[Senate Report 104-112]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



   104th Congress 1st 
         Session                 SENATE                 Report
                                                       104-112
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 145

 
                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

                                 REPORT

                         [to accompany s. 1026]

                                   on

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES 
   OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR 
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL 
  STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                               ----------                              

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE


                                     



                                     

    July 12 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.--Ordered to be printed
  

  

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
   104th Congress 1st            SENATE                 Report
         Session
                                                       104-112
_______________________________________________________________________



                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 145


                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

                                 REPORT

                         [to accompany s. 1026]

                                   on

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES 
   OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR 
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL 
  STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

                             together with



                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                               __________



                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES



                          UNITED STATES SENATE


                                     



                                     

    July 12 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.--Ordered to be printed
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

   (104th Congress, 1st Session)

 STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, 
             Chairman
SAM NUNN, Georgia                    JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
J. JAMES EXON, Nebraska              WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine
CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts     TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico            DAN COATS, Indiana
JOHN GLENN, Ohio                     BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho
CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia            KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada             RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
Richard L. Reynard, Staff Director
 Arnold L. Punaro, Staff Director 
         for the Minority

                                  (ii)

  


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Purpose of the bill..............................................     1
Committee overview and recommendations...........................     2
Explanation of funding summary...................................     3

            Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations

Title I--Procurement.............................................    11
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    12
    Section 107. Chemical demilitarization program...............    12
            Use of unobligated fiscal year 1994 and 1995 funds...    13
            Transportation of the unitary stockpile..............    13
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................    14
        Section 111. AH-64D Longbow Apache attack helicopter.....    26
        Section 112. OH-58D AHIP Scout helicopter................    26
        Section 113. Hydra 70 rocket.............................    26
    Other Army Programs..........................................    27
        Army aircraft............................................    27
            C-XX mid-range turbofan aircraft.....................    27
            UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter..........................    27
        Army Missile.............................................    27
            Hellfire missile.....................................    27
            Javelin medium anti-tank weapon......................    27
            TOW missile..........................................    28
            Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS).................    28
            Army tactical missile system (ATACMS)................    28
            Stinger missile modifications........................    29
        Weapons and tracked combat vehicles......................    29
            M113 family of vehicles (FOV)........................    29
            Bradley fighting vehicle.............................    29
            Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)......................    30
            M1A2 tank upgrades...................................    30
            Small arms programs..................................    31
            7.62 millimeter medium machine gun...................    31
        Army ammunition..........................................    31
            Army ammunition......................................    31
            Selectable lightweight attack munition XM94..........    32
            Procurement of M-795 artillery projectile............    32
            Armament retooling and manufacturing support (ARMS)..    32
        Other Army procurement...................................    32
            High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)...    32
            Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)............    33
            Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV).............    33
            Medium truck extended service program (ESP)..........    34
            Communications and intelligence systems..............    35
            Army data distribution system (ADDS).................    35
            Single channel ground and airborne radio system 
              (SINCGARS).........................................    35
            Commanders tactical terminal.........................    35
            Forward area air defense-ground based sensor (FAAD-
              GBS)...............................................    35
            Night vision devices.................................    36
            Tactical quiet generators............................    36
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................    37
        Section 121. Seawolf and new attack submarine programs...    55
        Section 124. Split funding for construction of naval 
          vessels................................................    59
    Other Navy Programs..........................................    61
        Navy aircraft............................................    61
            AV-8B remanufacture..................................    61
            Additional F/A-18C/D strike fighters.................    61
            CH-53E helicopters...................................    62
            F-14 Forward looking infrared (FLIR)/Laser...........    62
            Thermal imaging modifications for USMC aircraft......    62
            AN/APR-39A(V)-2 radar warning receiver...............    63
            Undergraduate NFO training...........................    63
        Navy weapons.............................................    63
            Tomahawk missile.....................................    63
            Direct broadcast service.............................    63
        Navy shipbuilding and conversion.........................    64
            Amphibious lift......................................    64
            LCAC service life extension program..................    65
            Shipbuilding contract retentions.....................    65
        Other Navy procurement...................................    66
            Submarine navigation sets............................    66
            AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare system..................    66
            Integrated communications for aircraft carriers......    67
            Challenge Athena.....................................    67
            Sonobuoy procurement.................................    68
            Electro-optical sight/weapons director...............    68
            Vertical launch system...............................    69
            Forklift trucks......................................    69
        Marine Corps ammunition..................................    69
            Marine Corps ammunition..............................    69
        Marine Corps.............................................    69
            M1A1 tank modifications..............................    69
            Operational enhancements.............................    70
            PSC-5 radios.........................................    70
            Advanced field artillery tactical data systems 
              (AFATDS)...........................................    70
            Night vision devices (NVD)...........................    70
            Computer upgrades....................................    71
            Trailers.............................................    71
            Water purification and support equipment.............    71
            Training simulators..................................    71
    Air Force programs...........................................    72
        Air Force aircraft.......................................    84
            Strategic airlift....................................    84
            C-17 Spares..........................................    84
        Air Force ammunition.....................................    84
            Air Force ammunition.................................    84
        Air Force missile........................................    84
            Defense support program procurement..................    84
            Minuteman guidance replacement program...............    84
            Global positioning system block IIF advanced 
              procurement........................................    85
            Space boosters.......................................    85
            Defense satellite communications system..............    85
        Other Air Force procurement..............................    85
            Avionics support equipment...........................    85
    Subtitle D--Other programs...................................    86
        Section 131. Tier II predator unmanned aerial vehicle 
          program................................................    86
        Section 132. Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle program.....    86
        Defense-Wide procurement.................................    88
            Mark V special operations craft......................    92
            Rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB)....................    92
        National Guard and Reserve equipment.....................    92
            National Guard artillery modernization...............    93
            High capacity air ambulances.........................    94
            Naval Reserve C-9B aircraft..........................    94
Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E).....    95
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................    95
        Section 211. A/F117X long-range, medium attack aircraft..    95
            Risk reduction--current program......................    96
            Risk reduction--additional program scope.............    96
        Section 212. Navy mine countermeasures program...........    97
        Section 213. Marine Corps shore fire support.............    98
        Section 214. Space and missile tracking system program...    99
        Section 215. Precision guided munitions..................   101
            Interim PGM..........................................   101
        Section 216. Defense Nuclear Agency programs.............   102
            DNA mission..........................................   102
            DNA budget request...................................   103
            Electro-thermal chemical (ETC) gun program...........   103
            Thermionics..........................................   104
        Section 217. Counterproliferation support program........   104
            Biological detection.................................   105
            Special Operations Forces............................   105
            Underground and deep underground structures..........   105
            Cruise Missile proliferation.........................   106
            Proliferation of space technology....................   106
            Emergency preparedness and response..................   107
            Transfer authority...................................   107
            Report to Congress...................................   107
        Section 218. Nonlethal weapons program...................   108
        Section 219. Federally funded research and development 
          centers................................................   109
        Section 220. States eligible for assistance under Defense 
          Experimental Program To Stimulate Competitive Research.   109
        Section 221. National defense technology and industrial 
          base, defense reinvestment, and conversion.............   110
        Section 222. Revisions of manufacturing of science and 
          technology programs....................................   111
        Section 223. Preparedness of the Department of Defense to 
          respond to military and civil defense emergencies 
          resulting from a chemical, biological, radiological, or 
          nuclear attack.........................................   112
    Subtitle C--Missile Defense..................................   113
        Sections 231 through 241.................................   113
        Missile Defense Act of 1995..............................   113
            Theater missile defense architecture.................   113
            National missile defense architecture................   117
            Cruise missile defense initiative....................   119
            Policy regarding the ABM Treaty......................   119
            Development, testing and deployment of non-ABM 
              systems............................................   120
            Ballistic Missile Defense Program elements...........   121
        Ballistic missile defense funding........................   121
            Core theater missile defense programs................   122
            Other theater missile defense activities.............   122
            National missile defense.............................   123
            Support technologies.................................   124
        Cruise missile defense funding...........................   124
    Other Programs...............................................   126
        Army.....................................................   126
            High modulus polycrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber.....   131
            Army technology base programs........................   131
            Environmental Policy Simulation Laboratory (EPSL)....   131
            Funding for medical total access programs 
              (telemedicine).....................................   132
            Wave net technology..................................   132
            Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)...........   133
            Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) enhancements....   133
            Objective individual combat weapon (OICW)............   133
            Advanced artillery propellant development............   133
            Armored systems modernization (ASM)..................   134
            Small arms common module fire control system (SACMFS)   134
            Command and control centers..........................   134
            Comanche helicopter..................................   134
            Medium tactical truck extended service program (ESP).   135
            Heavy tactical vehicles..............................   135
            High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)...   135
            Laser warning component-suite of survivability 
              enhancements.......................................   136
            Mark-19 universal bracket............................   136
            High energy laser systems test facility..............   136
            Nautilus/Tactical High Energy Laser Program..........   136
            Army field artillery tactical data system (AFATDS)...   137
            Stinger missile modifications........................   137
            Communications enhancements..........................   137
        Navy.....................................................   138
            Defense research sciences (Navy).....................   143
            Power electronics building block.....................   143
            Parametric airborne dipping sonar....................   143
            Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology..........   144
            Intercooled recuperated gas turbine..................   144
            Remote minehunting vehicle...........................   144
            Advanced armored amphibious vehicle (AAAV)...........   144
            Lightweight 155mm howitzer...........................   145
            Cooperative engagement capability....................   145
            Naval surface fire support...........................   145
            S-3B Project Gray Wolf...............................   146
            V-22 Osprey..........................................   147
            Airborne electronic warfare..........................   147
            Infrared search and track............................   149
            BARAK 1--ship self defense...........................   149
            Medium tactical vehicle remanufacture (MTVR).........   150
            Crash attenuating seats for helicopters..............   150
            Plasma Electric Waste Converter Program..............   150
        Air Force................................................   151
            Adaptive optics......................................   157
            Defense research sciences (Air Force)................   157
            Human systems technology.............................   157
            Thermally stable jet fuels...........................   157
            Range tracking and safety............................   157
            Micro-satellite development program..................   157
            Polar satellite communications.......................   157
            National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental 
              Satellite System...................................   158
            Reentry vehicle applications.........................   158
            Interim precision guided munitions (PGM).............   158
            F-22 Program.........................................   159
            Sensor Fuzed Weapon Improvement Program..............   161
            Ultra-high frequency satellite communications........   162
            RC-135 Re-engining...................................   162
            Joint air-to-surface standoff missile (JASSM)........   162
                Standoff land attack missile extended response...   162
             Rivet Joint technology transfer program.............   162
            Information systems security.........................   163
            Defense Support Program..............................   163
            Fighter data links...................................   163
        Defense-Wide.............................................   165
            Combat readiness research............................   169
            DODDS Director's fund for science, mathematics, and 
              engineering........................................   169
            University research initiatives......................   170
            Medical Free Electron Laser Program..................   170
            Software reuse.......................................   170
            Tactical landing system..............................   170
            Diamond substrates...................................   170
            High temperature superconductivity...................   171
            Pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) technology.......   171
            Thermophotovoltaics..................................   171
            Large millimeter wave telescope......................   172
            Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts..............   172
            Advanced electronics technologies....................   172
            Semiconductor manufacturing technology (SEMATECH)....   172
            ATD-111 non-acoustic sensor technology...............   173
            NATO research and development program................   173
            Fuel cells...........................................   174
            Special Operations Forces counterproliferation 
              support............................................   174
            Technical studies, support and analysis..............   174
            Technical assistance and SBIR administration.........   174
            U-2 Signals intelligence (SIGINT) sensor upgrades....   174
            U-2 defensive system upgrade.........................   175
            Maritime unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)...............   175
            Advanced SEAL delivery system (ASDS).................   175
            Rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB)....................   176
            Expertise on defense trade and international 
              technology.........................................   176
            RDT&E infrastructure.................................   176
            Individual lift vehicle development..................   177
        Defense developmental test and evaluation................   177
            Environmental technology.............................   177
Title III--Operation and Maintenance.............................   179
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   209
        Section 303. Armed Forces retirement home................   209
        Section 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile 
          Transaction Fund.......................................   209
    Subtitle B--Depot-level Maintenance and Repair...............   209
        Section 311. Policy regarding performance of depot-level 
          maintenance and repair for the Department of Defense...   209
        Section 312. Extension of authority for aviation depots 
          and naval shipyards to engage in defense-related 
          production and services................................   210
    Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions.........................   210
        Section 321. Revision of requirements for agreements for 
          services under environmental restoration program.......   210
        Section 322. Discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces.   211
        Section 323. Revision of authorities relating to 
          restoration advisory boards............................   211
    Subtitle D--Civilian Employees...............................   212
        Section 331. Minimum number of military reserve 
          technicians............................................   212
        Section 332. Exemption of Department of Defense from 
          personnel ceilings for civilian personnel..............   212
        Section 333. Wearing of uniform by National Guard 
          technicians............................................   213
        Section 334. Extension of temporary authority to pay 
          civilian employees with respect to the evacuation from 
          Guantanamo, Cuba.......................................   213
        Section 335. Sharing of personnel of Department of 
          Defense domestic dependent schools and Defense 
          Dependents' Education System...........................   214
        Section 336. Revision of authority for appointments of 
          involuntarily separated military reserve technicians...   214
        Section 337. Cost of continuing health insurance coverage 
          for employees voluntarily separated from positions to 
          be eliminated in a reduction in force..................   214
        Section 338. Elimination of 120-day limitation on details 
          of certain employees...................................   214
        Section 339. Repeal of requirement for part-time career 
          opportunity employment reports.........................   214
        Section 340. Authority of civilian employees of 
          Department of Defense to participate voluntarily in 
          reductions in force....................................   215
        Section 341. Authority to pay severance payments in lump 
          sums...................................................   215
        Section 342. Holidays for employees whose basic workweek 
          is other than Monday through Friday....................   215
        Section 343. Coverage of nonappropriated fund employees 
          under authority for flexible and compressed work 
          schedules..............................................   215
    Subtitle E--Defense Financial Management.....................   215
        Section 351. Financial management training...............   215
        Section 352. Limitation on opening of new centers for 
          Defense Finance and Accounting Service.................   216
    Subtitle F--Miscellaneous Assistance.........................   216
        Section 361. Department of Defense funding for National 
          Guard participation in joint disaster and emergency 
          assistance exercises...................................   216
        Section 362. Office of Civil-Military Programs...........   216
        Section 363. Revision of authority for Civil-Military 
          Cooperative Action Program.............................   216
        Section 364. Office of Humanitarian and Refugee Affairs..   216
    Subtitle G--Operation of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation 
      Funds......................................................   217
        Section 371. Disposition of excess morale, welfare, and 
          recreation funds.......................................   217
        Section 372. Elimination of certain restrictions on 
          purchases and sales of items by exchange stores and 
          other morale, welfare, and recreation facilities.......   217
        Section 373. Repeal of requirement to convert ships' 
          stores to nonappropriated fund instrumentalities.......   217
    Subtitle H--Other Matters....................................   217
        Section 381. National Defense Sealift Fund: availability 
          for Ready Reserve component of the Ready Reserve Fleet.   217
        Section 382. Limitation on contracting with same 
          contractor for construction of additional new sealift 
          ships..................................................   217
        Section 383. Availability of recovered losses resulting 
          from contractor fraud..................................   218
        Section 384. Permanent authority for use of proceeds from 
          the sale of certain lost, abandoned, or unclaimed 
          property...............................................   218
        Section 385. Sale of military clothing and subsistence 
          and other supplies of the Navy and Marine Corps........   219
        Section 386. Conversion of Civilian Marksmanship Program 
          to nonappropriated fund instrumentality and activities 
          under program..........................................   219
        Section 387. Report on contracting out certain functions 
          of Department of Defense...............................   219
        Section 390. Impact aid..................................   219
    Other items of interest......................................   219
        Army.....................................................   219
            Army reimbursable positions..........................   219
            Historically black colleges and universities 
              fellowships........................................   219
            National Science Center..............................   220
        Navy.....................................................   220
            Nimitz Center........................................   220
            Active and Reserve P-3 squadrons.....................   220
            Yard tugboat service.................................   221
        Marine Corps.............................................   221
            Marine Corps extended cold weather clothing system 
              (ECWCS)............................................   221
        Air Force................................................   221
            Civil Air Patrol.....................................   221
        Civilian personnel policy................................   222
            Modernization and regionalization of civilian 
              personnel management functions.....................   222
        Defense-Wide.............................................   222
            Multi-technology automated reader card (MARC)........   222
            SR-71................................................   223
            Museums..............................................   223
            Spending for non-military missions...................   223
            International peacekeeping...........................   224
            Humanitarian assistance and foreign disaster 
              assistance.........................................   224
            Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps................   224
            Civilian personnel levels............................   225
            Federal Energy Management Program....................   225
            Homeless support initiative..........................   225
            Civil-military/youth outreach programs...............   225
            United Services Organization.........................   226
        Revolving funds..........................................   226
            National defense features............................   226
            Maritime prepositioning ship leases..................   227
            Maritime prepositioning ship enhancement.............   228
        Defense environment......................................   229
            Defense environmental compliance.....................   229
            Legacy resource management program...................   229
            Environmental management.............................   230
            Cleanup of National Presto Industries Plant, Eau 
              Claire, Wisconsin..................................   230
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations......................   231
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   231
        Section 401. End strengths for active forces.............   231
        Section 402. Temporary variation in DOPMA authorized end 
          strength limitations for active duty Air Force and Navy 
          officers in certain grades.............................   232
        Section 403. Certain general and flag officers awaiting 
          retirement not to be counted...........................   233
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................   233
        Section 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve..........   233
        Section 412. End strengths for reserves on active duty in 
          support of the reserves................................   234
        Section 414. Reserves on active duty in support of 
          cooperative threat reduction programs not to be counted   235
        Section 415. Reserves on active duty for military-to-
          military contacts and comparable activities not to be 
          counted................................................   236
    Subtitle C--Military Training Student Loads..................   236
        Section 421. Authorization of training student loads.....   236
Title V--Military Personnel Policy...............................   237
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy.........................   237
        Section 501. Joint officer management....................   237
        Section 502. Revision of service obligation for graduates 
          of the service academies...............................   238
        Section 503. Qualifications for appointment as Surgeon 
          General of an Armed Force..............................   238
        Section 504. Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air 
          Force..................................................   238
        Section 505. Retiring general and flag officers: 
          applicability of uniform criteria and procedures for 
          retiring in highest grade in which served..............   238
        Section 506. Extension of certain reserve officer 
          management authorities.................................   239
        Section 507. Restrictions on wearing insignia for higher 
          grade before promotion.................................   239
        Section 508. Director of Admissions, United States 
          Military Academy: retirement for years of service......   240
    Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components...........   240
        Section 511. Mobilization income insurance program for 
          members of Ready Reserve...............................   240
        Section 512. Eligibility of dentists to receive 
          assistance under the financial assistance program for 
          health care professionals in reserve components........   241
        Section 513. Leave for members of reserve components 
          performing public safety duty..........................   241
    Subtitle C--Uniform Code of Military Justice.................   241
        Section 522. Definitions.................................   241
        Section 523. Article 32 investigations...................   241
        Section 524. Refusal to testify before court-martial.....   241
        Section 525. Commitment of accused to treatment facility 
          by reason of lack of mental capacity or mental 
          responsibility.........................................   242
        Section 527. Deferment of confinement....................   242
        Section 528. Submission of matters to the convening 
          authority for consideration............................   242
        Section 529. Proceedings in revision.....................   243
        Section 530. Appeal by the United States.................   243
        Section 531. Flight from apprehension....................   243
        Section 532. Carnal knowledge............................   243
        Section 533. Time after accession for initial instruction 
          in the Uniform Code of Military Justice................   243
        Section 535. Permanent authority concerning temporary 
          vacancies on the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.   244
        Section 536. Advisory panel on UCMJ jurisdiction over 
          civilians accompanying the Armed Forces in time of 
          armed conflict.........................................   244
    Subtitle D--Decorations and Awards...........................   244
        Section 541. Award of Purple Heart to certain former 
          prisoners of war.......................................   244
        Section 542. Meritorious and valorous service during 
          Vietnam era: review and awards.........................   245
        Section 543. Military intelligence personnel prevented by 
          secrecy from being considered for decorations and 
          awards.................................................   245
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   245
        Section 551. Determination of whereabouts and status of 
          missing persons........................................   245
        Section 552. Service not creditable for periods of 
          unavailability or incapacity due to misconduct.........   245
        Section 553. Separation in cases involving extended 
          confinement............................................   245
        Section 526. Forfeiture of pay and allowances and 
          reduction in grade.....................................   245
        Section 554. Duration of field training or practice 
          cruise required under the Senior Reserve Officers' 
          Training Corps program.................................   246
        Section 555. Correction of military records..............   246
        Section 556. Limitation on reductions in medical 
          personnel..............................................   247
        Section 557. Repeal of requirement for athletic director 
          and nonappropriated fund account for the athletics 
          programs at the service academies......................   247
        Section 558. Prohibition on use of funds for service 
          academy preparatory school test program................   247
        Section 559. Centralized judicial review of Department of 
          Defense personnel actions..............................   247
    Other Items of Interest......................................   248
        Capstone course for new general and flag officers........   248
        Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA).........   248
        Reserve officers not on the active duty list.............   249
        Service academy directives...............................   249
        Tuition assistance program...............................   250
        Quality of life while on independent duty................   250
        Recoupment...............................................   251
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits..............   253
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   253
        Section 601. Military pay raise for fiscal year 1996.....   253
        Section 602. Election of basic allowance for quarters 
          instead of assignment to inadequate quarters...........   253
        Section 603. Payment of basic allowance for quarters to 
          members of the uniformed services in pay grade E-6 who 
          are assigned to sea duty...............................   253
        Section 604. Limitation on reduction of variable housing 
          allowance for certain members..........................   254
        Section 605. Clarification of limitation on eligibility 
          for family separation allowance........................   254
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   254
        Section 611. Extension of certain bonuses for reserve 
          forces.................................................   254
        Section 612. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay 
          for nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and 
          nurse anesthetists.....................................   254
        Section 613. Extension of authority relating to payment 
          of other bonuses and special pays......................   254
        Section 614. Hazardous duty incentive pay for warrant 
          officers and enlisted members serving as air weapons 
          controllers............................................   255
        Section 615. Aviation career incentive pay...............   255
        Section 616. Clarification of authority to provide 
          special pay for nurses.................................   255
        Section 617. Continuous entitlement to career sea pay for 
          crew members of ships designated as tenders............   256
        Section 618. Increase in maximum rate of special duty 
          assignment pay for enlisted members serving as 
          recruiters.............................................   256
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............
        Section 621. Calculation on basis of mileage tables of 
          Secretary of Defense: repeal...........................   256
        Section 622. Departure allowances........................   256
        Section 623. Dislocation allowance for moves resulting 
          from a base closure or realignment.....................   256
        Section 624. Transportation of nondependent child from 
          sponsor's station overseas after loss of dependent 
          status while overseas..................................   256
    Subtitle D--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund 
      Instrumentalities..........................................   257
        Section 631. Use of commissary stores by members of the 
          Ready Reserve..........................................   257
        Section 632. Use of commissary stores by retired Reserves 
          under age 60 and their survivors.......................   257
        Section 633. Use of morale, welfare, and recreation 
          facilities by members of reserve components and 
          dependents: clarification of entitlement...............   257
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   257
        Section 641. Cost-of-living increases for retired pay....   257
        Section 642. Eligibility for retired pay for non-regular 
          service denied for members receiving certain sentences 
          in courts-martial......................................   257
        Section 643. Recoupment of administrative expenses in 
          garnishment actions....................................   257
        Section 644. Automatic maximum coverage under 
          Servicemen's Group Life Insurance......................   258
        Section 645. Termination of Servicemen's Group Life 
          Insurance for members of the Ready Reserve who fail to 
          pay premiums...........................................   258
        Section 646. Report on extending to junior 
          noncommissioned officers privileges provided for senior 
          noncommissioned officers...............................   258
        Section 647. Payment to survivors of deceased members of 
          the uniformed services for all leave accrued...........   258
        Section 648. Annuities for certain military surviving 
          spouses................................................   258
        Section 649. Transitional compensation for dependents of 
          members of the Armed Forces separated for dependent 
          abuse: clarification of entitlement....................   259
    Other Item of Interest.......................................   259
Title VII--Health Care...........................................   261
    Tricare......................................................   261
    Subtitle A--Health Care Services.............................   264
        Section 701. Medical care for surviving dependents of 
          retired Reserves who die before age 60.................   264
        Section 702. Dental insurance for members of the Selected 
          Reserve................................................   264
        Section 703. Modification of requirements regarding 
          routine physical examinations and immunizations under 
          CHAMPUS................................................   264
        Section 704. Permanent authority to carry out specialized 
          treatment facility program.............................   265
        Section 705. Waiver of medicare part B late enrollment 
          penalty and establishment of special enrollment period 
          for certain military retirees and dependents...........   265
    Subtitle B--Tricare Program..................................   265
        Section 712. Provision of TRICARE uniform benefits by 
          uniformed services treatment facilities................   265
        Section 713. Sense of Senate on access of medicare 
          eligible beneficiaries of CHAMPUS to health care under 
          TRICARE................................................   265
        Section 714. Pilot program of individualized residential 
          mental health services.................................   265
    Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities..........   266
        Section 721. Delay of termination of status of certain 
          facilities as uniformed services treatment facilities..   266
        Section 722. Applicability of Federal Acquisition 
          Regulation to participation agreements with uniformed 
          services treatment facilities..........................   266
        Section 723. Amount payable by uniformed services 
          treatment facilities for health care services provided 
          outside the catchment areas of the facilities..........   266
    Subtitle D--Other Changes to Existing Laws Regarding Health 
      Care Management............................................   266
        Section 731. Investment incentive for managed health care 
          in medical treatment facilities........................   266
        Section 732. Revision and codification of limitations on 
          physician payments under CHAMPUS.......................   267
        Section 733. Personal services contracts for medical 
          treatment facilities of the Coast Guard................   267
        Section 734. Disclosure of information in Medicare and 
          Medicaid coverage data bank to improve collection from 
          responsible parties for health care services furnished 
          under CHAMPUS..........................................   267
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   267
        Section 741. TriService nursing research.................   267
        Section 742. Fisher House trust funds....................   267
        Section 744. Applicability of limitation on prices of 
          pharmaceuticals procured for Coast Guard...............   267
Other Item of Interest...........................................   268
        Telemedicine.............................................   268
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and 
  Related Matters................................................   269
    Subtitle A--Acquisition Reform...............................   269
        Section 801. Waivers from cancellation of funds..........   269
        Section 802. Procurement notice posting thresholds.......   269
        Section 803. Prompt resolution of audit recommendations..   269
        Section 804. Test program for negotiation of 
          comprehensive subcontracting plans.....................   269
        Section 805. Naval salvage facilities....................   270
        Section 806. Authority to delegate contracting authority.   270
        Section 807. Coordination and communication of defense 
          research activities....................................   270
        Section 808. Procurement of items for experimental or 
          test purposes..........................................   270
        Section 809. Quality control in procurements of critical 
          aircraft and ship spare parts..........................   270
        Section 810. Use of funds for acquisition of rights to 
          use designs, processes, technical data and computer 
          software...............................................   270
        Section 811. Independent cost estimates for major defense 
          acquisition programs...................................   270
        Section 812. Fees for certain testing services...........   271
        Section 813. Construction, repair, alteration, 
          furnishing, and equipping of naval vessels.............   271
        Section 814. Civil Reserve Air Fleet.....................   271
    Subtitle B--Other Matters....................................   271
        Section 821. Procurement technical assistance programs...   271
        Section 822. Treatment of Department of Defense cable 
          television franchise agreements........................   271
    Other Items of Interest......................................   271
        Ship propellers..........................................   271
        Worker's compensation coverage on overseas contracts.....   272
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management......   275
        Section 901. Redesignation of the position of Assistant 
          to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy..........   275
    Other Matters................................................   275
        Joint Exercise, Training, and Doctrine Command...........   275
        Reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.   275
Title X--General Provisions......................................   279
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   279
        Section 1002. Disbursing and certifying officials........   279
        Section 1003. Defense modernization account..............   279
        Section 1004. Authorization of prior emergency 
          supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1995.......   280
        Section 1005. Limitation on use of authority to pay for 
          emergency and extraordinary expenses...................   280
        Section 1006. Transfer authority regarding funds 
          available for foreign currency fluctuations............   280
        Section 1007. Report on budget submission regarding 
          reserve components.....................................   281
    Subtitle B--Naval Vessels....................................   281
        Section 1011. Iowa class battleships.....................   281
        Section 1012. Transfer of naval vessels to certain 
          foreign countries......................................   281
    Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities..........................   282
        Section 1021. Revision and clarification of authority for 
          Federal support of drug interdiction and counter-drug 
          activities of the National Guard.......................   282
        Section 1022. National Drug Intelligence Center..........   282
        Section 1023. Assistance to Customs Service..............   282
    Subtitle D--Department of Defense Education Programs.........   284
        Section 1031. Continuation of the Uniformed Services 
          University of the Health Sciences......................   284
        Section 1032. Additional graduate schools and programs at 
          the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
          Sciences...............................................   284
        Section 1033. Funding for basic adult education programs 
          for military personnel and dependents outside the 
          United States..........................................   284
        Section 1034. Scope of education programs of Community 
          College of the Air Force...............................   284
        Section 1035. Date for annual report on Selected Reserve 
          Educational Assistance Program.........................   284
    Subtitle E--Cooperative Threat Reduction With States of the 
      Former Soviet Union........................................   284
        Section 1041. Cooperative threat reduction programs 
          defined................................................   284
        Section 1042. Funding matters............................   284
        Section 1043. Limitation relating to offensive biological 
          warfare program of Russia..............................   284
    Subtitle F--Matters Relating to Other Nations................   285
        Section 1051. Cooperative research and development 
          agreements with NATO organizations.....................   285
        Section 1052. National security implications of United 
          States export control policy...........................   285
            Review of export licenses for biological pathogens...   286
        Section 1053. Defense export loan guarantees.............   286
        Section 1054. Landmine clearing assistance program.......   287
            Landmine Convention..................................   287
        Section 1055. Strategic cooperation between the United 
          States and Israel......................................   288
        Section 1056. Support services for the Navy at the Port 
          of Haifa, Israel.......................................   288
        Section 1057. Prohibition on assistance to terrorist 
          countries..............................................   289
        Section 1058. International military education and 
          training...............................................   289
        Section 1060. Implementation of arms control agreements..   289
        Section 1061. Sense of Congress on limiting the placing 
          of United States forces under United Nations Command or 
          Control................................................   290
    Subtitle G--Repeal of Certain Reporting Requirements.........   291
        Reduction of reporting requirements......................   291
    Subtitle H--Other Matters....................................   291
        Section 1081. Global positioning system..................   291
        Section 1082. Limitation on retirement or dismantlement 
          of strategic nuclear delivery systems..................   292
        Section 1083. National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities 
          Pilot Program..........................................   294
        Section 1084. Report on Department of Defense boards and 
          commissions............................................   294
        Section 1085. Revision of authority for providing Army 
          support for the National Science Center for 
          Communications and Electronics.........................   295
        Section 1086. Authority to suspend or terminate 
          collection actions against deceased members............   295
        Section 1087. Damage or loss to personal property due to 
          emergency evacuation or extraordinary circumstances....   295
        Section 1088. Check cashing and exchange transactions for 
          dependents of United States Government personnel.......   295
        Section 1089. Travel of disabled veterans on military 
          aircraft...............................................   296
        Section 1090. Transportation of crippled children in 
          Pacific rim region to Hawaii for medical care..........   296
        Section 1091. Student information for recruiting purposes   296
        Section 1092. State recognition of military advance 
          medical directives.....................................   296
        Section 1093. Report on personnel requirements for 
          control of transfer of certain weapons.................   297
        Section 1094. Extension of period of Vietnam era.........   297
    Other Items of Interest......................................   297
        Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)...............   297
        Department of Defense space management and organization..   297
        Joint military intelligence program......................   298
        Reusable launch vehicles.................................   299
        Chinese military developments............................   300
        Private contracting for military assistance to Newly 
          Independent Democracies of Eastern Europe..............   300

