance personnel to reduce the
    incidence of human error in flying operations by modifying
    aspects of training content, technique, and approach.

     Section 1034--Authority for Use of Appropriated Funds for Recruiting
                                   Functions

        This section would authorize the secretaries of the
    military departments to expend appropriated funds for small
    meals and snacks during recruiting functions.

    Section 1035--Authority for Award of Medal of Honor to Certain African
                American Soldiers Who Served During World War II

        This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
    award the Medal of Honor to African American former service
    members who have been found by the Secretary of the Army to
    have distinguished themselves by gallantry above and beyond the
    call of duty while serving in the United States Army during
    World War II.

     Section 1036--Compensation for Persons Awarded Prisoner of War Medal
        Who Did Not Previously Receive Compensation as a Prisoner of War

        This section would require the secretaries of the military
    departments to pay subsistence and other allowances authorized
    to be paid to prisoners of war interned by a government of a
    nation with which the United States has been at war to former
    service members who were awarded the Prisoner of War Medal as a
    result of being interned by a nation with which the United
    States was not at war. The provision would establish a one year
    period for the submission of applications from former service
    members who believe they are eligible.

     Section 1037--George C. Marshall European Center for Strategic Studies

        This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
    accept contributions of money or services from any foreign
    nation intended to defray the cost of, or enhance the
    operations of the George C. Marshall European Center For
    Strategic Studies. The Secretary would be required to notify
    the Congress if total contributions of money exceed $2,000,000
    in any fiscal year. This provision would also authorize the
    Secretary of Defense to approve the participation of a European
    or Eurasian nation in Marshall Center programs if the Secretary
    determines, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, that
    such participation is in the national interest of the United
    States and would materially contribute to reform of the
    electoral process or development of democratic institutions.

     Section 1038--Participation of Members, Dependents, and Other Persons
                  in Crime Prevention Efforts at Installations

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
    promulgate regulations to require service members, dependents,
    civilian employees and defense contractors working on a
    military installation to report to military law enforcement
    officials any criminal activity, to include pilferage, grand
    theft auto, underage drinking, embezzlement and rape or sexual
    assault, which occurs on a military installation. It also would
    require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress by
    February 1, 1997, on efforts to implement this provision.

                Section 1039--Technical and Clerical Amendments

        This section would make a number of minor technical and
    clerical amendments.

           Section 1040--Prohibition on Carrying Out SR-71 Strategic
                 Reconnaissance Program During Fiscal Year 1997

        This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
    obligating any funds during fiscal year 1997 to operate the SR-
    71 strategic reconnaissance program. The committee is concerned
    that this program, while continuing to provide a unique
    capability, has outlived its affordability. Further, the
    committee notes that the Department of Defense has long sought
    to cease the operation of this aircraft and has been precluded
    from doing so by Congressional direction. The committee intends
    for this provision to serve as emphatic direction to the
    Department to cease the operation of this unaffordable
    intelligence collection program.
        The committee notes the recent letter from the Deputy
    Secretary of Defense informing the committee of the decision to
    terminate fiscal year 1996 SR-71 operations. The committee
    supports the Department's decision. While the Deputy
    Secretary's letter implied that this action was taken based on
    conflicting Congressional direction, the committee believes
    that it is fully consistent with the Department's position, as
    reflected by the lack of funding for this program in the
    President's fiscal year 1997 budget request.
                     TITLE XI--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

                                    OVERVIEW

        The budget request contained $327.9 million for cooperative
    threat reduction (CTR) activities, including $177.5 million for
    destruction and dismantlement, $119.5 million for fissile
    materials and nuclear weapons safety and storage, and $30.9
    million for other program support. The committee reiterates its
    support for the accelerated dismantlement and destruction of
    strategic offensive weapons in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and
    Belarus.
        The committee recommends a total of $302.9 million for CTR
    activities in fiscal year 1997, a reduction of $25.0 million
    from the requested amount. The committee recommends the
    requested amount for strategic offensive arms elimination
    activities in Russia, strategic nuclear arms elimination in
    Ukraine, fissile material storage containers in Russia, weapons
    storage and security in Russia, and defense and military-to-
    military contacts. The committee recommends the following
    reductions to the requested amounts: chemical weapons
    destruction ($4.0 million); fissile material storage facility
    ($20.0 million); and other program support ($1.0 million). The
    discussion below provides additional rationale for these
    reductions as well as other matters of interest and concern to
    the committee.

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                    Lack of Updated, Multi-Year Program Plan

        Section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) directed the Secretary to
    submit, together with the President's budget submission, an
    annual report on the Department's plans and funding required
    for the CTR program. This section also directed the Comptroller
    General to issue a report on the Secretary's report. The
    purpose of this reporting requirement for a multi-year program
    plan was to provide the Congress with greater visibility into
    the Department's long-term programmatic strategy and the
    resources required to implement that strategy. Unfortunately,
    the Department has failed to submit this report. Therefore, it
    is difficult for the committee to assess overall program costs
    and commitments, schedules, and milestones, and whether or how
    the funds requested for fiscal year 1997 fit into those plans.
    The committee once again directs that the Secretary promptly
    submit the requested multi-year plan.
        The committee also directs that future CTR multi-year plans
    should identify and explain significant cost, schedule, or
    scope changes from the preceding year's plan, and identify
    known uncertainties affecting project cost estimates and
    schedules. Finally, in order to better assess the impact of the
    CTR program on reducing the threat, the committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense, on an annual basis beginning with the
    multi-year plan submitted with the President's fiscal year 1998
    budget request, to include an assessment of the program's
    political and practical impact. This assessment shall include a
    listing of the number of missiles and launchers destroyed, the
    number of warheads safely stored, the quantities of chemical
    weapons destroyed, and the degree to which these actions
    resulted in an acceleration as compared to the schedule such
    activities would have otherwise occurred in the absence of U.S.
    assistance, as well as other appropriate measures of
    effectiveness that will allow the Congress to assess specific
    progress in the program.

                          Chemical Weapons Destruction

        The budget request included $2.2 million to initiate
    dismantlement of a chemical weapons production facility at
    Volgograd, Russia. The committee is concerned about
    establishing a precedent for a new U.S. commitment and program
    to assume responsibility for destroying Russian chemical
    weapons production facilities, especially given that Russia has
    both the resources and the technical capability to destroy such
    facilities. The committee believes that Russia should take
    immediate steps to destroy such facilities as a gesture of
    goodwill. Therefore, the committee denies the request to
    initiate this project.
        The budget request also included $3.3 million for the
    chemical weapons destruction support office in Moscow. The
    committee is not convinced of the need for such significant
    annual funding for what is essentially a clearinghouse for
    information on the chemical weapons destruction project.
    Therefore, the committee recommends $1.5 million for this
    activity, a reduction of $1.8 million from the request, and
    directs the Department to scale back the planned costs and
    operations of the support office to the minimum essential
    level.
        The Department has assured the committee that no fiscal
    year 1997 funds will be used to initiate actual construction
    activities associated with a pilot chemical weapons destruction
    plant. The funding recommended by the committee is based on
    this assurance, and therefore the committee expects that the
    fiscal year 1997 funds recommended herein will be used solely
    for planning and design activities.
        The committee also has a number of concerns regarding this
    project. First, although Russia recently completed and provided
    to the United States a comprehensive chemical weapons
    destruction implementation plan, questions regarding cost
    estimates, timelines, and overall credibility of that plan
    remain to be resolved. Second, the Department's plan for this
    project has been modified several times over the past year.
    Thus, the committee is unable to ascertain whether an
    appropriate U.S.-Russian cost-sharing arrangement has been
    finalized and, if so, what the U.S. responsibilities and
    obligations are for this project. Likewise, the committee is
    unable to determine whether the latest programmatic and
    technical milestones are in fact achievable. Third, the
    committee is aware of, but unable to assess any progress for,
    the Administration's effort to convince other nations to
    contribute funding for Russian chemical weapons destruction.
    Fourth, Russia has yet to ratify the Chemical Weapons
    Convention, has made no specific commitment to the United
    States to carry out the terms and conditions of the U.S.-Russia
    bilateral chemical weapons destruction agreement, signed in
    1990, and may still be developing offensive chemical weapons.
        In the absence of these details, and given the magnitude of
    the potential U.S. cost-share for this project (estimates range
    from several hundred million dollars to approximately $1.0
    billion), the committee cannot endorse proceeding with the
    actual construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility.

                       Fissile Material Storage Facility

        The budget request included $66.0 million for fissile
    material storage activities in Russia. The committee
    understands the Department plans to notify the committee of its
    intention to take $20.0 million in excess, prior-year funds for
    the fissile material storage facility and reallocate those
    funds for another CTR project. The committee directs that the
    $20.0 million in available, prior-year funds for the fissile
    material storage facility be applied toward fiscal year 1997
    fissile material storage activities. As a result, the fiscal
    year 1997 budget request can be reduced by this same amount
    without impacting program content. Therefore, the committee
    recommends $46.0 million, a reduction of $20.0 million, for
    this project in fiscal year 1997.
        The committee is aware that the U.S. government has
    insisted in negotiations with Russia that this new facility
    meet or exceed Western standards for safe and secure warhead
    and weapon component storage, and that Russia store all or the
    vast majority of its excess weapons-grade fissile material and
    warhead components there. Correspondingly, the U.S. government
    has sought to negotiate detailed and binding agreements with
    the Russian government on the quantity and type of components
    and fissile material that will be stored in the facility, and
    on the irreversibility of the dismantlements. However, the
    Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy (Minatom) has been unwilling
    to provide firm commitments on these points. In addition, the
    U.S. government has insisted on inspection provisions that
    would allow the United States to confirm that it is being used
    for its intended purpose, and to verify that the weapons
    components or fissile material placed there is not later used
    for weapons construction. Minatom has refused to agree to this
    demand as well. Other concerns with this project have been
    raised as well. For example, a recent Harvard University study
    noted that ``The storage facility will not begin operations
    until 1998 at the earliest, which raises questions about the
    wisdom of spending the largest single amount of money devoted
    to fissile material security from a very limited budget on a
    project that does nothing to meet the immediate needs for
    secure storage.''
        Based on these concerns, the committee directs that none of
    the fiscal year 1997 funds made available for fissile material
    storage may be obligated or expended until 15 days after the
    Secretary provides the congressional defense committees with a
    status report on the issues and concerns raised in the
    preceding paragraph.
        Finally, as with the chemical weapons destruction facility,
    the Department's plan for assisting in the design and
    construction of a fissile material storage facility in Russia
    has undergone significant changes recently, thereby making the
    description of this project contained in the 1995 multi-year
    plan no longer valid, according to DOD officials. Therefore, it
    is impossible for the committee to determine what obligations
    the United States now plans to assume for this project, the
    total project cost and planned completion date, and whether or
    how fiscal year 1997 funds fit into the overall plan. The
    committee notes again this situation could be rectified by
    prompt submission of the multi-year program plan.

                                Program Overhead

        The budget request included $20.9 million for other
    assessments/administrative costs. The committee recommends
    $19.9 million, a reduction of $1.0 million, for these
    activities. The reduction is made without prejudice, but
    expects the Department to identify efficiencies in program
    management and support services and contracts.

                 Concerns Regarding Presidential Certification

        Section 211 of the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of
    1991 (Public Law 102-228) requires that, as a condition of
    eligibility for U.S. assistance under the CTR program, the
    President must submit an annual certification that a proposed
    recipient country is ``committed to'' certain minimal actions
    and standards. For example, the President must certify that the
    proposed recipient country is committed to: making a
    substantial investment of its resources for dismantling or
    destroying such weapons; forgoing any military modernization
    program that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and
    forgoing the replacement of destroyed weapons of mass
    destruction; forgoing any use of fissionable and other
    components of destroyed nuclear weapons in new nuclear weapons;
    facilitating U.S. verification of weapons destruction; and
    complying with all relevant arms control agreements. The most
    recent certification was issued March 13, 1996, by the
    Secretary of State on the President's behalf.
        The committee strongly believes that the Russian Federation
    should promptly fulfill its obligations to honor all legal and
    political commitments to fully implement relevant arms control
    accords, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
    Treaty, the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, the
    Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), and agreements
    regarding chemical and biological weapons.
        The committee is frustrated that the Congress has yet to
    receive the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency's report to
    Congress on adherence to and compliance with arms control
    agreements, which is required to be submitted not later than
    January 31 of each year under which separate judgments are to
    be made regarding Russian compliance with relevant arms control
    accords.
        The committee believes that any certification judging
    Russia's commitment to complying with all relevant arms control
    agreements should be based on Russian actions, not rhetoric.
    The committee strongly believes it is not sufficient to refer
    to statements of Russian President Yeltsin and senior-level
    Russian policy officials as the sole evidence of Russia's
    compliance with arms control accords. In this regard, the
    committee notes that there is continuing evidence that the
    commitments made by President Yeltsin have not been implemented
    by the Russian Ministry of Defense.
        To this end, the committee expresses deep concern that the
    preponderance of the March 13, 1996 report referenced above
    raises numerous concerns and issues regarding Russian
    activities that are inconsistent with its obligations under
    various relevant arms control accords, and in one case outright
    noncompliance. Yet, in the face of such overwhelming evidence
    of Russian misbehavior and intransigence, Russia is still
    judged to be committed to complying with its arms control
    obligations.
        In this regard, the committee expects the Administration,
    as it deliberates on the 1997 certification for Russia, to
    ensure that such certification outlines a list of concrete
    steps and actions taken by Russia to fulfill its obligations
    under relevant arms control accords.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

      Section 1101--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs

        This section would specify CTR programs.-

               Section 1102--Fiscal Year 1997 Funding Allocations

        This section would allocate fiscal year 1997 funding for
    various CTR purposes and activities.

        Section 1103--Prohibition on Use of Funds For Specified Purposes

        This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for
    specified purposes.

                       Section 1104--Limitation on Funds

        This section would prohibit obligation or expenditure of
    fiscal year 1997 CTR funds until 15 days after various reports
    are submitted to Congress.

                      Section 1105--Availability of Funds

        This section would make fiscal year 1997 CTR funds
    available for obligation for three fiscal years.
                    TITLE XII--RESERVE FORCES REVITALIZATION

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                    Subtitle A--Reserve Component Structure

                    Section 1211--Reserve Component Commands

        This section would establish separate reserve commands and
    commanders for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force
    reserves. The section would also delineate the forces to be
    assigned to each reserve command, as well as prescribe the
    subsequent assignment of the reserve forces to the commanders-
    in-chief (CINCs) of the joint combatant commands.

                     Section 1211--Reserve Component Chiefs

        This section would establish separate offices of the
    military reserve chiefs as part of the staffs of the senior
    military headquarters of each of the services. In addition, the
    section would also prescribe the appointment criteria and
    procedures, and term of office for the reserve chiefs, and
    would also assign budget, annual reporting, and other
    management responsibilities to the reserve component chiefs.

       Section 1213--Review of Active Duty and Reserve General and Flag
                             Officer Authorizations

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
    conduct a comprehensive review of the existing statutory
    reserve and active general and flag officer authorizations and
    report to Congress any recommendations for revisions to those
    authorizations, as well as recommendations for the statutory
    designation of other general and flag officers as part of the
    commands created in sections 1211 and 1212 of this title. The
    section would also require the Secretary to report on whether
    reserve component general and flag officers should be exempt
    from existing active duty general officer ceilings.

                  Section 1214--Guard and Reserve Technicians

        This section would redefine military technicians as federal
    civilian employees hired under titles 5 and 32, United States
    Code, who are required to maintain dual-status as drilling
    reserve component members as a condition of their federal
    employment. The section would mandate that military technicians
    be authorized and accounted for as a separate category of
    civilian employees who are exempt from general civilian
    personnel reductions in the Department of Defense. The section
    would permit military technicians reductions only if the
    reductions were related to force structure changes.

    Section 1215--Technical Amendment Reflecting Prior Revision to National
                              Guard Bureau Charter

        This section would make a technical amendment to section
    641 of title 10, United States Code to correct an erroneous
    reference.

                  Subtitle B--Reserve Component Accessibility

    Section 1231--Report to Congress on Measures Taken to Improve National
              Guard and Reserve Ability to Respond to Emergencies

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
    report comprehensively on the measures taken or planned to
    improve the timeliness, adequacy and effectiveness of reserve
    component responses to domestic emergencies. The section would
    also require the Secretary of Defense to assess the
    recommendations of the 1995 RAND report, ``Assessing the State
    and Federal Missions of the National Guard.''

               Sections 1232 Through 1234--Reporting Requirements

        These sections would require the Secretary of Defense to
    report to Congress on tax incentives for employees of members
    of the reserve components, on income programs for activated
    reservists, and on small business loans for reservists released
    from active duty following contingency operation.

                     Subtitle C--Reserve forces Sustainment

     Sections 1251 Through 1256--Improvements to Reserve Component Quality
                              of Life and Benefits

        These sections would require the Secretary of Defense to
    propose legislation on the tax deductibility of some
    unreimbursed expenses incurred by reservists, as well as
    legislative changes which would reduce the disparity of
    benefits between the active and reserve components. These
    sections would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to pay
    transient housing charges or provide lodging in kind for
    reservists in certain training situations.
                 TITLE XIII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                          Arms Control Implementation

        The Administration's fiscal year 1997 budget requests
    $282.3 million for arms control implementation programs. The
    committee notes that a number of arms control agreements have
    not yet been ratified or entered into force. For example, the
    Chemical Weapons Convention has been signed by both Russia and
    the United States, but neither country has ratified it and it
    lacks ratification by the requisite number of countries to
    enter into force. The START II Treaty has been ratified by the
    United States, but not by Russia. And the Comprehensive Test
    Ban Treaty is currently under negotiation. Delays in the entry
    into force of these treaties will likely allow some reduction
    in the amount of funding authorized for these arms control
    implementation programs. Accordingly, the committee will
    continue to monitor developments in these arms control areas
    with a view toward possible further adjustments to the
    Administration's budget request.

                          Chemical Weapons Convention

        The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) prohibits the
    production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Last
    year, the Congress expressed its sense that the United States
    and Russia, both signatories to the agreement, should ratify it
    promptly. However, the treaty has not yet entered into force to
    date for lack of the requisite number of ratifications.
        The committee supports the ratification and full
    implementation by all parties of the convention, as negotiated.
    However, the committee remains concerned that Russia continues
    to engage in chemical weapons activities inconsistent with the
    accord. In addition, Iran, a signatory to the convention, has
    been characterized by one U.S. official as having ``the most
    active chemical weapons program'' in the Third World. And a
    number of states that possess active chemical weapons programs,
    such as Libya, are not signatories to the accord. For example,
    the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central
    Intelligence have confirmed that Libya is engaged in the
    construction of an underground chemical weapons facility carved
    into a mountain near Tarhunah. This extensive project
    demonstrates the Libyan commitment to the acquisition of a
    significant chemical weapons capability and raises questions
    about the ability of arms control agreements like the Chemical
    Weapons Convention to substantively impair the ability of rogue
    regimes to acquire these types of weapons of terror.
        The committee believes the continued proliferation of
    chemical weapons capabilities raises serious issues with
    respect to the CWC, and directs the Secretary of Defense to
    submit a report to the Congressional defense committees no
    later than December 31, 1996, in both classified and
    unclassified form, that addresses the impact of the CWC on both
    the ability of U.S. forces deployed abroad to execute their
    missions and on the chemical weapons programs of other
    countries. The report should include:
              (1) an identification of the types of weapons or
            chemical agents that can and cannot be used by U.S.
            forces and under what circumstances;
              (2) an assessment of the impact of the CWC on the
            chemical weapons ----programs of other signatory
            states;
              (3) an assessment of whether the obligations
            contained within the CWC can be met by other signatory
            states within the time frames established by the
            Convention;
              (4) an identification of states that are not
            signatories and an assessment of the impact of the CWC
            on the chemical weapons programs of those states;
              (5) a description of efforts being undertaken to
            enlarge the number of ---signatories; and
              (6) a description and analysis of efforts by Libya to
            construct an underground chemical weapons facility at
            Tarhunah.

                             Comprehensive Test Ban

        The committee is concerned with the Administration's
    inclination to reach a conclusion this year of an international
    treaty banning all nuclear tests based on the rationale that it
    would strengthen U.S. efforts to halt the spread of nuclear
    weapons. The committee is troubled by this assumption. Several
    Third World nations that either presently have a nuclear
    capability or may be capable of assembling nuclear weapons on
    short notice have reached this level of development despite
    never having conducted a nuclear test of which the West is
    aware. In fact, the relatively crude weapons Third World
    countries are likely to develop may not require any nuclear
    testing.
        In addition, many experts believe that a Comprehensive Test
    Ban Treaty (CTBT) is unlikely to ever be effectively
    verifiable. Countries intent on cheating could identify and
    implement evasive measures that would make it virtually
    impossible for U.S. sensors to detect low-yield tests. This
    thesis is given additional credibility by reports that the
    Russians may have recently conducted a nuclear test, in
    violation of their self-imposed moratorium, at their nuclear
    test site on Novaya Zemlya. The Secretary of Defense has stated
    that there is ``some ambiguity in the evidence'' and that the
    intelligence community has ``some people saying yes and other
    people saying maybe.''
        In the committee's view, nuclear testing is needed to
    assure the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of U.S.
    nuclear weapons in the future. Despite progress in non-nuclear
    testing technology and applications, nuclear testing will
    ultimately be required to refine and validate these ``non-
    testing'' technologies if the United States hopes to have
    confidence in them as viable alternatives to actual testing.
    Moreover, as confidence in the effectiveness of the U.S.
    nuclear arsenal declines, so does its credibility. If the
    credibility of the nuclear guarantee to U.S. allies is called
    into question, those allies may seek to develop their own
    nuclear capabilities.
        With these concerns in mind, the committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
    Energy and the Director of Central Intelligence, to submit a
    report to the Congressional defense committees no later than
    December 31, 1996 describing the ability of the United States
    to monitor a CTBT and to detect low-yield nuclear tests. The
    report should also assess whether or not the Russians have
    conducted any nuclear tests since their self-imposed moratorium
    in 1992 and should detail any difficulties in making such
    determinations.

                  Department of Defense Activities With China

        The committee recognizes that U.S.-China civilian-military
    and direct military-military contact are key components of the
    U.S. strategy of ``comprehensive engagement'' toward China. The
    committee also recognizes that as China continues to develop
    its armed forces, it could potentially evolve into a more
    direct threat to the national security of the United States and
    American interests in the Asia-Pacific region. Therefore, the
    committee finds it necessary to pursue a fuller understanding
    of all Department of Defense interaction with the Chinese
    government and military organizations. Particularly, the
    committee seeks a full accounting and detailed presentation of:
              (1) Department of Defense interaction with the
            People's Republic of China, including meetings,
            training, military technology-sharing or other related
            events which took place during the period spanning
            fiscal years 1994-1996, and those proposed for fiscal
            years 1997 and 1998;
              (2) the rationale for any information or technology
            sharing which took place during or as a result of any
            of the previously identified forms of interaction;
              (3) costs incurred or other support provided by the
            Department of Defense for the aforementioned
            cooperative initiatives and related programs during the
            fiscal years 1994-1996, and costs and funding
            mechanisms anticipated for future or related
            activities;
        Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
    to provide a classified and unclassified report to the
    congressional defense committees not later than February 1,
    1997.

                       Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia

        Since the original commitment by the Administration to
    deploy United States armed forces as part of the multinational
    peace implementation force (IFOR) in Bosnia, the committee has
    been concerned over the strategic rationale for American
    participation on the ground in Bosnia and the prospects for
    ultimate success of the NATO-led peace mission. As part of its
    oversight responsibilities, the committee held numerous
    hearings on the Bosnia deployment, taking testimony in open and
    closed sessions from Administration witnesses, former
    ambassadors, current and former senior military officials, and
    expert scholars and academics. In addition, the committee has
    received regular briefings from the Administration on the
    military and political situation in the former Yugoslavia.
        In the committee's view, the decision to deploy American
    ground troops as part of the peace implementation force lacked
    compelling strategic rationale. Nevertheless, once the
    deployment began, the committee's concerns shifted to the
    operational impacts of the mission. Specifically, the committee
    remains concerned on a number of fronts. First and foremost has
    been the safety and security of U.S. armed forces as they
    enforce the military aspects of the Dayton peace agreement.
    Second, the committee has been concerned that the military
    mission of IFOR not be transformed into a civilian ``nation-
    building'' exercise, as was the case in Somalia. Third, the
    committee sought to ensure that the Department of Defense has a
    sound and clearly articulated exit strategy for withdrawing
    U.S. ground forces at the end of the one-year deadline imposed
    by the Administration. In these areas, the results have so far
    been decidedly mixed, and many of the committee's concerns have
    not been alleviated.
        The committee is extremely proud of the dedication and
    professionalism with which the American men and women in
    uniform have performed their missions in the former Yugoslavia.
    U.S. armed forces have worked under challenging political,
    military, and environmental conditions and have performed
    admirably. The committee takes pride in recognizing that the
    performance of U.S. armed forces in the former Yugoslavia
    demonstrates that the U.S. military is second-to-none. However,
    the committee is concerned that American soldiers still face
    threats to their safety, including threats from the presence of
    armed Islamic fundamentalists in Bosnia. The presence of these
    mujahedeen forces is a clear violation of the Dayton agreement.
    Moreover, the committee is disturbed that the Administration,
    by tacitly approving the shipment of Iranian arms through
    Croatia to the Bosnian Muslims during the time that the UN arms
    embargo was in effect, may have allowed these Islamic
    fundamentalists, including Iranian Revolutionary Guards and
    intelligence services, to establish a solid foothold in Bosnia
    and on the European mainland.
        While most of the military aspects of the Dayton agreement
    have been fulfilled, persistent violations of the accord
    continue to raise questions about the commitment of the parties
    to a just and lasting peace and to the endurance of the peace
    process after U.S. ground forces are withdrawn. For example,
    unauthorized checkpoints continue to impede freedom of
    movement, arson and looting are widespread, numerous violations
    of the zone of separation have occurred, soldiers and heavy
    weapons have not been withdrawn to barracks and storage sites
    as required, air defense weapons remain unaccounted for,
    prisoners of war continue to be held by all parties, and the
    incidences of civilian disturbances between Bosnian Serbs,
    Croats, and Muslims are increasing.
        In addition, IFOR troops are increasingly being tasked with
    duties that are more appropriately left to civilian
    authorities. NATO troops have been called on to put out fires
    set by arsonists, IFOR has provided escort and security to
    investigators of the War Crimes Tribunal as they search mass
    gravesites, and NATO spokesmen have declared that the focus of
    the IFOR mission is changing in a way that will allow greater
    military involvement in support of the civilian rebuilding of
    Bosnia. In the committee's view, this comes dangerously close
    to the kind of ``mission creep'' that the Department of Defense
    has assured the committee it will not permit. With the
    implementation of the civilian aspects of the Dayton accord
    running significantly behind schedule, the committee believes
    that clearer ``rules of the road'' need to be formulated by the
    Department in order to prevent U.S. armed forces from becoming
    too heavily involved in nation-building endeavors in Bosnia.
        Significantly, the Administration's exit strategy for U.S.
    ground forces remains unclear. The Administration has on
    numerous occasions sought to assure the committee that U.S.
    troops would not remain in Bosnia beyond one year. In testimony
    before the House International Relations Committee on April 23,
    1996, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Peter
    Tarnoff, stated under oath that ``our policy . . . is to have
    all U.S. forces out on or about the 14th of December.'' When
    asked if there was any plan to delay the withdrawal, he
    responded, ``There is none whatsoever.'' At the same time,
    however, the committee's repeated requests for an explanation
    of the Administration's exit strategy have produced nothing
    more than seemingly reflexive references to the calendar. A
    date for withdrawal, however, does not a strategy make.
        It is increasingly becoming apparent to the committee that
    U.S. ground forces will, in fact, remain in Bosnia well beyond
    the one-year timetable stated by the Administration and on
    which significant Congressional support for the operation was
    originally conditioned. The committee notes that within days of
    Secretary Tarnoff's assurances, the Department of Defense
    announced its decision to maintain a ``significant force'' in
    Bosnia for ``a month, maybe longer'' after the December 1996
    deadline for withdrawal. It therefore appears that the
    successful fulfillment of IFOR's military mission is an
    insufficient reason for keeping to the planned U.S. force
    withdrawal schedule. Moreover, the Administration appears no
    closer either to formulating a coherent and rational exit
    strategy or to deciding when initial U.S. troop withdrawals
    should commence.
        In light of these developments, the committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Congressional
    defense committees within 60 days of the enactment of this Act
    that fully explains the Administration's Bosnia exit strategy.
    This report should fully address the Department's plans to
    withdraw U.S. ground forces according to the original
    timetable, outline the conditions under which that planned
    withdrawal may be delayed, and for how long, clearly describe
    the Department's guidelines for avoiding ``mission creep,'' and
    discuss the conditions whereby U.S. troops have been, are, and
    would be used to accomplish, or assist in the accomplishment
    of, various civilian and humanitarian tasks. This report should
    be prepared in both classified and unclassified form.

                          Russian Missile Detargeting

        During his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1996,
    President Clinton stated, ``For the first time since the dawn
    of the nuclear age, there are no Russian missiles pointed at
    America's children.'' President Clinton similarly claimed in
    1994 that the so-called ``detargeting agreement'' of January
    14, 1994 has effectively halted the targeting of Russian
    nuclear missiles against the United States. The detargeting
    agreement, officially the Moscow Declaration, was a statement
    signed by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin that provides: ``. . .
    for the detargeting of strategic nuclear missiles under their
    respective commands so that by not later than May 30, 1994,
    those missiles will not be targeted.''
        Both Russian and American experts overwhelmingly hold that
    the detargeting provisions of the Moscow Declaration are non-
    binding, unverifiable, and militarily inconsequential. For
    example, Russian General Viktor Yesin, Chief of the Strategic
    Missile Forces (SMF) Main Staff, in an April 1995 interview on
    the detargeting agreement noted, ``The missiles' target
    coordinates can be unloaded and reloaded. Missile specialists
    believe that the SMF's actual combat readiness following Boris
    Yeltsin's generous gesture of friendship to the Americans has
    not diminished.'' Anton Surikov, a senior advisor to the
    Russian Ministry of Defense, acknowledged in a March 1995
    interview, ``When it was decided to detarget missiles, the
    decision was mostly of a political, propaganda character,''
    because, ``Technically it is not difficult to retarget a
    missile very quickly.''
        Therefore, the committee is concerned that Administration
    statements may be significantly overstating the strategic and
    military significance of the 1994 detargeting agreement. To
    ensure that an appropriate record is established on this
    critical national security question, the committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress by January
    1, 1997 on the verifiability and military significance of the
    detargeting provisions of the Moscow Declaration of January 14,
    1994. The report should specifically address the following
    questions: Can the United States independently verify that
    Russian nuclear missiles are not targeted on the United States?
    Assuming that Russian missiles are detargeted, is it likely
    that coordinates for targets in the United States are still
    stored locally and can be used to reprogram Russian missiles on
    short notice? How long does retargeting of Russian missiles
    take? The report is to be prepared in classified and
    unclassified versions.

                           Russian Threat Perceptions

        The committee is aware of allegations that during the
    1980s, military and political leaders of the former Soviet
    Union believed that a surprise nuclear attack by the United
    States was imminent and undertook special intelligence and
    defense measures to detect and preempt such an attack. In
    addition, allegations exist that Russian military forces went
    on nuclear alerts in 1991 and 1995, and that behavior and
    programs associated with the so-called ``war scare'' may
    persist in Russia today. Therefore, the committee directs the
    Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of
    Central Intelligence, to provide, not later than January 1,
    1997, a report on these matters to the Congressional defense
    and intelligence committees. The report should describe any
    evidence since 1983 of such threat perceptions; nuclear alerts;
    Russian preparations to detect, preempt, or defend against a
    surprise nuclear attack; and the extent to which these
    attitudes and activities continue today.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                       Subtitle A--Miscellaneous Matters

      Section 1301--One-Year Extension of Counterproliferation Authorities

        This section would extend through fiscal year 1997 the
    Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992 (title XV of
    Public Law 102-484; 22 U.S.C. 5859a), which expires at the end
    of fiscal year 1996. This authority is necessary for the
    Department of Defense to continue its support of the UN Special
    Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). The committee supports the
    extension of this authority given ongoing concerns over Iraq's
    continued possession of weapons of mass destruction and missile
    delivery systems.

     Section 1302--Limitation on Retirement or Dismantlement of Strategic
                           Nuclear Delivery Vehicles

        This section would prohibit the use of funds appropriated
    to the Department of Defense during fiscal year 1997 for
    retiring or dismantling any B-52H bombers, Trident ballistic
    missile submarines, Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic
    missiles (ICBMs), or Peacekeeper ICBMs. The committee considers
    this a prudent step in light of the fact that Russia has thus
    far failed to ratify the START II treaty and the established
    shortcomings in the U.S. bomber force structure. The committee
    intends that this prohibition not apply to long-range pre-
    planning, design and evaluation efforts to allow the military
    departments to be ready to execute various retirement and
    dismantlement options in an efficient manner.
        To implement the provision, $56.4 million is required to
    retain 28 B-52H aircraft in the active inventory during fiscal
    year 1997. The committee recommends an additional $11.5 million
    in Air Force procurement funds for this purpose. Furthermore,
    the committee directs that of the amount authorized to be
    appropriated pursuant to Title III for Air Force operations and
    maintenance, $42.9 million shall be available for this purpose,
    and that of the amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant
    to Title IV for Air Force military personnel, $2.0 million
    shall be available for this purpose.

    Section 1303--Certification Required Before Observance of Moratorium on
                 Use by Armed Forces of Antipersonnel Landmines

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense, after
    consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
    certify to Congress that a moratorium on the use of
    antipersonnel landmines would not adversely affect the ability
    of U.S. armed forces to defend against attack and that
    effective substitutes for antipersonnel landmines exist, prior
    to implementation of such a moratorium.
        The committee notes that the Administration is seeking a
    global ban on the use of antipersonnel landmines because of the
    civilian casualties that are caused by haphazardly laid or
    marked non-self-destructing antipersonnel landmines after
    hostilities have ceased. The committee further notes that it is
    precisely because of the lingering effects of non-self-
    destructive landmines that U.S. armed forces have refrained
    from purchasing these types of landmines since 1974. Today,
    U.S. armed forces use non-self-destructing landmines only along
    internationally recognized borders or in demilitarized zones
    within a perimeter marked area that is monitored by military
    personnel and protected by adequate means to ensure the
    exclusion of civilians. Self-destructing landmines do not pose
    a significant humanitarian threat, since they self-destruct
    with a high degree of reliability at a designated time after
    emplacement.
        The committee supports efforts to minimize and eliminate
    post-combat civilian casualties and notes that the United
    States has been the global leader in working toward this
    objective. However, the committee notes that the problem of
    post-combat civilian casualties today stems from the
    indiscriminate and irresponsible use by other countries of non-
    self-destructing landmines. The shift by the United States
    toward self-destructing landmines has not been matched by other
    nations. The committee does not believe that a unilateral
    moratorium on the use of antipersonnel landmines by U.S. armed
    forces would be observed by other nations, especially in light
    of the fact that antipersonnel landmines are relatively
    inexpensive and there are no effective substitutes for them at
    present.
        Landmines are an integral part of current U.S. doctrine and
    an important economy-of-force combat multiplier. They are an
    integral component of the ability to conduct maneuver warfare,
    as was demonstrated so successfully during Operation Desert
    Storm. A moratorium on their use would seriously diminish the
    U.S. ability to conduct ground combat operations, putting
    soldiers at greater risk, and requiring increased expenditures
    to maintain an equivalent level of battlefield power. The
    committee does not support a unilateral restriction on the use
    of defensive weapons that will result in increased risk to
    American men and women in uniform.
        The committee is disturbed by reports that the
    Administration is reviewing current policy with a view toward
    establishing a date certain for a ban on the use of all
    antipersonnel landmines. This proposal reportedly has the
    support of the Department of Defense. In the committee's view,
    effective and inexpensive substitutes should be available prior
    to implementation of such a ban. Moreover, the committee is
    perplexed by the apparent shift in the position of the Chairman
    of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who last year declared
    antipersonnel landmines to be `indispensable'' and urged the
    defeat of moratorium legislation subsequently signed into law
    by the President. In September 1995, Joint Chiefs of Staff
    Chairman General Shalikashvili wrote to the committee's
    chairman and ranking minority member that ``the proposed
    legislation in the Senate bill would ban use of antipersonnel
    landmines by U.S. forces except in narrowly defined scenarios.
    I have significant concerns because, as written, American
    personnel would be placed at risk.''
        General Shalikashvili noted that ``the proposed
    legislation, beginning three years after enactment, would
    prohibit the use for one year of anti-personnel landmines by
    U.S. forces, except in marked and guarded minefields along
    internationally recognized national borders and demilitarized
    zones. The legislation would effectively prohibit the use of
    all self-destructing mine systems because they employ a
    combination of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. Self-
    destructing antipersonnel mines represent approximately 65
    percent of the U.S. total antipersonnel mine inventory. Mines
    were an indispensable component of the coalition's ability to
    conduct the maneuver warfare that made such an important
    contribution to victory in Desert Storm. Significantly, mines
    secured the right flank of General Schwartzkopf's ground
    offensive in western Iraq.''
        Importantly, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman noted, ``I
    wish to emphasize that mines used by U.S. armed forces self-
    destruct a short period of time after emplacement with a high
    degree of reliability and do not pose a significant
    humanitarian problem. Restricting antipersonnel landmines to
    `internationally recognized national borders' and demilitarized
    zones effectively prohibits their use by U.S. forces in most
    combat scenarios. Defensive minefields around sensitive
    military installations such as Naval Station Guantanamo Bay,
    Cuba, would also be precluded. U.S. forces are heavily
    dependent upon such minefields for security.'' General
    Shalikashvili also noted that ``the U.S. military strongly
    opposes the illegal and irresponsible use of these mines and is
    a proponent of humanitarian demining activities to alleviate
    suffering caused by them. However, antipersonnel landmines will
    be required by U.S. forces for safe defense in the foreseeable
    future. Congress and the American people expect us to fight and
    win conflicts with minimum casualties. That goal requires the
    retention of capabilities provided by the advanced, self-
    destructing mine systems which would be prohibited under the
    proposed legislation.''
        Finally, General Shalikashvili declared, ``While I
    wholeheartedly support U.S. leadership in the long-term goal of
    antipersonnel landmine elimination, unilateral actions which
    needlessly place our forces at risk now will not induce good
    behavior from irresponsible combatants. As practical solutions
    are pursued, our priorities must be to maintain warfighting
    superiority while concurrently protecting the safety of U.S.
    service men and women. I consider this to be a critical force
    protection issue and request your support to defeat the
    proposed legislation.''
        The committee fails to understand what objective factors
    have changed since September, 1995 that would now make
    acceptable what was unacceptable then. Until such time as
    effective substitutes for antipersonnel landmines are
    developed, the committee believes that U.S. forces should not
    be denied the use of weapons that are purely defensive and
    consistent with international law.

              Section 1304--Department of Defense Demining Program

        This section would make clarifying changes to section 401,
    title 10, United States Code relating to the authority of the
    Department of Defense to carry out a humanitarian demining
    program. The committee continues to support the use of military
    personnel and resources to conduct humanitarian demining
    efforts that are consistent with normal training requirements.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1304)
    that clarifies the Department's authorities with regard to
    funding travel, transportation, subsistence expenses for
    military personnel participating in such training. The
    provision further provides clarification regarding the ability
    of the Department to fund the costs of equipment, supplies, and
    services directly associated with the authorized humanitarian
    demining training operation. However, the committee does not
    agree to the Administration's request to authorize the
    Department to provide services and equipment to recipient
    nations following the completion of the training operation.
        The committee agrees with the Administration's humanitarian
    demining strategy to pursue a program that is sustainable and
    effective. However, the committee believes that the Department
    of Defense's participation in this program should be limited to
    those functions that it can uniquely and effectively perform.
    The provision of contract services, equipment and other
    materiel to recipient nations is a clear foreign assistance
    function that is best carried out through the authorities
    provided and resources specifically appropriated for this
    purpose. The committee notes with concern that the trend over
    the past few years has been for the government to rely on the
    Department of Defense to shoulder an increasing if not
    principal share of the responsibility for this foreign
    assistance initiative. The committee notes that the President's
    fiscal year 1997 budget request for humanitarian demining
    activities within the international affairs budget function
    totals $7 million, while the national defense function request
    totals $25 million.
        The committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to
    work with the Secretary of State and other applicable
    government agencies to establish clearer and more appropriate
    allocation of responsibilities in the execution of a multi-
    agency humanitarian demining effort that fulfills previously
    stated objectives.

     Section 1305--Report on Military Capabilities of People's Republic of
                                     China

        The military exercises and missile firings conducted by the
    People's Republic of China this past spring in and around the
    Taiwan Straits represented the culmination of several years' of
    modernization and innovation in selected units of the People's
    Liberation Army (PLA). The exercises formed a benchmark of
    Chinese military development, demonstrating new capabilities
    for projecting military power and for joint force operations.
    In the committee's judgment, the American response to these
    Chinese actions, though belated, also sent a clear signal of
    both U.S. political interests and military capabilities in the
    Asia-Pacific region.
        As a result of these developments, the committee concurs
    with initial Department of Defense and independent analysis
    concluding that that the PLA has reached a crossroads, having
    gained a better understanding of the required military
    capabilities for the kind of power projection forces needed to
    support its geopolitical aims in the region. The committee
    further believes that the Chinese now better understand the
    strategic requirement to deter or to raise the costs of
    American military intervention if they intend to retain the
    option of coercive diplomacy or the actual use of military
    force to achieve their national goals. In particular, the
    committee is concerned that the PLA now will devote more
    intensive efforts to developing those kinds of capabilities
    that will work to deny the ability to U.S. forces to operate
    with little risk in the region. Thus, the Chinese may move to
    develop different kinds of systems than their past
    modernization efforts, with a view toward increasing deterrence
    of U.S. power projection forces in the Asia-Pacific region.
        These concerns prompt the committee to direct the Secretary
    of Defense to report, in classified and unclassified form, on
    the potential and likelihood for the People's Liberation Army
    to pursue such a modernization strategy. The committee also
    directs the Secretary of Defense to take a ``net assessment''
    approach to the preparation of this report, so that the varying
    strategic concerns of the United States and China and the
    differing operational tasks of Chinese and American forces may
    be properly taken into account. The report shall be submitted
    no later than February 1, 1997.

     Section 1306--United States-People's Republic of China Joint Defense
                             Conversion Commission

        This section would prohibit obligation or expenditure of
    fiscal year 1997 funds for activities associated with the U.S.-
    PRC Joint Defense Conversion Commission until 15 days after the
    date on which the first semiannual report required by section
    1343 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    1996 (Public Law 104-106) is received by Congress.

    Section 1307--Authority To Accept Services From Foreign Governments and
                International Organizations for Defense Purposes

        This section would permit the Department of Defense to
    accept services, as well as money or property, from foreign
    governments and international organizations for the Defense
    Cooperation Account. The Defense Cooperation Account was
    originally established to enable the Department of Defense to
    use funds from sources other than the U.S. Treasury to defray
    the costs of U.S. military forces participating in multi-
    national operations.

     Section 1308--Review by Director of Central Intelligence of National
                          Intelligence Estimate 95-19

        This section would direct the Director of Central
    Intelligence (DCI) to convene a panel of independent, non-
    government experts to review the underlying assumptions and
    conclusions of the November, 1995 National Intelligence
    Estimate (NIE) on ``Emerging Missile Threats to North America
    During the Next 15 Years,'' NIE 95-19, and to report the
    panel's findings to Congress, along with the DCI's comments. In
    light of serious questions that have been raised about the
    NIE's terms of reference and conclusions, which downplay the
    prospect of a long-range missile threat to the contiguous 48
    states within the next 15 years, the committee believes that an
    objective and independent assessment of the NIE is both
    necessary and desirable.
        The committee notes that the public release by the
    Administration of the NIE's key findings, which were summarized
    in a December 1, 1995 CIA letter to the Senate, occurred in the
    midst of the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 1996 (Pubilc Law 104-106). The NIE was cited
    during that debate to bolster the Administration's position
    that deployment of a national missile defense system was
    unnecessary because there was no threat in the foreseeable
    future. The conclusions reached in the NIE and the timing of
    its insertion into the missile defense debate have given rise
    to charges that intelligence may have been ``politicized.'' The
    committee believes it is essential that U.S. policy makers be
    confident that they are receiving objective analysis from the
    intelligence community. Any allegation of politicization brings
    into question the integrity of the intelligence community's
    work.
        The committee notes that independent scholars and former
    intelligence community officials, including former DCI R. James
    Woolsey, have questioned the terms of reference and methodology
    of the NIE. Ambassador Woolsey, President Clinton's first
    Director of Central Intelligence, testified before the
    committee on March 14, 1996 that the intelligence community's
    focus on missile threats to the continental United States
    (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) ``can lead to a badly distorted
    and minimized perception of the serious threats we face from
    ballistic missiles now and in the very near future . . .'' He
    further commented that drawing broad conclusions from an
    assessment ``of such limited scope'' would be ``a serious
    error.'' The former DCI observed that ``even with the best
    intelligence in the world it is impossible to forecast fifteen
    years in advance. . . .''
        Criticisms of the NIE center on its core assumptions: (1)
    that nations will be limited to their indigenous industrial and
    technological base when developing ICBMs; (2) that countries
    with the capability to develop ICBMs will not do so in the time
    frame in question; (3) that ballistic missile threats to Alaska
    and Hawaii are somehow less consequential than a missile threat
    to the contiguous 48 states; (4) that nations will not seek to
    acquire ICBMs that do not provide a militarily significant
    warfighting potential; and (5) that the risk of unauthorized or
    accidental missile launch by Russia or China is no greater now
    than during the Cold War. In the committee's view, an
    independent review of the NIE must address these assumptions.
        In response to criticisms of the NIE, the committee
    supports an independent assessment of its assumptions, terms of
    reference, methodology, and conclusions. As part of such an
    effort, the committee directs the Director of Central
    Intelligence to ensure, at a minimum, that the panel conducting
    the assessment:
              (1) Reviews the classified and unclassified reports
            and other inputs that formed the basis for the NIE;
              (2) Analyzes the terms of reference and methodology
            used by the intelligence community in the preparation
            of the NIE and assesses their comprehensiveness;
              (3) Evaluates the conclusions reached in the NIE and
            reports on areas of agreement and disagreement with the
            panel's findings;
              (4) Identifies and assesses the reasons for the
            inclusion of any questionable assumptions and logic
            that may exist in the NIE;
              (5) Compares the methodology and conclusions of the
            NIE to that of earlier NIEs that address similar
            topics; and
              (6) Reports on any recommended changes in the current
            NIE process that would result in improvements to future
            NIEs.
        In a related matter, the committee believes a more
    comprehensive assessment of the ballistic missile threat to the
    United States is warranted. To this end, the committee
    recommends establishment in Section 1321 of a separate
    ``Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the
    United States.''

     Subtitle B--Commission To Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the
                                 United States

                   Section 1321--Establishment of Commission

        The committee believes that the threat posed to the United
    States from ballistic missiles is real and growing. However,
    the committee recognizes that much controversy surrounds this
    issue and the intelligence community's assessment, as reflected
    in the November, 1995 National Intelligence Estimate on
    ``Emerging Missile Threats to North America During the Next 15
    Years.'' In an effort to receive expert competitive analysis on
    the ballistic missile threat, this subtitle would establish a
    commission to be known as the ``Commission to Assess the
    Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States.''
        The committee believes that, in keeping with past
    precedent, this commission should ideally have been established
    as a cooperative and self-initiated endeavor within the
    executive branch. The intelligence community has in the past
    supported independent and competitive analysis of its
    conclusions by outside experts. In particular, the committee
    recalls the establishment in the 1970s of a ``Team B,'' which
    was granted full access to classified and unclassified
    information in order to review and critique the intelligence
    community's judgment and to provide an alternative analysis
    regarding the strategic goals and objectives of the Soviet
    Union. The ``Team B'' exercise was broadly judged to be a
    successful experiment in competitive analysis.
        Unfortunately, the Administration has been reluctant to
    establish its own ``Team B'' on the issue of the ballistic
    missile threat. Since the Administration has not expressed an
    interest in undertaking a true ``Team B'' effort on this issue,
    the committee believes it is necessary to pursue legislating
    such a review. In establishing a six-month commission to
    undertake this review, it is the committee's intent that the
    consultative nature of the appointment process for the
    commission parallel the process used by the Defense Base
    Closure and Realignment Commission, and as established in the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public
    Law 101-510). The committee also supports and encourages a
    similar effort by the intelligence community and directs the
    Director of Central Intelligence to task the intelligence
    community to assess the nature and magnitude of the existing
    and emerging ballistic missile threat to the United States, and
    to report back to Congress the results of that assessment.
        Accordingly, the committee recommens a provision (sec.
    1321) that would establish a commission to be known as the
    ``Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the
    United States.'' The commission's members will be private
    citizens with knowledge and expertise in the political and
    military aspects of proliferation of ballistic missiles and the
    ballistic missile threat to the United States, and will have
    access to the resources and information of the intelligence
    community necessary to carry out their responsibilities.
        The commission would consist of nine members appointed by
    the Director of Central Intelligence. Consistent with the
    consultative nature of the appointment process used by the
    Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (Public Law
    101-510), three members would be chosen in consultation with
    the Speaker of the House of Representatives, three members
    would be chosen in consultation with the Majority Leader of the
    Senate, and three members would be chosen in consultation with
    the minority leaders of the House and Senate.
        This section also describes the procedure for designating a
    commission chairman and for filling vacancies, and describes
    the initial organizational requirements of the commission. It
    specifies that all members of the commission shall hold
    appropriate security clearances. The committee notes, however,
    that it is not the intent of this subsection to disqualify from
    membership former government officials whose clearances have
    lapsed but which could be reinstituted in a short period of
    time. The committee expects that in such circumstances, the
    government shall move to reinstitute the necessary clearances
    as expeditiously as possible.

                       Section 1322--Duties of Commission

        This section describes the duties of the commission, which
    shall assess the nature and magnitude of the existing and
    emerging ballistic missile threat to the United States. It also
    expresses the committee's view that the commission should
    receive the full and timely cooperation of any U.S. government
    official responsible for providing the commission with
    information necessary to the fulfillment of its
    responsibilities.

                              Section 1323--Report

        This section would direct the commission to submit to the
    Congress a report on its findings and conclusions not later
    than six months after the date of its first meeting. Consistent
    with intelligence community practice, provision shall be made
    for the incorporation of dissenting footnotes in the
    commission's report.

                              Section 1324--Powers

        This section would establish the commission's authority to
    hold hearings, take testimony, and receive evidence. It would
    also authorize the commission to secure any information from
    the intelligence community and other federal agencies as the
    committee deems necessary to carry out its responsibilities.

                      Section 1325--Commission Procedures

        This section would establish the procedures by which the
    commission shall conduct its business. It describes the number
    of members required for a quorum and would authorize the
    commission to establish panels for the purpose of carrying out
    the Commission's duties.

                        Section 1326--Personnel Matters

        This section notes that the members of the commission shall
    serve in that capacity without pay. It would authorize
    reimbursement of expenses, including per diem in lieu of
    subsistence, for travel in the performance of services for the
    commission. It also would allow the chairman to appoint a staff
    director, subject to the approval of the commission, and such
    additional personnel as may be necessary for the commission to
    perform its duties. This section also would make provision for
    the pay of the staff director and other personnel. It would
    allow federal government employees to be detailed to the
    commission on a non-reimbursable basis and would grant the
    chairman authority to procure temporary and intermittent
    services.

             Section 1327--Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions

        This section would allow the commission to use the United
    States mails and to obtain printing and binding services in
    accordance with the procedures used by other federal agencies.
    It also would direct the Director of Central Intelligence to
    furnish the commission with administrative and support
    services, as requested, on a reimbursable basis.

                             Section 1328--Funding

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
    provide such sums as may be necessary for the activities of the
    commission in fiscal year 1997. These funds should be made
    available from the national foreign intelligence program.

                  Section 1329--Termination of the Commission

        This section would terminate the commission 60 days after
    the date of the submission of its report.
                  TITLE XIV--SIKES ACT IMPROVEMENTS AMENDMENTS

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

       Section 1402--Definition of Sikes Act for Purposes of Amendments-

        This section would clarify references to the Sikes Act.

                Section 1403--Codification of Short Title of Act

        This section would codify the short title of the Sikes Act.

           Section 1404--Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans

        This section would amend the Sikes Act to require the
    Secretary of Defense to prepare and implement integrated
    natural resource management plans on all appropriate military
    installations, including installations of the guard and reserve
    forces.

      Section 1405--Review for Preparation of Integrated Natural Resource
                                Management Plans

        This section would direct the Secretary of each military
    department to review, within nine months of the date of
    enactment of this title, each military installation under the
    jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned to determine the
    applicability and appropriateness of integrated natural
    resources management plans to those installations. The section
    would require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on
    the findings of the Secretaries of the military departments.
    The section would also provide for a schedule to initiate
    implement integrated natural resource management plans on
    military installations where appropriate.

                    Section 1406--Annual Reviews and Reports

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
    Secretary of the Interior to submit annual reports to Congress
    regarding the implementation of integrated natural resource
    management plans.

       Section 1407--Transfer of Wildlife Conservation Fees From Closed
                             Military Installations

        This section would permit fees charged for the purpose of
    wildlife conservation at military installations scheduled to be
    closed to be transferred to another military installation to be
    used for the same purpose.

       Section 1408--Federal Enforcement of Integrated Natural Resource
                 Management Plans and Enforcement of Other Laws

        This section would clarify the responsibility of the
    Secretary of Defense for enforcement, on military
    installations, of Federal law relating to the conservation of
    natural resources. This section would not affect the
    enforcement authorities of the Secretary of the Interior for
    the same purpose.

               Section 1409--Natural Resource Management Services

        This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
    provide a sufficient number of professionally trained natural
    resource management and law enforcement personnel to perform
    the duties required by this title.

                           Section 1410--Definitions

        This section would define terms used in this title.

                      Section 1411--Cooperative Agreements

        This section would clarify that cooperative agreements
    between and among the Department of Defense, the various
    States, local governments, non-governmental organizations, or
    other private parties, which are entered into to implement an
    integrated natural resource management plan, shall be funded on
    a cost-sharing basis.

                  Section 1412--Repeal of Superseded Provision

        This section would repeal certain reporting requirements
    and definitions of terms which would be superseded by enactment
    of this title.

                       Section 1413--Clerical Amendments

        This section would make various technical and clerical
    changes to the Sikes Act.

                 Section 1414--Authorizations of Appropriations

        This section would authorize appropriations for programs on
    public lands related to the implementation of this title for
    fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998.
                DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

                                    PURPOSE

        The purpose of Division B is to provide military
    construction authorizations and related authority in support of
    the military departments during fiscal year 1997. As approved
    by the committee, Division B would authorize appropriations in
    the amount of $10,032,311,000 for construction in support of
    the active forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and
    the NATO security infrastructure fund for fiscal year 1997.

                      The State of Military Infrastructure

        The committee is deeply concerned about the state of the
    military infrastructure and troubled by the shortfalls evident
    in the Administration's budget request for fiscal year 1997 for
    military construction and military family housing programs. The
    committee notes again that the construction and modernization
    of facilities and their upkeep and maintenance is a critical
    component of military readiness which has been underfunded in
    recent years. The committee is also mindful of the serious
    deficiencies in facilities designed to support the quality of
    life of military personnel and their families.
        From an operational and readiness perspective, shortfalls
    in the construction and repair and maintenance accounts have
    exacerbated problems in the facilities infrastructure. Needed
    improvements to basic infrastructure have often been deferred,
    leading to the creation of a steep backlog in facilities
    construction and maintenance. Underfunding of the military
    construction accounts has serious implications for the
    readiness of the armed forces. For example, approximately 20
    percent of the Army's facilities are unsuitable, either due to
    deteriorated conditions or they are unable to meet mission
    requirements. Additionally, the Army lacks 30 percent of the
    facilities required to meet specific mission requirements,
    making due with work-arounds that impair efficiency. To cite
    another example, over two-thirds of the Navy's piers were
    constructed during the second World War. According to the
    Navy's estimates, by the year 2010, only 20 percent of existing
    piers and wharves would adequately be able to service the
    fleet.
        The condition of military housing for families and
    unaccompanied personnel and other quality of life
    infrastructure is in a similar state of deterioration.
    According to the Defense Science Board Task Force on Quality of
    Life, 62 percent of barracks and dormitories are currently
    unsuitable and 64 percent of family housing units are in the
    same condition. In spite of these serious deficiencies, the
    Administration's budget request fails to keep pace with current
    levels of funding to support the construction of barracks and
    dormitories. The budget request for fiscal year 1997 further
    proposes to reduce sharply the expenditure of funds on new
    construction of military family housing and improvements to
    existing family housing units. The Administration also proposes
    to reduce funding for basic maintenance of family housing.
        The committee believes the Administration's budget request
    for fiscal year 1997 for military construction and military
    family housing programs is seriously underfunded. The committee
    recommends an increase in new budget authority for these
    programs of $900,000,000. Approximately 75 percent of that
    amount is dedicated to a major quality of life initiative. The
    committee recommends an additional $214,116,000 for the
    construction of new barracks and dormitories and an additional
    $303,152,000 for the construction of military family housing
    and improvements to existing family housing units. The
    committee also recommends an additional $28,260,000 for the
    construction of child development centers. In addition to basic
    construction, the committee also recommends an additional
    $100,000,000 for the maintenance of military family housing.
    The committee reiterates its support for the military housing
    privatization initiative authorized in section 2801 of the
    Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
    (division B of Public Law 104-106). The committee recommends an
    additional $25,000,000 to support the privatization initiative.
        The committee remains concerned about the instability in
    funding for the military construction and military family
    housing programs contemplated by the current Future Years
    Defense Plan. The committee believes the serious backlog of
    military construction requirements can no longer be deferred.
    The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to address the
    need to reduce the backlog of military construction
    requirements affecting the operational needs of the military
    departments and to enhance those programs which directly
    support improvements in the quality of life for military
    personnel and their families.
        A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in
    Division B for fiscal year 1997 follows:

                    AUTHORIZATION FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

        The military construction authorization request for fiscal
    year 1997 was introduced as H.R. 3231 on April 15, 1996.
        The Department of Defense requested $5,274,640,000 for
    military construction and $3,857,671,000 for family housing for
    fiscal year 1997. Within the military construction request,
    $2,507,476,000 was requested for implementation of base closure
    and realignment actions.
        The committee recommends authorization of $5,746,488,000
    for military construction, including $2,507,476,000 for base
    closure implementation, and $4,285,823,000 for family housing.
        A tabular summary of the military construction projects
    included with the authorization of appropriations for fiscal
    year 1997 for the BRAC II , BRAC III, and BRAC IV accounts
    follows:

                                TITLE XXI--ARMY

                                    SUMMARY

        The Army requested authorization of $434,723,000 for
    military construction and $1,287,479,000 for family housing for
    fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends authorization of
    $603,584,000 for military construction and $1,434,069,000 for
    family housing for fiscal year 1997.

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                    Improvements of Military Family Housing

        The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
    for improvements of military family housing and facilities, the
    Secretary of the Army execute the following projects:
    $18,000,000 for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization, Phase II
    (256 units) at Fort Rucker, Alabama; $7,300,000 for family
    housing improvements (120 units) at Stuttgart, Germany;
    $4,600,000 for family housing improvements (64 units) at
    Baumholder, Germany; $8,200,000 for family housing improvements
    (136 units) at Heidelberg, Germany; $18,700,000 for Whole
    Neighborhood Revitalization, Phases III and IV (200 units) at
    Fort Campbell, Kentucky; $7,200,000 for family housing
    improvements (250 units) at Fort Polk, Louisiana; $14,400,000
    for family housing improvements (328 units) at Fort Sill,
    Oklahoma; and $2,300,000 for family housing improvements (42
    units) at Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania.

                          Repair and Maintenance, Army

        The committee remains concerned about serious safety and
    other deficiencies at Lake Tholocco Dam at Fort Rucker, Alabama
    and critical structural deficiencies of two bridges at Fort
    Knox, Kentucky. The committee urges the Army to initiate
    appropriate repair and maintenance at both installations. The
    committee notes again the existence of a serious repair and
    maintenance backlog at Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas which
    requires an extensive infrastructure renovation to offset
    deterioration to major mechanical, electrical and other
    systems. Many major infrastructure systems at the depot have
    reached the end of their useful lives and require major
    renovation, repair, and upgrade. The committee urges the Army
    and the Navy to coordinate and initiate appropriate repair and
    maintenance of various buildings within the Corpus Christi Army
    Depot complex.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

        Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
                                    Projects

        This section contains the list of authorized Army
    construction projects for fiscal year 1997. The authorized
    amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
    The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
    binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
    location.

                          Section 2102--Family Housing

        This section would authorize new construction and planning
    and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
    1997.

          Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

        This section would authorize improvements to existing units
    of family housing for fiscal year 1997.

              Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army

        This section would authorize specific appropriations for
    each line item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year
    1997. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount
    the Army may spend on military construction projects.

       Section 2105--Correction in Authorized Uses of Funds, Fort Irwin,
                                   California

        This section would correct the authorized use of funds
    authorized for appropriation in prior years for a military
    construction project at Fort Irwin, California. The provision
    would permit the use of previously authorized funds to
    construct a heliport at Fort Irwin to support the National
    Training Center.
                                TITLE XXII--NAVY

                                    SUMMARY

        The Navy requested authorization of $525,346,000 for
    military construction and $1,417,967,000 for family housing for
    fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends authorization of
    $712,476,000 for military construction and $1,590,697,000 for
    family housing for fiscal year 1997.

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

                    Improvements of Military Family Housing

        The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
    for improvements of military family housing and facilities, the
    Secretary of the Navy execute the following projects:
    $6,650,000 for Whole House Revitalization, Phase I (54 units)
    at Public Works Center Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; $6,600,000 for
    Whole House Revitalization, Phase I (160 units) at Naval Air
    Station Meridian, Mississippi; $2,400,000 for Whole House
    Revitalization (55 units) at Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth,
    Texas; and $10,000,000 for Whole House Revitalization (150
    units) at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington.

                    Naval Air Station Meridian, Mississippi

        The committee is aware of noise abatement problems at Naval
    Air Station Meridian, Mississippi. Significantly high levels of
    aircraft noise during flight operations at Outlying Field (OLF)
    Joe Williams have prompted concerns about the health and safety
    effects of current flight operations on the surrounding
    community. The committee understands that the Department of the
    Navy has initiated a comprehensive study of noise abatement
    issues affecting OLF Joe Williams. The committee directs the
    Secretary of the Navy to submit a report on the Department's
    findings, including any recommendations for the remediation of
    noise levels, to the congressional defense committees no later
    than January 1, 1997.

       Ordnance Storage Needs of Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona

        The committee remains deeply concerned about ordnance
    storage at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Arizona and
    the effects on training and safety of inadequate ordnance
    storage at the installation. The committee is aware of
    validated military construction projects which would resolve
    the currently serious deficiencies at MCAS Yuma. The committee
    notes that the execution of military construction projects to
    resolve ordnance storage deficiencies at the installations is
    dependent upon the acquisition of land. The committee
    understands that the Department of the Navy has recommended a
    waiver of the current moratorium on land acquisition to the
    Secretary of Defense for this purpose. The committee urges the
    Secretary to approve a request for a waiver of the moratorium
    on land acquisition at MCAS Yuma. The committee also urges the
    Secretary of the Navy to make every effort to include land
    acquisition at MCAS Yuma in the fiscal year 1998 budget
    request.

                              Planning and Design

        The committee directs that, within authorized amounts for
    planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy conduct planning
    and design activities for the following projects: $194,000 for
    projects to upgrade and improve runways at Naval Air Station
    Whiting Field, Pensacola, Florida.

                 Power Plant Upgrade, Public Works Center, Guam

        The committee notes that the 1995 recommendations of the
    Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission concerning
    naval activities in Guam included the transfer of the Piti
    Power Plant to the Government of Guam. The committee also notes
    the continued commitment of the Department of the Navy under
    the Guam Power Agreement to transfer the Piti Power Plant to
    the Government of Guam in good working order. The committee
    understands that funding for the upgrade of two generators at
    the Piti Power Plant which would permit the implementation of
    the Navy's commitment under the agreement is currently
    programmed for fiscal year 1999. The committee urges the
    Secretary of the Navy to accelerate the required power plant
    upgrades in order for the Navy to meet its commitments under
    the agreement as soon as practicable.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

        Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
                                    Projects

        This section contains the list of authorized Navy
    construction projects for fiscal year 1997. The authorized
    amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
    The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
    binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
    location.

                          Section 2202--Family Housing

        This section would authorize new construction and planning
    and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year
    1997.

          Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

        This section would authorize improvements to existing units
    of family housing for fiscal year 1997.

              Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy

        This section would authorize specific appropriations for
    each line item in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 1997. This
    section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy
    may spend on military construction projects.

      Section 2205--Beach Replenishment, Naval Air Station, North Island,
                                   California

        This section would provide for a cost-sharing agreement
    between the Secretary of the Navy, the State of California, and
    local governments concerning beach replenishment executed as
    part of a military construction project at Naval Air Station
    North Island, California.-

    Section 2206--Lease to Facilitate Construction of Reserve Center, Naval
                       Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi

        This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to
    lease, without reimbursement, approximately five acres of real
    property at Naval Air Station, Meridian, Mississippi. The State
    shall use the property to construct a reserve center and
    ancillary supporting facilities. The section also would provide
    for a leaseback of the reserve center by the Navy.
                             TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

                                    SUMMARY

        The Air Force requested authorization of $603,059,000 for
    military construction and $1,060,710,000 for family housing for
    fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends authorization of
    $678,914,000 for military construction and $1,144,542,000 for
    family housing for fiscal year 1997.

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

              Defense Access Road, Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado

        The committee is aware of serious safety issues caused, and
    operational constraints imposed, by the publicly accessible
    road network through Falcon Air Force Base, Colorado. The
    committee notes recent studies have demonstrated that State
    Highway 94 is no longer capable of supporting the volume of
    traffic associated with the installation and that a
    deteriorating safety situation has caused numerous accidents,
    including fatalities. In addition, the proximity of the current
    road to the existing and planned antenna farms at the
    installation constitutes an untenable risk to national
    security. The committee understands that the Military Traffic
    Management Command has recently certified the requirement for a
    defense access road project at Falcon Air Force Base. The
    committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to make every
    effort to include the defense access road project at Falcon Air
    Force Base in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.

                    Improvements of Military Family Housing

        The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
    for improvements of military family housing and facilities, the
    Secretary of the Air Force execute the following projects:
    $8,600,000 for family housing improvements (112 units) at Eglin
    Air Force Base, Florida; $6,000,000 for Whole House
    Revitalization (52 units) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
    Ohio; $15,000,000 for family housing improvements (180 units)
    at Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas; and $7,500,000 for Whole
    House Revitalization (92 units) at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.

                              Planning and Design

        The committee directs that, within amounts authorized for
    planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force conduct
    planning and design activities for the following projects:
    $288,000 for a physical fitness training center at Vance Air
    Force Base, Oklahoma; and $512,000 for a consolidated logistics
    complex at Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

     Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
                                    Projects

        This section contains the list of authorized Air Force
    construction projects for fiscal year 1997. The authorized
    amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
    The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
    binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
    location.

                          Section 2302--Family Housing

        This section would authorize new construction and planning
    and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal
    year 1997.

          Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

        This section would authorize improvements to existing units
    of family housing for fiscal year 1997.

            Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force

        This section would authorize specific appropriations for
    each line item in the Air Force's budget for fiscal year 1997.
    This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount
    the Air Force may spend on military construction projects.
                          TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

                                    SUMMARY

        The Defense Agencies requested authorization of
    $812,945,000 for military construction and $35,334,000 for
    family housing for fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends
    authorization of $772,345,000 for military construction and
    $35,334,000 for family housing.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

        Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
                              Acquisition Projects

        This section contains the list of authorized Defense
    Agencies construction projects for fiscal year 1997. The
    authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
    installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
    intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
    authorized at each location.

               Section 2402--Military Housing Planning and Design

        This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
    carry out planning and design activities with respect to the
    construction or improvement of military family housing units in
    the amount of $500,000.

          Section 2403--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

        This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
    make improvements to existing units of family housing for
    fiscal year 1997 in an amount not to exceed $3,871,000.

               Section 2404--Military Housing Improvement Program

        This section would authorize the availability of funds
    credited to the Department of Defense Family Housing
    Improvement Fund in the amount of $35,000,000, and to the
    Department of Defense Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund in
    the amount of $10,000,000.

                   Section 2405--Energy Conservation Projects

        This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
    carry out energy conservation projects.

        Section 2406--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies

        This section would authorize specific appropriations for
    each line item in the Defense Agencies' budget for fiscal year
    1997. This section also would provide an overall limit on the
    amount the Defense Agencies may spend on military construction
    projects.
          TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE

                                    SUMMARY

        The Department of Defense requested authorization of
    $197,000,000 for the NATO infrastructure fund (NATO Security
    Investment Program) for fiscal year 1997. The committee
    recommends $177,000,000.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

        Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition
                                    Projects

        This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
    make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
    security investment program in an amount equal to the sum of
    the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill
    and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for
    construction previously financed by the United States.

              Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO

        This section would authorize appropriations of $177,000,000
    as the U.S. contribution to the NATO security investment
    program.
                TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

                                    SUMMARY

        The Department of Defense requested a military construction
    authorization of $194,091,000 for fiscal year 1997 for guard
    and reserve facilities. The committee recommends authorization
    for fiscal year 1997 of $294,693,000 to be distributed as
    follows:
    Army National Guard-....................................     $41,316,000
    Air National Guard......................................     118,394,000
    Army Reserve............................................      50,159,000
    Air Force Reserve.......................................      33,169,000
    Naval and Marine Corps Reserve..........................      51,655,000
        Total...............................................     294,693,000

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

          Alternative Funding for Certain Guard and Reserve Facilities

        The committee is aware of a number of alternative funding
    proposals to provide facilities for the guard and reserve
    components. The committee commends the State of Mississippi for
    its willingness to provide 80 percent of the cost of
    construction for a new naval reserve facility at Naval Air
    Station, Meridian, Mississippi. Section 2206 of this Act would
    facilitate the ability of the Secretary of the Navy to accept
    the facility. The committee also takes particular note of a
    project proposed for the construction of an armory and
    organizational maintenance shop complex at Marion, Indiana, and
    the willingness of the State of Indiana, local governments, and
    private sources to fund various portions of the facility,
    including its multi-activity aspects. The committee regrets its
    inability to authorize a federal contribution toward the armory
    complex at this time. The committee remains concerned about the
    inability of the Army National Guard to award 23 previously
    authorized armory projects for which funds were appropriated
    from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1995. The committee,
    however, encourages alternative funding methods for the
    construction of these types of facilities and would consider
    seriously a similar proposal at a later time.

                       Armory Infrastructure Requirements

        The committee is aware of the serious infrastructure
    deficiencies of the guard and reserve components and is
    particularly concerned about deteriorating armory
    infrastructure. The committee, however, is reluctant to fund
    armory construction without an assessment of requirements. The
    committee directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study
    of armory infrastructure and to assess and prioritize
    requirements for military construction. The Secretary shall
    submit a report on the Department's finding to the
    congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 1997.

                 Battle Projection Center, Fort Dix, New Jersey

        The committee remains supportive of programs to train Army
    Reserve components at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The committee is
    especially supportive of the battle projection center (BPC)
    located at that installation. The committee is concerned about
    the possible relocation of the BPC from Fort Dix to another
    installation. The committee understands that a substantial cost
    would be incurred in relocating the battle projection center.
    The committee is also concerned about the impact of relocation
    on the operational and training requirements of the Army
    Reserve. The committee recommends that the Secretary of the
    Army revise current planning to relocate the battle projection
    center and to ensure the permanent assignment of the battle
    projection center at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

      Military Construction to Support the Beddown of Avenger Air Defense
                  System Units, Various Locations, Mississippi

        The committee is concerned about the inability of the Army
    National Guard to complete military construction projects
    authorized in section 2601(1)(A) of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (division B of Public
    Law 103-160) due to unanticipated cost overruns and scope
    variations. The projects, located at various sites in
    Mississippi, are intended to support the beddown of Avenger air
    defense system units. The committee directs the Secretary of
    the Army to submit the appropriate scope and cost variation
    reports to the congressional defense committees as required by
    law.

                              Planning and Design

        The committee directs that, within amounts authorized for
    planning and design, the Secretary of the Army conduct planning
    and design activities for the following projects: $280,000 for
    infrastructure upgrades at Leesburg Training Site, Eastover,
    South Carolina; and $224,000 for a battle simulation training
    center, Leesburg Training Site, Eastover, South Carolina.

                     Planning and Design, Fiscal Year 1996

        The committee recalls the direction provided to the
    Secretary of the Army in the statement of managers report
    accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) concerning planning and design
    activities for an intelligence training center at Fort Dix, New
    Jersey. The committee reiterates its support for that
    requirement and urges the Secretary of the Army to initiate
    planning and design activities for that purpose as
    expeditiously as possible.

                         Unspecified Minor Construction

        The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
    for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army
    execute the following project: $576,000 for helicopter landing
    pads and taxi lanes at Decatur, Illinois.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

       Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land
                              Acquisition Projects

        This section would authorize appropriations for military
    construction for the guard and reserve by service component for
    fiscal year 1997. The state list contained in this report is
    intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
    authorized at each location.
            TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

     Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To Be
                                Specified by Law

        This section would provide that authorizations for military
    construction projects, repair of real property, land
    acquisition, family housing projects and facilities,
    contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
    infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will
    expire on October 1, 1998 or the date of enactment of an Act
    authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
    1999, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to
    authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated
    before October 1, 1998 or the date of enactment of an Act
    authorizing funds for these projects, whichever is later.

    Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1994
                                    Projects

        This section would provide for selected extension of
    certain fiscal year 1994 military construction authorizations
    until October 1, 1997, or the date of the enactment of an Act
    authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
    1997, whichever is later.

     Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1993
                                    Projects

        This section would provide for selected extension of
    certain fiscal year 1993 military construction authorizations
    until October 1, 1997, or the date of the enactment of the Act
    authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
    1997, whichever is later.

     Section 2704--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1992
                                    Projects

        This section would provide for selected extension of
    certain fiscal year 1992 military construction authorizations
    until October 1, 1997, or the date of the enactment of the Act
    authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
    1997, whichever is later.

                          Section 2705--Effective Date

        This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII,
    XXIV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1,
    1996, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is
    later.
                        TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

         Assessment of Certain Overhead Costs of Military Construction

        The committee is concerned over the cost of certain
    overhead items built into the pricing of military construction
    projects. The committee is especially interested in reviewing
    contingency costs, as well as the standard cost of planning and
    design, associated with military construction. At the same
    time, the committee is equally concerned about apparent and
    chronic underfunding of the planning and design accounts of the
    military departments which may impede the timely execution of
    contracts and the delivery of facilities. The committee urges
    the military departments to use standard designs for new
    facilities to the greatest extent practicable. The committee
    directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study of the
    standard costs in the planning and design of military
    facilities and to assess the appropriate level of certain
    overhead costs permitted on a military construction project. In
    addition, the study should assess variations among the military
    services for the planning and design of similar projects, as
    well as differences between categories of facilities. The
    Secretary shall submit a report on the Department's findings,
    including any recommendations, to the congressional defense
    committees no later than February 1, 1997.

                  Efficient Utilization of Existing Facilities

        The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
    and the military departments are not maximizing the utilization
    of existing facilities. In particular, the committee is aware
    of instances in which military units currently occupy leased
    facilities even though vacant, less expensive, facilities owned
    by the Department are available in the general vicinity of the
    leased space. Additionally, the committee is aware of
    disagreement within the military departments over whether it is
    legally permissible for active duty units to relocate onto
    reserve installations which have been realigned under the base
    closure and realignment process. The committee urges the
    Department of Defense and the military departments to reduce
    their commitment to leased facilities as much as practicable.
    The committee also believes it is permissible for active duty
    units and missions to relocate onto such reserve installations
    consistent with the limited exceptions permitted under law.

            Infrastructure Requirements for Depot-Level Maintenance

        The committee recognizes the importance of depot-level
    maintenance and other logistics support to the warfighting
    capability of the armed forces. However, the committee is
    concerned about significant deficiencies in the infrastructure
    and facilities at several installations designed to support the
    depot-level maintenance of mission-essential equipment and
    systems. The committee notes that the construction and
    modernization of logistics facilities and their maintenance is
    a critical component of military readiness which has been
    underfunded in recent years. Therefore, the committee directs
    the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive study of
    the logistics capability and military construction
    infrastructure requirements of the Department of Defense and
    the military services. The Secretary shall submit a report on
    his findings, including any recommendations, to the
    congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 1997.

         Modular Utility Cores in Military Housing and Other Facilities

        The committee understands that a joint venture involving
    the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
    has adapted miniaturization technology utilized in submarine
    and surface ship utility systems for possible use in newly
    constructed or rehabilitated housing. The committee recognizes
    that such technology offers considerable potential to enhance
    energy efficiency and to reduce operations and maintenance
    costs. The committee urges the Department of Defense to
    continue development of modular utility core technology and
    recommends that the Department assess the potential of modular
    utility cores to meet the requirements of military family
    housing and facilities generally.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

         Subtitle A--Military Construction and Military Family Housing

     Section 2801--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
                                    Program

        This section would make technical and conforming changes to
    title 10, United States Code, regarding the name of the NATO
    Security Investment Program

             Section 2802--Authority to Demolish Excess Facilities

        This section would authorize a program to demolish excess
    facilities. Under the provision, funds authorized for
    appropriation under the authorities contained in this section
    may not be used for the demolition of military family housing,
    facilities involved in a base closure and realignment action,
    or facilities which would be demolished as an integral part of
    a specific military construction project.

               Section 2803--Improvements to Family Housing Units

        This section would make technical changes to the
    calculation of the cost of major maintenance and repair to
    military family housing units.

                Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment

     Section 2811--Restoration of Authority for Certain Intragovernmental
                     Transfers Under 1988 Base Closure Law

        This section would restore the ability of the Secretary of
    Defense to transfer property at a closing or realigning
    military installation to a military department, including a
    nonappropriated fund instrumentality, or to the Coast Guard.
    The previous authority for such transfers was inadvertently
    repealed in a prior year through a technical drafting error.

    Section 2812--Contracting for Certain Services at Facilities Remaining
                            on Closed Installations

        This section would authorize the Department of Defense to
    contract out for certain services at facilities remaining on
    military installations closed under the base closure and
    realignment process.

      Section 2813--Authority to Compensate Owners of Manufactured Housing

        This section would authorize payments from the base closure
    and realignment accounts to compensate owners of manufactured
    housing at military installations to be closed or realigned.
    Under the provision, the payment may be made if the
    manufactured housing park is eliminated or relocated. No
    payment authorized by this section may exceed 90 percent of the
    purchase price of the manufactured housing unit.

           Section 2814--Additional Purpose for Which Adjustment and
                    Diversification Assistance Is Authorized

        This section would restore the authority of the Secretary
    of Defense to make grants, conclude cooperation agreements, and
    supplement other Federal funds to assist base reuse planning by
    the States and local redevelopment authorities at military
    installations to be closed. The previous authority for such
    support was inadvertently repealed in a prior year through a
    technical drafting error.

    Section 2815--Payment of Stipulated Penalties Assessed Under CERCLA in
                  Connection With Loring Air Force Base, Maine

        This section would authorize payments from the base closure
    and realignment accounts for stipulated penalties assessed
    under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
    and Liability Act of 1980 in connection with the closure of
    Loring Air Force Base, Maine.

                     Subtitle C--Land Conveyances Generally

                            Part I--Army Conveyances

    Section 2821--Transfer and Exchange of Jurisdiction, Arlington National
                               Cemetery, Virginia

        This section would authorize the transfer of real property,
    and exchange of jurisdiction, between the Secretary of the Army
    and the Secretary of the Interior at Arlington National
    Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia.

     Section 2822--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Rushville, Indiana

        This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
    convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
    improvements, to the City of Rushville, Indiana. The property
    is to be used for the benefit of public safety. The cost of any
    surveys necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the
    City.

      Section 2823--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Anderson, South
                                    Carolina

        This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
    convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
    improvements, to the County of Anderson, South Carolina. The
    property is to be used for educational purposes. The cost of
    any surveys necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the
    County.

                           Part II--Navy Conveyances

    Section 2831--Release of Condition on Reconveyance of Transferred Land,
                                      Guam

        This section would repeal section 818(b)(2) of the Military
    Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1981 (Public Law
    96-418) relating to a condition on the disposal by the
    Government of Guam of real property conveyed by the United
    States.

    Section 2832--Land Exchange, St. Helena Annex, Norfolk Naval Shipyard,
                                    Virginia

        This section would authorize an exchange of real property,
    with consideration, relating to Norfolk Naval Shipyard,
    Virginia. As consideration for the real property located at the
    Shipyard conveyed by the Secretary, the transferee shall convey
    to the United States a parcel or parcels of real property, with
    improvements, located in the area of Portsmouth, Virginia, and
    pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the amount by which the
    fair market value of the parcel conveyed by the Secretary
    exceeds to the fair market value of the parcel conveyed to the
    United States. In lieu of such consideration, the Secretary and
    the transferee may agree upon in-kind consideration under which
    the transferee would provide for the improvement, maintenance,
    or repair of real property under the control of the Secretary
    in the area of Hampton Roads, Virginia. The exact acreage and
    legal description of the parcels shall be determined by a
    survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of the survey
    shall be borne by the transferee.

     Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Calverton Pine Barrens, Naval Weapons
                 Industrial Reserve Plant, Calverton, New York

        This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
    convey a parcel of real property, comprising the Calverton Pine
    Barrens and located at the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve
    Plant, Calverton, New York, to the Department of Environmental
    Conservation of the State of New York. The property is to be
    used as a nature preserve. The cost of any surveys necessary
    for the conveyance shall be borne by the Department.

                        Part III--Air Force Conveyances

      Section 2841--Conveyance of Primate Research Complex, Holloman Air
                             Force Base, New Mexico

        This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
    to convey, on a competitive basis, the primate research complex
    located at Hollomon Air Force, New Mexico. The conveyance may
    include the colony of chimpanzees owned by the Air Force, but
    may not include the real property on which the primate research
    complex is located. The conveyance would be subject to the
    condition that the recipient of the primate research complex
    utilize any chimpanzees included in the conveyance for
    scientific or medical research purposes or retire and provide
    adequate care for such chimpanzees.

     Section 2842--Land Conveyance, Radar Bomb Scoring Site, Belle Forche,
                                  South Dakota

        This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
    to convey, without consideration, approximately 37 acres with
    improvements to the Belle Forche School District, Belle Forche,
    South Dakota. The property is to be used for educational,
    economic development, and housing purposes. The cost of any
    surveys necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the
    School District.

                           Part IV--Other Conveyances

     Section 2851--Land Conveyance, Tatum Salt Dome Test Site, Mississippi

        This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to
    convey the Tatum Salt Dome Test Site to the State of
    Mississippi after certification by the Administration of the
    Environmental Protection Agency and the State that any
    contamination of the property has been remediated in accordance
    with applicable federal and state statutory and regulatory
    requirements. The property is to be used by the State as a
    wildlife refuge and is to be designated as the Jamie Whitten
    Wilderness Area.