            Division B--Military Construction Authorizations

Committee Action.................................................   301
Base closure and realignment accounts............................   317
Title XXII--Navy.................................................   323
        Section 2205. Authorization of appropriations............   323
        Section 2206. Authority to carry out land acquisition 
          project, Norfolk Naval Base, Virginia..................   323
        Section 2207. Acquisition of land, Henderson Hall, 
          Arlington, Virginia....................................   323
Title XXIV--Defense Agencies.....................................   325
        Chemical munitions disposal facilities...................   325
Title XXVIII--General Provisions.................................   327
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
      Housing....................................................   327
        Section 2801. Special threshold for unspecified minor 
          construction projects to correct life, health, or 
          safety deficiencies....................................   327
        Section 2802. Clarification of scope of unspecified minor 
          construction authority.................................   327
        Section 2803. Temporary waiver of net floor area 
          limitation for family housing acquired in lieu of 
          construction...........................................   327
        Section 2804. Reestablishment of authority to waive net 
          floor area limitation on acquisition by purchase of 
          certain military family housing........................   327
        Section 2805. Temporary waiver of limitations on space by 
          pay grade for military family housing units............   327
        Section 2806. Increase in number of family housing units 
          subject to foreign country maximum lease amount........   328
        Section 2807. Expansion of authority for limited 
          partnerships for development of military family housing   328
        Section 2809. Authority to convey damaged or deteriorated 
          military family housing................................   328
        Section 2810. Energy and water conservation savings for 
          the Department of Defense..............................   328
        Section 2811. Alternative authority for construction and 
          improvement of military housing........................   328
        Section 2812. Permanent authority to enter into leases of 
          land for special operations activities.................   329
        Section 2813. Authority to use funds for certain 
          educational purposes...................................   329
    Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment.............   329
        Section 2821. In-kind consideration for leases at 
          installations to be closed or realigned................   329
        Section 2822. Clarification of authority regarding 
          contracts for community services at installations being 
          closed.................................................   330
        Section 2823. Clarification of funding for environmental 
          restoration at installations approved for closure or 
          realignment in 1995....................................   330
        Section 2824. Authority to lease property requiring 
          environmental remediation at installations approved for 
          closure................................................   330
    Subtitle C--Land Conveyances.................................   330
        Section 2831. Land acquisition or exchange, Shaw Air 
          Force Base, South Carolina.............................   330
        Section 2832. Authority for Port Authority of State of 
          Mississippi to use certain Navy property in Gulfport, 
          Mississippi............................................   330
        Section 2833. Conveyance of resource recovery facility, 
          Fort Dix, New Jersey...................................   331
        Section 2834. Conveyance of water and wastewater 
          treatment plants, Fort Gordon, Georgia.................   331
        Section 2835. Conveyance of water treatment plant, Fort 
          Pickett, Virginia......................................   331
        Section 2836. Conveyance of electric power distribution 
          system, Fort Irwin, California.........................   331
        Section 2837. Land exchange, Fort Lewis, Washington......   331
    Subtitle D--Transfer of Jurisdiction and Establishment of 
      MIDEWIN National Tallgrass Prairie.........................   332
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   332
        Section 2861. Department of Defense laboratory 
          revitalization demonstration program...................   332
        Section 2862. Prohibition on joint civil aviation use of 
          Miramar Naval Air Station, California..................   333
        Section 2863. Report on agreement relating to conveyance 
          of land, Fort Belvoir, Virginia........................   333
    Other Items of Interest......................................   333
        Planning and design......................................   334
        Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center, Fort Lawton, 
          Washington.............................................   334
        Fire fighting training system, Department of the Army....   334
        Repair of unsafe bridges.................................   334

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

Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs......   335
    Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........   368
        Section 3101. Weapons activities.........................   368
            Congressional Guidance on Stockpile Stewardship......   368
            Stockpile Confidence Concerns........................   368
            Stockpile Confidence Strategy........................   369
            Stockpile Confidence: Testing Strategy...............   369
            Maintaining Integrity of Test Readiness Capability...   369
            Reemphasis on Maintaining the Stockpile is Required..   369
            Conclusion from the Nuclear Posture Review...........   370
            Tritium Production Strategy..........................   370
            Human Resources for the Weapons Activity Mission.....   370
            Technology Partnerships..............................   370
            Inertial Confinement Fusion..........................   371
            National Ignition Facility...........................   371
            Stockpile Management.................................   372
        Section 3102. Environmental restoration and waste 
          management.............................................   373
            Assessment of Environmental Waste Management Program.   373
            Providing the Tools for a Solution...................   373
        Section 3103. Other defense activities...................   374
        Section 3142. Authority to reprogram funds for 
          disposition of certain spent nuclear fuel..............   374
            Korean reactor reprogramming.........................   374
            Arms Control.........................................   374
            Nonproliferation and Verification Research and 
              Development........................................   375
        Section 3104. Defense nuclear waste disposal.............   375
        Section 3105. Payment of penalties assessed against Rocky 
          Flats Site.............................................   375
    Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions.....................   375
        Section 3121. Reprogramming..............................   375
        Section 3122. Limits on general plant projects...........   376
        Section 3123. Limits on construction projects............   376
        Section 3124. Fund transfer authority....................   376
        Section 3125. Authority for conceptual and construction 
          design.................................................   376
        Section 3126. Authority for emergency planning, design, 
          and construction activities............................   377
        Section 3127. Funds available for all national security 
          programs of the Department of Energy...................   377
        Section 3128. Availability of funds......................   377
    Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   377
        Section 3131. Tritium production.........................   377
        Section 3132. Plutonium disposition......................   377
        Section 3133. Tritium recycling..........................   378
        Section 3134. Manufacturing infrastructure for 
          refabrication and certification of enduring nuclear 
          weapons stockpile......................................   378
            Weapons refabrication strategy.......................   378
            Defense Programs Planning Council....................   379
            Integrated Weapons Refabrication Plan................   379
        Section 3135. Hydronuclear experiments...................   379
        Section 3136. Fellowship program for development of 
          skills critical to the Department of Energy nuclear 
          weapons complex........................................   379
        Section 3137. Effect of issuance of environmental impact 
          statements on use of funds for certain Department of 
          Energy facilities......................................   380
        Section 3138. Dual-axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility..   381
        Section 3139. Limitation on use of funds for certain 
          research and education purposes........................   381
        Section 3140. Processing of high level nuclear waste and 
          spent nuclear fuel rods................................   381
        Section 3141. Department of Energy Declassification 
          Productivity Initiative................................   382
        Section 3143. Protection of Workers at Nuclear Weapons 
          Facilities.............................................   382
    Subtitle D--Transfer of Jurisdiction Over Department of 
      Energy National Security Functions.........................   382
        Section 3151. Plans for transfer of jurisdiction over 
          Department of Energy national security functions.......   382
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   382
        Section 3161. Responsibility for Defense Programs 
          Emergency Response Program.............................   382
        Section 3162. Requirements for Department of Energy 
          weapons activities budgets for fiscal years after 
          fiscal year 1996.......................................   383
        Section 3163. Enduring nuclear weapons stockpile.........   383
        Section 3164. Report on proposed purchases of tritium 
          from foreign suppliers.................................   383
        Section 3165. Report on hydronuclear testing.............   383
        Section 3166. Master plan on warheads in the enduring 
          nuclear weapons stockpile..............................   384
        Section 3167. Prohibition on international inspections of 
          Department of Energy facilities pending certification 
          of protection of restricted data.......................   384
    Other Items of Interest......................................   384
        Merger of operating and capital resources into one 
          category...............................................   384
        Nuclear stockpile dismantlement..........................   384
        Nuclear reactor safety in Ukraine........................   385
        Accountability for civilian nuclear materials............   385
Title XXXIII--Naval Petroleum Reserves...........................   387
        Section 3301. Sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 
          (Elk Hills)............................................   387
        Section 3302. Study regarding future of Naval Petroleum 
          Reserves (other than Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 
          1).....................................................   388
Title XXXIV--National Defense Stockpile..........................   389
        Section 3401. Authorized uses of stockpile funds.........   389
        Section 3402. Disposal of obsolete and excess materials 
          contained in the National Defense Stockpile............   389
        Section 3403. Disposal of chromite and manganese ores and 
          chromium ferro and manganese metal electrolytic........   389
        Section 3404. Restrictions on disposal of manganese ferro   389
        Section 3405. Excess defense-related materials: transfer 
          to Stockpile and disposal..............................   389
Title XXXV--Panama Canal Commission..............................   391
Legislative Requirements.........................................   392
    Departmental recommendations.................................   392
    Committee action.............................................   392
    Fiscal data..................................................   393
    Congressional Budget Office cost estimate....................   394
    Regulatory input.............................................   394
    Changes in existing law......................................   394
Additional and Minority Views....................................   395
    Additional Views:
        Mr. McCain...............................................   395
        Mr. Exon.................................................   401
        Mr. Kennedy..............................................   403
        Mr. Glenn................................................   406
        Mr. Lieberman............................................   409
        Mr. Bryan................................................   412
    Minority Views:
        Mr. Levin................................................   413
        Mr. Bingaman.............................................   417
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                    104-112
_______________________________________________________________________

      AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 FOR MILITARY 
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND 
   FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE 
PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______


    July 12 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


   Mr. Thurmond, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 1026]

    The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an 
original bill to authorize appropriations during the fiscal 
year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such 
fiscal year for the armed forces, and for other purposes, and, 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    This bill would:
          (1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) 
        research, development, test and evaluation, (c) 
        operation and maintenance and the revolving and 
        management funds of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 1996;
          (2) authorize the personnel end strength for each 
        military active duty component of the armed forces for 
        fiscal year 1996;
          (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the 
        Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of 
        the armed forces for fiscal year 1996;
          (4) authorize the annual average military training 
        student loads for the active and reserve components of 
        the armed forces for fiscal year 1996;
          (5) impose certain reporting requirements;
          (6) impose certain limitations with regard to 
        specific procurement, research, development, test and 
        evaluation actions, and manpower strengths; provide 
        certain additional legislative authority, and make 
        certain changes to existing law;
          (7) authorize appropriations for military 
        construction programs of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 1996; and
          (8) authorize appropriations for national security 
        programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
        1996.

Committee overview and recommendations

    As the committee organized to carry out its constitutional 
responsibilities and those assigned by the Senate for the 104th 
Congress, the Chairman and the Members established priorities 
which guided the committee through the authorization process.
    As its top priority, the committee recognized that well-
motivated, well-trained, well-led soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
marines are the bedrock of national security. The committee's 
goal was to ensure that forces remain effective and force 
levels remain sufficient, and that the services are manned by 
personnel of the highest quality. This in turn required strong 
congressional support for equitable pay and benefits, bachelor 
and family housing, and other quality of life measures.
    The committee emphasized the need to protect the combat 
readiness of the armed forces. A prime concern was to establish 
a proper balance between near-term and long-term readiness. 
Although near-term readiness is a matter of critical 
importance, a disproportionate allocation of scarce resources 
to operation and maintenance accounts would unwisely limit 
funds for research, development and procurement activities 
essential to modernization. This could leave the force ill-
prepared for a future conflict. The committee sought to achieve 
a reasonable balance by providing adequate funds for training, 
and operation and maintenance accounts while authorizing 
increases both for weapons and equipment currently in 
production and for multiyear procurement. This will help to 
avoid creating ``bow waves'' of funding requirements in 
subsequent years. The committee has recommended a level of 
funding for research and development which should assure U.S. 
military superiority in the future. To make the best use of the 
funds available, the committee made a concerted effort to 
reduce spending for non-defense programs in the defense budget.
    The committee was also concerned about the viability of the 
nation's nuclear forces. According to the Nuclear Posture 
Review (NPR), the United States will continue to depend on 
these forces for nuclear deterrence into the foreseeable 
future. Safe, reliable, and effective nuclear weapons are at 
the core of this deterrence. In this bill the committee sought 
to redirect the focus of the Department of Energy toward its 
primary responsibility of maintaining the nation's nuclear 
capability. To do this the department must emphasize a 
stockpile management program geared to the near-term 
refabrication and certification requirements outlined in the 
NPR.
    Finally, the committee addressed the proliferation of 
missile technology and weapons of mass destruction. With an 
increasing number of nations acquiring or developing long-range 
missile technology, the United States must be able to defend 
both its deployed forces and the homeland. The committee 
provided direction and funds for both of these requirements. It 
initiated a program to enhance defense against cruise missiles 
while funding robust Theater Missile Defenses and mandating a 
National Missile Defense program that will lead to the 
deployment of a limited defense of the United States in the 
foreseeable future. The committee reaffirmed its support for 
cooperative threat reductions with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, 
and Kazakhstan.
    The committee is concerned that the administration's budget 
request did not include funding for numerous operations which 
the armed forces are conducting currently, despite the fact 
that the administration fully expects that these operations 
will continue into fiscal year 1996. The committee has 
therefore authorized $125.0 million to pay for these ongoing 
operations. The committee cautions the administration that the 
consequence of paying for these operations on an unprogrammed, 
ad hoc basis, is often to deny necessary funds to maintain 
force readiness. Last year the importance of timely, full 
funding for such operations became apparent in lower readiness 
ratings and curtailed training in some military units. Unless 
the Department of Defense includes the funds for such 
operations in the budget request, the committee's ability to 
assess the impact these operations will have on other accounts 
throughout the department and the services will be impaired. 
The committee and the Congress have oversight responsibilities 
which are hindered when the department does not budget for 
known requirements.
    The committee has long expressed its concern about the 
decreasing levels of defense funding. The trend over the past 
10 years has been one of constant decline. The administration's 
request for procurement this year is at the lowest level since 
1950, declining about 40 percent since 1985. Each successive 
budget since 1993 has continued to push recapitalization 
further into the outyears. As a result, the services have been 
forced to delay the fielding of critical modern systems while 
maintaining aging equipment at ever-increasing operating and 
maintenance costs.
    The committee remains concerned about the adequacy of 
funding levels for national defense programs in the coming 
years. Despite the recommended fiscal year 1996 funding 
increase of $7.0 billion above the administration request, 
budget levels proposed for future years do not adequately fund 
even the level of forces required for the Bottom-Up Review 
Force. These levels cannot meet modernization needs and do not 
cover inflation. This shortfall will seriously impair the 
ability of the Department of Defense to field the ready, modern 
forces essential to our national security. The limited progress 
reflected in this bill cannot be maintained unless future 
funding is increased.
    Department of Defense decisions to cancel or delay 
modernization programs create unrealistic modernization funding 
requirements for the future. In this bill, the committee has 
addressed critical modernization needs by adding $5.3 billion 
in procurement and $1.7 billion in research and development 
accounts to offset some of these problems. The committee 
believes that the Department of Defense must continue to fund 
these accounts at similar, inflation-adjusted levels in future 
budget requests.
    Throughout the past six months, the committee worked in its 
traditional bi-partisan manner which places the national 
security interests of the United States and the safety of the 
American people above other considerations. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 reflects this 
cooperative effort and provides a clear direction for U.S. 
national security policy, and a foundation for the defense of 
the nation.