      Section 2852--Land Conveyance, William Langer Jewel Bearing Plant,
                              Rolla, North Dakota

        This section would authorize the Administrator of the
    General Services Administration to convey, without
    consideration, approximately 9.77 acres with improvements
    comprising the former Army-owned William Langer Jewel Bearing
    Plant, Rolla, North Dakota to the Job Development Authority of
    the City of Rolla, North Dakota. The property is to be used for
    economic development. The cost of any surveys necessary for the
    conveyance shall be borne by the Authority.

                           Subtitle D--Other Matters

                   Section 2861--Easements for Rights-of-Way

        This section would consolidate easement authorities
    utilized by the military departments which are currently
    dispersed throughout title 10, United States Code.

     Section 2862--Authority to Enter Into Cooperative Agreements for the
           Management of Cultural Resources on Military Installations

        This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, or
    the Secretary of a military department, to enter into
    cooperative agreements for the management of cultural resources
    on military installations.

     Section 2863--Demonstration Project for Installation and Operation of
     Electric Power Distribution System at Youngstown Air Reserve Station,
                                      Ohio

        This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
    to carry out a demonstration project to assess the feasibility
    of permitting private entities to install, operate, and
    maintain electric power distribution systems at military
    installations. The demonstration project would be conducted at
    Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio.

       Section 2864--Designation of Michael O'Callaghan Military Hospital

        This section would designate the Nellis Federal Hospital,
    Las Vegas, Nevada, as the Michael O'Callaghan Military
    Hospital.
                     TITLE XXIX--MILITARY LAND WITHDRAWALS

         Subtitle A--Fort Carson-Pinon Canyon Military Lands Withdrawal

       Section 2902--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands at Fort Carson
                              Military Reservation

        This section would withdraw and reserve, subject to valid
    existing rights, approximately 3,133 acres of public lands and
    approximately 11,415 acres of mineral rights in the State of
    Colorado for use by the Secretary of the Army for military
    maneuvering, training, and other defense-related purposes at
    Fort Carson, Colorado.

       Section 2903--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands at Pinon Canyon
                                 Maneuver Site

        This section would withdraw and reserve, subject to valid
    existing rights, approximately 2,517 acres of public lands and
    approximately 130,139 acres of mineral rights in the State of
    Colorado for use by the Secretary of the Army for military
    maneuvering, training, and other defense-related purposes at
    the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado.

                   Section 2904--Maps and Legal Descriptions

        This section would require that maps and legal descriptions
    of the lands withdrawn and reserved by this subtitle be
    prepared and published by the Secretary of the Interior.

                  Section 2905--Management of Withdrawn Lands

        This section would provide for the management by the
    Secretary of the Army, in coordination with the Secretary of
    the Interior, of the withdrawn lands under this subtitle.

      Section 2906--Management of Withdrawn and Acquired Mineral Resources

        This section would provide that the management of withdrawn
    and acquired mineral resources shall be conducted, as
    applicable, pursuant to the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of
    1986 (Public Law 99-606).

                  Section 2907--Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping

        This section would provide that hunting, fishing, and
    trapping activities on the lands withdrawn and reserved under
    this subtitle shall be conducted in accordance with section
    2671 of title 10, United States Code.

            Section 2908--Termination of Withdrawal and Reservation

        This section would provide that the withdrawal and
    reservation of public lands and mineral rights will terminate
    15 years after the date of enactment of this subtitle. The
    section would also provide for procedures to permit a
    determination of continuing military need for the withdrawn and
    reserved public lands and mineral rights and would provide for
    procedures under which the Secretary of the Army could
    relinquish all or part of the lands withdrawn and reserved
    under this subtitle.

    Section 2909--Determination of Presence of Contamination and Effect of
                                 Contamination

        This section would provide for decontamination of the
    withdrawn lands, both during the period of withdrawal and upon
    relinquishment of the lands by the Department of the Army.

                            Section 2910--Delegation

        This section would provide that the functions of the
    Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior under
    this subtitle may be delegated without restriction, except that
    an order by the Department of the Interior accepting
    jurisdiction over withdrawn lands relinquished by the
    Department of the Army may be signed only by the Secretary of
    the Interior, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, or an
    Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

                          Section 2911--Hold Harmless

        This section would provide that any party conducting any
    mining, mineral, or geothermal leasing activity on lands
    withdrawn under this subtitle shall indemnify the United States
    against any costs, fees, damages, or other liabilities incurred
    by the United States arising from those activities.

        Section 2912--Amendment to Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986

        This section would amend the Military Lands Withdrawal Act
    of 1986 (Public Law 99-606) to permit, subject to valid
    existing rights, military use of sand, gravel, and similar
    construction materials on the lands withdrawn by that Act.

                 Section 2913--Authorization of Appropriations

        This section would authorize such sums as may be necessary
    to carry out the purposes of this subtitle.

           Subtitle B--El Centro Naval Air Facility Ranges Withdrawal

                   Section 2921--Short Title and Definitions

        This section would define terms used in this subtitle.

        Section 2922--Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands for El Centro

        This section would withdraw and reserve, subject to valid
    existing rights, approximately 46,600 acres of public lands in
    the State of Colorado for use by the Secretary of the Navy for
    defense-related purposes at Naval Air Facility, El Centro,
    California.

                   Section 2923--Maps and Legal Descriptions

        This section would require that maps and legal descriptions
    of the lands withdrawn and reserved by this subtitle be
    prepared and published by the Secretary of the Interior.

                  Section 2924--Management of Withdrawn Lands

        This section would provide for the management by the
    Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with the Secretary
    of the Navy, of the withdrawn lands under this subtitle.

              Section 2925--Duration of Withdrawal and Reservation

        This section would provide that the withdrawal and
    reservation of lands at Naval Air Facility, El Centro,
    California, shall terminate 25 years after the date of
    enactment of this subtitle.

        Section 2926--Continuation of Ongoing Decontamination Activities

        This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
    maintain a program of decontamination of the lands withdrawn
    under this subtitle.

                    Section 2927--Requirements for Extension

        This section would provide for procedures to permit a
    determination of continuing military need for the lands
    withdrawn under this subtitle.

                Section 2928--Early Relinquishment of Withdrawal

        This section would provide for procedures under which the
    Secretary of the Navy could relinquish all or part of the lands
    withdrawn and reserved under this subtitle.

                     Section 2929--Delegation of Authority

        This section would provide that the functions of the
    Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Interior under
    this subtitle may be delegated without restriction, except that
    an order by the Department of the Interior accepting
    jurisdiction over withdrawn lands relinquished by the
    Department of the Navy may be signed only by the Secretary of
    the Interior, the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, or an
    Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

                  Section 2930--Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping

        This section would provide that hunting, fishing, and
    trapping activities on the lands withdrawn and reserved under
    this subtitle shall be conducted in accordance with section
    2671 of title 10, United States Code.

                          Section 2931--Hold Harmless

        This section would provide that any party conducting any
    mining, mineral, or geothermal leasing activity on lands
    withdrawn under this subtitle shall indemnify the United States
    against any costs, fees, damages, or other liabilities incurred
    by the United States arising from those activities.
     DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
                              OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

          TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

                                    PURPOSE

        Title XXXI would authorize appropriations for the national
    security programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
    1997, including management and operations of programs for
    research, development, and production in support of the armed
    forces, the production of strategic and critical materials for
    the armed forces, the protection of critical materials,
    materials and information necessary for national defense,
    management of defense radioactive wastes, environmental
    management, naval nuclear propulsion, and other military
    applications of nuclear energy.

                                    OVERVIEW

        The fiscal year 1997 budget request for DOE national
    security programs totaled $11,049,012,000. Of the total amount
    requested, $3,710,002,000 was for weapons activities,
    $5,409,310,000 was for environmental restoration and waste
    management, $182,000,000 was for defense fixed asset
    acquisition, $1,547,000,000 was for other defense activities,
    and $200,000,000 was for defense nuclear waste disposal. The
    committee recommends $11,214,112,000, an increase of
    $165,100,000 above the requested amount. The following table
    summarizes the request and the committee recommendation:

                           ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

             Defense Environmental Restoration And Waste Management

        The budget request contained $5.4 billion for activities of
    the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Restoration
    and Waste Management. The committee recommends an overall
    authorization at the requested amount. However, several funding
    changes are recommended for a number of the individual
    subaccounts. These changes reflect the committee's policy
    preference of funding actual cleanup activities as opposed to
    administrative activities.
        The committee recommends reducing the budget request for
    the subaccount entitled ``program direction'' by $71.0 million,
    for a total authorized amount of $375.5 million. The committee
    directs that the Department absorb this funding reduction by
    reducing the number of federal employees assigned to the
    Department's headquarters, by reducing administrative overhead
    and travel expenses associated with the reduced employment
    levels at DOE headquarters, and by reducing non-technical
    contract support services at DOE headquarters. To further
    provide more resources for cleanup, the committee recommends
    reducing the budget request for the subaccount entitled
    ``policy and management'' by $25.0 million for a total
    authorization of $23.1 million. This reduction would result in
    an authorization for this subaccount that is comparable to that
    authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1996. Approximately
    $4.0 to $7.0 million of this reduction would be derived by
    eliminating the requirement to submit to Congress, on an annual
    basis, the baseline environmental management report as required
    by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
    (Public Law 103-360). The committee recommends elsewhere in
    this title that the annual reporting requirement be converted
    to a biennial requirement.
        The committee is aware that the Department of Energy often
    reimburses contractors for expenses related to attendance at
    DOE or privately sponsored conferences on cleanup or technology
    issues. While participation at such events may on occasion be
    beneficial to achieving the Department's cleanup goals, the
    committee believes that attendance at such events should be
    limited to the extent possible. The Department is strongly
    encouraged to reduce all of its administrative and overhead
    expenditures, particularly any expenditures that are not
    associated directly with its remediation efforts.
        The committee further recommends increasing the request in
    the subaccounts entitled ``environmental restoration'',
    ``nuclear materials and facilities stabilization'' and the
    ``environmental science program'' by a total of $96.0 million
    above the amounts requested in the President's budget. In doing
    so, the committee directs that increased funding be applied to
    those sites in the field where actual remediation occurs. The
    committee recommendation would provide resources to sites such
    as Rocky Flats, Hanford, Oak Ridge, Savannah River, and Idaho
    where additional funding can be used to significantly reduce
    life cycle costs through acceleration of existing activities,
    initiation of cost reducing deactivation and decommissioning
    activities, and the development of enhanced cleanup
    technologies.
        The committee also directs the Department to continue to
    consider and evaluate sites that would lend themselves to
    accelerated cleanup. Section 3156 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)
    requires the Secretary to submit a report to the Congress by
    May 1, 1996 detailing the activities and projects at those
    sites at which the cleanup has been accelerated. The committee
    expects to receive this report on time. The committee is
    particularly interested in obtaining the details on how the
    additional $60.0 million which was authorized and appropriated
    for fiscal year 1996 accelerated cleanup was actually used. The
    committee believes that the initiation of accelerated cleanup
    programs at certain sites will result in significant long term
    cost savings and risk reduction.
        To allow the Department more flexibility in managing its
    resources, the committee declines to accept the recommendation
    to create a new office of site operations as a separate budget
    function. The committee is concerned that the Department is
    unnecessarily tying its own hands by creating this new budget
    category. The committee understands and appreciates the role of
    this new office and has no objection to this activity being
    performed within the office of nuclear materials and facilities
    stabilization. The committee recommends funding the
    construction projects associated with the office of site
    operations under the budget function for the office of nuclear
    materials and facilities stabilization. All of these projects
    have been funded in the past under the latter office's budget
    function. To provide increased efficiencies and greater
    flexibility and authority for the DOE site managers, the
    committee also recommends elsewhere in this Act additional fund
    transfer authority for the site managers.
        The committee recommendation includes funding to establish
    a privatization program for the treatment of high and low level
    wastes at the Hanford facility, Richland, Washington at the
    level requested in the President's budget. While the committee
    generally supports this initiative, it intends to monitor very
    closely the progress of this effort and to insure that the
    projected cost savings do in fact accrue to the benefit of the
    government. The committee directs that the Department provide a
    report to the committee no later than December 31, 1996. The
    report should include an analysis of the projected cost
    savings, the extent of commercial competition and participation
    in this initiative, and a recommendation on changes which
    should be made to federal procurement regulations to make the
    program more effective.
        The committee is also aware that the Department will soon
    select a new lead contractor for the Hanford facility. New
    contract provisions should result in cost savings at this site.
    The committee strongly encourages the Department, to the
    maximum extent possible, to allocate those savings that result
    from the new management contract to the privatization program
    discussed earlier. This approach should help to diminish to
    some degree the negative budgetary impact that results from the
    creation of the privatization fund in fiscal year 1997 and
    should eliminate any negative impact on current cleanup
    activities at the Hanford facility. Creation of a privatization
    fund is not intended to interfere with or impede on-going
    critical stabilization, maintenance, and cleanup operations at
    this site.
        The committee is also aware that the Department is
    considering additional new initiatives to expand its
    decontamination and decommissioning efforts. While there are
    opportunities to potentially save millions of dollars in life
    cycle costs, the committee strongly urges the Department to
    maximize competition in its procurement process if it chooses
    to undertake these new initiatives.
        Finally, the committee has been advised that there are a
    very small number of former employees at the Hanford facility
    who have failed to receive credit for the total years of
    service performed at that facility, because of changes in
    contractors on a least four occasions. While the four Hanford
    site pension plans have been consolidated into a single pension
    plan, apparently all of the service has not. The committee
    directs that the Department examine this issue and provide a
    report to the committee no later than December 31, 1996 with a
    recommendation on how to correct this problem or certifying
    that sufficient corrective action has been taken.

           Fissile Materials Protection, Control, and Accountability

        The budget request included $69.6 million for fissile
    materials protection, control, and accountability (PC&A) in the
    former Soviet Union. The committee recommends the amount
    contained in the budget request. Section 3131 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
    106) directed the Secretary to submit semi-annual reports on
    obligation of funds for this program. The purpose of this
    reporting requirement was to provide the Congress with greater
    visibility into the Department's long-term programmatic
    strategy and the resources required to implement that strategy.
    The committee strongly urges the Department to submit this
    report to Congress as soon as possible.

                               Independent Review

        The committee recommends that, of the amounts authorized in
    section 3104, $500,000 shall be available to conduct an
    independent review of the potential to detect meteorites,
    asteroids, and comets of sufficiently great sizes to inflict
    large-scale damage on Earth, and possible means of averting
    such strikes. The committee urges that the review be performed
    by an independent group previously involved in reviewing
    complex scientific matters, such as the stockpile stewardship
    and inertial confinement fusion programs. In conducting this
    review, the views of the nuclear weapons laboratories and U.S.
    Space Command shall be solicited. The results of this review
    shall be transmitted to the congressional defense committees
    not later than January 15, 1997.

                          Inertial Confinement Fusion

        The budget request included $366.5 million for inertial
    confinement fusion (ICF). The committee recommends the
    requested amount. Of this amount, $21,150,770 shall be
    available for the University of Rochester/Laboratory for Laser
    Energetics, the amount recommended for fiscal year 1997 in the
    DOE-University of Rochester cooperative agreement and $855,770
    above the request. The Committee requests that the Secretary
    consult with the committee regarding the Secretary's proposed
    offset within the ICF account.

                                  Intelligence

        The budget request included $29.2 million for intelligence-
    related activities.
        A 1988 General Accounting Office (GAO) report noted that
    foreign visitors were coming to the nuclear weapons
    laboratories on unclassified visits but these visits were not
    well controlled. In fact, GAO reported that efforts to screen
    visitors were inadequate, subjects related to nuclear weapons
    were discussed, and little monitoring of these visits was
    occurring. GAO concluded that as a result, these visits may
    have transferred nuclear weapons-related information to foreign
    countries.
        Given greater involvement by the laboratories in
    international activities, the committee is concerned that the
    nuclear weapons laboratories may be an even more inviting
    target for foreign countries seeking to obtain nuclear weapons-
    related information. Senior DOE officials readily concede this
    point, and have informed the committee of their concerns about
    the adequacy of the Department's budget request in this regard.
        The committee directs the Comptroller General to follow up
    the prior GAO report and determine how well DOE is controlling
    foreign visits to the weapons laboratories and whether these
    visits raise any security or nuclear proliferation concerns.
    The report shall be submitted not later than October 15, 1996.
    In the interim, the committee directs the Secretary to reduce
    significantly the number of such visits and limit such visits
    to those individuals that hold appropriate security clearances
    or that have significant business interests at the laboratory.
    As to such business visitors, appropriate security measures
    shall be taken
        Based on these concerns, the committee recommends an
    additional $6.0 million for intelligence, of which $5.0 million
    shall be made available to support the expansion of
    counterintelligence activities at the nuclear weapons
    laboratories and at other high-risk facilities. The program
    shall be administered by the Office of Energy Intelligence
    under the guidance and oversight of the Department's senior
    intelligence officer. The Secretary is directed to review the
    Department's counterintelligence programs with the objective of
    strengthening these activities and to include additional
    resources for this important mission in the fiscal year 1998
    budget submission. The committee recommends that the remaining
    $1.0 million shall be used for expanded analysis of the Russian
    and Chinese nuclear weapons programs. Furthermore, the
    committee strongly urges the Secretary to consider submitting a
    reprogramming request to provide additional funds for
    counterintelligence activities in fiscal year 1996. The
    Secretary shall promptly inform the committee of the
    Secretary's plans in this regard.

                          International Nuclear Safety

        The budget request included $72.2 million for nuclear
    energy activities, including $66.2 million for Soviet-designed
    nuclear reactor safety activities in the former Soviet Union
    and $6.0 million for core-conversion efforts at plutonium
    production reactors in Russia. These activities were carried
    out by the Agency for International Development using foreign
    assistance funds in fiscal year 1996. The committee believes
    these activities should continue to be funded out of the
    foreign assistance budget, and therefore the committee
    recommends no funds be authorized for this purpose in fiscal
    year 1997.

                             International Security

        The budget request included $19.6 million within the arms
    control account for international security activities,
    including $14.6 million for the Industrial Partnering Program
    (IPP) and $5.0 million for controlling North Korea's nuclear
    program. The committee recommends $7.9 million for
    international security, a reduction of $11.7 million from the
    requested amount. The reduction shall be applied against the
    Industrial Partnering Program. The committee remains
    unconvinced of the merits of this program and other programs
    whose goal is to promote ``long-term stability'' of Russia's
    nuclear weapons laboratories.
        The committee recommends $7.9 million for the North Korean
    project. However, the committee is concerned about the
    increased cost estimates for the project, as well as the
    continued uncertainties regarding total project cost and
    timetable for its completion. Finally, the committee urges
    that, prior to obligating or expending these funds, the
    President contact the South Korean Government to seek an
    appropriate cost-sharing arrangement for the remaining work
    associated with this project. The committee further expects to
    be informed promptly of the results of any such demarche.

                      Laboratory Review of Missile Defense

        Recognizing that the nuclear weapons laboratories have
    played an important role in the development of promising
    ballistic missile defense (BMD) concepts, the committee directs
    the directors of each of the nuclear weapons laboratories to
    review the expertise in BMD resident at their respective
    laboratory and to report to the Assistant Secretary of Energy
    for Defense Programs on how that expertise could be harnessed
    to strengthen the U.S. BMD program. In turn, the Assistant
    Secretary shall submit to the House National Security Committee
    and the Senate Armed Services Committee a report detailing
    options for providing greater laboratory involvement in BMD.
    The report shall be due not later than November 15, 1996.

                                 Naval Reactors

        The budget request included $663.9 million for Naval
    Reactors. The committee recommends $681.9 million, an increase
    of $18.0 million, to allow proceeding with the prototype plant
    inactivation plan endorsed by the Department's Office of Naval
    Reactors.

                         Nuclear Emergency Search Team

        The committee understands that the Department is
    considering expanding the mission of the Nuclear Emergency
    Search Team (NEST) to include activities outside the territory
    of the United States. In the absence of additional information
    regarding the cost and other implications of such an expansion
    of the NEST mission, the committee cannot endorse such a
    proposal. To better understand such implications, the committee
    directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report to the House
    National Security Committee and the Senate Armed Services
    Committee not later than 30 days after the enactment of this
    Act on the Department's future plans for the NEST, including
    plans for expanding NEST's missions, the anticipated costs and
    policy implications of such an expansion, required technology
    modernization programs, and NEST's relationship to various
    Department of Defense organizations and activities with
    capabilities in this area. The Secretary is further directed to
    coordinate with the Secretary of Defense in preparing the
    report.

                               Nuclear Smuggling

        The committee endorses an innovative, joint Department of
    Energy-National Defense University program on nuclear
    smuggling, including smuggling pathway analysis. The committee
    recommends that, of the amounts made available within section
    3104, $1.5 million shall be available for this study.

                              Technology Transfer

        The budget request included $49.0 million for technology
    transfer and $10.0 million for education. The committee is
    pleased that the technology transfer program has been
    refocused, consistent with Congressional direction, to address
    issues that have direct relevance to the nuclear weapons
    mission of the Department. Therefore, the committee recommends
    the requested amounts. Of the amount made available for
    technology transfer and education, the committee recommends
    $13.0 million for the American Textiles Partnership (AMTEX)
    project, an increase of $3.0 million above the amount requested
    in the Weapons Activities account, but the same amount
    requested in the Department's overall budget request.

                                    Tritium

        The budget request included $100.0 million for tritium
    production-related activities. The committee is disappointed
    that the Department's record of decision has excluded from
    further consideration any new multipurpose reactor options. The
    committee is aware of analysis which shows the potential cost-
    effectiveness of new reactor options and which suggest that use
    of simplified, streamlined processes for obtaining license
    approval for new nuclear plants could ameliorate concerns
    regarding ``regulatory risk.'' The committee strongly supports
    full consideration of all technically feasible options for
    producing tritium, including use of an accelerator, existing
    commercial reactor options, and multipurpose reactors for
    tritium production, plutonium disposition and electrical power
    generation, as a means of maximizing assurance that tritium
    supplies will be available when needed while, at the same time,
    minimizing costs to the American taxpayer.
        Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary
    to ensure that adequate resources are applied in fiscal year
    1997 to permit a better understanding of the potential costs
    and benefits of the tritium options listed above. Specifically,
    the Department should include new reactor technology in the
    tritium options that are being studied until a final selection
    is made at the end of fiscal year 1998. Both government-
    financed and privately-financed reactor facilities, including
    the multipurpose reactor option, should be included as part of
    this evaluation. The Department is also encouraged to consider
    the Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford, Washington, as an
    option for interim production of tritium.

                              Warhead Master Plan

        Section 3153 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directed the President to
    submit to Congress a master plan for the certification,
    stewardship, and management of warheads in the nuclear
    stockpile. The committee commends the Department for embracing
    the need for such detailed planning for actions necessary to
    sustain U.S. nuclear warheads in the stockpile, for working
    closely with the Department of Defense in drafting the report,
    and for submitting the report to Congress in a timely fashion.
    Nonetheless, the committee recognizes that the master plan is a
    ``living document'' that will need to be refined over time, and
    therefore directs the Secretary to update the report on a
    biennial basis and to inform the Congressional defense
    committees of noteworthy changes in the plan.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

              Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorizations

                        Section 3101--Weapons Activities

        This section would authorize DOE weapons activity funding
    for fiscal year 1997.

          Section 3102--Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

        This section would authorize funds for DOE defense
    environmental restoration and waste management activities for
    fiscal year 1997 at the level of the budget request.

                 Section 3103--Defense Fixed Asset Acquisition

        This section would authorize, as requested in the
    President's budget for fiscal year 1997, $182.0 million to
    establish a new asset acquisition and privatization program for
    the Department of Energy's national security assets. Of the
    total funding, $77.0 million would be allocated for the
    advanced mixed waste treatment project, Idaho Falls, Idaho;
    $15.0 million would be allocated for the mixed waste treatment
    project, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; $70.0 million would be allocated
    for the transuranic waste treatment project, Oak Ridge
    Tennessee, and $20.0 million would be allocated for other
    projects. No outlays are anticipated in fiscal year 1997 under
    this program. The committee intends that pre-construction
    planning expenditures for each of these projects be funded from
    operating and maintenance funds authorized in section 3102 of
    this Act. The committee authorizes $7.0 in pre-construction
    funding for the advanced mixed waste treatment project. The
    committee believes this project is important to fulfilling the
    Department's agreement with the State of Idaho and the
    Department of the Navy with respect to the interim storage of
    Navy nuclear spent fuel in Idaho.

                     Section 3104--Other Defense Activities

        This section would authorize funds for DOE other defense
    activities for fiscal year 1997.

                  Section 3105--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

        This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear
    waste disposal activities of the Department for fiscal year
    1997 at the requested amount.

                    Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions

                          Section 3121--Reprogramming

        This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in
    excess of 102 percent of the amount authorized for the program,
    or in excess of $1.0 million above the amount authorized for
    the program until the Secretary of Energy has notified the
    congressional defense committees and a period of 30 days has
    elapsed after the date on which the report is received. Should
    the Department demonstrate that it has improved its procedures
    for handling reprogramming requests, the committee would
    consider returning to a more flexible reprogramming statute in
    the future.

                 Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects

        This section would limit the initiation of ``general plant
    projects'' authorized by the bill if the current estimated cost
    for any project exceeds $1.2 million. However, if the Secretary
    of Energy finds that the estimated cost of any project will
    exceed $1.2 million, the appropriate committees of Congress
    must be notified of the reasons for the cost variation.

                 Section 3123--Limits On Construction Projects

        This section would permit any construction project to be
    initiated and continued only if the estimated cost for the
    project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the
    amount authorized for the project, or (2) the most recent total
    estimated cost presented to the Congress as justification for
    such project. To exceed such limits, the Secretary of Energy
    must report in detail to the appropriate committees of Congress
    and the report must be before the committees for 30 legislative
    days. This section would also specify that the 125 percent
    limitation would not apply to projects estimated to cost under
    $5.0 million.

                     Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority

        This section would permit funds authorized to be
    appropriated by the bill to be transferred to other agencies of
    the government for performance of work for which the funds were
    authorized and appropriated. The provision would permit the
    merger of such funds with the authorizations of the agency to
    which they are transferred. This section would also limit to no
    more than five percent the amount of funds that may be
    transferred between authorizations in the Department of Energy
    that were authorized pursuant to this act.

         Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design

        This section would limit the Secretary of Energy's
    authority to request construction funding until the Secretary
    has certified a conceptual design. This section would provide
    an exception in the case of emergencies.

          Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design, and
                            Construction Activities

        This section would permit, in addition to any advance
    planning and construction designed otherwise authorized by the
    bill, the Secretary of Energy to perform planning and design
    utilizing available funds for any Department of Energy national
    security program construction project whenever the Secretary
    determines that the design must proceed expeditiously to
    protect the public health and safety, to meet the needs of
    national defense or to protect property.

    Section 3127--Funds Available for all National Security Programs of the
                              Department of Energy

        This section would authorize, subject to the provisions of
    appropriation Acts and section 3121 of this bill, amounts
    appropriated pursuant to this bill for management and support
    activities and for general plant projects to be made available
    for use, when necessary, in connection with all national
    security programs of the Department of Energy.

                      Section 3128--Availability of Funds

        This section would authorize, subject to a provision of an
    appropriation Act, amounts appropriated for operating expenses
    or for plant and capital equipment to remain available until
    expended.

       Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

                  Section 3131--Stockpile Stewardship Program

        This section would authorize an additional $100.0 million
    for various stockpile stewardship activities. The additional
    funds authorized for enhanced surveillance shall be used to
    provide research and development in chemistry and materials to
    support computation, engineering, and design assessment for
    aged or replaced weapons components; characterization of device
    components to include comparison of strain characteristics of
    cast versus wrought cases, crystalline substructure, as well as
    high explosive aging research; and modeling and simulation of
    aging-induced changes. The additional funds for dual
    revalidation shall be used to create an up-to-date
    understanding of each system in the stockpile by employing
    modern experimental, computational, and analytical techniques
    to obtain baseline data on the behavior of weapons in the
    stockpile. In this regard, the committee recognizes the
    importance of subcritical experiments at the Nevada Test Site,
    and is concerned about indications that the Department may be
    planning to postpone experiments planned to be conducted in
    fiscal year 1996 for reasons that are unclear. While the
    majority of additional funds authorized for stockpile
    stewardship would be spent at the nuclear weapons laboratories,
    the committee strongly endorses and encourages a continued,
    close collaboration between the weapons laboratories and the
    production sites.
        The committee notes that questions and concerns have been
    raised in the public with the degree of thoroughness with which
    the Department's Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
    Statement for Stockpile Stewardship and Management (PEIS/SSM)
    addressed stewardship alternatives. The committee believes that
    the Department should continue to consider fully all
    stewardship options, including a no-action option, the proposed
    stewardship, as well as alternatives that would involve a
    program based upon less than the complete suite of experimental
    capability. The committee directs that the Secretary not
    obligate any of the additional funds authorized to be
    appropriated in this section until the completion of the PEIS/
    SSM or until October 15, 1996, whichever is earlier.

        Section 3132--Manufacturing Infrastructure for Nuclear Weapons
                                   Stockpile

        This section would authorize an additional $125.0 million
    for the stockpile manufacturing infrastructure program at the
    four weapons production plants (Savannah River Site, South
    Carolina, Pantex Plant, Texas, Kansas City Plant, Missouri, and
    Y-12 Plant, Tennessee) established in section 3137 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
    Law 104-106). This section would also require the Secretary of
    Energy to submit a report to the congressional defense
    committees on obligations under the program. The additional
    funds are intended to establish and maintain the necessary
    capability and competencies to fully support the evaluation,
    surveillance, maintenance, repair, and dismantlement of the
    nuclear stockpile; provide flexibility to respond to new
    production requirements; to maintain and improve the
    manufacturing technology necessary to fully support the
    stockpile; and to achieve significant reductions in operating
    costs for the complex.
        The committee expects the funds to be allocated roughly
    evenly among the four plants. Furthermore, the funds allocated
    for the Savannah River Site shall be used to further
    consolidate the tritium capabilities beginning in fiscal year
    1997, a year earlier than the Department's current plans; to
    accelerate the schedule for producing tritium; and support a
    more robust and aggressive rapid reconstitution approach for
    plutonium pit manufacturing by initiating a preconceptual
    design study for a replacement pit fabrication facility. The
    funds allocated for the Y-12 Plant shall be used to accelerate
    the consolidation of facilities to manufacture and disassemble
    secondaries; modernize production plant infrastructure elements
    required for long-term operations; and increase core stockpile
    management operations and maintenance (O&M) activities. The
    funds allocated for the Pantex Plant shall be used for a
    consolidated pit packaging system and for increased core
    stockpile management O&M activities. The funds allocated for
    the Kansas City Plant shall be used for upgrades to current
    manufacturing technologies; replacing aging processing
    equipment; investing in information systems upgrades to
    maintain compatibility with advancements at the DOE national
    laboratories; and core O&M.

                  Section 3133--Production of High Explosives

        This section would prohibit the expenditure of funds to
    move, or prepare to move, the manufacture and fabrication of
    high explosives and energetic materials for use as components
    in nuclear weapons systems from the Pantex Plant to any other
    Department of Energy site or facility.

         Section 3134--Limitation on Use of Funds by Laboratories for
                  Laboratory-Directed Research and Development

        This section would reduce beginning in fiscal year 1997 the
    funding percentage for Laboratory-Directed Research and
    Development (LDRD) and prohibit expenditure of funds authorized
    for LDRD in fiscal year 1997 until 15 days after the Secretary
    of Energy has issued a report on the manner in which such funds
    are planned to be used.

     Section 3135--Prohibition on Funding Nuclear Weapons Activities With
                           People's Republic of China

        This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
    of funds for any activity associated with the conduct of
    cooperative programs relating to nuclear weapons or nuclear
    weapons technology, including stockpile stewardship and safety,
    with the People's Republic of China (PRC), and require a report
    on past and planned discussions or activities between the
    United States and the PRC regarding nuclear weapons. The
    committee is unconvinced of the merits of any such cooperative
    discussions or activities between the U.S. and the PRC. The
    committee is extremely concerned about any discussions that may
    have resulted in or could lead to the release of restricted
    data or other classified or sensitive information to the PRC
    given the PRC's ongoing strategic modernization program,
    including its efforts to acquire or develop multiple-
    independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), its recent
    nuclear threats against Los Angeles, and its willingness to
    sell or transfer nuclear and missile technology to anti-Western
    regimes.

     Section 3136--International Cooperative Stockpile Stewardship Programs

        This section would prohibit use of fiscal year 1997 or
    prior year funds to conduct any activities associated with
    international cooperative stockpile stewardship programs, with
    an exception for such activities conducted with the United
    Kingdom and France. The committee is aware that the Department
    may be considering a ``global'' program to assist existing and
    threshold nuclear weapons states in nuclear weapons safety,
    reliability and effectiveness. The committee strongly objects
    to any such effort. This prohibition shall apply to all such
    DOE activities, including laboratory directed research and
    development funded studies and analyses of possible nuclear
    futures.

      Section 3137--Temporary Authority Relating to Transfers of Defense
                         Environmental Management Funds

        This section would direct the Secretary of Energy to
    establish procedures to improve the financial management of
    environmental management funds allocated to the various former
    defense sites which are undergoing remedial cleanup activities.
    This section, upon the establishment of sufficient financial
    controls, would authorize the Secretary to grant authority to a
    site manager to transfer up to $5.0 million between program
    functions within his jurisdiction or to transfer a similar sum
    between projects within his area of operation. This section
    would provide a limited expansion of the current reprogramming
    authority and would allow a site manager to move money on a
    very limited basis based on a finding that the transfer is
    necessary to reduce a health or safety risk or where the funds
    can be used more efficiently at that site. Often-times, funds
    remain obligated to projects which have been completed at less
    than the original obligation or the scope of project has been
    reduced. Prudent and selective use of this authority by a site
    manager should allow the funds described in the above example
    to be reallocated in a more timely manner. The committee
    believes that this authority should result in more efficient
    field operations and should allow field managers the latitude
    to manage these facilities in the most efficient way possible.
    The Secretary would be required to notify Congress within
    thirty days after the transfer of funds occurs. Finally, this
    section would expire on December 30, 1997.

       Section 3138--Management Structure for Nuclear Weapons Production
                  Facilities and Nuclear Weapons Laboratories

        This section would impose a limitation on delegation
    authority, require consultations with area offices of the
    Department, require DOE area offices to report directly to DOE
    headquarters, require the Secretary to provide a Defense
    Programs reorganization plan and report, and require
    establishment of a Defense Programs Management Council.

                           Subtitle D--Other Matters

          Section 3141--Report on Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum

        This section would require the President to submit to the
    congressional defense committees a copy of the Nuclear Weapons
    Stockpile Memorandum, and to submit reports on any future
    updates or changes to the Memorandum.

      Section 3142--Report on Plutonium Pit Production and Remanufacturing

        This section would require the Secretary to submit to the
    congressional defense committees a report on plans for
    achieving a capability to produce and remanufacture plutonium
    pits.

    Section 3143--Amendments Relating to Baseline Environmental Management
                                    Reports

        This section would amend section 3153 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 104-
    360) to authorize the submission of the Baseline Environmental
    Management Report on a biennial basis rather than an annual
    basis. This change would reduce the report preparation cost,
    which is estimated to exceed $4.0 million annually. Currently,
    as soon as one report is completed, preparation of another one
    must begin, leaving little time for analysis of the resulting
    data. Submitting this report every two years should enable the
    Department to analyze the data from the field to determine
    patterns and should improve the usefulness of the report to the
    Congress.

    Section 3144--Requirement to Develop Future Use Plans for Environmental
                               Management Program

        This section would permit the Secretary of Energy to
    develop and implement as part of the Defense Environmental
    Restoration and Waste Management Program, a future land use
    plan at sites where the Secretary is planning or implementing
    environmental restoration activities. Although the Secretary
    would be encouraged to use this authority at all defense sites
    where remedial activities are occurring, the Secretary would be
    required to develop these plans at specific selected defense
    sites. In developing these plans, the Secretary would be
    required to consult with local advisory boards, local land use
    redevelopment authorities, or other appropriate state agencies.
    The Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue
    Committee recently issued its final report entitled ``Consensus
    Principles and Recommendations for Improving Federal Facilities
    Cleanup''. The recommendations contained in this report are
    aimed at improving the process of making decisions and setting
    priorities for cleanup efforts at federal facilities. The
    committee supports the expansive role of future use/site
    advisory boards as described in that report and recommends that
    future use planning, as required by this section follow, to the
    extent practicable, the recommendations contained in that
    report. The committee expects that reaching agreement with
    local authorities about anticipated future land use associated
    with contaminated former defense sites once they are remediated
    should result in cleanup activities that are appropriate to
    that anticipated future use. This should also result in a more
    expeditious transfer of the property upon the completion of the
    remediation activity. This section would recognize that certain
    sites, in conjunction with local advisory groups, have
    developed or are in the process of developing future use land
    use plans. This section would not overturn or require changes
    to those plans or the appointment of new advisory groups. This
    section would also require the submission of a report to
    Congress on the future land use plans at these former defense
    facilities. Finally, this section would require that all future
    land use plans developed under this section be in strict
    compliance with all existing statutory and regulatory
    requirements.

        Subtitle E--Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup and Management

                             Section 3151--Purpose

        This section would set forth the purpose of this subtitle
    which is to improve the operation of the DOE defense nuclear
    environmental cleanup and management program through the use of
    cost-effective management mechanisms and innovative
    technologies.

                Section 3152--Covered Defense Nuclear Facilities

        This section would define the application of this subtitle
    to include any defense nuclear facility of the Department of
    Energy for which the fiscal year 1996 environmental management
    budget was $350.0 million or more.

                           Section 3153--Site Manager

        This section would grant authority to the Secretary of
    Energy to delegate to the site manager authority to oversee and
    to direct management operations at a defense nuclear facility.
    Specifically the Secretary may delegate the authority to enter
    into and modify contractual agreements to enhance environmental
    restoration at the facility, to submit reprogramming requests
    to Congress directly if DOE headquarters fails to act on the
    request within 60 days, and to negotiate amendments to
    environmental agreements. For any environmental remedial action
    where the cost exceeds $25.0 million, the site manager is
    required to prepare an assessment of the costs and risk
    reduction or other benefits associated with implementation of
    the selected action.

                   Section 3154--Department of Energy Orders

        This section would require that before new DOE orders are
    issued that there be a finding that the order is necessary for
    the protection of human health and the environment or safety,
    or the fulfillment of current legal requirements. This section
    should reduce the number of DOE orders that are unrelated to
    cleanup, safety or protection of the environment and should
    result in a more efficient and effective remediation effort at
    the DOE defense nuclear facilities.

       Section 3155--Deployment of Technology for Remediation of Defense
                                 Nuclear Waste

        This section would promote the deployment of innovative
    environmental technologies for remediation of defense nuclear
    waste at DOE nuclear facilities.

                  Section 3156--Performance-Based Contracting

        This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
    develop and implement a program to encourage the use of
    performance-based contracts as opposed to cost-plus contracts.
    The contracts to the maximum extent possible would require
    results oriented performance criteria, financial
    accountability, incentives for contractors to meet or exceed
    the performance criteria, specific incentives for cost savings,
    and when appropriate, allocation of fee or profit reduction for
    failure to meet minimum performance criteria. This section
    would require the Secretary of Energy to implement this program
    by October 1, 1997.

      Section 3157--Designation of Defense Nuclear Facilities as National
                   Environmental Cleanup Demonstration Areas

        This section would allow the Secretary of Energy, upon
    receipt of a request from the governor of a state in which a
    defense nuclear facility is situated, to designate the facility
    as a ``National Environmental Cleanup Demonstration Area''.
    This section would also express the sense of Congress that
    federal and state regulatory authorities should work to develop
    expedited and streamlined procedures for cleaning up the
    nuclear facilities and to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic
    delay.
       TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD AUTHORIZATION

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                          Section 3201--Authorization

        Section 3201 would authorize, as requested in the
    President's budget, $17 million for the operation of the
    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
                    TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                Section 3302--Authorized Uses of Stockpile Funds

        This section would authorize $60 million from the National
    Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operations and
    maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year
    1997. The provision would also permit the use of additional
    funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions after a
    notification to Congress.

            Section 3311--Biennial Report on Stockpile Requirements

        This section would amend the Strategic and Critical
    Materials Stock Piling Act, section 3203 of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1988 (Public Law 100-
    180), concerning the requirements report provided to Congress
    every other year by the Department of Defense (DOD). The
    committee believes the Stock Piling Act, as currently written,
    is in need of revisions that would reflect current world
    conditions, particularly in the area of establishing
    requirements for the National Defense Stockpile. The committee
    further believes the provision will assist the DOD in the
    preparation of the stockpile requirements report due to
    Congress on January 15, 1997.

                    Section 3312--Notification Requirements

        This section would update several sections of the Strategic
    and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, section 3203 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1988 (Public
    Law 100-180), to standardize reporting requirements throughout
    the act. The provision would establish that all legislative
    reporting waiting periods are to be 45 days.
                     TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                 Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations

        This section would authorize the appropriation of
    $149,500,000 for fiscal year 1997 for the Department of Energy
    for the operation of the Naval Petroleum Reserves.

     Section 3402--Requirement on Sale of Certain Petroleum During Fiscal
                                   Year 1997

        This section would require the Secretary of Energy to sell
    petroleum produced for the Naval Petroleum Reserves at
    established prices.
                      TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

                             LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

                  Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

        This subtitle would grant the Panama Canal Commission
    authority to make expenditures from the Panama Canal Commission
    Revolving Fund within existing statutory limits. The Panama
    Canal Commission operates as a private government corporation
    and is supervised by a nine member supervisory board, commonly
    referred to as the Panama Canal Commission Board of Directors.
    The Panama Canal Commission does not draw from U.S. taxpayer
    funds for the operation of the Canal, but receives funding to
    cover its operating, administrative, and capital improvement
    expenses from tolls and other revenue collected. The Panama
    Canal Commission's total operating costs including depreciation
    and interest payments in Fiscal Year 1997 are estimated at
    $623.6 million.

               Subtitle B--Amendments to Panama Canal Act of 1979

                     Section 3521--Short Title; References

        This section would establish the Act as the ``Panama Canal
    Act Amendments of 1996.''

         Section 3522--Definitions and Recommendations for Legislation

        This section would delete the requirement that the
    President submit recommendations to improve the Commission
    structure. The President has complied with that provision.

                          Section 3523--Administrator

        This section would authorize the Commission's Board of
    Directors to establish the Panama Canal Administrator's pay at
    a rate not to exceed that set for level III of the Executive
    Service. It is currently established by statute at level IV of
    the Executive Schedule. This amendment would ensure the
    recruitment of highly qualified administrators during this
    critical period in the transition of the canal to Panamanian
    control. As is the case with all expenditures by the
    Commission, the administrator's salary is paid from canal
    revenues.

             Section 3524--Deputy Administrator and Chief Engineer

        This section would authorize the Commission's Board of
    Directors to establish the Deputy Administrator's pay at a rate
    not to exceed that set for level IV of the Executive Service.
    This section would also delete the reference to chief engineer.

                       Section 3525--Office of Ombudsman

        This section would remove the requirement in section 3623
    of title 22, United States Code, that the Panama Canal
    Commission Ombudsman be a U.S. citizen.-

               Section 3526--Appointment and Compensation; Duties

        This section would amend section 3642 of title 22, United
    States Code, with technical changes and clarification on the
    scope of the Panama Canal Employment System established in
    section 3652 of title 22, United States Code.

                Section 3527--Applicability of Certain Benefits

        This section would amend section 3649 of title 22, United
    States Code, to include those sections of the U.S. personnel
    laws which are specifically applicable to all pre-treaty
    employees and U.S. citizen, post-treaty employees.

                Section 3528--Travel and Transportation Expenses

        This section would amend section 3650 of title 22, United
    States Code, to provide a specific exemption from the
    requirement that an employee promise to remain in the
    employment of the Commission for an additional two years after
    completion of vacation leave. Inasmuch as the majority of the
    agency's U.S. citizen employees will be separated from federal
    service on December 31, 1999, it will be impossible for them to
    make such a tour renewal commitment after December 31, 1997.
    The remaining proposed changes to section 3650 of title 22,
    United States Codes are non-substantive in nature.

              Section 3529--Clarification of Definition of Agency

        This section would make a technical amendment to section
    3651 of title 22, United States Code, to clarify that the
    Commission remains an ``Executive agency'' notwithstanding
    other definitions in title 22, United States Code.

         Section 3530--Panama Canal Employment System; Merit and Other
                            Employment Requirements

        This section would amend section 3652 of title 22, United
    States Code, to authorize the Commission to establish a
    personnel system for the Commission that is independent of
    other U.S. agencies in Panama. This amendment would allow the
    Commission to have in place a personnel system which can easily
    be transferred to and be implemented by the Panama Canal
    Authority which will operate the canal after 1999.

                       Section 3531--Employment Standards

        This section would amend section 3653 of title 22, United
    States Code, to provide the Panama Canal Commission with the
    sole authority to determine employment standards and promotion
    criteria for the Commission consistent with the consolidation
    of authority for the Panama Canal Employment System.

         Section 3532--Repeal of Obsolete Provision Regarding Interim
                     Application of Canal Zone Merit System

        This section would repeal section 3654 of title 22, United
    States Code, to reflect the fact that the Canal Zone Merit
    System has been replaced by the Panama Canal Employment System.

    Section 3533--Repeal of Provision Relating to Recruitment and Retention
                                  Remuneration

        This section would repeal section 3657(d) of title 22,
    United States Code, in light of the fact that similar
    provisions contained in title 5, United States Code, would be
    made applicable to canal employees in section 3536 of these
    amendments.

                   Section 3534--Benefits Based on Basic Pay

        This section would amend section 3658 of title 22, United
    States Code, to add federal retirement benefits contained in
    chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, to the list of
    benefits which are determined in relation to basic pay.

    Section 3535--Vesting of General Administrative Authority of Commission

        This section would amend section 3663 of title 22, United
    States Code, to delete the authority of the President to
    prescribe regulations on employment and pay practices of the
    agencies participating in the Panama Canal Commission
    Employment System. This authority would now reside with the
    Commission.

                  Section 3536--Applicability of Certain Laws

        This section would amend section 3664 of title 22, United
    States Code, to clarify those provisions of title 5, United
    States Code, which are applicable to the Panama Canal
    Commission

    Section 3537--Repeal of Provision Relating to Transferred or Reemployed
                                   Employees

        This section would repeal section 3671(a)(3) of title 22,
    United States Code, as it is obsolete.

          Section 3538--Administration of Special Disability Benefits

        This section amends section 3682 of title 22, United States
    Code, to provide for the continued administration of a special
    disability program for 46 former employees and 295 surviving
    spouses after the transition of the canal in the year 2000.

                   Section 3539--Panama Canal Revolving Fund

        This section would amend section 3712 of title 22, United
    States Code, to add two activities which are appropriate for
    expenditures from the Panama Canal Revolving Fund. Authority
    would be granted to expend funds for promotional activities
    such as the procurement of radio and TV advertisements and for
    the purchase and transport to Panama of U.S. built passenger
    motor vehicles, including large, heavy duty vehicles.

                             Section 3540--Printing

        This section would amend section 3711 of title 22, United
    States Code, to exempt the Commission from the requirement to
    obtain approval from the Public Printer and the Joint Committee
    on Printing before printing activities can be secured from
    commercial sources. This amendment would assist in the
    transition process by permitting the canal to obtain commercial
    suppliers of printing services who will be on hand after
    support of the Government Printing Office ends on December 31,
    1999.

                       Section 3541--Accounting Policies

        This section would amend section 3721 of title 22, United
    States Code, to make the Commission's accounting practices
    conform with those applicable to other wholly-owned U.S.
    Government corporation.

               Section 3542--Interagency Services; Reimbursements

        This section would amend section 3721 of title 22, United
    States Code to authorize the Commission to defray the expenses
    of eligible employees for the costs associated with primary and
    secondary education in the United States.

                          Section 3543--Postal Service

        This section would amend section 3741 of title 22, United
    States Code, to authorize the Panama Canal Commission to close
    out its obligations on any unpaid balances outstanding for
    postal savings certificates, postal savings deposits, and
    postal money orders effective December 1, 1999. The Commission
    had assumed all obligations of the postal service with respect
    to outstanding postal instruments issued prior to October 1,
    1979. This provision would allow the Commission to close out
    such balances prior to the transfer on December 31, 1999.

      Section 3544--Investigations of Accidents or Injury Giving Rise to
                                     Claim

        This section would amend section 3777(1) of title 22,
    United States Code, to clarify the current law's mandate that
    the Canal's Board of Local Inspectors investigation (including
    a hearing) is a perquisite to a subsequent claim or suit
    against the Commission.

                      Section 3545--Operations Regulations

        This section would amend section 3811 in title 22, United
    States Code, to allow the Commission to issue navigational
    regulations.

                      Section 3546--Miscellaneous Repeals

        This section would amend various obsolete sections in title
    22, United States Code.

                            Section 3547--Exemption

        This section would exempt the Commission from the
    requirement to adopt the metric system since it is costly and
    the government of Panama has not adopted it.

     Section 3548--Miscellaneous Conforming Amendments to Title 5, United
                                  States Code

        This section would make various conforming amendments to
    title 5, United States Code.

                   Section 3549--Repeal of Panama Canal Code

        This section would repeal the Panama Canal Code as it is
    obsolete.

         Section 3550--Miscellaneous Clerical and Conforming Amendments

        This section would make certain clerical amendments.
                               DEPARTMENTAL DATA

        The Department of Defense requested legislation, in
    accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by
    the correspondence set out below:

                  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST

                                  Department of Defense
                                     Office of General Counsel,
                                         Washington, DC, April 5, 1996.
    Hon. Newt Gingrich,
    Speaker of the House of Representatives,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense proposes the
    enclosed draft of legislation, ``To authorize appropriations
    for Fiscal Year 1997 for military activities of the Department
    of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
    Fiscal Year 1997, and for other purposes.''
        This legislative proposal is part of the Department of
    Defense legislative program for the 104th Congress and is
    needed to carry out the President's budget plans for Fiscal
    Year 1997. The Office of Management and Budget advises that
    there is no objection to the presentation of this proposal to
    the Congress and that its enactment would be in accord with the
    program of the President.
        This bill provides management authority for the Department
    of Defense in Fiscal Year 1997 and makes several changes to the
    authorities under which we operate. These changes are designed
    to permit a more efficient operation of the Department of
    Defense.
        Enactment of this legislation is of great importance to the
    Department of Defense and the Department urges its speedy and
    favorable consideration.
                Sincerely,
                                                      Judith A. Miller.
        Enclosure.
                                    ------

                  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION REQUEST

                                 Department of Defense,
                                     Office of General Counsel,
                                         Washington, DC, April 8, 1996.
    Hon. Newt Gingrich,
    Speaker of the House of Representatives,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is proposed legislation to
    authorize construction at certain military installations for
    Fiscal Year 1997, and for other military construction
    authorizations and activities of the Department of Defense.
    This legislative proposal is needed to carry out the
    President's Fiscal Year 1997 budget plan.
        The draft proposal would authorize appropriations in Fiscal
    Year 1997 for new construction and family housing support for
    the Active Forces, Defense Agencies, NATO Security Investment
    Program, and Guard and Reserve Forces. It also establishes the
    effective dates within the military construction program and
    includes construction projects resulting from base realignment
    and closure actions. Additionally, the Fiscal Year 1997 draft
    legislation includes General Provision requests.
        The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
    no objection to the presentation of this proposal to Congress,
    and that its enactment would be in accord with the program of
    the President.
                Sincerely,
                                                      Judith A. Miller.
        Enclosure.
                                    ------

                               COMMITTEE POSITION

        On May 1, 1996, the Committee on National Security, a
    quorum being present, approved H.R. 3230, as amended, by a vote
    of 49 to 2.

                      COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES

                                      House of Representatives,
                                         Committee on Commerce,
                                           Washington, DC, May 6, 1996.
    Hon. Floyd Spence,
    Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: On May 1, 1996, the Conunittee on
    National Security ordered reported H.R. 3230, the ``National
    Defense Authorization Act.'' This measure, among other things,
    is to authorize appropriations for the Department of Defense
    for Fiscal Year 1997.
        During the markup of this legislation, the Committee on
    National Security adopted the following provisions which fall
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce:
              Sec. 601--Military Pay Raise for Fiscal Year 1997;
              Sec. 741--Alternatives to Active Duty Service
            Obligation under Armed Forces Health Professions
            Scholarship and Financial Assistance program and
            Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences;-
              Sec. 742--Exception to Strength Limitations for
            Public Health Service Officers Assigned to the
            Department of Defense;-
              Sec. 2863--Demonstration Project for Installation and
            Operation of Electric Power Distribution System at
            Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio;-
              Sec. 3138--Management Structure for Nuclear Weapons
            Production Facilities and Nuclear Weapons Laboratories;
              Sec. 3143--Amendments Relating to Baseline
            Environmental Management Reports;-
              Sec. 3151-3157--Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup
            and Management Act of 1996; and
              Sec. 3402--Price Requirement on Sale of Certain
            Petroleum during Fiscal Year 1996.
        Recognizing your Committee's desire to bring this
    legislation expeditiously before the House, and in reliance
    upon our most recent discussions concerning those provisions
    within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, we will not
    seek sequential referral of the bill based on the provisions
    listed above. By agreeing not to seek a sequential referral of
    the bill, the Commerce Committee does not waive its
    jurisdiction over these provisions.
        Furthermore, the Commerce Committee reserves its authority
    to seek equal conferees on these and any other provisions of
    the bill that are within the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction
    during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this
    legislation. As you know, the Commerce Committee is continuing
    its work to make comprehensive reforms in the Superfund
    statute. We understand that the Senate is contemplating a
    number of provisions that would fall within the jurisdiction of
    this Committee, especially in the area of environmental cleanup
    standards. We intend to resist efforts to use the Department of
    Defense reauthorization bill to reform hazardous waste cleanup
    standards, and look forward to your cooperation.
        I want to thank you and your staff for your assistance in
    providing the Commerce Committee with an opportunity to
    evaluate its jurisdictional interests in H.R. 3230,
    particularly with regard to Sections 291 1 and 293 1. I would
    appreciate your including this letter as a part of the National
    Security Committee's report on H.R. 3230, and as part of the
    record during consideration of this bill by the House.
                Sincerely,
                                       Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                                         Committee on Resources
                                              Washington, DC, May 1996.
    Hon. Floyd Spence,
    Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding the
    seven provisions in H.R. 3230, the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, that are within the
    Committee on Resources jurisdiction.
        I have reviewed the language included in H.R. 3230 and I am
    in support of the provisions. Therefore, I agree to waive a
    sequential referral over the seven provisions identified in
    your April 29, 1996, letter to me with the understanding that
    this action in no way affects any future jurisdictional claims
    over these provisions. In addition, I would ask that the
    Committee on Resources be represented during any conference on
    these provisions.
        Once again, I thank you and Jim Schweiter and Philip Grone
    of your staff for the extraordinary cooperation shown in
    working with me on H.R. 3230, especially regarding Title XIV of
    the bill. I point out the value of the early and frequent
    consultations between our committees and the happy results; our
    working relationship should serve as a model for other, less
    forthcoming committees.
        Finally, I congratulate you on this important legislation
    and look forward to its enactment.
                Sincerely,
                                                   Don Young, Chairman.
                                  ----------

                              House of Representatives,
                  Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
                                           Washington, DC, May 6, 1996.
    Hon. Floyd D. Spence,
    Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: When the Committee on National Security
    met to consider and approve H.R. 3230, the FY 97 National
    Defense Authorization Act, the legislation included several
    provisions within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee
    on Government Reform and oversight.
        Since our committees have worked closely in coordinating
    the development of these legislative initiatives, and in an
    effort to honor your desire to expedite consideration of this
    bill, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight waives
    its right to seek sequential referral of any of these
    provisions. We wish to make it clear, however, that this waiver
    is specifically limited to these provisions in this single
    instance and should not be construed as a waiver of the
    committee's jurisdiction with respect to any of the legislative
    provisions in H.R. 3230 that fall within its jurisdiction. The
    Committee also wishes to preserve its prerogatives with respect
    to any floor amendments on this bill or to any House-Senate
    conference and any Senate amendments thereto, including the
    appointment of an equal number of conferees to those appointed
    for any other House committee with respect to the provisions of
    H.R. 3230 which fall within this committee's jurisdiction.
        As always, it is a pleasure working with you, and my
    compliments on your efforts to revitalize U.S. national
    security.
                Sincerely,
                                     William F. Clinger, Jr., Chairman.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                            Committee on International Affairs,
                                           Washington, DC, May 3, 1996.
    Hon. Floyd Spence,
    Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
            Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that on Wednesday, May 1,
    1996, the Committee on National Security ordered favorably
    reported H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1997. The bill includes a number of provisions that
    fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on
    International Relations pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of
    Representatives.
        The specific provisions within our committee's jurisdiction
    are: (1) Title II, Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense
    Programs (Sections 233, 234, 236, and 237); (2) Section 1037--
    George C. Marshall European Center For Strategic Security
    Studies; (3) Title XI--Cooperative Threat Reduction With States
    of Former Soviet Union (Section 1101-1105); (4) Title XIII,
    Subtitle A--Miscellaneous Matters (Sections 1301, 1306, and
    1307); (5) Title XIII, Subtitle B--Commission to Assess the
    Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States; and (6) Section
    3135--Prohibition on funding nuclear weapons activities with
    People's Republic of China (Subsection b only).
        Pursuant to Chairman Solomon's announcement that the
    Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule
    for H.R. 3230 and your desire to have the bill considered on
    the House floor the week of May 13, 1996, and in recognition
    that both of our staffs have been consulting on these
    provisions, the Committee on International Relations will not
    seek a sequential referral of the bill as a result of including
    these provisions, without waiving or ceding now or in the
    future this committee's jurisdiction over the provisions in
    question. I will seek to have conferees appointed for these
    provisions during any House-Senate conference committee.
        I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of
    the report on H.R. 3230 and as part of the record during
    consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives.
                Sincerely,
                                          Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                                Committee on National Security,
                                            Washington, DC, May 7, 1996
    Hon. Bud Shuster,
    Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
    House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
    3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    1997, and the provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
        I appreciate the jurisdictional interest of your committee
    in this legislation. I further appreciate your decision not to
    request a sequential referral of H.R. 3230 so that
    consideration of the bill by the House may be expedited.
        If additional jurisdictional issues arise, I will make
    every effort to include any mutually agreed upon modifications,
    consistent with the rule, in an amendment when the bill is
    considered on the House floor. I also will include a copy of
    this and your letter in the committee report. I also understand
    that you will seek the appointment of conferees from the
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with respect to
    provisions within your committee's jurisdiction during any
    House-Senate conference on the bill or a Senate-passed version.
        Thank you for your cooperation.
        With warm personal regards, I am
                Sincerely,
                                                Floyd Spence, Chairman.
                                    ------

                              House of Representatives,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                            Washington, DC, May 7, 1996
    Hon. Floyd Spence,
    Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
            Washington, DC
        Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your information and
    cooperation regarding H.R. 3230, the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, and provisions that are
    within the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee.
        Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 3230 and
    the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
    while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over a number of
    provisions in the bill, I do not intend to request a sequential
    referral. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual
    understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision
    to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise
    affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee, that every effort will be made to
    include any agreements worked out by staff of our two
    Committees in an amendment as the bill is taken to the House
    Floor, and that a copy of this letter and of your response will
    be included in the Committee Report. In addition, the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee reserves the right
    to be included as conferees on any matter within its
    jurisdiction should this legislation go to a House-Senate
    conference.
        Pursuant to Rule X, clause 1 (q), of Rules of the House of
    Representatives, the Transportation and Infrastructure
    Committee has jurisdiction over oil and other pollution of
    navigable waters. This includes provisions which amend or
    affect the Clean Water Act, the Ocean Dumping Act, the Coastal
    Zone Management Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships,
    and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
    Liability Act (CERCLA). Accordingly, our Committee has a
    jurisdictional interest in various provisions in H.R. 3230,
    including provisions in Subtitle C, Environmental Provisions,
    provisions relating to CERCLA, and provisions in Subtitle E,
    Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup and Management.
        Specifically, the following sections relating to water
    quality are within or affect the primary jurisdiction of the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee:
        324--Navy compliance with shipboard solid waste control
    requirements.
        327--Navy program to monitor ecological effects of
    organotin.
        In addition, I believe the Committee could be successful in
    requesting a sequential referral over provisions in Subtitle E,
    Defense Nuclear Environmental Cleanup and Management, based on
    effects on authorities and requirements under CERCLA and the
    Clean Water Act. However, I appreciate your willingness, prior
    to markup, to address our jurisdictional concerns by, among
    other things, modifying provisions on additional duties and
    certifications, and therefore I will not seek a sequential
    referral.
        In addition, I appreciate your willingness to modify
    section 2832, Land exchange, St. Helena Annex, Norfolk Naval
    Shipyard, Virginia, to take into account our jurisdictional
    concerns.
        Finally, I would note that section 247, the National
    Oceanographic Partnership Program, may affect our jurisdiction,
    as well. As the Committee with jurisdiction over laws
    protecting ocean and coastal water quality and over agencies
    such as the Coast Guard and the Environmental Protection
    Agency, we have a significant interest in ocean protection and
    research.
        Thank you again for your assurances. I look forward to
    continuing to work with you on HR. 3230 and other matters of
    mutual interest to our two Committees.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Bud Shuster, Chairman.
                                  FISCAL DATA

        Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House
    of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual
    outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 1997 and the
    four following fiscal years. The results of such efforts are
    reflected in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the
    Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the
    Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is included in this
    report pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of House Rule XI.

                      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

        In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the
    Rules of the House of Representatives, the cost estimate
    prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and submitted
    pursuant to section 403(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
    1974 is as follows:

                                                           May 7, 1996.
    Hon. Floyd Spence,
    Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
            Washington, DC
        Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
    prepared the attached cost estimate for H.R. 3230, the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, as ordered
    reported by the House Committee on National Security on May 1,
    1996.
        The bill would affect direct spending and receipts, and
    thus would be subject to pay-as-you-go procedures under section
    252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
    1985.
        If you wish, we would be pleased to provide further details
    on the estimate.
                Sincerely,
                                                       June E. O'Neill.

                   congressional budget office cost estimate

        1. Bill number: H.R. 3230.
        2. Bill title: National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1997.
        3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee
    on National Security on May 1, 1996.
        4. Bill purpose: This bill would authorize appropriations
    for 1997 for the military functions of the Department of
    Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy (DoE). This bill
    also would prescribe personnel strengths for each active duty
    and selected reserve component.
        5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Table 1
    summarizes the budgetary effects of the bill. It shows the
    effects of the bill on direct spending and authorizations of
    appropriations for 1997. Assuming appropriation of the amounts
    authorized, the bill would increase funding for discretionary
    programs in 1997 by about $2.3 billion over the 1996
    appropriated level, and outlays would increase by about $0.6
    billion.
        6. Basis of estimate: The estimate assumes that the bill
    will be enacted by October 1, 1996, and that the amounts
    authorized will be appropriated for 1997. Outlays are estimated
    according to historical spending patterns.
    Direct spending
        The bill contains several provisions that would affect
    direct spending and thus would subject the bill to pay-as-you-
    go procedures under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and
    Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (see Table 2). The
    provisions involve eligibility for Montgomery GI Bill benefits,
    recoupment of financial assistance from certain health
    professionals, retirement of reserve judge advocates, and other
    matters with much less significant costs.

         TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 3230 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       1996      1997      1998     1999     2000     2001     2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     DIRECT SPENDING

    Estimated budget authority.....................         0        -2       -4       -4       -3       -2       -1
    Estimated outlays..............................         0        -2       -4       -4       -3       -2       -1

                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION

    Spending under current law:
        Budget authority \1\.......................   265,023         0        0        0        0        0        0
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
        Estimated outlays..........................   264,311    91,156   36,485   17,138    7,362    3,275      913
    Proposed changes:
        Authorization level........................         0   267,328        0        0        0        0        0
        Estimated outlays..........................         0   173,738   54,404   21,333    9,270    3,909    2,018
    Spending Under H.R. 3230
        Authorization level \1\....................   265,023   267,328        0        0        0        0        0
        Estimated outlays..........................   264,311   264,894   90,889   38,471   16,632    7,184    2,931
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The 1996 figure is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by this bill.

    Note:-Costs of the bill would fall under budget function 050, National Defense, except for certain other items
      as noted.

        Montgomery G.I. bill.--In section 556, the bill would
    expand eligibility for Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB) benefits to
    certain Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) participants.
    ROTC recipients who enter active duty after October 1, 1996,
    and receive a yearly scholarship below $2,000 would be allowed
    to enroll in the MGIB program. The provision reduces direct
    spending by $1 million in 1997 and by $2 million in 1998 and
    1999 because enrollees would contribute $1,200 each. Once these
    cohorts begin training, however, net costs would be incurred--
    about $1 million in 2002.
        Financial Assistance Programs for Health Professionals.--
    Each year 10 to 20 health professionals fail to complete the
    service obligation that they incurred when DoD provided them
    with financial assistance while they were being trained. The
    bill would provide alternatives to the current obligation to
    serve on active duty. This provision would give the Secretary
    of Defense the discretion to allow such individuals to fulfill
    their obligation through other types of government service or
    by repaying the costs of their training. If half of those
    affected chose the repayment option, savings to the government
    would amount to about $1 million annually.

                                     TABLE 2.--DIRECT SPENDING IMPACTS IN H.R. 3230
                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     DIRECT SPENDING

    Montgomery GI bill........................................       -1       -2       -2       -1  .......        1
    Health professional repayment.............................       -1       -1       -1       -1       -1       -1
    Reserve judge advocates...................................  .......       -1       -1       -1       -1       -1
    Other direct spending.....................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------
          Total direct spending...............................       -2       -4       -4       -3       -2       -1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Retirement of Reserve Judge Advocates. Section 507 would
    allow the Secretary of Defense to retain on reserve duty
    reservists who are judge advocates and who would otherwise
    retire. This provision would reduce retirement costs because
    these individuals would retire later than under current law.
    Savings would be less than $500,000 in 1997 and $1 million
    annually thereafter.
        Other Direct Spending. The bill contains other provisions
    with direct spending impacts of less than $500,000 a year.
        Pilot Program for Reemployed Annuitants. Section 335 would
    establish a pilot program to permit no more than 50 reemployed
    annuitants in DoD to reduce their work hours and to begin
    collecting their full pensions. Under current law, an employing
    agency must deduct the annuity amount from the paycheck of a
    reemployed civil service annuitant and remit that amount to the
    retirement trust fund. The retirement fund, in effect, makes no
    net annuity payments to annuitants while they are reemployed.
    Under the bill, the salary reduction would be waived for up to
    24 months for up to 50 people at any one time, but the sum of
    annuity and pay may not exceed the gross full-time salary for
    the position. Participants in the program would have to reduce
    their work hours to 20 to 30 hours per week to meet this
    requirement.
        The provision would raise retirement outlays because some
    employees would have an incentive to retire earlier than they
    would under current law. CBO estimates that the increase in
    spending would be less than $500,000 each year from fiscal year
    1997 to 2001 when the program would end.
        Miscellaneous Military Retirement Provisions. Five other
    provisions would change current law governing military
    retirement including survivor benefits. None of these
    provisions would have significant costs because relatively few
    people would be affected and changes in benefit levels are
    relatively small:
              Section 632 would allow service members who are
            retired due to physical disabilities to receive retired
            pay based on the grade to which they would have been
            promoted had it not been for the onset of the physical
            disability.
              Section 555 would allow certain members of the
            reserves to receive retirement-related credit if they
            participate in selected educational programs and work
            in a specialty that is critically needed in wartime.
              Section 633 would authorize reservists to receive
            disability retirement if they are injured during
            overnight stays associated with inactive-duty training.
              Section 634 would allow certain reservists to retire
            at higher grades. Currently if a reservist accepts a
            reduction in grade to serve on active duty, and then
            retires while on active duty, the retirement annuity is
            based on the lower grade. Under section 634, the
            annuity would be based on the higher grade.
              Section 635 would cause the initial cost-of-living
            adjustment for military retirees who entered services
            between 1980 and 1986 to follow the same formula as for
            other military retirees.
        Other Programs. Other provisions that would have
    insignificant costs affect potential Medal of Honor recipients
    and former prisoners of war:
              Section 1035 would give the President the authority
            to award the Medal of Honor to seven individuals. This
            award is accompanied by a monthly payment of $400, but
            the annual costs for all seven recipients would amount
            to less than $500,000 a year.
              Section 1036 would authorize one-time payments to
            certain military personnel who received the prisoner of
            war medal after being detained during World War II.
            Payments of $120 to $180 would be made to a maximum of
            50 people, so the total cost of the provision would be
            less than $500,000.

    Authorizations of appropriations

        The bill authorizes specific appropriations of $197 billion
    in 1997 for operation and maintenance, procurement, research,
    development, test and evaluation, nuclear weapons programs and
    other DoD programs. These authorizations fall under National
    Defense, budget function 050.
        In addition, the bill would authorize specific
    appropriations for other budget functions:
              $150 million for the Naval Petroleum Reserve
            (function 270).
              $70 million for the Maritime Administration (function
            400).
              $57 million for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
            (function 700).
              $14 million in 1997 and 1998 to fund Sikes Act
            programs (function 300).
        The bill also contains both specific and implicit
    authorizations of appropriations for other military programs,
    primarily for military personnel costs, some of which extend
    beyond 1997. Table 3 contains estimates for the authorized
    amounts and the related outlays. The following sections
    describe the estimated authorizations shown in Table 3 and
    provide information about CBO's cost estimates.
        Endstrength. The bill would authorize active and reserve
    component endstrengths for 1997 at a cost of more than $68
    billion. Endstrengths for active-duty personnel would total
    about 1,457,400--about 400 more than in the Administration's
    request but about 24,300 below the level estimated for 1996.
    DoD reserve endstrengths would be authorized at about 902,400--
    about 1,400 more than in the Administration's request but about
    28,400 less than the estimated 1996 level.

      TABLE 3.--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 AS
                              ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
                                        [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Category                          1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Stated Authorizations...............................   197,056        14         0         0         0         0
    Estimated Outlays...................................   107,003    50,873    21,347     9,276     3,909     2,018
    Endstrengths:
        Function 050:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............    68,485         0         0         0         0         0
            Estimated Outlays...........................    65,041     3,444         0         0         0         0
        Function 400:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............        66         0         0         0         0         0
            Estimated Outlays...........................        59         7         0         0         0         0
    Compensation and Benefits:
        Military Pay Raise and BAQ Increase:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............     1,400     1,852     1,826     1,808     1,807     1,804
            Estimated Outlays...........................     1,330     1,829     1,827     1,809     1,807     1,804
        Expiring Authorities-Active:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............         0       148        51        35        33        16
            Estimated Outlays...........................         0       141        56        36        33        17
        Expiring Authorities-Aviation/Nuclear:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............         0        49        24        24        17        15
            Estimated Outlays...........................         0        47        25        24        17        15
        Expiring Authorities-Reserve:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............         0        33        27        18        13         9
            Estimated Outlays...........................         0        31        27        18        13         9
        Expiring Authorities-Nurses:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............         0        12         0         0         0         0
            Estimated Outlays...........................         0        11         1         0         0         0
        Moving Expenses:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............        55        75        75        77        78        78
            Estimated Outlays...........................        52        74        75        77        78        78
        Variable Housing Allowance:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............        35        46        47        48        50        50
            Estimated Outlays...........................        33        45        47        48        50        50
        Housing for Personnel on Sea-Duty:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............        10        41        42        43        44        44
            Estimated Outlays...........................         9        39        42        43        44        44
        Grade Structure:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............         3        33        34        35        36        37
            Estimated Outlays...........................         3        31        34        35        36        37
        Special Pay for Dentists:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............        15        15        15        15        15        15
            Estimated Outlays...........................        14        15        15        15        15        15
        Cap on Military Personnel Appropriations:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............       203         0         0         0         0         0
            Estimated Outlays...........................       193        10         0         0         0         0
    Health Care:
        Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............     (\1\)      -157      -163      -170      -176      -184
            Estimated Outlays...........................     (\1\)      -118      -162      -168      -175      -184
        Composite Health Care System:
            Estimated Authorization Level...............     (\1\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)
            Estimated Outlays...........................     (\1\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)     (\2\)
    Lodgings for Reserve Personnel:
        Estimated Authorization Level...................     (\1\)        19        19        20        20        21
        Estimated Outlays...............................     (\1\)        14        19        20        20        21
    Reductions in Civilian Personnel:
        Estimated Authorization Level...................     (\1\)      -423      -105       -15       -14       -14
        Estimated Outlays...............................     (\1\)      -317      -185       -38       -14       -14
    Total Authorizations of Appropriations:
        Estimated Authorization Level...................   267,328     1,757     1,892     1,938     1,923     1,891
        Estimated Outlays from Authorizations for 1997..   173,738    54,404    21,333     9,270     3,909     2,018
        Estimated Outlays from Authorizations for
         19982001.......................................         0     1,774     1,836     1,925     1,925     1,892
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The 1997 impacts of these provisions are included in the amounts specifically authorized to be appropriated
      in the bill.
    \2\ CBO is unable to estimate the costs of this provision.

        Also, the bill would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in
    1997 for the Coast Guard Reserve, which is the same as the 1996
    level and the Administration's request; this authorization
    would cost about $66 million and would fall under budget
    function 400, Transportation.
        Compensation and Benefits. The bill contains several
    provisions that would affect military compensation and
    benefits.
        Pay Raises and Quarters Allowances. Section 601 would
    authorize a 3.0 percent increase in the rates of basic pay and
    the basic allowance for subsistence for military personnel, at
    a cost of $1.2 billion in 1997. The same section would also
    call for the basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) to increase by
    4.6 percent. Under current law BAQ increases according to the
    military pay raise; consequently, the 3.0 percent pay raise
    authorized in this bill would raise BAQ by $109 million. The
    provision that raises BAQ by the additional 1.6 percent would
    cost another $58 million. Thus, BAQ would increase by $167
    million compared to 1996 rates.
        Expiring Authorities. Several sections would extend for one
    year certain payment authorities that are scheduled to expire
    at the end of 1997. In some cases, renewing authorities for one
    year results in costs over several years because payments are
    made in installments. Payment authorities for enlistment and
    reenlistment bonuses for active duty personnel would cost $148
    million in 1998. The cost of extensions of special payments for
    aviators and nuclear-qualified personnel would total $49
    million in 1998. Extension of various bonus programs for
    Selected Reserve personnel would increase costs by $33 million
    in 1998. Finally, authorities to make special payments to nurse
    officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists
    would increase authorizations by $12 million in 1998.
        Moving Expenses. The bill makes several changes to benefits
    received by military personnel when they change duty stations
    permanently:
              The dislocation allowance (DLA)--a payment for
            miscellaneous expenses-- currently equals two months of
            BAQ payments; the bill would increase it to two and
            one-half months at a cost of $50 million annually.
            Costs would be less in 1997, about $39 million, because
            the provision would not take effect until January 1,
            1997.
              The allowance for temporary lodging expenses (TLE) is
            paid to certain members who occupy temporary quarters--
            for example, motels--during a move. Currently, first-
            term personnel embarking on their initial change of
            station are not eligible for this payment, but the bill
            would extend it to them. This change would affect about
            50,000 people, who would receive payments averaging
            $360, for a total annual cost of about $18 million.
            This provision also includes an effective date of
            January 1, 1997, so costs in the first year would be
            lower, about $14 million.
              The bill would allow DoD to pay storage costs for
            motor vehicles when members cannot take the vehicle
            along and to reimburse members for certain expenses
            when they pick up a vehicle at a port following
            government shipment. Together, these two provisions
            would cost $2 million in 1997.
        Variable Housing Allowance. The bill would also increase
    Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) payments to certain
    servicemembers living in areas with high housing costs by
    establishing a minimum payment level. The cost of this change
    would be about $46 million annually. Because the provision
    would not take effect until January 1, 1997, its first-year
    costs would total $35 million.
        Housing Allowance During Duty at Sea. The bill would
    authorize payment of housing allowances to certain personnel in
    pay grade E-5 who are assigned to shipboard sea duty. This
    change would provide about 7,000 personnel with housing
    allowances averaging $6,000 annually, for a total yearly cost
    of about $40 million. In 1997, costs would only be $10 million
    because the effective date of the provision is January 1, 1997.
        Grade Structure. The bill would authorize the number of
    active duty officers who can serve in certain pay grades in
    each of the military services. This change would not increase
    the overall endstrength, but it would result in increased
    promotions. The provision has a cost, about $35 million
    annually, because personnel serving in higher grades are paid
    more. Because the provision does not take affect until
    September 1, 1997, the cost are only $3 million in 1997.
        Special Pay for Dentists. In 1996, DoD will pay about $40
    million in incentive payments to dentists serving as officers
    in the military services. This bill would increase both the
    level and the number of these payments. Existing retention
    payments to certain dental officers would increase at a cost of
    $8 million in 1997. Certain new dental officers would be
    granted an accession bonus of $30,000, for a total cost of $7
    million each year. Finally, certain dentists serving in the
    Selected Reserve would receive a new incentive payment during
    their annual period of active duty, at a cost of less than
    $500,000 a year.
        Military Personnel Authorization. Section 421 of the bill
    explicitly authorizes appropriations for military personnel of
    $70,206 million in 1997. Because the estimated costs of other
    sections of the bill fall short of this level, this section has
    the effect of adding $203 million to the other 1997 costs
    identified in Table 3.
        Military Health Care Programs. The bill contains two
    provisions that affect military health care and that have
    significant budgetary impacts.
        Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities (USTF). Uniformed
    Services Treatment Facilities (USTFs) are private sector health
    care providers under contract to DoD. They currently provide
    health care to more than 95,000 DoD beneficiaries. DoD
    purchases this care on an overall cost-per-beneficiary or
    capitation basis. Currently, these facilities provide a broader
    benefit package at a lower out-of-pocket cost for the
    beneficiary than is available to most other DoD beneficiaries.
    As a result, the cost of insuring beneficiaries through USTFs
    is nearly twice as high as it would be through DoD's managed
    care system. This provision would make USTF's subject to the
    rules of DoD's managed care system, at a savings of about $170
    million annually.
        Composite Health Care System (CHCS). The bill would direct
    the Secretary of Defense to make certain changes to the
    Composite Health Care System (CHCS), an automated medical
    information system used by DoD. These changes would standardize
    CHCS so that the information systems of various military
    treatment facilities and private contractors could exchange
    data about health care beneficiaries. No information is
    available from DoD about the potential costs of the changes, so
    CBO is unable to estimate the cost of this provision.
        Lodgings for Reservists. Section 1252 would allow the
    secretaries of the military services to reimburse reservists
    for certain lodging expenses during their annual period of
    active duty. This provision would cost about $20 million
    annually in operation and maintenance accounts.
        Civilian Personnel Reductions. Sections 901 and 902 would
    reduce the size of the DoD civilian workforce. Section 901
    would reduce the number of personnel involved in the
    acquisition process by 40,000 compared to the 1995 level. This
    would cause the number of personnel to decline by 27,000 more
    in 1997 than would already be accomplished under the
    Administration's plan, assuming reductions in the acquisition
    workforce are proportional to those planned for all of DoD.
    Savings would total $160 million in 1997 and $410 million in
    1998. The effect of this provision would be to accelerate
    reductions already expected to take place under the
    Administration's plan, so savings after 1998 would be smaller,
    as the size of the workforce under the Administration's plan
    would continue to decline beyond the level of the reductions in
    the bill.
        Section 902 would reduce the number of personnel assigned
    to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) by the end of
    1999 to 75 percent of 1994 levels. This would reduce the number
    of workers by about 400, or about 300 more than under the
    Administration's current plan, assuming reductions in the OSD
    workforce are proportional to those in the overall DoD
    workforce. This change would save $6 million in 1997 and about
    $15 million annually after that.
        Panama Canal Commission. Title XXXV would authorize the
    Panama Canal Commission to spend any sums available to it from
    operating revenues or Treasury borrowing for operation,
    maintenance, and improvement of the canal in fiscal year 1997.
    This spending is considered discretionary, because the
    appropriation bill customarily establishes an obligation
    ceiling for this account. CBO estimates that Panama Canal
    Commission collections and outlays will be about $624 million
    in 1997.
        7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the
    Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets
    up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
    spending or receipts through 1998. Because this bill would
    affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
    These effects are summarized in the following table.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          1996          1997         1998
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --Change in outlays..........              0             -2           -4
    Change in receipts...........          (\1\)          (\1\)     (\1\) --
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Not applicable.

        8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal
    governments: H.R. 3230 contains no intergovernmental mandates
    as defined in Public Law 104-4 and would impose no significant
    direct costs on state, local, or tribal governments. A number
    of the bill's provisions--such as those pertaining to land
    conveyances and food and equipment donations--would affect
    state or local governments; however, none would create new
    enforceable duties or result in significant budget impacts on
    these entities.
        9. Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill would
    impose no new federal private sector mandates, as defined in
    Public Law 104-4.
        10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
        11. Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate: Kent
    Christensen, Victoria Fraider, Raymond Hall, and Amy Plapp
    prepared the estimates affecting the Department of Defense.
    Kathy Gramp prepared the estimate for the Naval Petroleum
    Reserve. Deborah Reis prepared the estimate for the Panama
    Canal Commission. Wayne Boyington prepared the estimates for
    the costs of changes to civilian retirement programs. Gary S.
    Brown and Victoria V. Heid prepared the estimates related to
    the Sikes Act programs and land withdrawals.
        State and Local Government Impact: Leo Lex and Karen McVey.
        Private Sector Impact: Neil Singer.
        12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant
    Director for Budget Analysis.

                            COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

        Pursuant to clause 7(a) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the
    House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with
    the estimate as contained in the report of the Congressional
    Budget Office.

                           INFLATION IMPACT STATEMENT

        Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the
    House of Representatives, the committee concludes that the bill
    would have no significant inflationary impact.

                               OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

        With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the Rules
    of the House of Representatives, this legislation results from
    hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the
    committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
        With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the Rules
    of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the
    Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not
    include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it
    provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or
    expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations.
    Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the
    estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
    Office under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of
    1974.
        With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules
    of the House of Representatives, the committee has not received
    a report from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
    pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 3230.

                         STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES

        Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this
    legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state,
    local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private
    sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal
    intergovernmental mandates.

                                ROLL CALL VOTES

        In accordance with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the
    Rules of the House of Representatives, roll call and voice
    votes were taken with respect to the committee's consideration
    of H.R. 3230. The record of these votes is attached to this
    report.
        The committee ordered H.R. 3230 reported to the House with
    a favorable recommendation by a vote of 49-2, a quorum being
    present.

             CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

      In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
    House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
    bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
    to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
    printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed
    is shown in roman):

       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1990 AND 1991

              * * * * * * *

                DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                              TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

              * * * * * * *

                          Part D--Program Terminations

              * * * * * * *

    [SEC. 132. AH-64 HELICOPTER PROGRAM

      [(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
    terminate new production of AH-64 aircraft in accordance with
    this section.
      [(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated
    or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense
    pursuant to this or any other Act may not be obligated for the
    procurement of AH-64 aircraft.
      [(b) Exceptions.--(1) The prohibition in subsection (a)(2)
    does not apply to--
              [(A) the modification of, or the acquisition of spare
            or repair parts for, AH-64 aircraft described in
            paragraph (2);
              [(B) completion of the new production aircraft
            described in paragraph (2)(B); and
              [(C) the obligation of not more than $1,487,527,000
            from funds made available for fiscal years 1990 and
            1991 for not more than 132 new production AH-64
            aircraft and for payment of costs necessary to
            terminate the AH-64 aircraft program.
      [(2) The AH-64 aircraft referred to in paragraph (1)(A) are--
              [(A) AH-64 aircraft acquired by the Army on or before
            the date of enactment of this Act;
              [(B) AH-64 new production aircraft for which funds,
            other than funds for the procurement of long lead items
            and other advance procurement, were obligated before
            the date of enactment of this Act and which are
            delivered to the Army on or after that date; and
              [(C) 132 new production AH-64 aircraft for which
            funds are available in accordance with subsection
            (b)(1)(C).

    [SEC. 133. AHIP SCOUT AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

      [(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
    terminate the AHIP Scout aircraft program in accordance with
    this section.
      [(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated
    or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense
    pursuant to this or any other Act may not be obligated for the
    procurement of AHIP Scout aircraft (OH-58 aircraft modified
    into the configuration specified in the Army Helicopter
    Improvement Program described in the Selected Acquisition
    Report, dated December 31, 1988, relating to the OH-58
    helicopter).
      [(b) Exceptions.--(1) The prohibition in subsection (a)(2)
    does not apply to--
              [(A) the modification of, or the acquisition of spare
            or repair parts for, AHIP Scout aircraft described in
            paragraph (2);
              [(B) completion of the installation of AHIP
            modification kits in the AHIP Scout aircraft described
            in paragraph (2)(B);
              [(C) the obligation of not more than $195,000,000
            from funds made available pursuant to section 101(a)
            for the procurement and installation of AHIP
            modification kits in not more than 36 AHIP Scout
            aircraft and for payment of costs necessary to
            terminate the AHIP Scout aircraft program; and
              [(D) the obligation of not more than $200,000,000
            from funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of
            appropriations for the OH-58D AHIP Scout aircraft
            program during fiscal year 1991 for procurement of not
            more than 36 OH-58D Armed AHIP Scout aircraft and for
            payment of costs necessary to terminate the AHIP Scout
            aircraft program.
      [(2) The AHIP Scout aircraft referred to in paragraph (1)(A)
    are--
              [(A) AHIP Scout aircraft acquired by the Army on or
            before the date of enactment of this Act;
              [(B) AHIP Scout aircraft for which funds, other than
            funds for the procurement of long lead items and other
            advance procurement, were obligated before the date of
            enactment of this Act and which are delivered to the
            Army on or after that date; and
              [(C) 36 AHIP Scout aircraft for which funds are
            available in accordance with subsection (b)(1)(C).

    [SEC. 134. F-15E AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

      [(a) In General.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
    terminate new production of F-15E aircraft in accordance with
    this section.
      [(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated
    or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense
    pursuant to this or any other Act may not be obligated for the
    procurement of F-15E aircraft.
      [(b) Exceptions.--(1) The prohibition in subsection (a) does
    not apply to the obligation of funds for--
              [(A) the completion of, the modification of, or the
            acquisition of spare or repair parts for, F-15E
            aircraft described in paragraph (2); or
              [(B) the payment of costs necessary to terminate the
            F-15E aircraft program.
      [(2) The F-15E aircraft referred to in paragraph (1)(A) are
    F-15E aircraft--
              [(A) that are acquired by the Air Force before
            October 1, 1991; or
              [(B) for which funds have been obligated for
            procurement before October 1, 1991, other than for the
            procurement of long lead items and other advance
            procurement.]
              * * * * * * *

             TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

              * * * * * * *

                      Part C--Strategic Defense Initiative

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 224. REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL REPORT ON SDI PROGRAMS

      (a) * * *
      (b) Content of Report.--Each such report shall include the
    following:
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              [(3) A clear definition of the objectives of each
            planned deployment phase of the Strategic Defense
            Initiative or defense against strategic ballistic
            missiles.
              [(4) An explanation of the relationship between each
            such phase and each program and project associated with
            the proposed architecture for that phase.]
              [(5)] (3) The status of consultations with other
            member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty
            Organization, Japan, and other appropriate allies
            concerning research being conducted in the Strategic
            Defense Initiative program.
              [(6)] (4) A statement of the compliance of the
            planned SDI development and testing programs with
            existing arms control agreements, including the 1972
            Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
              [(7)] (5) A review of possible countermeasures [of
            the Soviet Union] to specific SDI programs, an estimate
            of the time and cost required [for the Soviet Union] to
            develop each such countermeasure, and an evaluation of
            the adequacy of the SDI programs described in the
            report to respond to such countermeasures.
              [(8)] (6) Details regarding funding of programs and
            projects for the Strategic Defense Initiative
            (including the amounts authorized, appropriated, and
            made available for obligation after undistributed
            reductions or other offsetting reductions were carried
            out), as follows:
                      (A) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              [(9)] (7) Details on what Strategic Defense
            Initiative technologies can be developed or deployed
            within the next 5 to 10 years to defend against
            significant military threats and help accomplish
            critical military missions. The missions to be
            considered include the following:
                      (A) Defending elements of the Armed Forces
                    abroad and United States allies against
                    tactical ballistic missiles, particularly new
                    and highly accurate shorter-range ballistic
                    missiles [of the Soviet Union] armed with
                    conventional, chemical, or nuclear warheads.
                      (B) Defending against an accidental launch of
                    strategic ballistic missiles against the United
                    States.
                      [(C) Defending against a limited but
                    militarily effective attack by the Soviet Union
                    aimed at disrupting the National Command
                    Authority or other valuable military assets.
                      [(D) Providing sufficient warning and
                    tracking information to defend or effectively
                    evade possible attacks by the Soviet Union
                    against military satellites, including those in
                    high orbits.
                      [(E) Providing early warning and attack
                    assessment information and the necessary
                    survivable command, control, and communications
                    to facilitate the use of United States military
                    forces in defense against possible conventional
                    or strategic attacks by the Soviet Union.
                      [(F) Providing protection of the United
                    States population from a nuclear attack by the
                    Soviet Union.]
                      [(G)] (C) Any other significant near-term
                    military mission that the application of SDI
                    technologies might help to accomplish.
              [(10) For each of the near-term military missions
            listed in paragraph (9), the report shall include the
            following:
                      [(A) A list of specific program elements of
                    the Strategic Defense Initiative that are
                    pertinent to such mission.
                      [(B) The Secretary's estimate of the initial
                    operating capability dates for the
                    architectures or systems to accomplish such
                    missions.
                      [(C) The Secretary's estimate of the level of
                    funding necessary for each program to reach
                    those initial operating capability dates.
                      [(D) The Secretary's estimate of the
                    survivability and cost effectiveness at the
                    margin of such architectures or systems against
                    current and projected threats from the Soviet
                    Union.]
              * * * * * * *

       TITLE XII--MILITARY DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

              * * * * * * *

    [SEC. 1208. TRANSFER OF EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY

      [(a) Transfer Authorized.--(1) Notwithstanding any other
    provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary
    of Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal
    property of the Department of Defense, including small arms and
    ammunition, that the Secretary determines is--
              [(A) suitable for use by such agencies in counter-
            drug activities; and
              [(B) excess to the needs of the Department of
            Defense.
      [(2) Personal property transferred under this section may be
    transferred without cost to the recipient agency.
      [(3) The Secretary shall carry out this section in
    consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of
    National Drug Control Policy.
      [(b) Conditions for Transfer.--The Secretary may transfer
    personal property under this section only if--
              [(1) the property is drawn from existing stocks of
            the Department of Defense; and
              [(2) the transfer is made without the expenditure of
            any funds available to the Department of Defense for
            the procurement of defense equipment.
      [(c) Application.--The authority of the Secretary to transfer
    personal property under this section shall expire on September
    30, 1997.]
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

            NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

              * * * * * * *

                DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                              TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

              * * * * * * *

                           Subtitle C--Navy Programs

              * * * * * * *

    [SEC. 133. COST LIMITATION FOR SEAWOLF SUBMARINE PROGRAM.

      [(a) Limitation of Costs.--Except as provided in subsection
    (b), the total amount obligated or expended for procurement of
    the SSN-21, SSN-22, and SSN-23 Seawolf class submarines may not
    exceed $7,223,659,000.
      [(b) Automatic Increase of Limitation Amount.--The amount of
    the limitation set forth in subsection (a) is increased by the
    following amounts:
              [(1) The amounts of outfitting costs and post-
            delivery costs incurred for the submarines referred to
            in such subsection.
              [(2) The amounts of increases in costs attributable
            to economic inflation after September 30, 1995.
              [(3) The amounts of increases in costs attributable
            to compliance with changes in Federal, State, or local
            laws enacted after September 30, 1995.
      [(c) Repeal of Superseded Provision.--Section 122 of the
    National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public
    Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2682) is repealed.]
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 137. T-39N TRAINER AIRCRAFT.

      [(a) Limitation.--The Secretary of the Navy may not enter
    into a contract, using funds appropriated for fiscal year 1996
    for procurement of aircraft for the Navy, for the acquisition
    of the aircraft described in subsection (b) until 60 days after
    the date on which the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition and Technology submits to the Committee on Armed
    Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security
    of the House of Representatives--
              [(1) an analysis of the proposed acquisition of such
            aircraft; and
              [(2) a certification that the proposed acquisition
            during fiscal year 1996 (A) is in the best interest of
            the Government, and (B) is the most cost effective
            means of meeting the requirements of the Navy for
            aircraft for use in the training of naval flight
            officers.]
              * * * * * * *

             TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

              * * * * * * *

                           Subtitle F--Other Matters

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 272. ENHANCED FIBER OPTIC GUIDED MISSILE (EFOG-M) SYSTEM.

      (a) Limitations.--(1) * * *
      (2) The Secretary of the Army may not spend funds for the
    enhanced fiber optic guided missile (EFOG-M) system after
    September 30, [1998,] 1999, if the items described in paragraph
    (1) have not been delivered to the Army by that date and at a
    cost not greater than the amount set forth in paragraph (1).
              * * * * * * *

                      TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

              * * * * * * *

         Subtitle E--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources

    SEC. 351. COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT OF PRINTING AND DUPLICATION SERVICES.

      (a) Requirement for Competitive Procurement.--Except as
    provided in subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall,
    during [fiscal year 1996] fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and
    consistent with the requirements of title 44, United States
    Code, competitively procure printing and duplication services
    from private-sector sources for the performance of at least 70
    percent of the total printing and duplication requirements of
    the Defense Printing Service.
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Reporting Requirements.--(1) Not later than 90 days after
    the end of each fiscal year in which the requirement of
    subsection (a) applies, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
    to Congress a report--
              (A) describing the extent of the compliance of the
            Secretary with the requirement during that fiscal year;
              (B) specifying the total volume of printing and
            duplication services procured by Department of Defense
            during that fiscal year--
                      (i) from sources within the Department of
                    Defense;
                      (ii) from private-sector sources; and
                      (ii) from other sources in the Federal
                    Government; and
              (C) specifying the total volume of printed and
            duplicated material during that fiscal year covered by
            the exception in subsection (b).
      (2) The report required for fiscal year 1996 shall also
    include the plans of the Secretary for further implementation
    of the requirement of subsection (a) during fiscal year 1997.
              * * * * * * *

                       TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

              * * * * * * *

                           Subtitle F--Other Matters

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 561. EQUALIZATION OF ACCRUAL OF SERVICE CREDIT FOR OFFICERS AND
                        ENLISTED MEMBERS.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 1405(c) of such title
    is amended--
              (A) * * *
              * * * * * * *

                       TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

              * * * * * * *

              Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities

              * * * * * * *

    [SEC. 726. EQUITABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFORM COST SHARING
                        REQUIREMENTS FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT
                        FACILITIES.

      [(a) Time for Fee Implementation.--The uniform managed care
    benefit fee and copayment schedule developed by the Secretary
    of Defense for use in all managed care initiatives of the
    military health service system, including the managed care
    program of the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities, shall
    be extended to the managed care program of a Uniformed Services
    Treatment Facility only after the later of--
              [(1) the implementation of the TRICARE regional
            program covering the service area of the Uniformed
            Services Treatment Facility; or
              [(2) October 1, 1996.
      [(b) Submission of Actuarial Estimates.--Paragraph (2) of
    subsection (a) shall operate as a condition on the extension of
    the uniform managed care benefit fee and copayment schedule to
    the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities only if the
    Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities submit to the
    Comptroller General of the United States, within 30 days after
    the date of the enactment of this Act, actuarial estimates in
    support of their contention that the extension of such fees and
    copayments will have an adverse effect on the operation of the
    Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities and the enrollment of
    participants.
      [(c) Evaluation.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2),
    not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
    Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress the
    results of an evaluation of the effect on the Uniformed
    Services Treatment Facilities of the extension of the uniform
    benefit fee and copayment schedule to the Uniformed Services
    Treatment Facilities. The evaluation shall include an
    examination of whether the benefit fee and copayment schedule
    may--
              [(A) cause adverse selection of enrollees;
              [(B) be inappropriate for a fully at-risk program
            similar to civilian health maintenance organizations;
            or
              [(C) result in an enrolled population dissimilar to
            the general beneficiary population.
      [(2) The Comptroller General shall not be required to prepare
    or submit the evaluation under paragraph (1) if the Uniformed
    Services Treatment Facilities fail to satisfactorily comply
    with subsection (b), as determined by the Comptroller General.]
              * * * * * * *

          TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

                          Subtitle A--General Matters

    SEC. 901. ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(d) Personnel Reduction.--(1) Effective October 1, 1999, the
    number of OSD personnel may not exceed 75 percent of the number
    of OSD personnel as of October 1, 1994.
      [(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``OSD
    personnel'' means military and civilian personnel of the
    Department of Defense who are assigned to, or employed in,
    functions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (including
    Direct Support Activities of that Office and the Washington
    Headquarters Services of the Department of Defense).
      [(3) In carrying out reductions in the number of personnel
    assigned to, or employed in, the Office of the Department of
    Defense in order to comply with paragraph (1), the Secretary
    may not reassign functions solely in order to evade the
    requirement contained in that paragraph.
      [(4) If the Secretary of Defense determines, and certifies to
    Congress, that the limitation in paragraph (1) would adversely
    affect United States national security, the limitation under
    paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting ``80 percent''
    for ``75 percent''.]
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 903. DEFERRED REPEAL OF VARIOUS STATUTORY POSITIONS AND OFFICES IN
                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) Conforming Amendments Relating to Repeal of Various OSD
    Positions.--Chapter 4 of such title is further amended--
              (1) in section 131(b)--
                      (A) by striking out [paragraphs (6) and (8)]
                    paragraph (6); and
                      (B) by redesignating paragraphs (7), (8),
                    (9), (10), and (11), as paragraphs (6), (7),
                    (8), [and (9),] (9), and (10), respectively;
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 905. JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL.

      (a) * * *
      (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
    shall take effect on January 31, [1997] 1998.

    SEC. 906. RESTRUCTURING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION
                        ORGANIZATION AND WORKFORCE.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d) Reduction of Acquisition Workforce.--(1) The Secretary of
    Defense shall accomplish reductions in defense acquisition
    personnel positions [during fiscal year 1996 so that the total
    number of such personnel as of October 1, 1996, is less than
    the total number of such personnel as of October 1, 1995, by at
    least 15,000.] so that--
              (A) the total number of such positions as of October
            1, 1996, is less than the baseline number by at least
            15,000; and
              (B) the total number of such positions as of October
            1, 1997, is less than the baseline number by at least
            40,000.
              * * * * * * *
      (3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``baseline
    number'' means the total number of defense acquisition
    personnel positions as of October 1, 1995.
              * * * * * * *

                          TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

              * * * * * * *

                           Subtitle H--Other Matters

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 1092. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF MIDWAY
                        ISLANDS.

      (a) * * *
      (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
              (1) the Midway Islands and the surrounding seas
            deserve to be memorialized;
              (2) the historic structures related to the Battle of
            Midway should be maintained, in accordance with the
            National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470-
            470t), and subject to the availability of
            appropriations for that purpose[.]; and
              * * * * * * *

                     DIVISION D--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REFORM

              * * * * * * *

                   TITLE XLIII--ADDITIONAL REFORM PROVISIONS

              Subtitle A--Additional Acquisition Reform Provisions

    SEC. 4301. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

      (a) Elimination of Certain Statutory Certification
    Requirements.--(1) Section 2410b of title 10, United States
    Code, is amended in paragraph (2) of subsection (a) by striking
    out ``certification and''.
              * * * * * * *

              DIVISION E--INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT REFORM

    SEC. 5001. SHORT TITLE.

      This division may be cited as the ``Information Technology
    Management Reform Act of 1996''.
              * * * * * * *

      TITLE LI--RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACQUISITIONS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

              * * * * * * *

                     Subtitle E--National Security Systems

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 5142. NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM DEFINED.

      (a) Definition.--In this subtitle, the term ``national
    security system'' means any telecommunications or information
    system operated by the United States Government, the function,
    operation, or use of which--
              (1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (4) involves equipment that is an integral part of a
            weapon or weapons system; [or]
              (5) subject to subsection (b), is critical to the
            direct fulfillment of military or intelligence
            missions[.]; or
              (6) involves the storage, processing, or forwarding
            of classified information and is protected at all times
            by procedures established for the handling of
            classified information.
              * * * * * * *

                 TITLE LVI--CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS

    SEC. 5601. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE.

      (a) Protest File.--Section 2305(e) of title 10, United States
    Code, is amended by striking out paragraph (3).
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Law Inapplicable to Procurement of Information
    Technology.--Section 2315 of title 10, United States Code, is
    amended by striking out ``Section 111'' and all that follows
    through ``[use of equipment or services if] use of the
    equipment or services,'' and inserting in lieu thereof the
    following: ``For the purposes of the Information Technology
    Management Reform Act of 1996, the term `national security
    systems' means those telecommunications and information systems
    operated by the Department of Defense, the functions, operation
    or use of which''.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

            NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

              * * * * * * *

                DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

              * * * * * * *

             TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

              * * * * * * *

                           Subtitle E--Other Matters

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 257. DEFENSE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE
                        RESEARCH.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d) Eligible States.--(1) The [Director of the National
    Science Foundation] Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
    and Technology shall designate which States are eligible States
    for the purposes of this section [and shall notify the Director
    of Defense Research and Engineering of the States so
    designated].
      (2) The [Director of the National Science Foundation] Under
    Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology shall
    designate a State as an eligible State if, [as determined by
    the Director] as determined by the Under Secretary--
              (A) the average annual amount of all Department of
            Defense obligations for science and engineering
            research and development that were in effect with
            institutions of higher education in the State for the
            three fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for which
            the designation is effective or for the last three
            fiscal years for which statistics are available is less
            than the amount determined by multiplying 60 percent
            times the amount equal to \1/50\ of the total average
            annual amount of all Department of Defense obligations
            for science and engineering research and development
            that were in effect with institutions of higher
            education in the United States for such three preceding
            or last fiscal years, as the case may be [(to be
            determined in consultation with the Secretary of
            Defense);]; and
              (B) the State has demonstrated a commitment to
            developing research bases in the State and to improving
            science and engineering research and education programs
            at institutions of higher education in the State[;
            and].
              [(C) the State is an eligible State for purposes of
            the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
            Research conducted by the National Science Foundation.]
              * * * * * * *

                          TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

              * * * * * * *

                 Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Related Matters

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 1023. MARITIME PREPOSITIONING SHIP PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT.

      Section 2218(f) of title 10, United States Code, shall not
    apply in the case of the purchase of [three ships] one ship for
    the purpose of enhancing Marine Corps prepositioning ship
    squadrons.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

            NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994

              * * * * * * *

                DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 571. POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
              [(1) the suspension of questioning concerning
            homosexuality as part of the processing of individuals
            for accession into the Armed Forces under the interim
            policy of January 29, 1993, should be continued, but
            the Secretary of Defense may reinstate that questioning
            with such questions or such revised questions as he
            considers appropriate if the Secretary determines that
            it is necessary to do so in order to effectuate the
            policy set forth in section 654 of title 10, United
            States Code, as added by subsection (a); and
              [(2) the Secretary of Defense should consider issuing
            guidance governing the circumstances under which
            members of the Armed Forces questioned about
            homosexuality for administrative purposes should be
            afforded warnings similar to the warnings under section
            831(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 31(b)
            of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).]
              * * * * * * *

      TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
                                    MATTERS

     Subtitle A--Defense Technology and Industrial Base, Reinvestment and
                                   Conversion

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 802. UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVE SUPPORT PROGRAM.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Eligibility.--An institution of higher education is
    eligible for a grant or contract under the program if the
    institution has received less than a total of $2,000,000 in
    grants and contracts from the Department of Defense in the two
    [fiscal years before the fiscal year in which the institution
    submits a proposal] most recent fiscal years for which complete
    statistics are available when proposals are requested for such
    grant or contract.
              * * * * * * *

                           Subtitle E--Other Matters

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 845. AUTHORITY OF THE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY TO CARRY
                        OUT CERTAIN PROTOTYPE PROJECTS.

      (a) Authority.--The Director of the Advanced Research
    Projects Agency, the Secretary of a military department, or any
    other official designated by the Secretary of Defense may,
    under the authority of section 2371 of title 10, United States
    Code, carry out prototype projects that are directly relevant
    to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or
    developed by the Department of Defense.
      (b) Exercise of Authority.--(1) Subsections [(c)(2) and
    (c)(3) of such section 2371, as redesignated by section
    827(b)(1)(B),] (e)(2) and (e)(3) of such section 2371 shall not
    apply to projects carried out under subsection (a).
      (2) The Director, Secretary, or other official shall, to the
    maximum extent practicable, use competitive procedures when
    entering into agreements to carry out projects under subsection
    (a).
      (c) Period of Authority.--The authority [of the Director] to
    carry out projects under subsection (a) shall terminate [3
    years after the date of the enactment of this Act] on September
    30, 1999.
              * * * * * * *

              TITLE XVII--CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS DEFENSE

    SEC. 1701. CONDUCT OF THE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Coordination of the Program.--(1) The Secretary of
    Defense shall designate the Army as executive agent for the
    Department of Defense to coordinate and integrate research,
    development, test, and evaluation, and acquisition,
    requirements of the military departments for chemical and
    biological warfare defense programs of the Department of
    Defense.
      (2) The Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
    Agency may conduct a program of basic and applied research and
    advanced technology development on chemical and biological
    warfare defense technologies and systems. In conducting such
    program, the Director shall seek to avoid unnecessary
    duplication of the activities under the program with chemical
    and biological warfare defense activities of the military
    departments and defense agencies and shall coordinate the
    activities under the program with those of the military
    departments and defense agencies.
      (d) Funding.--(1) The budget for the Department of Defense
    for each fiscal year after fiscal year 1994 shall reflect a
    coordinated and integrated chemical and biological defense
    program for the [military departments] Department of Defense.
      (2) Funding requests for the program (other than for
    activities under the program conducted by the Defense Advanced
    Research Projects Agency under subsection (c)(2)) shall be set
    forth in the budget of the Department of Defense for each
    fiscal year as a separate account, with a single program
    element for each of the categories of research, development,
    test, and evaluation, acquisition, and military construction.
    Amounts for military construction projects may be set forth in
    the annual military construction budget. Funds for military
    construction for the program in the military construction
    budget shall be set forth separately from other funds for
    military construction projects. Funding requests for the
    program may not be included in the budget accounts of the
    military departments.
      (3) The program conducted by the Defense Advanced Research
    Projects Agency under subsection (c)(2) shall be set forth as a
    separate program element in the budget of that agency.
      [(3)] (4) All funding requirements for the chemical and
    biological defense program shall be reviewed by the Secretary
    of the Army as executive agent pursuant to subsection (c).
              * * * * * * *

     DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
                              OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

          TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

             Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

              * * * * * * *

                           Subtitle D--Other Matters

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 3153. BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REPORTS.

      (a) * * *
      (b) [Annual] Biennial Waste Management Reports.--(1)  * * *
      (2) Reports required under paragraph (1) shall be submitted
    as follows:
              (A) The initial report shall be submitted not later
            than June 1, 1995.
              (B) A report after the initial report shall be
            submitted in each odd-numbered year after 1995, not
            later than 30 days after the date on which the
            President submits to the Congress the budget for the
            fiscal year beginning in that year.
              * * * * * * *
      (d) [Annual] Biennial Status and Variance Reports.--(1)(A) *
    * *
      (B) A report under subparagraph (A) shall be submitted in
    1995 and [in each year thereafter] in each odd-numbered year
    thereafter during which the Secretary of Energy conducts
    environmental restoration and waste management activities, not
    later than 30 days after the date on which the President
    submits to the Congress the budget for the fiscal year
    beginning in that year.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                          TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE

              * * * * * * *

                        Subtitle A--General Military Law

              * * * * * * *

                PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

              * * * * * * *

                             CHAPTER 1--DEFINITIONS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 101. Definitions

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d) Duty Status.--The following definitions relating to duty
    status apply in this title:
              (1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (4) The term ``active status'' means the status of [a
            reserve commissioned officer, other than a commissioned
            warrant officer] a member of a reserve component, who
            is not in the inactive Army National Guard or inactive
            Air National Guard, on an inactive status list, or in
            the Retired Reserve.
              * * * * * * *

                        CHAPTER 2--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 114. Annual authorization of appropriations

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (f) In each budget submitted by the President to Congress
    under section 1105 of title 31, amounts requested for
    procurement of ammunition for the Navy and Marine Corps, and
    for procurement of ammunition for the Air Force, shall be set
    forth separately from other amounts requested for procurement.
              * * * * * * *

                    CHAPTER 3--GENERAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 129. Prohibition of certain civilian personnel management
                        constraints

      (a) The civilian personnel of the Department of Defense shall
    be managed each fiscal year solely on the basis of and
    consistent with (1) the workload required to carry out the
    functions and activities of the department and (2) the funds
    made available to the department for such fiscal year. The
    management of such personnel in any fiscal year shall not be
    subject to any constraint or limitation in terms of man years,
    end strength, full-time equivalent positions, or maximum number
    of employees. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of
    the military departments may not be required to make a
    reduction in the number of full-time equivalent positions in
    the Department of Defense unless such reduction is necessary
    due to a reduction in funds available to the Department or is
    required under a law that is enacted after [the date of the
    enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 1996] February 10, 1996, and that refers specifically to
    this subsection.
              * * * * * * *

                         CHAPTER 6--COMBATANT COMMANDS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 162. Combatant commands: assigned forces; chain of command

      (a) Assignment of Forces.--(1) Except as provided in
    paragraph (2), the Secretaries of the military departments
    shall assign all forces under their jurisdiction to unified and
    specified combatant commands or to the United States element of
    the [North American Air Defense Command] North American
    Aerospace Defense Command to perform missions assigned to those
    commands. Such assignments shall be made as directed by the
    Secretary of Defense, including direction as to the command to
    which forces are to be assigned. The Secretary of Defense shall
    ensure that such assignments are consistent with the force
    structure prescribed by the President for each combatant
    command.
      (2) Except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of Defense,
    forces to be assigned by the Secretaries of the military
    departments to the combatant commands or to the United States
    element of the [North American Air Defense Command] North
    American Aerospace Defense Command under paragraph (1) do not
    include forces assigned to carry out functions of the Secretary
    of a military department listed in sections 3013(b), 5013(b),
    and 8013(b) of this title or forces assigned to multinational
    peacekeeping organizations.
      (3) A force assigned to a combatant command or to the United
    States element of the [North American Air Defense Command]
    North American Aerospace Defense Command under this section may
    be transferred from the command to which it is assigned only--
              (A) by authority of the Secretary of Defense; and
              (B) under procedures prescribed by the Secretary and
            approved by the President.
              * * * * * * *

                  CHAPTER 7--BOARDS, COUNCILS, AND COMMITTEES

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 172. Ammunition storage board

      (a) The Secretaries of the military departments, acting
    through [a joint board of officers selected by them] a joint
    board selected by them composed of officers, civilian officers
    and employees of the Department of Defense, or both, shall keep
    informed on stored supplies of ammunition and components
    thereof for use of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps,
    with particular regard to keeping those supplies properly
    dispersed and stored and to preventing hazardous conditions
    from arising to endanger life and property inside or outside of
    storage reservations.
              * * * * * * *

                 CHAPTER 20--HUMANITARIAN AND OTHER ASSISTANCE

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 401. Humanitarian and civic assistance provided in conjunction
                        with military operations

      (a)(1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (4) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that no member of
    the [Armed Forces] armed forces, while providing assistance
    under this section that is described in subsection (e)(5)--
              (A) engages in the physical detection, lifting, or
            destroying of landmines (unless the member does so for
            the concurrent purpose of supporting a United States
            military operation); or
              (B) provides such assistance as part of a military
            operation that does not involve the [Armed Forces]
            armed forces.
              * * * * * * *
      (c)(1) Expenses incurred as a direct result of providing
    humanitarian and civic assistance under this section to a
    foreign country shall be paid for out of funds specifically
    appropriated for such purpose.
      (2) In the case of assistance described in subsection (e)(5),
    expenses that may be paid out of funds appropriated pursuant to
    paragraph (1) include--
              (A) expenses for travel, transportation, and
            subsistence of members of the armed forces
            participating in activities described in that
            subsection; and
              (B) the cost of equipment, supplies, and services
            acquired for the purpose of carrying out or directly
            supporting activities described in that subsection.
      [(2)] (3) Nothing in this section may be interpreted to
    preclude the incurring of minimal expenditures by the
    Department of Defense for purposes of humanitarian and civic
    assistance out of funds other than funds appropriated pursuant
    to paragraph (1), except that funds appropriated to the
    Department of Defense for operation and maintenance (other than
    funds appropriated pursuant to such paragraph) may be obligated
    for humanitarian and civic assistance under this section only
    for incidental costs of carrying out such assistance.
              * * * * * * *
      (e) In this section, the term ``humanitarian and civic
    assistance'' means any of the following:
              (1) Medical, dental, and veterinary care provided in
            rural areas of a country.
              * * * * * * *

                 CHAPTER 22--MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS

    Sec.
    [451.  Racial and ethnic issues; biennial survey; biennial report.]
    451.  Race relations, gender discrimination, and hate group activity:
              annual survey and report.
    452.  Quarterly readiness reports.

    [Sec. 451. Racial and ethnic issues; biennial survey; biennial report

      [(a) Biennial Survey.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry
    out a biennial survey to measure the state of racial and ethnic
    issues and discrimination among members of the armed forces
    serving on active duty. The survey shall solicit information on
    the race relations climate in the armed forces, including--
              [(1) indicators of positive and negative trends of
            relations between all racial and ethnic groups;
              [(2) the effectiveness of Department of Defense
            policies designed to improve race and ethnic relations;
            and
              [(3) the effectiveness of current processes for
            complaints on and investigations into racial and ethnic
            discrimination.
      [(b) Implementing Entity.--The Secretary shall carry out each
    biennial survey through the entity in the Department of Defense
    known as the Armed Forces Survey on Race/Ethnic Issues.
      [(c) Reports to Congress.--Upon completion of each biennial
    survey under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to
    Congress a report containing the results of the survey.]

    Sec. 451. Race relations, gender discrimination, and hate group
                        activity: annual survey and report

      (a) Annual Survey.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out
    an annual survey to measure the state of racial, ethnic, and
    gender issues and discrimination among members of the armed
    forces serving on active duty and the extent (if any) of
    activity among such members that may be seen as so-called
    ``hate group'' activity. The survey shall solicit information
    on the race relations and gender relations climate in the armed
    forces, including--
              (1) indicators of positive and negative trends of
            relations among all racial and ethnic groups and
            between the sexes;
              (2) the effectiveness of Department of Defense
            policies designed to improve race, ethnic, and gender
            relations; and
              (3) the effectiveness of current processes for
            complaints on and investigations into racial, ethnic,
            and gender discrimination.
      (b) Implementing Entity.--The Secretary shall carry out each
    annual survey through the entity in the Department of Defense
    known as the Armed Forces Survey on Race/Ethnic Issues.
      (c) Reports to Congress.--Upon completion of biennial survey
    under subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
    report containing the results of the survey.
              * * * * * * *

                               PART II--PERSONNEL

              * * * * * * *

                            CHAPTER 31--ENLISTMENTS

    Sec.
    501.  Definition.
    502.  Enlistment oath: who may administer.
    503.  Enlistments: recruiting campaigns; compilation of directory
              information.
         * * * * * * *
    520c.  Recruiting functions: use of funds.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 505. Regular components: qualifications, term, grade

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(d) The Secretary concerned may accept reenlistments in the
    Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine
    Corps, or Regular Coast Guard, as the case may be, for period
    of at least two but not more than six years. No enlisted member
    is entitled to be reenlisted for a period that would expire
    before the end of his current enlistment.]
      (d)(1) For a member with less than 10 years of service, the
    Secretary concerned may accept a reenlistment in the Regular
    Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or
    Regular Coast Guard, as the case may be, for periods of at
    least two but not more than six years.
      (2) At the discretion of the Secretary concerned, a member
    with 10 or more years of service who reenlists in the Regular
    Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or
    Regular Coast Guard, as the case may be, and who meets all
    qualifications for continued service, may be accepted for
    reenlistment of an unspecified period of time.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 513. Enlistments: Delayed Entry Program

      (a)  * * *
      (b) Unless sooner ordered to active duty under chapter 39 of
    this title or another provision of law, a person enlisted under
    subsection (a) shall, within 365 days after such enlistment, be
    discharged from the reserve component in which enlisted and
    immediately be enlisted in the regular component of an armed
    force. The Secretary concerned may extend the 365-day period
    for any person for up to an additional 180 days if the
    Secretary considers such extension to be warranted on a case-
    by-case basis. During the period beginning on the date on which
    the person enlists under subsection (a) and ending on the date
    on which the person is enlisted in a regular component under
    [the preceding sentence] under this subsection, the person
    shall be in the Ready Reserve of the armed force concerned.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 520c. Recruiting functions: use of funds

      Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned,
    funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may be expended
    for small meals and snacks during recruiting functions for the
    following persons:
              (1) Persons who have entered the Delayed Entry
            Program under section 513 of this title and other
            persons who are the subject of recruiting efforts.
              (2) Persons in communities who assist the military
            departments in recruiting efforts.
              (3) Military or civilian personnel whose attendance
            at such functions is mandatory.
              (4) Other persons whose presence at recruiting
            functions will contribute to recruiting efforts.
              * * * * * * *

             CHAPTER 32--OFFICER STRENGTH AND DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 523. Authorized strengths: commissioned officers on active duty in
                        grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel
                        and Navy grades of lieutenant commander, commander,
                        and captain

      (a)(1) Except as provided in subsection (c), of the total
    number of commissioned officers serving on active duty in the
    Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps at the end of any fiscal year
    (excluding officers in categories specified in subsection (b)),
    the number of officers who may be serving on active duty in
    each of the grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel
    may not, as of the end of such fiscal year, exceed a number
    determined in accordance with the following table:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of officers who may be serving
      [Total number of commissioned       on active duty in the grade of:
     officers (excluding officers in ---------------------------------------
         categories specified in                    Lieutenant
     subsection (b)) on active duty:     Major        Colonel      Colonel
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Army:
      60,000........................       11,580         7,941        3,080
      65,000........................       12,271         8,330        3,264
      70,000........................       12,963         8,718        3,447
      75,000........................       13,654         9,107        3,631
      80,000........................       14,346         9,495        3,814
      85,000........................       15,037         9,884        3,997
      90,000........................       15,729        10,272        4,181
      95,000........................       16,420        10,661        4,364
      100,000.......................       17,112        11,049        4,548
      110,000.......................       18,495        11,826        4,915
      120,000.......................       19,878        12,603        5,281
      130,000.......................       21,261        13,380        5,648
      170,000.......................       26,793        16,488        7,116
    Air Force:
      70,000........................       13,530         9,428        3,392
      75,000........................       14,266         9,801        3,573
      80,000........................       15,002        10,175        3,754
      85,000........................       15,738        10,549        3,935
      90,000........................       16,474        10,923        4,115
      95,000........................       17,210        11,297        4,296
      100,000.......................       17,946        11,671        4,477
      105,000.......................       18,682        12,045        4,658
      110,000.......................       19,418        12,418        4,838
      115,000.......................       20,154        12,792        5,019
      120,000.......................       20,890        13,165        5,200
      125,000.......................       21,626        13,539        5,381
    Marine Corps:
      12,500........................        2,499         1,388          592
      15,000........................        2,766         1,483          613
      17,500........................        3,085         1,579          633
      20,000........................        3,404         1,674          654
      22,500........................        3,723         1,770          675
      25,000........................        4,042         1,865         695]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Number of officers who may be serving on
                                                                               active duty in the grade of:
      Total number of commissioned officers (excluding officers in   -----------------------------------------------
         categories specified in subsection (b)) on active duty:                        Lieutenant
                                                                           Major          Colonel         Colonel
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Army:
      35,000........................................................           8,922           6,419           2,163
      40,000........................................................           9,614           6,807           2,347
      45,000........................................................          10,305           7,196           2,530
      50,000........................................................          10,997           7,584           2,713
      55,000........................................................          11,688           7,973           2,897
      60,000........................................................          12,380           8,361           3,080
      65,000........................................................          13,071           8,750           3,264
      70,000........................................................          13,763           9,138           3,447
      75,000........................................................          14,454           9,527           3,631
      80,000........................................................          15,146           9,915           3,814
      85,000........................................................          15,837          10,304           3,997
      90,000........................................................          16,529          10,692           4,181
      95,000........................................................          17,220          11,081           4,364
      100,000.......................................................          17,912          11,469           4,548
      110,000.......................................................          19,295          12,246           4,915
      120,000.......................................................          20,678          13,023           5,281
      130,000.......................................................          22,061          13,800           5,648
      170,000.......................................................          27,593          16,908           7,116
    Air Force:
      35,000........................................................           9,216           7,090           2,125
      40,000........................................................          10,025           7,478           2,306
      45,000........................................................          10,835           7,866           2,487
      50,000........................................................          11,645           8,253           2,668
      55,000........................................................          12,454           8,641           2,849
      60,000........................................................          13,264           9,029           3,030
      65,000........................................................          14,073           9,417           3,211
      70,000........................................................          14,883           9,805           3,392
      75,000........................................................          15,693          10,193           3,573
      80,000........................................................          16,502          10,582           3,754
      85,000........................................................          17,312          10,971           3,935
      90,000........................................................          18,121          11,360           4,115
      95,000........................................................          18,931          11,749           4,296
      100,000.......................................................          19,741          12,138           4,477
      105,000.......................................................          20,550          12,527           4,658
      110,000.......................................................          21,360          12,915           4,838
      115,000.......................................................          22,169          13,304           5,019
      120,000.......................................................          22,979          13,692           5,200
      125,000.......................................................          23,789          14,081           5,381
    Marine Corps:
      10,000........................................................           2,525           1,480             571
      12,500........................................................           2,900           1,600             592
      15,000........................................................           3,275           1,720             613
      17,500........................................................           3,650           1,840             633
      20,000........................................................           4,025           1,960             654
      22,500........................................................           4,400           2,080             675
      25,000........................................................           4,775           2,200             695
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      (2) Except as provided in subsection (c), of the total number
    of commissioned officers serving on active duty in the Navy at
    the end of any fiscal year (excluding officers in categories
    specified in subsection (b)), the number of officers who may be
    serving on active duty in each of the grades of lieutenant
    commander, commander, and captain may not, as of the end of
    such fiscal year, exceed a number determined in accordance with
    the following table:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Number of officers who may be serving
     [Total number of commissioned         on active duty in grade of:
    officers (excluding officers in ----------------------------------------
        categories specified in       Lieutenant
    subsection (b)) on active duty:    Commander     Commander     Captain
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Navy:
      45,000.......................         9,124         5,776        2,501
      48,000.......................         9,565         5,984        2,602
      51,000.......................        10,006         6,190        2,702
      54,000.......................        10,447         6,398        2,803
      57,000.......................        10,888         6,606        2,904
      60,000.......................        11,329         6,813        3,005
      63,000.......................        11,770         7,020        3,106
      66,000.......................        12,211         7,227        3,206
      70,000.......................        12,799         7,504        3,341
      90,000.......................        15,739         8,886       4,013]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Number of officers who may be serving on
                                                                                 active duty in grade of:
      Total number of commissioned officers (excluding officers in   -----------------------------------------------
         categories specified in subsection (b)) on active duty:        Lieutenant
                                                                         Commander       Commander        Captain
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Navy:
      30,000........................................................           7,331           5,018           2,116
      33,000........................................................           7,799           5,239           2,223
      36,000........................................................           8,267           5,460           2,330
      39,000........................................................           8,735           5,681           2,437
      42,000........................................................           9,203           5,902           2,544
      45,000........................................................           9,671           6,123           2,651
      48,000........................................................          10,139           6,343           2,758
      51,000........................................................          10,606           6,561           2,864
      54,000........................................................          11,074           6,782           2,971
      57,000........................................................          11,541           7,002           3,078
      60,000........................................................          12,009           7,222           3,185
      63,000........................................................          12,476           7,441           3,292
      66,000........................................................          12,944           7,661           3,398
      70,000........................................................          13,567           7,954           3,541
      90,000........................................................          16,683           9,419           4,254
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 528. Limitation on number of officers on active duty in grades of
                        general and admiral

      (a) Limitation.--The total number of officers on active duty
    in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps in the grade of
    general and in the Navy in the grade of admiral may not exceed
    32.
      (b)[(1)] Exceptions.--(1) The limitation in subsection (a)
    does not apply in the case of an officer serving in the grade
    of general or admiral in a position that is specifically
    exempted by law from being counted for purposes of limitations
    by law on the total number of officers that may be on active
    duty in the grades of general and admiral or the number of
    officers that may be on active duty in that officer's armed
    force in the grade of general or admiral.
              * * * * * * *

     CHAPTER 33--ORIGINAL APPOINTMENTS OF REGULAR OFFICERS IN GRADES ABOVE
                             WARRANT OFFICER GRADES

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 532. Qualifications for original appointment as a commissioned
                        officer

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(e) After September 30, 1996, no person may receive an
    original appointment as a commissioned officer in the Regular
    Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps
    until that person has completed one year of service on active
    duty as a commissioned officer (other than a warrant officer)
    of a reserve component.]
              * * * * * * *

       CHAPTER 36--PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF
                        OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVE-DUTY LIST

              * * * * * * *

    SUBCHAPTER V--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROMOTION, SEPARATION,
                                 AND RETIREMENT

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 641. Applicability of chapter

      Officers in the following categories are not subject to this
    chapter (other than section 640 and, in the case of warrant
    officers, section 628):
              (1) Reserve officers--
                      (A) on active duty for training;
                      (B) on active duty under section 3038, 5143,
                    5144, 8038, 10211, 10301 through 10305, 10502,
                    10505, 10506(a), 10506(b), 10507, or 12402 of
                    this title or section 708 of title 32;
              * * * * * * *

                      CHAPTER 38--JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 662. Promotion policy objectives for joint officers

      (a)  * * *
      (b) [Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall periodically
    (and not less often than every six months) report to Congress
    on the promotion rates] Annual Report.--Not later than January
    1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
    Congress a report on the promotion rates during the preceding
    fiscal year of officers who are serving in, or have served in,
    joint duty assignments, especially with respect to the record
    of officer selection boards in meeting the objectives of
    [clauses] paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a). If
    such promotion rates fail to meet such objectives for any
    fiscal year, the Secretary shall include in the [periodic
    report required by this subsection] report for that fiscal year
    information on such failure and on what action the Secretary
    has taken or plans to take to prevent further failures.

    Sec. 663. Education

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d) Post-Education Joint Duty Assignments.--(1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (3) The Secretary of Defense may exclude from the
    requirements of paragraph (1) or (2) an officer who is a member
    of an Acquisition Corps established pursuant to 1731 of this
    title if the officer--
              (A) has graduated from a senior level course of
            instruction designed for personnel serving in critical
            acquisition positions; and
              (B) is assigned, upon graduation, to a critical
            acquisition position designated pursuant to section
            1733 of this title.
              * * * * * * *

                            CHAPTER 39--ACTIVE DUTY

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major regional
                        contingencies

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(c) No funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may
    be used to implement a reduction of the active duty end
    strength for any of the armed forces for any fiscal year below
    the level specified in subsection (b) unless the Secretary of
    Defense submits to Congress notice of the proposed lower end
    strength levels and a justification for those levels. No action
    may then be taken to implement such a reduction for that fiscal
    year until the end of the six-month period beginning on the
    date of the receipt of such notice by Congress.]
      (c) The budget for the Department of Defense for any fiscal
    year as submitted to Congress shall include amounts for funding
    for each of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) at
    least in the amounts necessary to maintain the active duty end
    strengths prescribed in subsection (b), as in effect at the
    time that such budget is submitted.
      (d) No funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may be
    used to implement a reduction of the active duty end strength
    for any of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) for
    any fiscal year below the level specified in subsection (b)
    unless the reduction in end strength for that armed force for
    that fiscal year is specifically authorized by law.
      [(d)] (e) For a fiscal year for which the active duty end
    strength authorized by law pursuant to section 115(a)(1)(A) of
    this title for any of the armed forces is identical to the
    number applicable to that armed force under subsection (b), the
    Secretary of Defense may reduce that number by not more than
    0.5 percent.
      [(e)] (f) The number of members of the armed forces on active
    duty shall be counted for purposes of this section in the same
    manner as applies under section 115(a)(1) of this title.
              * * * * * * *

                            CHAPTER 45--THE UNIFORM

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 772. When wearing by persons not on active duty authorized

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (h) While attending a course of military instruction
    conducted by the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, a
    civilian may wear the uniform prescribed by that armed force if
    the wear of such uniform is specifically authorized under
    regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military
    department concerned.
              * * * * * * *

                  CHAPTER 47--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

              * * * * * * *

                   SUBCHAPTER IV--COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 820. Art. 20. Jurisdiction of summary courts-martial

      (a) Subject to section 817 of this title (article 17),
    summary courts-martial have jurisdiction to try persons subject
    to this chapter, except officers, cadets, aviation cadets, and
    midshipmen, for any noncapital offense made punishable by this
    chapter. [No person with respect to whom summary courts-martial
    have jurisdiction may be brought to trial before a summary
    court-martial if he objects thereto. If objection to trial by
    summary court-martial is made by an accused, trial may be
    ordered by special or general court-martial as may be
    appropriate.]
      (b) An accused with respect to whom summary courts-martial
    have jurisdiction may not be brought to trial before a summary
    court-martial if the accused objects thereto. If an accused so
    objects to trial by summary court-martial, the convening
    authority may order trial by special or general court-martial,
    as may be appropriate.
      (c) Summary courts-martial may, under such limitations as the
    President may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden
    by this chapter except death, dismissal, dishonorable or bad-
    conduct discharge, confinement for more than one month, hard-
    labor without confinement for more than 45 days, restriction to
    specified limits for more than two months, or forfeiture of
    more than two-thirds of one month's pay.
              * * * * * * *

                        SUBCHAPTER VII--TRIAL PROCEDURE

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 854. Art. 54. Record of trial

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c)(1) A [complete record of the proceedings and testimony]
    verbatim record of the proceedings shall be prepared--
              (A) in each general court-martial case in which the
            sentence adjudged includes death, a dismissal, a
            discharge, or (if the sentence adjudged does not
            include a discharge) any other punishment which exceeds
            that which may otherwise be adjudged by a special
            court-martial; and
              (B) in each special court-martial case in which the
            sentence adjudged includes a bad-conduct discharge.
              * * * * * * *

      SUBCHAPTER XII--UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 943. Art. 143. Organization and employees

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Status of Attorney and Certain Other Positions.--(1)
    Attorney positions of employment under the Court of Appeals for
    the Armed Forces and non-attorney positions on the personal
    staff of a judge are excepted from the competitive service.
    Appointments to such positions shall be made by the court,
    without the concurrence of any other officer or employee of the
    executive branch, in the same manner as appointments are made
    to other executive branch positions of a confidential or
    policy-determining character for which it is not practicable to
    examine or to hold a competitive examination. Such positions
    shall not be counted as positions of that character for
    purposes of any limitation on the number of positions of that
    character provided in law.
              * * * * * * *

                 CHAPTER 53--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1044. Legal assistance

      (a) Subject to the availability of legal staff resources, the
    Secretary concerned may provide legal assistance in connection
    with their personal civil legal affairs [to--] to the following
    persons:
              (1) [members] Members of the armed forces [under his
            jurisdiction] who are on active duty[;].
              (2) [members] Members and former members [under his
            jurisdiction] entitled to retired or retainer pay or
            equivalent pay[; and].
              [(3) dependents of members and former members
            described in clauses (1) and (2).]
              (3) Officers of the commissioned corps of the Public
            Health Service who are on active duty or entitled to
            retired or equivalent pay.
              (4) Dependents of members and former members
            described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
      (b) Under such regulations as may be prescribed by the
    Secretary concerned, the Judge Advocate General (as defined in
    section 801(1) of this title) under the jurisdiction of the
    Secretary is responsible for the establishment and supervision
    of legal assistance programs under this section.
      (c) This section does not authorize legal counsel to be
    provided to represent a member or former member of the [armed
    forces] uniformed services described in subsection (a), or the
    dependent of such a member or former member, in a legal
    proceeding if the member or former member can afford legal fees
    for such representation without undue hardship.
      (d) The Secretary concerned shall define ``dependent'' for
    the purposes of this section.

    Sec. 1044a. Authority to act as notary

      (a)  * * *
      (b) Persons with the powers described in subsection (a) are
    the following:
              (1) All judge advocates [on active duty or performing
            inactive-duty training], including reserve judge
            advocates not on active duty.
              (2) All civilian attorneys serving as legal
            assistance officers.
              (3) All adjutants, assistant adjutants, and personnel
            [adjutants on active duty or performing inactive-duty
            training] adjutants, including reserve members not on
            active duty.
              (4) All other [persons on active duty or performing
            inactive-duty training] members of the armed forces,
            including reserve members not on active duty, who are
            designated by regulations of the armed forces or by
            statute to have those powers.
              * * * * * * *

                      CHAPTER 55--MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE

    Sec.

    1071.  Purpose of this chapter.
         * * * * * * *
    [1074a.   Medical and dental care: members on duty other than active
              duty for a period of more than 30 days.]
    1074a.   Medical and dental care: reserve component members in a duty
              status.
         * * * * * * *
    1079a.   CHAMPUS: treatment of refunds and other amounts collected.
         * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1074. Medical and dental care for members and certain former
                        members

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(d)(1) The Secretary of Defense may require, by regulation,
    a private CHAMPUS provider to apply the CHAMPUS payment rules
    (subject to any modifications considered appropriate by the
    Secretary) in imposing charges for health care that the private
    CHAMPUS provider provides to a member of the uniformed services
    who is enrolled in a health care plan of a facility deemed to
    be a facility of the uniformed services under section 911(a) of
    the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1982 (42 U.S.C.
    248c(a)) when the health care is provided outside the catchment
    area of the facility.
      [(2) In this subsection:
              [(A) The term ``private CHAMPUS provider'' means a
            private facility or health care provider that is a
            health care provider under the Civilian Health and
            Medical Program of the Uniformed Services.
              [(B) The term ``CHAMPUS payment rules'' means the
            payment rules referred to in subsection (c).
      [(3) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations
    under this subsection after consultation with the other
    administering Secretaries.]
              * * * * * * *

    [Sec. 1074a. Medical and dental care: members on duty other than active
                        duty for a period of more than 30 days

      [(a) Under joint regulations prescribed by the administering
    Secretaries, the following persons are entitled to the benefits
    described in subsection (b):
              [(1) Each member of a uniformed service who incurs or
            aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line
            of duty while performing--
                      [(A) active duty for a period of 30 days or
                    less; or
                      [(B) inactive-duty training.
              [(2) Each member of a uniformed service who incurs or
            aggravates an injury, illness, or disease while
            traveling directly to or from the place at which that
            member is to perform or has performed--
                      [(A) active duty for a period of 30 days or
                    less; or
                      [(B) inactive-duty training.
              [(3) Each member of the armed forces who incurs or
            aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line
            of duty while remaining overnight, between successive
            periods of inactive-duty training, at or in the
            vicinity of the site of the inactive-duty training, if
            the site is outside reasonable commuting distance from
            the member's residence.
      [(b) A person described in subsection (a) is entitled to--
              [(1) the medical and dental care appropriate for the
            treatment of the injury, illness, or disease of that
            person until the resulting disability cannot be
            materially improved by further hospitalization or
            treatment; and
              [(2) subsistence during hospitalization.
      [(c) A member is not entitled to benefits under subsection
    (b) if the injury, illness, or disease, or aggravation of an
    injury, illness, or disease described in subsection (a)(2), is
    the result of the gross negligence or misconduct of the member.
      [(d)(1) The Secretary of the Army shall provide to members of
    the Selected Reserve of the Army who are assigned to units
    scheduled for deployment within 75 days after mobilization the
    following medical and dental services:
              [(A) An annual medical screening.
              [(B) For members who are over 40 years of age, a full
            physical examination not less often than once every two
            years.
              [(C) An annual dental screening.
              [(D) The dental care identified in an annual dental
            screening as required to ensure that a member meets the
            dental standards required for deployment in the event
            of mobilization.
      [(2) The services provided under this subsection shall be
    provided at no cost to the member.]

    Sec. 1074a. Medical and dental care: reserve component members in a
                        duty status

      (a) Health Care Described.--A person described in subsection
    (b) is entitled to the medical and dental care appropriate for
    the treatment of the injury, illness, or disease of the person
    until the person completes treatment and is physically able to
    resume the military duties of the person or has completed
    processing in accordance with chapter 61 of this title.
      (b) Members Entitled to Care.--Under joint regulations
    prescribed by the administering Secretaries, the following
    persons are entitled to the benefits described in this section:
              (1) Each member of a reserve component who incurs or
            aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line
            of duty while performing--
                      (A) active duty, including active duty for
                    training and annual training duty, or full-time
                    National Guard duty; or
                      (B) inactive-duty training, regardless of
                    whether the member is in a pay or nonpay
                    status.
              (2) Each member of a reserve component who incurs or
            aggravates an injury, illness, or disease while
            traveling directly to or from the place at which that
            member is to perform or has performed--
                      (A) active duty, including active duty for
                    training and annual training duty, or full-time
                    National Guard duty, or
                      (B) inactive-duty training, regardless of
                    whether the member is in a pay or nonpay
                    status.
              (3) Each member of a reserve component who incurs or
            aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line
            of duty while remaining overnight, between successive
            periods of inactive-duty training, at or in the
            vicinity of the site of the inactive-duty training, if
            the site of inactive-duty training is outside
            reasonable commuting distance from the member's
            residence.
      (c) Additional Benefits.--(1) At the request of a person
    described in paragraph (1)(A) or (2)(A) of subsection (b), the
    person may continue on active duty or full-time National Guard
    duty during any period of hospitalization resulting from the
    injury, illness, or disease.
      (2) A person described in subsection (b) is entitled to the
    pay and allowances authorized in accordance with subsections
    (g) and (h) of section 204 of title 37.
      (d) Limitation.--A person described in subsection (b) is not
    entitled to benefits under this section if the injury, illness,
    or disease, or aggravation of the injury, illness, or disease,
    is the result of the gross negligence or misconduct of the
    person.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1078a. Continued health benefits coverage

      (a) Provision of Continued Health Coverage.--[Beginning on
    October 1, 1994, the] The Secretary of Defense shall implement
    and carry out a program of continued health benefits coverage
    in accordance with this section to provide persons described in
    subsection (b) with temporary health benefits comparable to the
    health benefits provided for former civilian employees of the
    Federal Government and other persons under section 8905a of
    title 5.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1079. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children: plans

      (a) To assure that medical care is available for dependents,
    as described in subparagraphs (A), (D), and (I) of section
    1072(2) of this title, of members of the uniformed services who
    are on active duty for a period of more than 30 days, the
    Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the other
    administering Secretaries, shall contract, under the authority
    of this section, for medical care for those persons under such
    insurance, medical service, or health plans as he considers
    appropriate. The types of health care authorized under this
    section shall be the same as those provided under section 1076
    of this title, [except that--] except as follows:
              (1) [with] With respect to dental care, only that
            care required as a necessary adjunct to medical or
            surgical treatment may be provided[;].
              (2) [consistent] Consistent with such regulations as
            the Secretary of Defense may prescribe regarding the
            content of health promotion and disease prevention
            visits, the schedule of pap smears and mammograms, and
            the types and schedule of immunizations--
                      (A) for dependents under six years of age,
                    both health promotion and disease prevention
                    visits and immunizations may be provided; and
                      (B) for dependents six years of age or older,
                    health promotion and disease prevention visits
                    may be provided in connection with
                    immunizations or with diagnostic or preventive
                    pap smears and mammograms[;].
              (3) [not] Not more than one eye examination may be
            provided to a patient in any calendar year[;].
              (4) [under] Under joint regulations to be prescribed
            by the administering Secretaires, the services of
            Christian Science practitioners and nurses and services
            obtained in Christian Science sanatoriums may be
            provided[;].
              (5) [durable] Durable equipment, such as wheelchairs,
            iron lungs and hospital beds may be provided on a
            rental basis[;].
              (6) [inpatient] Inpatient mental health services may
            not (except as provided in subsection (i)) be provided
            to a patient in excess of--
                      (A) 30 days in any year, in the case of a
                    patient 19 years of age or older;
                      (B) 45 days in any year, in the case of a
                    patient under 19 years of age; or
                      (C) 150 days in any year, in the case of
                    inpatient mental health services provided as
                    residential treatment care[;].
              (7) [services] Services in connection with
            nonemergency inpatient hospital care may not be
            provided if such services are available at a facility
            of the uniformed services located within a 40-mile
            radius of the residence of the patient, except that
            those services may be provided in any case in which
            another insurance plan or program provides primary
            coverage for those services[;].
              (8) [services] Services of pastoral counselors,
            family and child counselors, or marital counselors
            (other than certified marriage and family therapists)
            may not be provided unless the patient has been
            referred to the counselor by a medical doctor for
            treatment of a specific problem with the results of
            that treatment to be communicated back to the medical
            doctor who made the referral and services of certified
            marriage and family therapists may be provided
            consistent with such rules as may be prescribed by the
            Secretary of Defense, including credentialing criteria
            and a requirement that the therapists accept payment
            under this section as full payment for all services
            provided[;].
              (9) [special] Special education may not be provided,
            except when provided as secondary to the active
            psychiatric treatment on an institutional inpatient
            basis[;].
              (10) [therapy] Therapy or counseling for sexual
            dysfunctions or sexual inadequacies may not be
            provided[;].
              (11) [treatment] Treatment of obesity may not be
            provided if obesity is the sole or major condition
            treated[;].
              (12) [surgery] Surgery which improves physical
            appearance but is not expected to significantly restore
            functions (including mammary augmentation, face lifts,
            and sex gender changes) may not be provided, except
            that--
                      (A) breast reconstructive surgery following a
                    mastectomy may be provided;
                      (B) reconstructive surgery to correct serious
                    deformities caused by congenital anomalies or
                    accidental injuries may be provided; and
                      (C) neoplastic surgery may be provided[;].
              (13) [any] Any service or supply which is not
            medically or psychologically necessary to prevent,
            diagnose, or treat a mental or physical illness,
            injury, or bodily malfunction as assessed or diagnosed
            by a physician, dentist, clinical psychologist,
            certified marriage and family therapist, optometrist,
            podiatrist, certified nurse-midwife, certified nurse
            practitioner, or certified clinical social worker, as
            appropriate, may not be provided, except as authorized
            in paragraph (4)[;]. Pursuant to an agreement with the
            Secretary of Health and Human Services and under such
            regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe,
            the Secretary of Defense may waive the operation of
            this paragraph in connection with clinical trials
            sponsored or approved by the National Institutes of
            Health if the Secretary of Defense determines that such
            a waiver will promote access by covered beneficiaries
            to promising new treatments and contribute to the
            development of such treatments.
              (14) [the] The prohibition contained in section
            1077(b)(3) of this title shall not apply in the case of
            a member or former member of the uniformed services[;].
              (15) [electronic] Electronic cardio-respiratory home
            monitoring equipment (apnea monitors) for home use may
            be provided if a physician prescribes and supervises
            the use of the monitor for an infant)--
                      (A) who has had an apparent life-threatening
                    event,
                      (B) who is a subsequent sibling of a victim
                    of sudden infant death syndrome,
                      (C) whose birth weight was 1,500 grams or
                    less, or
                      (D) who is a pre-term infant with pathologic
                    apnea,
            in which case the coverage may include the cost of the
            equipment, hard copy analysis of physiological alarms,
            professional visits, diagnostic testing, family
            training on how to respond to apparent life threatening
            events, and assistance necessary for proper use of the
            equipment[;].
              (16) [hospice] Hospice care may be provided only in
            the manner and under the conditions provided in section
            1861(dd) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
            1395x(dd))[; and].
              (17) [the] The Secretary of Defense may establish a
            program for the individual case management of a person
            covered by this section or section 1086 of this title
            who has extraordinary medical or psychological
            disorders and, under such a program, may waive benefit
            limitations contained in paragraphs (5) and (13) of
            this subsection or section 1077(b)(1) of this title and
            authorize the payment for comprehensive home health
            care services, supplies, and equipment if the Secretary
            determines that such a waiver is cost-effective and
            appropriate.
      (b)(1) Plans covered by subsection (a) shall include
    provisions for payment by the patient of the following amounts:
              [(1)] (A) $25 for each admission to a hospital, or
            the amount the patient would have been charged under
            section 1078(a) of this title had the care being paid
            for been obtained in a hospital of the uniformed
            services, whichever amount is the greater. The
            Secretary of Defense may exempt a patient from paying
            such amount if the hospital to which the patient is
            admitted does not impose a legal obligation on any of
            its patients to pay for inpatient care.
              [(2)] (B) Except as provided in [clause (3)]
            subparagraph (C), the first $150 each fiscal year of
            the charges for all types of care authorized by
            subsection (a) and received while in an outpatient
            status and 20 percent of all subsequent charges for
            such care during a fiscal year. Notwithstanding the
            preceding sentence, in the case of a dependent of an
            enlisted member in a pay grade below E-5, the initial
            deductible each fiscal year under this paragraph shall
            be limited to $50.
              [(3)] (C) A family group of two or more persons
            covered by this section shall not be required to pay
            collectively more than the first $300 (or in the case
            of the family group of an enlisted member in a pay
            grade below E-5, the first $100) each fiscal year of
            the charges for all types of care authorized by
            subsection (a) and received while in an outpatient
            status and 20 percent of the additional charges for
            such care during a fiscal year.
              [(4)] (D) $25 for surgical care that is authorized by
            subsection (a) and received while in an outpatient
            status and that has been designated (under joint
            regulations to be prescribed by the administering
            Secretaries) as care to be treated as inpatient care
            for purposes of this subsection. Any care for which
            payment is made under [this clause] this subparagraph
            shall not be considered to be care received while in an
            outpatient status for purposes of [clauses (2) and (3)]
            subparagraphs (B) and (C).
              [(5)] (E) An individual or family group of two or
            more persons covered by this section may not be
            required by reason of this subsection to pay a total of
            more than $1,000 for health care received during any
            fiscal year under a plan under subsection (a).
      (2) The Secretary of Defense may waive or reduce the
    deductible amounts required by subparagraphs (B) and (C) of
    paragraph (1) in the case of the dependents of a member of a
    reserve component of the uniformed services who serves on
    active duty in support of a contingency operation under a call
    or order to active duty of less than one year.
              * * * * * * *
      (h)(1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (4) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other
    administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations to
    provide for such exceptions to the payment limitations under
    paragraph (1) as the Secretary determines to be necessary to
    assure that covered beneficiaries retain adequate access to
    health care services. Such exceptions may include the payment
    of amounts higher than the amount allowed under paragraph (1)
    when enrollees in managed care programs obtain covered
    [emergency] services from nonparticipating providers. To
    provide a suitable transition from the payment methodologies in
    effect before the date of the enactment of this paragraph to
    the methodology required by paragraph (1), the amount allowable
    for any service may not be reduced by more than 15 percent
    below the amount allowed for the same service during the
    immediately preceding 12-month period (or other period as
    established by the Secretary of Defense).
      (5) Except in an area in which the Secretary of Defense has
    entered into an at-risk contract for the provision of health
    care services, the Secretary may authorize the commander of a
    facility of the uniformed services, the lead agent (if other
    than the commander), and the health care contractor to modify
    the payment limitations under paragraph (1) for certain health
    care providers when necessary to ensure both the availability
    of certain services for covered beneficiaries and costs lower
    than standard CHAMPUS for the required services.
      [(5)] (6) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
    other administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations to
    establish limitations (similar to the limitations established
    under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et
    seq.)) on beneficiary liability for charges of an individual
    health care professional (or other noninstitutional health care
    provider).
              * * * * * * *
      (j)(1) A benefit may not be paid under a plan covered by this
    section in the case of a person enrolled in, or covered by, any
    other insurance, medical service, or health plan (including any
    plan offered by a third-party payer (as defined in section
    1095(h)(1) of this title)) to the extent that the benefit is
    also a benefit under the other plan, except in the case of a
    plan administered under title XIX of the Social Security Act
    (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1079a. CHAMPUS: treatment of refunds and other amounts collected

      All refunds and other amounts collected in the administration
    of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed
    Services shall be credited to the appropriation supporting the
    program in the year in which the amount is collected.

    Sec. 1080. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children:
                        election of facilities

      (a) Election.--A dependent covered by section 1079 of this
    title may elect to receive inpatient medical care either in (1)
    the facilities of the uniformed services, under the conditions
    prescribed by sections 1076-1078 of this title, or (2) the
    facilities provided under a plan contracted for under section
    1079 of this title. However, under such regulations as the
    Secretary of Defense, after consulting the other administering
    Secretaries, may prescribe, the right to make this election may
    be limited for dependents residing in the area where the member
    concerned is assigned, if adequate medical facilities of the
    uniformed services are available in that area for those
    dependents.
      (b) Issuance of [Nonavailability of Health Care Statements]
    Nonavailability-of-Health-Care Statements.--In determining
    whether to issue a [nonavailability of health care statement]
    nonavailability of health care statement for a dependent
    described in subsection (a), the commanding officer of a
    facility of the uniformed services may consider the
    availability of health care services for the dependent pursuant
    to any contract or agreement entered into under this chapter
    for the provision of health care services.
      (c) Waivers and Exceptions to Requirements.--(1) A covered
    beneficiary enrolled in a managed care plan offered pursuant to
    any contract or agreement under this chapter for the provision
    of health care services shall not be required to obtain a
    nonavailability-of-health-care statement as a condition for the
    receipt of health care.
      (2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement to
    obtain nonavailability-of-health-care statements following an
    evaluation of the effectiveness of such statements in
    optimizing the use of facilities of the uniformed services.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1086. Contracts for health benefits for certain members, former
                        members, and their dependents

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) A person covered by this section may elect to receive
    [benefits] inpatient medical care either in (1) Government
    facilities, under the conditions prescribed in sections 1074
    and 1076-1078 of this title, or (2) the facilities provided
    under a plan contracted for under this section. However, under
    joint regulations issued by the administering Secretaries, the
    right to make this election may be limited for those persons
    residing in an area where adequate facilities of the uniformed
    service are available. In addition, [section 1080(b)]
    subsections (b) and (c) of section 1080 of this title shall
    apply in making the determination whether to issue a
    nonavailability of health care statement for a person covered
    by this section.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1095. Health care services incurred on behalf of covered
                        beneficiaries: collection from third-party payers

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (g)(1) Amounts collected under this section from a third-
    party payer or under any other provision of law from any other
    payer for the costs of health care services provided at or
    through a facility of the uniformed services shall be credited
    to the appropriation supporting the maintenance and operation
    of the facility and shall not be taken into consideration in
    establishing the operating budget of the facility.
              * * * * * * *
      (h) In this section:
              (1) The term ``third-party payer'' means an entity
            that provides an insurance, medical service, or health
            plan by contract or agreement, including an automobile
            liability insurance or no fault insurance carrier and a
            workers' compensation program or plan. Such term also
            includes entities described in subsection (j) under the
            terms and to the extent provided in such subsection.
              (2) The term ``insurance, medical service, or health
            plan'' includes a preferred provider organization
            [and], an insurance plan described as Medicare
            supplemental insurance, and personal injury protection
            or medical payments benefits in cases involving
            personal injuries resulting from operation of a motor
            vehicle.
              * * * * * * *

                             CHAPTER 59--SEPARATION

    Sec.
    1161.  Commissioned officers: limitations on dismissal.
         * * * * * * *
    1177.  Members infected with HIV-1 virus: mandatory discharge or
              retirement.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1161.  Commissioned  officers:  limitations  on  dismissal

      (a)  * * *
      (b) The President may drop from the rolls of any armed force
    any commissioned officer (1) who has been absent without
    authority for at least three months, (2) who may be separated
    under [section 1178] section 1167 of this title by reason of a
    sentence to confinement adjudged by a court-martial, or (3) who
    is sentenced to confinement in a Federal or State penitentiary
    or correctional institution after having been found guilty of
    an offense by a court other than a court-martial or other
    military court, and whose sentence has become final.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1167. Members under confinement by sentence of court-martial:
                        separation after six months confinement

      Except as otherwise provided in regulations prescribed by the
    Secretary of Defense, a member sentenced by a court-martial to
    a period of confinement for more than six months may be
    separated from the member's armed force at any time after the
    sentence to confinement has become final under chapter 47 of
    this title and the [person] member has served in confinement
    for a period of six months.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1177. Members infected with HIV-1 virus: mandatory discharge or
                        retirement

      (a) Mandatory Separation.--(1) A member of the Army, Navy,
    Air Force, or Marine Corps who is HIV-positive and who on the
    date on which the medical determination is made that the member
    is HIV-positive has less than 15 years of creditable service
    shall be separated. Such separation shall be made on a date
    determined by the Secretary concerned, which shall be as soon
    as practicable after the date on which the medical
    determination is made that the member is HIV-positive and not
    later than the last day of the second month beginning after
    such date.
      (2) In determining the years of creditable service of a
    member for purposes of paragraph (1)--
              (A) in the case of a member on active duty or full-
            time National Guard duty, the member's years of
            creditable service are the number of years of service
            of the member as computed for the purpose of
            determining the member's eligibility for retirement
            under any provision of law (other than chapter 61 or
            1223 of this title); and
              (B) in the case of a member in an active status, the
            member's years of creditable service are the number of
            years of service creditable to the member under section
            12732 of this title.
      (b) Form of Separation.--The characterization of the service
    of the member shall be determined without regard to the
    determination that the member is HIV-positive.
      (c) Separation To Be Considered Involuntary.--A separation
    under this section shall be considered to be an involuntary
    separation for purposes of any other provision of law.
      (d) Counseling About Available Medical Care.--A member to be
    separated under this section shall be provided information, in
    writing, before such separation of the available medical care
    (through the Department of Veterans Affairs and otherwise) to
    treat the member's condition. Such information shall include
    identification of specific medical locations near the member's
    home of record or point of discharge at which the member may
    seek necessary medical care.
      (e) HIV-Positive Members.--A member shall be considered to be
    HIV-positive for purposes of this section if there is serologic
    evidence that the member is infected with the virus known as
    Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1), the virus most commonly
    associated with the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)
    in the United States. Such serologic evidence shall be
    considered to exist if there is a reactive result given by an
    enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) serologic test that
    is confirmed by a reactive and diagnostic immunoelectrophoresis
    test (Western blot) on two separate samples. Any such serologic
    test must be one that is approved by the Food and Drug
    Administration.
              * * * * * * *

             CHAPTER 73--ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY

              * * * * * * *

                     [SUBCHAPTER II--SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN

    [Sec.
    [1447.  Definitions.
    [1448.  Application of Plan.
    [1449.  Mental incompetency of member.
    [1450.  Payment of annuity: beneficiaries.
    [1451.  Amount of annuity.
    [1452.  Reduction in retired pay.
    [1453.  Recovery of annuity erroneously paid.
    [1454.  Correction of administrative errors.
    [1455.  Regulations.

    [Sec. 1447. Definitions

      [In this subchapter:
      [(1) The term ``Plan'' means the Survivor Benefit Plan
    established by this subchapter.
      [(2) The term ``base amount'' means--
              [(A) in the case of a person who dies after becoming
            entitled to retired pay, the amount of monthly retired
            pay (determined without regard to any reduction under
            section 1409(b)(2) of this title) to which the person--
                      [(i) was entitled when he became eligible for
                    that pay; or
                      [(ii) later became entitled by being advanced
                    on the retired list, performing active duty, or
                    being transferred from the temporary disability
                    retired list to the permanent disability
                    retired list;
              [(B) in the case of a person who would have become
            eligible for reserve-component retired pay but for the
            fact that he died before becoming 60 years of age, the
            amount of monthly retired pay for which the person
            would have been eligible--
                      [(i) if he had been 60 years of age on the
                    date of his death, for purposes of an annuity
                    to become effective on the day after his death
                    in accordance with a designation made under
                    section 1448(e) of this title; or
                      [(ii) upon becoming 60 years of age (if he
                    had lived to that age), for purposes of an
                    annuity to become effective on the 60th
                    anniversary of his birth in accordance with a
                    designation made under section 1448(e) of this
                    title; or
              [(C) any amount which is less than the amount
            otherwise applicable under clause (A) or (B) with
            respect to an annuity provided under the Plan but which
            is not less than $300 and which is designated by the
            person (with the concurrence of the person's spouse, if
            required under section 1448(a)(3) of this title)
            providing the annuity on or before (i) the first day
            for which he becomes eligible for retired pay, in the
            case of a person providing a standard annuity, or (ii)
            the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on
            which he receives the notification required by section
            12731(d) of this title that he has completed the years
            of service required for eligibility for reserve-
            component retired pay in the case of a person providing
            a reserve-component annuity.
      [(3) The term ``widow'' means the surviving wife of a person
    who, if not married to the person at the time he became
    eligible for retired pay--
              [(A) was married to him for at least one year
            immediately before his death; or
              [(B) is the mother of issue by that marriage.
      [(4) The term ``widower'' means the surviving husband of a
    person who, if not married to the person at the time she became
    eligible for retired pay--
              [(A) was married to her for at least one year
            immediately before her death; or
              [(B) is the father of issue by that marriage.
      [(5) The term ``dependent child'' means a person who is--
              [(A) unmarried;
              [(B) (i) under 18 years of age; (ii) at least 18, but
            under 22, years of age and pursuing a full-time course
            of study or training in a high school, trade school,
            technical or vocational institute, junior college,
            college, university, or comparable recognized
            educational institution; or (iii) incapable of
            supporting himself because of a mental or physical
            incapacity existing before his eighteenth birthday or
            incurred on or after that birthday, but before his
            twenty-second birthday, while pursuing such a full-time
            course of study or training; and
              [(C) the child of a person to whom the Plan applies,
            including (i) an adopted child, and (ii) a stepchild,
            foster child, or recognized natural child who lived
            with that person in a regular parent-child
            relationship.
    For the purpose of this paragraph, a child whose twenty-second
    birthday occurs before July 1 or after August 31 of a calendar
    year, and while he is regularly pursuing such a course of study
    or training, is considered to have become 22 years of age on
    the first day of July after that birthday. A child who is a
    student is considered not to have ceased to be a student during
    an interim between school years if the interim is not more than
    150 days and if he shows to the satisfaction of the Secretary
    of Defense that he has a bona fide intention of continuing to
    pursue a course of study or training in the same or a different
    school during the school semester (or other period into which
    the school year is divided) immediately after the interim.
    Under this paragraph, a foster child, to qualify as the
    dependent child of a person to whom the Plan applies, must, at
    the time of the death of that person, also reside with, and
    receive over one-half of his support from, that person, and not
    be cared for under a social agency contract. The temporary
    absence of a foster child from the residence of that person,
    while he is a student as described in this paragraph, will not
    be considered to affect the residence of such a foster child.
      [(6) The term ``former spouse'' means the surviving former
    husband or wife of a person who is eligible to participate in
    the Plan.
      [(7) The term ``court'' has the meaning given that term by
    section 1408(a)(1) of this title.
      [(8) The term ``court order'' means a court's final decree of
    divorce, dissolution, or annulment or a court ordered,
    ratified, or approved property settlement incident to such a
    decree (including a final decree modifying the terms of a
    previously issued decree of divorce, dissolution, annulment, or
    legal separation, or of a court ordered, ratified, or approved
    property settlement agreement incident to such previously
    issued decree).
      [(9) The term ``final decree'' means a decree from which no
    appeal may be taken or from which no appeal has been taken
    within the time allowed for the taking of such appeals under
    the laws applicable to such appeals, or a decree from which
    timely appeal has been taken and such appeal has been finally
    decided under the laws applicable to such appeals.
      [(10) The term ``regular on its face'', when used in
    connection with a court order, means a court order that meets
    the conditions prescribed in section 1408(b)(2) of this title.
      [(11) The term ``retired pay'' includes retainer pay paid
    under section 6330 of this title.
      [(12) The term ``standard annuity'' means an annuity provided
    by virtue of eligibility under section 1448(a)(1)(A) of this
    title.
      [(13) The term ``reserve-component annuity'' means an annuity
    provided by virtue of eligibility under section 1448(a)(1)(B)
    of this title.
      [(14) The term ``reserve-component retired pay'' means
    retired pay under chapter 1223 of this title (or under chapter
    67 of this title as in effect before the effective date of the
    Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act).