Explanation of funding summary

    The administration's budget request for the national 
defense function of the federal budget for fiscal year 1996 was 
$257.7 billion, of which $189.5 billion was for programs which 
require specific funding authorization.
    The committee's authorization recommendation is 
substantially larger ($264.70 billion in budget authority) than 
the amount requested. The primary reason for this difference is 
that the committee authorized an additional $5.3 billion in 
procurement and $1.7 billion in research and development.
    The following table summarizes both the direct 
authorizations and equivalent budget authority levels for 
fiscal year 1996 defense programs. The columns relating to the 
authorization request do not include funding for the following 
items: military personnel funding; military construction 
authorizations provided in prior years; and other small 
portions of the defense budget that are not within the 
jurisdiction of this committee or which do not require an 
annual authorization. As explained above, funding for military 
personnel is included in the amounts authorized by the 
committee, but not in the total funding requested for 
authorization.
    Funding for all programs in the national defense function 
is reflected in the columns relating to the budget authority 
request and the total budget authority implication of the 
authorizations in this bill. The committee recommends funding 
for national defense programs totalling $264.7 billion in 
budget authority, which is consistent with the fiscal year 1996 
Budget Resolution, an increase of $7 billion above the 
President's budget request. The committee decided to allocate 
this increase to the modernization accounts, authorizing an 
additional $5.7 billion in procurement and an additional $1.3 
billion in research and development.


            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

    The committee's concerns over continually declining defense 
budgets and the impact of these lower budgets on long-term 
readiness was reinforced during both committee and subcommittee 
hearings. The senior leaders of the military services 
repeatedly expressed their concerns about the effects that 
sharply reduced funding for modernization would have on future 
capabilities.
    Procurement accounts, including the current budget request, 
have been cut 44 percent since fiscal year 1992, and the 
current budget request does not provide sufficient funds to 
address the needs of long-term readiness (modernization). Basic 
items of equipment have not been procured in sufficient 
quantities. Requirements for additional operating funds have 
grown sharply in order to support the higher costs of 
maintaining older equipment in reliable operating condition.
    The committee has given priority to increasing the 
modernization accounts in order to buy the weapons and 
equipment needed to fight and win decisively with minimal risk 
to personnel. The committee has utilized the following precepts 
in allocating congressional increases to the defense budget:
          --buy basics;
          --invest to achieve savings; and
          --invest in the future.
    The committee notes that procurement of basic weapons and 
items of equipment has been neglected during the decline in 
defense spending. Consequently, the committee recommended 
increases in such basic items as new ships, trucks, small arms 
and upgrades to weapon systems and items of equipment already 
in the inventory.
    To avoid creating ``bow-waves'' of funding that the 
military services could not afford in the outyears, the 
committee has recommended increases for weapons and items of 
equipment currently in production and the use of multiyear 
procurement contracts, as well as a new concept of ``split-
funding'' for ships, where savings might be achieved. Buying 
more weapons and equipment currently in production at more 
efficient rates lowers overall costs to the government. It also 
avoids overlapping procurement sequencing and reduces 
competition for procurement resources in the future.
    In summary, the committee's recommendation reprioritizes 
the defense budget to ensure an appropriate balance between 
near-term readiness and long-term readiness (modernization). 
The committee also recommends a level of funding for research 
and development to assure U.S. military superiority in the 
future.

Budget requests for weapons and equipment

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
and the military services frequently fail to request funding 
for essential weapons and equipment, believing that the 
Congress will provide the necessary funds through the 
legislative process.
    This practice of not funding essential weapons and 
equipment, commonly known as ``gold-watching'', occurs more 
frequently as the budgets of the military services decline and 
they are hard-pressed to find the funds necessary to fill their 
requirements. All the military services have employed this 
practice in some form or other, and the Department of Defense 
apparently has not exerted appropriate discipline in order to 
bring this fiscal ``gaming'' under control.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 
the budget requests of the military services as well as that of 
defense agencies in order to eliminate the practice of ``gold-
watching''. Where sufficient funds are not requested for 
essential weapons and items of equipment, the Secretary of 
Defense or the Secretary of the Military Service will include a 
statement explaining why the weapon or item of equipment was 
not funded or severely underfunded.

Explanation of tables

    The tables in this title display items requested by the 
administration for fiscal year 1996 and the committee's actions 
in regard to the requested amounts. As in the past, the 
administration may not exceed the amounts approved by the 
committee (as set forth in the tables or if unchanged from the 
administration request, as set forth in the Department of 
Defense's budget justification documents) without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.

              SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section - 107. Chemical demilitarization program.

    The budget request included $854.7 million for the chemical 
agents and munitions destruction program for operation and 
maintenance ($393.9 million), procurement ($299.4 million), 
research and development of alternative technologies for the 
unitary and nonstockpile chemical agents ($53.4 million), and 
military construction ($108.0 million).
    The committee recommends a reduction of $170.0 million to 
the budget request, $75.0 million from the procurement account, 
defense-wide and $95.0 million from the military construction 
account, defense-wide. The committee's recommendation is based 
on the information provided to it that funds appropriated in 
fiscal years 1994 and 1995 and allocated for procurement and 
military construction for the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal 
Facility have not been obligated because of delays caused by 
the lack of environmental permits from the State of Alabama, as 
well as other contracting, fiscal, and political 
considerations.

Use of Unobligated Fiscal Year 1994 and 1995 Funds

    The recent decision of the Department of Defense and the 
Army to place Fort McClellan, Alabama, on the base closure list 
has caused a delay in the issuance of environmental permits by 
the State of Alabama, and resulted in the inability to award 
contracts for the Anniston facility. The committee recommends 
that unobligated fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 1995 funds in 
the procurement and military construction accounts which have 
been allocated for use at the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal 
Facility be reallocated for procurement of equipment and 
facilities design and construction at Pine Bluff, Arkansas and 
Umatilla, Oregon.

Transportation of the Unitary Stockpile

    The committee also directs the Department of Defense to 
conduct a study to assess the risk associated with 
transportation of the unitary stockpile from one location to 
another within the continental United States. The study shall 
also include the following: the results of the physical and 
chemical integrity report conducted by the Army on the existing 
stockpile; a determination of the viability of transportation 
of any portion of the stockpile, to include drained agent from 
munitions and the munitions. The report shall consider the 
safety, cost-effectiveness, and public acceptability of 
transporting the stockpile, in its current configuration, or in 
alternate configurations.


Section - 111. AH-64D Longbow Apache Attack helicopter.

    The budget request included $354.0 million to buy 18 AH-64D 
aircraft and 13 Longbow fire control radars. The program would 
buy 227 fire control radars by 2002 and 758 AH-64D by 2012. The 
committee is advised that fielding of the Longbow Apache 
aircraft to high priority units can be accelerated 
significantly with substantial savings by providing for 
multiyear procurement for fiscal years 1996 through fiscal year 
2000.
    The Army indicates that the proposed multiyear plan would:
          --increase fiscal years 1996 to 2000 production from 
        182 to 240 aircraft--an additional 58 aircraft--which 
        allows fielding 86 percent of active duty force package 
        one units within the five year period versus the 
        current plan which fields only 57 percent;
          --lower the unit cost from $13.3 million to $10.6 
        million per aircraft; ramps up to most efficient 
        production rates while taking advantage of economic 
        order quantities; and
          --provide for estimated savings of up to $630.0 
        million over five years and potential savings of 
        $1,000.0 million over the life of the program.
    The committee understands that an additional $82.0 million 
is required for fiscal year 1996, $16.0 million in fiscal year 
1999, and $43.0 million in fiscal year 2000 in order to execute 
the proposed multiyear.
    The committee recommends an increase of $82.0 million for 
fiscal year 1996 and directs the Secretary of the Army to 
ensure necessary funding is provided in future years to execute 
the multiyear procurement. The committee recommends a provision 
that would provide authorization for multiyear procurement of 
the AH-64D Longbow Apache helicopter.

Section - 112. OH-58D AHIP Scout helicopter.

    The budget request included $71.3 million to retrofit 33 
OH-58D's to the armed configuration. No funds were included for 
conversion of OH-58A to the much more capable OH-58D Kiowa 
Warrior. The Army is still far short of its requirement for 507 
Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters and the Comanche program is 
unfortunately, once again experiencing program delays. 
Therefore, the committee considers it imprudent to terminate 
production of the Army's only scout helicopter and recommends 
an additional authorization of $125.0 million for 20 OH-58D 
Kiowa Warrior aircraft. The committee recommends a provision 
that would repeal current law to permit this procurement.

Section - 113. Hydra 70 Rocket.

    The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for 
procurement of Hydra 70 rockets. However, no funds may be 
expended until the Army certifies the rocket motor failure 
problem has been corrected and alternative motor systems have 
been examined.
    The conference report accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 noted limitations of the 
current Hydra 70 rocket and encouraged investigation of non-
developmental motor systems in the section pertaining to 
advanced rocket systems.

                          OTHER ARMY PROGRAMS

                             Army Aircraft

C-XX Mid-Range turbofan aircraft

    The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million for 
competitive procurement by the Army of four new production C-XX 
Mid-Range turbofan aircraft. The Army has identified the C-XX 
Mid-Range program as its highest priority fixed wing program 
due to cost and operational efficiencies. These efficiencies 
will be achieved by the procurement of the C-XX planes in 
conjunction with the retirement of older turboprops as well as 
the enhanced level of standardization in the Army's aviation 
fleet, thus reducing training and support costs.

UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter

    Current Army plans would terminate UH-60 production after 
the procurement of 60 UH-60 helicopters included in the fiscal 
year 1996 budget request, the final year of a five-year 
multiyear procurement.
    The committee believes it is necessary to continue 
production of UH-60 helicopters to maintain a production base 
until the Comanche helicopter is ready for procurement. With 
continually declining defense budgets, the Army is unable to 
afford to buy UH-60's at the annual levels within the current 
multiyear contract. The committee is convinced that the Army 
and the contractor should work together toward a future 
multiyear contract at annual levels which the Army can afford 
and at which the contractor can produce the aircraft 
efficiently.
    The committee recommends an authorization of $281.7 million 
for approximately 50 UH-60 helicopters.

                              Army Missile

Hellfire missile

    The budget request included $197.5 million to procure 352 
Longbow Hellfire missiles and $12.0 million for post-production 
support, for a total of $209.5 million. Due to funding 
shortfalls, the Army has stopped production of the Hellfire II 
missile despite the fact that stocks are well short of the 
requirement for 6,000 missiles. The committee notes that the 
Army could take advantage of favorable contract options by 
using the $12.0 million of post-production support funds plus 
an additional $40.0 million to procure 750 additional Hellfire 
II missiles.
    The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for a 
total of $249.5 million, $52.0 million of which is for the 
procurement of 750 Hellfire II missiles.

Javelin medium anti-tank weapon

    The budget request included $171.4 million which would 
procure 557 Javelin missiles. The committee is pleased with 
reports of the performance of the Javelin anti-tank system, but 
notes that a reduction in fiscal year 1996 funding in the 
budget request resulted in a decrease of $39.0 million from 
previously planned levels. Restoration of these funds would 
provide for the procurement of an additional 453 missiles--a 45 
percent increase in missiles for an 18 percent increase in 
funds. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of 
$39.0 million for Javelin procurement.