    [Sec. 1448. Application of Plan

      [(a)(1) The program established by this subchapter shall be
    known as the Survivor Benefit Plan. The following persons are
    eligible to participate in the Plan:
              [(A) Persons entitled to retired pay.
              [(B) Persons who would be eligible for reserve-
            component retired pay but for the fact that they are
            under 60 years of age.
      [(2) The Plan applies--
              [(A) to a person who is eligible to participate in
            the Plan under paragraph (1)(A) and who is married or
            has a dependent child when he becomes entitled to
            retired pay, unless he elects (with his spouse's
            concurrence, if required under paragraph (3)) not to
            participate in the Plan before the first day for which
            he is eligible for that pay; and
              [(B) to a person who (i) is eligible to participate
            in the Plan under paragraph (1)(B), (ii) is married or
            has a dependent child when he is notified under section
            12731(d) of this title that he has completed the years
            of service required for eligibility for reserve-
            component retired pay, and (iii) elects to participate
            in the Plan (and makes a designation under subsection
            (e)) before the end of the 90-day period beginning on
            the date he receives such notification.
    A person described in subclauses (i) and (ii) of clause (B) who
    does not elect to participate in the Plan before the end of the
    90-day period referred to in such clause shall remain eligible,
    upon reaching 60 years of age and otherwise becoming entitled
    to retired pay, to participate in the Plan in accordance with
    eligibility under paragraph (1)(A).
      [(3)(A) A married person who is eligible to provide a
    standard annuity may not without the concurrence of the
    person's spouse elect--
              [(i) not to participate in the Plan;
              [(ii) to provide an annuity for the person's spouse
            at less than the maximum level; or
              [(iii) to provide an annuity for a dependent child
            but not for the person's spouse.
      [(B) A married person who elects to provide a reserve-
    component annuity may not without the concurrence of the
    person's spouse elect--
              [(i) to provide an annuity for the person's spouse at
            less than the maximum level; or
              [(ii) to provide an annuity for a dependent child but
            not for the person's spouse.
      [(C) A person may make an election described in subparagraph
    (A) or (B) without the concurrence of the person's spouse if
    the person establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary
    concerned--
              [(i) that the spouse's whereabouts cannot be
            determined; or
              [(ii) that, due to exceptional circumstances,
            requiring the person to seek the spouse's consent would
            otherwise be inappropriate.
      [(D) This paragraph does not affect any right or obligation
    to elect to provide an annuity for a former spouse (or for a
    former spouse and dependent child) under subsection (b)(2).
      [(E) If a married person who is eligible to provide a
    standard annuity elects to provide an annuity for a former
    spouse (or for a former spouse and dependent child) under
    subsection (b)(2), that person's spouse shall be notified of
    that election.
      [(4)(A) An election under paragraph (2)(A) not to participate
    in the Plan is irrevocable if not revoked before the date on
    which the person first becomes entitled to retire.
      [(B) An election under paragraph (2)(B) to participate in the
    Plan is irrevocable if not revoked before the end of the 90-day
    period referred to in such paragraph.
      [(5) A person who is not married when he becomes eligible to
    participate in the Plan but who later marries or acquires a
    dependent child may elect to participate in the Plan, but his
    election must be written, signed by him, and received by the
    Secretary concerned within one year after he marries or
    acquires that dependent child. Such an election may not be
    revoked except in accordance with subsection (b)(3). His
    election is effective as of the first day of the first calendar
    month following the month in which his election is received by
    the Secretary concerned. In the case of a person providing a
    reserve-component annuity, such an election shall include a
    designation under subsection (e).
      [(6)(A) A person--
              [(i) who is a participant in the Plan and is
            providing coverage for a spouse or a spouse and child;
              [(ii) who does not have an eligible spouse
            beneficiary under the Plan; and
              [(iii) who remarries,
    may elect not to provide coverage under the Plan for the
    person's spouse.
      [(B) If such an election is made, no reduction in the retired
    pay of such person under section 1452 of this title may be
    made. An election under this paragraph--
              [(i) is irrevocable;
              [(ii) shall be made within one year after the
            person's remarriage; and
              [(iii) shall be made in such form and manner as may
            be prescribed in regulations under section 1455 of this
            title.
      [(C) If a person makes an election under this paragraph--
              [(i) not to participate in the Plan;
              [(ii) to provide an annuity for the person's spouse
            at less than the maximum level; or
              [(iii) to provide an annuity for a dependent child
            but not for the person's spouse,
    the person's spouse shall be notified of that election.
      [(D) This paragraph does not affect any right or obligation
    to elect to provide an annuity to a former spouse under
    subsection (b).
      [(b)(1)(A) A person who is not married and does not have a
    dependent child when he becomes eligible to participate in the
    Plan may elect to provide an annuity to a natural person with
    an insurable interest in that person. In the case of a person
    providing a reserve-component annuity, such an election shall
    include a designation under subsection (e).
      [(B) An election under subparagraph (A) for a beneficiary who
    is not the former spouse of the person providing the annuity
    may be terminated. Any such termination shall be made by a
    participant by the submission to the Secretary concerned of a
    request to discontinue participation in the Plan, and such
    participation in the Plan shall be discontinued effective on
    the first day of the first month following the month in which
    the request is received by the Secretary concerned. Effective
    on such date, the Secretary concerned shall discontinue the
    reduction being made in such person's retired pay on account of
    participation in the Plan or, in the case of a person who has
    been required to make deposits in the Treasury on account of
    participation in the Plan, such person may discontinue making
    such deposits effective on such date.
      [(C) A request under subparagraph (B) to discontinue
    participation in the Plan shall be in such form and shall
    contain such information as may be required under regulations
    prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
      [(D) The Secretary concerned shall furnish promptly to each
    person who submits a request under subparagraph (B) to
    discontinue participation in the Plan a written statement of
    the advantages and disadvantages of participating in the Plan
    and the possible disadvantages of discontinuing participation.
    A person may withdraw the request to discontinue participation
    if withdrawn within 30 days after having been submitted to the
    Secretary concerned.
      [(E) Once participation is discontinued, benefits may not be
    paid in conjunction with the earlier participation in the Plan
    and premiums paid may not be refunded. Participation in the
    Plan may not later be resumed except through a qualified
    election under paragraph (5) of subsection (a).
      [(2) A person who has a former spouse when he becomes
    eligible to participate in the Plan may elect to provide an
    annuity to that former spouse. In the case of a person with a
    spouse or a dependent child, such an election prevents payment
    of an annuity to that spouse or child (other than a child who
    is a beneficiary under an election under paragraph (4)),
    including payment under subsection (d). If there is more than
    one former spouse, the person shall designate which former
    spouse is to be provided the annuity. In the case of a person
    providing a reserve-component annuity, such an election shall
    include a designation under subsection (e).
      [(3)(A) A person--
              [(i) who is a participant in the Plan and is
            providing coverage for a spouse or a spouse and child
            (even though there is no beneficiary currently eligible
            for such coverage), and
              [(ii) who has a former spouse who was not that
            person's former spouse when he became eligible to
            participate in the Plan,
    may (subject to subparagraph (B)) elect to provide an annuity
    to that former spouse. Any such election terminates any
    previous coverage under the Plan and must be written, signed by
    the person, and received by the Secretary concerned within one
    year after the date of the decree of divorce, dissolution, or
    annulment.
      [(B) A person may not make an election under subparagraph (A)
    to provide an annuity to a former spouse who that person
    married after becoming eligible for retired pay unless--
              [(i) the person was married to that former spouse for
            at least one year, or
              [(ii) that former spouse is the parent of issue by
            that marriage.
      [(C) An election under this paragraph may not be revoked
    except in accordance with section 1450(f) of this title and is
    effective as of the first day of the first calendar month
    following the month in which it is received by the Secretary
    concerned. This paragraph does not provide the authority to
    change a designation previously made under subsection (e).
      [(D) If a person who is married makes an election to provide
    an annuity to a former spouse under this paragraph, that
    person's spouse shall be notified of that election.
      [(4) A person who elects to provide an annuity for a former
    spouse under paragraph (2) or (3) may, at the time of the
    election, elect to provide coverage under that annuity for both
    the former spouse and a dependent child, if the child resulted
    from the person's marriage to that former spouse.
      [(5) A person who elects to provide an annuity to a former
    spouse under paragraph (2) or (3) shall, at the time of making
    the election, provide the Secretary concerned with a written
    statement (in a form to be prescribed by that Secretary and
    signed by such person and the former spouse) setting forth (A)
    whether the election is being made pursuant to the requirements
    of a court order, or (B) whether the election is being made
    pursuant to a written agreement previously entered into
    voluntarily by such person as a part of or incident to a
    proceeding of divorce, dissolution, or annulment and (if so)
    whether such voluntary written agreement has been incorporated
    in, or ratified or approved by, a court order.
      [(c) The application of the Plan to a person whose name is on
    the temporary disability retired list terminates when his name
    is removed from that list and he is no longer entitled to
    disability retired pay.
      [(d)(1) The Secretary concerned shall pay an annuity under
    this subchapter to the surviving spouse of a member who dies on
    active duty after--
              [(A) becoming eligible to receive retired pay;
              [(B) qualifying for retired pay except that he has
            not applied for or been granted that pay; or
              [(C) completing 20 years of active service but before
            he is eligible to retire as a commissioned officer
            because he has not completed 10 years of active
            commissioned service.
      [(2) The Secretary concerned shall pay an annuity under this
    subchapter to the dependent child of a member described in
    paragraph (1) if there is no surviving spouse or if the
    member's surviving spouse subsequently dies.
      [(3) If a member described in paragraph (1) is required under
    a court order or spousal agreement to provide an annuity to a
    former spouse upon becoming eligible to be a participant in the
    Plan or has made an election under subsection (b) to provide an
    annuity to a former spouse, the Secretary--
              [(A) may not pay an annuity under paragraph (1) or
            (2); but
              [(B) shall pay an annuity to that former spouse as if
            the member had been a participant in the Plan and had
            made an election under subsection (b) to provide an
            annuity to the former spouse, or in accordance with
            that election, as the case may be, if the Secretary
            receives a written request from the former spouse
            concerned that the election be deemed to have been made
            in the same manner as provided in section 1450(f)(3) of
            this title.
      [(4) An annuity that may be provided under this subsection
    shall be provided in preference to an annuity that may be
    provided under any other provision of this subchapter on
    account of service of the same member.
      [(5) The amount of an annuity under this subsection is
    computed under section 1451(c) of this title.
      [(e) In any case in which a person electing to participate in
    the Plan is required to make a designation under this
    subsection, the person making such election shall designate
    whether, in the event he dies before becoming 60 years of age,
    the annuity provided shall become effective on the day after
    the date of his death or on the 60th anniversary of his birth.
      [(f)(1) The Secretary concerned shall pay an annuity under
    this subchapter to the surviving spouse of a person who is
    eligible to provide a reserve-component annuity and who dies--
              [(A) before being notified under section 12731(d) of
            this title that he has completed the years of service
            required for eligibility for reserve-component retired
            pay; or
              [(B) during the 90-day period beginning on the date
            he receives notification under section 12731(d) of this
            title that he has completed the years of service
            required for eligibility for reserve-component retired
            pay if he had not made an election under subsection
            (a)(2)(B) to participate in the Plan.
      [(2) The Secretary concerned shall pay an annuity under this
    subchapter to the dependent child of a person described in
    paragraph (1) if there is no surviving spouse or if the
    person's surviving spouse subsequently dies.
      [(3) If a person described in paragraph (1) is required under
    a court order or spousal agreement to provide an annuity to a
    former spouse upon becoming eligible to be a participant in the
    Plan or has made an election under subsection (b) to provide an
    annuity to a former spouse, the Secretary--
              [(A) may not pay an annuity under paragraph (1) or
            (2); but
              [(B) shall pay an annuity to that former spouse as if
            the person had been a participant in the Plan and had
            made an election under subsection (b) to provide an
            annuity to the former spouse, or in accordance with
            that election, as the case may be, if the Secretary
            receives a written request from the former spouse
            concerned that the election be deemed to have been made
            in the same manner as provided in section 1450(f)(3) of
            this title.
      [(4) The amount of an annuity under this subsection is
    computed under section 1451(c) of this title.
      [(g)(1) A person--
              [(A) who is a participant in the Plan and is
            providing coverage under subsection (a) for a spouse or
            a spouse and child, but at less than the maximum level;
            and
              [(B) who remarries,
    may elect, within one year of such remarriage, to increase the
    level of coverage provided under the Plan to a level not in
    excess of the current retired pay of that person.
      [(2) Such an election shall be contingent on the person
    paying to the United States the amount determined under
    paragraph (3) plus interest on such amount at a rate determined
    under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
      [(3) The amount referred to in paragraph (2) is the amount
    equal to the difference between--
              [(A) the amount that would have been withheld from
            such person's retired pay under section 1452 of this
            title if the higher level of coverage had been in
            effect from the time the person became a participant in
            the Plan; and
              [(B) the amount of such person's retired pay actually
            withheld.
      [(4) An election under paragraph (1) shall be made in such
    manner as the Secretary shall prescribe and shall become
    effective upon receipt of the payment required by paragraph
    (2).
      [(5) A payment received under this subsection by the
    Secretary of Defense shall be deposited into the Department of
    Defense Military Retirement Fund. Any other payment received
    under this subsection shall be deposited in the Treasury as
    miscellaneous receipts.

    [Sec. 1449. Mental incompetency of member

      [If a person to whom section 1448 of this title applies is
    determined to be mentally incompetent by medical officers of
    the armed force concerned or of the Department of Veterans
    Affairs, or by a court of competent jurisdiction, any election
    described in subsection (a)(2) or (b) of section 1448 of this
    title may be made on behalf of that person by the Secretary
    concerned. If the person for whom the Secretary has made an
    election is later determined to be mentally competent by an
    authority named in the first sentence, he may, within 180 days
    after that determination revoke that election. Any deductions
    made from by reason of such an election will not be refunded.

    [Sec. 1450. Payment of annuity: beneficiaries

      [(a) Effective as of the first day after the death of a
    person to whom section 1448 of this title applies (or on such
    other day as he may provide under subsection (j)), a monthly
    annuity under section 1451 of this title shall be paid to--
              [(1) the eligible widow or widower or the eligible
            former spouse;
              [(2) the surviving dependent children in equal
            shares, if the eligible widow or widower or the
            eligible former spouse is dead, dies, or otherwise
            becomes ineligible under this section;
              [(3) the dependent children in equal shares if the
            person to whom section 1448 of this title applies (with
            the concurrence of the person's spouse, if required
            under section 1448(a)(3) of this title) elected to
            provide an annuity for dependent children but not for
            the spouse or former spouse; or
              [(4) the natural person designated under section
            1448(b) of this title, unless the election to provide
            an annuity to the natural person has been changed as
            provided in subsection (f).
      [(b) An annuity payable to the beneficiary terminates
    effective as of the first day of the month in which eligibility
    is lost. An annuity for a widow, widower, or former spouse
    shall be paid to the widow, widower, or former spouse while the
    widow, widower, or former spouse is living or, if the widow,
    widower, or former spouse remarries before reaching age 55,
    until the widow, widower, or former spouse remarries. If the
    widow, widower, or former spouse remarries before reaching age
    55 and that marriage is terminated by death, annulment, or
    divorce, payment of the annuity will be resumed effective as of
    the first day of the month in which the marriage is so
    terminated. However, if the widow, widower, or former spouse is
    also entitled to an annuity under the Plan based upon the
    marriage so terminated, the widow, widower, or former spouse
    may not receive both annuities but must elect which to receive.
      [(c) If, upon the death of a person to whom section 1448 of
    this title applies, the widow, widower, or former spouse of
    that person is also entitled to dependency and indemnity
    compensation under section 1311(a) of title 38, the widow,
    widower, or former spouse may be paid an annuity under this
    section, but only in the amount that the annuity otherwise
    payable under this section would exceed that compensation. A
    reduction in an annuity under this section required by the
    preceding sentence shall be effective on the date of the
    commencement of the period of payment of such compensation
    under title 38.
      [(d) If, upon the death of a person to whom section 1448 of
    this title applies, that person had in effect a waiver of his
    retired pay for the purposes of subchapter III of chapter 83 of
    title 5, an annuity under this section shall not be payable
    unless, in accordance with section 8339(j) of title 5, he
    notified the Office of Personnel Management that he did not
    desire any spouse surviving him to receive an annuity under
    section 8341(b) of that title.
      [(e) If no annuity under this section is payable because of
    subsection (c), any amounts deducted from the retired pay of
    the deceased under section 1452 of this title shall be refunded
    to the widow, widower, or former spouse. If, because of
    subsection (c), the annuity payable is less than the amount
    established under section 1451 of this title, the annuity
    payable shall be recalculated under that section. The amount of
    the reduction in the retired pay required to provide that
    recalculated annuity shall be computed under section 1452 of
    this title, and the difference between the amount deducted
    prior to the computation of that recalculated annuity and the
    amount that would have been deducted on the basis of that
    recalculated annuity shall be refunded to the widow, widower,
    or former spouse.
      [(f)(1) A person who elects to provide an annuity to a person
    designated by him under section 1448(b) of this title may,
    subject to paragraph (2), change that election and provide an
    annuity to his spouse or dependent child. The Secretary
    concerned shall notify the former spouse or other natural
    person previously designated under section 1448(b) of this
    title of any change of election under the first sentence of
    this paragraph. Any such change of election is subject to the
    same rules with respect to execution, revocation, and
    effectiveness as are set forth in section 1448(a)(5) of this
    title (without regard to the eligibility of the person making
    the change of election to make an election under such section).
      [(2) A person who, incident to a proceeding of divorce,
    dissolution, or annulment, is required by a court order to
    elect under section 1448(b) of this title to provide an annuity
    to a former spouse (or to both a former spouse and child), or
    who enters into a written agreement (whether voluntary or
    required by a court order) to make such an election, and who
    makes an election pursuant to such order or agreement, may not
    change such election under paragraph (1) unless--
              [(A) in a case in which the election is required by a
            court order, or in which an agreement to make the
            election has been incorporated in or ratified or
            approved by a court order, the person--
                      [(i) furnishes to the Secretary concerned a
                    certified copy of a court order which is
                    regular on its face and modifies the provisions
                    of all previous court orders relating to such
                    election, or the agreement to make such
                    election, so as to permit the person to change
                    the election; and
                      [(ii) certifies to the Secretary concerned
                    that the court order is valid and in effect; or
              [(B) in a case of a written agreement that has not
            been incorporated or ratified or approved by a court
            order, the person--
                      [(i) furnishes to the Secretary concerned a
                    statement, in such form as the Secretary
                    concerned may prescribe, signed by the former
                    spouse and evidencing the former spouse's
                    agreement to a change in the election under
                    paragraph (1); and
                      [(ii) certifies to the Secretary concerned
                    that the statement is current and in effect.
      [(3)(A) If a person described in paragraph (2) or (3) of
    section 1448(b) of this title enters, incident to a proceeding
    of divorce, dissolution, or annulment, into a written agreement
    to elect under section 1448(b) of this title to provide an
    annuity to a former spouse and such agreement has been
    incorporated in or ratified or approved by a court order or has
    been filed with the court of appropriate jurisdiction in
    accordance with applicable State law, or if such person is
    required by a court order to make such an election and such
    person then fails or refuses to make such an election, such
    person shall be deemed to have made such an election if the
    Secretary concerned receives a written request, in such manner
    as the Secretary shall prescribe, from the former spouse
    concerned requesting that such an election be deemed to have
    been made and receives a copy of the court order, regular on
    its face, which requires such election or incorporates,
    ratifies, or approves the written agreement of such person or
    receives a statement from the clerk of the court (or other
    appropriate official) that such agreement has been filed with
    the court in accordance with applicable State law.
      [(B) An election may not be deemed to have been made under
    subparagraph (A) in the case of any person unless the Secretary
    concerned receives a request from the former spouse of the
    person within one year of the date of the court order or filing
    involved.
      [(C) An election deemed to have been made under subparagraph
    (A) shall become effective on the first day of the first month
    which begins after the date of the court order or filing
    involved.
      [(4) A court order may require a person to elect (or to enter
    into an agreement to elect) under section 1448(b) of this title
    to provide an annuity to a former spouse (or to both a former
    spouse and child).
      [(g) Except as provided in section 1449 of this title or in
    subsection (f) of this section, an election under this section
    may not be changed or revoked.
      [(h) Except as provided in section 1451 of this title, an
    annuity under this section is in addition to any other payment
    to which a person is entitled under any other provision of law.
    Such annuity shall be considered as income under laws
    administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
      [(i) Except as provided in subsection (l)(3)(B), an annuity
    under this section is not assignable or subject to execution,
    levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.
      [(j) An annuity elected by a person providing a reserve-
    component annuity shall be effective in accordance with the
    designation made by such person under section 1448(e) of this
    title. An annuity payable under section 1448(f) of this title
    shall be effective on the day after the date of the death of
    the person upon whose service the right to the annuity is
    based.
      [(k)(1) If a widow, widower, or former spouse whose annuity
    has been adjusted under subsection (c) subsequently loses
    entitlement to compensation under section 1311(a) of title 38
    because of the remarriage of such widow, widower, or former
    spouse, and if at the time of such remarriage such widow,
    widower, or former spouse is 55 years of age or more, the
    amount of the annuity of such widow, widower, or former spouse
    shall be readjusted, effective on the effective date of such
    loss of compensation, to the amount of the annuity which would
    be in effect with respect to such widow, widower, or former
    spouse if the adjustment under subsection (c) had never been
    made.
      [(2) A widow, widower, or former spouse whose annuity is
    readjusted under paragraph (1) shall repay any amount refunded
    under subsection (e) by reason of the adjustment under
    subsection (c). If the repayment is not made in a lump sum, the
    widow, widower, or former spouse shall pay interest on the
    amount to be repaid commencing on the date on which the first
    such payment is due and applied over the period during which
    any part of the repayment remains to be paid. The manner in
    which such repayment shall be made, and the rate of any such
    interest, shall be prescribed in regulations under section 1455
    of this title. An amount repaid under this paragraph (including
    any such interest) received by the Secretary of Defense shall
    be deposited into the Department of Defense Military Retirement
    Fund. Any other amount repaid under this paragraph shall be
    deposited into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
      [(l)(1) Upon application of the beneficiary of a participant
    in the Plan whose retired pay has been suspended on the basis
    that the participant is missing (or of a participant in the
    Plan who would be eligible for reserve-component retired pay
    but for the fact that he is under 60 years of age and whose
    retired pay, if he were entitled to retired pay, would be
    suspended on the basis that he is missing), the Secretary
    concerned may determine for purposes of this subchapter that
    the participant is presumed dead. Any such determination shall
    be made in accordance with regulations prescribed under section
    1455 of this title. The Secretary concerned may not make a
    determination for purposes of this subchapter that a
    participant is presumed dead unless he finds--
              [(A) that the participant has been missing for at
            least 30 days; and
              [(B) that the circumstances under which the
            participant is missing would lead a reasonably prudent
            person to conclude that the participant is dead.
      [(2) Upon a determination under paragraph (1) with respect to
    a participant in the Plan, an annuity otherwise payable under
    this subchapter shall be paid as if the participant died on the
    date as of which the retired pay of the participant was
    suspended.
      [(3)(A) If, after a determination under paragraph (1), the
    Secretary concerned determines that the participant is alive,
    any annuity being paid under this subchapter by reason of this
    subsection shall be terminated and the total amount of any
    annuity payments made by reason of this subsection shall
    constitute a debt to the United States which may be collected
    or offset--
              [(i) from any retired pay otherwise payable to the
            participant;
              [(ii) if the participant is entitled to compensation
            under chapter 11 of title 38, from that compensation;
            or
              [(iii) if the participant is entitled to any other
            payment from the United States, from that payment.
      [(B) If the participant dies before the full recovery of the
    amount of annuity payments described in subparagraph (A) has
    been made by the United States, the remaining amount of such
    annuity payments may be collected from his beneficiary under
    the Plan if that beneficiary was the recipient of the annuity
    payments made by reason of this subsection.

    [Sec. 1451. Amount of annuity

      [(a)(1) In the case of a standard annuity provided to a
    beneficiary under section 1450(a) of this title (other than
    under section 1450(a)(4)), the monthly annuity payable to the
    beneficiary shall be determined as follows:
              [(A) If the beneficiary is under 62 years of age or
            is a dependent child when becoming entitled to the
            annuity, the monthly annuity shall be the amount equal
            to 55 percent of the base amount.
              [(B) If the beneficiary (other than a dependent
            child) is 62 years of age or older when becoming
            entitled to the annuity, the monthly annuity shall be
            the amount equal to 35 percent of the base amount.
            However, if the beneficiary is eligible to have the
            annuity computed under subsection (e) and if, at the
            time the beneficiary becomes entitled to the annuity,
            computation of the annuity under that subsection is
            more favorable to the beneficiary, the annuity shall be
            computed under that subsection.
      [(2) In the case of a reserve-component annuity provided to a
    beneficiary under section 1450(a) of this title (other than
    under section 1450(a)(4)), the monthly annuity payable to the
    beneficiary shall be determined as follows:
              [(A) If the beneficiary is under 62 years of age or
            is a dependent child when becoming entitled to the
            annuity, the monthly annuity shall be the amount equal
            to a percentage of the base amount that--
                      [(i) is less than 55 percent; and
                      [(ii) is determined under subsection (f).
              [(B) If the beneficiary (other than a dependent
            child) is 62 years of age or older when becoming
            entitled to the annuity, the monthly annuity shall be
            the amount equal to a percentage of the base amount
            that--
                      [(i) is less than 35 percent; and
                      [(ii) is determined under subsection (f).
            However, if the beneficiary is eligible to have the
            annuity computed under subsection (e) and if, at the
            time the beneficiary becomes entitled to the annuity,
            computation of the annuity under that subsection is
            more favorable to the beneficiary, the annuity shall be
            computed under that subsection.
      [(b)(1) In the case of a standard annuity provided to a
    beneficiary under section 1450(a)(4) of this title, the monthly
    annuity payable to the beneficiary shall be the amount equal to
    55 percent of the retired pay of the person who elected to
    provide the annuity after the reduction in that pay in
    accordance with section 1452(c) of this title.
      [(2) In the case of a reserve-component annuity provided to a
    beneficiary under section 1450(a)(4) of this title, the monthly
    annuity payable to the beneficiary shall be the amount equal to
    a percentage of the retired pay of the person who elected to
    provide the annuity after the reduction in such pay in
    accordance with section 1452(c) of this title that--
              [(A) is less than 55 percent; and
              [(B) is determined under subsection (f).
      [(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2), a person--
              [(A) who provides an annuity that is determined in
            accordance with that paragraph;
              [(B) who dies before becoming 60 years of age; and
              [(C) who at the time of death is otherwise entitled
            to retired pay,
    shall be considered to have been entitled to retired pay at the
    time of death. The retired pay of such person for the purposes
    of such paragraph shall be computed on the basis of the rates
    of basic pay in effect on the date on which the annuity
    provided by such person is to become effective in accordance
    with the designation of such person under section 1448(e) of
    this title.
      [(c)(1) In the case of an annuity provided under section
    1448(d) or 1448(f) of this title, the amount of the annuity
    shall be determined as follows:
              [(A) If the person receiving the annuity is under 62
            years of age or is a dependent child when the member or
            former member dies, the monthly annuity shall be the
            amount equal to 55 percent of the retired pay to which
            the member or former member would have been entitled if
            the member or former member had been entitled to that
            pay based upon his years of active service when he
            died.
              [(B) If the person receiving the annuity (other than
            a dependent child) is 62 years of age or older when the
            member or former member dies, the monthly annuity shall
            be the amount equal to 35 percent of the retired pay to
            which the member or former member would have been
            entitled if the member or former member had been
            entitled to that pay based upon his years of active
            service when he died. However, if the beneficiary is
            eligible to have the annuity computed under subsection
            (e) and if, at the time the beneficiary becomes
            entitled to the annuity, computation of the annuity
            under that subsection is more favorable to the
            beneficiary, the annuity shall be computed under that
            subsection.
      [(2) An annuity computed under paragraph (1) that is paid to
    a surviving spouse shall be reduced by the amount of dependency
    and indemnity compensation to which the surviving spouse is
    entitled under section 1311(a) of title 38. Any such reduction
    shall be effective on the date of the commencement of the
    period of payment of such compensation under title 38.
      [(3) In the case of an annuity provided by reason of the
    service of a member described in section 1448(d)(1)(B) or
    1448(d)(1)(C) of this title who first became a member of a
    uniformed service before September 8, 1980, the retired pay to
    which the member would have been entitled when he died shall be
    determined for purposes of paragraph (1) based upon the rate of
    basic pay in effect at the time of death for the grade in which
    the member was serving at the time of death, unless (as
    determined by the Secretary concerned) the member would have
    been entitled to be retired in a higher grade.
      [(4) In the case of an annuity paid under section 1448(f) of
    this title by reason of the service of a person who first
    became a member of a uniformed service before September 8,
    1980, the retired pay of the person providing the annuity shall
    for the purposes of paragraph (1) be computed on the basis of
    the rates of basic pay in effect on the effective date of the
    annuity.
      [(d)(1) The annuity of a person whose annuity is computed
    under clause (A) of subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (c)(1) shall
    be reduced on the first day of the month after the month in
    which the person becomes 62 years of age.
      [(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the reduced
    amount of the annuity shall be the amount of the annuity that
    the person would be receiving on that date if the annuity had
    initially been computed under clause (B) of that subsection.
      [(B) In the case of a person eligible to have the annuity
    computed under subsection (e) and for whom, at the time the
    person becomes 62 years of age, an annuity computed with a
    reduction under subsection (e)(3) is more favorable than an
    annuity with a reduction described in subparagraph (A), the
    reduction in the annuity shall be computed in the same manner
    as a reduction under subsection (e)(3).
      [(e)(1) The following beneficiaries under the Plan are
    eligible to have an annuity under the Plan computed under this
    subsection:
              [(A) A beneficiary receiving an annuity under the
            Plan on October 1, 1985, as the widow, widower, or
            former spouse of the person providing the annuity.
              [(B) A spouse or former spouse beneficiary of a
            person who on October 1, 1985--
                      [(i) was a participant in the Plan;
                      [(ii) was entitled to retired pay or was
                    qualified for that pay except that he had not
                    applied for and been granted that pay; or
                      [(iii) would have been eligible for retired
                    pay under chapter 67 of this title but for the
                    fact that he was under 60 years of age.
      [(2) Subject to paragraph (3), an annuity computed under this
    subsection shall be determined as follows:
              [(A) In the case of a beneficiary of a standard
            annuity under section 1450(a) of this title, the
            annuity shall be the amount equal to 55 percent of the
            base amount.
              [(B) In the case of a beneficiary of a reserve-
            component annuity under section 1450(a) of this title,
            the annuity shall be the percentage of the base amount
            that--
                      [(i) is less than 55 percent; and
                      [(ii) is determined under subsection (f).
              [(C) In the case of a beneficiary of an annuity under
            section 1448(d) or 1448(f) of this title, the annuity
            shall be the amount equal to 55 percent of the retired
            pay of the person providing the annuity (as that pay is
            determined under subsection (c)).
      [(3) An annuity computed under this subsection shall be
    reduced by the lesser of--
              [(A) the amount of the survivor benefit, if any, to
            which the widow or widower or former spouse would be
            entitled under title II of the Social Security Act (42
            U.S.C. 401 et seq.) based solely upon service by the
            person concerned as described in section 210(l)(1) of
            such Act (42 U.S.C. 410(l)(1)) and calculated assuming
            that the person concerned lives to age 65; or
              [(B) 40 percent of the amount of the monthly annuity
            as determined under paragraph (2).
      [(4)(A) For the purpose of paragraph (3), a widow or widower
    or former spouse shall not be considered as entitled to a
    benefit under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
    401 et seq.) to the extent that such benefit has been offset by
    deductions under section 203 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 403) on
    account of work.
      [(B) In the computation of any reduction made under paragraph
    (3), there shall be excluded any period of service described in
    section 210(l)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
    410(l)(1))--
              [(i) which was performed after December 1, 1980; and
              [(ii) which involved periods of service of less than
            30 continuous days for which the person concerned is
            entitled to receive a refund under section 6413(c) of
            the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of the social
            security tax which the person had paid.
      [(f) The percentage to be applied in determining the amount
    of an annuity computed under subsection (a)(2), (b)(2), or
    (e)(2)(B) shall be determined under regulations prescribed by
    the Secretary of Defense. Such regulations shall be prescribed
    taking into consideration--
              [(1) the age of the person electing to provide the
            annuity at the time of such election;
              [(2) the difference in age between such person and
            the beneficiary of the annuity;
              [(3) whether such person provided for the annuity to
            become effective (in the event he died before becoming
            60 years of age) on the day after his death or on the
            60th anniversary of his birth;
              [(4) appropriate group annuity tables; and
              [(5) such other factors as the Secretary considers
            relevant.
      [(g)(1) Whenever retired pay is increased under section 1401a
    of this title (or any other provision of law), each annuity
    that is payable under the Plan shall be increased at the same
    time. The increase shall, in the case of any annuity, be by the
    same percent as the percent by which the retired pay of the
    person providing the annuity would have been increased at such
    time if the person were alive (and otherwise entitled to such
    pay). The amount of the increase shall be based on the monthly
    annuity payable before any reduction under section 1450(c) of
    this title or under subsection (c)(2).
      [(2) The monthly amount of an annuity payable under this
    subchapter, if not a multiple of $1, shall be rounded to the
    next lower multiple of $1.
      [(h)(1) Whenever retired pay is increased under section 1401a
    of this title (or any other provision of law), the base amount
    applicable to each participant in the Plan shall be increased
    at the same time. The increase shall be by the same percent as
    the percent by which the retired pay of the participant is
    increased.
      [(2) When the retired pay of a person who first became a
    member of a uniformed service on or after August 1, 1986, and
    who is a participant in the Plan is recomputed under section
    1410 of this title upon the person's becoming 62 years of age,
    the base amount applicable to that person shall be recomputed
    (effective on the effective date of the recomputation of such
    retired pay under section 1410 of this title) so as to be the
    amount equal to the amount of the base amount that would be in
    effect on that date if increases in such base amount under
    paragraph (1) had been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of
    section 1401a(b) of this title (rather than under paragraph (3)
    of that section).
      [(3) Computation of a member's retired pay for purposes of
    this section shall be made without regard to any reduction
    under section 1409(b)(2) of this title.
      [(i) In the case of an annuity under the Plan which is
    computed on the basis of the retired pay of a member or former
    member who would have been entitled to have that retired pay
    recomputed under section 1410 of this title upon attaining 62
    years of age, but who died before attaining such age, such
    annuity shall be recomputed, effective on the first day of the
    first month beginning after the date on which the member or
    former member would have attained 62 years of age, so as to be
    the amount equal to the amount of the annuity that would be in
    effect on that date if increases under subsection (h)(1) in the
    base amount applicable to that annuity to the time of the death
    of the member or former member, and increases in such annuity
    under subsection (g)(1), had been computed as provided in
    paragraph (2) of section 1401a(b) of this title (rather than
    under paragraph (3) of that section).

    [Sec. 1452. Reduction in retired pay

      [(a) Spouse and Former Spouse Annuities.--
              [(1) Required reduction in retired pay.--Except as
            provided in subsection (b), the retired pay of a
            participant in the Plan who is providing spouse
            coverage (as described in paragraph (5)) shall be
            reduced as follows:
                      [(A) Standard annuity.--If the annuity
                    coverage being provided is a standard annuity,
                    the reduction shall be as follows:
                              [(i) Disability and nonregular
                            service retirees.--In the case of a
                            person who is entitled to retired pay
                            under chapter 61 or chapter 67 of this
                            title, the reduction shall be in
                            whichever of the alternative reduction
                            amounts is more favorable to that
                            person.
                              [(ii) Members as of enactment of
                            flat-rate reduction.--In the case of a
                            person who first became a member of a
                            uniformed service before March 1, 1990,
                            the reduction shall be in whichever of
                            the alternative reduction amounts is
                            more favorable to that person.
                              [(iii) New entrants after enactment
                            of flat-rate reduction.--In the case of
                            a person who first becomes a member of
                            a uniformed service on or after March
                            1, 1990, and who is entitled to retired
                            pay under a provision of law other than
                            chapter 61 or chapter 67 \2\ of this
                            title, the reduction shall be in an
                            amount equal to 6\1/2\ percent of the
                            base amount.
                              [(iv) Alternative reduction
                            amounts.--For purposes of clauses (i)
                            and (ii), the alternative reduction
                            amounts are the following:
                                      [(I) An amount equal to 6\1/
                                    2\ percent of the base amount.
                                      [(II) An amount equal to 2\1/
                                    2\ percent of the first $337
                                    (as adjusted after November 1,
                                    1989, under paragraph (4)) of
                                    the base amount plus 10 percent
                                    of the remainder of the base
                                    amount.
                      [(B) Reserve-component annuity.--If the
                    annuity coverage being provided is a reserve-
                    component annuity, the reduction shall be in
                    whichever of the following amounts is more
                    favorable to that person:
                              [(i) An amount equal to 6\1/2\
                            percent of the base amount plus an
                            amount determined in accordance with
                            regulations prescribed by the Secretary
                            of Defense as a premium for the
                            additional coverage provided through
                            reserve-component annuity coverage
                            under the Plan.
                              [(ii) An amount equal to 2\1/2\
                            percent of the first $337 (as adjusted
                            after November 1, 1989, under paragraph
                            (4)) of the base amount plus 10 percent
                            of the remainder of the base amount
                            plus an amount determined in accordance
                            with regulations prescribed by the
                            Secretary of Defense as a premium for
                            the additional coverage provided
                            through reserve-component annuity
                            coverage under the Plan.
      [(2) If there is a dependent child as well as a spouse or
    former spouse, the amount prescribed under paragraph (1) shall
    be increased by an amount prescribed under regulations of the
    Secretary of Defense.
      [(3) The reduction in retired pay prescribed by paragraph (1)
    shall not be applicable during any month in which there is no
    eligible spouse or former spouse beneficiary.
      [(4)(A) Whenever there is an increase in the rates of basic
    pay of members of the uniformed services effective on or after
    October 1, 1985, amounts under paragraph (1) with respect to
    which the percentage factor of 2\1/2\ is applied shall be
    increased by the overall percentage of such increase in the
    rates of basic pay. The increase under the preceding sentence
    shall apply only with respect to persons whose retired pay is
    computed based on the rates of basic pay in effect on or after
    the date of such increase in rates of basic pay.
      [(B) In addition to the increase under paragraph (4)(A), the
    amounts under paragraph (1) with respect to which the
    percentage factor of 2\1/2\ is applied shall be further
    increased at the same time and by the same percentage as an
    increase in retired pay under section 1401a of this title
    effective on or after October 1, 1985. Such increase under the
    preceding sentence shall apply only with respect to persons who
    initially participate in the Plan on a date which is after both
    the effective date of such increase under section 1401a and the
    effective date of the rates of basic pay upon which their
    retired pay is computed.
      [(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a participant in the
    Plan who is providing spouse coverage is a participant who--
              [(A) has (i) a spouse or former spouse, or (ii) a
            spouse or former spouse and a dependent child; and
              [(B) has not elected to provide an annuity to a
            person designated by him under section 1448(b)(1) of
            this title or, having made such an election, has
            changed his election in favor of his spouse under
            section 1450(f) of this title.
      [(b) Child-Only Annuities.--
              [(1) Required reduction in retired pay.--The retired
            pay of a participant in the Plan who is providing
            child-only coverage (as described in paragraph (4))
            shall be reduced by an amount prescribed under
            regulations by the Secretary of Defense.
              [(2) No reduction when no child.--There shall be no
            reduction in retired pay under paragraph (1) for any
            month during which the participant has no eligible
            dependent child.
              [(3) Special rule for certain rcsbp participants.--In
            the case of a participant in the Plan who is
            participating in the Plan under an election under
            section 1448(a)(2)(B) of this title and who provided
            child-only coverage during a period before the
            participant becomes entitled to receive retired pay,
            the retired pay of the participant shall be reduced by
            an amount prescribed under regulations by the Secretary
            of Defense to reflect the coverage provided under the
            Plan during the period before the participant became
            entitled to receive retired pay. A reduction under this
            paragraph is in addition to any reduction under
            paragraph (1) and is made without regard to whether
            there is an eligible dependent child during a month for
            which the reduction is made.
              [(4) Child-only coverage defined.--For the purposes
            of this subsection, a participant in the Plan who is
            providing child-only coverage is a participant who has
            a dependent child and who--
                      [(A) does not have an eligible spouse or
                    former spouse; or
                      [(B) has a spouse or former spouse but has
                    elected to provide an annuity for dependent
                    children only.
      [(c) The retired pay of a person who has elected to provide
    an annuity to a person designated by him under section
    1450(a)(4) of this title shall be reduced--
              [(1) in the case of a person providing a standard
            annuity, by 10 percent plus 5 percent for each full
            five years the individual designated is younger than
            that person; or
              [(2) in the case of a person providing a reserve-
            component annuity, by an amount prescribed under
            regulations of the Secretary of Defense.
    However, the total reduction under clause (1) may not exceed 40
    percent. The reduction in retired pay prescribed by this
    subsection shall continue during the lifetime of the person
    designated under section 1450(a)(4) of this title or until the
    person receiving retired pay changes his election under section
    1450(f) of this title. Computation of a member's retired pay
    for purposes of this subsection shall be made without regard to
    any reduction under section 1409(b)(2) of this title.
      [(d) If a person who has elected to participate in the Plan
    has been awarded retired pay and is not entitled to that pay
    for any period, he must deposit in the Treasury the amount that
    would otherwise have been deducted from his pay for that
    period, except when he is called or ordered to active duty for
    a period of more than 30 days.
      [(e) When a person who has elected to participate in the Plan
    waives his retired pay for the purposes of subchapter III of
    chapter 83 of title 5, he shall not be required to make the
    deposit otherwise required by subsection (d) as long as that
    waiver is in effect unless, in accordance with section 8339(i)
    of title 5, he has notified the Office of Personnel Management
    that he does not desire any spouse surviving him to receive an
    annuity under section 8341(b) of title 5.
      [(f) Except as provided in section 1450(e) of this title, a
    person is not entitled to any refunds of amounts deducted from
    retired pay under this section unless the amounts were deducted
    through administrative error.
      [(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
    subchapter but subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), any person
    who has elected to participate in the Plan and who is suffering
    from a service-connected disability rated by the Department of
    Veterans Affairs as totally disabling and has suffered from
    such disability while so rated for a continuous period of 10 or
    more years (or, if so rated for a lesser period, has suffered
    from such disability while so rated for a continuous period of
    not less than 5 years from the date of such person's last
    discharge or release from active duty) may discontinue
    participation in the Plan by submitting to the Secretary
    concerned a request to discontinue participation in the Plan.
    Any such person's participation in the Plan shall be
    discontinued effective on the first day of the first month
    following the month in which a request under this paragraph is
    received by the Secretary concerned. Effective on such date,
    the Secretary concerned shall discontinue the reduction being
    made in such person's retired pay on account of participation
    in the Plan or, in the case of a person who has been required
    to make deposits in the Treasury on account of participation in
    the Plan, such person may discontinue making such deposits
    effective on such date. Any request under this paragraph to
    discontinue participation in the Plan shall be in such form and
    shall contain such information as the Secretary concerned may
    require by regulation.
      [(2) A person described in paragraph (1) may not discontinue
    participation in the Plan under such paragraph without the
    written consent of the beneficiary or beneficiaries of such
    person under the Plan.
      [(3) The Secretary concerned shall furnish promptly to each
    person who files a request under paragraph (1) to discontinue
    participation in the Plan a written statement of the advantages
    of participating in the Plan and the possible disadvantages of
    discontinuing participation. A person may withdraw a request
    made under paragraph (1) if it is withdrawn within 30 days
    after having been submitted to the Secretary concerned.
      [(4) Upon the death of any person described in paragraph (1)
    who has discontinued participation in the Plan in accordance
    with this subsection, any amounts deducted from the retired pay
    of the deceased under this section shall be refunded to the
    widow or widower.
      [(5) Any person described in paragraph (1) who had
    discontinued participation in the Plan may again elect to
    participate in the Plan if (A) at any time after having
    discontinued participation in the Plan the Department of
    Veterans Affairs reduces such person's service-connected
    disability rating to less than total, and (B) such person
    applies to the Secretary concerned, within such period of time
    after the reduction in such person's service-connected
    disability rating has been made as the Secretary concerned may
    prescribe, to again participate in the Plan and includes in
    such application such information as the Secretary concerned
    may require. Such person's participation in the Plan under this
    paragraph is effective beginning on the first day of the month
    after the month in which the Secretary concerned receives the
    application for resumption of participation in the Plan, and
    the Secretary concerned shall begin making reductions in such
    person's retired pay, or require such person to make deposits
    in the Treasury under subsection (d), as appropriate, effective
    on such day.
      [(h) Whenever retired pay is increased under section 1401a of
    this title (or any other provision of law), the amount of the
    reduction to be made under subsection (a) or (b) in the retired
    pay of any person shall be increased at the same time and by
    the same percentage as such retired pay is so increased.
      [(i) When the retired pay of a person who first became a
    member of a uniformed service on or after August 1, 1986, and
    who is a participant in the Plan is recomputed under section
    1410 of this title upon the person's becoming 62 years of age,
    the amount of the reduction in such retired pay under this
    section shall be recomputed (effective on the effective date of
    the recomputation of such retired pay under section 1410 of
    this title) so as to be the amount equal to the amount of such
    reduction that would be in effect on that date if increases in
    such retired pay under section 1401a(b) of this title, and
    increases in reductions in such retired pay under subsection
    (h), had been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of section
    1401a(b) of this title (rather than under paragraph (3) of that
    section).

    [Sec. 1453. Recovery of annuity erroneously paid

      [In addition to other methods of recovery provided by law,
    the Secretary concerned may authorize the recovery, by
    deduction from later payments to a person, of any amount
    erroneously paid to him under this subchapter. However,
    recovery is not required if, in the judgment of the Secretary
    concerned and the Comptroller General, there has been no fault
    by the person to whom the amount was erroneously paid and
    recovery would be contrary to the purposes of this subchapter
    or against equity and good conscience.

    [Sec. 1454. Correction of administrative errors

      [The Secretary concerned may, under regulations prescribed
    under section 1455 of this title, correct or revoke any
    election under this subchapter when he considers it necessary
    to correct an administrative error. Except when procured by
    fraud, a correction or revocation under this section is final
    and conclusive on all officers of the United States.

    [Sec. 1455. Regulations

      [(a) The President shall prescribe regulations to carry out
    this subchapter. Those regulations shall, so far as
    practicable, be uniform for the armed forces, the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Public Health
    Service. Those regulations shall--
              [(1) provide that before the date the member becomes
            entitled to retired pay--
                      [(A) if the member is married, the member and
                    the member's spouse shall be informed of the
                    elections available under section 1448(a) of
                    this title and the effects of such elections;
                    and
                      [(B) if the notification referred to in
                    section 1448(a)(3)(E) of this title is
                    required, any former spouse of the member shall
                    be informed of the elections available and the
                    effects of such elections; and
              [(2) establish procedures for depositing the amounts
            referred to in sections 1448(g), 1450(k)(2), and
            1452(d) of this title.
      [(b) The regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection (a)
    shall provide procedures for the payment of an annuity under
    this subchapter in the case of--
              [(1) a person for whom a guardian or other fiduciary
            has been appointed; and
              [(2) a minor, mentally incompetent, or otherwise
            legally disabled person for whom a guardian or other
            fiduciary has not been appointed.
      [(c) The regulations under subsection (b) may include
    provisions for the following:
              [(1) In the case of an annuitant referred to in
            subsection (b)(1), payment of the annuity to the
            appointed guardian or other fiduciary.
              [(2) In the case of an annuitant referred to in
            subsection (b)(2), payment of the annuity to any person
            who, in the judgment of the Secretary concerned, is
            responsible for the care of the annuitant.
              [(3) Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), a requirement
            for the payee of an annuity to spend or invest the
            amounts paid on behalf of the annuitant solely for
            benefit of the annuitant.
              [(4) Authority for the Secretary concerned to permit
            the payee to withhold from the annuity payment such
            amount, not in excess of 4 percent of the annuity, as
            the Secretary concerned considers a reasonable fee for
            the fiduciary services of the payee when a court
            appointment order provides for payment of such a fee to
            the payee for such services or the Secretary concerned
            determines that payment of a fee to such payee is
            necessary in order to obtain the fiduciary services of
            the payee.
              [(5) Authority for the Secretary concerned to require
            the payee to provide a surety bond in an amount
            sufficient to protect the interests of the annuitant
            and to pay for such bond out of the annuity.
              [(6) A requirement for the payee of an annuity to
            maintain and, upon request, to provide to the Secretary
            concerned an accounting of expenditures and investments
            of amounts paid to the payee.
              [(7) In the case of an annuitant referred to in
            subsection (b)(2)--
                      [(A) procedures for determining incompetency
                    and for selecting a payee to represent the
                    annuitant for the purposes of this section,
                    including provisions for notifying the
                    annuitant of the actions being taken to make
                    such a determination and to select a
                    representative payee, an opportunity for the
                    annuitant to review the evidence being
                    considered, and an opportunity for the
                    annuitant to submit additional evidence before
                    the determination is made; and
                      [(B) standards for determining incompetency,
                    including standards for determining the
                    sufficiency of medical evidence and other
                    evidence.
              [(8) Provisions for any other matters that the
            President considers appropriate in connection with the
            payment of an annuity in the case of a person referred
            to in subsection (b).
      [(d) An annuity paid to a person on behalf of an annuitant in
    accordance with the regulations prescribed pursuant to
    subsection (b) discharges the obligation of the United States
    for payment to the annuitant of the amount of the annuity so
    paid.]

                      SUBCHAPTER II--SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN

    Sec.
    1447. Definitions.
    1448. Application of Plan.
    1449. Mental incompetency of member.
    1450. Payment of annuity: beneficiaries.
    1451. Amount of annuity.
    1452. Reduction in retired pay.
    1453. Recovery of amounts erroneously paid.
    1454. Correction of administrative errors.
    1455. Regulations.

    Sec. 1447. Definitions

      In this subchapter:
              (1) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the Survivor
            Benefit Plan established by this subchapter.
              (2) Standard annuity.--The term ``standard annuity''
            means an annuity provided by virtue of eligibility
            under section 1448(a)(1)(A) of this title.
              (3) Reserve-component annuity.--The term ``reserve-
            component annuity'' means an annuity provided by virtue
            of eligibility under section 1448(a)(1)(B) of this
            title.
              (4) Retired pay.--The term ``retired pay'' includes
            retainer pay paid under section 6330 of this title.
              (5) Reserve-component retired pay.--The term
            ``reserve-component retired pay'' means retired pay
            under chapter 1223 of this title (or under chapter 67
            of this title as in effect before the effective date of
            the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act).
              (6) Base amount.--The term ``base amount'' means the
            following:
                      (A) Full amount under standard annuity.--In
                    the case of a person who dies after becoming
                    entitled to retired pay, such term means the
                    amount of monthly retired pay (determined
                    without regard to any reduction under section
                    1409(b)(2) of this title) to which the person--
                              (i) was entitled when he became
                            eligible for that pay; or
                              (ii) later became entitled by being
                            advanced on the retired list,
                            performing active duty, or being
                            transferred from the temporary
                            disability retired list to the
                            permanent disability retired list.
                      (B) Full amount under reserve-component
                    annuity.--In the case of a person who would
                    have become eligible for reserve-component
                    retired pay but for the fact that he died
                    before becoming 60 years of age, such term
                    means the amount of monthly retired pay for
                    which the person would have been eligible--
                              (i) if he had been 60 years of age on
                            the date of his death, for purposes of
                            an annuity to become effective on the
                            day after his death in accordance with
                            a designation made under section
                            1448(e) of this title.
                              (ii) upon becoming 60 years of age
                            (if he had lived to that age), for
                            purposes of an annuity to become
                            effective on the 60th anniversary of
                            his birth in accordance with a
                            designation made under section 1448(e)
                            of this title.
                      (C) Reduced amount.--Such term means any
                    amount less than the amount otherwise
                    applicable under subparagraph (A) or (B) with
                    respect to an annuity provided under the Plan
                    but which is not less than $300 and which is
                    designated by the person (with the concurrence
                    of the person's spouse, if required under
                    section 1448(a)(3) of this title) providing the
                    annuity on or before--
                              (i) the first day for which he
                            becomes eligible for retired pay, in
                            the case of a person providing a
                            standard annuity, or
                              (ii) the end of the 90-day period
                            beginning on the date on which he
                            receives the notification required by
                            section 12731(d) of this title that he
                            has completed the years of service
                            required for eligibility for reserve-
                            component retired pay, in the case of a
                            person providing a reserve-component
                            annuity.
              (7) Widow.--The term ``widow'' means the surviving
            wife of a person who, if not married to the person at
            the time he became eligible for retired pay--
                      (A) was married to the person for at least
                    one year immediately before the person's death;
                    or
                      (B) is the mother of issue by that marriage.
              (8) Widower.--The term ``widower'' means the
            surviving husband of a person who, if not married to
            the person at the time she became eligible for retired
            pay--
                      (A) was married to her for at least one year
                    immediately before her death; or
                      (B) is the father of issue by that marriage.
              (9) Surviving spouse.--The term ``surviving spouse''
            means a widow or widower.
              (10) Former spouse.--The term ``former spouse'' means
            the surviving former husband or wife of a person who is
            eligible to participate in the Plan.
              (11) Dependent child.--
                      (A) In general.--The term ``dependent child''
                    means a person who--
                              (i) is unmarried;
                              (ii) is (I) under 18 years of age,
                            (II) at least 18, but under 22, years
                            of age and pursuing a full-time course
                            of study or training in a high school,
                            trade school, technical or vocational
                            institute, junior college, college,
                            university, or comparable recognized
                            educational institution, or (III)
                            incapable of self support because of a
                            mental or physical incapacity existing
                            before the person's eighteenth birthday
                            or incurred on or after that birthday,
                            but before the person's twenty-second
                            birthday, while pursuing such a full-
                            time course of study or training; and
                              (iii) is the child of a person to
                            whom the Plan applies, including (I) an
                            adopted child, and (II) a stepchild,
                            foster child, or recognized natural
                            child who lived with that person in a
                            regular parent-child relationship.
                      (B) Special rules for college students.--For
                    the purpose of subparagraph (A), a child whose
                    twenty-second birthday occurs before July 1 or
                    after August 31 of a calendar year, and while
                    regularly pursuing such a course of study or
                    training, is considered to have become 22 years
                    of age on the first day of July after that
                    birthday. A child who is a student is
                    considered not to have ceased to be a student
                    during an interim between school years if the
                    interim is not more than 150 days and if the
                    child shows to the satisfaction of the
                    Secretary of Defense that the child has a bona
                    fide intention of continuing to pursue a course
                    of study or training in the same or a different
                    school during the school semester (or other
                    period into which the school year is divided)
                    immediately after the interim.
                      (C) Foster children.--A foster child, to
                    qualify under this paragraph as the dependent
                    child of a person to whom the Plan applies,
                    must, at the time of the death of that person,
                    also reside with, and receive over one-half of
                    his support from, that person, and not be cared
                    for under a social agency contract. The
                    temporary absence of a foster child from the
                    residence of that person, while a student as
                    described in this paragraph, shall not be
                    considered to affect the residence of such a
                    foster child.
              (12) Court.--The term ``court'' has the meaning given
            that term by section 1408(a)(1) of this title.
              (13) Court order.--
                      (A) In general.--The term ``court order''
                    means a court's final decree of divorce,
                    dissolution, or annulment or a court ordered,
                    ratified, or approved property settlement
                    incident to such a decree (including a final
                    decree modifying the terms of a previously
                    issued decree of divorce, dissolution,
                    annulment, or legal separation, or of a court
                    ordered, ratified, or approved property
                    settlement agreement incident to such
                    previously issued decree).
                      (B) Final decree.--The term ``final decree''
                    means a decree from which no appeal may be
                    taken or from which no appeal has been taken
                    within the time allowed for the taking of such
                    appeals under the laws applicable to such
                    appeals, or a decree from which timely appeal
                    has been taken and such appeal has been finally
                    decided under the laws applicable to such
                    appeals.
                      (C) Regular on its face.--The term ``regular
                    on its face'', when used in connection with a
                    court order, means a court order that meets the
                    conditions prescribed in section 1408(b)(2) of
                    this title.

    Sec. 1448. Application of plan

      (a) General Rules for Participation in the Plan.--
              (1) Name of plan; eligible participants.--The program
            established by this subchapter shall be known as the
            Survivor Benefit Plan. The following persons are
            eligible to participate in the Plan:
                      (A) Persons entitled to retired pay.
                      (B) Persons who would be eligible for
                    reserve-component retired pay but for the fact
                    that they are under 60 years of age.
              (2) Participants in the plan.--The Plan applies to
            the following persons, who shall be participants in the
            Plan:
                      (A) Standard annuity participants.--A person
                    who is eligible to participate in the Plan
                    under paragraph (1)(A) and who is married or
                    has a dependent child when he becomes entitled
                    to retired pay, unless he elects (with his
                    spouse's concurrence, if required under
                    paragraph (3)) not to participate in the Plan
                    before the first day for which he is eligible
                    for that pay.
                      (B) Reserve-component annuity participants.--
                    A person who (i) is eligible to participate in
                    the Plan under paragraph (1)(B), (ii) is
                    married or has a dependent child when he is
                    notified under section 12731(d) of this title
                    that he has completed the years of service
                    required for eligibility for reserve-component
                    retired pay, and (iii) elects to participate in
                    the Plan (and makes a designation under
                    subsection (e)) before the end of the 90-day
                    period beginning on the date he receives such
                    notification.
            A person described in clauses (i) and (ii) of
            subparagraph (B) who does not elect to participate in
            the Plan before the end of the 90-day period referred
            to in that clause remains eligible, upon reaching 60
            years of age and otherwise becoming entitled to retired
            pay, to participate in the Plan in accordance with
            eligibility under paragraph (1)(A).
              (3) Elections.--
                      (A) Spousal consent for certain elections
                    respecting standard annuity.--A married person
                    who is eligible to provide a standard annuity
                    may not without the concurrence of the person's
                    spouse elect--
                              (i) not to participate in the Plan;
                              (ii) to provide an annuity for the
                            person's spouse at less than the
                            maximum level; or
                              (iii) to provide an annuity for a
                            dependent child but not for the
                            person's spouse.
                      (B) Spousal consent for certain elections
                    respecting reserve-component annuity.--A
                    married person who elects to provide a reserve-
                    component annuity may not without the
                    concurrence of the person's spouse elect--
                              (i) to provide an annuity for the
                            person's spouse at less than the
                            maximum level; or
                              (ii) to provide an annuity for a
                            dependent child but not for the
                            person's spouse.
                      (C) Exception when spouse unavailable.--A
                    person may make an election described in
                    subparagraph (A) or (B) without the concurrence
                    of the person's spouse if the person
                    establishes to the satisfaction of the
                    Secretary concerned--
                              (i) that the spouse's whereabouts
                            cannot be determined; or
                              (ii) that, due to exceptional
                            circumstances, requiring the person to
                            seek the spouse's consent would
                            otherwise be inappropriate.
                      (D) Construction with former spouse election
                    provisions.--This paragraph does not affect any
                    right or obligation to elect to provide an
                    annuity for a former spouse (or for a former
                    spouse and dependent child) under subsection
                    (b)(2).
                      (E) Notice to spouse of election to provide
                    former spouse annuity.--If a married person who
                    is eligible to provide a standard annuity
                    elects to provide an annuity for a former
                    spouse (or for a former spouse and dependent
                    child) under subsection (b)(2), that person's
                    spouse shall be notified of that election.
              (4) Irrevocability of elections.--
                      (A) Standard annuity.--An election under
                    paragraph (2)(A) not to participate in the Plan
                    is irrevocable if not revoked before the date
                    on which the person first becomes entitled to
                    retired pay.
                      (B) Reserve-component annuity.--An election
                    under paragraph (2)(B) to participate in the
                    Plan is irrevocable if not revoked before the
                    end of the 90-day period referred to in that
                    paragraph.
              (5) Participation by person marrying after
            retirement, etc.--
                      (A) Election to participate in plan.--A
                    person who is not married and has no dependent
                    child upon becoming eligible to participate in
                    the Plan but who later marries or acquires a
                    dependent child may elect to participate in the
                    Plan.
                      (B) Manner and time of election.--Such an
                    election must be written, signed by the person
                    making the election, and received by the
                    Secretary concerned within one year after the
                    date on which that person marries or acquires
                    that dependent child.
                      (C) Limitation on revocation of election.--
                    Such an election may not be revoked except in
                    accordance with subsection (b)(3).
                      (D) Effective date of election.--The election
                    is effective as of the first day of the first
                    calendar month following the month in which the
                    election is received by the Secretary
                    concerned.
                      (E) Designation if rcsbp election.--In the
                    case of a person providing a reserve-component
                    annuity, such an election shall include a
                    designation under subsection (e).
              (6) Election out of plan by person with spouse
            coverage who remarries.--
                      (A) General rule.--A person--
                              (i) who is a participant in the Plan
                            and is providing coverage under the
                            Plan for a spouse (or a spouse and
                            child);
                              (ii) who does not have an eligible
                            spouse beneficiary under the Plan; and
                              (iii) who remarries,
                    may elect not to provide coverage under the
                    Plan for the person's spouse.
                      (B) Effect of election on retired pay.--If
                    such an election is made, reductions in the
                    retired pay of that person under section 1452
                    of this title shall not be made.
                      (C) Terms and conditions of election.--An
                    election under this paragraph--
                              (i) is irrevocable;
                              (ii) shall be made within one year
                            after the person's remarriage; and
                              (iii) shall be made in such form and
                            manner as may be prescribed in
                            regulations under section 1455 of this
                            title.
                      (D) Notice to spouse.--If a person makes an
                    election under this paragraph--
                              (i) not to participate in the Plan;
                              (ii) to provide an annuity for the
                            person's spouse at less than the
                            maximum level; or
                              (iii) to provide an annuity for a
                            dependent child but not for the
                            person's spouse,
                    the person's spouse shall be notified of that
                    election.
                      (E) Construction with former spouse election
                    provisions.--This paragraph does not affect any
                    right or obligation to elect to provide an
                    annuity to a former spouse under subsection
                    (b).
      (b) Insurable Interest and Former Spouse Coverage.--
              (1) Coverage for person with insurable interest.--
                      (A) General rule.--A person who is not
                    married and does not have a dependent child
                    upon becoming eligible to participate in the
                    Plan may elect to provide an annuity under the
                    Plan to a natural person with an insurable
                    interest in that person. In the case of a
                    person providing a reserve-component annuity,
                    such an election shall include a designation
                    under subsection (e).
                      (B) Termination of coverage.--An election
                    under subparagraph (A) for a beneficiary who is
                    not the former spouse of the person providing
                    the annuity may be terminated. Any such
                    termination shall be made by a participant by
                    the submission to the Secretary concerned of a
                    request to discontinue participation in the
                    Plan, and such participation in the Plan shall
                    be discontinued effective on the first day of
                    the first month following the month in which
                    the request is received by the Secretary
                    concerned. Effective on such date, the
                    Secretary concerned shall discontinue the
                    reduction being made in such person's retired
                    pay on account of participation in the Plan or,
                    in the case of a person who has been required
                    to make deposits in the Treasury on account of
                    participation in the Plan, such person may
                    discontinue making such deposits effective on
                    such date.
                      (C) Form for discontinuation.--A request
                    under subparagraph (B) to discontinue
                    participation in the Plan shall be in such form
                    and shall contain such information as may be
                    required under regulations prescribed by the
                    Secretary of Defense.
                      (D) Withdrawal of request for
                    discontinuation.--The Secretary concerned shall
                    furnish promptly to each person who submits a
                    request under subparagraph (B) to discontinue
                    participation in the Plan a written statement
                    of the advantages and disadvantages of
                    participating in the Plan and the possible
                    disadvantages of discontinuing participation. A
                    person may withdraw the request to discontinue
                    participation if withdrawn within 30 days after
                    having been submitted to the Secretary
                    concerned.
                      (E) Consequences of discontinuation.--Once
                    participation is discontinued, benefits may not
                    be paid in conjunction with the earlier
                    participation in the Plan and premiums paid may
                    not be refunded. Participation in the Plan may
                    not later be resumed except through a qualified
                    election under paragraph (5) of subsection (a).
              (2) Former spouse coverage upon becoming a
            participant in the plan.--
                      (A) General rule.--A person who has a former
                    spouse upon becoming eligible to participate in
                    the Plan may elect to provide an annuity to
                    that former spouse.
                      (B) Effect of former spouse election on
                    spouse or dependent child.--In the case of a
                    person with a spouse or a dependent child, such
                    an election prevents payment of an annuity to
                    that spouse or child (other than a child who is
                    a beneficiary under an election under paragraph
                    (4)), including payment under subsection (d).
                      (C) Designation if more than one former
                    spouse.--If there is more than one former
                    spouse, the person shall designate which former
                    spouse is to be provided the annuity.
                      (D) Designation if rcsbp election.--In the
                    case of a person providing a reserve-component
                    annuity, such an election shall include a
                    designation under subsection (e).
              (3) Former spouse coverage by persons already
            participating in plan.--
                      (A) Election of coverage.--
                              (i) Authority for election.--A
                            person--
                                      (I) who is a participant in
                                    the Plan and is providing
                                    coverage for a spouse or a
                                    spouse and child (even though
                                    there is no beneficiary
                                    currently eligible for such
                                    coverage), and
                                      (II) who has a former spouse
                                    who was not that person's
                                    former spouse when that person
                                    became eligible to participate
                                    in the Plan,
                            may (subject to subparagraph (B)) elect
                            to provide an annuity to that former
                            spouse.
                              (ii) Termination of previous
                            coverage.--Any such election terminates
                            any previous coverage under the Plan.
                              (iii) Manner and time of election.--
                            Any such election must be written,
                            signed by the person making the
                            election, and received by the Secretary
                            concerned within one year after the
                            date of the decree of divorce,
                            dissolution, or annulment.
                      (B) Limitation on election.--A person may not
                    make an election under subparagraph (A) to
                    provide an annuity to a former spouse who that
                    person married after becoming eligible for
                    retired pay unless--
                              (i) the person was married to that
                            former spouse for at least one year, or
                              (ii) that former spouse is the parent
                            of issue by that marriage.
                      (C) Irrevocability, effective date, etc.--An
                    election under this paragraph may not be
                    revoked except in accordance with section
                    1450(f) of this title. Such an election is
                    effective as of the first day of the first
                    calendar month following the month in which it
                    is received by the Secretary concerned. This
                    paragraph does not provide the authority to
                    change a designation previously made under
                    subsection (e).
                      (D) Notice to spouse.--If a person who is
                    married makes an election to provide an annuity
                    to a former spouse under this paragraph, that
                    person's spouse shall be notified of the
                    election.
              (4) Former spouse and child coverage.--A person who
            elects to provide an annuity for a former spouse under
            paragraph (2) or (3) may, at the time of the election,
            elect to provide coverage under that annuity for both
            the former spouse and a dependent child, if the child
            resulted from the person's marriage to that former
            spouse.
              (5) Disclosure of whether election of former spouse
            coverage is required.--A person who elects to provide
            an annuity to a former spouse under paragraph (2) or
            (3) shall, at the time of making the election, provide
            the Secretary concerned with a written statement (in a
            form to be prescribed by that Secretary and signed by
            such person and the former spouse) setting forth--
                      (A) whether the election is being made
                    pursuant to the requirements of a court order;
                    or
                      (B) whether the election is being made
                    pursuant to a written agreement previously
                    entered into voluntarily by such person as a
                    part of or incident to a proceeding of divorce,
                    dissolution, or annulment and (if so) whether
                    such voluntary written agreement has been
                    incorporated in, or ratified or approved by, a
                    court order.
      (c) Persons on Temporary Disability Retired List.--The
    application of the Plan to a person whose name is on the
    temporary disability retired list terminates when his name is
    removed from that list and he is no longer entitled to
    disability retired pay.
      (d) Coverage for Survivors of Retirement-Eligible Members Who
    Die on Active Duty.--
              (1) Surviving spouse annuity.--The Secretary
            concerned shall pay an annuity under this subchapter to
            the surviving spouse of a member who dies on active
            duty after--
                      (A) becoming eligible to receive retired pay;
                      (B) qualifying for retired pay except that he
                    has not applied for or been granted that pay;
                    or
                      (C) completing 20 years of active service but
                    before he is eligible to retire as a
                    commissioned officer because he has not
                    completed 10 years of active commissioned
                    service.
              (2) Dependent child annuity.--The Secretary concerned
            shall pay an annuity under this subchapter to the
            dependent child of a member described in paragraph (1)
            if there is no surviving spouse or if the member's
            surviving spouse subsequently dies.
              (3) Mandatory former spouse annuity.--If a member
            described in paragraph (1) is required under a court
            order or spousal agreement to provide an annuity to a
            former spouse upon becoming eligible to be a
            participant in the Plan or has made an election under
            subsection (b) to provide an annuity to a former
            spouse, the Secretary--
                      (A) may not pay an annuity under paragraph
                    (1) or (2); but
                      (B) shall pay an annuity to that former
                    spouse as if the member had been a participant
                    in the Plan and had made an election under
                    subsection (b) to provide an annuity to the
                    former spouse, or in accordance with that
                    election, as the case may be, if the Secretary
                    receives a written request from the former
                    spouse concerned that the election be deemed to
                    have been made in the same manner as provided
                    in section 1450(f)(3) of this title.
              (4) Priority.--An annuity that may be provided under
            this subsection shall be provided in preference to an
            annuity that may be provided under any other provision
            of this subchapter on account of service of the same
            member.
              (5) Computation.--The amount of an annuity under this
            subsection is computed under section 1451(c) of this
            title.
      (e) Designation for Commencement of Reserve-Component
    Annuity.--In any case in which a person electing to participate
    in the Plan is required to make a designation under this
    subsection, the person making such election shall designate
    whether, in the event he dies before becoming 60 years of age,
    the annuity provided shall become effective on--
              (1) the day after the date of his death; or
              (2) the 60th anniversary of his birth.
      (f) Coverage of Survivors of Persons Dying When Eligible To
    Elect Reserve-Component Annuity.--
              (1) Surviving spouse annuity.--The Secretary
            concerned shall pay an annuity under this subchapter to
            the surviving spouse of a person who is eligible to
            provide a reserve-component annuity and who dies--
                      (A) before being notified under section
                    12731(d) of this title that he has completed
                    the years of service required for eligibility
                    for reserve-component retired pay; or
                      (B) during the 90-day period beginning on the
                    date he receives notification under section
                    12731(d) of this title that he has completed
                    the years of service required for eligibility
                    for reserve-component retired pay if he had not
                    made an election under subsection (a)(2)(B) to
                    participate in the Plan.
              (2) Dependent child annuity.--The Secretary concerned
            shall pay an annuity under this subchapter to the
            dependent child of a person described in paragraph (1)
            if there is no surviving spouse or if the person's
            surviving spouse subsequently dies.
              (3) Mandatory former spouse annuity.--If a person
            described in paragraph (1) is required under a court
            order or spousal agreement to provide an annuity to a
            former spouse upon becoming eligible to be a
            participant in the Plan or has made an election under
            subsection (b) to provide an annuity to a former
            spouse, the Secretary--
                      (A) may not pay an annuity under paragraph
                    (1) or (2); but
                      (B) shall pay an annuity to that former
                    spouse as if the person had been a participant
                    in the Plan and had made an election under
                    subsection (b) to provide an annuity to the
                    former spouse, or in accordance with that
                    election, as the case may be, if the Secretary
                    receives a written request from the former
                    spouse concerned that the election be deemed to
                    have been made in the same manner as provided
                    in section 1450(f)(3) of this title.
              (4) Computation.--The amount of an annuity under this
            subsection is computed under section 1451(c) of this
            title.
      (g) Election To Increase Coverage Upon Remarriage.--
              (1) Election.--A person--
                      (A) who is a participant in the Plan and is
                    providing coverage under subsection (a) for a
                    spouse or a spouse and child, but at less than
                    the maximum level; and
                      (B) who remarries,
            may elect, within one year of such remarriage, to
            increase the level of coverage provided under the Plan
            to a level not in excess of the current retired pay of
            that person.
              (2) Payment required.--Such an election shall be
            contingent on the person paying to the United States
            the amount determined under paragraph (3) plus interest
            on such amount at a rate determined under regulations
            prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
              (3) Amount to be paid.--The amount referred to in
            paragraph (2) is the amount equal to the difference
            between--
                      (A) the amount that would have been withheld
                    from such person's retired pay under section
                    1452 of this title if the higher level of
                    coverage had been in effect from the time the
                    person became a participant in the Plan; and
                      (B) the amount of such person's retired pay
                    actually withheld.
              (4) Manner of making election.--An election under
            paragraph (1) shall be made in such manner as the
            Secretary shall prescribe and shall become effective
            upon receipt of the payment required by paragraph (2).
              (5) Disposition of payments.--A payment received
            under this subsection by the Secretary of Defense shall
            be deposited into the Department of Defense Military
            Retirement Fund. Any other payment received under this
            subsection shall be deposited in the Treasury as
            miscellaneous receipts.

    Sec. 1449. Mental incompetency of member

      (a) Election by Secretary Concerned on Behalf of Mentally
    Incompetent Member.--If a person to whom section 1448 of this
    title applies is determined to be mentally incompetent by
    medical officers of the armed force concerned or of the
    Department of Veterans Affairs, or by a court of competent
    jurisdiction, an election described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)
    of section 1448 of this title may be made on behalf of that
    person by the Secretary concerned.
      (b) Revocation of Election by Member.--
              (1) Authority upon subsequent determination of mental
            competence.--If a person for whom the Secretary has
            made an election under subsection (a) is later
            determined to be mentally competent by an authority
            named in that subsection, that person may, within 180
            days after that determination, revoke that election.
              (2) Deductions from retired pay not to be refunded.--
            Any deduction made from retired pay by reason of such
            an election may not be refunded.

    Sec. 1450. Payment of annuity: beneficiaries

      (a) In General.--Effective as of the first day after the
    death of a person to whom section 1448 of this title applies
    (or on such other day as that person may provide under
    subsection (j)), a monthly annuity under section 1451 of this
    title shall be paid to the person's beneficiaries under the
    Plan, as follows:
              (1) Surviving spouse or former spouse.--The eligible
            surviving spouse or the eligible former spouse.
              (2) Surviving children.--The surviving dependent
            children in equal shares, if the eligible surviving
            spouse or the eligible former spouse is dead, dies, or
            otherwise becomes ineligible under this section.
              (3) Dependent children.--The dependent children in
            equal shares if the person to whom section 1448 of this
            title applies (with the concurrence of the person's
            spouse, if required under section 1448(a)(3) of this
            title) elected to provide an annuity for dependent
            children but not for the spouse or former spouse.
              (4) Natural person designated under ``insurable
            interest'' coverage.--The natural person designated
            under section 1448(b)(1) of this title, unless the
            election to provide an annuity to the natural person
            has been changed as provided in subsection (f).
      (b) Termination of Annuity for Death, Remarriage Before Age
    55, Etc.--
              (1) General rule.--An annuity payable to the
            beneficiary terminates effective as of the first day of
            the month in which eligibility is lost.
              (2) Termination of spouse annuity upon death or
            remarriage before age 55.--An annuity for a surviving
            spouse or former spouse shall be paid to the surviving
            spouse or former spouse while the surviving spouse or
            former spouse is living or, if the surviving spouse or
            former spouse remarries before reaching age 55, until
            the surviving spouse or former spouse remarries.
              (3) Effect of termination of subsequent marriage
            before age 55.--If the surviving spouse or former
            spouse remarries before reaching age 55 and that
            marriage is terminated by death, annulment, or divorce,
            payment of the annuity shall be resumed effective as of
            the first day of the month in which the marriage is so
            terminated. However, if the surviving spouse or former
            spouse is also entitled to an annuity under the Plan
            based upon the marriage so terminated, the surviving
            spouse or former spouse may not receive both annuities
            but must elect which to receive.
      (c) Offset for Amount of Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation.--
              (1) Required offset.--If, upon the death of a person
            to whom section 1448 of this title applies, the
            surviving spouse or former spouse of that person is
            also entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation
            under section 1311(a) of title 38, the surviving spouse
            or former spouse may be paid an annuity under this
            section, but only in the amount that the annuity
            otherwise payable under this section would exceed that
            compensation.
              (2) Effective date of offset.--A reduction in an
            annuity under this section required by paragraph (1)
            shall be effective on the date of the commencement of
            the period of payment of such dependency and indemnity
            compensation under title 38.
      (d) Limitation on Payment of Annuities When Coverage Under
    Civil Service Retirement Elected.--If, upon the death of a
    person to whom section 1448 of this title applies, that person
    had in effect a waiver of that person's retired pay for the
    purposes of subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, an annuity
    under this section shall not be payable unless, in accordance
    with section 8339(j) of title 5, that person notified the
    Office of Personnel Management that he did not desire any
    spouse surviving him to receive an annuity under section
    8341(b) of that title.
      (e) Refund of Amounts Deducted From Retired Pay When DIC
    Offset Is Applicable.--
              (1) Full refund when dic greater than sbp annuity.--
            If an annuity under this section is not payable because
            of subsection (c), any amount deducted from the retired
            pay of the deceased under section 1452 of this title
            shall be refunded to the surviving spouse or former
            spouse.
              (2) Partial refund when sbp annuity reduced by dic.--
            If, because of subsection (c), the annuity payable is
            less than the amount established under section 1451 of
            this title, the annuity payable shall be recalculated
            under that section. The amount of the reduction in the
            retired pay required to provide that recalculated
            annuity shall be computed under section 1452 of this
            title, and the difference between the amount deducted
            before the computation of that recalculated annuity and
            the amount that would have been deducted on the basis
            of that recalculated annuity shall be refunded to the
            surviving spouse or former spouse.
      (f) Change in Election of Insurable Interest or Former Spouse
    Beneficiary.--
              (1) Authorized changes.--
                      (A) Election in favor of spouse or child.--A
                    person who elects to provide an annuity to a
                    person designated by him under section 1448(b)
                    of this title may, subject to paragraph (2),
                    change that election and provide an annuity to
                    his spouse or dependent child.
                      (B) Notice.--The Secretary concerned shall
                    notify the former spouse or other natural
                    person previously designated under section
                    1448(b) of this title of any change of election
                    under subparagraph (A).
                      (C) Procedures, effective date, etc.--Any
                    such change of election is subject to the same
                    rules with respect to execution, revocation,
                    and effectiveness as are set forth in section
                    1448(a)(5) of this title (without regard to the
                    eligibility of the person making the change of
                    election to make such an election under that
                    section).
              (2) Limitation on change in beneficiary when former
            spouse coverage in effect.--A person who, incident to a
            proceeding of divorce, dissolution, or annulment, is
            required by a court order to elect under section
            1448(b) of this title to provide an annuity to a former
            spouse (or to both a former spouse and child), or who
            enters into a written agreement (whether voluntary or
            required by a court order) to make such an election,
            and who makes an election pursuant to such order or
            agreement, may not change that election under paragraph
            (1) unless, of the following requirements, whichever
            are applicable in a particular case are satisfied:
                      (A) In a case in which the election is
                    required by a court order, or in which an
                    agreement to make the election has been
                    incorporated in or ratified or approved by a
                    court order, the person--
                              (i) furnishes to the Secretary
                            concerned a certified copy of a court
                            order which is regular on its face and
                            which modifies the provisions of all
                            previous court orders relating to such
                            election, or the agreement to make such
                            election, so as to permit the person to
                            change the election; and
                              (ii) certifies to the Secretary
                            concerned that the court order is valid
                            and in effect.
                      (B) In a case of a written agreement that has
                    not been incorporated in or ratified or
                    approved by a court order, the person--
                              (i) furnishes to the Secretary
                            concerned a statement, in such form as
                            the Secretary concerned may prescribe,
                            signed by the former spouse and
                            evidencing the former spouse's
                            agreement to a change in the election
                            under paragraph (1); and
                              (ii) certifies to the Secretary
                            concerned that the statement is current
                            and in effect.
              (3) Required former spouse election to be deemed to
            have been made.--
                      (A) Deemed election upon request by former
                    spouse.--If a person described in paragraph (2)
                    or (3) of section 1448(b) of this title is
                    required (as described in subparagraph (B)) to
                    elect under section 1448(b) of this title to
                    provide an annuity to a former spouse and such
                    person then fails or refuses to make such an
                    election, such person shall be deemed to have
                    made such an election if the Secretary
                    concerned receives the following:
                              (i) Request from former spouse.--A
                            written request, in such manner as the
                            Secretary shall prescribe, from the
                            former spouse concerned requesting that
                            such an election be deemed to have been
                            made.
                              (ii) Copy of court order or other
                            official statement.--Either--
                                      (I) a copy of the court
                                    order, regular on its face,
                                    which requires such election or
                                    incorporates, ratifies, or
                                    approves the written agreement
                                    of such person; or
                                      (II) a statement from the
                                    clerk of the court (or other
                                    appropriate official) that such
                                    agreement has been filed with
                                    the court in accordance with
                                    applicable State law.
                      (B) Persons required to make election.--A
                    person shall be considered for purposes of
                    subparagraph (A) to be required to elect under
                    section 1448(b) of this title to provide an
                    annuity to a former spouse if--
                              (i) the person enters, incident to a
                            proceeding of divorce, dissolution, or
                            annulment, into a written agreement to
                            make such an election and the agreement
                            (I) has been incorporated in or
                            ratified or approved by a court order,
                            or (II) has been filed with the court
                            of appropriate jurisdiction in
                            accordance with applicable State law;
                            or
                              (ii) the person is required by a
                            court order to make such an election.
                      (C) Time limit for request by former
                    spouse.--An election may not be deemed to have
                    been made under subparagraph (A) in the case of
                    any person unless the Secretary concerned
                    receives a request from the former spouse of
                    the person within one year of the date of the
                    court order or filing involved.
                      (D) Effective date of deemed election.--An
                    election deemed to have been made under
                    subparagraph (A) shall become effective on the
                    first day of the first month which begins after
                    the date of the court order or filing involved.
              (4) Former spouse coverage may be required by court
            order.--A court order may require a person to elect (or
            to enter into an agreement to elect) under section
            1448(b) of this title to provide an annuity to a former
            spouse (or to both a former spouse and child).
      (g) Limitation on Changing or Revoking Elections.--
              (1) In general.--An election under this section may
            not be changed or revoked.
              (2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
                      (A) a revocation of an election under section
                    1449(b) of this title; or
                      (B) a change in an election under subsection
                    (f).
      (h) Treatment of Annuities Under Other Laws.--Except as
    provided in section 1451 of this title, an annuity under this
    section is in addition to any other payment to which a person
    is entitled under any other provision of law. Such annuity
    shall be considered as income under laws administered by the
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
      (i) Annuities Exempt From Certain Legal Process.--Except as
    provided in subsection (l)(3)(B), an annuity under this section
    is not assignable or subject to execution, levy, attachment,
    garnishment, or other legal process.
      (j) Effective Date of Reserve-Component Annuities.--
              (1) Persons making section 1448(e) designation.--An
            annuity elected by a person providing a reserve-
            component annuity shall be effective in accordance with
            the designation made by such person under section
            1448(e) of this title.
              (2) Persons dying before making section 1448(e)
            designation.--An annuity payable under section 1448(f)
            of this title shall be effective on the day after the
            date of the death of the person upon whose service the
            right to the annuity is based.
      (k) Adjustment of Spouse or Former Spouse Annuity Upon Loss
    of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.--
              (1) Readjustment if beneficiary 55 years of age or
            more.--If a surviving spouse or former spouse whose
            annuity has been adjusted under subsection (c)
            subsequently loses entitlement to dependency and
            indemnity compensation under section 1311(a) of title
            38 because of the remarriage of the surviving spouse,
            or former spouse, and if at the time of such remarriage
            the surviving spouse or former spouse is 55 years of
            age or more, the amount of the annuity of the surviving
            spouse or former spouse shall be readjusted, effective
            on the effective date of such loss of dependency and
            indemnity compensation, to the amount of the annuity
            which would be in effect with respect to the surviving
            spouse or former spouse if the adjustment under
            subsection (c) had never been made.
              (2) Repayment of amounts previously refunded.--
                      (A) General rule.--A surviving spouse or
                    former spouse whose annuity is readjusted under
                    paragraph (1) shall repay any amount refunded
                    under subsection (e) by reason of the
                    adjustment under subsection (c).
                      (B) Interest required if repayment not a lump
                    sum.--If the repayment is not made in a lump
                    sum, the surviving spouse or former spouse
                    shall pay interest on the amount to be repaid.
                    Such interest shall commence on the date on
                    which the first such payment is due and shall
                    be applied over the period during which any
                    part of the repayment remains to be paid.
                      (C) Manner of repayment; rate of interest.--
                    The manner in which such repayment shall be
                    made, and the rate of any such interest, shall
                    be prescribed in regulations under section 1455
                    of this title.
                      (D) Deposit of amounts repaid.--An amount
                    repaid under this paragraph (including any such
                    interest) received by the Secretary of Defense
                    shall be deposited into the Department of
                    Defense Military Retirement Fund. Any other
                    amount repaid under this paragraph shall be
                    deposited into the Treasury as miscellaneous
                    receipts.
      (l) Participants in the Plan Who Are Missing.--
              (1) Authority to presume death of missing
            participant.--
                      (A) In general.--Upon application of the
                    beneficiary of a participant in the Plan who is
                    missing, the Secretary concerned may determine
                    for purposes of this subchapter that the
                    participant is presumed dead.
                      (B) Participant who is missing.--A
                    participant in the Plan is considered to be
                    missing for purposes of this subsection if--
                              (i) the retired pay of the
                            participant has been suspended on the
                            basis that the participant is missing;
                            or
                              (ii) in the case of a participant in
                            the Plan who would be eligible for
                            reserve-component retired pay but for
                            the fact that he is under 60 years of
                            age, his retired pay, if he were
                            entitled to retired pay, would be
                            suspended on the basis that he is
                            missing.
                      (C) Requirements applicable to presumption of
                    death.--Any such determination shall be made in
                    accordance with regulations prescribed under
                    section 1455 of this title. The Secretary
                    concerned may not make a determination for
                    purposes of this subchapter that a participant
                    who is missing is presumed dead unless the
                    Secretary finds that--
                              (i) the participant has been missing
                            for at least 30 days; and
                              (ii) the circumstances under which
                            the participant is missing would lead a
                            reasonably prudent person to conclude
                            that the participant is dead.
              (2) Commencement of annuity.--Upon a determination
            under paragraph (1) with respect to a participant in
            the Plan, an annuity otherwise payable under this
            subchapter shall be paid as if the participant died on
            the date as of which the retired pay of the participant
            was suspended.
              (3) Effect of person not being dead.--
                      (A) Termination of annuity.--If, after a
                    determination under paragraph (1), the
                    Secretary concerned determines that the
                    participant is alive--
                              (i) any annuity being paid under this
                            subchapter by reason of this subsection
                            shall be terminate; and
                              (ii) the total amount of any annuity
                            payments made by reason of this
                            subsection shall constitute a debt to
                            the United States.
                      (B) Collection from participant of annuity
                    amounts erroneously paid.--A debt under
                    subparagraph (A)(ii) may be collected or
                    offset--
                              (i) from any retired pay otherwise
                            payable to the participant;
                              (ii) if the participant is entitled
                            to compensation under chapter 11 of
                            title 38, from that compensation; or
                              (iii) if the participant is entitled
                            to any other payment from the United
                            States, from that payment.
                      (C) Collection from beneficiary.--If the
                    participant dies before the full recovery of
                    the amount of annuity payments described in
                    subparagraph (A)(ii) has been made by the
                    United States, the remaining amount of such
                    annuity payments may be collected from the
                    participant's beneficiary under the Plan if
                    that beneficiary was the recipient of the
                    annuity payments made by reason of this
                    subsection.