TOW missile

    The budget request included $7.4 million for plant closure 
and production support of prior year TOW missile deliveries. No 
funds were requested for continued TOW missile production. The 
TOW remains the centerpiece antiarmor weapon of U.S. ground 
forces. Under current Army plans, a replacement for the TOW 
missile will not be fielded until sometime after 2003. As a 
result of normal shelf-life aging and the expenditure of 
missiles in training and testing, the TOW missile inventory 
will fall below levels required to equip contingency forces by 
2003. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to 
procure 1,000 TOW 2B missiles.

Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)

    The committee provided funds in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995 to procure MLRS 
launchers and associated equipment for an MLRS battalion for 
the Army National Guard. Unfortunately, the funds provided were 
not sufficient to complete fielding the entire battalion. The 
committee recommends an increase of $16.4 million to 
recondition nine MLRS launchers and provide ancillary equipment 
to complete fielding of the MLRS battalion in the South 
Carolina National Guard. The committee continues to support the 
conversion of artillery battalions to MLRS battalions, and 
recommends an increase of $48.0 million to recondition 29 more 
MLRS launchers and provide necessary equipment for another MLRS 
battalion.
    The committee has strongly supported the expeditious 
fielding of the Extended Range-MLRS (ER-MLRS) rocket to assist 
in overcoming range deficiencies in U.S. Army artillery. The 
ER-MLRS rocket will extend the range of the MLRS from 30 to 45 
kilometers. The committee recommends an increase of $43.0 
million dollars to produce 1500 extended range rockets in 
fiscal year 1996. The committee directs that in meeting 
requirements, the Secretary of the Army continue the successful 
arrangement for procurement of MLRS rockets, including rocket 
motor cases and warhead metal parts by sustaining the current 
production team.
    The committee is aware of the Army's proposal to initiate 
foreign military sales (FMS) of the Extended Range MLRS (ER-
MLRS) during low rate initial production. The committee 
understands that the initial funded ER-MLRS production levels 
will be well below the industrial capacity. Utilizing this 
unused production capacity for FMS will result in better 
efficiency for U.S. production. The committee supports this 
initiative to use FMS production to benefit the U.S. planned 
program.

Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)

    The budget request included $106.97 million for 91 ATACMS 
missiles (50 block I, 41 block IA). The block IA missile is the 
version which provides exceptionally greater capability in 
terms of extended range. The committee has consistently 
supported ATACMS and was impressed by its performance in the 
Persian Gulf War.
    The committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million to 
procure 29 additional extended range ATACMS missiles (50 block 
I, 70 block IA).

Stinger missile modifications

    The budget request included $10.1 million for the 
modification of 650 Stinger missiles. These retrofits will 
increase overall missile performance in certain engagement 
situations and resolve a key aviation deficiency which requires 
aviation platforms to super elevate. The committee is informed 
that current funding is inadequate to provide economical 
production rates for the Block 1 retrofit program and could 
cause shutdown of critical elements of the industrial and 
technical base.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million to 
retrofit Block 1 upgrades to an additional 650 Stinger 
missiles, and $3.0 million to modify 45 percent of Force 
Package I platforms to accommodate the Block 1 configured 
missiles.

                  Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles

M113 family of vehicles (FOV)

    The budget request included $48.1 million to continue the 
modernization of the M113 armored personnel carrier family of 
vehicles. The committee fully supports the Army's efforts to 
upgrade the M113 FOV. M113A3 family vehicles are used by the 
Army for a variety of critical combat, logistical, and command 
and control functions within its heavy divisions. In fiscal 
year 1995, the Army proposed a five-year, level-funded program 
to continue to upgrade this critical armored vehicle fleet. 
However, the Army's fiscal year 1996 request reflects a 
decrease of $20.0 million in fiscal year 1997. The committee 
remains convinced that the level-funded program is far more 
advantageous for the Army. The Army is directed to restore the 
$20.0 million to the fiscal year 1997 program, and ensure that 
the fully-funded program is reflected in the fiscal year 1997 
budget request.

Bradley fighting vehicle

    The budget request included $138.3 million for the Bradley 
Base Sustainment Program. The committee notes that no funding 
is provided for continuing the upgrade of the oldest 
configuration of the Bradley fighting vehicle (BFV), the A0, to 
the more modern, survivable A2 version. Under current plans, 
there will still be approximately 2,000 of the A0 BFV's in the 
fleet, when the upgrade program would be terminated. Even with 
a reduced force structure, the Army will not be able to fill 
its total BFV requirement.
    The committee believes this plan to terminate A0 to A2 BFV 
upgrades may be premature, since the A0's lack the 
survivability and improvements needed for the modern 
battlefield. Commanders in Operation Desert Storm demanded the 
more modern configuration when facing actual combat. It is also 
likely that significant operation and support cost savings can 
be realized by continuing to modernize the BFV fleet. The 
committee believes the Army should consider continuation of the 
A0 to A2 BFV upgrade program, and directs the Army to submit a 
plan which addresses funding profile and procurement strategy 
for continuation of the upgrade program. The plan should be 
submitted with the fiscal year 1997 budget.
    The committee also recommends an increase of $14.0 million 
to buy one battalion set of reactive armor tiles for BFV.

Improved Recovery Vehicle (IRV)

    The budget request included $23.5 million to procure nine 
M88A1E1 Improved Recovery Vehicles (IRV). The IRV is a product-
improved tank recovery vehicle capable of independent recovery 
(lift, winch and tow) of the Abrams series tank. Fielding of 
the IRV is essential for battlefield recovery of the latest, 
heavier (70 ton) M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks. Fielding of the 
IRV has been delayed due to lack of modernization funds in the 
Army.
    The committee recommends an increase of $33.9 million to 
procure 12 more IRV's for the Army.

M1A2 tank upgrades

    The budget request included $473.8 million for 100 M1A2 
tank upgrades for the Army. Section 111(a) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 authorized the 
use of multiyear procurement contracts for the M1A2 tank 
upgrade program. The committee continues to be supportive of 
multiyear procurement but notes that the Army has not proposed 
such a strategy in the fiscal year 1996 budget.
    The committee believes that procurement of tracked combat 
vehicles (TCV) now and in the future must continue to maintain 
a proper balance between the heavy and medium portions of the 
fleet. The Army needs to field required modern equipment and to 
protect critical elements of the industrial base as well. The 
committee is concerned that multiyear contracting for the tank 
upgrade program could result in an unbalanced TCV procurement 
program if currently projected future budget increases do not 
materialize. This would occur if funds committed to multiyear 
contracts consumed the major share of a smaller than currently 
projected TCV procurement account. The committee, therefore, 
insists that any multiyear procurement proposals must include 
sufficient flexibility in both quantity of upgrades and funding 
to ensure appropriate balance in future TCV procurement. The 
committee directs the Army Acquisition Executive to demonstrate 
to the defense committees how this flexibility is achieved 
before he agrees to multiyear contracts for M1A2 tank upgrades.
    The National Defense Authorization Act Fiscal Year 1995 
also included a provision (section 112) which directed the Army 
to transfer 24 M1A1 common tanks to the Marine Corps Reserve in 
conjunction with receipt of an additional 24 M1A2 tank upgrades 
provided to the Army by an increase of $108.0 million to the 
Abrams upgrade program. The intent of the committee, according 
to the report accompanying the National Defense Authorization 
Act of Fiscal Year 1995 (S. Rept. 103-282) and of the 
conferees, according to the statement of managers in the 
conference report accompanying that Act (H. Rept. 103-701), was 
that the transfer in fiscal year 1995 was the first year of a 
two-year program to eliminate a shortfall of 48 tanks in the 
Marine Corps Reserve tank battalions. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $110.0 million for 24 additional M1A2 
tank upgrades for the Army. The Army is directed to transfer 24 
additional M1A1 common tanks to the Marine Corps Reserve in 
accordance with procedures set out in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995.

Small arms programs

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
directed the Secretary of the Army to enter into multiyear 
contracts for the MK-19 Grenade machine gun, the M-16A2 rifle, 
the M-249 squad automatic weapon, and the M-4 Carbine in fiscal 
year 1996 if he did not do so in fiscal year 1995. Despite 
congressional direction, the Army did not request any funds for 
small arms in the fiscal year 1996 budget request.
    The committee expects the Secretary of the Army to comply 
with congressional direction for multiyear procurements and 
recommends increases for fiscal year 1996 as indicated below 
for these programs:
        --MK-19: $33.9 million for approximately 2100 weapons.
        --M-249: $28.5 million for approximately 10,420 
        weapons.
        --M-16A2: $13.5 million for approximately 25,000 
        weapons.
        --M-4: $13.5 million for approximately 25,000 weapons.
    The committee is aware of a requirement for the Army to 
procure approximately 1434 modification kits for medium machine 
guns, and recommends an increase of $6.5 million for this 
procurement.
    The committee also understands that there is an outstanding 
requirement for M-9 9mm Personal Defense Weapons, and 
recommends an increase of $4.0 million for approximately 10,000 
pistols.
    The committee is also aware of a requirement for a 
universal mounting bracket for the MK-19, and recommends an 
increase of $1.5 million within program modifications under $2 
million, to begin initial production of a nondevelopmental 
universal bracket, and $0.5 million in program element 604802 
to type-classify this bracket.

7.62 millimeter medium machine gun

    The committee understands that the Army has a requirement 
to upgrade its current 7.62 millimeter medium machine gun. The 
committee further understands that the requirement for non-
vehicular, 7.62 millimeter machine guns is in excess of 20,000 
weapons for the Army's current force structure. Therefore, to 
ensure the viability of the U.S. small arms industrial base, 
the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure that 
long-term production to meet this requirement will be done in 
the United States.

                            Army Ammunition

Army ammunition

    The committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request for Army ammunition procurement:

        Item                                                    Millions
7.62mm............................................................ $10.0
25mm M792 HEIT....................................................  20.0
40mm M430A1.......................................................  10.0
60mm Illum M721...................................................   7.0
120mm APFSDS-T M829A2.............................................  87.1
120mm M830A1 HEAT-MP-T............................................  20.0
120mm M929 (HV MORT)..............................................  20.0
155mm M795 (ex rge)...............................................  20.0
HYDRA 70 M264 (smoke).............................................  20.0
M87A1 (Volcano)...................................................  30.0
BDM...............................................................  15.0
SLAM XM94.........................................................   9.5
SLAM XM94 (SOCOM).................................................   1.5
Demolition Items..................................................   6.0
Conventional Demilitarization.....................................   4.0
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
    Subtotal...................................................... 280.1

Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition XM94

    The committee recommends an addition of $11.0 million for 
procurement of the Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition 
(SLAM). Of this amount, $9.5 million shall be available for 
Army SLAM inventory, and $1.5 million shall be available for 
the Special Operations Command.

Procurement of M-795 artillery projectile

    The committee recognizes a need to provide land combat 
forces with extended range artillery munitions, and recommends 
an increase of $20.0 million to procure the M-795 round.
    The committee also recognizes the value of soliciting 
competitive bids for procurement items, and directs the 
Secretary of the Army to consider competition among public and 
private entities for procurement of this item.

Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS)

    The committee recommends an increase of $45.0 million to 
compensate for unobligated funds rescinded in 1995 to offset 
contingency operation expenses in the administration's 
emergency supplemental request.
    ARMS has proven to be a highly successful program which 
allows DOD to avoid costs for operating and maintaining 
government ammunition facilities still necessary for national 
security requirements.
    The committee strongly recommends that the DOD study an 
ARMS-like approach as a viable method of controlling costs at 
other DOD facilities.

                         Other Army Procurement

High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)

    The budget request included $57.7 million for 546 HMMWV's. 
These numbers are significantly reduced from levels previously 
presented by the Army. The need for additional HMMWV's, 
however, has been indicated by both the Army and the Marine 
Corps during testimony before the committee. The recently 
released Tactical Wheeled Vehicle investment strategy outlining 
the Army's long range acquisition strategy for its truck 
programs, reflects increased funding for trucks beginning in 
fiscal year 1997. However, funding shortfalls in fiscal year 
1996 jeopardize HMMWV production capabilities. In order to 
continue to fill the needs of the military services and 
maintain minimum levels of production, the committee recommends 
an increase of $72.0 million to procure approximately 1,300 
additional HMMWV's for the Army in fiscal year 1996. The 
committee is also concerned about the increasing age and 
condition of the HMMWV fleet and recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in the Army's research and development accounts to 
initiate prototype development of a HMMWV Extended Service 
Program (ESP).

Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense recently published a 
new Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Investment Strategy (TWVIS) in 
response to concern expressed by all four defense committees of 
the Congress. This strategy described the extreme underfunding 
of the Army's truck fleets, the rapidly deteriorating age and 
condition of the fleets, and what can be accomplished at 
different levels of increased funding. The committee has been 
concerned about the Army's truck fleets for several years, and 
notes the increased operation and maintenance costs and 
declining readiness as these fleets continue in use without 
replacement or remanufacture.
    The committee notes that the Army failed to request funds 
for the fifth year of a multiyear contract for the FMTV in the 
fiscal year 1996 budget request. The committee is aware that 
the Army has been forced to cut deeply into its modernization 
efforts in order to fund immediate readiness shortfalls 
resulting from inadequate budget levels. As the TWVIS 
indicated, ``At this funding level there is no modernization * 
* *'' As a result, the fiscal year 1996 funding for FMTV 
procurement was reduced from $384.0 million to $39.7 million, 
which would effectively terminate this vitally-needed 
modernization program. The committee understands that the 
contractor has indicated a willingness to negotiate a 
production ``stretch-out'' if additional funding is provided in 
fiscal year 1996 that is less than the contractually required 
amount. The committee recommends an increase of $110.0 million 
for the FMTV program and expects the Army and the contractor to 
cooperate fully in contract renegotiations to maintain 
favorable pricing for the government and to avoid delays in 
delivery of trucks to the Army. The committee expects the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army to ensure 
that the military services' truck programs are adequately 
funded in fiscal year 1997 and throughout the Future Years 
Defense Plan.

Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)

    The Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Investment Strategy (TWVIS) 
recently forwarded to the congressional defense committees by 
the Secretary of Defense indicated significant problems in the 
Army's light, medium and heavy truck fleets. Nonetheless, the 
committee notes that funding provided in the Army's truck 
procurement account for fiscal year 1996 is far below levels 
provided in previous years. The amount in this account over the 
past ten years ranges from a high of $917.0 million to a low of 
$419.0 million and averages $738.0 million per year. The Army's 
fiscal year 1996 funding is only $128.0 million.
    While the most severe problems are currently found in the 
medium fleet, there are serious problems in the other fleets as 
well. Critically important heavy fleets such as the Heavy 
Equipment Transporter (HET), the transporter for the Abrams 
main battle tank, with an estimated economic life of 14 years, 
reached a fleet average age of 13.1 years in 1995.
    The committee, therefore, recommends increases in the 
amounts indicated below within the Family of Heavy Tactical 
Vehicles budget line for the following components of the heavy 
vehicle fleet:
                                                             In millions
      --Heavy Equipment Transporters.............................. $17.0
        (buys 38 HET's toward Force Package (FP)1 prepositioned 
          ship requirements)
      --Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks...................  33.0
        (HEMTT 10 ton)(buys 125 wreckers and tankers for FP 1)
      --Flatracks (for Palletized Loading System).................  30.0
        (buys 2500 flatracks for PLS)
      --Yard Tractors.............................................  15.0
        (procures 202 vehicles to replace overage fleet)
      --HEMTT 10 ton Extended Service Program (ESP)...............  30.0
        (Refurbishes 196-----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      --Total.....................................................$125.0

Medium truck extended service program (ESP)

    The committee is aware that the medium truck fleets (2\1/2\ 
ton and 5 ton) are in worse shape than the other truck fleets 
in the Army in terms of both age and condition. Sixty-one 
percent of the 2\1/2\ ton trucks and seventeen percent of the 5 
ton trucks in the Army qualify for antique license plates in 
several states. The committee has supported programs to procure 
new medium trucks as well as programs to remanufacture trucks 
currently in the fleet. A program is currently underway to 
remanufacture 2\1/2\ ton trucks for the Army National Guard. 
Both the Army and DOD now agree that a comprehensive extended 
service program for medium trucks for both the active and 
reserve components is necessary. The Marine Corps has decided 
to upgrade its medium trucks through an extended service 
program.
    The committee supports the conclusions of the recent 
Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Investment Strategy which endorses new 
vehicle procurement, as well as remanufacture with technology 
insertion for the light, medium and heavy truck fleets. The 
committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million for the 
medium truck extended service program.
    The committee is concerned, however, about the possibility 
of initiating several truck remanufacture programs, thereby 
creating excess capacity in the industry. The committee is also 
concerned about the Army's past selection of firms to 
manufacture military trucks which had never done so, with 
extremely troublesome results.
    The committee prefers that maximum use be made of the 
medium truck ESP currently underway; that separate, additional 
procurements be kept to a minimum to avoid industrial 
overcapacity; and that, for future procurements, consideration 
be given to reliable manufacturers who have demonstrated 
capabilities to produce military trucks.
    In that regard, the committee expects the Army and Marine 
Corps requirements for medium truck ESP will be harmonized to 
provide for the most efficient procurement and to take maximum 
advantage of economies of scale.

Communications and intelligence systems

    The committee is aware of several communications and 
intelligence systems where small investments now will provide 
performance enhancements and significant potential for savings. 
The committee recommends the following increases:
        --$3.3 million to procure CHS-2 hardware for the Army 
        Global Command and Control System;
        --$2.8 million to accelerate procurement of the Defense 
        Messaging System (DMS);
        --$6.4 million to initiate the CHS-2 buy and accelerate 
        software insertion in the All Source Analysis System 
        (ASAS);
        --$5.0 million to procure hardware to support the 
        initial operational test and evaluation and the Task 
        Force XXI operational evaluation for the Maneuver 
        Control System (MCS).

Army Data Distribution System (ADDS)

    The budget request included $19.9 million for the ADDS-
Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS). ADDS-EPLRS 
is a state-of-the-art radio network developed to provide 
robust, wide-area secure tactical data communication, friendly 
identification, and position location/navigation information. 
The committee is impressed with the performance of ADDS-EPLRS 
and recommends an increase of $25.0 million for the procurement 
of 300 EPLRS units, necessary support and field testing.

Single channel ground and airborne radio system (SINCGARS)

    The committee is aware of significant savings that can be 
achieved through accelerated procurement of SINCGARS radios. 
The committee recommends an increase of $54.1 million to buy an 
additional 9600 radios, and urges the Army to add funds in 
fiscal years 1997 and 1998 to allow fielding three years 
earlier than planned.

Commanders Tactical Terminal

    The budget request included $11.3 million for 33 Commanders 
Tactical Terminals (CTT). The committee is aware of the 
capability of CTT to rapidly deliver critical, time-sensitive 
intelligence and targeting information to Army air defense, 
aviation, field artillery and military intelligence units. The 
committee notes the inefficient rates at which the CTT is being 
procured and recommends an increase of $18.7 million to procure 
an additional 55 units.

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

    The budget request included $44.7 million to procure eight 
FAAD-GBS systems. The committee is advised that additional 
funds will provide for more efficient rates of production and 
lower unit acquisition costs. Added funding to procure another 
12 systems would lower the unit acquisition cost from $3.7 
million to $2.7 million--a reduction of $1.0 million per unit. 
The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $19.2 
million for a total of $63.9 million to procure 24 systems in 
fiscal year 1996.

Night vision devices

    In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1995, the committee supported efforts by the Army to upgrade 
night weapon sights which incorporate older generation night 
vision technology. This support included the authorization of 
$2.25 million for generation III image intensification 
technology which, as a direct drop-in replacement for the older 
tubes, would double the range of these weapons sights and 
increase the useful life of the image tube by a factor of five 
times that currently experienced. The Army is currently in the 
process of procuring the first 500 25 millimeter image tubes.
    The committee understands that the Army has provided 
funding in future budgets for this upgrade program. In the 
interim, to ensure continuation of production of the 25 
millimeter tube, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 
million for the Army and an increase of $2.0 million for the 
Marine Corps within their respective night vision devices 
funding lines.

Tactical quiet generators

    The committee is aware of an effort the Army has pursued 
for several years to replace its old, inefficient family of 
generators for field use. The new family of generators will be 
quieter and far more dependable than generators currently in 
use. Significant savings are anticipated through reduced 
maintenance and operating costs and changes in maintenance 
procedures resulting from the procurement of the new family of 
generators. The committee provides an increase of $35.0 million 
to procure new, tactical, quiet generators from 5kw up to 60kw 
for force package 1. The committee expects the Army to include 
funding in fiscal years 1997 through 1999 to continue 
procurement through force package 2.


Section - 121. Seawolf and New Attack Submarine programs.