    Sec. 1451. Amount of annuity

      (a) Computation of Annuity for a Spouse, Former Spouse, or
    Child.--
              (1) Standard annuity.--In the case of a standard
            annuity provided to a beneficiary under section 1450(a)
            of this title (other than under section 1450(a)(4)),
            the monthly annuity payable to the beneficiary shall be
            determined as follows:
                      (A) Beneficiary under 62 years of age.--If
                    the beneficiary is under 62 years of age or is
                    a dependent child when becoming entitled to the
                    annuity, the monthly annuity shall be the
                    amount equal to 55 percent of the base amount.
                      (B) Beneficiary 62 years of age or older.--
                              (i) General rule.--If the beneficiary
                            (other than a dependent child) is 62
                            years of age or older when becoming
                            entitled to the annuity, the monthly
                            annuity shall be the amount equal to 35
                            percent of the base amount.
                              (ii) Rule if beneficiary eligible for
                            social security offset computation.--If
                            the beneficiary is eligible to have the
                            annuity computed under subsection (e)
                            and if, at the time the beneficiary
                            becomes entitled to the annuity,
                            computation of the annuity under that
                            subsection is more favorable to the
                            beneficiary than computation under
                            clause (i), the annuity shall be
                            computed under that subsection rather
                            than under clause (i).
              (2) Reserve-component annuity--In the case of a
            reserve-component annuity provided to a beneficiary
            under section 1450(a) of this title (other than under
            section 1450(a)(4)), the monthly annuity payable to the
            beneficiary shall be determined as follows:
                      (A) Beneficiary under 62 years of age.--If
                    the beneficiary is under 62 years of age or is
                    a dependent child when becoming entitled to the
                    annuity, the monthly annuity shall be the
                    amount equal to a percentage of the base amount
                    that--
                              (i) is less than 55 percent; and
                              (ii) is determined under subsection
                            (f).
                      (B) Beneficiary 62 years of age or older.--
                              (i) General rule.--If the beneficiary
                            (other than a dependent child) is 62
                            years of age or older when becoming
                            entitled to the annuity, the monthly
                            annuity shall be the amount equal to a
                            percentage of the base amount that--
                                      (I) is less than 35 percent;
                                    and
                                      (II) is determined under
                                    subsection (f).
                              (ii) Rule if beneficiary eligible for
                            social security offset computation.--If
                            the beneficiary is eligible to have the
                            annuity computed under subsection (e)
                            and if, at the time the beneficiary
                            becomes entitled to the annuity,
                            computation of the annuity under that
                            subsection is more favorable to the
                            beneficiary than computation under
                            clause (i), the annuity shall be
                            computed under that subsection rather
                            than under clause (i).
      (b) Insurable Interest Beneficiary.--
              (1) Standard annuity.--In the case of a standard
            annuity provided to a beneficiary under section
            1450(a)(4) of this title, the monthly annuity payable
            to the beneficiary shall be the amount equal to 55
            percent of the retired pay of the person who elected to
            provide the annuity after the reduction in that pay in
            accordance with section 1452(c) of this title.
              (2) Reserve-component annuity.--In the case of a
            reserve-component annuity provided to a beneficiary
            under section 1450(a)(4) of this title, the monthly
            annuity payable to the beneficiary shall be the amount
            equal to a percentage of the retired pay of the person
            who elected to provide the annuity after the reduction
            in such pay in accordance with section 1452(c) of this
            title that--
                      (A) is less than 55 percent; and
                      (B) is determined under subsection (f).
              (3) Computation of reserve-component annuity when
            participant dies before age 60.--For the purposes of
            paragraph (2), a person--
                      (A) who provides an annuity that is
                    determined in accordance with that paragraph;
                      (B) who dies before becoming 60 years of age;
                    and
                      (C) who at the time of death is otherwise
                    entitled to retired pay,
            shall be considered to have been entitled to retired
            pay at the time of death. The retired pay of such
            person for the purposes of such paragraph shall be
            computed on the basis of the rates of basic pay in
            effect on the date on which the annuity provided by
            such person is to become effective in accordance with
            the designation of such person under section 1448(e) of
            this title.
      (c) Annuities for Survivors of Certain Persons Dying During a
    Period of Special Eligibility for SBP.--
              (1) In general.--In the case of an annuity provided
            under section 1448(d) or 1448(f) of this title, the
            amount of the annuity shall be determined as follows:
                      (A) Beneficiary under 62 years of age.--If
                    the person receiving the annuity is under 62
                    years of age or is a dependent child when the
                    member or former member dies, the monthly
                    annuity shall be the amount equal to 55 percent
                    of the retired pay to which the member or
                    former member would have been entitled if the
                    member or former member had been entitled to
                    that pay based upon his years of active service
                    when he died.
                      (B) Beneficiary 62 years of age or older.--
                              (i) General rule.--If the person
                            receiving the annuity (other than a
                            dependent child) is 62 years of age or
                            older when the member or former member
                            dies, the monthly annuity shall be the
                            amount equal to 35 percent of the
                            retired pay to which the member or
                            former member would have been entitled
                            if the member or former member had been
                            entitled to that pay based upon his
                            years of active service when he died.
                              (ii) Rule if beneficiary eligible for
                            social security offset computation.--If
                            the beneficiary is eligible to have the
                            annuity computed under subsection (e)
                            and if, at the time the beneficiary
                            becomes entitled to the annuity,
                            computation of the annuity under that
                            subsection is more favorable to the
                            beneficiary than computation under
                            clause (i), the annuity shall be
                            computed under that subsection rather
                            than under clause (i).
              (2) DIC offset.--An annuity computed under paragraph
            (1) that is paid to a surviving spouse shall be reduced
            by the amount of dependency and indemnity compensation
            to which the surviving spouse is entitled under section
            1311(a) of title 38. Any such reduction shall be
            effective on the date of the commencement of the period
            of payment of such compensation under title 38.
              (3) Officer with enlisted service who is not yet
            eligible to retire as an officer.--In the case of an
            annuity provided by reason of the service of a member
            described in section 1448(d)(1)(B) or 1448(d)(1)(C) of
            this title who first became a member of a uniformed
            service before September 8, 1980, the retired pay to
            which the member would have been entitled when he died
            shall be determined for purposes of paragraph (1) based
            upon the rate of basic pay in effect at the time of
            death for the grade in which the member was serving at
            the time of death, unless (as determined by the
            Secretary concerned) the member would have been
            entitled to be retired in a higher grade.
              (4) Rate of pay to be used in computing annuity.--In
            the case of an annuity paid under section 1448(f) of
            this title by reason of the service of a person who
            first became a member of a uniformed service before
            September 8, 1980, the retired pay of the person
            providing the annuity shall for the purposes of
            paragraph (1) be computed on the basis of the rates of
            basic pay in effect on the effective date of the
            annuity.
      (d) Reduction of Annuities at Age 62.--
              (1) Reduction required.--The annuity of a person
            whose annuity is computed under subparagraph (A) of
            subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (c)(1) shall be reduced
            on the first day of the month after the month in which
            the person becomes 62 years of age.
              (2) Amount of annuity as reduced.--
                      (A) 35 percent annuity.--Except as provided
                    in subparagraph (B), the reduced amount of the
                    annuity shall be the amount of the annuity that
                    the person would be receiving on that date if
                    the annuity had initially been computed under
                    subparagraph (B) of that subsection.
                      (B) Savings provision for beneficiaries
                    eligible for social security offset
                    computation.--In the case of a person eligible
                    to have an annuity computed under subsection
                    (e) and for whom, at the time the person
                    becomes 62 years of age, the annuity computed
                    with a reduction under subsection (e)(3) is
                    more favorable than the annuity with a
                    reduction described in subparagraph (A), the
                    reduction in the annuity shall be computed in
                    the same manner as a reduction under subsection
                    (e)(3).
      (e) Savings Provision for Certain Beneficiaries.--
              (1) Persons covered.--The following beneficiaries
            under the Plan are eligible to have an annuity under
            the Plan computed under this subsection:
                      (A) A beneficiary receiving an annuity under
                    the Plan on October 1, 1985, as the surviving
                    spouse or former spouse of the person providing
                    the annuity.
                      (B) A spouse or former spouse beneficiary of
                    a person who on October 1, 1985--
                              (i) was a participant in the Plan;
                              (ii) was entitled to retired pay or
                            was qualified for that pay except that
                            he had not applied for and been granted
                            that pay; or
                              (iii) would have been eligible for
                            reserve-component retired pay but for
                            the fact that he was under 60 years of
                            age.
              (2) Amount of annuity.--Subject to paragraph (3), an
            annuity computed under this subsection is determined as
            follows:
                      (A) Standard annuity.--In the case of the
                    beneficiary of a standard annuity, the annuity
                    shall be the amount equal to 55 percent of the
                    base amount.
                      (B) Reserve component annuity.--In the case
                    of the beneficiary of a reserve-component
                    annuity, the annuity shall be the percentage of
                    the base amount that--
                              (i) is less than 55 percent; and
                              (ii) is determined under subsection
                            (f).
                      (C) Beneficiaries of persons dying during a
                    period of special eligibility for sbp.--In the
                    case of the beneficiary of an annuity under
                    section 1448(d) or 1448(f) of this title, the
                    annuity shall be the amount equal to 55 percent
                    of the retired pay of the person providing the
                    annuity (as that pay is determined under
                    subsection (c)).
              (3) Social security offset.--An annuity computed
            under this subsection shall be reduced by the lesser of
            the following:
                      (A) Social security computation.--The amount
                    of the survivor benefit, if any, to which the
                    surviving spouse (or the former spouse, in the
                    case of a former spouse beneficiary who became
                    a former spouse under a divorce that became
                    final after November 29, 1989) would be
                    entitled under title II of the Social Security
                    Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) based solely upon
                    service by the person concerned as described in
                    section 210(l)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
                    410(l)(1)) and calculated assuming that the
                    person concerned lives to age 65.
                      (B) Maximum amount of reduction.--40 percent
                    of the amount of the monthly annuity as
                    determined under paragraph (2).
              (4) Special rules for social security offset
            computation.--
                      (A) Treatment of deductions made on account
                    of work.--For the purpose of paragraph (3), a
                    surviving spouse (or a former spouse, in the
                    case of a person who becomes a former spouse
                    under a divorce that becomes final after
                    November 29, 1989) shall not be considered as
                    entitled to a benefit under title II of the
                    Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) to
                    the extent that such benefit has been offset by
                    deductions under section 203 of such Act (42
                    U.S.C. 403) on account of work.
                      (B) Treatment of certain periods for which
                    social security refunds are made.--In the
                    computation of any reduction made under
                    paragraph (3), there shall be excluded any
                    period of service described in section
                    210(l)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
                    410(l)(1))--
                              (i) which was performed after
                            December 1, 1980; and
                              (ii) which involved periods of
                            service of less than 30 continuous days
                            for which the person concerned is
                            entitled to receive a refund under
                            section 6413(c) of the Internal Revenue
                            Code of 1986 of the social security tax
                            which the person had paid.
      (f) Determination of Percentages Applicable to Computation of
    Reserve-Component Annuities.--The percentage to be applied in
    determining the amount of an annuity computed under subsection
    (a)(2), (b)(2), or (e)(2)(B) shall be determined under
    regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. Such
    regulations shall be prescribed taking into consideration the
    following:
              (1) The age of the person electing to provide the
            annuity at the time of such election.
              (2) The difference in age between such person and the
            beneficiary of the annuity.
              (3) Whether such person provided for the annuity to
            become effective (in the event he died before becoming
            60 years of age) on the day after his death or on the
            60th anniversary of his birth.
              (4) Appropriate group annuity tables.
              (5) Such other factors as the Secretary considers
            relevant.
      (g) Adjustments to Annuities.--
              (1) Periodic adjustments for cost-of-living.--
                      (A) Increases in annuities when retired pay
                    increased.--Whenever retired pay is increased
                    under section 1401a of this title (or any other
                    provision of law), each annuity that is payable
                    under the Plan shall be increased at the same
                    time.
                      (B) Percentage of increase.--The increase
                    shall, in the case of any annuity, be by the
                    same percent as the percent by which the
                    retired pay of the person providing the annuity
                    would have been increased at such time if the
                    person were alive (and otherwise entitled to
                    such pay).
                      (C) Certain reductions to be disregarded.--
                    The amount of the increase shall be based on
                    the monthly annuity payable before any
                    reduction under section 1450(c) of this title
                    or under subsection (c)(2).
              (2) Rounding down.--The monthly amount of an annuity
            payable under this subchapter, if not a multiple of $1,
            shall be rounded to the next lower multiple of $1.
      (h) Adjustments to Base Amount.--
              (1) Periodic adjustments for cost-of-living.--
                      (A) Increases in base amount when retired pay
                    increased.--Whenever retired pay is increased
                    under section 1401a of this title (or any other
                    provision of law), the base amount applicable
                    to each participant in the Plan shall be
                    increased at the same time.
                      (B) Percentage of increase.--The increase
                    shall be by the same percent as the percent by
                    which the retired pay of the participant is so
                    increased.
              (2) Recomputation at age 62.--When the retired pay of
            a person who first became a member of a uniformed
            service on or after August 1, 1986, and who is a
            participant in the Plan is recomputed under section
            1410 of this title upon the person's becoming 62 years
            of age, the base amount applicable to that person shall
            be recomputed (effective on the effective date of the
            recomputation of such retired pay under section 1410 of
            this title) so as to be the amount equal to the amount
            of the base amount that would be in effect on that date
            if increases in such base amount under paragraph (1)
            had been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of
            section 1401a(b) of this title (rather than under
            paragraph (3) of that section).
              (3) Disregarding of retired pay reductions for
            retirement before 30 years of service.--Computation of
            a member's retired pay for purposes of this section
            shall be made without regard to any reduction under
            section 1409(b)(2) of this title.
      (i) Recomputation of Annuity for Certain Beneficiaries.--In
    the case of an annuity under the Plan which is computed on the
    basis of the retired pay of a person who would have been
    entitled to have that retired pay recomputed under section 1410
    of this title upon attaining 62 years of age, but who dies
    before attaining that age, the annuity shall be recomputed,
    effective on the first day of the first month beginning after
    the date on which the member or former member would have
    attained 62 years of age, so as to be the amount equal to the
    amount of the annuity that would be in effect on that date if
    increases under subsection (h)(1) in the base amount applicable
    to that annuity to the time of the death of the member or
    former member, and increases in such annuity under subsection
    (g)(1), had been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of
    section 1401a(b) of this title (rather than under paragraph (3)
    of that section).

    Sec. 1452. Reduction in retired pay

      (a) Spouse and Former Spouse Annuities.--
              (1) Required reduction in retired pay.--Except as
            provided in subsection (b), the retired pay of a
            participant in the Plan who is providing spouse
            coverage (as described in paragraph (5)) shall be
            reduced as follows:
                      (A) Standard annuity.--If the annuity
                    coverage being providing is a standard annuity,
                    the reduction shall be as follows:
                              (i) Disability and nonregular service
                            retirees.--In the case of a person who
                            is entitled to retired pay under
                            chapter 61 or chapter 1223 of this
                            title, the reduction shall be in
                            whichever of the alternative reduction
                            amounts is more favorable to that
                            person.
                              (ii) Members as of enactment of flat-
                            rate reduction.--In the case of a
                            person who first became a member of a
                            uniformed service before March 1, 1990,
                            the reduction shall be in whichever of
                            the alternative reduction amounts is
                            more favorable to that person.
                              (iii) New entrants after enactment of
                            flat-rate reduction.--In the case of a
                            person who first becomes a member of a
                            uniformed service on or after March 1,
                            1990, and who is entitled to retired
                            pay under a provision of law other than
                            chapter 61 or chapter 1223 of this
                            title, the reduction shall be in an
                            amount equal to 6\1/2\ percent of the
                            base amount.
                              (iv) Alternative reduction amounts.--
                            For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii),
                            the alternative reduction amounts are
                            the following:
                                      (I) Flat-rate reduction.--An
                                    amount equal to 6\1/2\ percent
                                    of the base amount.
                                      (II) Amount under pre-flat-
                                    rate reduction.--An amount
                                    equal to 2\1/2\ percent of the
                                    first $421 (as adjusted under
                                    paragraph (4)) of the base
                                    amount plus 10 percent of the
                                    remainder of the base amount.
                      (B) Reserve-component annuity.--If the
                    annuity coverage being provided is a reserve-
                    component annuity, the reduction shall be in
                    whichever of the following amounts is more
                    favorable to that person:
                              (i) Flat-rate reduction.--An amount
                            equal to 6\1/2\ percent of the base
                            amount plus an amount determined in
                            accordance with regulations prescribed
                            by the Secretary of Defense as a
                            premium for the additional coverage
                            provided through reserve-component
                            annuity coverage under the Plan.
                              (ii) Amount under pre-flat-rate
                            reduction.--An amount equal to 2\1/2\
                            percent of the first $421 (as adjusted
                            under paragraph (4)) of the base amount
                            plus 10 percent of the remainder of the
                            base amount plus an amount determined
                            in accordance with regulations
                            prescribed by the Secretary of Defense
                            as a premium for the additional
                            coverage provided through reserve-
                            component annuity coverage under the
                            Plan.
              (2) Additional reduction for child coverage.--If
            there is a dependent child as well as a spouse or
            former spouse, the amount prescribed under paragraph
            (1) shall be increased by an amount prescribed under
            regulations of the Secretary of Defense.
              (3) No reduction when no beneficiary.--The reduction
            in retired pay prescribed by paragraph (1) shall not be
            applicable during any month in which there is no
            eligible spouse or former spouse beneficiary.
              (4) Periodic adjustments.--
                      (A) Adjustments for increases in rates of
                    basic pay.--Whenever there is an increase in
                    the rates of basic pay of members of the
                    uniformed services effective after January 1,
                    1996, the amounts under paragraph (1) with
                    respect to which the percentage factor of 2\1/
                    2\ is applied shall be increased by the overall
                    percentage of such increase in the rates of
                    basic pay. The increase under the preceding
                    sentence shall apply only with respect to
                    persons whose retired pay is computed based on
                    the rates of basic pay in effect on or after
                    the date of such increase in rates of basic
                    pay.
                      (B) Adjustments for retired pay colas.--In
                    addition to the increase under subparagraph
                    (A), the amounts under paragraph (1) with
                    respect to which the percentage factor of 2\1/
                    2\ is applied shall be further increased at the
                    same time and by the same percentage as an
                    increase in retired pay under section 1401a of
                    this title effective after January 1, 1996.
                    Such increase under the preceding sentence
                    shall apply only with respect to a person who
                    initially participates in the Plan on a date
                    which is after both the effective date of such
                    increase under section 1401a and the effective
                    date of the rates of basic pay upon which that
                    person's retired pay is computed.
              (5) Spouse coverage described.--For the purposes of
            paragraph (1), a participant in the Plan who is
            providing spouse coverage is a participant who--
                      (A) has (i) a spouse or former spouse, or
                    (ii) a spouse or former spouse and a dependent
                    child; and
                      (B) has not elected to provide an annuity to
                    a person designated by him under section
                    1448(b)(1) of this title or, having made such
                    an election, has changed his election in favor
                    of his spouse under section 1450(f) of this
                    title.
      (b) Child-Only Annuities.--
              (1) Required reduction in retired pay.--The retired
            pay of a participant in the Plan who is providing
            child-only coverage (as described in paragraph (4))
            shall be reduced by an amount prescribed under
            regulations by the Secretary of Defense.
              (2) No reduction when no child.--There shall be no
            reduction in retired pay under paragraph (1) for any
            month during which the participant has no eligible
            dependent child.
              (3) Special rule for certain rcsbp participants.--In
            the case of a participant in the Plan who is
            participating in the Plan under an election under
            section 1448(a)(2)(B) of this title and who provided
            child-only coverage during a period before the
            participant becomes entitled to receive retired pay,
            the retired pay of the participant shall be reduced by
            an amount prescribed under regulations by the Secretary
            of Defense to reflect the coverage provided under the
            Plan during the period before the participant became
            entitled to receive retired pay. A reduction under this
            paragraph is in addition to any reduction under
            paragraph (1) and is made without regard to whether
            there is an eligible dependent child during a month for
            which the reduction is made.
              (4) Child-only coverage defined.--For the purposes of
            this subsection, a participant in the Plan who is
            providing child-only coverage is a participant who has
            a dependent child and who--
                      (A) does not have an eligible spouse or
                    former spouse; or
                      (B) has a spouse or former spouse but has
                    elected to provide an annuity for dependent
                    children only.
      (c) Reduction for Insurable Interest Coverage.--
              (1) Required reduction in retired pay.--The retired
            pay of a person who has elected to provide an annuity
            to a person designated by him under section 1450(a)(4)
            of this title shall be reduced as follows:
                      (A) Standard annuity.--In the case of a
                    person providing a standard annuity, the
                    reduction shall be by 10 percent plus 5 percent
                    for each full five years the individual
                    designated is younger than that person.
                      (B) Reserve component annuity.--In the case
                    of a person providing a reserve-component
                    annuity, the reduction shall be by an amount
                    prescribed under regulations of the Secretary
                    of Defense.
              (2) Limitation on total reduction.--The total
            reduction under paragraph (1) may not exceed 40
            percent.
              (3) Duration of reduction.--The reduction in retired
            pay prescribed by this subsection shall continue during
            the lifetime of the person designated under section
            1450(a)(4) of this title or until the person receiving
            retired pay changes his election under section 1450(f)
            of this title.
              (4) Rule for computation.--Computation of a member's
            retired pay for purposes of this subsection shall be
            made without regard to any reduction under section
            1409(b)(2) of this title.
      (d) Deposits To Cover Periods When Retired Pay Not Paid.--
              (1) Required deposits.--If a person who has elected
            to participate in the Plan has been awarded retired pay
            and is not entitled to that pay for any period, that
            person must deposit in the Treasury the amount that
            would otherwise have been deducted from his pay for
            that period.
              (2) Deposits not required when participant on active
            duty.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to a person with
            respect to any period when that person is on active
            duty under a call or order to active duty for a period
            of more than 30 days.
        ``(e) Deposits Not Required for Certain Participants in
    CSRS.--When a person who has elected to participate in the Plan
    waives that person's retired pay for the purposes of subchapter
    III of chapter 83 of title 5, that person shall not be required
    to make the deposit otherwise required by subsection (d) as
    long as that waiver is in effect unless, in accordance with
    section 8339(i) of title 5, that person has notified the Office
    of Personnel Management that he does not desire a spouse
    surviving him to receive any annuity under section 8341(b) of
    title 5.
      (f) Refunds of Deductions Not Allowed.--
              (1) General rule.--A person is not entitled to refund
            of any amount deducted from retired pay under this
            section.
              (2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply--
                      (A) in the case of a refund authorized by
                    section 1450(e) of this title; or
                      (B) in case of a deduction made through
                    administrative error.
      (g) Discontinuation of Participation by Participants Whose
    Surviving Spouses Will Be Entitled to DIC.--
              (1) Discontinuation.--
                      (A) Conditions.--Notwithstanding any other
                    provision of this subchapter but subject to
                    paragraphs (2) and (3), a person who has
                    elected to participate in the Plan and who is
                    suffering from a service-connected disability
                    rated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as
                    totally disabling and has suffered from such
                    disability while so rated for a continuous
                    period of 10 or more years (or, if so rated for
                    a lesser period, has suffered from such
                    disability while so rated for a continuous
                    period of not less than 5 years from the date
                    of such person's last discharge or release from
                    active duty) may discontinue participation in
                    the Plan by submitting to the Secretary
                    concerned a request to discontinue
                    participation in the Plan.
                      (B) Effective date.--Participation in the
                    Plan of a person who submits a request under
                    subparagraph (A) shall be discontinued
                    effective on the first day of the first month
                    following the month in which the request under
                    subparagraph (A) is received by the Secretary
                    concerned. Effective on such date, the
                    Secretary concerned shall discontinue the
                    reduction being made in such person's retired
                    pay on account of participation in the Plan or,
                    in the case of a person who has been required
                    to make deposits in the Treasury on account of
                    participation in the Plan, such person may
                    discontinue making such deposits effective on
                    such date.
                      (C) Form for request for discontinuation.--
                    Any request under this paragraph to discontinue
                    participation in the Plan shall be in such form
                    and shall contain such information as the
                    Secretary concerned may require by regulation.
              (2) Consent of beneficiaries required.--A person
            described in paragraph (1) may not discontinue
            participation in the Plan under such paragraph without
            the written consent of the beneficiary or beneficiaries
            of such person under the Plan.
              (3) Information on plan to be provided by secretary
            concerned.--
                      (A) Information to be provided promptly to
                    participant.--The Secretary concerned shall
                    furnish promptly to each person who files a
                    request under paragraph (1) to discontinue
                    participation in the Plan a written statement
                    of the advantages of participating in the Plan
                    and the possible disadvantages of discontinuing
                    participation.
                      (B) Right to withdraw discontinuation
                    request.--A person may withdraw a request made
                    under paragraph (1) if it is withdrawn within
                    30 days after having been submitted to the
                    Secretary concerned.
              (4) Refund of deductions from retired pay.--Upon the
            death of a person described in paragraph (1) who
            discontinued participation in the Plan in accordance
            with this subsection, any amount deducted from the
            retired pay of that person under this section shall be
            refunded to the person's surviving spouse.
              (5) Resumption of participation in plan.--
                      (A) Conditions for resumption.--A person
                    described in paragraph (1) who discontinued
                    participation in the Plan may elect to
                    participate again in the Plan if--
                              (i) after having discontinued
                            participation in the Plan the Secretary
                            of Veterans Affairs reduces that
                            person's service-connected disability
                            rating to a rating of less than total;
                            and
                              (ii) that person applies to the
                            Secretary concerned, within such period
                            of time after the reduction in such
                            person's service-connected disability
                            rating has been made as the Secretary
                            concerned may prescribe, to again
                            participate in the Plan and includes in
                            such application such information as
                            the Secretary concerned may require.
                      (B) Effective date of resumed coverage.--Such
                    person's participation in the Plan under this
                    paragraph is effective beginning on the first
                    day of the month after the month in which the
                    Secretary concerned receives the application
                    for resumption of participation in the Plan.
                      (C) Resumption of contributions.--When a
                    person elects to participate in the Plan under
                    this paragraph, the Secretary concerned shall
                    begin making reductions in that person's
                    retired pay, or require such person to make
                    deposits in the Treasury under subsection (d),
                    as appropriate, effective on the effective date
                    of such participation under subparagraph (B).
      (h) Increases in Reduction With Increases in Retired Pay.--
    Whenever retired pay is increased under section 1401a of this
    title (or any other provision of law), the amount of the
    reduction to be made under subsection (a) or (b) in the retired
    pay of any person shall be increased at the same time and by
    the same percentage as such retired pay is so increased.
      (i) Recomputation of Reduction Upon Recomputation of Retired
    Pay.--When the retired pay of a person who first became a
    member of a uniformed service on or after August 1, 1986, and
    who is a participant in the Plan is recomputed under section
    1410 of this title upon the person's becoming 62 years of age,
    the amount of the reduction in such retired pay under this
    section shall be recomputed (effective on the effective date of
    the recomputation of such retired pay under section 1410 of
    this title) so as to be the amount equal to the amount of such
    reduction that would be in effect on that date if increases in
    such retired pay under section 1401a(b) of this title, and
    increases in reductions in such retired pay under subsection
    (h), had been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of section
    1401a(b) of this title (rather than under paragraph (3) of that
    section).

    Sec. 1453. Recovery of amounts erroneously paid

      (a) Recovery.--In addition to any other method of recovery
    provided by law, the Secretary concerned may authorize the
    recovery of any amount erroneously paid to a person under this
    subchapter by deduction from later payments to that person.
      (b) Authority To Waive Recovery.--Recovery of an amount
    erroneously paid to a person under this subchapter is not
    required if, in the judgment of the Secretary concerned and the
    Comptroller General--
              (1) there has been no fault by the person to whom the
            amount was erroneously paid; and
              (2) recovery of such amount would be contrary to the
            purposes of this subchapter or against equity and good
            conscience.

    Sec. 1454. Correction of administrative errors

      (a) Authority.--The Secretary concerned may, under
    regulations prescribed under section 1455 of this title,
    correct or revoke any election under this subchapter when the
    Secretary considers it necessary to correct an administrative
    error.
      (b) Finality.--Except when procured by fraud, a correction or
    revocation under this section is final and conclusive on all
    officers of the United States.

    Sec. 1455. Regulations

      (a) In General.--The President shall prescribe regulations to
    carry out this subchapter. Those regulations shall, so far as
    practicable, be uniform for the uniformed services.
      (b) Notice of Elections.--Regulations prescribed under this
    section shall provide that before the date on which a member
    becomes entitled to retired pay--
              (1) if the member is married, the member and the
            member's spouse shall be informed of the elections
            available under section 1448(a) of this title and the
            effects of such elections; and
              (2) if the notification referred to in section
            1448(a)(3)(E) of this title is required, any former
            spouse of the member shall be informed of the elections
            available and the effects of such elections.
      (c) Procedure for Depositing Certain Receipts.--Regulations
    prescribed under this section shall establish procedures for
    depositing the amounts referred to in sections 1448(g),
    1450(k)(2), and 1452(d) of this title.
      (d) Payments to Guardians and Fiduciaries.--
              (1) In general.--Regulations prescribed under this
            section shall provide procedures for the payment of an
            annuity under this subchapter in the case of--
                      (A) a person for whom a guardian or other
                    fiduciary has been appointed; and
                      (B) a minor, mentally incompetent, or
                    otherwise legally disabled person for whom a
                    guardian or other fiduciary has not been
                    appointed.
              (2) Authorized procedures.--The regulations under
            paragraph (1) may include provisions for the following:
                      (A) In the case of an annuitant referred to
                    in paragraph (1)(A), payment of the annuity to
                    the appointed guardian or other fiduciary.
                      (B) In the case of an annuitant referred to
                    in paragraph (1)(B), payment of the annuity to
                    any person who, in the judgment of the
                    Secretary concerned, is responsible for the
                    care of the annuitant.
                      (C) Subject to subparagraphs (D) and (E), a
                    requirement for the payee of an annuity to
                    spend or invest the amounts paid on behalf of
                    the annuitant solely for benefit of the
                    annuitant.
                      (D) Authority for the Secretary concerned to
                    permit the payee to withhold from the annuity
                    payment such amount, not in excess of 4 percent
                    of the annuity, as the Secretary concerned
                    considers a reasonable fee for the fiduciary
                    services of the payee when a court appointment
                    order provides for payment of such a fee to the
                    payee for such services or the Secretary
                    concerned determines that payment of a fee to
                    such payee is necessary in order to obtain the
                    fiduciary services of the payee.
                      (E) Authority for the Secretary concerned to
                    require the payee to provide a surety bond in
                    an amount sufficient to protect the interests
                    of the annuitant and to pay for such bond out
                    of the annuity.
                      (F) A requirement for the payee of an annuity
                    to maintain and, upon request, to provide to
                    the Secretary concerned an accounting of
                    expenditures and investments of amounts paid to
                    the payee.
                      (G) In the case of an annuitant referred to
                    in paragraph (1)(B)--
                              (i) procedures for determining
                            incompetency and for selecting a payee
                            to represent the annuitant for the
                            purposes of this section, including
                            provisions for notifying the annuitant
                            of the actions being taken to make such
                            a determination and to select a
                            representative payee, an opportunity
                            for the annuitant to review the
                            evidence being considered, and an
                            opportunity for the annuitant to submit
                            additional evidence before the
                            determination is made; and
                              (ii) standards for determining
                            incompetency, including standards for
                            determining the sufficiency of medical
                            evidence and other evidence.
                      (H) Provisions for any other matter that the
                    President considers appropriate in connection
                    with the payment of an annuity in the case of a
                    person referred to in paragraph (1).
              (3) Legal effect of payment to guardian or
            fiduciary.--An annuity paid to a person on behalf of an
            annuitant in accordance with the regulations prescribed
            pursuant to paragraph (1) discharges the obligation of
            the United States for payment to the annuitant of the
            amount of the annuity so paid.
              * * * * * * *

                         CHAPTER 81--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

    Sec.
    1581.  Foreign National Employees Separation Pay Account.
    1583.  Employment of certain persons without pay.
    1584.  Employment of non-citizens.
         * * * * * * *
    [1589.  Prohibition on payment of lodging expenses when adequate
              Government quarters are available.]
         * * * * * * *
    [Sec.] 1599a.  Financial assistance to certain employees in acquisition
              of critical skills.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1588. Authority to accept certain voluntary services

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d) Status of Persons Providing Services.--(1) Subject to
    paragraph (3), while providing voluntary services accepted
    under subsection (a) or receiving training under subsection
    (c), a person, other than a person referred to in paragraph
    (2), shall be considered to be an employee of the Federal
    Government only for purposes of the following provisions of
    law:
              (A) Subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5 (relating
            to compensation for work-related injuries).
              (B) Section 2733 of this title and chapter 171 of
            title 28 (relating to claims for damages or loss).
              (C) [Section 522a] Section 552a of title 5 (relating
            to maintenance of records on individuals).
              * * * * * * *

    [Sec. 1589. Prohibition on payment of lodging expenses when adequate
                        Government quarters are available

      [(a) Funds available to the Department of Defense (including
    funds in any working-capital fund) may not be used to pay the
    lodging expenses of a civilian employee of the Department of
    Defense while such employee is on official business away from
    his designated post of duty or, in the case of a person
    referred to in section 5703 of title 5, while such person is
    away from his home or regular place of duty, when adequate
    Government quarters are available but are not occupied by such
    employee or person.
      [(b) Subsection (a) does not apply during a fiscal year to an
    employee whose duties can be expected to require official
    travel during more than one-half of the number of the basic
    administrative work weeks during that fiscal year.]
              * * * * * * *

                   CHAPTER 87--DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

              * * * * * * *

                  SUBCHAPTER II--DEFENSE ACQUISITION POSITIONS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1723. General education, training, and experience requirements

      (a) Qualification Requirements.--The Secretary of Defense
    shall establish education, training, and experience
    requirements for each acquisition position, based on the level
    of complexity of duties carried out in the position. [Unless
    otherwise provided in this chapter, such requirements shall
    take effect not later than October 1, 1993.] In establishing
    such requirements for positions other than critical acquisition
    positions designated pursuant to section 1733 of this title,
    the Secretary may state the requirements by categories of
    positions.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1724. Contracting positions: qualification requirements

      (a) Contracting Officers.--The Secretary of Defense shall
    require that[, beginning on October 1, 1993,] in order to
    qualify to serve in an acquisition position as a contracting
    officer with authority to award or administer contracts for
    amounts above the small purchase threshold referred to in
    section 2304(g) of this title, a person must (except as
    provided in subsections (c) and (d))--
              (1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (b) GS-1102 Series.--The Secretary of Defense shall require
    that[, beginning on October 1, 1993,] a person may not be
    employed by the Department of Defense in the GS-1102
    occupational series unless the person (except as provided in
    subsections (c) and (d)) meets the requirements set forth in
    subsection (a)(3).
              * * * * * * *

                       SUBCHAPTER III--ACQUISITION CORPS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1733. Critical acquisition positions

      (a) Requirement for Corps Member.--[On and after October 1,
    1993, a] A critical acquisition position may be filled only by
    a member of an Acquisition Corps.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 1734. Career development

      (a) Three-Year Assignment Period.--(1) Except as provided
    under subsection (b) and paragraph (3), the Secretary of each
    military department, acting through the service acquisition
    executive for that department, shall provide that[, on and
    after October 1, 1993,] any person who is assigned to a
    critical acquisition position shall be assigned to the position
    for not fewer than three years. Except as provided in
    subsection (d), the Secretary concerned may not reassign a
    person from such an assignment before the end of the three-year
    period.
              * * * * * * *
      (b) Assignment Period for Program Managers.--(1) The
    Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in regulations--
              (A) a requirement that[, on and after October 1,
            1991,] a program manager and a deputy program manager
            (except as provided in paragraph (3)) of a major
            defense acquisition program be assigned to the position
            at least until completion of the major milestone that
            occurs closest in time to the date on which the person
            has served in the position for four years; and
              * * * * * * *

                        PART III--TRAINING AND EDUCATION

              * * * * * * *

              CHAPTER 103--SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2101. Definitions

      In this chapter:
              (1) The term ``program'' means the Senior Reserve
            Officers' Training Corps of an armed force.
              (2) The term ``member of the program'' means a
            student who is enrolled in the Senior Reserve Officers'
            Training Corps of an armed force.
              (3) The term ``advanced training'' means the training
            and instruction offered in the Senior Reserve Officers'
            Training Corps to students enrolled in an advanced
            education program beyond the baccalaureate degree level
            or to students in the third and fourth years of a four-
            year Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps course, or
            the equivalent period of training in an approved two-
            year Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps course
            (except that, in the case of a student enrolled in an
            academic program which has been approved by the
            Secretary of the military department concerned and
            which requires more than four academic years for
            completion of baccalaureate degree requirements,
            including elective requirements of the Senior Reserve
            Officers' Training Corps course, such term includes a
            fifth academic year or a combination of a part of a
            fifth academic year and summer sessions).
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2103. Eligibility for membership

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) An educational institution at which a unit of the program
    has been established shall give priority for enrollment in the
    program to students who are eligible for advanced training
    under section 2104 of this title.
      (f) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that, in carrying
    out the program, the Secretaries of the military departments
    permit any person who is receiving financial assistance under
    section 2107 of this title simultaneously to be a member of the
    Selected Reserve.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2107. Financial assistance program for specially selected members

      (a) The Secretary of the military department concerned may
    appoint as a cadet or midshipman, as appropriate, in the
    reserve of an armed force under his jurisdiction any eligible
    member of the program who will be under [25 years of age] 27
    years of age on June 30 of the calendar year in which he is
    eligible under this section for appointment as an ensign in the
    Navy or as a second lieutenant in the Army, Air Force, or
    Marine Corps, as the case may be, except that the age of any
    such member who has served on active duty in the armed forces
    may exceed such age limitation on such date by a period equal
    to the period such member served on active duty, but only if
    such member will be under [29 years of age] 30 years of age on
    such date.
              * * * * * * *
      (c) The Secretary of the military department concerned may
    provide for the payment of all expenses in his department of
    administering the financial assistance program under this
    section, including tuition, fees, books, and laboratory
    expenses. In the case of a student enrolled in an academic
    program which has been approved by the Secretary of the
    military department concerned and which requires more than four
    academic years for completion of baccalaureate degree
    requirements, including elective requirements of the Senior
    Reserve Officers' Training Corps course, financial assistance
    under this section may also be provided during a fifth academic
    year or during a combination of a part of a fifth academic year
    and summer sessions. The Secretary of the military department
    concerned may provide similar financial assistance to a student
    enrolled in an advanced education program beyond the
    baccalaureate degree level if the student also is a cadet or
    midshipman in an advanced training program. At least 50 percent
    of the cadets and midshipmen appointed under this section must
    qualify for in-State tuition rates at their respective
    institutions and will receive tuition benefits at that rate.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2107a. Financial assistance program for specially selected
                        members: Army Reserve and Army National Guard

      (a)(1) The Secretary of the Army may appoint as a cadet in
    the Army Reserve or Army National Guard of the United States
    any eligible member of the program who is enrolled in the
    Advanced Course of the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps at
    a military college, military junior college, or civilian
    institution and who will be under [25 years of age] 27 years of
    age on June 30 of the calendar year in which he is eligible
    under this section for appointment as a second lieutenant in
    the Army Reserve or Army National Guard, except that the age of
    any such member who has served on active duty in the armed
    forces may exceed such age limitation on such date by a period
    equal to the period such member served on active duty, but only
    if such member will be under [29 years of age] 30 years of age
    on such date.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2109. Practical military training

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c)(1) A person who is not qualified for, and (as determined
    by the Secretary concerned) will not be able to become
    qualified for, advanced training by reason of one or more of
    the requirements prescribed in paragraphs (1) through (3) of
    section 2104(b) of this title shall not be permitted to
    participate in--
              (A) field training or a practice cruise under section
            2106(b)(6) of this title; or
              (B) practical military training under subsection (a).
      (2) The Secretary of the military department concerned may
    waive the limitation in paragraph (1) under procedures
    prescribed by the Secretary.

    Sec. 2114. Students: selection; status; obligation

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (h) A graduate of the University who is relieved of the
    graduate's active-duty service obligation under subsection (b)
    before the completion of the active-duty service obligation may
    be given, with or without the consent of the graduate, an
    alternative obligation comparable to the alternative
    obligations authorized in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section
    2123(e)(1) of this title for members of the Armed Forces Health
    Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance program.
              * * * * * * *

                        PART III--TRAINING AND EDUCATION

              * * * * * * *

       CHAPTER 105--ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
                                    PROGRAMS

              * * * * * * *

     SUBCHAPTER I--HEALTH PROFESSIONS SCHOLARSHIP AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
                           PROGRAM FOR ACTIVE SERVICE

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2123. Members of the program: active duty obligation; failure to
                        complete training; release from program

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(e) Any member of the program relieved of his active duty
    obligation under this subchapter before the completion of such
    obligation may, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary
    of Defense, be assigned to a health professional shortage area
    designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for a
    period equal to the period of obligation from which he was
    relieved.]
      (e)(1) A member of the program who is relieved of the
    member's active duty obligation under this subchapter before
    the completion of the active duty obligation may be given, with
    or without the consent of the member, any of the following
    alternative obligations, as determined by the Secretary of the
    military department concerned:
              (A) A service obligation in a component of the
            Selected Reserve for a period not less than twice as
            long as the member's remaining active duty service
            obligation.
              (B) A service obligation as a civilian employee
            employed as a health care professional in a facility of
            the uniformed services for a period of time equal to
            the member's remaining active duty service obligation.
              (C) With the concurrence of the Secretary of Health
            and Human Services, transfer of the active duty service
            obligation to an obligation equal in time in the
            National Health Service Corps under section 338C of the
            Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254m) and subject
            to all requirements and procedures applicable to
            obligated members of the National Health Service Corps.
              (D) Repayment to the Secretary of Defense of a
            percentage of the total cost incurred by the Secretary
            under this subchapter on behalf of the member equal to
            the percentage of the member's total active duty
            service obligation being relieved, plus interest.
      (2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations
    describing the manner in which an alternative obligation may be
    given under paragraph (1).
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2126. Members of the program: service credit

      [Service performed] (a) General Rule Against Provision of
    Service Credit.--Except as provided in subsection (b), service
    performed while a member of the program shall not be counted--
              (1) in determining eligibility for retirement other
            than by reason of a physical disability incurred while
            on active duty as a member of the program; or
              (2) in computing years of service creditable under
            section 205 of title 37.
      (b) Service Credit for Certain Purposes.--(1) This subsection
    applies with respect to a member of the Selected Reserve who--
              (A) completed a course of study under this subchapter
            as a member of the program;
              (B) completed the active duty obligation imposed
            under section 2123(a) of this title; and
              (C) possesses a specialty designated by the Secretary
            concerned as critically needed in wartime.
      (2) Upon satisfactory completion of a year of service in the
    Selected Reserve by a member of the Selected Reserve described
    in paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned may credit the member
    with a maximum of 50 points creditable toward the computation
    of the member's years of service under section 12732(a)(2) of
    this title for one year of participation in a course of study
    under this subchapter. Not more than four years of
    participation in a course of study under this subchapter may be
    considered under this paragraph.
      (3) In the case of a member of the Selected Reserve described
    in paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned may also credit the
    service of the member while pursuing a course of study under
    this subchapter, but not to exceed a total of four years, for
    purposes of computing years of service creditable under section
    205 of title 37.
      (c) Limitations.--(1) A member of the Selected Reserve
    relieved of any portion of the minimum active duty obligation
    imposed under section 2123(a) of this title may not receive any
    point or service credit under subsection (b).
      (2) A member of the Selected Reserve awarded points or
    service credit under subsection (b) shall not be considered to
    have been in an active status, by reason of the award of the
    points or credit, while pursuing a course of study under this
    subchapter for purposes of any provision of law other than
    section 12732(a)(2) of this title and section 205 of title 37.
              * * * * * * *

            SUBCHAPTER II--NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION PROGRAM

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates

      (a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person described in subsection
    (b) who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and
    ending on September 30, [1997] 1998, executes a written
    agreement in accordance with subsection (c) to accept an
    appointment as a nurse officer may, upon the acceptance of the
    agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession
    bonus of not more than $5,000. The bonus shall be paid in
    periodic installments, as determined by the Secretary concerned
    at the time the agreement is accepted, except that the first
    installment may not exceed $2,500.
              * * * * * * *

                   PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

              * * * * * * *

                     CHAPTER 131--PLANNING AND COORDINATION

    Sec.
    2201.  Apportionment of funds: authority for exemption; excepted
              expenses.
    2202.  Regulations on procurement, production, warehousing, and supply
              distribution functions.
    2203.  Budget estimates.
         * * * * * * *
    2215.  Transfer of funds to other departments and agencies: limitation.
    2216.  Defense Modernization Account.
    [2216.  Defense Business Operations Fund.]
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2216. Defense Business Operations Fund

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (i) Definitions.--In this section:
              (1) The term ``capital assets'' means the following
            capital assets that have a development or acquisition
            cost of not less than [$50,000] $100,000:
                      (A) Minor construction projects financed by
                    the Fund pursuant to section 2805(c)(1) of this
                    title.
                      (B) Automatic data processing equipment,
                    software.
                      (C) Equipment other than equipment described
                    in subparagraph (B).
                      (D) Other capital improvements.

         [The following section is repealed effective October 1, 1998]

    [Sec. 2216. Defense Business Operations Fund

      [(a) Management of Working-Capital Funds and Certain
    Activities.--The Secretary of Defense may manage the
    performance of the working-capital funds and industrial,
    commercial, and support type activities described in subsection
    (b) through the fund known as the Defense Business Operations
    Fund, which is established on the books of the Treasury. Except
    for the funds and activities specified in subsection (b), no
    other functions, activities, funds, or accounts of the
    Department of Defense may be managed or converted to management
    through the Fund.
      [(b) Funds and Activities Included.--The funds and activities
    referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
              [(1) Working-capital funds established under section
            2208 of this title and in existence on December 5,
            1991.
              [(2) Those activities that, on December 5, 1991, were
            funded through the use of a working-capital fund
            established under that section.
              [(3) The Defense Finance and Accounting Service.
              [(4) The Defense Commissary Agency.
              [(5) The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service.
              [(6) The Joint Logistics Systems Center.
      [(c) Separate Accounting, Reporting, and Auditing of Funds
    and Activities.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall provide in
    accordance with this subsection for separate accounting,
    reporting, and auditing of funds and activities managed through
    the Fund.
      [(2) The Secretary shall maintain the separate identity of
    each fund and activity managed through the Fund that (before
    the establishment of the Fund) was managed as a separate Fund
    or activity.
      [(3) The Secretary shall maintain separate records for each
    function for which payment is made through the Fund and which
    (before the establishment of the Fund) was paid directly
    through appropriations, including the separate identity of the
    appropriation account used to pay for the performance of the
    function.
      [(d) Charges for Goods and Services Provided Through the
    Fund.--(1) Charges for goods and services provided through the
    Fund shall include the following:
              [(A) Amounts necessary to recover the full costs of
            the goods and services, whenever practicable, and the
            costs of the development, implementation, operation,
            and maintenance of systems supporting the wholesale
            supply and maintenance activities of the Department of
            Defense.
              [(B) Amounts for depreciation of capital assets, set
            in accordance with generally accepted accounting
            principles.
              [(C) Amounts necessary to recover the full cost of
            the operation of the Defense Finance Accounting
            Service.
      [(2) Charges for goods and services provided through the Fund
    may not include the following:
              [(A) Amounts necessary to recover the costs of a
            military construction project (as defined in section
            2801(b) of this title), other than a minor construction
            project financed by the Fund pursuant to section
            2805(c)(1) of this title.
              [(B) Amounts necessary to cover costs incurred in
            connection with the closure or realignment of a
            military installation.
              [(C) Amounts necessary to recover the costs of
            functions designated by the Secretary of Defense as
            mission critical, such as ammunition handling safety,
            and amounts for ancillary tasks not directly related to
            the mission of the function or activity managed through
            the Fund.
      [(3)(A) The Secretary of Defense may submit to a customer a
    bill for the provision of goods and services through the Fund
    in advance of the provision of those goods and services.
      [(B) The Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on
    advance billings made pursuant to subparagraph (A)--
              [(i) when the aggregate amount of all such billings
            after the date of the enactment of the National Defense
            Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 reaches
            $100,000,000; and
              [(ii) whenever the aggregate amount of all such
            billings after the date of a preceding report under
            this subparagraph reaches $100,000,000.
      [(C) Each report under subparagraph (B) shall include, for
    each such advance billing, the following:
              [(i) An explanation of the reason for the advance
            billing.
              [(ii) An analysis of the impact of the advance
            billing on readiness.
              [(iii) An analysis of the impact of the advance
            billing on the customer so billed.
      [(e) Capital Asset Subaccount.--(1) Amounts charged for
    depreciation of capital assets pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(B)
    shall be credited to a separate capital asset subaccount
    established within the Fund.
      [(2) The Secretary of Defense may award contracts for capital
    assets of the Fund in advance of the availability of funds in
    the subaccount.
      [(f) Procedures For Accumulation of Funds.--The Secretary of
    Defense shall establish billing procedures to ensure that the
    balance in the Fund does not exceed the amount necessary to
    provide for the working capital requirements of the Fund, as
    determined by the Secretary.
      [(g) Purchase From Other Sources.--The Secretary of Defense
    or the Secretary of a military department may purchase goods
    and services that are available for purchase from the Fund from
    a source other than the Fund if the Secretary determines that
    such source offers a more competitive rate for the goods and
    services than the Fund offers.
      [(h) Annual Reports and Budget.--The Secretary of Defense
    shall annually submit to Congress, at the same time that the
    President submits the budget under section 1105 of title 31,
    the following:
              [(1) A detailed report that contains a statement of
            all receipts and disbursements of the Fund (including
            such a statement for each subaccount of the Fund) for
            the fiscal year ending in the year preceding the year
            in which the budget is submitted.
              [(2) A detailed proposed budget for the operation of
            the Fund for the fiscal year for which the budget is
            submitted.
              [(3) A comparison of the amounts actually expended
            for the operation of the Fund for the fiscal year
            referred to in paragraph (1) with the amount proposed
            for the operation of the Fund for that fiscal year in
            the President's budget.
              [(4) A report on the capital asset subaccount of the
            Fund that contains the following information:
                      [(A) The opening balance of the subaccount as
                    of the beginning of the fiscal year in which
                    the report is submitted.
                      [(B) The estimated amounts to be credited to
                    the subaccount in the fiscal year in which the
                    report is submitted.
                      [(C) The estimated amounts of outlays to be
                    paid out of the subaccount in the fiscal year
                    in which the report is submitted.
                      [(D) The estimated balance of the subaccount
                    at the end of the fiscal year in which the
                    report is submitted.
                      [(E) A statement of how much of the estimated
                    balance at the end of the fiscal year in which
                    the report is submitted will be needed to pay
                    outlays in the immediately following fiscal
                    year that are in excess of the amount to be
                    credited to the subaccount in the immediately
                    following fiscal year.
      [(i) Definitions.--In this section:
              [(1) The term ``capital assets'' means the following
            capital assets that have a development or acquisition
            cost of not less than $50,000:
                      [(A) Minor construction projects financed by
                    the Fund pursuant to section 2805(c)(1) of this
                    title.
                      [(B) Automatic data processing equipment,
                    software.
                      [(C) Equipment other than equipment described
                    in subparagraph (B).
                      [(D) Other capital improvements.
              [(2) The term ``Fund'' means the Defense Business
            Operations Fund.]
              * * * * * * *

              CHAPTER 134--MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

              * * * * * * *

             SUBCHAPTER II--MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY

    Sec.
    2251.  Household furnishings and other property: personnel outside the
              United States or in Alaska or Hawaii.
    2252.  Rewards: missing property.
    2253.  Motor vehicles.
    2254.  Treatment of reports of aircraft accident investigations.
    2255.  Aircraft accident investigation boards: independence and
              objectivity.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2255. Aircraft accident investigation boards: independence and
                        objectivity

      (a) Required Membership of Boards.--Whenever the Secretary of
    a military department convenes an aircraft accident
    investigation board to conduct an accident investigation of an
    accident involving an aircraft under the jurisdiction of the
    Secretary, the Secretary shall select the membership of the
    board so that--
              (1) a majority of the voting members of the board are
            selected from units outside the chain of command of the
            mishap unit; and
              (2) at least one voting member of the board is an
            officer or an employee assigned to the relevant service
            safety center.
      (b) Determination of Units Outside Same Chain of Command.--
    For purposes of this section, a unit shall be considered to be
    outside the chain of command of another unit if the two units
    do not have a common commander in their respective chains of
    command below a position for which the authorized grade is
    major general or rear admiral.
      (c) Mishap Unit Defined.--In this section, the term ``mishap
    unit'', with respect to an aircraft accident investigation,
    means the unit of the armed forces (at the squadron level or
    equivalent) to which was assigned the flight crew of the
    aircraft that sustained the accident that is the subject of the
    investigation.
      (d) Service Safety Center.--For purposes of this section, a
    service safety center is the single office or separate
    operating agency of a military department that has
    responsibility for the management of aviation safety matters
    for that military department.
              * * * * * * *

                       CHAPTER 137--PROCUREMENT GENERALLY

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2302. Definitions

      In this chapter:
              (1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (5) The term ``major system'' means a combination of
            elements that will function together to produce the
            capabilities required to fulfill a mission need. The
            elements may include hardware, equipment, software or
            any combination thereof, but excludes construction or
            other improvements to real property. A system shall be
            considered a major system if (A) the Department of
            Defense is responsible for the system and the total
            expenditures for research, development, test, and
            evaluation for the system are estimated to be more than
            [$75,000,000 (based on fiscal year 1980 constant
            dollars)] $115,000,000 (based on fiscal year 1990
            dollars) or the eventual total expenditure for
            procurement of more than [$300,000,000 (based on fiscal
            year 1980 constant dollars)] $540,000,000 (based on
            fiscal year 1990 constant dollars); (B) a civilian
            agency is responsible for the system and total
            expenditures for the system are estimated to exceed
            $750,000 (based on fiscal year 1980 constant dollars)
            or the dollar threshold for a ``major system''
            established by the agency pursuant to Office of
            Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-109, entitled
            ``Major Systems Acquisitions,'' whichever is greater;
            or (C) the system is designated a ``major system'' by
            the head of the agency responsible for the system. The
            Secretary of Defense may adjust the amounts and the
            base fiscal year provided in clause (A) on the basis of
            Department of Defense escalation rates. An adjustment
            under this paragraph shall be effective after the
            Secretary transmits to the Committee on Armed Services
            of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of
            the House of Representatives a written notification of
            the adjustment.
              (6) The term ``Federal Acquisition Regulation'' means
            the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued pursuant to
            section 25(c)(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement
            Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421(c)(1)).
              (7)(A) The term ``simplified acquisition threshold''
            has the meaning provided that term in section 4 of the
            Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
            403), except that, in the case of any contract to be
            awarded and performed, or purchase to be made, outside
            the United States in support of a contingency operation
            or a humanitarian or peacekeeping operation, the term
            means an amount equal to two times the amount specified
            for that term in section 4 of such Act.
              (B) In subparagraph (A), the term ``humanitarian or
            peacekeeping operation'' means a military operation in
            support of the provision of humanitarian or foreign
            disaster assistance or in support of a peacekeeping
            operation under chapter VI or VII of the Charter of the
            United Nations. The term does not include routine
            training, force rotation, or stationing.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2305. Contracts: planning, solicitation, evaluation, and award
                        procedures

      (a)  * * *
      (b)(1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (6)(A)  * * *
      (B) The contracting officer is required to debrief an
    excluded offeror in accordance with paragraph (5) [of this
    section] only if that offeror requested and was refused a
    preaward debriefing under subparagraph (A) [of this paragraph].
      (C) The debriefing conducted under [this subsection]
    subparagraph (A) shall include--
              (i) the executive agency's evaluation of the
            significant elements in the offeror's offer;
              (ii) a summary of the rationale for the offeror's
            exclusion; and
              (iii) reasonable responses to relevant questions
            posed by the debriefed offeror as to whether source
            selection procedures set forth in the solicitation,
            applicable regulations, and other applicable
            authorities were followed by the executive agency.
      (D) The debriefing conducted [pursuant to this subsection]
    under subparagraph (A) may not disclose the number or identity
    of other offerors and shall not disclose information about the
    content, ranking, or evaluation of other offerors' proposals.
              * * * * * * *
      (g) Prohibition on Release of Contractor Proposals.--(1) A
    proposal in the possession or control of the Department of
    Defense may not be made available to any person under section
    552 of title 5.
      (2) In this subsection, the term ``proposal'' means any
    proposal, including a technical, management, or cost proposal,
    submitted by a contractor in response to the requirements of a
    solicitation for a competitive proposal.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2306a. Cost or pricing data: truth in negotiations

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (h) Definitions.--In this section:
              (1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (3) Commercial item.--The term ``commercial item''
            has the meaning provided such term in section 4(12) of
            the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
            403(12)).
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2313. Examination of records of contractor

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(d) Limitation on Preaward Audits Relating to Indirect
    Costs.--The head of an agency may not perform a preaward audit
    to evaluate proposed indirect costs under any contract,
    subcontract, or modification to be entered into in accordance
    with this chapter in any case in which the contracting officer
    determines that the objectives of the audit can reasonably be
    met by accepting the results of an audit conducted by any other
    department or agency of the Federal Government within one year
    preceding the date of the contracting officer's determination.]
      (d) Limitation on Audits Relating to Indirect Costs.--The
    head of an agency may not perform an audit of indirect costs
    under a contract, subcontract, or modification before or after
    entering into the contract, subcontract, or modification in any
    case in which the contracting officer determines that the
    objectives of the audit can reasonably be met by accepting the
    results of an audit that was conducted by any other department
    or agency of the Federal Government within one year preceding
    the date of the contracting officer's determination.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2323a. Credit for Indian contracting in meeting certain
                        subcontracting goals for small disadvantaged
                        businesses and certain institutions of higher
                        education

      (a) Regulations.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), in any
    case in which a subcontracting goal is specified in a
    Department of Defense contract in the implementation of
    [section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1987 (10 U.S.C. 2301 note)] section 2323 of this
    title and section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
    637(d)), credit toward meeting that subcontracting goal shall
    be given for--
              (1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *

                     CHAPTER 139--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    Sec.
    2351.  Availability of appropriations.
    2353.  Contracts: acquisition, construction, or furnishing of test
              facilities and equipment.
         * * * * * * *
    [2366.  Major systems and munitions programs: survivability testing and
              lethality testing required before full-scale production.]
    2366.  Major systems and munitions programs: vulnerability testing and
              lethality testing required before full-scale production.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2361. Award of grants and contracts to colleges and universities:
                        requirement of competition

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(c)(1) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
    Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on
    National Security of the House of Representatives an annual
    report on the use of competitive procedures for the award of
    research and development contracts, and the award of
    construction contracts, to colleges and universities. Each such
    report shall include--
              [(A) a list of each college and university that,
            during the period covered by the report, received more
            than $1,000,000 in such contracts through the use of
            procedures other than competitive procedures; and
              [(B) the cumulative amount of such contracts received
            during that period by each such college and university.
      [(2) Each report under paragraph (1) shall cover the
    preceding fiscal year and shall be submitted not later than
    February 1 of the fiscal year after the fiscal year covered by
    the report.]
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2366. Major systems and munitions programs: [survivability]
                        vulnerability and lethality testing required before
                        full-scale production

      (a) Requirements.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall provide
    that--
              (A) a covered system may not proceed beyond low-rate
            initial production until realistic [survivability]
            vulnerability testing of the system is completed in
            accordance with this section and the report required by
            subsection (d) with respect to that testing is
            submitted in accordance with that subsection; and
              (B) a major munition program or a missile program may
            not proceed beyond low-rate initial production until
            realistic lethality testing of the program is completed
            in accordance with this section and the report required
            by subsection (d) with respect to that testing is
            submitted in accordance with that subsection.
      (2) The Secretary of Defense shall provide that a covered
    product improvement program may not proceed beyond low-rate
    initial production until--
              (A) in the case of a product improvement to a covered
            system, realistic [survivability] vulnerability testing
            is completed in accordance with this section; and
              (B) in the case of a product improvement to a major
            munitions program or a missile program, realistic
            lethality testing is completed in accordance with this
            section.
      (b) Test Guidelines.--(1) [Survivability] Vulnerability and
    lethality tests required under subsection (a) shall be carried
    out sufficiently early in the development phase of the system
    or program (including a covered product improvement program) to
    allow any design deficiency demonstrated by the testing to be
    corrected in the design of the system, munition, or missile (or
    in the product modification or upgrade to the system, munition,
    or missile) before proceeding beyond low-rate initial
    production.
      (2) The costs of all tests required under that subsection
    shall be paid from funds available for the system being tested.
      (3) Testing should begin at the component, subsystem, and
    subassembly level, culminating with tests of the complete
    system configured for combat.
      (c) Waiver Authority.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may waive
    the application of the [survivability] vulnerability and
    lethality tests of this section to a covered system, munitions
    program, missile program, or covered product improvement
    program if the Secretary, before the system or program enters
    engineering and manufacturing development, certifies to
    Congress that live-fire testing of such system or program would
    be unreasonably expensive and impractical.
      (2) In the case of a covered system (or covered product
    improvement program for a covered system), the Secretary may
    waive the application of the [survivability] vulnerability and
    lethality tests of this section to such system or program and
    instead allow testing of the system or program in combat by
    firing munitions likely to be encountered in combat at
    components, subsystems, and subassemblies, together with
    performing design analyses, modeling and simulation, and
    analysis of combat data. Such alternative testing may not be
    carried out in the case of any covered system (or covered
    product improvement program for a covered system) unless the
    Secretary certifies to Congress, before the system or program
    enters engineering and manufacturing development, that the
    [survivability] vulnerability and lethality testing of such
    system or program otherwise required by this section would be
    unreasonably expensive and impracticable.
      (3) The Secretary shall include with any certification under
    paragraph (1) or (2) a report explaining how the Secretary
    plans to evaluate the [survivability] vulnerability or the
    lethality of the system or program and assessing possible
    alternatives to realistic [survivability] vulnerability testing
    of the system or program.
      (4) In time of war or mobilization, the President may suspend
    the operation of any provision of this section.
      (d) Reporting to Congress.--At the conclusion of
    [survivability] vulnerability or lethality testing under
    subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report
    on the testing to the congressional defense committees. Each
    such report shall describe the results of the [survivability]
    vulnerability or lethality testing and shall give the
    Secretary's overall assessment of the testing.
      (e) Definitions.--In this section:
              (1) The term ``covered system'' means a vehicle,
            weapon platform, or conventional weapon system--
                      (A) that includes features designed to
                    provide some degree of protection to users in
                    combat; and
                      (B) that is a major system within the meaning
                    of that term in section 2302(5) of this title.
              (2) The term ``major munitions program'' means--
                      (A) a munition program for which more than
                    1,000,000 rounds are planned to be acquired; or
                      (B) a conventional munitions program that is
                    a major system within the meaning of that term
                    in section 2302(5) of this title.
              (3) The term ``realistic [survivability]
            vulnerability testing'' means, in the case of a covered
            system (or a covered product improvement program for a
            covered system), testing for vulnerability of the
            system in combat by firing munitions likely to be
            encountered in combat (or munitions with a capability
            similar to such munitions) at the system configured for
            combat, with the primary emphasis on testing
            vulnerability with respect to potential user casualties
            and taking into equal consideration the susceptibility
            to attack and combat performance of the system.
              (4) The term ``realistic lethality testing'' means,
            in the case of a major munitions program or a missile
            program (or a covered product improvement program for
            such a program), testing for lethality by firing the
            munition or missile concerned at appropriate targets
            configured for combat.
              (5) The term ``configured for combat'', with respect
            to a weapon system, platform, or vehicle, means loaded
            or equipped with all dangerous materials (including all
            flammables and explosives) that would normally be on
            board in combat.
              (6) The term ``covered product improvement program''
            means a program under which--
                      (A) a modification or upgrade will be made to
                    a covered system which (as determined by the
                    Secretary of Defense) is likely to affect
                    significantly the [survivability] vulnerability
                    of such system; or
                      (B) a modification or upgrade will be made to
                    a major munitions program or a missile program
                    which (as determined by the Secretary of
                    Defense) is likely to affect significantly the
                    lethality of the munition or missile produced
                    under the program.
              (7) The term ``congressional defense committees''
            means--
                      (A) the Committee on Armed Services and the
                    Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
                      (B) the Committee on National Security and
                    the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
                    Representatives.
              * * * * * * *

               CHAPTER 141--MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT PROVISIONS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2391. Military base reuse studies and community planning
                        assistance

      (a) * * *
      (b)(1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (5)(A) The Secretary of Defense may also make grants,
    conclude cooperative agreements, and supplement other Federal
    funds in order to assist a State or local government in
    planning community adjustments and economic diversification
    even though the State or local government is not currently
    eligible for assistance under paragraph (1) if the Secretary
    determines that a substantial portion of the economic activity
    or population of the geographic area to be subject to the
    advance planning is dependent on defense expenditures.
      (B) The Secretary of Defense may also make grants, conclude
    cooperative agreements, and supplement other Federal funds in
    order to assist a State in enhancing its capacities--
              (i) to assist communities, businesses, and workers
            adversely affected by an action described in paragraph
            (1);
              (ii) to support local adjustment and diversification
            initiatives; and
              (iii) to stimulate cooperation between statewide and
            local adjustment and diversification efforts.
              * * * * * * *

                CHAPTER 144--MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2432. Selected Acquisition Reports

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c)(1) Each Selected Acquisition Report for the first quarter
    for a fiscal year shall include--
              (A) the same information, in detailed and summarized
            form, as is provided in reports submitted under section
            2431 of this title;
              (B) the current program acquisition unit cost for
            each major defense acquisition program included in the
            report and the history of that cost from the date the
            program was first included in a Selected Acquisition
            Report to the end of the quarter for which the current
            report is submitted; [and]
              (C) the current procurement unit cost for each major
            defense acquisition program included in the report and
            the history of that cost from the date the program was
            first included in a Selected Acquisition Report to the
            end of the quarter for which the current report is
            submitted; and
              [(C)] (D) such other information as the Secretary of
            Defense considers appropriate.
              * * * * * * *
      (e) Information to be included under this subsection in a
    Quarterly Selected Acquisition Report with respect to a major
    defense acquisition program is as follows:
              (1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
              [(8) The completion status of the program (A)
            expressed as the percentage that the number of years
            for which funds have been appropriated for the program
            is of the number of years for which it is planned that
            funds will be appropriated for the program, and (B)
            expressed as the percentage that the amount of funds
            that have been appropriated for the program is of the
            total amount of funds which it is planned will be
            appropriated for the program.
              [(9)] (8) Program highlights since the last Selected
            Acquisition Report.
              * * * * * * *

      CHAPTER 146--CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR
                           INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2466. Limitations on the performance of depot-level maintenance of
                        materiel

      (a) * * *
      (b) Treatment of Certain Large Projects.--If a single
    maintenance or repair project contracted for performance by
    non-Federal Government personnel accounts for five percent or
    more of the funds made available in a fiscal year to a military
    department or a Defense Agency for depot-level maintenance and
    repair workload, the project and the funds necessary for the
    project shall not be considered when applying the percentage
    limitation specified in subsection (a) to that military
    department or Defense Agency.
              * * * * * * *

                      CHAPTER 147--UTILITIES AND SERVICES

    Sec.
    2481.  Utilities and services: sale; expansion and extension of systems
              and facilities.
         * * * * * * *
    2490b.  Contracts with other agencies and instrumentalities for goods
              and services.
    2490c.  Sale or rental of sexually explicit material prohibited.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2485. Donation of unusable food: commissary stores and other
                        activities

      (a) The Secretary of [a military department] Defense may
    donate food described in subsection (b) to [authorized
    charitable nonprofit food banks] entities specified under
    subsection (d).
      (b) Food that may be donated under this section is commissary
    store food, mess food, meals ready-to-eat (MREs), rations known
    as humanitarian daily rations (HDRs), and other food available
    to the Secretary of [a military department] Defense that--
              (1) is certified as edible by appropriate food
            inspection technicians;
              (2) would otherwise be destroyed as unusable; and
              (3) in the case of commissary store food, is
            unmarketable and unsaleable.
              * * * * * * *
      (d) A donation under this section [may only be made to an
    entity that is authorized by the Secretary of Defense or the
    Secretary of Health and Human Services to receive donations
    under this section.] may only be made to an entity that is one
    of the following:
              (1) A charitable nonprofit food bank that is
            designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary
            of Health and Human Services as authorized to receive
            such donations.
              (2) A State or local agency that is designated by the
            Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of Health and
            Human Services as authorized to receive such donations.
              (3) A chapter or other local unit of a recognized
            national veterans organization that provides services
            to persons without adequate shelter and is designated
            by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as authorized to
            receive such donations.
              (4) A not-for-profit organization that provides care
            for homeless veterans and is designated by the
            Secretary of Veterans Affairs as authorized to receive
            such donations.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2486. Commissary stores: merchandise that may be sold; uniform
                        surcharges and pricing

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) The Secretary of Defense may not use the exception
    provided in section 2304(c)(5) of this title regarding the
    procurement of a brand-name commercial item for resale in
    commissary stores unless the commercial item is regularly sold
    outside of commissary stores under the same brand name as the
    name by which the commercial item will be sold in commissary
    stores.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2490b. Contracts with other agencies and instrumentalities for
                        goods and services

      An agency or instrumentality of the Department of Defense
    that supports the operation of the exchange or morale, welfare,
    and recreation systems of the Department of Defense may enter
    into a contract or other agreement with another department,
    agency, or instrumentality of the Department of Defense or
    another Federal agency to provide goods and services beneficial
    to the efficient management and operation of the exchange or
    morale, welfare, and recreation systems.

    Sec. 2490c. Sale or rental of sexually explicit material prohibited

      (a) Prohibition of Sale or Rental.--The Secretary of Defense
    may not permit the sale or rental of sexually explicit written
    or videotaped material on property under the jurisdiction of
    the Department of Defense.
      (b) Prohibition of Officially Provided Sexually Explicit
    Material.--A member of the armed forces or a civilian officer
    or employee of the Department of Defense acting in an official
    capacity for sale, remuneration, or rental may not provide
    sexually explicit material to another person.
      (c) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
    regulations to implement this section.
      (d) Definitions.--In this section:
              (1) The term ``sexually explicit material'' means an
            audio recording, a film or video recording, or a
            periodical with visual depictions, produced in any
            medium, the dominant theme of which depicts or
            describes nudity, including sexual or excretory
            activities or organs, in a lascivious way.
              (2) The term ``property under the jurisdiction of the
            Department of Defense'' includes commissaries, all
            facilities operated by the Army and Air Force Exchange
            Service, the Navy Exchange Service Command, the Navy
            Resale and Services Support Office, Marine Corps
            exchanges, and ship stores.
              * * * * * * *

     CHAPTER 148--NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE
                      REINVESTMENT, AND DEFENSE CONVERSION

              * * * * * * *

                      SUBCHAPTER II--POLICIES AND PLANNING

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2501. National security objectives concerning national technology
                        and industrial base

      (a) National Security Objectives for National Technology and
    Industrial Base.--It is the policy of Congress that the
    national technology and industrial base be capable of meeting
    the following national security objectives:
              (1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (5) Providing for the development, manufacture, and
            supply of items and technologies critical to the
            production and sustainment of advanced military weapon
            systems with minimal reliance on items for which the
            source of supply, manufacture, or technology is outside
            of the United States and Canada and for which there is
            no immediately available source in the United States or
            Canada.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2505. National technology and industrial base: periodic defense
                        capability assessments

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(c) Foreign Dependency Considerations.--In the preparation
    of the periodic assessment, the Council shall include
    considerations of foreign dependency.]
      (c) Assessment of Extent of Dependency on Foreign Source
    Items.--Each assessment under subsection (a) shall include a
    separate discussion and presentation regarding the extent to
    which the national technology and industrial base is dependent
    on items for which the source of supply, manufacture, or
    technology is outside of the United States and Canada and for
    which there is no immediately available source in the United
    States or Canada. The discussion and presentation shall include
    the following:
              (1) An assessment of the overall degree of dependence
            by the national technology and industrial base on such
            foreign items, including a comparison with the degree
            of dependence identified in the preceding assessment.
              (2) Identification of major systems (as defined in
            section 2302 of this title) under development or
            production containing such foreign items, including an
            identification of all such foreign items for each
            system.
              (3) An analysis of the production or development
            risks resulting from the possible disruption of access
            to such foreign items, including consideration of both
            peacetime and wartime scenarios.
              (4) An analysis of the importance of retaining
            domestic production sources for the items specified in
            section 2534 of this title.
              (5) A discussion of programs and initiatives in place
            to reduce dependence by the national technology and
            industrial base on such foreign items.
              (6) A discussion of proposed policy or legislative
            initiatives recommended to reduce the dependence of the
            national technology and industrial base on such foreign
            items.
              * * * * * * *

       SUBCHAPTER V--MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2534. Miscellaneous limitations on the procurement of goods other
                        than United States goods

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Applicability to Certain Items.--
              (1)  * * *
              (2) Valves and machine tools.--(A)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (C) Subsection (a)(4) and this paragraph shall cease
            to be effective on October 1, [1996] 2001.
              (3) Ball bearings and roller bearings.--Subsection
            (a)(5) and this paragraph shall cease to be effective
            on October 1, 2000.
              (4) Vessel propellers.--Subsection (a)(3)(A)(iii) and
            this paragraph shall cease to be effective on [the date
            occurring two years after the date of the enactment of
            the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
            1996] February 10, 1998.
              * * * * * * *

    CHAPTER 153--EXCHANGE OF MATERIAL AND DISPOSAL OF OBSOLETE, SURPLUS, OR
                               UNCLAIMED PROPERTY

    Sec.
    2571.  Interchange of property and services.
         * * * * * * *
    2576a.  Excess personal property: sale or donation for law enforcement
              activities.
         * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2576a. Excess personal property: sale or donation for law
                        enforcement activities

      (a) Transfer Authorized.--(1) Notwithstanding any other
    provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary
    of Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal
    property of the Department of Defense, including small arms and
    ammunition, that the Secretary determines is--
              (A) suitable for use by the agencies in law
            enforcement activities, including counter-drug
            activities; and
              (B) excess to the needs of the Department of Defense.
      (2) The Secretary shall carry out this section in
    consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of
    National Drug Control Policy.
      (b) Conditions for Transfer.--The Secretary may transfer
    personal property under this section only if--
              (1) the property is drawn from existing stocks of the
            Department of Defense; and
              (2) the transfer is made without the expenditure of
            any funds available to the Department of Defense for
            the procurement of defense equipment.
      (c) Consideration.--Personal property may be transferred
    under this section without cost to the recipient agency.
      (d) Preference for Certain Transfers.--In considering
    applications for the transfer of personal property under this
    section, the Secretary shall give a preference to those
    applications indicating that the transferred property will be
    used in the counter-drug activities of the recipient agency.
              * * * * * * *

                 CHAPTER 155--ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS AND SERVICES

    Sec.
    2601.  General gift funds.
    2602.  American National Red Cross: cooperation and assistance.
    2603.  Acceptance of fellowships, scholarships, or grants.
         * * * * * * *
    [2609.  Theater Missile Defense: acceptance of contributions from
              allies; Theater Missile Defense Cooperation Account.]
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2608. Acceptance of contributions for defense programs, projects,
                        and activities; Defense Cooperation Account

      (a) Acceptance Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may
    accept from any person, foreign government, or international
    organization any contribution of money or real or personal
    property made by such person, foreign government, or
    international organization for use by the Department of Defense
    and may accept from any foreign government or international
    organization any contribution of services made by such foreign
    government or international organization for use by the
    Department of Defense.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2610. Competitions for excellence: acceptance of monetary awards

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) Termination.--The authority of the Secretary under this
    section shall expire [two years after the date of the enactment
    of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996]
    on February 10, 1998.
              * * * * * * *

                          CHAPTER 157--TRANSPORTATION

    Sec.
    2631.  Supplies: preference to United States vessels.
         * * * * * * *
    [2634.  Motor vehicles: for members on change of permanent station.]
    2634.  Motor vehicles: transportation or storage for members on change
              of permanent station or extended deployment.
         * * * * * * *
    2644.  Control of transportation systems in time of war.
    2645.  Indemnification of Department of Transportation for losses
              covered by vessel war risk insurance.
         * * * * * * *

    [Sec. 2634. Motor vehicles: for members on change of permanent station]

    Sec. 2634. Motor vehicles: transportation or storage for members on
                        change of permanent station or extended deployment

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (g)(1) In lieu of transportation authorized by this section,
    if a member is ordered to make a change of permanent station to
    a foreign country and the laws, regulations, or other
    restrictions imposed by the foreign country or the United
    States preclude entry of a motor vehicle described in
    subsection (a) into that country, or would require extensive
    modification of the vehicle as a condition to entry, the member
    may elect to have the vehicle stored at the expense of the
    United States at a location approved by the Secretary
    concerned.
      (2) If a member is transferred or assigned to duty at a
    location other than the permanent station of the member for a
    period of more than 30 consecutive days, but the transfer or
    assignment is not considered a change of permanent station, the
    member may elect to have a motor vehicle described in
    subsection (a) stored at the expense of the United States at a
    location approved by the Secretary concerned.
      (3) Authorized expenses under this subsection include costs
    associated with the delivery of the motor vehicle for storage
    and removal of the vehicle for delivery to a destination
    approved by the Secretary concerned.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2644. Control of transportation systems in time of war

      In time of war, the President, acting through the Secretary
    of Defense, may take possession and assume control of all or
    any part of a system of transportation to transport troops, war
    material, and equipment, or for other purposes related to the
    emergency. So far as necessary, the Secretary may use the
    transportation system to the exclusion of other traffic.

    Sec. 2645. Indemnification of Department of Transportation for losses
                        covered by vessel war risk insurance

      (a) Prompt Indemnification Required.--In the event of a loss
    that is covered by vessel war risk insurance, the Secretary of
    Defense shall promptly indemnify the Secretary of
    Transportation for the amount of the loss. The Secretary of
    Defense shall make such indemnification--
              (1) in the case of a claim for a loss to a vessel,
            not later than 90 days following the date of the
            adjudication or settlement of the claim by the
            Secretary of Transportation; and
              (2) in the case of any other claim, not later than
            180 days after the date on which the claim is
            determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be
            payable.
      (b) Source of Funds for Payment of Indemnity.--The Secretary
    may pay an indemnity described in subsection (a) from any funds
    available to the Department of Defense for operation and
    maintenance, and such sums as may be necessary for payment of
    such indemnity are hereby authorized to be transferred to the
    Secretary of Transportation for such purpose.
      (c) Deposit of Funds.--(1) Any amount transferred to the
    Secretary of Transportation under this section shall be
    deposited in, and merged with amounts in, the Vessel War Risk
    Insurance Fund as provided in the second sentence of section
    1208(a) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App.
    1288(a)).
      (2) In this subsection, the term ``Vessel War Risk Insurance
    Fund'' means the insurance fund referred to in the first
    sentence of section 1208(a) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936
    (46 U.S.C. App. 1288(a)).
      (d) Notice to Congress.--In the event of a loss that is
    covered by vessel war risk insurance in the case of an incident
    in which the covered loss is (or is expected to be) in an
    amount in excess of $1,000,000, the Secretary of Defense shall
    submit to Congress--
              (1) notification of the loss as soon after the
            occurrence of the loss as possible and in no event more
            than 30 days after the date of the loss; and
              (2) semiannual reports thereafter updating the
            information submitted under paragraph (1) and showing
            with respect to losses arising from such incident the
            total amount expended to cover such losses, the source
            of such funds, pending litigation, and estimated total
            cost to the Government.
      (e) Implementing Matters.--(1) Payment of indemnification
    under this section is not subject to section 2214 or 2215 of
    this title or any other provision of law requiring notification
    to Congress before funds may be transferred.
      (2) Consolidation of claims arising from the same incident is
    not required before indemnification of the Secretary of
    Transportation for payment of a claim may be made under this
    section.
      (f) Construction With Other Transfer Authority.--Authority to
    transfer funds under this section is in addition to any other
    authority provided by law to transfer funds (whether enacted
    before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section)
    and is not subject to any dollar limitation or notification
    requirement contained in any other such authority to transfer
    funds.
      (g) Definitions.--In this section:
              (1) Vessel war risk insurance.--The term ``vessel war
            risk insurance'' means insurance and reinsurance
            provided through policies issued by the Secretary of
            Transportation under title XII of the Merchant Marine
            Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1281 et seq.), that is
            provided by that Secretary without premium at the
            request of the Secretary of Defense and is covered by
            an indemnity agreement between the Secretary of
            Transportation and the Secretary of Defense.
              (2) Loss.--The term ``loss'' includes damage to or
            destruction of property, personal injury or death, and
            other liabilities and expenses covered by the vessel
            war risk insurance.
              * * * * * * *

      CHAPTER 159--REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF
                               NONEXCESS PROPERTY

    Sec.
    2661.  Miscellaneous administrative provisions relating to real
              property.
         * * * * * * *
    [2674.  Operation and control of the Pentagon Reservation.]
    2674.  Operation and control of Pentagon Reservation and defense
              facilities in National Capital Region.
         * * * * * * *
    2684.  Cooperative agreements for management of cultural resources.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2668. Easements for rights-of-way

      (a) If the Secretary of a military department finds that it
    will not be against the public interest, he may grant, upon
    such terms as he considers advisable, easements for rights-of-
    way over, in, and upon public lands permanently withdrawn or
    reserved for the use of that department, and other lands under
    his control, to a State, Territory, Commonwealth, or
    possession, or political subdivision thereof, or to a citizen,
    association, partnership, or corporation of a State, Territory,
    Commonwealth, or possession, for--
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (9) roads and streets; [and]
              (10) poles and lines for the transmission and
            distribution of electrical power;
              (11) poles and lines for communication purposes, and
            for radio, television, and other forms of communication
            transmitting, relay, and receiving structures and
            facilities; and
              [(10)] (12) any other purpose that he considers
            advisable, except a purpose covered by section 2669 of
            this title [or by the Act of March 4, 1911 (43 U.S.C.
            961)].
              * * * * * * *

    [Sec. 2674. Operation and control of the Pentagon Reservation]

    Sec. 2674. Operation and control of Pentagon Reservation and defense
                        facilities in National Capital Region

      (a) * * *
      (b) The Secretary may appoint military or civilian personnel
    or contract personnel to perform law enforcement and security
    functions for property occupied by, or under the jurisdiction,
    custody, and control of the Department of Defense, and located
    [at the Pentagon Reservation] in the National Capital Region.
    Such individuals--
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2684. Cooperative agreements for management of cultural resources

      (a) Authority.--The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of
    a military department may enter into a cooperative agreement
    with a State, local government, or other entity for the
    preservation, management, maintenance, and improvement of
    cultural resources on military installations and for the
    conducting of research regarding the cultural resources.
    Activities under the cooperative agreement shall be subject to
    the availability of funds to carry out the cooperative
    agreement.
      (b) Application of Other Laws.--Section 1535 and chapter 63
    of title 31 shall not apply to a cooperative agreement entered
    into under this section.
      (c) Cultural Resource Defined.--In this section, the term
    ``cultural resource'' means any of the following:
              (1) Any building, structure, site, district, or
            object included in or eligible for inclusion in the
            National Register of Historic Places under section 101
            of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.
            470a).
              (2) Cultural items, as defined in section 2(3) of the
            Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
            (25 U.S.C. 3001(3)).
              (3) An archaeological resource, as defined in section
            3(1) of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of
            1979 (16 U.S.C. 470bb(1)).
              (4) Archaeological artifact collections and
            associated records, as defined in section 79 of title
            36, Code of Federal Regulations.
              * * * * * * *

                     CHAPTER 160--ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2706. Annual reports to Congress

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(c) Report on Contractor Reimbursement Costs.--(1) The
    Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress each year,
    not later than 30 days after the date on which the President
    submits to the Congress the budget for a fiscal year, a report
    on payments made by the Secretary to defense contractors for
    the costs of environmental response actions.
      [(2) Each such report shall include, for the fiscal year
    preceding the year in which the report is submitted, the
    following:
              [(A) An estimate of the payments made by the
            Secretary to any defense contractor (other than a
            response action contractor) for the costs of
            environmental response actions at facilities owned or
            operated by the defense contractor or at which the
            defense contractor is liable in whole or in part for
            the environmental response action.
              [(B) A statement of the amount and current status of
            any pending requests by any defense contractor (other
            than a response action contractor) for payment of the
            costs of environmental response actions at facilities
            owned or operated by the defense contractor or at which
            the defense contractor is liable in whole or in part
            for the environmental response action.]
      [(d)] (c) Definitions.--In this section:
              (1) The term ``defense contractor''--
                      (A) * * *
              * * * * * * *

         CHAPTER 169--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

                      SUBCHAPTER I--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

    Sec.
    2801.  Scope of chapter; definitions.
         * * * * * * *
    [2806.  Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organization
              Infrastructure.]
    2806.  Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
              Investment Program.
         * * * * * * *
    2814.  Demolition of excess facilities.
         * * * * * * *

    [Sec. 2806. Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organization
                        Infrastructure]

    Sec. 2806. Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organization
                        Security Investment Program

      (a) * * *
      (b) Funds may not be obligated or expended in connection with
    the [North Atlantic Treaty Organization Infrastructure program]
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program
    in any year unless such funds have been authorized by law for
    such program.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2814. Demolition of excess facilities

      (a) Demolition Using Military Construction Appropriations.--
    Within an amount equal to 125 percent of the amount
    appropriated for such purpose in the military construction
    account, the Secretary concerned may carry out the demolition
    of a facility on a military installation when the facility is
    determined by the Secretary concerned to be--
              (1) excess to the needs of the military department or
            Defense Agency concerned; and
              (2) not suitable for reuse.
      (b) Demolitions Using Operations and Maintenance Funds.--
    Using funds available to the Secretary concerned for operation
    and maintenance, the Secretary concerned may carry out a
    demolition project involving an excess facility described in
    subsection (a), except that the amount obligated on the project
    may not exceed the maximum amount authorized for a minor
    construction project under section 2805(c)(1) of this title.
      (c) Advance Approval of Certain Projects.--(1) A demolition
    project under this section that would cost more than $500,000
    may not be carried out under this section unless approved in
    advance by the Secretary concerned.
      (2) When a decision is made to demolish a facility covered by
    paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall submit a report in
    writing to the appropriate committees of Congress on that
    decision. Each such report shall include--
              (A) the justification for the demolition and the
            current estimate of its costs, and
              (B) the justification for carrying out the project
            under this section.
      (3) The demolition project may be carried out only after the
    end of the 21-day period beginning on the date the notification
    is received by such committees.
      (d) Certain Projects Prohibited.--(1) A demolition project
    involving military family housing may not be carried out under
    the authority of this section.
      (2) A demolition project required as a result of a base
    closure action authorized by title II of the Defense
    Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act
    (Public Law 100-526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) or the Defense Base
    Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of
    Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) may not be carried out
    under the authority of this section.
      (3) A demolition project required as a result of
    environmental contamination shall be carried out under the
    authority of the environmental restoration program under
    section 2701(b)(3) of this title.
      (e) Demolition Included in Specific Military Construction
    Project.--Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the
    inclusion of demolition of facilities as an integral part of a
    specific military construction project when the demolition is
    required for accomplishment of the intent of that construction
    project.
              * * * * * * *

                     SUBCHAPTER II--MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2824. Authorization for acquisition of existing family housing in
                        lieu of construction

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) The net floor area of a family housing unit acquired
    under the authority of this section may not exceed the
    applicable limitation specified in section 2826 of this title.
    The Secretary concerned may waive the limitation set forth in
    the preceding sentence to family housing units acquired under
    this section during the five-year period beginning on [the date
    of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996] February 10, 1996.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2825. Improvements to family housing units

      (a)(1) Authority provided by law to improve existing military
    family housing units and ancillary family housing support
    facilities is authority to make alterations, additions,
    expansions, and extensions.
      (2) In this section, the term ``improvement'' includes
    rehabilitation of a housing unit and major maintenance or
    repair work to be accomplished concurrently with an improvement
    project. Such term does not include day-to-day maintenance and
    repair.
      (b)(1) * * *
      [(2) In determining the applicability of the limitation
    contained in paragraph (1), there shall be included as part of
    the cost of the improvement the cost of repairs undertaken in
    connection with the improvement and any cost in connection with
    (A) the furnishing of electricity, gas, water and sewage
    disposal, (B) the construction or repair of roads and walks,
    and (C) grading and drainage work.]
      (2) In determining the applicability of the limitation
    contained in paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall
    include as part of the cost of the improvement the following:
              (A) The cost of major maintenance or repair work
            (excluding day-to-day maintenance and repair)
            undertaken in connection with the improvement.
              (B) Any cost, beyond the five-foot line of a housing
            unit, in connection with--
                      (i) the furnishing of electricity, gas,
                    water, and sewage disposal;
                      (ii) the construction or repair of roads,
                    drives, and walks; and
                      (iii) grading and drainage work.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2826. Limitations on space by pay grade

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (i)(1) The Secretary concerned may waive the provisions of
    subsection (a) with respect to military family housing units
    constructed, acquired, or improved during the five-year period
    beginning on [the date of the enactment of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996] February 10, 1996.
              * * * * * * *

     SUBCHAPTER III--ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY
                                 FAMILY HOUSING

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 2861. Annual report to Congress

      (a) * * *
      (b) Each report under subsection (a) shall include the
    following:
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (3) Information to enable the committees to monitor
            trends in construction started using funds contributed
            by the United States under section 2806 of this title
            to the [North Atlantic Treaty Organization
            Infrastructure program] North Atlantic Treaty
            Organization Security Investment Program and the status
            of recoupments under that program.
              * * * * * * *

                                Subtitle B--Army

              * * * * * * *

                              PART I--ORGANIZATION

              * * * * * * *

                          CHAPTER 305--THE ARMY STAFF

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 3036. Chiefs of branches: appointment; duties

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d)(1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (3) [For purposes of this subsection,] In this subsection,
    the term ``State'' includes the several States, the District of
    Columbia, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern
    Mariana Islands, territories and possessions of the United
    States, and Indian tribes.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 3038. Office of Army Reserve: appointment of Chief

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d) Budget.--The Chief of Army Reserve is the official within
    the executive part of the Department of the Army who, subject
    to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of
    the Army and the Chief of Staff, is responsible for
    justification and execution of the personnel, operation and
    maintenance, and construction budgets for the Army Reserve. As
    such, the Chief of Army Reserve is the director and functional
    manager of appropriations made for the Army Reserve in those
    areas.
      (e) Full-Time Support Program.--The Chief of Army Reserve
    manages, with respect to the Army Reserve, the personnel
    program of the Department of Defense known as the Full-Time
    Support Program.
      (f) Annual Report.--(1) The Chief of Army Reserve shall
    submit to the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of
    the Army, an annual report on the state of the Army Reserve and
    the ability of the Army Reserve to meet its missions. The
    report shall be prepared in conjunction with the Chief of Staff
    of the Army and may be submitted in classified and unclassified
    versions.
      (2) The Secretary of Defense shall transmit the annual report
    of the Chief of Army Reserve under paragraph (1) to Congress,
    together with such comments on the report as the Secretary
    considers appropriate. The report shall be transmitted at the
    same time each year that the annual report of the Secretary
    under section 113 of this title is submitted to Congress.
              * * * * * * *

                               PART III--TRAINING

              * * * * * * *

                  CHAPTER 403--UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 4346. Cadets: requirements for admission

      (a) To be eligible for admission to the Academy a candidate
    must be at least 17 years of age and must not have passed his
    [twenty-second birthday] twenty-third birthday on July 1 of the
    year in which he enters the Academy.
              * * * * * * *

                   PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

              * * * * * * *

                          CHAPTER 447--TRANSPORTATION

    Sec.
    4741.  Control and supervision.
    [4742.  Control of transportation systems in time of war.]
         * * * * * * *

    [Sec. 4742. Control of transportation systems in time of war

      [In time of war, the President, through the Secretary of the
    Army, may take possession and assume control of all or part of
    any system of transportation to transport troops, war material,
    and equipment, or for other purposes related to the emergency.
    So far as necessary, he may use the system to the exclusion of
    other traffic.]
              * * * * * * *

                       Subtitle C--Navy and Marine Corps

              * * * * * * *

                        PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

          Secretary of the Navy: Miscellaneous Powers and Duties........7201
         * * * * * * *
          National Oceanographic Partnership Program....................7901
         * * * * * * *

                              PART I--ORGANIZATION

         * * * * * * *

           CHAPTER 513--BUREAUS; OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL

    Sec.
    5131.  Bureaus: names; location.
    5132.  Bureaus: distribution of business; orders; records; expenses.
    5133.  Bureau Chiefs: rank; pay and allowances; retirement.
         * * * * * * *
    5143.  Office of Naval Reserve: appointment of Chief.
    5144.  Office of Marine Forces Reserve: appointment of Commander.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 5143. Office of Naval Reserve: appointment of Chief

      (a) Establishment of Office: Chief of Naval Reserve.--There
    is in the executive part of the Department of the Navy, on the
    staff of the Chief of Naval Operations, an Office of the Naval
    Reserve, which is headed by a Chief of Naval Reserve. The Chief
    of Naval Reserve--
              (1) is the principal adviser on Naval Reserve matters
            to the Chief of Naval Operations; and
              (2) is the commander of the Naval Reserve Force.
      (b) Appointment.--The President, by and with the advice and
    consent of the Senate, shall appoint the Chief of Naval Reserve
    from officers who--
              (1) have had at least 10 years of commissioned
            service;
              (2) are in a grade above captain; and
              (3) have been recommended by the Secretary of the
            Navy.
      (c) Grade.--(1) The Chief of Naval Reserve holds office for a
    term determined by the Chief of Naval Operations, normally four
    years, but may be removed for cause at any time. He is eligible
    to succeed himself.
      (2) The Chief of Naval Reserve, while so serving, has a grade
    above rear admiral (lower half), without vacating the officer's
    permanent grade.
      (d) Budget.--The Chief of Naval Reserve is the official
    within the executive part of the Department of the Navy who,
    subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
    Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations, is
    responsible for preparation, justification, and execution of
    the personnel, operation and maintenance, and construction
    budgets for the Naval Reserve. As such, the Chief of Naval
    Reserve is the director and functional manager of
    appropriations made for the Naval Reserve in those areas.
      (e) Annual Report.--(1) The Chief of Naval Reserve shall
    submit to the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of
    the Navy, an annual report on the state of the Naval Reserve
    and the ability of the Naval Reserve to meet its missions. The
    report shall be prepared in conjunction with the Chief of Naval
    Operations and may be submitted in classified and unclassified
    versions.
      (2) The Secretary of Defense shall transmit the annual report
    of the Chief of Naval Reserve under paragraph (1) to Congress,
    together with such comments on the report as the Secretary
    considers appropriate. The report shall be transmitted at the
    same time each year that the annual report of the Secretary
    under section 113 of this title is submitted to Congress.

    Sec. 5144. Office of Marine Forces Reserve: appointment of Commander

      (a) Establishment of Office; Commander, Marine Forces
    Reserve.--There is in the executive part of the Department of
    the Navy an Office of the Marine Forces Reserve, which is
    headed by the Commander, Marine Forces Reserve. The Commander,
    Marine Forces Reserve is the principal adviser to the
    Commandant on Marine Forces Reserve matters.
      (b) Appointment.--The President, by and with the advice and
    consent of the Senate, shall appoint the Commander, Marine
    Forces Reserve, from officers of the Marine Corps who--
              (1) have had at least 10 years of commissioned
            service;
              (2) are in a grade above colonel; and
              (3) have been recommended by the Secretary of the
            Navy.
      (c) Term of Office; Grade.--(1) The Commander, Marine Forces
    Reserve, holds office for a term determined by the Commandant
    of the Marine Corps, normally four years, but may be removed
    for cause at any time. He is eligible to succeed himself.
      (2) The Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, while so serving,
    has a grade above brigadier general, without vacating the
    officer's permanent grade.
      (d) Annual Report.--(1) The Commander, Marine Forces Reserve,
    shall submit to the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary
    of the Navy, an annual report on the state of the Marine Corps
    Reserve and the ability of the Marine Corps Reserve to meet its
    missions. The report shall be prepared in conjunction with the
    Commandant of the Marine Corps and may be submitted in
    classified and unclassified versions.
      (2) The Secretary of Defense shall transmit the annual report
    of the Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, under paragraph (1) to
    Congress, together with such comments on the report as the
    Secretary considers appropriate. The report shall be
    transmitted at the same time each year that the annual report
    of the Secretary under section 113 of this title is submitted
    to Congress.
              * * * * * * *

                               PART II--PERSONNEL

              * * * * * * *

                      CHAPTER 544--TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 5721. Temporary promotions of certain Navy lieutenants

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(g) Termination of Appointment Authority.--The authority to
    make appointments under this section terminates on September
    30, 1996.]
              * * * * * * *

                        PART III--EDUCATION AND TRAINING

              * * * * * * *

                    CHAPTER 603--UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 6958. Midshipmen: qualifications for admission

      (a) Each candidate for admission to the Naval Academy--
              (1) must be at least 17 years of age and must not
            have passed his [twenty-second birthday] twenty-third
            birthday on July 1 of the calendar year in which he
            enters the Academy; and
              * * * * * * *

                        PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

    Chap.                                                               Sec.
          Secretary of the Navy: Miscellaneous Powers and Duties........7201
         * * * * * * *
          National Oceanographic Partnership Program....................7901
         * * * * * * *

      CHAPTER 631--SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: MISCELLANEOUS POWERS AND DUTIES

    Sec.
    7204.  Schools near naval activities: financial aid.
    7205.  Promotion of health and prevention of accidents.
    7207.  Administration of liberated and occupied areas.
         * * * * * * *
    [7222.  Office of Naval Records and History gift fund.]
    7222.  Naval Historical Center Fund.
              * * * * * * *

    [Sec. 7222. Office of Naval Records and History gift fund]

    Sec. 7222. Naval Historical Center Fund

      (a) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold, and
    administer gifts and bequests of personal property, and loans
    of personal property other than money, for the benefit of the
    [Office of Naval Records and History] Naval Historical Center,
    its collection, or its services. Gifts or bequests of money
    shall be deposited in the Treasury in a trust fund called
    ``[Office of Naval Records and History] Naval Historical Center
    Fund.''
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Upon the request of the Secretary of the Navy, the
    Secretary of the Treasury may invest or reinvest all or any
    part of the funds deposited under this section in securities of
    the United States or in securities guaranteed by the United
    States. The interest accruing from these securities shall be
    deposited to the credit of the [Office of Naval Records and
    History] Naval Historical Center Fund.
              * * * * * * *

                           CHAPTER 633--NAVAL VESSELS

    Sec.
    7291.  Classification.
         * * * * * * *
    7315.  Use of private shipyards for complex ship repair work: limitation
              to certain shipyards.
         * * * * * * *

    Sec. 7315. Use of private shipyards for complex ship repair work:
                        limitation to certain shipyards

      (a) Limitation on Repair Locations.--Whenever a naval vessel
    (other than a submarine) is to undergo complex ship repairs and
    the Secretary of the Navy determines that a private shipyard
    contractor is to be used for the work required, such work--
              (1) may be performed only by a qualifying shipyard
            contractor; and
              (2) shall be performed at the shipyard facility of
            the contractor selected unless the Secretary determines
            that the work should be conducted elsewhere in the
            interest of national security.
      (b) Qualifying Shipyard Contractor.--For the purposes of this
    section, a qualifying shipyard contractor, with respect to the
    award of any contract for ship repair work, is a private
    shipyard that--
              (1) is capable of performing the repair and overhaul
            of ships with a displacement of 800 tons or more;
              (2) performs at least 55 percent of repairs with its
            own facilities and work force;
              (3) possesses or has access to a dry-dock and a pier
            with the capability to berth a ship with a displacement
            of 800 tons or more; and
              (4) has all the facilities and organizational
            elements needed for the repair of a ship with a
            displacement of 800 tons or more.
      (c) Complex Ship Repairs.--In this section, the term
    ``complex ship repairs'' means repairs to a vessel performed at
    a shipyard that are estimated (before work on the repairs by a
    shipyard begins) to require expenditure of $750,000 or more.
      (d) Exception Regarding Pacific Coast.--This section shall
    not apply in the case of complex ship repairs to be performed
    at a shipyard facility located on the Pacific Coast of the
    United States.
              * * * * * * *

                     CHAPTER 641--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

    Sec.
    7420.  Definitions.
    7421.  Jurisdiction and control.
    7422.  Administration.
         * * * * * * *
    [7434.  Annual report to congressional committees.]
              * * * * * * *

            CHAPTER 665--NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

    Sec.
    7901. National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
    7902. National Ocean Research Leadership Council.
    7903. Ocean Research Partnership Coordinating Group.
    7904. Ocean Research Advisory Panel.

    Sec. 7901. National Oceanographic Partnership Program

      (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Navy shall establish
    a program to be known as the ``National Oceanographic
    Partnership Program''.
      (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program are as follows:
              (1) To promote the national goals of assuring
            national security, advancing economic development,
            protecting quality of life, and strengthening science
            education and communication through improved knowledge
            of the ocean.
              (2) To coordinate and strengthen oceanographic
            efforts in support of those goals by--
                      (A) identifying and carrying out partnerships
                    among Federal agencies, academia, industry, and
                    other members of the oceanographic scientific
                    community in the areas of data, resources,
                    education, and communication; and
                      (B) reporting annually to Congress on the
                    program.

    Sec. 7902. National Ocean Research Leadership Council

      (a) Council.--There is a National Ocean Research Leadership
    Council (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the
    ``Council'').
      (b) Membership.--The Council is composed of the following
    members:
              (1) The Secretary of the Navy, who shall be the
            Chairman of the Council.
              (2) The Administrator of the National Oceanic and
            Atmospheric Administration, who shall be the Vice
            Chairman of the Council.
              (3) The Director of the National Science Foundation.
              (4) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
            Space Administration.
              (5) The Deputy Secretary of Energy.
              (6) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
            Agency.
              (7) The Commandant of the Coast Guard.
              (8) The Director of the Geological Survey of the
            Department of the Interior.
              (9) The Director of the Defense Advanced Research
            Projects Agency.
              (10) The Director of the Minerals Management Service
            of the Department of the Interior.
              (11) The President of the National Academy of
            Sciences, the President of the National Academy of
            Engineering, and the President of the Institute of
            Medicine.
              (12) The Director of the Office of Science and
            Technology.
              (13) The Director of the Office of Management and
            Budget.
              (14) One member appointed by the Chairman from among
            individuals who will represent the views of ocean
            industries.
              (15) One member appointed by the Chairman from among
            individuals who will represent the views of State
            governments.
              (16) One member appointed by the Chairman from among
            individuals who will represent the views of academia.
              (17) One member appointed by the Chairman from among
            individuals who will represent such other views as the
            Chairman considers appropriate.
      (c) Term of Office.--The term of office of a member of the
    Council appointed under paragraph (14), (15), (16), or (17) of
    subsection (b) shall be two years, except that any person
    appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of
    the term for which his predecessor was appointed shall be
    appointed for the remainder of such term.
      (d) Responsibilities.--The Council shall have the following
    responsibilities:
              (1) To establish the Ocean Research Partnership
            Coordinating Group as provided in section 7903.
              (2) To establish the Ocean Research Advisory Panel as
            provided in section 7904.
              (3) To submit to Congress an annual report pursuant
            to subsection (e).
      (e) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the
    Council shall submit to Congress a report on the National
    Oceanographic Partnership Program. The report shall contain the
    following:
              (1) A description of activities of the program
            carried out during the fiscal year before the fiscal
            year in which the report is prepared. The description
            also shall include a list of the members of the Ocean
            Research Partnership Coordinating Group, the Ocean
            Research Advisory Panel, and any working groups in
            existence during the fiscal year covered.
              (2) A general outline of the activities planned for
            the program during the fiscal year in which the report
            is prepared.
              (3) A summary of projects continued from the fiscal
            year before the fiscal year in which the report is
            prepared and projects expected to be started during the
            fiscal year in which the report is prepared and during
            the following fiscal year.
              (4) A description of the involvement of the program
            with Federal interagency coordinating entities.
              (5) The amounts requested, in the budget submitted to
            Congress pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31 for
            the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the
            report is prepared, for the programs, projects, and
            activities of the program and the estimated
            expenditures under such programs, projects, and
            activities during such following fiscal year.

    Sec. 7903. Ocean Research Partnership Coordinating Group

      (a) Establishment.--The Council shall establish an entity to
    be known as the ``Ocean Research Partnership Coordinating
    Group'' (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the
    ``Coordinating Group'').
      (b) Membership.--The Coordinating Group shall consist of
    members appointed by the Council, with one member appointed
    from each Federal department or agency having an oceanographic
    research or development program.
      (c) Chairman.--The Council shall appoint the Chairman of the
    Coordinating Group.
      (d) Responsibilities.--Subject to the authority, direction,
    and control of the Council, the Coordinating Group shall have
    the following responsibilities:
              (1) To prescribe policies and procedures to implement
            the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
              (2) To review, select, and identify and allocate
            funds for partnership projects for implementation under
            the program, based on the following criteria:
                      (A) Whether the project addresses critical
                    research objectives or operational goals, such
                    as data accessibility and quality assurance,
                    sharing of resources, education, or
                    communication.
                      (B) Whether the project has broad
                    participation within the oceanographic
                    community.
                      (C) Whether the partners have a long-term
                    commitment to the objectives of the project.
                      (D) Whether the resources supporting the
                    project are shared among the partners.
                      (E) Whether the project has been subjected to
                    adequate peer review.
              (3) To promote participation in partnership projects
            by each Federal department and agency involved with
            oceanographic research and development by publicizing
            the program and by prescribing guidelines for
            participation in the program.
              (4) To submit to the Council an annual report
            pursuant to subsection (i).
      (e) Partnership Program Office.--The Coordinating Group shall
    establish, using competitive procedures, and oversee a
    partnership program office to carry out such duties as the
    Chairman of the Coordinating Group considers appropriate to
    implement the National Oceanographic Partnership Program,
    including the following:
              (1) To establish and oversee working groups to
            propose partnership projects to the Coordinating Group
            and advise the Group on such projects.
              (2) To manage peer review of partnership projects
            proposed to the Coordinating Group and competitions for
            projects selected by the Group.
              (3) To submit to the Coordinating Group an annual
            report on the status of all partnership projects and
            activities of the office.
      (f) Contract and Grant Authority.--The Coordinating Group may
    authorize one or more of the departments or agencies
    represented in the Group to enter into contracts and make
    grants, using funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization
    for the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, for the
    purpose of implementing the program and carrying out the
    Coordinating Group's responsibilities.
      (g) Forms of Partnership Projects.--Partnership projects
    selected by the Coordinating Group may be in any form that the
    Coordinating Group considers appropriate, including memoranda
    of understanding, demonstration projects, cooperative research
    and development agreements, and similar instruments.
      (h) Annual Report.--Not later than February 1 of each year,
    the Coordinating Group shall submit to the Council a report on
    the National Oceanographic Partnership Program. The report
    shall contain, at a minimum, copies of any recommendations or
    reports to the Coordinating Group by the Ocean Research
    Advisory Panel.

    Sec. 7904. Ocean Research Advisory Panel

      (a) Establishment.--The Council shall appoint an Ocean
    Research Advisory Panel (hereinafter in this chapter referred
    to as the ``Advisory Panel'') consisting of not less than 10
    and not more than 18 members.
      (b) Membership.--Members of the Advisory Panel shall be
    appointed from among persons who are eminent in the fields of
    marine science or marine policy, or related fields, and who are
    representative, at a minimum, of the interests of government,
    academia, and industry.
      (c) Responsibilities.--(1) The Coordinating Group shall refer
    to the Advisory Panel, and the Advisory Panel shall review,
    each proposed partnership project estimated to cost more than
    $500,000. The Advisory Panel shall make any recommendations to
    the Coordinating Group that the Advisory Panel considers
    appropriate regarding such projects.
      (2) The Advisory Panel shall make any recommendations to the
    Coordinating Group regarding activities that should be
    addressed by the National Oceanographic Partnership Program
    that the Advisory Panel considers appropriate.
              * * * * * * *

                             Subtitle D--Air Force

              * * * * * * *

                              PART I--ORGANIZATION

              * * * * * * *

                           CHAPTER 805--THE AIR STAFF

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 8038. Office of Air Force Reserve: appointment of Chief

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d) Budget.--The Chief of Air Force Reserve is the official
    within the executive part of the Department of the Air Force
    who, subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
    Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff, is
    responsible for preparation, justification, and execution of
    the personnel, operation and maintenance, and construction
    budgets for the Air Force Reserve. As such, the Chief of Air
    Force Reserve is the director and functional manager of
    appropriations made for the Air Force Reserve in those areas.
      (e) Full Time Support Program.--(1) The Chief of Air Force
    Reserve manages, with respect to the Air Force Reserve, the
    personnel program of the Department of Defense known as the
    Full Time Support Program.
      (f) Annual Report.--(1) The Chief of Air Force Reserve shall
    submit to the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of
    the Air Force, an annual report on the state of the Air Force
    Reserve and the ability of the Air Force Reserve to meet its
    missions. The report shall be prepared in conjunction with the
    Chief of Staff of the Air Force and may be submitted in
    classified and unclassified versions.
      (2) The Secretary of Defense shall transmit the annual report
    of the Chief of Air Force Reserve under paragraph (1) to
    Congress, together with such comments on the report as the
    Secretary considers appropriate. The report shall be
    transmitted at the same time each year that the annual report
    of the Secretary under section 113 of this title is submitted
    to Congress.
              * * * * * * *

                               PART III--TRAINING

              * * * * * * *

                  CHAPTER 903--UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 9346. Cadets: requirements for admission

      (a) To be eligible for admission to the Academy a candidate
    must be at least 17 years of age and must not have passed his
    [twenty-second birthday] twenty-third birthday on July 1 of the
    year in which he enters the Academy.
              * * * * * * *

                   PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

              * * * * * * *

                      CHAPTER 931--CIVIL RESERVE AIR FLEET

    Sec.
    9511.  Definitions.
    9512.  Contracts for the inclusion or incorporation of defense features.
    9513.  Use of military installations by Civil Reserve Air Fleet
              contractors.
    9514.  Indemnification of Department of Transportation for losses
              covered by defense-related aviation insurance.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 9514. Indemnification of Department of Transportation for losses
                        covered by defense-related aviation insurance

      (a) Prompt Indemnification Required.--In the event of a loss
    that is covered by defense-related aviation insurance, the
    Secretary of Defense shall promptly indemnify the Secretary of
    Transportation for the amount of the loss. The Secretary of
    Defense shall make such indemnification--
              (1) in the case of a claim for the loss of an
            aircraft hull, not later than 30 days following the
            date of the presentment of the claim to the Secretary
            of Transportation; and
              (2) in the case of any other claim, not later than
            180 days after the date on which the claim is
            determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be
            payable.
      (b) Source of Funds for Payment of Indemnity.--The Secretary
    may pay an indemnity described in subsection (a) from any funds
    available to the Department of Defense for operation and
    maintenance, and such sums as may be necessary for payment of
    such indemnity are hereby authorized to be transferred to the
    Secretary of Transportation for such purpose.
      (c) Notice to Congress.--In the event of a loss that is
    covered by defense-related aviation insurance in the case of an
    incident in which the covered loss is (or is expected to be) in
    an amount in excess of $1,000,000, the Secretary of Defense
    shall submit to Congress--
              (1) notification of the loss as soon after the
            occurrence of the loss as possible and in no event more
            than 30 days after the date of the loss; and
              (2) semiannual reports thereafter updating the
            information submitted under paragraph (1) and showing
            with respect to losses arising from such incident the
            total amount expended to cover such losses, the source
            of those funds, pending litigation, and estimated total
            cost to the Government.
      (d) Implementing Matters.--(1) Payment of indemnification
    under this section is not subject to section 2214 or 2215 of
    this title or any other provision of law requiring notification
    to Congress before funds may be transferred.
      (2) Consolidation of claims arising from the same incident is
    not required before indemnification of the Secretary of
    Transportation for payment of a claim may be made under this
    section.
      (e) Construction With Other Transfer Authority.--Authority to
    transfer funds under this section is in addition to any other
    authority provided by law to transfer funds (whether enacted
    before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this section)
    and is not subject to any dollar limitation or notification
    requirement contained in any other such authority to transfer
    funds.
      (f) Definitions.--In this section:
              (1) Defense-related aviation insurance.--The term
            ``defense-related aviation insurance'' means aviation
            insurance and reinsurance provided through policies
            issued by the Secretary of Transportation under chapter
            443 of title 49 that pursuant to section 44305(b) of
            that title is provided by that Secretary without
            premium at the request of the Secretary of Defense and
            is covered by an indemnity agreement between the
            Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of
            Defense.
              (2) Loss.--The term ``loss'' includes damage to or
            destruction of property, personal injury or death, and
            other liabilities and expenses covered by the defense-
            related aviation insurance.
              * * * * * * *

                          CHAPTER 947--TRANSPORTATION

    Sec.
    9741.  Control and supervision.
    [9742.  Control of transportation systems in time of war.]
         * * * * * * *

    [Sec. 9742. Control of transportation systems in time of war

      [In time of war, the President, through the Secretary of the
    Air Force, may take possession and assume control of all or
    part of any system of transportation to transport troops, war
    material, and equipment, or for other purposes related to the
    emergency. So far as necessary, he may use the system to the
    exclusion of other traffic.]
              * * * * * * *

                         Subtitle E--Reserve Components

                    PART I--ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

    Chap.                                                               Sec.
          Definitions..................................................10001
          Reserve Components Generally.................................10101
          Elements of Reserve Components...............................10141
          Reserve Component Commands...................................10171
              * * * * * * *

                    PART I--ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

    Chap.                                                               Sec.
          Definitions..................................................10001
          Reserve Components Generally.................................10101
          Elements of Reserve Components...............................10141
          Reserve Component Commands...................................10171
              * * * * * * *

                  CHAPTER 1005--ELEMENTS OF RESERVE COMPONENTS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 10144. Ready Reserve: Individual Ready Reserve

      (a) Within the Ready Reserve of each of the reserve
    components there is an Individual Ready Reserve. The Individual
    Ready Reserve consists of those members of the Ready Reserve
    who are not in the Selected Reserve or the inactive National
    Guard.
      (b)(1) Within the Individual Ready Reserve of each reserve
    component there is a mobilization category of members, as
    designated by the Secretary concerned, who are subject to being
    ordered to active duty involuntarily in accordance with section
    12304 of this title. A member may not be placed in that
    mobilization category unless--
              (A) the member volunteers for that category; and
              (B) the member is selected for that category by the
            Secretary concerned, based upon the needs of the
            service and the grade and military skills of that
            member.
      (2) A member of the Individual Ready Reserve may not be
    carried in the mobilization category of members under paragraph
    (1) after the end of the 24-month period beginning on the date
    of the separation of the member from active service.
      (3) The Secretary shall designate the grades and critical
    military skills or specialities of members to be eligible for
    placement in such mobilization category.
      (4) A member in such mobilization category shall be eligible
    for benefits (other than pay and training) as are normally
    available to members of the Selected Reserve, as determined by
    the Secretary of Defense.
              * * * * * * *

                    CHAPTER 1006--RESERVE COMPONENT COMMANDS

    Sec.
    10171. Army Reserve Command.
    10172. Naval Reserve Force.
    10173. Marine Forces Reserve.
    10174. Air Force Reserve Command.

    Sec. 10171. Army Reserve Command

      (a) Establishment of Command.--The Secretary of the Army,
    with the advice and assistance of the Chief of Staff of the
    Army, shall establish a United States Army Reserve Command. The
    Army Reserve Command shall be operated as a separate command of
    the Army.
      (b) Commander.--The Chief of Army Reserve is the commander of
    the Army Reserve Command. The commander of the Army Reserve
    Command reports directly to the Chief of Staff of the Army.
      (c) Assignment of Forces.--The Secretary of the Army--
              (1) shall assign to the Army Reserve Command all
            forces of the Army Reserve stationed in the continental
            United States other than forces assigned to the unified
            combatant command for special operations forces
            established pursuant to section 167 of this title; and
              (2) except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of
            Defense in the case of forces assigned to carry out
            functions of the Secretary of the Army specified in
            section 3013 of this title, shall assign all such
            forces assigned to the Army Reserve Command under
            paragraph (1) to the commanders of the combatant
            commands in the manner specified by the Secretary of
            Defense.

    Sec. 10172. Naval Reserve Force

      (a) Establishment of Command.--The Secretary of the Navy,
    with the advice and assistance of the Chief of Naval
    Operations, shall establish a Naval Reserve Force. The Naval
    Reserve Force shall be operated as a separate command of the
    Navy.
      (b) Commander.--The Chief of Naval Reserve shall be the
    commander of the Naval Reserve Force. The commander of the
    Naval Reserve Force reports directly to the Chief of Naval
    Operations.
      (c) Assignment of Forces.--The Secretary of the Navy--
              (1) shall assign to the Naval Reserve Force specified
            portions of the Naval Reserve other than forces
            assigned to the unified combatant command for special
            operations forces established pursuant to section 167
            of this title; and
              (2) except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of
            Defense in the case of forces assigned to carry out
            functions of the Secretary of the Navy specified in
            section 5013 of this title, shall assign to the
            combatant commands all such forces assigned to the
            Naval Reserve Force under paragraph (1) in the manner
            specified by the Secretary of Defense.

    Sec. 10173. Marine Forces Reserve

      (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Navy, with the
    advice and assistance of the Commandant of the Marine Corps,
    shall establish in the Marine Corps a command known as the
    Marine Forces Reserve.
      (b) Commander.--The Marine Forces Reserve is commanded by the
    Commander, Marine Forces Reserve. The Commander, Marine Forces
    Reserve, reports directly to the Commandant of the Marine
    Corps.
      (c) Assignment of Forces.--The Commandant of the Marine
    Corps--
              (1) shall assign to the Marine Forces Reserve the
            forces of the Marine Corps Reserve stationed in the
            continental United States other than forces assigned to
            the unified combatant command for special operations
            forces established pursuant to section 167 of this
            title; and
              (2) except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of
            Defense in the case of forces assigned to carry out
            functions of the Secretary of the Navy specified in
            section 5013 of this title, shall assign to the
            combatant commands (through the Marine Corps component
            commander for each such command) all such forces
            assigned to the Marine Forces Reserve under paragraph
            (1) in the manner specified by the Secretary of
            Defense.

    Sec. 10174. Air Force Reserve Command

      (a) Establishment of Command.--The Secretary of the Air
    Force, with the advice and assistance of the Chief of Staff of
    the Air Force, shall establish an Air Force Reserve Command.
    The Air Force Reserve Command shall be operated as a separate
    command of the Air Force.
      (b) Commander.--The Chief of Air Force Reserve is the
    Commander of the Air Force Reserve Command. The commander of
    the Air Force Reserve Command reports directly to the Chief of
    Staff of the Air Force.
      (c) Assignment of Forces.--The Secretary of the Air Force--
              (1) shall assign to the Air Force Reserve Command all
            forces of the Air Force Reserve stationed in the
            continental United States other than forces assigned to
            the unified combatant command for special operations
            forces established pursuant to section 167 of this
            title; and
              (2) except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of
            Defense in the case of forces assigned to carry out
            functions of the Secretary of the Air Force specified
            in section 8013 of this title, shall assign to the
            combatant commands all such forces assigned to the Air
            Force Reserve Command under paragraph (1) in the manner
            specified by the Secretary of Defense.

               CHAPTER 1007--ADMINISTRATION OF RESERVE COMPONENTS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 10206. Members: periodic physical examinations

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c)(1) The Secretary of the Army shall provide to members of
    the Selected Reserve of the Army who are assigned to units
    scheduled for deployment within 75 days after mobilization the
    following medical and dental services:
              (A) An annual medical screening.
              (B) For members who are over 40 years of age, a full
            physical examination not less often than once every two
            years.
              (C) An annual dental screening.
              (D) The dental care identified in an annual dental
            screening as required to ensure that a member meets the
            dental standards required for deployment in the event
            of mobilization.
      (2) The services provided under this subsection shall be
    provided at no cost to the member.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 10216. Military technicians

      (a) In General.--Military technicians are Federal civilian
    employees hired under title 5 and title 32 who are required to
    maintain dual-status as drilling reserve component members as a
    condition of their Federal civilian employment. Such employees
    shall be authorized and accounted for as a separate category of
    dual-status civilian employees, exempt as specified in
    subsection (b)(3) from any general or regulatory requirement
    for adjustments in Department of Defense civilian personnel.
      [(a)] (b) Priority for Management of Military Technicians.--
    (1) As a basis for making the annual request to Congress
    pursuant to section [115] 115(g) of this title for
    authorization of end strengths for military technicians of the
    Army and Air Force reserve components, the Secretary of Defense
    shall give priority to supporting authorizations for dual
    status military technicians in the following high-priority
    units and organizations:
              (A) Units of the Selected Reserve that are scheduled
            to deploy no later than 90 days after mobilization.
              (B) Units of the Selected Reserve that are or will
            deploy to relieve active duty peacetime operations
            tempo.
              (C) Those organizations with the primary mission of
            providing direct support surface and aviation
            maintenance for the reserve components of the Army and
            Air Force, to the extent that the military technicians
            in such units would mobilize and deploy in a skill that
            is compatible with their civilian position skill.
      (2) For each fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall, for
    the high-priority units and organizations referred to in
    paragraph (1), seek to achieve a programmed manning level for
    military technicians that is not less than 90 percent of the
    programmed manpower structure for those units and organizations
    for military technicians for that fiscal year.
      (3) Military technician authorizations and personnel [in
    high-priority units and organizations specified in paragraph
    (1)] shall be exempt from any requirement (imposed by law or
    otherwise) for reductions in Department of Defense civilian
    personnel and shall only be reduced as part of military force
    structure reductions.
      (c) Information Required To Be Submitted With Annual End
    Strength Authorization Request.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
    shall include as part of the budget justification documents
    submitted to Congress with the budget of the Department of
    Defense for any fiscal year the following information with
    respect to the end strengths for military technicians requested
    in that budget pursuant to section 115(g) of this title, shown
    separately for each of the Army and Air Force reserve
    components:
              (A) The number of dual-status technicians in the high
            priority units and organizations specified in
            subsection (a)(1).
              (B) The number of technicians other than dual-status
            technicians in the high priority units and
            organizations specified in subsection (a)(1).
              (C) The number of dual-status technicians in other
            than high priority units and organizations specified in
            subsection (a)(1).
              (D) The number of technicians other than dual-status
            technicians in other than high priority units and
            organizations specified in subsection (a)(1).
      (2)(A) If the budget submitted to Congress for any fiscal
    year requests authorization for that fiscal year under section
    115(g) of this title of a military technician end strength for
    a reserve component of the Army or Air Force in a number that
    constitutes a reduction from the end strength minimum
    established by law for that reserve component for the fiscal
    year during which the budget is submitted, the Secretary of
    Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees
    with that budget a justification providing the basis for that
    requested reduction in technician end strength.
      (B) Any justification submitted under subparagraph (A) shall
    clearly delineate--
              (i) in the case of a reduction that includes a
            reduction in technicians described in subparagraph (A)
            or (C) of paragraph (1), the specific force structure
            reductions forming the basis for such requested
            technician reduction (and the numbers related to those
            force structure reductions); and
              (ii) in the case of a reduction that includes
            reductions in technicians described in subparagraphs
            (B) or (D) of paragraph (1), the specific force
            structure reductions, Department of Defense civilian
            personnel reductions, or other reasons forming the
            basis for such requested technician reduction (and the
            numbers related to those reductions).
      [(b)] (d) Dual-Status Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense
    shall require the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of
    the Air Force to establish as a condition of employment for
    each individual who is hired [after the date of the enactment
    of this section] after February 10, 1996, as a military
    technician that the individual maintain membership in the
    Selected Reserve (so as to be a so-called ``dual-status''
    technician) and shall require that the civilian and military
    position skill requirements of dual-status military technicians
    be compatible. No Department of Defense funds may be spent for
    compensation for any military technician hired [after the date
    of the enactment of this section] after February 10, 1996, who
    is not a member of the Selected Reserve, except that
    compensation may be paid for up to six months following loss of
    membership in the Selected Reserve if such loss of membership
    was not due to the failure to meet military standards.
              * * * * * * *

        CHAPTER 1013--BUDGET INFORMATION AND ANNUAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 10542. Army National Guard combat readiness: annual report

      (a)  * * *
      (b) Matters To Be Included in Report.--Each presentation
    under subsection (a) shall include, with respect to the period
    covered by the report, the following information concerning the
    Army National Guard:
              (1)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (21) A specification of the active-duty personnel
            assigned to units of the Selected Reserve pursuant to
            section 414(c) of the National Defense Authorization
            Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (10 U.S.C. [261]
            12001 note), shown (A) by State, (B) by rank of
            officers, warrant officers, and enlisted members
            assigned, and (C) by unit or other organizational
            entity of assignment.
              * * * * * * *

                          PART II--PERSONNEL GENERALLY

              * * * * * * *

                 CHAPTER 1205--APPOINTMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 12205. Commissioned officers: appointment; educational requirement

      (a) In General.--[After September 30, 1995, no person] No
    person may be appointed to a grade above the grade of first
    lieutenant in the Army Reserve, Air Force Reserve, or Marine
    Corps Reserve or to a grade above the grade of lieutenant
    (junior grade) in the Naval Reserve, or be federally recognized
    in a grade above the grade of first lieutenant as a member of
    the Army National Guard or Air National Guard, unless that
    person has been awarded a baccalaureate degree by a qualifying
    educational institution.
      (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the
    following:
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (3) The appointment in the Naval Reserve of a person
            appointed for service under the Naval Aviation Cadet
            (NAVCAD) program or the Seaman to Admiral Program.
              * * * * * * *

                           CHAPTER 1209--ACTIVE DUTY

    Sec.
    12301.  Reserve components generally.
    12302.  Ready Reserve.
    12303.  Ready Reserve: members not assigned to, or participating
              satisfactorily in, units.
    [12304.  Selected Reserve; order to active duty other than during war or
              national emergency.]
    12304.  Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready Reserve members;
              order to active duty other than during war or national
              emergency.
              * * * * * * *

    [Sec. 12304. Selected Reserve; order to active duty other than during
                        war or national emergency]

    Sec. 12304. Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready Reserve
                        members; order to active duty other than during war
                        or national emergency

      (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12302(a) or any
    other provision of law, when the President determines that it
    is necessary to augment the active forces for any operational
    mission, he may authorize the Secretary of Defense and the
    Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard
    when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, without the
    consent of the members concerned, to order any unit, and any
    member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit of
    the Selected Reserve (as defined in section 10143(a) of this
    title), or any member in the Individual Ready Reserve
    mobilization category and designated as essential under
    regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, under their
    respective jurisdictions, to active duty (other than for
    training) for not more than 270 days.
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Not more than 200,000 members of the Selected Reserve and
    the Individual Ready Reserve may be on active duty under this
    section at any one time, of whom not more than 30,000 may be
    members of the Individual Ready Reserve.
              * * * * * * *
      (f) Whenever the President authorizes the Secretary of
    Defense or the Secretary of Transportation to order any unit or
    member of the Selected Reserve or Individual Ready Reserve to
    active duty, under the authority of subsection (a), he shall,
    within 24 hours after exercising such authority, submit to
    Congress a report, in writing, setting forth the circumstances
    necessitating the action taken under this section and
    describing the anticipated use of these units or members.
      (g) Whenever any unit of the Selected Reserve or any member
    of the Selected Reserve not assigned to a unit organized to
    serve as a unit, or member of the Individual Ready Reserve, is
    ordered to active duty under authority of subsection (a), the
    service of all units or members so ordered to active duty may
    be terminated by--
              (1) order of the President, or
              (2) law.
              * * * * * * *
      (i) For purposes of this section, the term ``Individual Ready
    Reserve mobilization category'' means, in the case of any
    reserve component, the category of the Individual Ready Reserve
    described in section 10144(b) of this title.

    Sec. 12310. Reserves: for organizing, administering, etc., reserve
                        components

      (a)  * * *
      [(b) To assure that a Reserve on duty under subsection (a)
    receives periodic refresher training in the categories for
    which he is qualified, the Secretary concerned may detail him
    to duty with any armed force, or otherwise as the Secretary
    sees fit.]
      (b) A Reserve on active duty as described in subsection (a)
    may be provided training and professional development
    opportunities consistent with those provided to other members
    on active duty, as the Secretary concerned sees fit.
              * * * * * * *

      PART III--PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-
                                  STATUS LIST

    Sec. 14507. Removal from the reserve active-status list for years of
                        service: reserve lieutenant colonels and colonels
                        of the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and
                        reserve commanders and captains of the Navy

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Temporary Authority To Retain Certain Officers Designated
    as Judge Advocates.--(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of
    subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary of the Air Force may
    retain on the reserve active-status list any reserve officer of
    the Air Force who is designated as a judge advocate and who
    obtained the first professional degree in law while on an
    educational delay program subsequent to being commissioned
    through the Reserve Officers' Training Corps.
      (2) No more than 50 officers may be retained on the reserve
    active-status list under the authority of paragraph (1) at any
    time.
      (3) No officer may be retained on the reserve active-status
    list under the authority of paragraph (1) for a period
    exceeding three years from the date on which, but for that
    authority, that officer would have been removed from the
    reserve active-status list under subsection (a) or (b).
      (4) The authority of the Secretary of the Air Force under
    paragraph (1) expires on September 30, 2003.
              * * * * * * *

      PART IV--TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
                                    PROGRAMS

              * * * * * * *

                CHAPTER 1609--EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions
                        officers serving in Selected Reserve with wartime
                        critical medical skill shortages

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only
    in the case of a person first appointed as a commissioned
    officer before October 1, [1997] 1998.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

            NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991

              * * * * * * *

                DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

              * * * * * * *

                       TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

              * * * * * * *

                         Part B--Health Care Management

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 718. UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT FACILITIES

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(c) Managed-Care Delivery and Reimbursement Model.--
              [(1) Time for operation.--Not later than the date of
            the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
            shall begin operation of a managed-care delivery and
            reimbursement model that will continue to utilize the
            Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities in the military
            health services system. Except as provided in paragraph
            (4), a participation agreement negotiated between a
            Uniformed Services Treatment Facility and the Secretary
            of Defense under this subsection shall not be subject
            to the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued pursuant
            to section 25(c) of the Office of Federal Procurement
            Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421(c)).
              [(2) Copayments.--A Uniformed Services Treatment
            Facility for which there exists a managed-care plan
            developed as part of the model required by this
            subsection may impose reasonable charges for inpatient
            and outpatient care provided to all categories of
            beneficiaries enrolled in the plan. The schedule and
            application of such charges shall be in accordance with
            the terms and conditions specified in the plan.
              [(3) Evaluation of performance under the model.--(A)
            The Secretary of Defense shall utilize a federally
            funded research and development center to conduct an
            independent evaluation of the performance of each
            Uniformed Services Treatment Facility operating under a
            managed-care plan developed as part of the model
            required by this subsection. The evaluation shall
            include an assessment of the efficiency of the
            Uniformed Services Treatment Facility in providing
            health care under the plan. The assessment shall be
            made in the same manner as provided in section 712(a)
            of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
            Year 1993 (10 U.S.C. 1073 note) for expansion of the
            CHAMPUS reform initiative.
              [(B) Not later than December 31, 1995, the center
            conducting the evaluation and assessment shall submit
            to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress a report on
            the results of the evaluation and assessment. The
            report shall include such recommendations regarding the
            managed-care delivery and reimbursement model under
            this subsection as the entity considers to be
            appropriate.
              [(4) Application of federal acquisition regulation.--
            On and after the date of the enactment of this
            paragraph, Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities and
            any participation agreement between Uniformed Services
            Treatment Facilities and the Secretary of Defense shall
            be subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation issued
            pursuant to section 25(c) of the Office of Federal
            Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 421(c))
            notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in such a
            participation agreement. The requirements regarding
            competition in the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall
            apply with regard to the negotiation of any new
            participation agreement between the Uniformed Services
            Treatment Facilities and the Secretary of Defense under
            this subsection or any other provision of law.
              [(5) Plan for integrating facilities.--(A) The
            Secretary of Defense shall develop a plan under which
            Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities could be
            included, before the expiration date of the
            participation agreements entered into under this
            section, in the exclusive health care provider networks
            established by the Secretary for the geographic regions
            in which the facilities are located. The Secretary
            shall address in the plan the feasibility of
            implementing the managed care plan of the Uniformed
            Services Treatment Facilities, known as Option II, on a
            mandatory basis for all USTF Medicare-eligible
            beneficiaries and the potential cost savings to the
            Military Health Care Program that could be achieved
            under such option.
              [(B) The Secretary shall submit the plan developed
            under this paragraph to Congress not later than March
            1, 1996.
              [(C) The plan developed under this paragraph shall be
            consistent with the requirements specified in paragraph
            (4). If the plan is not submitted to Congress by the
            expiration date of the participation agreements entered
            into under this section, the participation agreements
            shall remain in effect, at the option of the Uniformed
            Services Treatment Facilities, until the end of the
            180-day period beginning on the date the plan is
            finally submitted.
              [(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``USTF
            Medicare-eligible beneficiaries'' means covered
            beneficiaries under chapter 55 of title 10, United
            States Code, who are enrolled in a managed health plan
            offered by the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities
            and entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part
            A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
            1395c et seq.).
              [(6) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection,
            the term ``Uniformed Services Treatment Facility''
            means a facility described in section 911(a) of the
            Military Construction Authorization Act, 1982 (42
            U.S.C. 248c(a)).]
              * * * * * * *

      TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
                                    MATTERS

              * * * * * * *

                             Part D--Miscellaneous

    SEC. 831. MENTOR-PROTEGE PILOT PROGRAM

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (j) Duration of Pilot Program.--(1) Business concerns
    eligible to participate in the program may enter into mentor-
    protege agreements pursuant to subsection (e) during the period
    commencing on October 1, 1991, and ending on September 30,
    [1996] 1997.
      (2) A mentor firm may not incur costs furnishing
    developmental assistance to a protege firm that are eligible
    for reimbursement pursuant to subsection (g) prior to October
    1, 1991, or after September 30, [1996] 1997.
              * * * * * * *

      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT MATTERS

                       Part A--General Management Matters

              * * * * * * *

    [SEC. 903. ARMY RESERVE COMMAND

      [(a) Establishment of Command.--The Secretary of the Army,
    with the advice and assistance of the Chief of Staff of the
    Army, shall establish a United States Army Reserve Command
    under the command of the Chief of Army Reserve. The Army
    Reserve Command shall be a separate command of the Army
    commanded by the Chief, Army Reserve.
      [(b) Assignment of Forces.--The Secretary of the Army-
              [(1) shall assign to the Army Reserve Command all
            forces of the Army Reserve in the continental United
            States other than forces assigned to the unified
            combatant command for special operations forces
            established pursuant to section 167 of title 10, United
            States Code; and
              [(2) except as otherwise directed by the Secretary of
            Defense in the case of forces assigned to carry out
            functions of the Secretary of the Army specified in
            section 3013 of title 10, United States Code, shall
            assign all such forces of the Army Reserve to the
            Commander-in-Chief, United States Atlantic Command.]
              * * * * * * *

             TITLE X--DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 1005. TRANSFER OF EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES

      Pursuant to [section 1208 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (10 U.S.C. 372
    note) and section 372] sections 372 and 2576a of title 10,
    United States Code, the Secretary of Defense shall review the
    availability of equipment resulting from the withdrawal of
    United States forces from Europe and Asia for the purpose of
    identifying excess equipment that may be suitable for drug
    enforcement activities for transfer to appropriate Federal,
    State, or local civilian law enforcement authorities.
              * * * * * * *

                         TITLE XIV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                      Part A--Financial and Budget Matters

              * * * * * * *

                      Part B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

    SEC. 1425. AUTHORIZATION FOR NAVAL SHIPYARDS AND AVIATION DEPOTS TO
                        ENGAGE IN DEFENSE-RELATED PRODUCTION AND SERVICES

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) Expiration of Authority.--The authority provided by this
    section expires on September 30, [1996] 1997.
              * * * * * * *

                DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

              * * * * * * *

               TITLE XXIX--DEFENSE BASE CLOSURES AND REALIGNMENTS

            Part A--Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission

    SEC. 2901. SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSE

      (a) Short Title.--This part may be cited as the ``Defense
    Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990''.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 2905. IMPLEMENTATION

      (a) * * *
      (b) Management and Disposal of Property.--(1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (8)(A) Subject to subparagraph (C), the Secretary may enter
    into agreements (including contracts, cooperative agreements,
    or other arrangements for reimbursement) with local governments
    for the provision of police or security services, fire
    protection services, airfield operation services, or other
    community services by such governments at military
    installations to be closed under this part or at facilities
    remaining on installations closed under this part if the
    Secretary determines that the provision of such services under
    such agreements is in the best interests of the Department of
    Defense.
              * * * * * * *
      (g) Acquisition of Manufactured Housing.--(1) In closing or
    realigning any military installation under this part, the
    Secretary may purchase any or all right, title, and interest of
    a member of the Armed Forces and any spouse of the member in
    manufactured housing located at a manufactured housing park
    established at an installation closed or realigned under this
    part, or make a payment to the member to relocate the
    manufactured housing to a suitable new site, if the Secretary
    determines that--
              (A) it is in the best interests of the Federal
            Government to eliminate or relocate the manufactured
            housing park; and
              (B) the elimination or relocation of the manufactured
            housing park would result in an unreasonable financial
            hardship to the owners of the manufactured housing.
      (2) Any payment made under this subsection shall not exceed
    90 percent of the purchase price of the manufactured housing,
    as paid by the member or any spouse of the member, plus the
    cost of any permanent improvements subsequently made to the
    manufactured housing by the member or spouse of the member.
      (3) The Secretary shall dispose of manufactured housing
    acquired under this subsection through resale, donation, trade
    or otherwise within one year of acquisition.
              * * * * * * *

               DIVISION C--OTHER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

          TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

              * * * * * * *

                             Part C--Miscellaneous

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 3132. LABORATORY-DIRECTED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Funding.--Of the funds provided by the Department of
    Energy to such laboratories for national security activities,
    the Secretary shall provide a specific amount, not to exceed
    [6] 2 percent of such funds, to be used by such laboratories
    for laboratory-directed research and development.
              * * * * * * *

       DIVISION D--ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT, DIVERSIFICATION, CONVERSION, AND
                                 STABILIZATION

    SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE

      This division may be cited as the ``Defense Economic
    Adjustment, Diversification, Conversion, and Stabilization Act
    of 1990''.
              * * * * * * *

                    TITLE XLI--ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT PLANNING

    [SEC. 4101. NOTIFICATION

      [(a) In General.--The Chairman of Economic Adjustment
    Committee shall establish procedures to ensure that the head of
    the appropriate Federal agencies promptly notify the
    appropriate official or other person or party described in
    subsection (b) with respect to any community, business, or
    group of workers that may be substantially and seriously
    affected as a result of--
              [(1) the annual budget of the President submitted to
            Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United
            States Code, and any longer-term guidance document of
            the Secretary of Defense;
              [(2) the public announcement of the realignment or
            closure of a military installation or defense facility;
            or
              [(3) the cancellation or curtailment of a major
            defense contract.
      [(b) Persons To Receive Notice.--The officials, persons, and
    other parties referred to in subsection (a) are--
              [(1) the chief elected executive official of an
            affected State;
              [(2) the mayor of an affected city;
              [(3) the executive or other appropriate
            representative of any other affected political
            subdivision of a State; and
              [(4) the head of a national or international labor
            organization, the headquarters of which is located in
            the United States, which represents a substantially and
            seriously affected group of workers.
      [(c) Benefit Information Required to Accompany Notice.--Each
    notice under subsection (a) shall contain information
    describing Federal economic adjustment programs available to
    communities, businesses, and groups of workers.
      [(d) Notification of Communities Affected by Defense
    Realignment Before Date of Enactment.--The information provided
    under subsection (a) shall include information regarding
    actions referred to in such subsection which were--
              [(1) proposed in the budget of the President which
            was submitted to Congress during the period beginning
            on January 1, 1990, and ending on the date of the
            enactment of this Act; or
              [(2) otherwise announced during such period.]
              * * * * * * *

                TITLE XLII--ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR EMPLOYEES

    [SEC. 4201. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE NOTICE REQUIREMENT

      [(a) Information to be Provided.--The Secretary of Defense
    shall--
              [(1) provide timely information to the Secretary of
            Labor on--
                      [(A) any proposed closure of, or substantial
                    reduction in, military installations; and
                      [(B) any proposed cancellation of, or
                    reduction in, any contract for products or
                    services for the Department of Defense,
            if the proposed closure, cancellation, or reduction
            will have a substantial impact on employment;
              [(2) when feasible, identify the location at which
            employment which will be affected by such closure,
            cancellation, or reduction; and
              [(3) provide to the Secretary of Labor information
            with respect to such proposed closure, cancellation, or
            reduction.
      [(b) Notification to Governor of State Concerned.--If the
    Secretary of Labor receives information under subsection (a),
    the Secretary shall notify the Governor of each State in which
    such proposed closure, cancellation, or reduction will occur
    pursuant to guidelines established by the Economic Adjustment
    Committee to avoid duplicative notification.]
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

              SECTION 3 OF THE ACT TO PREVENT POLLUTION FROM SHIPS

          Sec. 3. (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) Discharges in Special Areas.--(1) Not later than December
    31, 2000, all surface ships owned or operated by the Department
    of the Navy, and not later than December 31, 2008, all
    submersibles owned or operated by the Department of the Navy,
    shall comply with the special area requirements of Regulation 5
    of Annex V to the Convention, except as provided in paragraphs
    (4) and (5) of this subsection.
              * * * * * * *
      [(4) Upon receipt of the compliance plan under paragraph (2)
    of this subsection, the Congress may modify the applicability
    of paragraph (1) of this subsection, as appropriate.]
      (4) A vessel owned or operated by the Department of the Navy
    for which the Secretary of the Navy determines under the
    compliance plan submitted under paragraph (2) that, due to
    unique military design, construction, manning, or operating
    requirements, full compliance with paragraph (1) would not be
    technologically feasible, would impair the vessel's operations,
    and would impair the vessel's operational capability, is
    authorized to discharge garbage consisting of either of the
    following:
              (A) A slurry of seawater, paper, cardboard, and food
            waste that does not contain more than the minimum
            amount practicable of plastic, if such slurry is
            discharged not less than 3 nautical miles from the
            nearest land and is capable of passing through a screen
            with openings of no greater than 12 millimeters.
              (B) Metal and glass garbage that has been shredded
            and bagged to ensure negative buoyancy and is
            discharged not less than 12 nautical miles from the
            nearest land.
      (5) Not later than December 31, 2000, the Secretary of the
    Navy shall publish in the Federal Register--
              (A) a list of those surface ships planned to be
            decommissioned between January 1, 2001, and December
            31, 2005; and
              (B) standards to ensure, so far as is reasonable and
            practicable, without impairing the operations or
            operational capabilities of such ships, that such ships
            act in a manner consistent with the special area
            requirements of Regulation 5 of Annex V to the
            Convention.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                          TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE

              * * * * * * *

        CHAPTER 35--RETENTION PREFERENCE, RESTORATION, AND REEMPLOYMENT

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 3502. Order of retention

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(f)(1) The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a
    military department may--
              [(A) release in a reduction in force an employee who
            volunteers for the release even though the employee is
            not otherwise subject to release in the reduction in
            force under the criteria applicable under the other
            provisions of this section; and
              [(B) for each employee voluntarily released in the
            reduction in force under subparagraph (A), retain an
            employee in a similar position who would otherwise be
            released in the reduction in force under such criteria.
      [(2) A voluntary release of an employee in a reduction in
    force pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be treated as an
    involuntary release in the reduction in force.
      [(3) An employee with critical knowledge and skills (as
    defined by the Secretary concerned) may not participate in a
    voluntary release under paragraph (1) if the Secretary
    concerned determines that such participation would impair the
    performance of the mission of the Department of Defense or the
    military department concerned.
      [(4) The regulations prescribed under this section shall
    incorporate the authority provided in this subsection.
      [(5) The authority under paragraph (1) may not be exercised
    after September 30, 1996.]
      (f)(1) The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a
    military department may--
              (A) separate from service any employee who volunteers
            to be separated under this subparagraph even though the
            employee is not otherwise subject to separation due to
            a reduction in force; and
              (B) for each employee voluntarily separated under
            subparagraph (A), retain an employee in a similar
            position who would otherwise be separated due to a
            reduction in force.
      (2) The separation of an employee under paragraph (1)(A)
    shall be treated as an involuntary separation due to a
    reduction in force.
      (3) An employee with critical knowledge and skills (as
    defined by the Secretary concerned) may not participate in a
    voluntary separation under paragraph (1)(A) if the Secretary
    concerned determines that such participation would impair the
    performance of the mission of the Department of Defense or the
    military department concerned.
      (4) The regulations prescribed under this section shall
    incorporate the authority provided in this subsection.
      (5) No authority under paragraph (1) may be exercised after
    September 30, 2001.
              * * * * * * *

                         CHAPTER 55--PAY ADMINISTRATION

              * * * * * * *

                           SUBCHAPTER V--PREMIUM PAY

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 5543. Compensatory time off

      (a) * * *
      (b) The head of an agency may, on request of an employee,
    grant the employee compensatory time off from his scheduled
    tour of duty instead of payment under section 5544 or section 7
    of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for an equal amount of
    time spent in irregular or occasional overtime work.
      [(b)] (c) The Architect of the Capitol may grant an employee
    paid on an annual basis compensatory time off from duty instead
    of overtime pay for overtime work.

    Sec. 5544. Wage-board overtime and Sunday rates; computation

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) The provisions of this section, including the last two
    sentences of subsection (a), and the provisions of section
    5543(b) shall apply to a prevailing rate employee described in
    section 5342(a)(2)(B).
              * * * * * * *

                   SUBCHAPTER IX--SEVERANCE PAY AND BACK PAY

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 5597. Separation pay

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (g)(1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (5) If the employment is without compensation, the appointing
    official may waive the repayment.
              * * * * * * *

                           CHAPTER 61--HOURS OF WORK

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 6103. Holidays

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d)(1) For purposes of this subsection--
              (A) the term ``compressed schedule'' has the meaning
            given such term by section 6121(5); and
              (B) the term ``adverse agency impact'' has the
            meaning given such term by section 6131(b).
      (2) An agency may prescribe rules under which employees on a
    compressed schedule may, in the case of a holiday that occurs
    on a regularly scheduled non-workday for such employees, and
    notwithstanding any other provision of law or the terms of any
    collective bargaining agreement, be required to observe such
    holiday on a workday other than as provided by subsection (b),
    if the agency head determines that it is necessary to do so in
    order to prevent an adverse agency impact.
              * * * * * * *

                             CHAPTER 83--RETIREMENT

              * * * * * * *

                    SUBCHAPTER III--CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 8344. Annuities and pay on reemployment

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (m)(1) In order to promote the retention of employees having
    knowledge, skills, or expertise needed by the Department of
    Defense, in a manner consistent with ongoing downsizing
    efforts, the Secretary of Defense or his designee may waive the
    application of subsection (a), with respect to reemployed
    annuitants of the Department of Defense, under this subsection.
      (2) A waiver under this subsection--
              (A) may not be granted except upon appropriate
            written application submitted and approved not later
            than the date of separation on which entitlement to
            annuity is based;
              (B) shall be contingent on the reemployment
            commencing within such time as the Secretary or his
            designee may require, may remain in effect for a period
            of not to exceed 2 years, and shall not be renewable;
            and
              (C) may be granted and thereafter remain in effect
            only if, with respect to the position in which
            reemployed, the number of regularly scheduled hours in
            each week or other period is at least \1/2\ but not
            more than \3/4\ those last in effect for the individual
            before the separation referred to in subparagraph (A).
      (3)(A) In no event shall the sum of the rate of basic pay
    for, plus annuity allocable to, any period of service as a
    reemployed annuitant under this subsection exceed the rate of
    basic pay that would then be in effect for service performed
    during such period if separation had not occurred.
      (B) If the limitation under subparagraph (A) would otherwise
    be exceeded, an amount equal to the excess shall be deducted
    from basic pay for the period involved (but not to exceed total
    basic pay for such period), and any amount so deducted shall be
    deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of
    the Fund.
      (4) The number of reemployed annuitants under this subsection
    at any given time may not, when taken together with the then
    current number under section 8468(j), exceed a total of 50.
      (5) All waivers under this subsection shall cease to be
    effective after September 30, 2001.

                CHAPTER 84--FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

              * * * * * * *

              SUBCHAPTER VI--GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 8468. Annuities and pay on reemployment

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (j)(1) In order to promote the retention of employees having
    knowledge, skills, or expertise needed by the Department of
    Defense, in a manner consistent with ongoing downsizing
    efforts, the Secretary of Defense or his designee may waive the
    application of subsections (a) and (b), with respect to
    reemployed annuitants of the Department of Defense, under this
    subsection.
      (2) A waiver under this subsection--
              (A) may not be granted except upon appropriate
            written application submitted and approved not later
            than the date of separation on which entitlement to
            annuity is based;
              (B) shall be contingent on the reemployment
            commencing within such time as the Secretary or his
            designee may require, may remain in effect for a period
            of not to exceed 2 years, and shall not be renewable;
            and
              (C) may be granted and thereafter remain in effect
            only if, with respect to the position in which
            reemployed, the number of regularly scheduled hours in
            each week or other period is at least \1/2\ but not
            more than \3/4\ those last in effect for the individual
            before the separation referred to in subparagraph (A).
      (3)(A) In no event shall the sum of the rate of basic pay
    for, plus annuity allocable to, any period of service as a
    reemployed annuitant under this subsection exceed the rate of
    basic pay that would then be in effect for service performed
    during such period if separation had not occurred.
      (B) If the limitation under subparagraph (A) would otherwise
    be exceeded, an amount equal to the excess shall be deducted
    from basic pay for the period involved (but not to exceed total
    basic pay for such period), and any amount so deducted shall be
    deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of
    the Fund.
      (4) The number of reemployed annuitants under this subsection
    at any given time may not, when taken together with the then
    current number under section 8344(m), exceed a total of 50.
      (5) All waivers under this subsection shall cease to be
    effective after September 30, 2001.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                          TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE

              * * * * * * *

                     CHAPTER 5--SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

    Sec.

    301. Incentive pay: hazardous duty.
    301a. Incentive pay: aviation career.
         * * * * * * *
    302h. Special pay: accession bonus for dental officers.
         * * * * * * *

    Sec. 301b. Special pay: aviation career officers extending period of
                        active duty

          (a) Bonus Authorized.--An aviation officer described in
    subsection (b) who, during the period beginning on January 1,
    1989, and ending on September 30, [1997] 1998, executes a
    written agreement to remain on active duty in aviation service
    for at least one year may, upon the acceptance of the agreement
    by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as
    provided in this section.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 302b. Special pay: dental officers of the armed forces

      (a) Variable, Additional, and Board Certification Special
    Pay.--(1) * * *
      (2) An officer described in paragraph (1) who is serving in a
    pay grade below pay grade O-7 is entitled to variable special
    pay at the following rates:
              (A) [$1,200] $3,000 per year, if the officer is
            undergoing dental internship training or has less than
            three years of creditable service.
              (B) [$2,000] $7,000 per year, if the officer has at
            least three but less than six years of creditable
            service and is not undergoing dental internship
            training.
              (C) [$4,000] $7,000 per year, if the officer has at
            least six but less than 10 years of creditable service.
              * * * * * * *
      (4) Subject to subsection (b), an officer entitled to
    variable special pay under paragraph (2) or (3) is entitled to
    additional special pay for any 12-month period during which the
    officer is not undergoing dental internship or residency
    training. Such additional special pay shall be paid at the
    following rates:
              [(A) $6,000 per year, if the officer has at least
            three but less than 14 years of creditable service.
              [(B) $8,000 per year, if the officer has at least 14
            but less than 18 years of creditable service.
              [(C) $10,000 per year, if the officer has 18 or more
            years of creditable service.]
              (A) $4,000 per year, if the officer has less than
            three years of creditable service.
              (B) $6,000 per year, if the officer has at least
            three but less than 14 years of creditable service.
              (C) $8,000 per year, if the officer has at least 14
            but less than 18 years of creditable service.
              (D) $10,000 per year, if the officer has at least 18
            or more years of creditable service.
      (5) An officer who is entitled to variable special pay under
    paragraph (2) or (3) and who is board certified is entitled to
    additional special pay at the following rates:
              [(A) $2,000 per year, if the officer has less than 12
            years of creditable service.
              [(B) $3,000 per year, if the officer has at least 12
            but less than 14 years of creditable service.
              [(C) $4,000 per year, if the officer has 14 or more
            years of creditable service.]
              (A) $2,500 per year, if the officer has less than 10
            years of creditable service.
              (B) $3,500 per year, if the officer has at least 10
            but less than 12 years of creditable service.
              (C) $4,000 per year, if the officer has at least 12
            but less than 14 years of creditable service.
              (D) $5,000 per year, if the officer has at least 14
            but less than 18 years of creditable service.
              (E) $6,000 per year, if the officer has 18 or more
            years of creditable service.
              * * * * * * *
      (b) Active-Duty Agreement.--(1) An officer may not be paid
    additional special pay under subsection (a)(4) for any 12-month
    period unless the officer first executes a written agreement
    under which the officer agrees to remain on active duty for a
    period of not less than one year beginning on the date the
    officer accepts the award of such special pay.
      (2) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense
    under section 303a(a) of this title, the Secretary of the
    military department concerned may terminate at any time an
    officer's entitlement to the special pay authorized by
    subsection (a)(4). If such entitlement is terminated, the
    officer concerned is entitled to be paid such special pay only
    for the part of the period on active duty that the officer
    served, and the officer may be required to refund any amount in
    excess of that entitlement.
      (c) Regulations.--Regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
    Defense under section 303a(a) of this title shall include
    standards for determining--
              (1) whether an officer is undergoing internship or
            residency training for purposes of subsections
            (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(4); and
              (2) whether an officer is board certified for
            purposes of subsection (a)(5).
      (d) Frequency of Payments.--Special pay payable to an officer
    under paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) of subsection (a) shall be
    paid monthly. Special pay payable to an officer under
    subsection (a)(4) shall be paid annually at the beginning of
    the 12-month period for which the officer is entitled to such
    payment.
      (e) Refund for Period of Unserved Obligated Service.--An
    officer who voluntarily terminates service on active duty
    before the end of the period for which a payment was made to
    such officer under subsection (a)(4) shall refund to the United
    States an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount paid
    to such officer as the unserved part of such period bears to
    the total period for which the payment was made.
      (f) Effect of Discharge in Bankruptcy.--A discharge in
    bankruptcy under title 11 shall not release a person from an
    obligation to reimburse the United States required under the
    terms of an agreement described in subsection (b) if the final
    decree of the discharge in bankruptcy was issued within a
    period of five years after the last day of a period which such
    person had agreed to serve on active duty. This subsection
    applies to a discharge in bankruptcy in any proceeding which
    begins after September 30, 1985.
      (g) Determination of Creditable Service.--For purposes of
    this section, creditable service of an officer is computed by
    adding--
              (1) all periods which the officer spent in dental
            internship or residency training during which the
            officer was not on active duty; and
              (2) all periods of active service in the Dental Corps
            of the Army or Navy, as an officer of the Air Force
            designated as a dental officer, or as a dental officer
            of the Public Health Service.
      (h) Reserve Dental Officers Special Pay.--(1) A reserve
    dental officer described in paragraph (2) is entitled to
    special pay at the rate of $350 a month for each month of
    active duty, including active duty in the form of annual
    training, active duty for training, and active duty for special
    work.
      (2) A reserve dental officer referred to in paragraph (1) is
    a reserve officer who--
              (A) is an officer of the Dental Corps of the Army or
            the Navy or an officer of the Air Force designated as a
            dental officer; and
              (B) is on active duty under a call or order to active
            duty for a period of less than one year.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 302d. Special pay: accession bonus for registered nurses

          (a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a
    registered nurse and who, during the period beginning on
    November 29, 1989, and ending on September 30, [1997] 1998,
    executes a written agreement described in subsection (c) to
    accept a commission as an officer and remain on active duty for
    a period of not less than four years may, upon the acceptance
    of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an
    accession bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary
    concerned.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists

          (a) Special Pay Authorized.--(1) An officer described in
    subsection (b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November
    29, 1989, and ending on September 30, [1997] 1998, executes a
    written agreement to remain on active duty for a period of one
    year or more may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the
    Secretary concerned, be paid incentive special pay in an amount
    not to exceed $15,000 for any 12-month period.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 302g. Special pay: Selected Reserve health care professionals in
                        critically short wartime specialties

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (f) Termination of Agreement Authority.--No agreement under
    this section may be entered into after September 30, [1997]
    1998.

    Sec. 302h. Special pay: accession bonus for dental officers

      (a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a
    graduate of an accredited dental school and who, during the
    period beginning on the date of the enactment of this section,
    and ending on September 30, 2002, executes a written agreement
    described in subsection (c) to accept a commission as an
    officer of the armed forces and remain on active duty for a
    period of not less than four years may, upon the acceptance of
    the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession
    bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary concerned.
      (2) The amount of an accession bonus under paragraph (1) may
    not exceed $30,000.
      (b) Limitation on Eligibility for Bonus.--A person may not be
    paid a bonus under subsection (a) if--
              (1) the person, in exchange for an agreement to
            accept an appointment as an officer, received financial
            assistance from the Department of Defense to pursue a
            course of study in dentistry; or
              (2) the Secretary concerned determines that the
            person is not qualified to become and remain certified
            and licensed as a dentist.
      (c) Agreement.--The agreement referred to in subsection (a)
    shall provide that, consistent with the needs of the armed
    service concerned, the person executing the agreement will be
    assigned to duty, for the period of obligated service covered
    by the agreement, as an officer of the Dental Corps of the Army
    or the Navy or an officer of the Air Force designated as a
    dental officer.
      (d) Repayment.--(1) An officer who receives a payment under
    subsection (a) and who fails to become and remain certified or
    licensed as a dentist during the period for which the payment
    is made shall refund to the United States an amount equal to
    the full amount of such payment.
      (2) An officer who voluntarily terminates service on active
    duty before the end of the period agreed to be served under
    subsection (a) shall refund to the United States an amount that
    bears the same ratio to the amount paid to the officer as the
    unserved part of such period bears to the total period agreed
    to be served.
      (3) An obligation to reimburse the United States imposed
    under paragraph (1) or (2) is for all purposes a debt owed to
    the United States.
      (4) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered
    less than five years after the termination of an agreement
    under this section does not discharge the person signing such
    agreement from a debt arising under such agreement or this
    subsection. This paragraph applies to any case commenced under
    title 11 after the date of the enactment of this section.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 303a. Special pay: health professionals; general provisions

      (a) The Secretary of Defense, with respect to the Army, Navy,
    and Air Force, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
    with respect to the Public Health Service, shall prescribe
    regulations for the administration of sections 301d, 302
    through [302g] 302h, and 303 of this title.
      (b) Special pay authorized under sections 301d, 302 through
    [302g] 302h, and 303 of this title is in addition to any other
    pay or allowance to which an officer is entitled. The amount of
    special pay to which an officer is entitled under any of such
    sections may not be included in computing the amount of any
    increase in pay authorized by any other provision of this title
    or in computing retired pay, separation pay, severance pay, or
    readjustment pay.
      (c) The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a review every two
    years of the special pay for health professionals authorized by
    sections 301d, 302 through [302g] 302h, and 303 of this title.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 308. Special pay: reenlistment bonus

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (g) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to
    any reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an active-duty
    reenlistment, in the armed forces entered into after September
    30, [1997] 1998.

    Sec. 308a. Special pay: enlistment bonus

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to
    any enlistment or extension of an initial period of active duty
    in the armed forces made after September 30, [1997] 1998.

    Sec. 308b. Special pay: reenlistment bonus for members of the Selected
                        Reserve

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (f) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted
    member who, after September 30, [1997] 1998, reenlists or
    voluntarily extends his enlistment in a reserve component.

    Sec. 308c. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Selected Reserve

          (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted
    member who, after September 30, [1997] 1998, enlists in the
    Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an armed force.

    Sec. 308d. Special pay: enlisted members of the Selected Reserve
                        assigned to certain high priority units

          (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
          (c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this
    section for inactive duty performed after September 30, [1997]
    1998.

    Sec. 308e. Special pay: bonus for reserve affiliation agreement

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for
    a reserve obligation agreement entered into after September 30,
    [1997] 1998.

    Sec. 308f. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Army

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) No bonus may be paid under this section with respect to
    an enlistment in the Army after September 30, [1997] 1998.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or
                        voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of
                        the Ready Reserve other than the Selected Reserve

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (g) A bonus may not be paid under this section to any person
    for a reenlistment, enlistment, or voluntary extension of an
    enlistment after September 30, [1997] 1998.

    Sec. 308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (i) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for
    an enlistment after September 30, [1997] 1998.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 312. Special pay: nuclear-qualified officers extending period of
                        active duty

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
    the case of officers who, on or before September 30, [1997]
    1998, execute the required written agreement to remain in
    active service.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
    the case of officers who, on or before September 30, [1997]
    1998, have been accepted for training for duty in connection
    with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval
    nuclear propulsion plants.

    Sec. 312c. Special pay: nuclear career annual incentive bonus

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d) For the purposes of this section, a ``nuclear service
    year'' is any fiscal year beginning before October 1, [1997]
    1998.
              * * * * * * *

                             CHAPTER 7--ALLOWANCES

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 403. Basic allowance for quarters

      (a) * * *
      (b)(1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (3) [A member] Subject to the provisions of subsection (j), a
    member without dependents who is in pay grade E-6 and who is
    assigned to quarters of the United States that do not meet the
    minimum adequacy standards established by the Department of
    Defense for members in such pay grade, or to a housing facility
    under the jurisdiction of a uniformed service that does not
    meet such standards, may elect not to occupy such quarters or
    facility and instead to receive the basic allowance for
    quarters prescribed for the member's pay grade by this section.
      (c)(1)* * *
      (2) [A member](A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) or
    (C), a member of a uniformed service without dependents who is
    in a pay grade below pay grade E-7 is not entitled to a basic
    allowance for quarters while he is on sea duty. [A member of a
    uniformed service without dependents who is in a pay grade
    above E-6 who is assigned to sea duty under a permanent change
    of station is not entitled to a basic allowance for quarters if
    the unit to which the member is ordered is deployed and the
    permanent station of the unit is different than the permanent
    station from which the member is reporting.]
      (B) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned,
    the Secretary may authorize the payment of a basic allowance
    for quarters to a member of a uniformed service under the
    jurisdiction of the Secretary when the member is without
    dependents, is serving in pay grade E-5, and is assigned to sea
    duty. In prescribing regulations under this subparagraph, the
    Secretary concerned shall consider the availability of quarters
    for members serving in pay grade E-5.
      (C) Notwithstanding section 421 of this title, two members of
    the uniformed services in a pay grade below pay grade E-5 who
    are married to each other, have no other dependents, and are
    simultaneously assigned to sea duty are entitled to a single
    basic allowance for quarters during the period of such
    simultaneous sea duty. The amount of the allowance shall be
    based on the without dependents rate for the pay grade of the
    senior member.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 403a. Variable housing allowance

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c)[(1) The monthly amount of a variable housing allowance
    under this section for a member of a uniformed service with
    respect to an area is the difference between (A) the median
    monthly cost of housing in that area for members of the
    uniformed services serving in the same pay grade and with the
    same dependency status as that member, and (B) 80 percent of
    the median monthly cost of housing in the United States for
    members of the uniformed services serving in the same pay grade
    and with the same dependency status as that member.](1) The
    monthly amount of a variable housing allowance under this
    section for a member of a uniformed service with respect to an
    area is equal to the greater of the following amounts:
              (A) An amount equal to the difference between--
                      (i) the median monthly cost of housing in
                    that area for members of the uniformed services
                    serving in the same pay grade and with the same
                    dependency status as that member; and
                      (ii) 80 percent of the median monthly cost of
                    housing in the United States for members of the
                    uniformed services serving in the same pay
                    grade and with the same dependency status as
                    that member.
              (B) An amount equal to the difference between--
                      (i) the adequate housing allowance floor
                    determined by the Secretary of Defense for all
                    members of the uniformed services in that area
                    entitled to a variable housing allowance under
                    this section; and
                      (ii) the monthly basic allowance for quarters
                    for members of the uniformed services serving
                    in the same pay grade and with the same
                    dependency status as that member.
              * * * * * * *
      (3) The effective date of any adjustment in rates of variable
    housing allowance because of a redetermination of median
    monthly costs of housing under [this subsection] paragraph
    (1)(A) or the minimum amount of a variable housing allowance
    under paragraph (1)(B) shall be the same as the effective date
    of the next increase after such redetermination in the basic
    allowances for quarters. However, so long as a member of a
    uniformed service retains uninterrupted eligibility to receive
    a variable housing allowance within an area and the member's
    certified housing costs are not reduced (as indicated by
    certifications provided by the member under subsection (b)(4)),
    the monthly amount of a variable housing allowance under this
    section for the member within that area may not be reduced as a
    result of systematic adjustments required by changes in housing
    costs within that area.
              * * * * * * *
      (5) Any reduction required under paragraph (2) and any
    determination of median monthly costs of housing or minimum
    amount of a variable housing allowance under this subsection
    shall be made under regulations prescribed under subsection
    (e).
              * * * * * * *
      (7)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(i), the Secretary of
    Defense shall establish an adequate housing allowance floor for
    members of the uniformed services in an area as a selected
    percentage, not to exceed 85 percent, of the cost of adequate
    housing in that area based on an index of housing costs
    selected by the Secretary of Defense from among the following:
              (i) The fair market rentals established annually by
            the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under
            section 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of
            1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(c)(1)).
              (ii) An index developed in the private sector that
            the Secretary of Defense determines is comparable to
            the fair market rentals referred to in clause (i) and
            is appropriate for use to determine the adequate
            housing allowance floor.
      (B) The Secretary of Defense shall carry out this paragraph
    in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, the
    Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Health and Human
    Services.
      (d)(1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (3) In making a determination under paragraph (1) for a
    fiscal year, the amount authorized to be paid for the preceding
    fiscal year for the variable housing allowance shall be
    adjusted to reflect changes during the year for which the
    determination is made in the number, grade distribution, and
    dependency status of members of the uniformed services entitled
    to variable housing allowance from the number of such members
    during the preceding fiscal year. In addition, the total amount
    determined under paragraph (1) shall be adjusted to ensure that
    sufficient amounts are available to allow payment of any
    additional amounts of variable housing allowance necessary as a
    result of the requirements of [the second sentence of
    subsection (c)(3)] paragraph (1)(B) of subsection (c) and the
    second sentence of paragraph (3) of that subsection.
    Adjustments under this paragraph shall be made in accordance
    with regulations prescribed under subsection (e).
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 404. Travel and transportation allowances: general

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (j)(1) In the case of a member of a reserve component
    performing [annual training duty] active duty for training or
    inactive-duty training who is not otherwise entitled to travel
    and transportation allowances in connection with such duty
    under subsection (a), [the Secretary concerned may reimburse
    the member for housing service charge expenses incurred by the
    member in occupying transient government housing during the
    performance of such duty.] the Secretary concerned--
              (A) may reimburse the member for housing service
            charge expenses incurred by the member in occupying
            transient government housing during the performance of
            such duty; or
              (B) if transient government quarters are unavailable,
            may provide the member with contract quarters as
            lodging in kind as if the member were entitled to such
            an allowance under subsection (a).
      (2) Any payment or other benefit under this subsection shall
    be provided in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
    Secretaries concerned.
      (3) The Secretary may pay service charge expenses and
    expenses for contract quarters under paragraph (1) out of funds
    appropriated for operation and maintenance for the reserve
    component concerned.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 404a. Travel and transportation allowances: temporary lodging
                        expenses

      (a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretaries
    concerned, a member of a uniformed service who is ordered to
    make a change of permanent station--
              (1) from any duty station to a duty station in the
            United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska); [or]
              (2) from a duty station in the United States (other
            than Hawaii or Alaska) to a duty station outside the
            United States or in Hawaii or Alaska; or
              (3) from home of record or initial technical school
            to first duty station;
    shall be paid or reimbursed for subsistence expenses actually
    incurred by the member and the member's dependents while
    occupying temporary quarters incident to that change of
    permanent station. In the case of a change of permanent station
    described in clause (1), the period for which such expenses are
    to be paid or reimbursed may not exceed 10 days. In the case of
    a change of permanent station described in clause (2), the
    period for which such expenses are to be paid or reimbursed may
    not exceed five days and such payment or reimbursement may be
    provided only for expenses incurred before leaving the United
    States (other than Hawaii or Alaska).
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 406. Travel and transportation allowances: dependents; baggage and
                        household effects

      (a) * * *
      (b)(1)(A) * * *
      (B) Subject to uniform regulations prescribed by the
    Secretaries concerned, in the case of a permanent change of
    station in which the Secretary concerned has authorized
    transportation of a motor vehicle under section 2634 of title
    10 (except when such transportation is authorized from the old
    duty station to the new duty station), the member is entitled
    to a monetary allowance for transportation of that motor
    vehicle--
              (i) * * *
              * * * * * * *
    Such monetary allowance shall be established at a rate per mile
    that does not exceed the rate established under section
    404(d)(1) of this title. If clause (i)(I) applies to the
    transportation by the member of a motor vehicle from the old
    duty station, the monetary allowance under this subparagraph
    shall also cover return travel to the old duty station by the
    member or other person transporting the vehicle. In the case of
    transportation described in clause (ii), the monetary allowance
    shall also cover travel from the new duty station to the port
    of debarkation to pick up the vehicle.
              * * * * * * *
      (h)(1) If the Secretary concerned determines that it is in
    the best interests of a member described in paragraph (2) or
    the member's dependents and the United States, the Secretary
    may, when orders directing a change of permanent station for
    the member concerned have not been issued, or when they have
    been issued but cannot be used as authority for the
    transportation of the member's dependents, baggage, and
    household effects--
              (A) * * *
              [(B) in the case of a member described in paragraph
            (2)(A), authorize the transportation of one motor
            vehicle that is owned or leased by the member (or a
            dependent of the member) and is for his dependents'
            personal use to that location by means of
            transportation authorized under section 2634 of title
            10.]
              (B) in the case of a member described in paragraph
            (2)(A), authorize the transportation of one motor
            vehicle, which is owned or leased by the member (or a
            dependent of the member) and is for the personal use of
            a dependent of the member, to that location by means of
            transportation authorized under section 2634 of title
            10 or authorize the storage of the motor vehicle
            pursuant to subsection (g) of such section.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 407. Travel and transportation allowances: dislocation allowance

      (a) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) and
    under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, a
    member of a uniformed service is entitled to a dislocation
    allowance equal to the basic allowance for quarters for [two
    months] two and one-half months as provided for the member's
    pay grade and dependency status in section 403 of this title
    if--
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 411b. Travel and transportation allowances: travel performed in
                        connection with leave between consecutive overseas
                        tours

      (a)(1) * * *
      (2) Under the regulations referred to in paragraph (1), a
    member may defer the travel for which the member is paid travel
    and transportation allowances under such paragraph until not
    more than one year after the date on which the member begins
    the consecutive tour of duty at the same duty station or
    reports to another duty station under the order involved, as
    the case may be. If the member is unable to undertake the
    travel before the end of such one-year period as a result of
    the participation of the member in a critical operational
    mission, as determined by the Secretary concerned, the member
    may defer the travel, under the regulations referred to in
    paragraph (1), for a period not to exceed one year after the
    date on which the member's participation in the critical
    operational mission ends.
              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 418. Clothing allowance: enlisted members

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) A uniform allowance may not be paid, and uniforms may not
    be furnished, under section 1593 of title 10 or section 5901 of
    title 5 to a person referred to in subsection (b) for a period
    of employment referred to in that subsection [for which a
    uniform allowance is paid under section 415 or 416 of this
    title] for which clothing is furnished or a uniform allowance
    is paid under this section.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                    ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME ACT OF 1991

                     TITLE XV--ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME

    SEC. 1501. SHORT TITLE

      This title may be cited as the ``Armed Forces Retirement Home
    Act of 1991''.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 1515. COMPOSITION AND OPERATION OF RETIREMENT HOME BOARD

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) Terms.--(1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (3) The chairman of the Retirement Home Board may appoint a
    member of the Retirement Home Board for a second consecutive
    term. The chairman of a Local Board may appoint a member of
    that Local Board for a second consecutive term.
      [(f) First Appointment and Designation.--Not later than the
    effective date specified in section 1541(a), members of the
    Retirement Home Board and the members of each Local Board shall
    be first appointed to staggered terms.]
      (f) Early Expiration of Term.--A member of the Armed Forces
    or Federal civilian employee who is appointed as a member of
    the Retirement Home Board or a Local Board may serve as a board
    member only so long as the member of the Armed Forces or
    Federal civilian employee is assigned to or serving in the duty
    position that gave rise to the appointment as a board member.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 1516. DUTIES OF RETIREMENT HOME BOARD

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(d) Limitation on the Disposal of Real Property.--(1) Real
    property of the Retirement Home may not be disposed of by the
    Retirement Home Board by sale or otherwise unless the disposal
    of the property is specifically authorized by law.]
      (d) Disposal of Real Property.--(1) The Retirement Home Board
    may dispose of real property of the Retirement Home by sale or
    otherwise, except that the disposal may not occur until after
    the end of a period of 30 legislative days or 60 calendar days,
    whichever is longer, beginning on the date on which the
    Retirement Home Board notifies the Committee on Armed Services
    of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
    House of Representatives of the proposed disposal. The Federal
    Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471
    et seq.), section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
    Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), and any other provision of
    law or regulation relating to the handling or disposal of real
    property by the United States shall not apply to the disposal
    of real property by the Retirement Home Board.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 1517. DIRECTORS AND STAFF

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(f) Initial Operation.--(1) Until the date on which the
    Secretary of Defense first appoints the Director for the
    establishment of the Retirement Home known as the Naval Home,
    the Governor of the Naval Home shall operate that facility
    consistent with this title and other laws applicable to the
    Retirement Home.
      [(2) Until the date on which the Secretary of Defense first
    appoints the Director for the facility of the Retirement Home
    known as the United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, the
    Governor of the United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home shall
    operate that establishment consistent with this title and other
    laws applicable to the Retirement Home.]
      (f) Annual Evaluation of Directors.--The chairman of the
    Retirement Home Board shall annually evaluate the performance
    of the Directors and shall make such recommendations to the
    Secretary of Defense as the chairman considers appropriate in
    light of the evaluation.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                         FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961

              * * * * * * *

                                    PART II

                               Chapter 1--Policy

              * * * * * * *
      Sec. 544. Exchange Training.--[In carrying out this chapter]
    (a) In carrying out this chapter, the President is authorized
    to provide for attendance of foreign military personnel at
    professional military education institutions in the United
    States (other than service academies) without charge, and
    without charge to funds available to carry out this chapter
    (notwithstanding section 632(d) of this Act), if such
    attendance is pursuant to an agreement providing for the
    exchange of students on a one-for-one, reciprocal basis each
    fiscal year between those United States professional military
    education institutions and comparable institutions of foreign
    countries and international organizations.
      (b) The President may provide for the attendance of foreign
    military and civilian defense personnel at flight training
    schools and programs (including test pilot school) in the
    United States without charge, and without charge to funds
    available to carry out this chapter (notwithstanding section
    632(d) of this Act), if such attendance is pursuant to an
    agreement providing for the exchange of personnel on a one-on-
    one basis each fiscal year between those United States flight
    training schools and programs (including test pilot schools)
    and comparable flight training schools and programs of foreign
    countries.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

    SECTION 414 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS
                                 1992 AND 1993

    SEC. 414. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ACTIVE COMPONENT SUPPORT OF THE RESERVES.

      (a) Pilot Program Required.--[During fiscal years 1992 and
    1993, the Secretary of the Army shall institute] The Secretary
    of the Army shall carry out a pilot program to provide active
    component advisers to combat units, combat support units, and
    combat service support units in the Selected Reserve of the
    Ready Reserve that have a high priority for deployment on a
    time-phased troop deployment list or have another contingent
    high priority for deployment. The advisers shall be assigned to
    full-time duty in connection with organizing, administering,
    recruiting, instructing, or training such units.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                          TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE

              * * * * * * *

                  PART III--READJUSTMENT AND RELATED BENEFITS

              * * * * * * *

         CHAPTER 30--ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

              * * * * * * *

                  SUBCHAPTER II--BASIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE

              * * * * * * *

    Sec. 3011. Basic educational assistance entitlement for service on
                        active duty

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c)(1) An individual described in subsection (a)(1)(A) of
    this section may make an election not to receive educational
    assistance under this chapter. Any such election shall be made
    at the time the individual initially enters on active duty as a
    member of the Armed Forces. Any individual who makes such an
    election is not entitled to educational assistance under this
    chapter.
      (2) An individual who after December 31, 1976, receives a
    commission as an officer in the Armed Forces upon graduation
    from the United States Military Academy, the United States
    Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, or the
    Coast Guard Academy [or upon completion of a program of
    educational assistance under section 2107 of title 10] is not
    eligible for educational assistance under this section.
      (3) An individual who after December 31, 1976, receives a
    commission as an officer in the Armed Forces upon completion of
    a program of educational assistance under section 2107 of title
    10 is not eligible for educational assistance under this
    section if the individual enters on active duty--
              (A) before October 1, 1996; or
              (B) after September 30, 1996, and while participating
            in such program received more than $2,000 for each year
            of such participation.

    Sec. 3012. Basic educational assistance entitlement for service in the
                        Selected Reserve

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d)(1) An individual described in subsection (a)(1)(A) of
    this section may make an election not to receive educational
    assistance under this chapter. Any such election shall be made
    at the time the individual initially enters on active duty as a
    member of the Armed Forces. Any individual who makes such an
    election is not entitled to educational assistance under this
    chapter.
      (2) An individual who after December 31, 1976, receives a
    commission as an officer in the Armed Forces upon graduation
    from the United States Military Academy, the United States
    Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, or the
    Coast Guard Academy [or upon completion of a program of
    educational assistance under section 2107 of title 10] is not
    eligible for educational assistance under this section.
      (3) An individual who after December 31, 1976, receives a
    commission as an officer in the Armed Forces upon completion of
    a program of educational assistance under section 2107 of title
    10 is not eligible for educational assistance under this
    section if the individual enters on active duty--
              (A) before October 1, 1996; or
              (B) after September 30, 1996, and while participating
            in such program received more than $2,000 for each year
            of such participation.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                          TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE

    Chap.                                                               Sec.
          Organization...................................................101
          Personnel......................................................301
          Courts-Martial for the National Guard When not in Federal Servi401
              * * * * * * *

                              CHAPTER 3--PERSONNEL

    Sec.
    301.  Federal recognition of enlisted members.
    302.  Enlistments, reenlistments, and extensions.
    303.  Active and inactive enlistments and transfers.
         * * * * * * *
    [326.  Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service:
              composition, jurisdiction, and procedures.
    [327.  General courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.
    [328.  Special courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.
    [329.  Summary courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.
    [330.  Confinement instead of fine.
    [331.  Dismissal or dishonorable discharge.
    [332.  Compelling attendance of accused and witnesses.
    [333.  Execution of process and sentence.]
              * * * * * * *

     CHAPTER 4--COURTS-MARTIAL FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD WHEN NOT IN FEDERAL
                                    SERVICE

    Sec.
    401.  Courts-martial: composition, jurisdiction, and procedures.
    402.  General courts-martial.
    403.  Special courts-martial.
    404.  Summary courts-martial.
    405.  Sentences requiring approval of governor.
    406.  Compelling attendance of accused and witnesses.
    407.  Execution of process and sentence.

    Sec. [326.] 401. Courts-martial [of National Guard not in Federal
                        service]: composition, jurisdiction, and procedures

      (a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, there are
    general, special, and summary courts-martial constituted like
    similar courts of the Army and the Air Force. [They have the
    jurisdiction and powers, except as to punishments, and shall
    follow the forms and procedures, provided for those courts.]
    They shall follow substantially the forms and procedures
    provided for those courts and shall provide accused members of
    the National Guard the rights and protections provided in those
    courts.
      (b) Courts-martial of the National Guard not in Federal
    service do not have jurisdiction over those persons who are
    subject to the jurisdiction of a court-martial pursuant to
    section 802 of title 10.
      (c) A court-martial of the National Guard not in Federal
    service shall have such jurisdiction and powers, consistent
    with the provisions of this chapter, as may be provided by the
    law of the State or Territory, Puerto Rico, or District of
    Columbia in which the court-martial is convened.

    Sec. [327.] 402. General courts-martial [of National Guard not in
                        Federal service]

      (a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, general
    courts-martial may be convened by the President or by the
    governor or adjutant general of a State or Territory, Puerto
    Rico or by the commanding general of the National Guard of the
    District of Columbia.
      [(b) A general court-martial may sentence to--
              [(1) a fine of not more than $200;
              [(2) forfeiture of pay and allowances;
              [(3) a reprimand;
              [(4) dismissal or dishonorable discharge;
              [(5) reduction of a noncommissioned officer to the
            ranks; or
              [(6) any combination of these punishments.]
      (b) A general court-martial may sentence an accused, upon
    conviction, to any of the following punishments:
              (1) A fine of not more than $500 for a single
            offense.
              (2) Forfeiture of pay and allowances in an amount of
            not more than $500 for a single offense or any
            forfeiture of pay for not more than six months.
              (3) A reprimand.
              (4) Dismissal, bad conduct discharge, or dishonorable
            discharge.
              (5) In the case of an enlisted member, reduction to a
            lower grade.
              (6) Confinement for not more than 180 days.
              (7) Any combination of the punishments specified in
            paragraphs (1) through (6).
      (c)(1) A dismissal or bad conduct or dishonorable discharge
    may not be adjudged unless counsel was detailed to represent
    the accused and a military judge was detailed to the trial.
      (2) In a case in which the sentence adjudged includes
    dismissal or a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, a
    verbatim record of the proceedings shall be made.

    Sec. [328.] 403. Special courts-martial [of National Guard not in
                        Federal service]

      (a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, the
    commanding officer, if a National Guard officer, of a garrison,
    fort, post, camp, air base, auxiliary air base, or other place
    where troops are on duty, or of a brigade, regiment, wing,
    group, detached battalion, separate squadron, or other detached
    command, may convene special courts-martial. Special courts-
    martial may also be convened by superior authority.
      [(b) A special court-martial may not try a commissioned
    officer.
      [(c) A special court-martial has the same powers of
    punishment as a general court-martial, except that a fine
    imposed by a special court-martial may not be more than $100
    for a single offense.]
      (b) A special court-martial may sentence an accused, upon
    conviction, to any of the following punishments:
              (1) A fine of not more than $300 for a single
            offense.
              (2) Forfeiture of pay and allowances in an amount of
            not more than $300 for a single offense, but adjudged
            forfeiture of pay may not exceed two-thirds pay per
            month and forfeitures may not extend for more than six
            months.
              (3) A reprimand.
              (4) Bad conduct discharge.
              (5) In the case of an enlisted member, reduction to a
            lower grade.
              (6) Confinement for not more than 100 days.
              (7) Any combination of the punishments specified in
            paragraphs (1) through (6).
      (c)(1) A bad conduct discharge may not be adjudged unless
    counsel was detailed to represent the accused and a military
    judge was detailed to the trial.
      (2) In a case in which the sentence adjudged includes a bad
    conduct discharge, a verbatim record of the proceedings shall
    be made.

    Sec. [329.] 404. Summary courts-martial [of National Guard not in
                        Federal service]

      (a)(1) In the National Guard not in Federal service, the
    commanding officer, if a National Guard officer, of a garrison,
    fort, post, camp, air base, auxiliary air base, or other place
    where troops are on duty, or of a regiment, wing, group,
    detached battalion, detached squadron, detached company, or
    other detachment, may convene a summary court-martial
    consisting of one commissioned officer. Summary courts-martial
    may also be convened by superior authority. The proceedings
    shall be informal.
      (2) A summary court-martial may not try a commissioned
    officer.
      [(b) A summary court-martial may sentence to a fine of not
    more than $25 for a single offense, to forfeiture of pay and
    allowances, and to reduction of a noncommissioned officer to
    the ranks.]
      (b) A summary court-martial may sentence an accused, upon
    conviction, to any of the following punishments:
              (1) A fine of not more than $200 for a single
            offense.
              (2) Forfeiture of pay and allowances in an amount of
            not more than $200 for a single offense, but not to
            exceed two-thirds of one month's pay.
              (3) Reduction to a lower grade.
              (4) Any combination of the punishments specified in
            paragraphs (1) through (3).
      (c) An accused with respect to whom summary courts-martial
    have jurisdiction may not be brought to trial before a summary
    court-martial if the accused objects thereto. If an accused so
    objects to trial by summary court-martial, the convening
    authority may order trial by special or general court-martial,
    as may be appropriate.

    [Sec. 330. Confinement instead of fine

      [In the National Guard not in Federal service, a court-
    martial may, instead of imposing a fine, sentence to
    confinement for not more than one day for each dollar of the
    authorized fine.]

    [Sec. 331. Dismissal or dishonorable discharge]

    Sec. 405. Sentences requiring approval of governor

      In the National Guard not in Federal service, no sentence of
    dismissal [or dishonorable discharge], bad conduct discharge,
    dishonorable discharge, or confinement for three months or more
    may be executed until it is approved by the governor of the
    State or Territory, Puerto Rico, or whichever is concerned, or,
    in the case of the National Guard of the District of Columbia,
    by its commanding general.

    Sec. [332.] 406. Compelling attendance of accused and witnesses

      In the National Guard not in Federal service, the president
    or military judge of a court-martial or a summary court officer
    may--
              (1) issue a warrant for the arrest of any accused
            person who, having been served with a warrant and a
            copy of the charges, disobeys a written order by the
            convening authority to appear before the court;
              (2) issue subpenas duces tecum and other subpenas;
              (3) enforce by attachment the attendance or witnesses
            and the production of books and papers; and
              (4) sentence for refusal to be sworn or to answer, as
            provided in actions before civil courts.

    Sec. [333.] 407. Execution of process and sentence

      In the National Guard not in Federal service, the processes
    and sentences of its courts-martial shall be executed by the
    civil officers prescribed by the laws of the States concerned.
    In a State where no provision is made for executing those
    processes and sentences, and in the Territories, Puerto Rico
    and the District of Columbia, the process or sentence shall be
    executed by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, who
    shall make a return to the military officer issuing the process
    or the court imposing the sentence.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1982

              * * * * * * *

                          TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS

              * * * * * * *

       [continued use of certain former public health service facilities

      [Sec. 911. (a) Any Public Health Service hospital or other
    station which was transferred to a public or nonprofit private
    entity pursuant to the provisions of section 987 of the Omnibus
    Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-35; 95 Stat.
    603) shall be deemed to be a facility of the uniformed services
    for the purposes of chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code,
    if such hospital or other station was, on the day before the
    date of the transfer, a facility approved under such chapter to
    provide medical and dental care to members and former members
    of the uniformed services and their dependents.
      [(b) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and
    Human Services, and the Secretary of Transportation when the
    Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy may
    terminate, for purposes of chapter 55 of title 10, United
    States Code, the approved status, of any facility described in
    subsection (a) to furnish medical or dental care to members and
    former members of the uniformed services and their dependents
    as provided for in section 1252(e) of the Department of Defense
    Authorization Act, 1984.
      [(c) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and
    Human Services, and the Secretary of Transportation when the
    Coast Gurard is not operating as a service in the Navy shall
    reimburse any facility described in subsection (a) for medical
    and dental care provided by such facility to members and former
    members of the uniformed services and their dependents who
    receive such care under chapter 55 of title 10, United States
    Code. The rates of reimbursement shall be negotiated and agreed
    upon by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and
    Human Services, the Secretary of Transportation when the Coast
    Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy, and the
    appropriate officials representing the facility concerned. The
    rates of reimbursement shall be based upon medical and dental
    care costs in the area in which the facility concerned is
    located.]
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

       SECTION 1252 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1984

                        [public health service hospitals

      [Sec. 1252. (a) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation
    with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the
    Secretary of Transportation when the Coast Guard is not
    operating as a service in the Navy, shall conduct demonstration
    projects for the purpose of comparing and evaluating the cost-
    effectiveness, accessibility, patient acceptance, and the
    quality of medical care contracted for by the Secretary of
    Defense under sections 1079 and 1086 of title 10, United States
    Code, with the medical care provided in those facilities deemed
    to be facilities of the uniformed services by virtue of section
    911 of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1982 (42
    U.S.C. 248c). The Secretary of Defense shall begin conducting
    such projects within one year after the date of the enactment
    of this section and continue conducting such projects for not
    less than three years.
      [(b) The projects carried out by the Secretary of Defense
    under this subsection shall utilize various alternative
    mechanisms for the payment of medical services provided
    eligible persons, including capitation, prospective payment,
    all-inclusive fee-for-service charges, and other concepts and
    programs consistent with the purpose of this section.
      [(c) If the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and
    Human Services, and the Secretary of Transportation when the
    Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy determine
    such action is necessary in order to permit a meaningful
    evaluation of alternative methods of providing medical care to
    persons eligible for such care under sections 1079 and 1086 of
    title 10, United States Code, they may jointly designate
    additional civilian medical facilities to be facilities of the
    uniformed services for the purposes of section 1079 of such
    title. The Secretary may designate a facility under the
    authority of this subsection for such purposes only if such
    action is agreed to by the governing body of the facility.
      [(e) The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and
    Human Services, and the Secretary of Transportation when the
    Coast Guard is not operating as a service in the Navy may
    terminate, for purposes of chapter 55 of title 10, United
    States Code, the status of any facility referred to in
    subsection (a) or (c) to furnish medical or dental care to
    members and former members of the uniformed services or their
    dependents, and such termination may become effective at any
    time after September 30, 1997. The termination of such status
    in the case of any such facility may be effected only by an
    order jointly issued by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary
    of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of
    Transportation when the Coast Guard is not operating as a
    service in the Navy which (1) identifies the facility whose
    status is being terminated, (2) specifies the date on which
    such status is being terminated, and (3) certifies that more
    cost-effective medical and dental care for members and former
    members of the uniformed services or their dependents is
    available elsewhere in the same geographic area. A copy of each
    such order shall be furnished to the affected facility and the
    congressional committees specified in subsection (d) and shall
    become effective in accordance with the terms of the notice,
    but not earlier than six months following the date on which a
    copy of the notice has been furnished to the facility and the
    committees. Each such copy of the order shall include a copy of
    the certification required in clause (3) of the second sentence
    of this subsection and shall contain cost data substantiating
    the termination decision and identifying how more cost-
    effective care could be provided to the affected individuals.
    Any facility described in subsection (a) or designated under
    subsection (c) may terminate its status or designation made
    under that subsection at any time after the expiration of six
    months following the date on which a copy of the order
    terminating the status or designation has been furnished the
    facility.
      [(f) Limitation on Expenditures.--The total amount of
    expenditures by the Secretary of Defense to carry out this
    section and section 911 of the Military Construction
    Authorization Act, 1982 (42 U.S.C. 248c), for fiscal year 1996
    may not exceed $300,000,000, adjusted by the Secretary to
    reflect the inflation factor used by the Department of Defense
    for such fiscal year.
      [(g) Section 911(b) of the Military Construction
    Authorization Act, 1982 (42 U.S.C. 248c(b)), is amended by
    striking out ``at any time after'' and all that follows through
    the end of the second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof:
    ``as provided for in section 1252(e) of the Department of
    Defense Authorization Act, 1984.''.]
                                  ----------

                 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

              * * * * * * *

                                   TITLE VIII

                               GENERAL PROVISIONS

              * * * * * * *
      [Sec. 8057. During the current fiscal year, appropriations
    available to the Department of Defense may be used to reimburse
    a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces who is not
    otherwise entitled to travel and transportation allowances and
    who occupies transient government housing while performing
    active duty for training or inactive duty training: Provided,
    That such members may be provided lodging in kind if transient
    government quarters are unavailable as if the member was
    entitled to such allowances under subsection (a) of section 404
    of title 37, United States Code: Provided further, That if
    lodging in kind is provided, any authorized service charge or
    cost of such lodging may be paid directly from funds
    appropriated for operation and maintenance of the reserve
    component of the member concerned.]
              * * * * * * *
      [Sec. 8094. All refunds or other amounts collected in the
    administration of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of
    the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) shall be credited to current
    year appropriations.]
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                           PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT

              * * * * * * *

             TITLE II--ADMINISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

                             Part A--Administration

              * * * * * * *

              grades, ranks, and titles of the commissioned corps

      Sec. 206. (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (f) In computing the maximum number of commissioned officers
    of the Public Health Service authorized by law or
    administrative determination to serve on active duty, there may
    be excluded from such computation officers who are assigned to
    duty in the Department of Defense.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

            FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT OF 1949

              * * * * * * *

                         TITLE II--PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 210. OPERATION OF BUILDINGS AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

      (a) Whenever and to the extent that the Administrator has
    been or hereafter may be authorized by any provision of law
    other than this subsection to maintain, operate, and protect
    any building, property, or grounds situated in or outside the
    District of Columbia, including the construction, repair,
    preservation, demolition, furnishing, and equipment thereof, he
    is authorized in the discharge of the duties so conferred upon
    him--
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (14) to enter into contracts [for periods not
            exceeding three years] for the inspection, maintenance,
            and repair of fixed equipment in such buildings which
            are federally owned; and
              * * * * * * *

                        TITLE III--PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 303B. EVALUATION AND AWARD.

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (m) Prohibition on Release of Contractor Proposals.--(1) A
    proposal in the possession or control of an executive agency
    may not be made available to any person under section 552 of
    title 5.
      (2) In this subsection, the term ``proposal'' means any
    proposal, including a technical, management, or cost proposal,
    submitted by a contractor in response to the requirements of a
    solicitation for a competitive proposal.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 304C. EXAMINATION OF RECORDS OF CONTRACTOR.

      (a)  * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(d) Limitation on Preaward Audits Relating to Indirect
    Costs.--An executive agency may not perform a preaward audit to
    evaluate proposed indirect costs under any contract,
    subcontract, or modification to be entered into in accordance
    with this title in any case in which the contracting officer
    determines that the objectives of the audit can reasonably be
    met by accepting the results of an audit conducted by any other
    department or agency of the Federal Government within one year
    preceding the date of the contracting officer's determination.]
      (d) Limitation on Audits Relating to Indirect Costs.--An
    executive agency may not perform an audit of indirect costs
    under a contract, subcontract, or modification before or after
    entering into the contract, subcontract, or modification in any
    case in which the contracting officer determines that the
    objectives of the audit can reasonably be met by accepting the
    results of an audit that was conducted by any other department
    or agency of the Federal Government within one year preceding
    the date of the contracting officer's determination.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                    OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY ACT

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

      (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Office of
    Federal Procurement Policy Act''.
      (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is
    as follows:
    Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
         * * * * * * *
    Sec. [35.] 38. Modular contracting for information technology.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 20. ADVOCATES FOR COMPETITION.

      (a) * * *
      (b) The advocate for competition of an executive agency
    shall--
              (1) be responsible for challenging barriers to and
            promoting full and open competition in the procurement
            of property and services by the executive agency;
              (2) review the procurement activities of the
            executive agency;
              (3) identify and report to the senior procurement
            executive of the executive agency designated pursuant
            to section 16(3)--
                      (A) opportunities and actions taken to
                    achieve full and open competition in the
                    procurement activities of the executive agency;
                    and
                      (B) any condition or action which has the
                    effect of unnecessarily restricting competition
                    in the procurement actions of the executive
                    agency; [and
              [(4) prepare and transmit to such senior procurement
            executive an annual report describing--
                      [(A) such advocate's activities under this
                    section;
                      [(B) new initiatives required to increase
                    competition; and
                      [(C) barriers to full and open competition
                    that remain;
              [(5)] (4) recommend to the senior procurement
            executive of the executive agency goals and the plans
            for increasing competition on a fiscal year basis;
              [(6)] (5) recommend to the senior procurement
            executive of the executive agency a system of personal
            and organizational accountability for competition,
            which may include the use of recognition and awards to
            motivate program managers, contracting officers, and
            others in authority to promote competition in
            procurement programs; and
              [(7)] (6) describe other ways in which the executive
            agency has emphasized competition in programs for
            procurement training and research.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 25. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATORY COUNCIL.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(g) Reports.--The Administrator for Federal Procurement
    Policy shall--
              [(1) publish a report within 6 months after the date
            of enactment of this section and every 6 months
            thereafter relating to the development of procurement
            regulations to be issued in accordance with subsection
            (c) of this section;
              [(2) include in each report published under paragraph
            (1)--
                      [(A) the status of each such regulation;
                      [(B) a description of those regulations which
                    are required by statute;
                      [(C) a description of the methods by which
                    public comment was sought with regard to each
                    proposed regulation in accordance with section
                    22 of this Act, and to the extent appropriate,
                    sections 3504(h) and 3507 of title 44, United
                    States Code;
                      [(D) regulatory activities completed and
                    initiated since the last report;
                      [(E) regulations, policies, procedures,
                    practices, and forms that are under
                    consideration or review by the Office of
                    Federal Procurement Policy;
                      [(F) whether the regulations have paperwork
                    requirements;
                      [(G) the progress made in promulgating and
                    implementing the Federal Acquisition
                    Regulation; and
                      [(H) such other matters as the Administrator
                    determines would be useful; and
              [(3) report to Congress within 180 days after the
            date of the enactment of this section, in consultation
            with the Admin- istrator of the Office of Information
            and Regulatory Affairs, regarding--
                      [(A) the extent of the paperwork burden
                    created by the Federal procurement process, and
                      [(B) the extent to which the Federal
                    procurement system can be streamlined to reduce
                    unnecessary paperwork while at the same time
                    maintaining recordkeeping and reporting
                    requirements necessary to ensure the integrity
                    and accountability of the system.]
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. [35.] 38. MODULAR CONTRACTING FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

      (a) In General.--The head of an executive agency should, to
    the maximum extent practicable, use modular contracting for an
    acquisition of a major system of information technology.
      (b) Modular Contracting Described.--Under modular
    contracting, an executive agency's need for a system is
    satisfied in successive acquisitions of interoperable
    increments. Each increment complies with common or commercially
    accepted standards applicable to information technology so that
    the increments are compatible with other increments of
    information technology comprising the system.
      (c) Implementation.--The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall
    provide that--
              (1) under the modular contracting process, an
            acquisition of a major system of information technology
            may be divided into several smaller acquisition
            increments that--
                      (A) are easier to manage individually than
                    would be one comprehensive acquisition;
                      (B) address complex information technology
                    objectives incrementally in order to enhance
                    the likelihood of achieving workable solutions
                    for attainment of those objectives;
                      (C) provide for delivery, implementation, and
                    testing of workable systems or solutions in
                    discrete increments each of which comprises a
                    system or solution that is not dependent on any
                    subsequent increment in order to perform its
                    principal functions; and
                      (D) provide an opportunity for subsequent
                    increments of the acquisition to take advantage
                    of any evolution in technology or needs that
                    occur during conduct of the earlier increments;
              (2) a contract for an increment of an information
            technology acquisition should, to the maximum extent
            practicable, be awarded within 180 days after the date
            on which the solicitation is issued and, if the
            contract for that increment cannot be awarded within
            such period, the increment should be considered for
            cancellation; and
              (3) the information technology provided for in a
            contract for acquisition of information technology
            should be delivered within 18 months after the date on
            which the solicitation resulting in award of the
            contract was issued.
                                  ----------

            NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993

              * * * * * * *

                DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

              * * * * * * *

                           TITLE XV--NONPROLIFERATION

    SEC. 1501. SHORT TITLE.

      This title may be cited as the ``Weapons of Mass Destruction
    Control Act of 1992''.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d) Sources of Assistance.--(1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (3) The total amount of the assistance provided in the form
    of funds under this section including funds used for activities
    of the Department of Defense in support of the United Nations
    Special Commission on Iraq, may not exceed $25,000,000 for
    fiscal year 1994, $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1995, [or]
    $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, or $15,000,000 for fiscal
    year 1997.
              * * * * * * *
      (f) Termination of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary
    of Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates
    at the close of fiscal year [1996] 1997.
              * * * * * * *

    DIVISION D--DEFENSE CONVERSION, REINVESTMENT, AND TRANSITION ASSISTANCE

    SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE.

      This division may be cited as the ``Defense Conversion,
    Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance Act of 1992''.
              * * * * * * *

       TITLE XLIV--PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENT, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS

              * * * * * * *

     Subtitle F--Job Training and Employment and Educational Opportunities

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 4471. NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS AND EMPLOYEES UPON PROPOSED AND ACTUAL
                        TERMINATION OR SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN MAJOR
                        DEFENSE PROGRAMS.

      [(a) Notice Requirement After Submission of President's
    Budget to Congress.--Each year, in conjunction with the
    preparation of the budget for the next fiscal year to be
    submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United
    States Code, the Secretary of Defense shall determine which
    major defense programs (if any) are proposed to be terminated
    or substantially reduced under the budget. Not later than 60
    days after the date on which the budget is submitted to
    Congress under such section, the Secretary, in accordance with
    regulations prescribed by the Secretary, shall provide notice
    of the proposed termination of, or substantial reduction in,
    each such program--
              [(1) directly to each prime contractor under that
            program; and
              [(2) by general notice through publication in the
            Federal Register.
      [(b)] (a) Notice Requirement After Enactment of
    Appropriations Act.--Each year, not later than 60 days after
    the date of the enactment of an Act appropriating funds for the
    military functions of the Department of Defense, the Secretary
    of Defense, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
    Secretary--
              [(1) shall determine which major defense programs (if
            any) of the Department of Defense that were not
            previously identified under subsection (a) are likely
            to be terminated or substantially reduced as a result
            of the funding levels provided in that Act; and
              [(2) shall provide notice of the anticipated
            termination of, or substantial reduction in, that
            program--
                      [(A) directly to each prime contractor under
                    that program;
                      [(B) directly to the Secretary of Labor; and
                      [(C) by general notice through publication in
                    the Federal Register.]
              (1) shall identify each contract (if any) under major
            defense programs of the Department of Defense that will
            be terminated or substantially reduced as a result of
            the funding levels provided in that Act; and
              (2) shall ensure that notice of the termination of,
            or substantial reduction in, the funding of the
            contract is provided--
                      (A) directly to the prime contractor under
                    the contract; and
                      (B) directly to the Secretary of Labor.
      [(c)] (b) Notice to Subcontractors.--[As soon as reasonably
    practicable after the date on which the prime contractor for a
    major defense program receives notice under subsection (a) or
    (b) of the termination of, or substantial reduction in, that
    program,] Not later than 60 days after the date on which the
    prime contractor for a contract under a major defense program
    receives notice under subsection (a), and not more than 45 days
    after such date, the prime contractor shall--
              (1) provide notice of that termination or substantial
            reduction to each person that is a first-tier
            subcontractor [for that program under a contract] for
            that prime contract for subcontracts in an amount not
            less than $500,000 [for the program]; and
              (2) require that each such subcontractor--
                      (A) provide such notice to each of its
                    subcontractors [for the program under a
                    contract] for subcontracts in an amount in
                    excess of $100,000; and
                      (B) impose a similar notice and pass through
                    requirement to subcontractors in an amount in
                    excess of $100,000 at all tiers.
      [(d)] (c) Contractor Notice to Employees and State Dislocated
    Worker Unit.--Not later than two weeks after a defense
    contractor receives notice [under subsection (a)(1) or (b)(1),
    as the case may be, of the termination of, or substantial
    reduction in, a defense program,] under subsection (a), the
    contractor shall provide notice of such termination or
    substantial reduction to--
              (1)(A) each representative of employees whose work is
            directly related to the defense contract under such
            program and who are employed by the defense contractor;
            or
              (B) if there is no such representative at that time,
            each such employee; and
              (2) the State dislocated worker unit or office
            described in section 311(b)(2) of the Job Training
            Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1661(b)(2)) and the chief
            elected official of the unit of general local
            government within which the adverse effect may occur.
      [(e)] (d) Constructive Notice.--The notice of termination of,
    or substantial reduction in, [a major defense program provided
    under subsection (d)(1)] a defense contract provided under
    subsection (c)(1) to an employee of a contractor shall have the
    same effect as a notice of termination to such employee for the
    purposes of determining whether such employee is eligible for
    training, adjustment assistance, and employment services under
    section 325 or 325A of the Job Training Partnership Act (29
    U.S.C. 1662d, 1662d-1), except where the employer has specified
    that the termination of, or substantial reduction in, [the
    program] the contract is not likely to result in plant closure
    or mass layoff. Any employee considered to have received such
    notice under the preceding sentence shall only be eligible to
    receive services under section 314(b) of such Act (29 U.S.C.
    1661c(b)) and under paragraphs (1) through (14), (16), and (18)
    of section 314(c) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1661c(c)).
      [(f) Withdrawal of Notification Upon Sufficient Funding for
    Program To Continue.--
              [(1) Notice to prime contractor.--If the Secretary of
            Defense provides a notification under subsection (a)
            for a fiscal year with respect to a major defense
            program and the Secretary subsequently determines, upon
            enactment of an Act appropriating funds for the
            military functions of the Department of Defense for
            that fiscal year that due to a sufficient level of
            funding for the program having been provided in that
            Act there will not be a termination of, or substantial
            reduction in, that program, then the Secretary shall
            provide notice of withdrawal of the notification
            provided under subsection (a) to each prime contractor
            that received that notice under such subsection. Any
            such notice of withdrawal shall be provided not later
            than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the
            appropriations Act concerned. In any such case, the
            Secretary shall at the same time provide general notice
            of such withdrawal by publication in the Federal
            Register.
              [(2) Notice to subcontractors.--As soon as reasonably
            practicable after the date on which the prime
            contractor for a major defense program receives notice
            under paragraph (1) of the withdrawal of a notification
            previously provided to the contractor under subsection
            (a), and not more than 45 days after that date, the
            prime contractor shall provide notice of such
            withdrawal to each person that is a first-tier
            subcontractor for the program under a contract in an
            amount not less than $500,000 for the program and shall
            require that each such subcontractor provide such
            notice to each subcontractor for the program under a
            contract in an amount not less than $100,000 at any
            tier.
              [(3) Notice to employees.--As soon as reasonably
            practicable after the date on which a prime contractor
            receives notice of withdrawal under paragraph (1) or a
            subcontractor receives such a notice under paragraph
            (2), and not more than two weeks after that date, the
            contractor or subcontractor shall provide notice of
            such withdrawal--
                      [(A) to each representative of employees
                    whose work is directly related to the defense
                    contract under the program and who are employed
                    by the contractor or subcontractor or, if there
                    is no such representative at that time, each
                    such employee;
                      [(B) to the State dislocated worker unit or
                    office described in section 311(b)(2) of the
                    Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C.
                    1661(b)(2)) and the chief elected official of
                    the unit of general local government within
                    which the adverse effect may occur; and
                      [(C) to each grantee under section 325(a) or
                    325A(a) of the Job Training Partnership Act (29
                    U.S.C. 1662d, 1662d-1) providing training,
                    adjustment assistance, and employment services
                    to an employee described in this paragraph.
      [(4)] (e) Loss of [eligibility] Eligibility.--An employee who
    receives a notice of withdrawal [under paragraph (3)] or
    cancellation of the termination of, or substantial reduction
    in, contract funding shall not be eligible for training,
    adjustment assistance, and employment services under section
    325 or 325A of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C.
    1662d, 1662d-1) beginning on the date on which the employee
    receives the notice.
      [(g)] (f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
              (1) The term ``major defense program'' means a
            program that is carried out to produce or acquire a
            major system (as defined in section 2302(5) of title
            10, United States Code).
              (2) The terms ``substantial reduction'' and
            ``substantially reduced'', with respect to a defense
            contract under a major defense program, mean a
            reduction of 25 percent or more in the total dollar
            value of [contracts under the program] the funds
            obligated by the contract.
                                  ----------

                     SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1934

              (Commonly known as the ``Foreign Trade Zones Act'')

    AN ACT To provide for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of
    foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite
            and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
    the United States of America in Congress assembled, That when
    used in this Act--
      (a) * * *
      (b) The term ``Board'' means the Board which is hereby
    established to carry out the provisions of this Act. The Board
    shall consist of the Secretary of Commerce, who shall be
    chairman and executive officer of the Board, [the Secretary of
    the Treasury, and the Secretary of War] and the Secretary of
    the Treasury;
      (c) The term ``State'' includes any State, the District of
    Columbia, [Alaska, Hawaii,] and Puerto Rico;
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                  SECTION 3342 OF TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE

    Sec. 3342. Check cashing and exchange transactions

      (a) * * *
      (b) A disbursing official may act under subsection (a) (1)
    and (2) of this section only for--
              (1) an official purpose;
              (2) personnel of the Government;
              (3) a dependent of personnel of the Government, but
            only--
                      (A) at a United States installation at which
                    adequate banking facilities are not available;
                    and
                      (B) in the case of negotiation of negotiable
                    instruments, if the dependent's sponsor
                    authorizes, in writing, the presentation of
                    negotiable instruments to the disbursing
                    official for negotiation[.];
              (4) a veteran hospitalized or living in an
            institution operated by an agency;
              (5) a contractor, or personnel of a contractor,
            carrying out a Government project; [and]
              (6) personnel of an authorized agency not part of the
            Government that operates with an agency of the
            Government[.]; or
              (7) a Federal credit union that at the request of the
            Secretary of Defense is operating on a United States
            military installation in a foreign country, but only if
            that country does not permit contractor-operated
            military banking facilities to operate on such
            installations.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

               SECTION 2055 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986

    SEC. 2055. TRANSFERS FOR PUBLIC, CHARITABLE, AND RELIGIOUS USES.

      (a) In General.--
              * * * * * * *
      (g) Cross References.--

              (1) For option as to time for valuation for purpose of
            deduction under this section, see section 2032.
         * * * * * * *
              [(4) For treatment of gifts and bequests for the benefit of
            the Office of Naval Records and History as gifts or bequests to
            or for the use of the United States, see section 7222 of title
            10, United States Code.]
              (4) For treatment of gifts and bequests for the benefit of the
            Naval Historical Center as gifts or bequests to or for the use
            of the United States, see section 7222 of title 10, United
            States Code.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

     SECTION 172 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
                                      1993

    SEC. 172. CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSIONS.

      (a) * * *
      (b) Functions.--The Secretary of the Army shall provide for a
    representative from the Office of the [Assistant Secretary of
    the Army (Installations, Logistics, and Environment)] Assistant
    Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition)
    to meet with each commission under this section to receive
    citizen and State concerns regarding the ongoing program of the
    Army for the disposal of the lethal chemical agents and
    munitions in the stockpile referred to in section 1412(a)(1) of
    the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C.
    1521(a)(1)) at each of the sites with respect to which a
    commission is established pursuant to subsection (a).
              * * * * * * *
      (f) Meetings.--Each commission shall meet with a
    representative from the Office of the [Assistant Secretary of
    the Army (Installations, Logistics, and Environment)] Assistant
    Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition)
    upon joint agreement between the chairman of the commission and
    that representative. The two parties shall meet not less often
    than twice a year and may meet more often at their discretion.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

       SECTION 1412 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1986

    SEC. 1412. DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING STOCKPILE OF LETHAL CHEMICAL AGENTS
                        AND MUNITIONS

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (g) Periodic Reports.--(1) Except as provided by paragraph
    (3), the Secretary shall transmit, by December 15 of each year,
    a report to the Congress on the activities carried out under
    this section during the fiscal year ending on September 30 of
    the calendar year in which the report is to be made.
      (2) Each annual report [shall contain--] shall include the
    following:
              (A) [a] A site-by-site description of the
            construction, equipment, operation, and dismantling of
            facilities (during the fiscal year for which the report
            is made) used to carry out the destruction of agents
            and munitions under this section, including any
            accidents or other unplanned occurrences associated
            with such construction and operation[;].
              (B) [an] An accounting of all funds expended (during
            such fiscal year) for activities carried out under this
            section, with a separate accounting for amounts
            expended for--
                      (i) the construction of and equipment for
                    facilities used for the destruction of agents
                    and munitions;
                      (ii) the operation of such facilities;
                      (iii) the dismantling or other closure of
                    such facilities;
                      (iv) research and development;
                      (v) program management; and
                      (vi) travel and associated travel costs for
                    Citizens' Advisory Commissioners under section
                    172(g) of Public Law 102-484 (50 U.S.C. 1521
                    note).
              (C) [an] An assessment of the safety status and the
            integrity of the stockpile of lethal chemical agents
            and munitions subject to this section, including--
                      (i) * * *
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                         THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1960

                  (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE ``SIKES ACT'')

      AN ACT to promote effectual planning, development, maintenance, and
           coordination of wildlife, fish, and game conservation and
                    rehabilitation in military reservations.

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

      This Act may be cited as the ``Sikes Act''.

      TITLE I--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON [MILITARY RESERVATIONS] MILITARY
                                 INSTALLATIONS

        Sec. 101. (a)(1) The Secretary of Defense [is authorized
    to] shall carry out a program of planning for, and the
    development, maintenance, and coordination of, wildlife, fish,
    and game conservation and rehabilitation [in each military
    reservation in accordance with a cooperative plan] on military
    installations. Under the program, the Secretary shall prepare
    and implement for each military installation in the United
    States an integrated natural resource management plan mutually
    agreed upon by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the
    Interior, and the appropriate State agency designated by the
    State in which the [reservation] installation is located,
    except that the Secretary is not required to prepare such a
    plan for a military installation if the Secretary determines
    that preparation of such a plan for the installation is not
    appropriate.
      (2) Consistent with essential military requirements to
    enhance the national security of the United States, the
    Secretary of Defense shall manage each military installation to
    provide--
              (A) for the conservation of fish and wildlife on the
            military installation and sustained multipurpose uses
            of those resources, including hunting, fishing, and
            trapping; and
              (B) public access that is necessary or appropriate
            for those uses.
        (b) Each [cooperative] integrated natural resource
    management plan entered into under subsection (a)--
              (1) shall provide for--
                      (A) fish and wildlife habitat improvements or
                    modifications,
                      (B) range rehabilitation where necessary for
                    support of wildlife,
                      (C) control of off-road vehicle traffic,
                    [and]
                      (D) specific habitat improvement projects and
                    related activities and adequate protection for
                    species of fish, wildlife, and plants
                    considered threatened or endangered[;],
                      (E) wetland protection and restoration, and
                    wetland creation where necessary, for support
                    of fish or wildlife,
                      (F) consideration of conservation needs for
                    all biological communities, and
                      (G) the establishment of specific natural
                    resource management goals, objectives, and
                    time-frames for proposed actions;
              (2) shall for the military installation for which it
            is prepared--
                      (A) address the needs for fish and wildlife
                    management, land management, forest management,
                    and wildlife-oriented recreation;
                      (B) ensure the integration of, and
                    consistency among, the various activities
                    conducted under the plan;
                      (C) ensure that there is no net loss in the
                    capability of installation lands to support the
                    military mission of the installation;
                      (D) provide for sustained use by the public
                    of natural resources, to the extent that such
                    use is not inconsistent with the military
                    mission of the installation or the needs of
                    fish and wildlife management;
                      (E) provide the public access to the
                    installation that is necessary or appropriate
                    for that use, to the extent that access is not
                    inconsistent with the military mission of the
                    installation; and
                      (F) provide for professional enforcement of
                    natural resource laws and regulations;
              [(2)](3) must be reviewed as to operation and effect
            by the parties thereto on a regular basis, but not less
            often than every 5 years;
              [(3) shall, if a multiuse natural resources
            management plan is applicable to the military
            reservation, be treated as the exclusive component of
            that management plan with respect to wildlife, fish,
            and game conservation and rehabilitation; and]
              (4) may stipulate the issuance of special State
            hunting and fishing permits to individuals and require
            payment of nominal fees therefor, which fees shall be
            utilized for the protection, conservation, and
            management of fish and wildlife, including habitat
            improvement and related activities in accordance with
            the [cooperative] integrated natural resource
            management plan; except that--
                      (A) the Commanding Officer of the
                    [reservation] installation or persons
                    designated by that Officer are authorized to
                    enforce such special hunting and fishing
                    permits and to [collect the fees therefor,]
                    collect, spend, administer, and account for
                    fees therefor, acting as agent or agents for
                    the State if the [cooperative] integrated
                    natural resource management plan so provides,
                    and
                      (B) the fees collected under this paragraph
                    may not be expended with respect to other than
                    the military [reservation] installation on
                    which collected, unless that military
                    installation is subsequently closed, in which
                    case the fees may be transferred to another
                    military installation to be used for the same
                    purposes.
        (c) After [a cooperative] an integrated natural resource
    management plan is agreed to under subsection (a)--
              (1) no sale of land, or forest products from land,
            that is within a military [reservation] installation
            covered by that plan may be made under section 2665 (a)
            or (b) of title 10, United States Code; and
              (2) no leasing of land that is within the
            [reservation] installation may be made under section
            2667 of such title 10;
    unless the effects of that sale or leasing are compatible with
    the purposes of the plan.
        (d) With regard to the implementation and enforcement of
    [cooperative] integrated natural resource management plans
    agreed to under subsection (a)--
              (1) neither Office of Management and Budget Circular
            A-76 nor any successor circular thereto applies to the
            procurement of services that are necessary for that
            implementation and enforcement; and
              (2) priority shall be given to the entering into of
            contracts for the procurement of such implementation
            and enforcement services with Federal and State
            agencies having responsibility for the conservation or
            management of fish or wildlife.
        (e) [Cooperative] Integrated natural resource management
    plans agreed to under the authority of this section and section
    102 shall not be deemed to be, nor treated as, cooperative
    agreements to which the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement
    Act of 1977 (41 U.S.C. 501 et seq.) applies.
      (f) Public Comment.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide
    an opportunity for public comment on each integrated natural
    resource management plan prepared under subsection (a).
      (g) Reviews and Reports.--
              (1) Secretary of defense.--The Secretary of Defense
            shall, by not later than March 1 of each year, review
            the extent to which integrated natural resource
            management plans were prepared or in effect and
            implemented in accordance with this Act in the
            preceding year, and submit a report on the findings of
            that review to the committees. Each report shall
            include--
                      (A) the number of integrated natural resource
                    management plans in effect in the year covered
                    by the report, including the date on which each
                    plan was issued in final form or most recently
                    revised;
                      (B) the amount of moneys expended on
                    conservation activities conducted pursuant to
                    those plans in the year covered by the report,
                    including amounts expended under the Legacy
                    Resource Management Program established under
                    section 8120 of the Act of November 5, 1990
                    (Public Law 101-511; 104 Stat. 1905); and
                      (C) an assessment of the extent to which the
                    plans comply with the requirements of
                    subsection (b)(1) and (2), including
                    specifically the extent to which the plans
                    ensure in accordance with subsection (b)(2)(C)
                    that there is no net loss of lands to support
                    the military missions of military
                    installations.
              (2) Secretary of the interior.--The Secretary of the
            Interior, by not later than March 1 of each year and in
            consultation with State agencies responsible for
            conservation or management of fish or wildlife, shall
            submit a report to the committees on the amount of
            moneys expended by the Department of the Interior and
            those State agencies in the year covered by the report
            on conservation activities conducted pursuant to
            integrated natural resource management plans.
              (3) Committees defined.--For purposes of this
            subsection, the term ``committees'' means the Committee
            on Resources and the Committee on National Security of
            the House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed
            Services and the Committee on Environment and Public
            Works of the Senate.
        Sec. 102. The Secretary of Defense in cooperation with the
    Secretary of Interior and the appropriate State agency is
    authorized to carry out a program for the conservation,
    restoration and management of migratory game birds on military
    [reservations] installations, including the issuance of special
    hunting permits and the collection of fees therefor, in
    accordance with [a cooperative] an integrated natural resource
    management plan mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of
    Defense, the Secretary of the Interior and the appropriate
    State agency: Provided, That possession of a special permit for
    hunting migratory game birds issued pursuant to this title
    shall not relieve the permittee of the requirements of the
    Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act as amended nor of the
    requirements pertaining to State law set forth in Public Law
    85-337.
        Sec. 103. The Secretary of Defense is also authorized to
    carry out a program for the development, enhancement,
    operation, and maintenance of public outdoor recreation
    resources at military [reservations] installations in
    accordance with [a cooperative] an integrated natural resource
    management plan mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of
    Defense and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with
    the appropriate State agency designated by the State in which
    such [reservations] installations are located.
        Sec. 103a. (a) The Secretary of Defense may enter into
    cooperative agreements with States, local governments,
    nongovernmental organizations, and individuals to provide for
    the maintenance and improvement of natural resources on, or to
    benefit natural and historic research on, Department of Defense
    installations.
        (b) A cooperative agreement shall provide for the Secretary
    of Defense and the other party or parties to the agreement--
              (1) to contribute funds on a [matching basis] cost-
            sharing basis to defray the cost of programs, projects,
            and activities under the agreement; or
              (2) to furnish services on a [matching basis] cost-
            sharing basis to carry out such programs, projects, and
            activities,
    or to do both.
        (c) Cooperative agreements entered into under this section
    shall be subject to the availability of funds and shall not be
    considered, nor be treated as, cooperative agreements to which
    chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, applies, and shall
    not be subject to section 1535 of that title.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 106. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT OF OTHER LAWS.

      All Federal laws relating to the conservation of natural
    resources on Federal lands may be enforced by the Secretary of
    Defense with respect to violations of those laws which occur on
    military installations within the United States.

    SEC. 107. NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

      The Secretary of each military department shall ensure that
    sufficient numbers of professionally trained natural resource
    management personnel and natural resource law enforcement
    personnel are available and assigned responsibility to perform
    tasks necessary to comply with this Act, including the
    preparation and implementation of integrated natural resource
    management plans.

    SEC. 108. DEFINITIONS.

      In this title:
              (1) Military installation.--The term ``military
            installation''--
                      (A) means any land or interest in land owned
                    by the United States and administered by the
                    Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a
                    military department; and
                      (B) includes all public lands withdrawn from
                    all forms of appropriation under public land
                    laws and reserved for use by the Secretary of
                    Defense or the Secretary of a military
                    department.
              (2) State fish and wildlife agency.--The term ``State
            fish and wildlife agency'' means an agency of State
            government that is responsible under State law for
            managing fish or wildlife resources.
              (3) United states.--The term ``United States'' means
            the States, the District of Columbia, and the
            territories and possessions of the United States.
        Sec. [106.] 109. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall expend
    such funds as may be collected in accordance with the
    [cooperative] integrated natural resource management plans
    agreed to under sections 101 and 102 and cooperative agreements
    agreed to under section 103a of this title and for no other
    purpose. All funds that are so collected shall remain available
    until expended.
        (b) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
    Secretary of Defense not to exceed $1,500,000 for each of the
    fiscal years [1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990,
    1991, 1992, and 1993,] 1983 through 1998, to carry out this
    title, including the enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat
    and the development of public recreation and other facilities
    and to carry out such functions and responsibilities as the
    Secretary may have under cooperative agreements entered into
    under section 103a. The Secretary of Defense shall, to the
    greatest extent practicable, enter into agreements to utilize
    the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities, with or
    without reimbursement, of the Secretary of the Interior in
    carrying out the provisions of this section.
        (c) There are authorized to be appropriated to the
    Secretary of the Interior not to exceed $3,000,000 for each of
    the fiscal years [1983, 1994, 1995, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989,
    1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993,] 1983 through 1998, to carry out
    such functions and responsibilities as the Secretary may have
    under [cooperative] integrated natural resource management
    plans to which such Secretary is a party under this section,
    including those for the enhancement of fish and wildlife
    habitat and the development of public recreation and other
    facilities.

             TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON CERTAIN PUBLIC LAND

              * * * * * * *
        Sec. 209. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated [the
    sum of $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1983, 1984,
    1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993, to
    enable the Secretary of the Interior] $4,000,000 for each of
    fiscal years 1997 and 1998, to enable the Secretary of the
    Interior to carry out his functions and responsibilities under
    this title, including data collection, research, planning, and
    conservation and rehabilitation programs on public lands. Such
    funds shall be in addition to those authorized for wildlife,
    range, soil, and water management pursuant to section 318 of
    the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
    1748), or other provisions of law.
        (b) There are authorized to be appropriated [the sum of
    $12,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1983, 1984, 1985,
    1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993, to enable
    the Secretary of Agriculture] $5,000,000 for each of fiscal
    years 1997 and 1998, to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to
    carry out his functions and responsibilities under this title.
    Such funds shall be in addition to those provided under other
    provisions of law. In requesting funds under this subsection
    the Secretary shall take into account fish and wildlife program
    needs, including those for projects, identified in the State
    comprehensive plans as contained in the program developed
    pursuant to the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
    Planning Act of 1974, as amended (16 U.S. 1601-1610).
                                  ----------

                    SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 27, 1986

    [SEC. 2. NATURAL RESOURCES AND FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ON MILITARY
                        RESERVATIONS; REPORT ON MILITARY EXPENDITURES FOR
                        FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT.

        [(a) Natural Resources Management.--The Secretary of each
    military department shall manage the natural resources of each
    military reservation within the United States that is under the
    jurisdiction of the Secretary--
            [(1) so as to provide for sustained multipurpose uses
            of those resources; and
            [(2) to provide the public access that is necessary or
            appropriate for those uses;
    to the extent that those uses and that access are not
    inconsistent with the military mission of the reservation.
        [(b) Fish and Wildlife Management Service.--The Secretary
    of each military department shall ensure, to the extent
    feasible, that the services necessary for the development,
    implementation, and enforcement of fish and wildlife management
    on each military reservation within the United States under the
    jurisdiction of the Secretary are provided by the Department of
    Defense personnel who have professional training in those
    services.
        [(c) Fish and Wildlife Management Report.--The Secretary of
    each military department shall submit to each House of the
    Congress, before the close of the 180-day period occurring
    after the close of fiscal year 1986, a detailed report setting
    forth the amount and purpose of all expenditures made during
    fiscal year 1986 for fish and wildlife management on each
    military reservation in the United States under the
    jurisdiction of the Secretary.
        [(d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
            [(1) The term ``military department'' means the
            Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and
            the Department of the Air Force.
            [(2) The term ``United States'' means the States, the
            District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
            and the territories and possessions of the United
            States.]
                                  ----------

     SECTION 204 OF THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS AND BASE CLOSURE
                              AND REALIGNMENT ACT

    SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION

      (a) * * *
      (b) Management and Disposal of Property.--(1) * * *
      (2)(A) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (D) The Secretary of Defense may transfer real property or
    facilities located at a military installation to be closed or
    realigned under this title, with or without reimbursement, to a
    military department or other entity (including a
    nonappropriated fund instrumentality) within the Department of
    Defense or the Coast Guard.
      [(D)] (E) Before any action may be taken with respect to the
    disposal of any surplus real property or facility located at
    any military installation to be closed or realigned under this
    title, the Secretary shall consult with the Governor of the
    State and the heads of the local governments concerned for the
    purpose of considering any plan for the use of such property by
    the local community concerned.
      [(E)] (F) The provisions of this paragraph and paragraph (1)
    are subject to paragraphs (3) through (6).
              * * * * * * *
      (8)(A) Subject to subparagraph (C), the Secretary may enter
    into agreements (including contracts, cooperative agreements,
    or other arrangements for reimbursement) with local governments
    for the provision of police or security services, fire
    protection services, airfield operation services, or other
    community services by such governments at military
    installations to be closed under this title or at facilities
    remaining on installations closed under this title if the
    Secretary determines that the provision of such services under
    such agreements is in the best interests of the Department of
    Defense.
              * * * * * * *
      (f) Acquisition of Manufactured Housing.--(1) In closing or
    realigning any military installation under this title, the
    Secretary may purchase any or all right, title, and interest of
    a member of the Armed Forces and any spouse of the member in
    manufactured housing located at a manufactured housing park
    established at an installation closed or realigned under this
    title, or make a payment to the member to relocate the
    manufactured housing to a suitable new site, if the Secretary
    determines that--
              (A) it is in the best interests of the Federal
            Government to eliminate or relocate the manufactured
            housing park; and
              (B) the elimination or relocation of the manufactured
            housing park would result in an unreasonable financial
            hardship to the owners of the manufactured housing.
      (2) Any payment made under this subsection shall not exceed
    90 percent of the purchase price of the manufactured housing,
    as paid by the member or any spouse of the member, plus the
    cost of any permanent improvements subsequently made to the
    manufactured housing by the member or spouse of the member.
      (3) The Secretary shall dispose of manufactured housing
    acquired under this subsection through resale, donation, trade
    or otherwise within one year of acquisition.
                                  ----------

        SECTION 818 OF THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1981

                    land conveyance, guam, marianas islands

      Sec. 818. (a) * * *
      (b)(1) * * *
      [(2) Conveyance of the property described in subsection (a)
    shall be subject to the condition that any disposal by sale or
    lease of any part or all of the property by the Government of
    Guam shall only be for a monetary consideration equal to or in
    excess of the fair market value (at the time of the disposal)
    of the property concerned, or of the leasehold interest
    therein, as determined by the Administrator of General
    Services, and any such monetary consideration received by the
    Government of Guam, minus any reasonable development costs
    incurred by such Government in preparing the property concerned
    for disposal, shall be paid to the United States. Reasonable
    development costs shall be a fixed standard percentage of such
    monetary consideration received by the Government of Guam. The
    fixed standard percentage shall be determined by a study,
    conducted by the Secretary, typical development costs required
    to convert comparable lands to finished developed sites, except
    that such percentage shall not exceed 50 percent.]
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                     MILITARY LANDS WITHDRAWAL ACT OF 1986

              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT OF WITHDRAWN LANDS.

      (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (f) Additional Military Uses.--(1) * * *
      (2) Subject to valid existing rights, the Secretary of the
    military department concerned may utilize sand, gravel, or
    similar mineral or material resources when the use of such
    resources is required for construction needs on the respective
    lands withdrawn by this Act.
              * * * * * * *

    SEC. 9. DELEGABILITY.

      (a) * * *
      (b) Interior.--The functions of the Secretary of the Interior
    under this title may be delegated, except that an order
    described in section [7(f)] 8(f) may be approved and signed
    only by the Secretary of the Interior, the Under Secretary of
    the Interior, or an Assistant Secretary of the Department of
    the Interior.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

               STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MATERIALS STOCK PILING ACT

              * * * * * * *

                              FINDINGS AND PURPOSE

      Sec. 2. (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(c) In providing for the National Defense Stockpile under
    this Act, Congress establishes the following principles:
              [(1) The purpose of the National Defense Stockpile is
            to serve the interest of national defense only. The
            National Defense Stockpile is not to be used for
            economic or budgetary purposes.
              [(2) Before October 1, 1994, the quantities of
            materials stockpiled under this Act should be
            sufficient to sustain the United States for a period of
            not less than three years during a national emergency
            situation that would necessitate total mobilization of
            the economy of the United States for a sustained
            conventional global war of indefinite duration.
              [(3) On and after October 1, 1994, the quantities of
            materials stockpiled under this Act should be
            sufficient to meet the needs of the United States
            during a period of a national emergency that would
            necessitate an expansion of the Armed Forces together
            with a significant mobilization of the economy of the
            United States under planning guidance issued by the
            Secretary of Defense.]
      (c) The purpose of the National Defense Stockpile is to serve
    the interest of national defense only. The National Defense
    Stockpile is not to be used for economic or budgetary purposes.

        MATERIALS TO BE ACQUIRED: PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY AND GUIDELINES

      Sec. 3. (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c)(1) * * *
      (2) The President shall notify Congress in writing of any
    change proposed to be made in the quantity of any material to
    be stockpiled. The President may make the change [effective on
    or after the 30th legislative day following] after the end of
    the 45-day period beginning on the date of the notification.
    The President shall include a full explanation and
    justification for the proposed change with the notification.
    [For purposes of this paragraph, a legislative day is a day on
    which both Houses of Congress are in session.]
              * * * * * * *

                              stockpile management

      Sec. 6. (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (d)(1) The President may waive the applicability of any
    provision of the first sentence of subsection (b) to any
    acquisition of material for, or disposal of material from, the
    stockpile. Whenever the President waives any such provision
    with respect to any such acquisition or disposal, or whenever
    the President determines that the application of paragraph (1)
    or (2) of such subsection to a particular acquisition or
    disposal is not feasible, the President shall notify the
    Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on
    National Security of the House of Representatives in writing of
    the proposed acquisition or disposal at least [thirty days] 45
    days before any obligation of the United States is incurred in
    connection with such acquisition or disposal and shall include
    in such notification the reasons for not complying with any
    provision of such subsection.
      (2) Materials in the stockpile may be disposed of under
    subsection (a)(5) only if such congressional committees are
    notified in writing of the proposed disposal at least [thirty
    days] 45 days before any obligation of the United States is
    incurred in connection with such disposal.
              * * * * * * *

                importation of strategic and critical materials

      Sec. 13. The President may not prohibit or regulate the
    importation into the United States of any material determined
    to be strategic and critical pursuant to the provisions of this
    Act, if such material is the product of any foreign country or
    area not listed [as a Communist-dominated country or area] in
    general note 3(b) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
    United States (19 U.S.C. 1202), for so long as the importation
    into the United States of material of that kind which is the
    product of [such Communist-dominated countries or areas] a
    country or area listed in such general note is not prohibited
    by any provision of law.

                   biennial report on stockpile requirements

      Sec. 14. (a) * * *
      [(b) Each report under this section shall set forth the
    national emergency planning assumptions used in determining the
    stockpile requirements recommended by the Secretary. Before
    October 1, 1994, such assumptions shall be based upon the total
    mobilization of the economy of the United States for a
    sustained conventional global war for a period of not less than
    three years. On and after October 1, 1994, such assumptions
    shall be based on an assumed national emergency involving
    military conflict that necessitates an expansion of the Armed
    Forces together with a significant mobilization of the economy
    of the United States. Assumptions to be set forth include
    assumptions relating to each of the following:
              [(1) Length and intensity of the assumed emergency.
              [(2) The military force structure to be mobilized.
              [(3) Losses from enemy action.
              [(4) Military, industrial, and essential civilian
            requirements to support the national emergency.
              [(5) Budget authority necessary to meet the
            requirements of total mobilization for the military,
            industrial, and essential civilian sectors.
              [(6) The availability of supplies of strategic and
            critical materials from foreign sources, taking into
            consideration possible shipping losses.
              [(7) Domestic production of strategic and critical
            materials.
              [(8) Civilian austerity measures.]
      (b) Each report under this section shall set forth the
    national emergency planning assumptions used by the Secretary
    in making the Secretary's recommendations under subsection
    (a)(1) with respect to stockpile requirements. The Secretary
    shall base the national emergency planning assumptions on a
    military conflict scenario consistent with the scenario used by
    the Secretary in budgeting and defense planning purposes. The
    assumptions to be set forth include assumptions relating to
    each of the following:
              (1) The length and intensity of the assumed military
            conflict.
              (2) The military force structure to be mobilized.
              (3) The losses anticipated from enemy action.
              (4) The military, industrial, and essential civilian
            requirements to support the national emergency.
              (5) The availability of supplies of strategic and
            critical materials from foreign sources during the
            mobilization period, the military conflict, and the
            subsequent period of replenishment, taking into
            consideration possible shipping losses.
              (6) The domestic production of strategic and critical
            materials during the mobilization period, the military
            conflict, and the subsequent period of replenishment,
            taking into consideration possible shipping losses.
              (7) Civilian austerity measures required during the
            mobilization period and military conflict.
      (c) The stockpile requirements shall be based on those
    strategic and critical materials necessary for the United
    States to replenish or replace, within three years of the end
    of the military conflict scenario required under subsection
    (b), all munitions, combat support items, and weapons systems
    that would be consumed or exhausted during such a military
    conflict.
      (d) The Secretary shall also include in each report under
    this section an examination of the effect that alternative
    mobilization periods under the military conflict scenario
    required under subsection (b), as well as a range of other
    military conflict scenarios addressing potentially more serious
    threats to national security, would have on the Secretary's
    recommendations under subsection (a)(1) with respect to
    stockpile requirements.
      [(c)] (e) The President shall submit with each report under
    this section a statement of the plans of the President for
    meeting the recommendations of the Secretary set forth in the
    report.
              * * * * * * *
                                  ----------

                            PANAMA CANAL ACT OF 1979

                                  short title

      Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Panama Canal Act of
    1979''.

                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Sec. 1. Short title.
    Sec. 2. Statement of purpose.
    Sec. 3. Definitions [and recommendation for legislation].

                     TITLE I--ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATIONS

                       Chapter 1--Panama Canal Commission

    Sec. 1101. Establishment, Purposes, Offices, and Residence of
              Commission.
         * * * * * * *
    Sec. 1102a. General powers of Commission.
    Sec. 1102b. Specific powers of Commission.
         * * * * * * *
    Sec. 1104. Deputy Administrator [and Chief Engineer].
         * * * * * * *

                              Chapter 2--Employees

                 Subchapter I--Panama Canal Commission Personnel

    Sec. 1201. Definitions.
         * * * * * * *
    [Sec. 1209. Inapplicability of certain benefits to certain noncitizens.]
    Sec. 1209. Applicability of certain benefits.

                  Subchapter II--Wage and Employment Practices

    Sec. 1210. Travel and transportation expenses.
         * * * * * * *
    [Sec. 1214. Interim application of Canal Zone Merit System.]
         * * * * * * *
    [Sec. 1223. Administration by the President.
    [Sec. 1224. Applicability of certain laws.]
    Sec. 1223. Central Examining Office.
    Sec. 1224. Applicability of title 5, United States Code.
         * * * * * * *

                            Subchapter IV--Retirement

    Sec. 1241. Early retirement eligibility.
         * * * * * * *
    [Sec. 1245. Cash relief to certain former employees.
    [Sec. 1246. Appliances for employees injured before September 7, 1916.]
    Sec. 1245. Administration of certain disability benefits.

                               Subchapter V--Leave

    [Sec. 1251. Leave for jury or witness service.]
         * * * * * * *

                          Chapter 3--Funds and Accounts

                               Subchapter I--Funds

    [Sec. 1301. Canal Zone Government funds.]
         * * * * * * *
    Sec. 1306. Printing.

                  Subchapter II--Accounting Policies and Audits

    Sec. 1311. Accounting policies.
         * * * * * * *
    Sec. 1313. Audits.

                  Chapter 6--Tolls for Use of the Panama Canal

    Sec. 1601. Prescription of measurement rules and rates of tolls.
         * * * * * * *
    [Sec. 1605. Interim toll adjustment.]

                         Chapter 7--General Regulations

    [Sec. 1701. Authority of President.
    [Sec. 1702. Authority of Commission.]
         * * * * * * *

                       [TITLE II--TREATY TRANSITION PERIOD

                       [Chapter 1--Laws Continued in Force

    [Sec. 2101. Laws, regulations, and administrative authority.

                               [Chapter 2--Courts

    [Sec. 2201. Jurisdiction.
    [Sec. 2202. Divisions and terms of District Court.
    [Sec. 2203. Terms of certain offices.
    [Sec. 2204. Residence requirements.
    [Sec. 2205. Special District Judge.
    [Sec. 2206. Magistrates' courts.

                              [Chapter 3--Attorneys

    [Sec. 2301. Oath of attorneys.

                        [Chapter 4--Transition Authority

    [Sec. 2401. Transition authority of President.
    [Sec. 2402. Prisons; parole; pardons.]

                          TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                             [Chapter 1--Cemeteries

    [Sec. 3101. Disinterment, transportation, and reinterment of remains.]
         * * * * * * *

      Chapter 3--Reports; Amendments; Repeals and Redesignation; Effective
                                      Date

    Sec. 3301. Report.
    [Sec. 3302. Amendments.]
    Sec. 3302. Exemption.
         * * * * * * *

                definitions [and recommendation for legislation]

      Sec. 3. (a) * * *
      (b) Subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this
    section, for purposes of applying the Canal Zone Code or other
    laws of the United States and regulations issued pursuant to
    such Code or other laws with respect to transactions,
    occurrences, or status on or after the effective date of this
    Act--
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
              (4) ``Governor of the Canal Zone'' or ``Governor'',
            wherever the reference is to the Governor of the Canal
            Zone, shall be deemed to refer to the Panama Canal
            Commission; and
              (5) ``Panama Canal Company'' or ``Company'', wherever
            the reference is to the Panama Canal Company, shall be
            deemed to refer to the Panama Canal Commission[;].
              [(6) in chapter 57 of title 5 of the Canal Zone,
            ``hospitals'' and ``health Bureau'' shall be deemed to
            refer, respectively, to the hospitals operated by the
            United States in the Republic of Panama, and to the
            organizational unit operating such hospitals; and
              [(7) in chapter 57 of title 5 of the Canal Zone Code,
            in section 4784 of title 6 of such Code, and in section
            2 of title 7 of such Code, ``health director'' shall be
            deemed to refer to the senior official in charge of the
            hospitals operated by the United States in the Republic
            of Panama.]
              * * * * * * *
      [(d) The President shall, within two years after the Panama
    Canal Treaty of 1977 enters into force, submit to the Congress
    a request for legislation which would--
              [(1) amend or repeal provisions of law which in their
            present form are applicable only during the transition
            period prescribed in Article XI of that Treaty.
              [(2) repeal the Canal Zone Code, and
              [(3) contain provisions considered necessary and
            appropriate in light of the experience as of that time
            under that Treaty.]

                    TITLE I--ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATIONS

                       Chapter 1--Panama Canal Commission

              * * * * * * *

                                 [administrator

      [Sec. 1103. There shall be an Administrator of the
    Commission, who shall be appointed by the President, by and
    with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall hold
    office at the pleasure of the President.

                    [deputy administrator and chief engineer

      [Sec. 1104. (a) There shall be a Deputy Administrator and a
    Chief Engineer of the Commission, both of whom shall be
    appointed by the President. The Deputy Administrator and the
    Chief Engineer shall perform such duties as may be prescribed
    by the President.
      [(b) The Deputy Administrator and the Chief Engineer shall
    each be paid compensation at a rate of pay established by the
    President which does not exceed the rate of basic pay in effect
    for grade GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of
    title 5, United States Code, and, if eligible, shall be paid
    the overseas recruitment or retention differential provided for
    in section 1217 of this Act.]

                                 administrator

      Sec. 1103. (a) There shall be an Administrator of the
    Commission who shall be appointed by the President, by and with
    the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall hold office at
    the pleasure of the President.
      (b) The Administrator shall be paid compensation in an
    amount, established by the Board, not to exceed level III of
    the Executive Schedule.

                              deputy administrator

      Sec. 1104. (a) There shall be a Deputy Administrator of the
    Commission who shall be appointed by the President. The Deputy
    Administrator shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by
    the Board.
      (b) The Deputy Administrator shall be paid compensation at a
    rate of pay, established by the Board, which does not exceed
    the rate of basic pay in effect for level IV of the Executive
    Schedule, and, if eligible, shall be paid the overseas
    recruitment and retention difference provided for in section
    1217 of this Act.
              * * * * * * *

                              office of ombudsman

      Sec. 1113. (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(d) The Ombudsman shall be a citizen of the United States.]
      [(e)] (d) The Office of Ombudsman shall terminate upon the
    termination of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977.

                              Chapter 2--Employees

                Subchapter I--Panama Canal Commission Personnel

              * * * * * * *

                     [appointment and compensation; duties

      [Sec. 1202. (a) In accordance with this chapter, the Panama
    Canal Commission may appoint without regard to the provisions
    of title 5, United States Code, relating to appointments in the
    competitive service, fix the compensation of, and define the
    authority and duties of, officers, agents, attorneys, and
    employees (other than the Administrator, Deputy Administrator,
    and Chief Engineer) necessary for the management, operation,
    and maintenance of the Panama Canal and its complementary
    works, installations, and equipment.
      [(b) Individuals serving in any Executive agency (other than
    the Commission) or the Smithsonian Institution, including
    individuals serving in the uniformed services, may, if
    appointed under this section or section 1103 or 1104 of this
    Act, serve as officers or employees of the Commission.]

                      appointment and compensation; duties

      Sec. 1202. (a) In accordance with this chapter, the
    Commission may appoint, fix the compensation of, and define the
    authority and duties of officers and employees (other than the
    Administrator and Deputy Administrator) necessary for the
    management, operation, and maintenance of the Panama Canal and
    its complementary works, installations, and equipment.
      (b) Individuals serving in any Executive agency (other than
    the Commission) or the Smithsonian Institution, including
    individuals in the uniform services, may, if appointed under
    this section or section 1104 of this Act, serve as officers or
    employees of the Commission.
              * * * * * * *

          [inapplicability of certain benefits to certain noncitizens

      [Sec. 1209. (a) Chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code,
    relating to compensation for work injuries, chapter 83 of such
    title 5, relating to civil service retirement, chapter 87 of
    such title 5, relating to life insurance, and chapter 89 of
    such title 5, relating to health insurance, are inapplicable to
    any individual--
              [(1) who is not a citizen of the United States;
              [(2) whose initial appointment by the Commission
            occurs after October 1, 1979; and
              [(3) who is covered by the Social Security System of
            the Republic of Panama pursuant to any provision of the
            Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements.
      [(b) Subparagraph (B) of section 8701(a) of title 5, United
    States Code, defining the term employee for purposes of life
    insurance, is amended to read as follows:
              [``(B) an individual who is not a citizen or national
            of the United States and whose permanent duty station
            is outside the United States, unless the individual was
            an employee for the purpose of this chapter on
            September 30, 1979, by reason of service in an
            Executive agency, the United States Postal Service, or
            the Smithsonian Institution in the area which was then
            known as the Canal Zone; or''.
      [(c) Clause (ii) of section 8901(1) of title 5, United States
    Code, defining the term employee for purposes of health
    insurance is amended to read as follows:
                      [``(ii) an individual who is not a citizen or
                    national of the United States and whose
                    permanent duty station is outside the United
                    States, unless the individual was an employee
                    for the purpose of this chapter on September
                    30, 1979, by reason of service in an Executive
                    agency, the United States Postal Service, or
                    the Smithsonian Institution in the area which
                    was then known as the Canal Zone;''.]

                       applicability of certain benefits

      Sec. 1209. Chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code,
    relating to compensation for work injuries, chapters 83 and 84
    of such title 5, relating to retirement, chapter 87 of such
    title 5, relating to life insurance, and chapter 89 of such
    title 5, relating to health insurance, are applicable to
    Commission employees, except any individual--
              (1) who is not a citizen of the United States;
              (2) whose initial appointment by the Commission
            occurs after October 1, 1979; and
              (3) who is covered by the Social Security System of
            the Republic of Panama pursuant to any provision of the
            Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements.

                  Subchapter II--Wage and Employment Practices

                      [travel and transportation expenses

      [Sec. 1210. The Commission may pay the expenses of vacation
    leave travel for an employee of the Commission to whom section
    1206 of this Act applies and for transportation of employee's
    family from the employee's post of duty in Panama to the place
    of the employee's actual residence at the time of appointment
    to the post of duty. The authorization of expenses under this
    section shall be in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 57
    of title 5, United States Code, and the regulations issued
    under that subchapter, except that the Commission may prescribe
    required periods of service notwithstanding section 5722 of
    title 5, United States Code, and the regulations issued under
    subchapter II of chapter 57 of such title.]

                       travel and transportation expenses

      Sec. 1210. (a) Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the
    Commission may pay travel and transportation expenses for
    employees in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 57 of
    title 5, United States Code.
      (b) For an employee to whom section 1206 applies, the
    Commission may pay travel and transportation expenses
    associated with vacation leave for the employee and the
    immediate family of the employee notwithstanding requirements
    regarding periods of service established by subchapter II of
    chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, or the regulations
    promulgated thereunder.
      (c) For an employee to whom section 1206 does not apply, the
    Commission may pay travel and transportation expenses
    associated with vacation leave for the employee and the
    immediate family of the employee notwithstanding requirements
    regarding a written agreement concerning the duration of a
    continuing service obligation established by subchapter II of
    chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code or the regulations
    promulgated thereunder.

                                  definitions

      Sec. 1211. As used in this subchapter--
              (1) ``agency'' means--
                      (A) the Commission, and
                      [(B) an Executive agency or the Smithsonian
                    Institution, to the extent of any election in
                    effect under section 1212(b)(2) of this Act;]
                      (B) any other Executive agency or the
                    Smithsonian Institution, to the extent of any
                    election in effect under section 1212(b) of
                    this Act;
              * * * * * * *

          [panama canal employment system; merit and other employment
                                  requirements

      [Sec. 1212. (a) After considering any recommendations of the
    Commission, the President shall establish a Panama Canal
    Employment System. The Panama Canal Employment System shall--
              [(1) be established in accordance with and be subject
            to the provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977
            and related agreements, the provisions of this chapter,
            and any other applicable provision of law;
              [(2) be based on the consideration of the merit of
            each employee or candidate for employment and the
            qualifications and fitness of the employee to hold the
            position concerned;
              [(3) conform, to the extent practicable and
            consistent with the provisions of this Act, to the
            policies, principles, and standards applicable to the
            competitive service; and
              [(4) in the case of employees who are citizens of the
            United States, provide for the appropriate interchange
            of those employees between positions under the Panama
            Canal Employment System and positions in the
            competitive service.
      [(b)(1) The Commission, and any Executive agency and the
    Smithsonian Institution to the extent of any election under
    paragraph (2) of this subsection, shall conduct their
    employment and pay practices relating to employees in
    accordance with the Panama Canal Employment System and
    regulations prescribed by, or under the authority of, the
    President in accordance with this subchapter.
      [(2) The head of any Executive agency and the Smithsonian
    Institution may elect to have the Panama Canal Employment
    System made applicable in whole or in part to personnel of that
    agency in the Republic of Panama.
      [(c) Subject to the provisions of this chapter, the President
    may, from time to time and after considering any recommendation
    of the Commission, amend or modify any provision of the Panama
    Canal Employment System, including any provision relating to
    selection for appointment, reappointment, reinstatement,
    reemployment, and retention, with respect to positions,
    employees, and candidates for employment.
      [(d) The President may, to the extent the President
    determines appropriate--
              [(1) exclude any employee or position from coverage
            under any provision of this subchapter; and
              [(2) notwithstanding section 1202 of this Act, extend
            to any employee, whether or not the employee is a
            citizen of the United States, the rights and privileges
            which are provided by applicable laws and regulations
            for citizens of the United States employed in the
            competitive service.]

    panama canal employment system; merit and other employment requirements

      Sec. 1212. (a) The Commission shall establish a Panama Canal
    Employment System and prescribe the regulations necessary for
    its administration. The Panama Canal Employment System shall--
              (1) be established in accordance with and be subject
            to the provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977
            and related agreements, the provisions of this chapter,
            and any other applicable provision of law;
              (2) be based on the consideration of the merit of
            each employee or candidate for employment and the
            qualifications and fitness of the employee to hold the
            position concerned;
              (3) conform, to the extent practicable and consistent
            with the provisions of this Act, to the policies,
            principles, and standards applicable to the competitive
            service;
              (4) in the case of employees who are citizens of the
            United States, provide for the appropriate interchange
            of those employees between positions under the Panama
            Canal Employment System and positions in the
            competitive service; and
              (5) not be subject to the provisions of title 5,
            United States Code, unless specifically made applicable
            by this Act.
      (b)(1) The head of any Executive agency (other than the
    Commission) and the Smithsonian Institution may elect to have
    the Panama Canal Employment System made applicable in whole or
    in part to personnel of that agency in the Republic of Panama.
      (2) Any Executive agency (other than the Commission) and the
    Smithsonian Institution, to the extent of any election under
    paragraph (1), shall conduct its employment and pay practices
    relating to employees in accordance with the Panama Canal
    Employment System.
      (c) The Commission may exclude any employee or position from
    coverage under any provision of this subchapter, other than the
    interchange rights extended under subsection (a)(4).

                              employment standards

      Sec. 1213. [The head of each agency] The Commission shall
    establish written standards for--
              (1) determining the qualifications and fitness of
            employees and of candidates for employment in
            positions; and
              (2) selecting individuals for appointment, promotion,
            or transfer to positions.
    The standards shall conform to the provisions of this
    subchapter, and regulations prescribed thereunder, and the
    Panama Canal Employment System.

                [interim application of canal zone merit system

      [Sec. 1214. Notwithstanding any repeal made by this Act or
    any provision of this chapter, the provisions of subchapter III
    of chapter 7 of title 2 of the Canal Zone Code establishing the
    Canal Zone Merit System, together with the regulations
    prescribed thereunder, as in effect on September 30, 1979,
    shall continue in effect and shall apply with respect to
    employees under the Panama Canal Employment System is
    established and in effect pursuant to section 1212 of this
    Act.]
              * * * * * * *

                     recruitment and retention remuneration

      Sec. 1217. (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(d) Subchapter III of chapter 59 of title 5, United States
    Code, relating to overseas differentials and allowances, shall
    not apply with respect to any employee whose permanent duty
    station is in the Republic of Panama and who is employed by an
    agency.]
              * * * * * * *

                          benefits based on basic pay

      Sec. 1218. For the purposes of determining--
              (1) amounts of compensation for disability or death
            under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code,
            relating to compensation for work injuries;
              [(2) benefits under subchapter III of chapter 83 of
            title 5, United States Code, relating to civil service
            retirement;]
              (2) benefits under subchapter III of chapter 83 and
            subchapter II of chapter 84 of title 5, United States
            Code, relating to retirement;
              * * * * * * *

                        [administration by the president

      [Sec. 1223. (a) The President shall prescribe regulations
    necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this
    subchapter and coordinate the policies and activities of
    agencies under this subchapter.
      [(b) The President may establish an office within the
    Commission as the successor to the Canal Zone Central Examining
    Office. The purpose of the office shall be to assist the
    President in--
              [(1) carrying out the President's coordination
            responsibility under section (a) of this section; and
              [(2) implementing the provisions of the Panama Canal
            Treaty of 1977 and related agreements with respect to
            recruitment, examination, determination of
            qualification standards and similar matters.
      [(c) The President may delegate any authority vested in the
    President by this subchapter and may provide for the
    redelegation of that authority.

                         [applicability of certain laws

      [Sec. 1224. This chapter does not affect the applicability
    of--
              [(1) the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
            which relate to preference eligibles;
              [(2) the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
            which relate to removal or suspension from the
            competitive service; and
              [(3) the provisions of section 554(a) of title 5,
            United States Code, which relate to wage-board overtime
            and Sunday rates, with respect to classes of employees
            who were covered by those provisions on the date of the
            enactment of this Act.]

                            central examining office

      Sec. 1223. The Commission shall establish a Central Examining
    Office. The purpose of the office shall be to implement the
    provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related
    agreements with respect to recruitment, examination,
    determination of qualification standards, and similar matters
    relating to employment of the Commission.

                  applicability of title 5, united states code

      Sec. 1224. The following provisions of title 5, United States
    Code, apply to the Panama Canal Commission:
              (1) Part I of title 5 (relating to agencies
            generally).
              (2) Chapter 21 (relating to employee definitions).
              (3) Section 2302(b)(8) (relating to whistleblower
            protection) and all provisions of title 5 relating to
            the administration or enforcement or any other aspect
            thereof, as identified in regulations prescribed by the
            Commission in consultation with the Office of Personnel
            Management.
              (4) All provisions relating to preference eligibles.
              (5) Section 5514 (relating to offset from salary).
              (6) Section 5520a (relating to garnishments).
              (7) Sections 5531-5535 (relating to dual pay and
            employment).
              (8) Subchapter VI of chapter 55 (relating to
            accumulated and accrued leave).
              (9) Subchapter IX of chapter 55 (relating to
            severance and back pay).
              (10) Chapter 57 (relating to travel and
            transportation).
              (11) Chapter 59 (relating to allowances).
              (12) Chapter 63 (relating to leave).
              (13) Section 6323 (relating to military leave;
            Reserves and National Guardsmen).
              (14) Chapter 71 (relating to labor relations).
              (15) Subchapters II and III of chapter 73 (relating
            to employment limitations and political activities,
            respectively) and all provisions of title 5 relating to
            the administration or enforcement or any other aspect
            thereof, as identified in regulations prescribed by the
            Commission in consultation with the Office of Personnel
            Management.
              (16) Chapter 81 (relating to compensation for work
            injuries).
              (17) Chapters 83 and 84 (relating to retirement).
              (18) Chapter 85 (relating to unemployment
            compensation).
              (19) Chapter 87 (relating to life insurance).
              (20) Chapter 89 (relating to health insurance).

             Subchapter III--Conditions of Employment and Placement

                      transferred or reemployed employees

      Sec. 1231. (a)(1) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(3)(A) The provisions of this subsection shall take effect
    on the date of the enactment of this Act.
      [(B) No spending authority (as described in section
    401(c)(2)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) provided
    for under this subsection shall take effect before October 1,
    1979.
      [(C) Effective October 1, 1979, any individual who, but for
    subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, would have been entitled to
    one or more payments pursuant to this subsection for periods
    before October 1, 1979, shall be entitled, to the extent or in
    such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation Acts,
    to a lump sum payment equal to the total amount of all such
    payments.]
              * * * * * * *

                    [cash relief to certain former employees

      [Sec. 1245. (a) The Commission, under the regulation
    prescribed by the President pursuant to the Act entitled ``An
    Act authorizing cash relief for certain employees of the Panama
    Canal not coming within the provisions of the Canal Zone
    Retirement Act'', approved July 8, 1937, as amended (50 Stat.
    478; 68 Stat. 17), may continue the payments of cash relief to
    those individual former employees of the Canal Zone Government
    or Panama Canal Company or their predecessor agencies not
    coming within the scope of the former Canal Zone Retirement Act
    whose services were terminated prior to October 5, 1958,
    because of unfitness for further useful service by reason of
    mental or physical disability resulting from age or disease.
    Subject to subsection (b) of this section, that cash relief may
    not exceed $1.50 per month for each year of service of the
    employees so furnished relief, with a maximum of $45 per month,
    plus the amount of any cost-of-living increases in such cash
    relief granted before October 1, 1979, pursuant to section 181
    of title 2 of the Canal Zone Code (as in effect on September
    30, 1979), nor be paid to any employee who, at the time of
    termination for disability prior to October 5, 1958, had less
    than 10 years' service with the Canal Zone Government, the
    Panama Canal Company, or their predecessor agencies on the
    Isthmus of Panama.]

                 administration of certain disability benefits

      Sec. 1245. (a)(1) The Commission, or any other United States
    Government agency or private entity acting pursuant to an
    agreement with the Commission, under the Act entitled ``An Act
    authorizing cash relief for certain employees of the Panama
    Canal not coming within the provisions of the Canal Zone
    Retirement Act'', approved July 8, 1937 (50 Stat. 478; 68 Stat.
    17), may continue the payments of cash relief to those
    individual former employees of the Canal Zone Government or
    Panama Canal Company or their predecessor agencies not coming
    within the scope of the former Canal Zone Retirement Act whose
    services were terminated prior to October 5, 1958, because of
    unfitness for further useful service by reason of mental or
    physical disability resulting from age or disease.
      (2) Subject to subsection (b), cash relief under this
    subsection may not exceed $1.50 per month for each year of
    service of the employees so furnished relief, with a maximum of
    $45 per month, plus the amount of any cost-of-living increases
    in such cash relief granted before October 1, 1979, pursuant to
    section 181 of title 2 of the Canal Zone Code (as in effect on
    September 30, 1979), nor be paid to any employee who, at the
    time of termination for disability prior to October 5, 1958,
    had less than 10 years' service with the Canal Zone Government,
    the Panama Canal Company, or their predecessor agencies on the
    Isthmus of Panama.
              * * * * * * *

           [appliances for employees injured before september 7, 1916

      [Sec. 1246. Artificial limbs or other appliances may be
    purchased by the Commission, out of any funds available to the
    Commission, for persons who were injured in the service of the
    Isthmian Canal Commission or of the Panama Canal before
    September 7, 1916.]

                              Subchapter V--Leave

                       [leave for jury or witness service

      [Sec. 1251. Section 6322(a) of title 5, United States Code,
    is amended--
              [(1) by striking out ``the Canal Zone, or''; and
              [(2) by striking out ``Islands.'' and inserting in
            lieu thereof ``Islands, or the Republic of Panama.''.]
              * * * * * * *

                         Chapter 3--Funds and Accounts

                              Subchapter I--Funds

                          [canal zone government funds

      [Sec. 1301. On the effective date of this Act, any unexpended
    balances of the appropriation accounts appearing on the books
    of the United States Government as ``Operating Expenses, Canal
    Zone Government (38-0116-0-1-806)'' and ``Capital Outlay, Canal
    Zone Government (38-0116-0-1-806)'' shall be covered into the
    general fund of the Treasury, and any appropriations to which
    expenditures under such accounts have been chargeable before
    such effective date are repealed. The Commission may, to the
    extent of funds available to it, pay claims or make payments
    chargeable to such accounts, upon proper audit of such claims
    of payments.

                          [panama canal revolving fund

      [Sec. 1302. (a)(1) There is established in the Treasury of
    the United States a revolving fund to be known as the ``Panama
    Canal Revolving Fund''. The Panama Canal Revolving Fund shall,
    subject to subsection (c), be available to the Commission to
    carry out the purposes, functions, and powers authorized by
    this Act, including for--
              [(A) the hire of passenger motor vehicles and
            aircraft;
              [(B) uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized
            by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United States
            Code;
              [(C) official receptions and representation expenses
            of the Board, the Secretary of the Commission, and the
            Administrator;
              [(D) the operation of guide services;
              [(E) a residence for the Administrator;
              [(F) disbursements by the Administrator for employee
            and community projects; and
              [(G) the procurement of expert and consultant
            services as provided in section 3109 of title 5, United
            States Code.
      [(2) On the effective date of the Panama Canal Revolving Fund
    Act--
              [(A) the Panama Canal Commission Fund shall be
            terminated and the unappropriated balance, including
            undeposited receipts as of the close of business on the
            day before the effective date of the Panama Canal
            Revolving Fund Act, shall be transferred to the Panama
            Canal Revolving Fund;
              [(B) the unexpended balance of appropriations to the
            Commission, as of the close of business on the day
            before the effective date of the Panama Canal Revolving
            Fund Act, shall be transferred to the Panama Canal
            Revolving Fund, and such amounts including amounts
            appropriated for capital expenditures, shall remain
            available until expended;
              [(C) the assets and liabilities recorded before such
            effective date under the ``Panama Canal Commission
            Fund'' shall be recorded under the Panama Canal
            Revolving Fund; and
              [(D) the Panama Canal Emergency Fund shall be
            terminated and the remaining balance shall be
            transferred to the Panama Canal Revolving Fund.
      [(b) Upon completion of the transfers of funds under
    subsection (a)--
              [(1) amounts attributable to interest on the
            investment of the United States in the Panama Canal
            which accrued before January 1, 1986, shall be
            transferred from the Panama Canal Revolving Fund to the
            general fund of the Treasury; and
              [(2) such amounts as were appropriated to the
            Commission in the fiscal year which ended September 30,
            1980, and for which the Commission has not reimbursed
            the general fund of the Treasury, shall be transferred
            to the general fund of the Treasury.
      [(c)(1) There shall be deposited in the Panama Canal
    Revolving Fund, on a continuing basis, toll receipts (other
    than amounts of toll receipts deposited into the Panama Canal
    Commission Dissolution Fund under section 1305) and all other
    receipts of the Commission. Except as provided in section 1303,
    no funds may be obligated or expended by the Commission in any
    fiscal year unless such obligation or expenditure has been
    specifically authorized by law.
      [(2) No funds may be authorized for the use of the
    Commission, or obligated or expended by the Commission in any
    fiscal year in excess of--
              [(A) the amount of revenues deposited in the Panama
            Canal Revolving Fund and the Panama Canal Dissolution
            Fund during such fiscal year, plus
              [(B) the amount of revenues deposited in the Panama
            Canal Revolving Fund before such fiscal year and
            remaining unexpended at the beginning of such fiscal
            year.
    Not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, the
    Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Congress the
    amount of revenues deposited in the Panama Canal Revolving Fund
    during such fiscal year.
      [(d) With the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the
    Commission may deposit amounts in the Panama Canal Revolving
    Fund in any Federal Reserve bank, any depository for public
    funds, or in such other places and in such other manner as the
    Commission and the Secretary may agree.
      [(e) In accordance with section 9104 of title 31, United
    States Code, Congress shall review the annual budget of the
    Commission.
      [(f)(1) It is the sense of the Congress that the additional
    costs resulting from implementation of the Panama Canal Treaty
    of 1977 and related agreements should be kept to the absolute
    minimum level. To this end, the Congress declares that the
    direct appropriated costs of implementation to be borne by the
    taxpayers over the life of such Treaty should be kept to a
    level no greater than the March 1979 estimate of those costs
    ($870,700,000) presented to the Congress by the executive
    branch during consideration of this Act by the Congress, less
    personnel retirement costs of $205,000,000, which were
    subtracted and charged to tolls, therefore resulting in the net
    taxpayer cost of approximately $665,700,000, plus appropriate
    adjustment for inflation.
      [(2) It is further the sense of the Congress that the actual
    costs of implementation be consistent with the obligations of
    the United States to operate the Panama Canal safely and
    efficiently and keep it secure.]

                          panama canal revolving fund

      Sec. 1302. (a) There is established in the Treasury of the
    United States a revolving fund to be known as ``Panama Canal
    Revolving fund''. The Panama Canal Revolving Fund shall,
    subject to subsection (b), be available to the Commission to
    carry out the purposes, functions, and powers authorized by
    this Act, including for--
              (1) the hire of passenger motor vehicles and
            aircraft;
              (2) uniforms or allowances therefor;
              (3) official receptions and representation expenses
            of the Board, the Secretary of the Commission, and the
            Administrator;
              (4) the operation of guide services;
              (5) a residence for the Administrator;
              (6) disbursements by the Administrator for employee
            and community projects;
              (7) the procurement of expert and consultant
            services;
              (8) promotional activities, including the
            preparation, distribution, or use of any kit, pamphlet,
            booklet, publication, radio, television, film, or other
            media presentation designed to promote the Panama Canal
            as a resource of the world shipping industry; and
              (9) the purchase and transportation to the Republic
            of Panama of passenger motor vehicles built in the
            United States, including large, heavy-duty vehicles.
      (b)(1) There shall be deposited in the Panama Canal Revolving
    Fund, on a continuing basis, toll receipts (other than amounts
    of toll receipts deposited into the Panama Canal Commission
    Dissolution Fund under section 1305) and all other receipts of
    the Commission. Except as provided in section 1303, no funds
    may be obligated or expended by the Commission in any fiscal
    year unless such obligation or expenditure has been
    specifically authorized by law.
      (2) No funds may be authorized for the use of the Commission,
    or obligated or expended by the Commission in any fiscal year,
    in excess of--
              (A) the amount of revenues deposited in the Panama
            Canal Revolving Fund and the Panama Canal Dissolution
            Fund during such fiscal year, plus
              (B) the amount of revenues deposited in the Panama
            Canal Revolving Fund before such fiscal year and
            remaining unobligated at the beginning of such fiscal
            year; plus
              (C) the $100,000,000 borrowing authority provided for
            in section 1304 of this Act.
    Not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, the
    Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Congress the
    amount of revenues deposited in the Panama Canal Revolving Fund
    during such fiscal year.
      (c) With the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the
    Commission may deposit amounts in the Panama Canal Revolving
    Fund in any Federal Reserve bank, any depository for public
    funds, or such other place and in such manner as the Commission
    and the Secretary may agree.
      (d)(1) It is the sense of the Congress that the additional
    costs resulting from the implementation of the Panama Canal
    Treaty of 1977 and related agreements should be kept to the
    absolute minimum level. To this end, the Congress declares
    appropriated costs of implementation to be borne by the
    taxpayers over the life of such Treaty should be kept to a
    level no greater than the March 1979 estimate of those costs
    ($870,700,000) presented to the Congress by the executive
    branch during consideration of this Act by the Congress, less
    personnel retirement costs of $205,000,000, which were
    subtracted and charged to tolls, therefore resulting in net
    taxpayer cost of approximately $665,700,000, plus appropriate
    adjustments for inflation.
      (2) It is further the sense of the Congress that the actual
    costs of implementation be consistent with the obligations of
    the United States to operate the Panama Canal safely and
    efficiently and keep it secure.

                              emergency authority

      Sec. 1303. If authorizing legislation described in section
    [1302(c)(1)] 1302(b)(1) has not been enacted for a fiscal year,
    then the Commission may withdraw funds from the Panama Canal
    Revolving Fund in order to defray emergency expenses and to
    ensure the continuous, efficient, and safe operation of the
    Panama Canal, including expenses for capital projects. The
    authority of this section may be exercised only until
    authorizing legislation described in section [1302(c)(1)]
    1302(b)(1) is enacted, or for a period of 24 months after the
    end of the fiscal year for which such authorizing legislation
    was last enacted, whichever occurs first. Within 60 days after
    the end of any calendar quarter in which expenditures are made
    under this section, the Commission shall report such
    expenditures to the appropriate committees of the Congress.
              * * * * * * *

                                    printing

      Sec. 1306. (a) Section 501 of title 44, United States Code,
    shall not apply to direct purchase by the Commission for its
    use of printing, binding, and blank-book work in the Republic
    of Panama when the Commission determines that such direct
    purchase is in the best interest of the Government.
      (b) This section shall not affect the Commission's authority,
    under chapter 5 of title 44, United States Code, to operate a
    field printing plant.

                 Subchapter II--Accounting Policies and Audits

                              accounting policies

      Sec. 1311. (a) [The Commission shall establish and maintain
    its accounts pursuant to the Accounting and Auditing Act of
    1950 (31 U.S.C. 65 et seq.) and the provisions of this
    chapter.] The Commission shall establish and maintain its
    accounts in accordance with chapter 91 of title 31, United
    States Code, and the provisions of this chapter. Such accounts
    shall specify all revenues received by the Commission,
    including tolls for the use of the Panama Canal, expenditures
    for capital replacement, expansion, and improvement, and all
    costs of maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal and of
    its complementary works, installations, and equipment,
    including depreciation, payments to the Republic of Panama
    under the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, and interest on the
    investment of the United States calculated in accordance with
    section 1603 of this Act.
              * * * * * * *

                                     audits

      Sec. 1313. (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      [(c) In conducting the audit and preparing the reports
    provided for in this section and in carrying out his other
    responsibilities pursuant to law, the Comptroller General
    shall, with respect to fiscal year 1980, take into account the
    problems inherent in converting the existing accounting system
    of the Panama Canal Company to conform to the requirements
    established in section 1311 of this Act. Accordingly, the
    Comptroller General shall take no adverse action with respect
    to the Commission, nor shall any violation of section 3679 of
    the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 665) be considered to have
    taken place, so long as the Commission is in substantial
    compliance with the requirements of this Act. The Comptroller
    General shall make such recommendations to the Commission and
    to the Congress as he may consider appropriate to insure that
    full compliance with the financial controls provided for in the
    Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 65 et seq.) is
    achieved promptly.]

                      Subchapter III--Interagency Accounts

                      interagency services; reimbursements

      Sec. 1321. (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (e) The appropriations or funds of the Commission, or of any
    other department or agency of the United States conducting
    operations in the Republic of Panama, shall be available to
    defray the cost of--
              (1) health care services provided by medical
            facilities licensed and approved by the Republic of
            Panama (and not operated by the United States) to
            elderly or disabled persons who were eligible to
            receive such services before the effective date of this
            Act, less amounts payable by such persons, and
              (2) educational services provided by schools in the
            Republic of Panama or the United States, which are not
            operated by the United States, to employees of the
            Commission who are citizens of the United States and
            persons who were receiving such services at the expense
            of the Canal Zone Government before the effective date
            of this Act.
    Notwithstanding section 5924 of title 5, United States Code,
    the Commission shall by regulation determine the extent to
    which costs of educational services may be defrayed under this
    subsection.

                         Subchapter IV--Postal Matters

                                [postal service

      [Sec. 1331. The postal service established and governed by
    chapter 73 of title 2 of the Canal Zone Code shall be
    discontinued on October 1, 1979.
      [(b) The provisions of chapter 73 of such title 2 relating to
    postal-savings deposits, postal-savings certificates, postal
    money orders, and the accounting for funds shall continue to
    apply for the purpose of meeting the obligations of the United
    States concerning outstanding postal savings and money orders
    and disposition of funds.
      [(c) The Commission shall take possession of and administer
    the funds of the postal service referred to in subsection (a)
    and this section and shall assume its obligation. The
    Commission and the United States Postal Service may enter into
    agreements for the transfer of funds of property and the
    assumption of administrative rights or responsibilities with
    respect to the outstanding obligations of the postal service
    referred to in subsection (a) of this section. Any transfer or
    assumption (including any agreement for such transfer or
    assumption) pursuant to this subsection shall be effective only
    to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in advance in
    appropriate Acts.
      [(d) Mail addressed to the Canal Zone from or through the
    continental United States may be routed by the United States
    Postal Service to the military post offices of the United
    States Forces in the Republic of Panama. Such military offices
    shall provide the required directory services and shall accept
    such mail to the extent permitted under the Panama Canal Treaty
    of 1977 and related agreements. The Commission shall furnish
    personnel, records, and other services to such military to
    assure wherever appropriate the distribution, rerouting, or
    return of such mail.
      [(e)(1) The second sentence of section 403(a) of title 39,
    United States Code, is amended by striking out ``Except as
    provided in the Canal Zone Code, the'' and inserting in lieu
    thereof ``The''.
      [(2) Section 340(b) of such title is amended--
              [(A) by inserting ``or'' before ``the Virgin
            Islands''; and
              [(B) by striking out ``or the Canal Zone,''.
      [(3)(A) Section 3402 of such title repealed.
      [(B) the table of sections for chapter 34 of title 39, United
    States Code, is amended by repealing the item relating to
    section 3402.
      [(4) Section 3682(b)(5) of such title is amended by striking
    out ``the Canal Zone and''.]

                                 postal service

      Sec. 1331. (a) The Commission shall take possession of and
    administer the funds of the Canal Zone postal service and shall
    assume its obligations.
      (b) Effective December 1, 1999, neither the Commission nor
    the United States Government shall be responsible for the
    distribution of any accumulated unpaid balances relating to
    Canal Zone postal-savings deposits, postal-savings
    certificates, and postal money orders.
      (c) Mail addressed to the Canal Zone from or through the
    continental United States may be routed by the United States
    Postal Service to the military post offices of the United
    States Armed Forces in the Republic of Panama. Such military
    post offices shall provide the required directory services and
    shall accept such mail to the extent permitted under the Panama
    Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements. The Commission
    shall furnish personnel, records, and other services to such
    military post offices to assure wherever appropriate the
    distribution, rerouting, or return of such mail.
              * * * * * * *

             Chapter 4--Claims for Injuries to Persons or Property

              * * * * * * *

                          Subchapter II--Vessel Damage

              * * * * * * *

            investigation of accident or injury giving rise to claim

      Sec. 1417. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
    claim may not be considered under this subchapter, or an action
    for damages lie thereon, unless, prior to the departure from
    the Panama Canal of the vessel involved--
              [(1) an investigation by the competent authorities of
            the accident or injury, giving rise to the claim has
            been completed; and]
              (1) an investigation of the accident or injury giving
            rise to the claim has been completed, which shall
            include a hearing by the Board of Local Inspectors of
            the Commission; and
              * * * * * * *

                  Chapter 6--Tolls for Use of the Panama Canal

              * * * * * * *

                            [interim toll adjustment

      [Sec. 1605. (a) After the effective date of this section, the
    Panama Canal Company or the Commission may, without regard to
    the procedures set forth in section 1604 of this Act for making
    changes in tolls by the Commission and the President, change
    the rates of tolls calculated to cover the cost of maintaining
    and operating the Panama Canal during the fiscal year beginning
    on October 1, 1979. Such rates shall be calculated in
    accordance with the provisions of section 1602(b) of this Act.
    Any such change in rates of tolls shall be subject to the
    approval of the President whose action in the matter shall be
    final. Any change in rates of tolls approved by the President
    shall become effective on a date prescribed by the President.
      [(b) This section shall take effect on the date of the
    enactment of this Act.]

                         Chapter 7--General Regulations

                            [authority of president

      [Sec. 1701. The President may prescribe, and from time to
    time amend, regulations applicable within the areas and
    installations made available to the United States for the
    operation and protection of the Panama Canal pursuant to the
    Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements concerning--
              [(1) the use of aircraft;
              [(2) the possession and use of alcoholic beverages;
              [(3) exclusion and removal of persons; and
              [(4) health and sanitation.

                            [authority of commission

      [Sec. 1702. The Commission may prescribe, and from time to
    time amend, regulations applicable within the areas and
    installations made available to the United States for the
    operation and protection of the Panama Canal pursuant to the
    Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements concerning--
              [(1) the keeping and impounding of domestic animals;
              [(2) fire prevention;
              [(3) the sale or use of fireworks;
              [(4) the use of roads and highways;
              [(5) photographing of areas, objects, installations,
            or structures;
              [(6) swimming in the Panama Canal and adjacent
            waters; and
              [(7) the protection of wildlife, hunting, and
            fishing.]

                       Chapter 8--Shipping and Navigation

                        Subchapter I--Operation of Canal

                             operating regulations

      Sec. 1801. The [President] Commission may prescribe, and from
    time to time amend, regulations governing--
              (1) * * *
              * * * * * * *

                      [TITLE II--TREATY TRANSITION PERIOD

                      [Chapter 1--Laws Continued in Force

                [laws, regulations, and administrative authority

      [Sec. 2101. To the extent not inconsistent with the Panama
    Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements and the provisions
    of this Act, the Canal Zone Code and other laws, regulations,
    and administrative authority of the United States applicable in
    the Canal Zone immediately before the date on which the Panama
    Canal Treaty of 1977 enters into force shall continue in force
    for the purpose of the exercise by the United States of law
    enforcement and judicial jurisdiction during the transition
    period provided for in Article XI of the Panama Canal Treaty of
    1977 (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the ``transition
    period'').

                               [Chapter 2--Courts

                                 [jurisdiction

      [Sec. 2201. (a) During the transition period, the
    jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the
    District of the Canal Zone and the magistrates' courts under
    title 3 of the Canal Zone shall be continued, subject to the
    limitations set forth in Article XI of the Panama Canal Treaty
    of 1977.
      [(b) For purposes of the exercise of the jurisdiction
    provided in Article XI of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, the
    United States District Court and magistrates' courts referred
    to in subsection (a) of this section shall construe the terms
    ``United States citizen employees'', ``members of the United
    States Forces'', ``civilian component'', and ``dependents'' as
    such terms are defined in the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and
    related agreements, and shall construe the terms ``areas and
    installations made available for the use of the United States''
    to mean (1) The Panama Canal operating areas and housing areas
    described in Annex A to the Agreement in Implementation of
    Article III of the Panama Canal Treaty, (2) the Ports of Balboa
    and Cristobal described in Annex B to that Agreement, and (3)
    the defense sites and Military Areas of Coordination described
    in Annex A to the Agreement in Implementation of Article IV of
    the Panama Canal Treaty.

                     [division and terms of district court

      [Sec. 2202. The United States District Court for the District
    of the Canal Zone may conduct its affairs at such places within
    the areas made available for the use by the United States
    pursuant to the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related
    agreements, and at such times, as the district judge may
    designate by rule or order.

                           [terms of certain offices

      [Sec. 2203. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 5,
    41, 45, and 82 of title 3 of the Canal Zone Code, the term of
    office of a district judge, magistrate, United States attorney,
    or United States marshal shall extend for a period of 30 months
    beginning on the date on which the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977
    enters into force, and any such term shall be subject to such
    extension of time as may be provided for the disposition of
    pending cases by agreement between the United States and the
    Republic of Panama, pursuant to the last sentence of paragraph
    7 of Article XI of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977.
      [(b) The provisions of this section shall take effect on the
    date of the enactment of this Act.

                            [residence requirements

      [Sec. 2204. Section 5(d), 7(d), 41(d), and 45(d) of title 3
    of the Canal Zone Code, the second sentence of section 42 of
    such title, and the second sentence of section 82(c) of such
    title, which provisions require that certain court officials
    reside in the Canal Zone, are repealed.

                            [special district judge

      [Sec. 2205. (a) Section 6 of title 3 of the Canal Zone Code
    is amended to read as follows:

    [``Sec. 6. Special district judge

      [``The chief judge of the judicial circuit of the United
    States in which the district court lies may designate and
    assign a special district judge to act when necessary--
              [``(1) during the absence of the district judge;
              [``(2) during the disability or disqualification of
            the district judge because of sickness or otherwise to
            discharge his duties; or
              [``(3) when there is a vacancy in the office of
            district judge.''.
      [(b) Each designation and assignment by the chief judge under
    section 6 of title 3 of the Canal Zone Code, as amended by
    subsection (a) of this section, shall be made in accordance
    with chapter 13 of title 28, United States Code, which shall be
    deemed to apply for such purposes.]

                              [magistrates' courts

      [Sec. 2206. (a) The two magistrates' courts established
    pursuant to section 81 of title 3 of the Canal Zone Code and
    existing immediately before the date on which the Panama Canal
    Treaty of 1977 enters into force shall continue in operation
    during the transition period unless terminated during such
    period under subsection (b) of this section.
      [(b) During the transition period, the President may
    terminate one magistrate's court, together with the positions
    of magistrate and constable corresponding thereto, if the
    President determines that the workload is insufficient to
    warrant continuance of that court. If one of the magistrates'
    courts is so terminated, the remaining magistrate's courts
    shall exercise the jurisdiction that otherwise would have been
    exercised by the terminated court and shall take custody of and
    administer all records of the terminated court.

                             [Chapter 3--Attorneys

                               [oath of attorneys

      [Sec. 2301. (a) Section 543 of title 3 of the Canal Zone Code
    is amended to read as follows:

    [``Sec. 543. Oath of attorneys admitted to bar

      [``Before receiving a certificate the applicant shall take
    and subscribe in court an appropriate oath prescribed by the
    district judge.''.
      [(b) The table of section for chapter 17 of title 3 of the
    Canal Zone Code is amended by amending the item relating to
    section 543 to read as follows:
    [``543. Oath of attorneys admitted to bar.''.

                        [Chapter 4--Transition Authority

                       [transition authority of president

      [Sec. 2401. Except as expressly provided to the contrary in
    this or any other Act, or in the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977
    and related agreements, any authority necessary for the
    exercise during the transition period of the rights and
    responsibilities of the United States specified in Article XI
    of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 shall be vested in the
    President.

                           [prisons; parole; pardons

      [Sec. 2402. (a) Subsection (c) of section 6503 of title 6 of
    the Canal Zone Code is amended to read as follows:
      [``(c) Pursuant to the provisions of section 5003 of title
    18, United States Code, the Governor may contract with the
    Attorney General of the United States for the transfer to the
    custody of the Attorney General of prisoners sentenced by the
    United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone
    to terms of imprisonment in excess of one year.''.
      [(b) After entry into force of the Panama Canal Treaty of
    1977--
              [(1) all prisoners imprisoned in United States
            prisons pursuant to contracts entered into pursuant to
            subsection (c) of section 6503 of title 6 of the Canal
            Zone Code, as amended by subsection (a) of this
            section, shall be committed to the custody of the
            Attorney General as if committed in accordance with
            part III of title 18, United States Code;
              [(2) all persons convicted of offenses in the United
            States District Court for the District of the Canal
            Zone, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment of one
            year or less, shall be committed to the custody of the
            Commission; and
              [(3) the Commission shall prescribe, and from time to
            time may amend, regulations providing for the
            management of prisoners in the jails located in the
            areas and installations made available for the use of
            the United States pursuant to the Panama Canal Treaty
            of 1977 and related agreements, including provisions
            for treatment, care, assignment for work, discipline,
            and welfare.
      [(c) After the entry into force of the Panama Canal Treaty of
    1977, all persons convicted of offenses in the United States
    District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, and
    sentenced to terms of imprisonment in excess of one year, shall
    be committed to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to
    parts III and IV of title 18, United States Code.
      [(d)(1) Sections 6501 through 6505 of title 6 of the Canal
    Zone Code are repealed.
      [(2) The table of sections for chapter 351 of title 6 of the
    Canal Zone Code is amended by repealing the items relating to
    sections 6501 through 6505.
      [(e) Subsections (c) and (d) of this section shall take
    effect 90 days after entry into force of the prisoner transfer
    agreement referred to in paragraph 11 of Article IX of the
    Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 but in no event later than 90 days
    prior to the end of the transition period.
      [(f)(1) Chapter 355 of title 6 of the Canal Zone Code is
    repealed.
      [(2) the table of chapters for part 3 of title 6 of the Canal
    Zone Code is amended by repealing the item relating to chapter
    355.]

                         TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                             [Chapter 1--Cemeteries

           [disinterment, transportation, and reinterment of remains

      [Sec. 3101. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated for
    the fiscal year beginning October 1, 1979, and subsequent
    fiscal years, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the
    purposes and provisions of Reservation (3) to the Resolution of
    Ratification of the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality
    and Operation of the Panama Canal, adopted by the United States
    Senate March 16, 1978, such sums to be made available to carry
    out such purposes and provisions.
      [(b) With regard to remains that are to be reinterred in the
    United States, the United States shall not bear the cost of
    funeral home services, vaults, plots, or crypts unless
    otherwise provided for by law.]
              * * * * * * *

     Chapter 3--Reports, Amendments; Repeals and Redesignation; Effective
                                      Date

              * * * * * * *

                                  [amendments

      [Sec. 3302. (a) Section 1 of title II of the Act of June 15,
    1917 (50 U.S.C. 19 1), is amended--
              [(1) by striking out the second paragraph; and
              [(2) in subsection (b) of the last paragraph, by
            striking out ``, the Canal Zone,''.
      [(b) Section 1 of title XIII of the Act of June 15, 1917 (50
    U.S.C. 195), is amended by striking out ``the Canal Zone and''.
      [(c) The first section of the Act of August 9, 1954 (50
    U.S.C. 196), is amended by striking out ``, including the Canal
    Zone,''.
      [(d) The Department of State, Justice, and Commerce, the
    Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1974 (87
    Stat. 636 et seq.) is amended by striking out the heading
    ``PAYMENT TO THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA'' and all that follows that
    relates to the heading.
      [(e) Title 5, United States Code, is amended--
              [(1) in sections 305(a)(7), 5102(a)(1)(vii),
            5342(a)(1)(G), 5348(b), and 5541(2)(xii), by striking
            out ``Panama Canal Company'' and inserting in lieu
            thereof ``Panama Canal Commission'';
              [(2) in sections 5504(a)(A) and 6301(2)(iv), by
            striking out ``Canal Zone Government or the Panama
            Canal Company'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Panama
            Canal Commission'';
              [(3) in section 8335(e), by striking out ``Panama
            Canal Company or the Canal Zone Government'' and
            inserting in lieu thereof ``Panama Canal Commission'';
              [(4) in section 5373(l), by striking out ``section
            121 of title 2, Canal Zone Code (76A Stat. 15)'' and
            inserting in lieu thereof ``section 1202 of the Panama
            Canal Act of 1979'';
              [(5) in section 6323(c)(2)(B), by striking out ``the
            Canal Zone,'';
              [(6) in section 5102(c), by amending paragraph (12)
            to read as follows:
              [``(12) any Executive agency to the extent of any
            election under section 1212(b)(2) (relating to the
            Panama Canal Employment System) of the Panama Canal Act
            of 1979;''
              [(7) in section 5583(b), by--
                      [(A) adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph
                    (1);
                      [(B) striking out paragraph (2); and
                      [(C) redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph
                    (2);
              [(8) in section 5533(d)(7), by--
                      [(A) striking out the semicolon at the end of
                    subparagraph (E) and inserting in lieu thereof
                    ``; or'';
                      [(B) striking out ``; or'' at the end of
                    subparagraph (F) and inserting in lieu a
                    period; and
                      [(C) striking out subparagraph (G);
              [(9) in section 8146--
                      [(A) by striking out ``Canal Zone'' in the
                    catchline and inserting in lieu thereof
                    ``Panama Canal Commission'';
                      [(B) in subsection (a)(1), by striking out
                    ``Canal Zone Government and of the Panama Canal
                    Company are concerned to the Governor of the
                    Canal Zone'' and inserting in lieu thereof
                    ``Panama Canal Commission are concerned to the
                    Commission'';
                      [(C) in the first sentence of subsection (b),
                    by striking out ``Canal Zone Government'' and
                    inserting ``Panama Cana Commission'' in lieu
                    thereof;
                      [(D) in the first sentence of subsection (b),
                    by striking out'' or from funds of the Panama
                    Canal Company'';
                      [(E) in the second sentence of subsection
                    (b), by striking out ``Governor of the Canal
                    Zone'' and inserting ``Panama Canal
                    Commission'' in lieu thereof and by striking
                    out ``Canal Zone Government'' and inserting
                    ``Panama Canal Commission'' in lieu thereof;
                      [(F) by amending subsection (c) to read as
                    follows:
      [``(c) The President may authorize the Panama Canal
    Commission to waive, at its discretion, the making of the claim
    required by section 8121 of this title in the case of
    compensation to an employee of the Panama Canal Commission for
    temporary disability, either total or partial.''; and
                      [(G) in subsection (e), by striking out
                    ``Canal Zone Government and of the Panama Canal
                    Company'' and inserting in lieu thereof
                    ``Panama Canal Commission'';
              [(10) in section 5343(a)(5), by striking out ``Canal
            Zone'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``areas and
            installations in the Republic of Panama made available
            to the United States pursuant to the Panama Canal
            Treaty of 1977 and related agreements (as described in
            section 3(a) of the Panama Canal Act of 1979).'';
              [(11) in section 5316(87), by striking out ``Governor
            of the Canal Zone'' and inserting in lieu thereof
            ``Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission''; and
              [(12) in the table of sections for chapter 81, by
            striking out ``Canal zone'' in the item relating to
            section 8146 and inserting in lieu thereof ``Panama
            Canal Commission''.]

                                   exemption

      Sec. 3302. The Commission is exempt from the provisions of
    subchapter II of chapter 6 of title 15, United States Code.

                           repeals and redesignation

      Sec. 3303. (a) * * *
              * * * * * * *
      (c) The Panama Canal Code is repealed effective on the date
    of the enactment of the Panama Canal Act Amendments of 1996.
              * * * * * * *
     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JAMES V. HANSEN, GLEN BROWDER, TILLIE K. FOWLER,
      SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, WALTER B. JONES, JR.,
    SAXBY CHAMBLISS, J.C. WATTS, JR., JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, NEIL ABERCROMBIE,
            ROBERT K. DORNAN, LANE EVANS, AND JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR.

        We note that the committee, by a bipartisan vote of 34 to
    13, overwhelmingly defeated repeal of 10 U.S.C., Section 2466
    during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 1997. This vote to retain the current 60/40
    rule for depot maintenance represents a commitment to
    preserving our organic depot structure and a repudiation of the
    Department of Defense depot privatization plan.
        It is important to understand the context in which this
    vote occurred. After significant debate, the Congress in 1995
    passed section 311 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
    1996 in an effort to provide the Department of Defense with
    expanded flexibility to manage its depot maintenance and repair
    requirements, while at the same time assuring the viability of
    an organic logistics capability necessary to ensure troop
    readiness and national security. This provision required the
    Department to develop a responsible, comprehensive depot
    maintenance policy and report to the Congress on its findings.
        We are disappointed that the series of reports provided by
    the Secretary of Defense pursuant to Section 311 of P.L. 104-
    106 failed to address many of the primary requirements of the
    statute. Specifically, we find the Department Policy Regarding
    Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair seriously
    deficient and non-responsive in a number of areas including:
    providing for performance of core depot level maintenance and
    repair capabilities in facilities owned and operated by the
    United States; providing for core capabilities necessary to
    meeting the requirements of the National Military Strategy;
    providing for sufficient organic workload to ensure cost-
    efficiency and technical proficiency in time of peace;
    providing for competition for above core workloads between
    public and private entities to achieve cost savings; adequately
    addressing issues concerning exchange of technical data between
    the Federal Government and the private sector; developing a
    methodology that ensures that appropriate costs to the
    government and the private sector are identified; and providing
    for the performance of maintenance and repair for any new
    weapons systems defined as core in facilities owned and
    operated by the United States, and other considerations.
        Furthermore, we are gravely concerned about the failure of
    the Department to provide specific information required by the
    statute to enable the Congress to properly exercise its
    oversight responsibility for defense policy. In particular, we
    found the Department to be remiss in its report on Depot-Level
    Maintenance and Repair Workload, which failed to provide
    mandated data on workload as measured by direct labor hours. We
    are particularly troubled by the Department's presentation of
    workload data which appeared to skew the comparison of previous
    workload distribution and future workload distribution through
    manipulation of data concerning contractor logistic support and
    interim contractor support for depot maintenance.
        Additionally, we regret that the Department failed to
    provide the Congress with the required information regarding
    the detailed methodology used to determine core requirements
    and the specific weapons systems and equipment which support
    JCS mobilization, contingency and emergency scenarios under the
    National Military Strategy. We view with skepticism the
    Administration ``refinement'' of the process used by the
    Military Services in determining core capability requirements
    and the workloads necessary to sustain these capabilities. We
    are especially concerned about the Department's predilection
    toward private sector accomplishment of core depot level
    maintenance without the development of an analytically based
    risk assessment process. We view core depot level workload as
    synonymous with organic workload. Core workload should be
    accomplished by government employees in facilities owned and
    operated by the United States with only limited exceptions. We
    believe that the defeat of the amendment to repeal 10 U.S.C.,
    Section 2466 validates this view.
        While we support privatization of functions that are not
    inherently governmental in nature, including some depot
    maintenance of above core systems, we do not support the
    wholesale privatization of those functions necessary to ensure
    readiness and defend the United States and our allies during
    periods of armed conflict. Depot maintenance by its very nature
    is inherently governmental when conducted on mission essential
    weapons systems used in combat, combat support, combat service
    support, and combat readiness training.
        The Administration policy, by contrast, appears to have
    been developed without proper consideration of future readiness
    implications, and seems directly aimed at circumventing both
    Congressional intent and current public law, specifically P.L.
    101-480 (BRAC) and 10 U.S.C., Sections 2464, 2466, 2469, and
    2472. By pursuing the Privatization in Place of facilities
    closed by the 1995 Base Closure Commission, the Administration
    has failed to eliminate excess capacity or achieve savings
    through consolidation of workloads and efficient use of
    remaining facilities. Moreover, it appears that the Department
    is routinely in direct violation of the law requiring
    competitive procedures prior to transfer of any organic
    workload valued at more than $3 million to the private sector.
    We are particularly concerned about the flagrant disregard of
    this statute by the Administration in planning its
    Privatization in Place initiative. By its actions, the
    Administration has embarked on a journey that impairs readiness
    and could lead to a return of the hollow force of the 1970s.
        Congressional support of privatization initiatives is based
    on the achievement of cost savings to the government as a
    result of a competitive marketplace. The Department of Defense
    has assumed cost savings will be achieved by privatization and
    outsourcing of depot level maintenance, but has offered no
    concrete data to support that assertion. An audit of current
    depot level contracting practices reveals that a large
    percentage of depot level maintenance is awarded without the
    benefit of full and open competition between several qualified
    bidders, indicating the lack of a competitive market for most
    depot level maintenance activities. In testimony before the
    committee, the Department of Defense revealed that more than 50
    percent of competitions between the public and private sector
    were won by the public sector, indicating that competition
    rather than privatization may achieve the greatest degree of
    potential savings. Additionally, an Army Audit Agency report
    investigating the difference in cost between Department of Army
    civilians and private sector contractor employees deployed in
    support of Desert Shield/Desert Storm revealed that contractor
    employees cost the taxpayer between 50 percent and 117 percent
    more per employee. Indeed, a careful analysis of historical
    data reveals that organic depot level maintenance may provide
    the best value to the American taxpayer in terms of cost,
    quality and efficiency.
        To preserve our military readiness, the Department should
    sustain the organic capability and capacity to maintain and
    repair mission-essential equipment associated with combat,
    including new weapons systems. Furthermore, the weapon systems
    and equipment necessary to meet the requirements of the
    National Military Strategy should be maintained and repaired in
    organic Department of Defense facilities by government
    employees.
        To ensure efficient use of organic maintenance and repair
    capacity, as well as the best value to the taxpayer, we believe
    the Department of Defense must effectively utilize its
    logistics facilities. We note that the General Accounting
    Office presented testimony indicating that the optimal capacity
    utilization rate for an industrial facility such as a military
    depot is 85 percent of that facility's capacity.
        With regard to current practices, the Department should
    discontinue all regulatory and administrative policies and
    actions which fail to comply with 10 U.S.C., Section 2469. To
    ensure equity and fairness in competitions between the public
    and private sector, the Department should aggressively pursue
    any necessary adjustments to the Cost Comparability Handbook.
    Furthermore, we believe the Department should halt the transfer
    of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads from organic
    facilities to the private sector until the Department has
    officially notified Congress that all depots of the Department
    of Defense have been certified as fully eligible to participate
    in competitions between the public and private sector entities
    under 10 U.S.C., Section 2469. Additionally, while price should
    not always be the sole determinant of where depot-level repair
    and maintenance work is performed, we find efforts to
    manipulate the assignment of workloads and circumvent public
    law through the application of biased ``best value'' criteria
    unacceptable.
        Finally, we register our strong disapproval of the
    Department's continuing disregard of 10 U.S.C., Section 2472,
    concerning the management of depot-level maintenance and repair
    workloads by end-strength. In passing this provision, the
    Congress made clear its opposition to the management of depot-
    level maintenance and repair by artificial personnel
    constraints. Nevertheless, the Department routinely manages
    depot-level maintenance and repair by Full Time Equivalent
    (FTE) limitations, which we consider to be end-strength
    constraints by another name. This practice is not in keeping
    with the law and should not be continued.
        We admonish the Department that continued disregard for
    public law may result in serious Congressional sanctions in the
    future, such as sequestration of funds.

                                       James V. Hansen.
                                       Tillie K. Fowler.
                                       Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham.
                                       Saxby Chambliss.
                                       John N. Hostettler.
                                       Bob Dornan.
                                       Jim Longley.
                                       Glen Browder.
                                       Solomon P. Ortiz.
                                       Walter B. Jones, Jr.
                                       J.C. Watts, Jr.
                                       Neil Abercrombie.
                                       Lane Evans.
              ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS OF RONALD V. DELLUMS

        I offer dissenting views because I am deeply troubled by
    several aspects of the authorization bill and its report, most
    especially by its overall focus and direction. I remain
    convinced that the authorization top line is significantly
    higher than required for the military aspects of our national
    security strategy. It may be true that the committee marked to
    a top line that it anticipates in the coming fiscal year 1997
    budget resolution. Despite this, I believe it had the
    opportunity to make prudent reductions in the overall program
    authorization, thereby providing guidance to the Committee on
    the Budget as to how better to meet deficit reduction goals.
    Moreover, I remain convinced that the significant plus-up over
    the President's request has caused a lack of focus and a lack
    of discipline in our procurement and research and development
    accounts, a point to which I will return later.
        Despite the collegial and effective working relationship
    between the committee's majority leadership and the minority,
    there has at times been a troubling partisan appearance to some
    of the committee's business and is reflected in the committee
    report as well. Most troubling has been an unwillingness to
    hear from administration witnesses on important policy issues
    before the committee. It is certainly true that outside experts
    provide important insight into the policy choices and strategic
    circumstances we confront, but we owe ourselves the
    responsibility to hear also from government experts and
    responsible officials. What is especially troubling is that we
    have failed to request the traditional intelligence threat
    briefing which has provided a cogent perspective on the
    strategic requirements that we face. Given our rapidly changing
    world, this annual review is even more important now than it
    was during the period of the Cold War.
        A small but important additional example of this problem is
    the committee's determination to plumb the conclusions reached
    by the Intelligence Community in a National Intelligence
    Estimate (NIE) on the ballistic missile threat to the United
    States. Whether or not there is a legitimate concern about the
    development of the NIE and whatever questions one has regarding
    the validity of its conclusions, it is unconscionable that we
    have failed to have the Intelligence Community before the
    committee to testify on the NIE's contents and its methodology.
    I have requested such a committee hearing on several occasions,
    and am disappointed that this has not occurred. While I am
    willing to support the provisions contained in the committee
    report asking the Director of Central Intelligence to review
    both the matter of the NIE and to develop an updated and
    expanded assessment, and while I accept the majority's interest
    in having an alternative analysis rendered, it concerns me that
    we have gotten to this point without a full committee
    deliberation on the substance and development of the IN.
        While the fiscal year 1997 authorization bill reported by
    the committee does not itself contain highly contentious
    provisions on the command and control of U.S. armed forces
    participating in peacekeeping operations, the issue arises in a
    free-standing piece of legislation marked-up the same day by
    the committee and reported as H.R. 3308 just three months after
    the Congress sustained the President's veto of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 on this issue,
    among other reasons.
        The same point can be made for the committee's decision to
    report out H.R. 3144, a national missile defense program
    guideline clearly calculated to breach the ABM Treaty and
    return the United States to pursuit of a ``star wars'' missile
    defense program. A less extreme formulation for national
    missile defense program activity was met with a Presidential
    veto on last year's defense authorization bill. As with the
    command and control issue, it strikes this gentleman that there
    is little legislative reason to have decided to push forward an
    even more extreme ballistic missile defense program, given that
    it is surely destined to meet a Presidential veto as well. Our
    committee must achieve its policy goals through legislation,
    and obviously that activity must be bound by the constraints of
    our Constitution's separation of powers between the Branches.
    Pursuing legislation knowing that it will be vetoed, when
    nothing has occurred to change the imaginable outcome seems a
    political rather than a legislative course.
        But the national ballistic missile defense issue is also
    embedded in the committee recommendation and report on H.R.
    3230 in important ways. And there is much more commonality
    between the administration and the Congress on this issue than
    the political rhetoric would suggest. Many of the differences
    between the two approaches are rooted in a perception of the
    timing of the appearance of a threat to which we would need
    such a response. This is essentially a function of risk
    management, and how to determine what type of ``insurance
    policy'' we wish to purchase against such a future contingency.
    What is less focused on but should be very central to the
    debate, is the cost and character of the alternative
    ``insurance policies'' that are available to the Nation. And
    this is where the parties diverge.
        The administration's current national ballistic missile
    defense plan can provide for an affordable defense against
    limited ballistic missile threats before those threats will
    emerge. It does so in a way that anticipates likely changes in
    the threat from today's estimates. It also does so in a way
    that avoids becoming trapped in a technological cul-de-sac by a
    premature deployment of a potentially misdirected system.
        The committee recommendation and its report would unfocus
    U.S. efforts by pursuing space-based interceptors without
    regard to ABM Treaty requirements, START treaty considerations
    and the threat reduction and strategic stability goals that the
    treaties promise.
        This course of action commits us as well to an incredibly
    expensive and ultimately unaffordable path. Both the
    department's 3+3 program and the Spratt substitute to H.R.
    3144, provide for a more capable missile defense system when
    deployed, and one that is affordable within current budget
    projections. It blends arms control and counterproliferation
    activities with deterrence and missile intercept capabilities.
    It thus pursues the most effective approach to missile defense,
    preventing missiles from being deployed at all, while providing
    a prudent ``insurance policy'' against limited but as of yet
    non-existent threats.
        The overreliance by the committee recommendation on a
    ``hardware'' solution to intercept incoming missiles in the
    final minutes of their flight time, risks constructing a very
    expensive 21st Century Maginot Line. Such a defense strategy
    may well prove as ineffective to the 21st Century threats we
    might face, as the original Maginot Line was in defending
    France during World War II.
        Returning now to refocus on the issue of the size of the
    top line and its impact on our procurement choices, I am
    reminded of echoes from last year's debate on the fiscal year
    1996 authorization bill.
        During that debate, we heard a hue and cry that there
    existed a readiness crisis in the services. Foregone training
    and maintenance, as well as ``optempo'' stress were all
    allegedly impacting adversely on the U.S. armed force's ability
    to perform its principal missions. This hue and cry was raised
    despite assurances by the top military leadership that the
    force was receiving historically high levels of operational
    funding and was as ready a force as we had ever had. Facts have
    borne out their more sober assessment and, indeed, one can say
    that the relatively modest increased investment that the fiscal
    year 1996 defense authorization conference in the end committed
    to the readiness accounts confirmed the view that a ``crisis''
    did not really exist. The small increase in the readiness
    account proposed in the fiscal year 1997 authorization bill
    lends additional credence to this assessment.
        This year's hue and cry is that there is a
    ``modernization'' crisis, with much displaying of data to
    support the view that low levels of procurement spending must
    equate with an insufficient modernization strategy. What is so
    remarkably similar about this debate with last year's debate on
    readiness are three things:
        First, the services generally agree that they could all
    ``use'' more money for procurement this year, but that they
    could meet their requirements with what had been budgeted as
    long as long-term trends supported their needs. This sounds
    very much like ``we're missing some training'' but ``we're as
    ready as we've ever been.''
        Second, the leadership of the Department of Defense has
    offered a cogent and calm viewpoint that the drawdown of the
    force structure from its Cold War levels allowed them one more
    year's grace before they needed to begin to replace equipment
    that had been procured in large numbers during the 1980s for a
    much larger force. In other words, they had a plan, it was
    being managed, and they could perform their mission. And they
    could more appropriately use defense resources in other
    accounts and reserve for the future year's defense plan a
    significant increase in procurement dollars.
        Third, while the committee invited the service chiefs to
    submit their ``wish list'' for additional procurement items, it
    has not followed the Secretary of Defense's plea to limit
    procurement additions to those items needed by the services. By
    my calculation approximately half of the procurement plus-up
    does not meet that qualification.
        Not satisfied with this explanation the committee
    recommendation would spend an additional $7.5 billion on
    procurement, and as I noted above much of that on requirements
    not established by the service chiefs. I believe that this
    unsolicited largess is imprudent and will have significant
    adverse impact on our ability to meet real future requirements.
    It will provoke budget and program disruptions in the near term
    and it will preempt important opportunities into the future.
        In many cases it would appear that these adds were made
    with little consideration to the ability to sustain the program
    in the next year. The disruptive business and human
    implications of creating program instabilities by ``spiking''
    procurement for one or two years could haunt the military
    industrial base for years to come. This is a costly and
    ineffective way to approach long-term modernization
    requirements. In addition, it would also appear that program
    risks, indeed even assessing the department's ability to even
    execute a program, may not have been given adequate
    consideration in determining authorization levels.
        Equally important and worse, the committee recommendation
    throws much of this money into systems that were designed ``to
    fight the last war.'' This is a common failing that is so
    easily avoidable. In addition, the procurement ``theme'' to
    solve the ``crisis'' appears to be only to buy more, and often
    not more of what the service chiefs requested. This binge in
    procurement both purchases needlessly redundant weapons
    capabilities and does so in excessive amounts. With regard to
    the former, we will end making purchases of too many different
    systems, rather than making choices and sticking with the best
    choice. With regard to the latter, we are spending our
    investment capital to buy unneeded equipment for today that
    will prevent us from purchasing the right equipment when it
    becomes available tomorrow.
        Rather than buying more hardware now, we should invest in
    the technologies of the future, both the direct military
    technologies, including innovative non-lethal weapons
    technology more appropriate to operations other than war, and
    into those dual-use technologies that will give our economy a
    leg up as we move into the next century. Our failure to plan
    and invest wisely for the future because of hyperbolic claims
    about a modernization ``crisis'' will harm our national
    security in both the short and long term.
        Much more could be said about this particular problem. Let
    me summarize my views in this area by saying that this
    extravagant level of spending is neither needed for our current
    military requirements nor prudent for meeting the needs of the
    future. In addition, it contributes to a defense authorization
    top line that needlessly consumes resources from the two other
    elements of our national security triad: our economy and our
    foreign policy program that can dampen the circumstances that
    give rise to war. And, unlike money put into the operations and
    maintenance accounts, it is not easily or efficaciously
    diverted to other priorities when hindsight establishes that
    the perceived requirement in fact does not exist.
        There are other issues and problems in this report other
    than with its dollar level and the procurement choices. They
    deserve illumination as well.
        Foremost among them are the several issues that erupted in
    the personnel title of the bill and report. While I do not
    support the current ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy on gays
    and lesbians serving in the military, I more strongly reject
    the committee's view that we should return to an era in which
    capable and willing gay men and lesbians were denied the
    opportunity to serve their nation in uniform. I support a
    policy that would allow individuals to serve regardless of
    sexual orientation. Clearly ``don't ask, don't tell'' has not
    provided the protections to such individuals that its crafters
    felt it would; but a return to an era of repression and
    intolerance is not the solution.
        By way of explanation of the necessity for the change in
    policy under section 566 of this legislation, the committee
    elsewhere in this report cites at length the decision in the
    case by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
    Circuit in the case of Paul G. Thomasson, Lieutenant, United
    Sates Navy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William J. Perry, Secretary
    of Defense; John H. Dalton Secretary of the Navy, Defendants-
    Applies.
        It is useful to note that this case is but one of several
    that are expected to be heard before the United States Supreme
    Court later this year on the issue of the Administration's
    ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy. No fewer than eight other
    cases on the policy are presently before the federal courts. In
    the last year, judges in two of those cases reached the
    opposite view of the judges in the Thomasson case, yet the
    committee does not make reference to those decisions.
        The committee has not held a single hearing on the issue of
    gays and lesbians in the military in either the first or second
    session of the 104th Congress--the period during which the
    current policy has been implemented. Though the committee
    obviously feels that it is of utmost importance to change the
    current policy, it did not choose to expend any time or effort
    to get the views of witnesses from the military, the
    administration or the public on the issue. Instead, it relies
    on the decision on one court case to base a major change to
    military policy. -
        If the committee is to make an informed and thoughtful
    decision on this matter, it should make the effort to shed
    light on the competing views and experiences that represent all
    sides on this complex and important issue through the committee
    hearing process. The committee avoids the subject by relying
    instead on the judicial branch for justification and to explain
    Congressional intent. By including legislative provisions in
    the subcommittee chairman's mark without any discussion of the
    matter, the committee demonstrates a lack of faith in the
    hearing process, betrays a lack of confidence that its
    provision would prevail under scrutiny, and abuses the
    prerogatives of the majority.
        Similarly the committee's recommendation to discharge
    personnel who test positive for the HIV-1 virus is medically
    and militarily unnecessary and flies in the face of the
    Congress's very recent determination to rescind such a policy
    even before it went into effect. Of even greater concern than
    having established a policy for which there is no military
    requirement, the committee's recommendation pretends that it
    has protected the medical disability rights of personnel who
    will face discharge under its provisions. This is a
    disingenuous formulation given that the committee was fully
    apprised that in order to provide such protection it would have
    to do so in legislative language, which it refused to do
    because of the direct spending implications that would have
    forced funding cuts in other accounts. Our service personnel
    who have served this nation with honor, distinction and
    professionalism need better from their government than this.
        In language on section 567, elsewhere in this report, the
    committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ``deem separating
    service members determined to be HIV-positive as meeting all
    other requirements for disability retirement * * *.''
        While giving the appearance of providing for medical
    retirement, the fact is that such language had to be stripped
    from the bill by amendment in the full committee markup because
    of direct spending implications. The Congressional Budget
    Office has scored this provision as costing $27 million over
    the next five years, and it could not be enacted without
    identifying an offset to pay for it. The committee could not
    accomplish this and, instead, decided to foist the problem off
    on the Department of Defense as an unfunded mandate, and then
    take credit for supposedly providing the medical retirement
    benefit.
        Worse yet, it turns out that the Secretary of Defense may
    not have the statutory authority to fund such a mandate ``out
    of hide'' in any case. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 and 1204 direct DoD
    to use the Department of Veterans Affairs rating schedule.
    While the tables currently indicate that a servicemember who is
    symptomatic of AIDS is eligible for medical retirement, it
    rates a servicemember who has asymptomatic HIV with a zero
    percent disability rating. Consequently, they would not be
    entitled to disability retired pay.
        Under these circumstances, and since the law which would be
    reinstated by this section was repealed, the member who is
    discharged under section 567 would have no medical or
    retirement benefits at all, nor would the members of his or her
    family. He or she would be promptly discharged within two
    months of testing positive for HIV-1 virus. It would be the
    height of irresponsibility to enact such a provision without
    first clearing up these discrepancies.
        The committee's refusal to return the right to secure safe
    abortion services to servicewomen serving overseas is an
    additional reason why I could not support the bill being
    reported. Of equal concern to our servicewomen should be the
    committee's apparent view of the role of women in combat-
    related specialties and the important equal-opportunity
    problems that its position raises.
        On another social issue, the committee has trampled on the
    Constitution's First Amendment protections by embracing overly
    broad and vague language in an effort to suppress pornographic
    literature and other media. Despite the obviously degrading and
    sexist imagery of such media, those who would publish, sell or
    purchase them enjoy the protection of the Constitution. Surely
    better ways exist to overcome these problems than by
    legislating overly broad and unconstitutional attacks on the
    problem.
        The committee's decision to weigh in on these cultural
    battles in this manner will, I believe, be to the ultimate
    detriment of the morale and welfare of our service personnel.
    We are a diverse society, with varying views on these issues.
    As such, we should decline as a legislature to impose a narrow
    view that fails to account fully for the human dignity of all
    in our society. Civility, morality and the Constitution all
    argue for such restraint. Failure to yield to the natural
    progression of expanded civil and human rights will only result
    in further turmoil, which will be adverse to the national
    security interests of our nation.
        In this regard, let me note my appreciation for the
    committee's action to confront in a purposeful and reasonable
    manner the problem of hate crime in the military. Obviously, we
    are a multi-racial, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society, a
    society with varying religious traditions. With a Constitution
    committed to the equality of each person, we seek to vindicate
    the promise of that equality. The provision in the committee
    recommendation helps to build upon the military's successes in
    moving toward making that principal a reality, and should help
    to overcome the shortcomings where they have occurred.
        The committee's treatment of international, peacekeeping
    and arms control issues displays a continuing resistance to
    realign our requirements and resources to the realities
    emerging in this new strategic era. It has become apparent that
    operations other than war, such as our participation in the
    peacekeeping effort in Bosnia-Herzegovina, will become more and
    more common. Yet the image of the U.S. servicemember as
    peacekeeper is new and it does not yet fit comfortably in the
    view of the committee. As a result, the committee attempts to
    micromanage the services, and the Commander in Chief, as I
    noted above, as they seek to implement these efforts at which
    we are relatively new participants. The report language
    requiring probing insight into military plans to withdraw from
    what is thus far a highly successful effort in Bosnia, for
    example, is both insulting to our service leadership and
    potentially dangerous in what it could reveal about our
    planning process.
        The committee and the Congress surely have an oversight
    responsibility; but it is equally clear that we do not have
    management responsibility, and the Framer's of our Constitution
    clearly viewed it that way. I would have hoped that we could
    have demonstrated more confidence in our service leaderships
    and their ability to develop and implement an appropriate plan
    for the withdrawal of the U.S. forces in Bosnia. Similarly, the
    committee's recommendations concerning humanitarian demining
    and amending the prospective land-mine use moratorium are
    disturbing and will unduly constrain our theater CINCS in
    pursuing demining programs that are an essential part of their
    overall strategy in their area of responsibility.
        On another positive note, let me support the determination
    reached in this bill that the environmental management and
    restoration programs operated by the Department of Defense and
    the Department of Energy are important and integral parts of
    our military requirements. I am pleased that we have not had
    the same struggle over both funding levels and authority that I
    believe plagued last year's effort and I look forward to
    continuing to work with the committee to fashion effective
    programs for accelerating clean-up, making environmental
    management more effective and efficient and for saving money on
    these accounts as a result.
        I remain concerned though with the funding levels and
    program direction of the nuclear weapons program accounts of
    Title XXXI. The addition of funds to the requested levels for
    stockpile stewardship and management seem unnecessary given the
    still pending Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on
    Stockpile Stewardship and Management. While I appreciate the
    committee's responsiveness in establishing a modest fence
    around the stewardship increase, I do not believe that the
    committee has taken sufficient time to inquire fully into the
    opportunities available for a more fundamental reassessment of
    our nuclear weapons policy.
        The permanent extension of the Non Proliferation Treaty
    concluded last year was achieved in part because of the U.S.
    reaffirmation of its adherence to the Treaty's Article VI
    requirement to reduce our arsenal towards elimination. Despite
    the fact that this is, and remains, the policy of our
    government, we are not proceeding outside of our bilateral
    discussions with Russia under the START process to pursue
    further reductions. I am concerned that such a failure will
    lead to lost opportunities that seemed so promising only a year
    and a half ago, when President Clinton and Russian President
    Yeltsin jointly declared that each nation would consider
    pursuing such unilateral initiatives.
        Finally, let me note that, despite my disagreements with
    the committee report, I applaud the chairman and my colleagues
    for their willingness to work cooperatively where possible to
    find common ground on the important issues covered in the
    recommended bill and its accompanying report. I am concerned
    that, despite this collegiality, we may have produced a
    committee recommendation that remains vulnerable to a
    Presidential veto because of the weight of the many contentious
    matters that it contains.

                                                     Ronald V. Dellums.
                  ADDITIONAL VIEWS OFFERED BY HON. JOHN SPRATT

        Although I support most of this bill, I object to Sections
    232, 233, and 234. These sections are superfluous and risk a
    veto of this bill.
        Section 232 requires the President, within 15 days after
    enactment, to certify whether this country could intercept a
    ballistic missile launched against U.S. territory. In hearings
    held by this committee, Secretary Perry and other senior
    Administration officials have discussed this matter and
    answered the question for the record. The certification does
    not add in any substantive manner to the committee's
    understanding of the ballistic missile threat to this country
    or the status of this country's defense against such an attack.
    Rather, given the timing of the certification, it appears to be
    an attempt to make ballistic missile defense a presidential
    election campaign issue.
        Section 233 reiterates a demarcation standard between
    theater and strategic missile defense systems in the ABM
    Treaty. This demarcation standard was established last year as
    a matter of law with bipartisan support. Deviation from this
    standard requires the approval of two-thirds of the Senate or a
    majority of both the House and Senate. Section 233 goes one
    step further and prohibits administration officials from even
    discussing potential ABM restrictions on theater missile
    defense systems. This prohibition is inconsistent with Article
    VI(a) of the ABM Treaty and will surely be perceived as an
    intrusion on the prerogatives of the executive branch. Having
    settled the demarcation standard only a few months ago, raising
    the issue again with the funding prohibition leads me to the
    conclusion that this section is designed not to correct any
    unresolved demarcation issues but simply to challenge the
    Administration.
        Section 234 prohibits any new signatory parties to the ABM
    Treaty without approval of two-thirds of the Senate. The
    Administration should seriously consider the consequences of
    multilateralizing the ABM Treaty. But on the other hand,
    Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine have demonstrated a high degree
    of cooperation in arms control and counter-proliferation
    discussions; this section is unnecessarily hostile toward
    nations which have made good faith efforts to earn our trust.
    In addition, this section will likely be viewed as an
    unwarranted intrusion upon executive branch powers and could
    draw a veto from the President.
        These provisions risk a repeat of last year's veto, but
    this year we will not likely have the time for a second
    conference. I urge my colleagues to drop these sections at a
    point in the legislative process prior to submittal to the
    President. Otherwise, we will not only be acting against the
    best interests of this committee, but we will not be serving
    the best interests of the men and women in uniform--for whom
    our efforts should be focused.

                                                           John Spratt.
                  ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN CHET EDWARDS

        I was pleased to support final passage of the fiscal year
    1997 Defense Authorization Act. This measure, while not fully
    containing the defense objectives I believe our nation should
    pursue, does contain many provisions needed to preserve a
    strong defense. I am particularly pleased with the efforts to
    improve our procurement modernization efforts through an
    increase in funding for these accounts. I also applaud our
    committee's efforts to enhance our personnel's Quality-of-Life,
    which the Administration has made a top priority.
        I appreciate the efforts of our chairman for his continued
    efforts to maintain fairness and decorum throughout the hearing
    process. While the fiscal year 1997 hearing schedule was
    compressed, we did have a careful review of some critical areas
    which comprise our national security--especially in the area of
    national missile defense.
        As I stated last year, we need to fully review our future
    procurement strategy in a series of hearings to ensure the
    proper funding level for programs is designed. I remain
    concerned that we may be trying to do too much in the way of
    starting new programs, and having a tremendous funding problem
    in the out years. I am hopeful these hearings can take place
    soon, so that we can properly plan and budget to meet these
    critical defense needs.
        While the final defense budget figure is far from certain,
    I am pleased with the higher level of defense spending
    contained in this measure. During the post-cold war era, we
    have to define and meet new defense threats and obligations. To
    meet these objectives, we must craft a defense budget which
    takes into account these new criteria. With a shrinking force
    level and an increased number of foreign deployments, we need
    to be mindful of the adverse impact this has on our key defense
    component, our personnel.
        Our most important defense asset, our first-rate personnel,
    keep our military second-to-none. I am pleased that our
    committee is continuing with the Administration's commitment to
    enhanced Quality-of-Life, through improved pay, benefits, and
    housing. One key component to enhanced Quality-of-Life is the
    continued work of our committee in funding the impact aid
    program. Through a true bipartisan effort, our committee once
    again added funding to assist school districts adjacent to our
    military installations. This funding is critical to ensure a
    quality education is provided to the children of our military
    personnel. We have a special responsibility to provide the
    necessary funding for these children's education, at a time
    when their parents are sacrificing so much for our nations
    defense. I maintain that impact aid funding is a critical
    element in our nation's defense readiness, and removes a
    potential distraction from our military personnel. I am hopeful
    the full funding level necessary for preserving this program
    can be achieved, and I am committed to working with my
    colleagues to achieve this goal.
        Our procurement accounts were sufficiently increased to
    avoid potential problems with modernization efforts. I remain
    concerned that we may be heading into a potential problem by
    not fully anticipating the future costs of procuring some of
    these programs. A review of the military utility, future costs,
    and impact on our defense industrial base must be considered
    sooner rather than later. If a sufficient level of funding for
    defense is to be preserved, we must make some critical choices
    on many of these programs.
        Another area of concern that I have relates to how our
    guard and reserve forces are funded. If our guard and reserve
    forces are to remain a key component to the Total Force
    concept, we need to ensure they review the necessary funding to
    meet their needs. The respective services need to adequately
    budget what each respective component should receive each year,
    rather than have the committee compile a package just prior to
    the committee markup. While this process has been used
    adequately for some time, we need to move to a more
    deliberative process which allows for the necessary oversight
    and evaluation as to the needs of the respective components. I
    am committed to working with my colleagues in pursuit of this
    effort for the next fiscal year. In this way, we will know at
    the beginning of the budget process, rather than at the end,
    what the specific needs of the guard and reserve components are
    for the fiscal year.
        I remain concerned in the area of missile defense,
    especially with the decision to pursue separate legislation
    from our defense authorization bill. I believe this decision
    will create future political gridlock in the area of missile
    defense, much like we saw in the fiscal year 1996 Authorization
    bill. I am hopeful this decision can be reversed in short order
    so that we can craft a workable compromise in the area of
    national missile defense, rather than pursue an effort designed
    to score political points in an election year.
        The decision to rush headlong into deploying a national
    missile defense system, rather then continued development of a
    workable system is troubling. I am reminded of the lengthy
    budget negotiations for FY 96, which were recently resolved
    some six months into the fiscal year. The ability to compromise
    and find common ground was unfortunately lost during that
    struggle and not realized for many months. In the area of
    national missile defense, there has been significant progress
    in the area of reaching a general consensus in pursuing
    development of a system for eventual deployment. The leadership
    of our committee is pursuing a plan to develop within two years
    and to deploy a system within two years. The Administration has
    put forth a workable plan of developing a system within three
    years and then make a decision to deploy such a system within
    three years. I support this plan because it will give us
    adequate time to develop a technologically feasible system that
    will take into account our best available technology. We need
    to ensure our funding efforts are adequately channeled into
    development of a system which will meet present and future
    defense needs, and builds on the consensus a strong majority
    supports.
        This defense bill requires further refinement to ensure our
    present and future defense needs will be met. I am committed to
    working with my colleagues, from the floor to the conference,
    to achieve this objective. Despite objections to certain
    provisions contained in the bill, I believe the committee
    product is a good first-step to achieving a workable compromise
    that is agreeable to the Congress and the Administration.
        I am pleased to commend the dedication, hard work and
    professionalism of the committee staff for all their assistance
    in drafting this important measure. I look forward to their
    continuing efforts as we make further refinements to the
    committee's work in the days and weeks ahead.
        I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in
    finalizing a fiscal year 1997 Defense Authorization bill in a
    timely manner, which meets our national security needs.

                                                          Chet Edwards.
     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JANE HARMAN, ROSA L. DeLAURO, RONALD V. DELLUMS,
    PATRICIA SCHROEDER, LANE EVANS, NEIL ABERCROMBIE, MARTIN T. MEEHAN, AND
     PATRICK J. KENNEDY ON THE BAN OF ABORTIONS IN U.S. OVERSEAS MILITARY
        HOSPITALS, PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE IMMEDIATE SEPARATION OF HIV-
    POSITIVE PERSONNEL, AND RESTORATION OF THE PRE-1993 POLICY ON GAYS AND
                            LESBIANS IN THE MILITARY

        We are disappointed that divisive social issues are, once
    again, at the core of debate over the Defense Department's FY97
    Authorization Bill.

                    Abortions in Military Hospitals Overseas

        Attempts to repeal the policy that bans all privately-
    funded abortions performed in military hospitals overseas
    failed in both the Personnel Subcommittee and again in full
    Committee. If successful, we would have reinstated a policy
    under which women would be permitted to use their own funds to
    obtain abortion services, where no federal funds would be used,
    and where health care professionals who were opposed to
    performing abortions as a matter of conscience or moral
    principle would not be required to do so.
        This issue is a matter of fairness. Servicewomen and
    military dependents stationed abroad do not expect special
    treatment, only the right to receive the same services
    guaranteed to American women under Roe v. Wade--at their own
    expense--that are available in this country.
        Prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain
    abortions services at overseas military facilities endangers
    their health. Women could be forced to seek illegal and unsafe
    procedures, or be forced to delay the procedure for several
    weeks until they can return to the states. The question for our
    House colleagues is whether they can justify limiting
    constitutionally-protected rights and providing lower quality
    health care simply because these servicewomen have duty
    assignments overseas. It is our view that we should not.

                      Separation of HIV-Positive Personnel

        The bill reported by the committee again includes a
    provision requiring HIV-positive personnel to be immediately
    separated from the military services. This provision is
    punitive, discriminatory and a terrible waste of human talent
    and taxpayer investment in personnel training. Only two weeks
    ago, by a vote of 399 to 25, Congress repealed last year's
    provision requiring the discharge of HIV-infected service
    personnel.
        Under current Pentagon regulations, so long as HIV-infected
    individuals are deemed fit for duty by the Service itself, they
    may continue in the Service. If the Service determines that
    they are unfit, they are discharged. The Chairman of the Joint
    Chiefs has said that there is no evidence that current policy
    has resulted in lower military readiness or the retention of
    unqualified individuals. Indeed, the Department and Services
    oppose Congress making a blanket categorization stating that an
    otherwise healthy individual is unfit for duty because of this
    disease.
        The discharge provision included in this bill is worse than
    that just repudiated by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of
    the House and Senate.
        While proponents of the provision describe their language
    as kinder and gentler, the fact that they had to change bill
    language to directive report language is an admission that they
    failed.
        For example, there is considerable doubt that the Secretary
    of Defense has the legal authority to comply with the report's
    directive that individuals discharged for HIV be awarded a 30%
    disability rating.
        And, in another twist from last year's provision, by
    deferring mandatory separation for service members within 5
    years of retirement eligibility, the Committee highlights the
    double standards with which it treats so-called bad conduct,
    which proponents claim is the way individuals contract HIV.
    Under the bill, if you're within 5 years of retirement, we'll
    look the other way. You get special treatment.
        By contrast, if you are more than 5 years from retirement,
    too bad. Not only no special treatment for you, but no due
    process either. We'll just give you the boot.
        Here is a partial list of the individuals and organizations
    opposed to efforts to forcibly discharge HIV-infected
    servicemen and women:
              Secretary of Defense William Perry;
              General John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint
            Chiefs of Staff;
              The Surgeons General of the Navy, Army and Air Force;
              The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
            Readiness;
              The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
            Affairs;
              Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown;
              The American Medical Association;
              The American Academy of Physicians Assistants;
              The American Dental Association;
              The American Nurses Association;
              The American Occupational Therapy Association;
              The American Podiatric Medical Association;
              The American Speech-Hearing-Language Association;
              The Air Force Association;
              The Veterans of Foreign Wars;
              The Disabled American Veterans;
              The Human Rights Campaign;
              National Organizations Responding to AIDS;
              Former Senator Barry Goldwater;
              Columnist George Will;
              Columnist Charles Krauthammer;
              162 Members of the House;
              and 56 Members of the Senate, including Senators Sam
            Nunn, John McCain, Bill Cohen, Ted Kennedy, Alfonse
            D'Amato, John Chafee, Slade Gorton, Orrin Hatch, Nancy
            Kassebaum, Connie Mack, Alan Simpson, Olympia Snowe,
            Robert Bennett, Jim Jeffords, Mark Hatfield, and Arlen
            Specter.

                              Gays in the Military

        Lastly, the bill reported by the Committee returns the
    nation to the pre-1993 policy regarding gays and lesbians in
    the military. In our view, this policy is unconstitutional,
    discriminatory and in violation of the equal protection clause
    of the 14th Amendment and the rights of free speech under the
    1st Amendment.
        Just as important, the proposed change is ill-timed,
    unnecessary, divisive, and designed only to distract members of
    the House from the serious defense and security issues our
    nation continues to face. Several cases in the federal
    districts are making their way to the Supreme Court. The Court
    could rule as early as next year and what they decide may well
    be key to a better resolution of this issue. Thus, it would
    seem that awaiting a high court ruling clarifying the
    constitutional rights involved is a more prudent course.
        In our view, it is way past time to recognize that gays and
    lesbians have always been part of the military and that they
    have performed their duties with diligence, patriotism and
    honor. They have risked their lives in order to protect some of
    the very rights this legislation is proposing to take away.
        We feel the military needs to adopt a policy that fully
    integrates these highly trained and talented individuals into
    the force, without prejudice, without discrimination, and in
    recognition of the personal sacrifices all our servicemen and
    women make to this nation and in support of the Constitution.
        We regret the Committee's action endorsing these three
    divisive, unfair and punitive policies.

                                       Jane Harman.
                                       Ronald V. Dellums.
                                       Lane Evans.
                                       Martin T. Meehan.
                                       Rosa L. DeLauro.
                                       Patricia Schroeder.
                                       Neil Abercrombie.
                                       Patrick J. Kennedy.
                    SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF PATRICIA SCHROEDER

        During my career in the House, I have worked on twenty-four
    Defense Authorization bills. This year, the National Security
    Committee has strayed farther from its central mission than
    ever before. I have never seen so much attention paid to
    divisive social issues with so little discussion of our defense
    priorities. I have never seen so much money added to the
    Administration's request with so little Congressional oversight
    and scrutiny.
        The House National Security Committee appears to have
    forgotten its primary function--to oversee the military. Of the
    twelve hours the committee spent in mark-up, approximately
    eight hours were spent on social issues. Perhaps we should
    rename the committee, the House Committee on Morals in the
    Military. This means that the committee spent four hours on
    half of the discretionary budget of our country.
        We debated and included the same social issues I objected
    to last year. We added more deeply divisive social issues
    without addressing the implications of a $13 billion addition
    to the Pentagon's request. I am disappointed that the committee
    has spent more time discussing pornography, discharging HIV
    positive personnel, abortions at military hospitals, and gays
    in the military than was spent on all the weapons systems and
    military programs included in the bill.
        We spent an hour drafting legislation to implement a study
    of women in combat roles. The subcommittee should have worked
    this out, to avoid wasting our time and increasing the number
    of redundant studies in the military. The committee has already
    authorized so many studies of women, we may as well write a
    high-school lab manual on the subject.
        While the rest of Congress focuses on balancing the budget
    and reducing the deficit, the committee has ignored these
    objectives. We made the Pentagon our sacred cow, never to be
    questioned or scrutinized. The public deserves better oversight
    from Congress. We should ensure wise and effective government
    spending. Moreover, the committee ignored glaring problems in
    Pentagon accounting systems, inventory overstock, and
    contractor overpayment. They threw $13 billion in unrequested
    funds to an organization that in the past could not account for
    $14.7 billion of its FY94 budget.
        The committee has abandoned its full funding principle that
    would have increased congressional oversight by putting the
    entire funding for a program in one fiscal year. We departed
    from this sound principle last year by partially funding
    National Missile Defense (NMD) and the B-2. This year, we did
    so again with long lead-funding for another aircraft carrier
    and NMD. These programs have potential budgetary commitments of
    more than $30 billion dollars.
        Finally, I am also disappointed that the committee has co-
    opted the military to support this increase. While the
    committee has touted the $13 billion increase as accelerations
    of the Department's priorities, this is not the case. Fifty
    percent of the additional money is nowhere to be found in the
    Department of Defense's Future Year Development Plan (FYDP).
                                                         Pat Schroeder.