     The budget request included $1.5 billion to complete 
acquisition of the third and final Seawolf class attack 
submarine, known as SSN-23. The budget request also contains 
$455.4 million for development and $704.5 million for advanced 
procurement for a lead ship of a new class of attack submarine, 
now known as the new attack submarine (NAS).
    The Navy plan, reflected in the budget request, has been to 
obtain authorization for SSN-23 in fiscal year 1996 and 
continue what it calls a design/build process for the NAS with 
lead ship authorization in fiscal year 1998. Design/build, as 
described by the Navy, would be conducted by close coordination 
between the Navy and the proposed builder, Electric Boat. 
Process teams composed of design engineers, waterfront 
production trades, key suppliers, and the Navy, would pool 
their technical and engineering knowledge and employ state-of-
the-art CAD/CAM computer programs to execute preliminary and 
contract design. If the design/build process works as planned, 
it will produce far greater progress toward completion of 
detailed design than is normal at contract award, optimize the 
design for Electric Boat's production process, and produce 
significant overall cost savings. Production efficiencies 
introduced during design and a lower potential for disruptive 
design changes are examples offered by the Navy of the 
potential benefits of the design/build process.
    The Navy contends that its plan would be the most cost-
effective way of delivering advanced capability nuclear 
submarines to satisfy JCS requirements. However, the plan 
derives from a premise that it is vital to national security to 
maintain two nuclear capable shipbuilders--Newport News 
Shipbuilding and Drydock for nuclear aircraft carrier 
construction and refueling overhauls and Electric Boat for 
nuclear submarines. During hearings held by the committee this 
year, some questioned the validity of the Navy's underlying 
premise.
    Testimony and correspondence on submarine procurement that 
the committee received this year dealt with two central 
issues--the requirement to build SSN-23 and competition between 
General Dynamics Electric Boat Division and Newport News 
Shipbuilding and Drydock Company for construction of the NAS. 
At issue with respect to SSN-23 was whether the requirement to 
build the submarine is based on industrial concerns, 
operational requirements, or both and whether the submarine is 
affordable in today's budget environment. At issue with respect 
to the NAS was whether the Navy's plan to allocate all future 
submarine construction to Electric Boat without competition, a 
plan that derives from the Department of Defense's Bottom Up 
Review, was an acceptable course of action for the Navy to 
follow. To properly consider these issues, the committee heard 
testimony from the Navy, the shipbuilders, the General 
Accounting Office (GAO), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 
and the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
    Prior to this year the Navy advanced an industrial base 
argument for SSN-23, asserting that the submarine was necessary 
as an ``industrial bridge'' that will provide sufficient work 
at Electric Boat for that company to remain viable as a 
shipbuilder until construction of the NAS begins in fiscal year 
1998. This year the Navy also introduced an operational 
requirements argument for SSN-23, based on intelligence 
estimates that the worldwide submarine threat from modern, 
quiet submarines is proliferating rapidly. The Navy directed 
specific attention to the Russian submarine program--the 
quietness of both its existing and new construction boats 
relative to the Navy's current front-line attack submarine, the 
SSN-688 class, and the large commitment of resources that 
Russia was devoting to submarine construction. In evaluating 
this threat-based argument, the committee was informed by 
witnesses that, while there is little doubt that the SSN-23 
will perform superbly compared to any submarine now built or 
under construction in both open ocean and littoral missions, 
the existing JCS requirement, 10-12 submarines with quietness 
equivalent to Seawolf (SSN-21), by the year 2012, can be met if 
the Navy executes its current construction plan for the NAS 
without the need to build SSN-23. Thus the committee did not 
find the Navy's operational requirement argument a compelling 
reason to authorize SSN-23.
    Based on testimony and independent evaluation, the 
committee does not take issue with the argument that 
construction work on a scope comparable to that associated with 
SSN-23 is needed for Electric Boat to remain a viable 
shipbuilder for the NAS class. While the committee received 
testimony on other possible construction options that might 
sustain Electric Boat until fiscal year 1998, none appears more 
cost-effective than building SSN-23. Even with SSN-23, Electric 
Boat must reduce its work force from about 18,000 to a steady 
state of about 6,000 and introduce a wide range of management 
and labor efficiencies to remain profitable while building the 
NAS at the rate projected in the future years defense program.
    The issue of competition for the NAS produced strong, 
forceful, and conflicting testimony. Newport News Shipbuilding 
and Drydock introduced strong objections, echoed by committee 
members, to the Navy's plan to allocate submarine construction 
to Electric Boat. Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock is the 
lead design yard for the SSN-688 class and the Seawolf class, 
and has been actively involved in construction of SSN-688 class 
submarines for the past twenty years. It desires to remain in 
the submarine construction business and is seeking competitive 
access to the NAS program as a means to do so. In pursuit of 
this goal Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock performed an 
economic analysis of the savings to the Navy that would result 
if it decided to build all nuclear ships--aircraft carriers and 
submarines, at Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock and 
determined the savings would be substantial. Initially, the 
Navy chose not to offer a comparable analysis, maintaining the 
position that two nuclear capable yards were essential to 
national security and citing the findings of the Bottom Up 
Review as justification. After conflicting testimony before the 
House National Security Committee (HNSC) revealed glaring 
disparities between the Navy and Newport News Shipbuilding and 
Drydock over the potential cost benefits associated with 
carrying out the Navy's plan or shifting all construction to 
Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock, the HNSC commissioned 
the Congressional Research Service to conduct an independent 
analysis for purposes of resolving the confusion. Preliminary 
results of this analysis were available when the committee held 
its hearing on submarine procurement. Further, the Navy had 
decided to prepare its own assessment of the savings and 
offered it for consideration shortly before the committee's 
hearing.
    Much of the testimony on submarine construction received by 
the committee at its hearing on submarine procurement has been 
summarized in the preceding paragraphs. Additional information 
provided by the witnesses included:
          1. the Navy's position on competition for the NAS had 
        evolved. The Navy testified that it was now agreeable 
        to competition at a time, not precisely specified, when 
        the design of the NAS was mature and a building rate 
        that would support competition was achieved;
          2. testimony by GAO included observations that there 
        is some disagreement within the intelligence community 
        on the severity of the potential foreign submarine 
        threat, which could imply a future reassessment of the 
        requirement for U.S. submarine construction;
          3. CBO, which had performed an assessment at the 
        request of a committee member, focused primarily on 
        short-term cost effects associated with not authorizing 
        SSN-23 in fiscal year 1996;
          4. the CRS witness, based on analysis performed by 
        CRS at the request of the HNSC, devoted attention to 
        both the transient short-term and long-term recurring 
        savings that would occur in the period fiscal year 
        2006-fiscal year 2012. Summarizing major items from his 
        testimony:
                  a. when consistent assumptions regarding 
                building rate and future inflation are applied 
                to the Navy and Newport News Shipbuilding and 
                Drydock estimates, savings associated with 
                reducing to a single building yard for 
                submarine construction over the period from 
                fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2012 would be:
                          --Newport News--$5.8 billion
                          --Navy-- $1.9 billion; and
                  b. the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock 
                and Navy estimates of average annual recurring 
                savings after a steady state is reached 
                differed by about $200 million per year. 
                Different estimates for direct labor and 
                material account for most of this difference 
                rather than fixed overhead costs;
          5. both Navy and Newport News Shipbuilding and 
        Drydock agreed that a one yard strategy would be 
        cheaper but disagreed substantially on the amount of 
        savings that could be realized;
          6. the Navy, based on its assessment of cost savings 
        associated with a single yard strategy, believes that 
        the 3 percent penalty it will have to pay to keep two 
        yards is worth the additional cost;
          7. there is no significant difference in the quality 
        of the submarines built by the two shipyards;
          8. there appeared to be a general consensus among the 
        witnesses that, if a competition for the fiscal year 
        1998 lead NAS occurred and the follow ship profile 
        currently planned remained valid, the competition would 
        be winner take all, i.e., the losing yard could not 
        sustain its submarine construction capability until 
        fiscal year 2000 when the Navy plans to request 
        authorization of the second submarine;
          9. some provision must be made to give Newport News 
        Shipbuilding and Drydock access to design information 
        if the shipyard is to be competitive for the lead NAS 
        in fiscal year 1998; and
          10. Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock asserted 
        that modification of the NAS design that is produced by 
        the design/build process at Electric Boat would not be 
        necessary for Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock to 
        compete, provided that Newport News Shipbuilding and 
        Drydock could remain current on the design as it 
        evolved.
    While the committee intends to pursue the most cost 
effective approach to the NAS program, it is reluctant to rely 
exclusively on the accuracy of cost estimates presented at its 
hearing on submarine procurement. The Navy and the shipbuilders 
clearly had positions to defend, and the assumptions underlying 
their analysis were in general favorable to the outcome they 
desired. Attempts at objective analysis by the GAO, CBO, and 
CRS were handicapped by uncertain and incomplete data, or data 
withheld as proprietary. While the estimates tended to bound 
the potential savings associated with shifting to a single 
shipyard for submarine construction, they lacked sufficient 
precision to permit the committee to use them as sole 
justification for a recommendation that would likely cause the 
loss of submarine construction capability at Newport News 
Shipbuilding and Drydock or the extinction of Electric Boat as 
a shipbuilder. Further, while the design/build concept appears 
a sound approach to designing an affordable submarine, the 
committee is concerned that the Navy may wait too long before 
starting competition for the NAS. With regard to competition 
the committee considers that:
          1. competition in shipbuilding is an effective means 
        to minimize cost to the government;
          2. without authorizing and appropriating the 
        necessary funds for the third Seawolf class submarine, 
        SSN-23, in fiscal year 1996, Electric Boat may likely 
        go out of business and competition for the NAS would 
        not be possible; and
          3. for real competition to occur, both shipbuilders 
        must possess a sufficient level of knowledge about the 
        design that either could build the NAS.
    After extensive additional review and consultation the 
committee recommends a provision that would:
          1. authorize the SSN-23 at $1.5 billion, the budget 
        request;
          2. limit the ability of the Secretary of the Navy to 
        obligate or expend funds for SSN-23 until he 
        restructures the NAS program to provide for:
                  a. procurement of the lead NAS from Electric 
                Boat in fiscal year 1998;
                  b. procurement of the second NAS from Newport 
                News Shipbuilding and Drydock in fiscal year 
                1999; and
                  c. competitive procurement of any other 
                vessels under the NAS program with potential 
                competitors being any source to which the 
                Secretary of the Navy has awarded a contract 
                for construction of nuclear attack submarines 
                during the past 10 years.
          3. direct the Secretary of the Navy to solicit 
        competitive proposals and award the contract or 
        contracts for NAS submarines after the second one on 
        the basis of price;
          4. direct the Secretary of the Navy to take no action 
        that would impair the design, engineering, 
        construction, and maintenance competencies of either 
        Electric Boat or Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock 
        to construct the NAS.
          5. direct the Secretary of the Navy to report every 
        six months to the Senate Armed Services Committee and 
        the House National Security Committee the obligation 
        and expenditure of funds for SSN-23 and the NAS;
          6. authorize $814.5 million in fiscal year 1996 for 
        design and advance procurement of the lead and second 
        NAS. Of this amount $10.0 million would be available 
        only for participation of Newport News Shipbuilding and 
        Drydock in the NAS design; and $100.0 million would be 
        available only for advance procurement and design of 
        the second submarine under the NAS program;
          7. authorize $802.0 million in fiscal year 1997 for 
        the lead and second NAS. Of this amount $75.0 million 
        would be available only for participation by Newport 
        News Shipbuilding and Drydock in the design of the NAS; 
        and $427.0 million would be available only for advanced 
        procurement and design of the second submarine under 
        the NAS program; and
          8. authorize $455.4, the budget request, for 
        research, development, test, and evaluation for the NAS 
        program.

Section - 124. Split funding for construction of naval vessels.

    Documentation provided with the budget request and 
testimony offered by witnesses at the committee's hearing on 
shipbuilding programs painted a bleak picture of the current 
projections for modernization of the fleet. Navy ship 
procurement is at its lowest level in real terms since the 
years immediately following World War II. The Navy, which 
testified that it is seeking to sustain a force structure of 
336 ships, will procure an average of 4.67 new ships per year 
under the six year plan accompanying the budget request. Even 
with an optimistic 35 year life expectancy for these ships, 
this procurement rate would produce a steady state fleet size 
of less than 200 ships. Further, when the overlapping period 
included in the fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 budget 
requests were compared, the fiscal year 1996 shipbuilding plan 
lost seven of 22 ships, a 30 percent reduction. This phenomenon 
of unrealized outyear expectations is not uncommon and reflects 
a siphoning away of planned modernization to accommodate 
emerging operational requirements associated with Bosnia, 
Haiti, and Somalia, and reordering of modernization priorities 
for the other services.
    Aside from the impact that such volatile shipbuilding plans 
may have on force structure planning, they can also have a 
dramatic effect on the shipbuilding industrial base. For 
example, a Congressional Research Service study, Navy DDG-51 
Destroyer Procurement Rate: Issues and Options for Congress 
(CRS Rept. 94-343F), published in April 1994, concluded that a 
production rate below three DDG-51s per year would be 
inadequate to sustain the two shipyards that the Navy, based on 
a recently completed acquisition study, concluded are necessary 
for continued procurement of the DDG-51 Aegis Class destroyers 
at an efficient rate.
    Hearing testimony and the committee's analysis of the 
budget request yielded the following observations:
          1. as previously described, the Navy's budget request 
        does not provide sufficient funding to meet its force 
        structure goals;
          2. the construction rate of the six year shipbuilding 
        plan will create a funding ``bow wave'' in fiscal years 
        2002-2005 that will be between two and three times the 
        average funding for construction of new ships during 
        the next six years; and
          3. the shipbuilding industrial base is severely 
        under-utilized, resulting in production inefficiencies 
        and increased unit costs. For example, during his 
        review of the Navy's fiscal year 1996 Program Objective 
        Memorandum, the Secretary of Defense chose to defer the 
        acquisition of two DDG-51 Class destroyers in order to 
        meet what he considered higher priority needs. Aside 
        from further exacerbating the underfunding of ship 
        procurement relative to force structure requirements, 
        this action increased the total cost of the remaining 
        13 destroyers by almost $800.0 million dollars.
    Since the early 1960's the Department of Defense has 
followed a policy for acquisition of major weapons systems, 
shipbuilding being a prime example, that requires full funding 
in the year of authorization--all the funds necessary to 
procure the ship, including a provision for future inflation, 
are included in the budget request even though actual 
expenditures for the ship will occur over five or more years. 
The full funding approach was adopted because unpredictable 
cost growth once construction had begun generated unexpected 
pressure on the annual appropriations process and in the worst 
case caused partially completed projects to be abandoned. While 
this conservative approach helps to insulate the ship 
acquisition process from the impact of unexpected cost growth, 
rigid adherence to it is apt to generate volatile annual 
funding requirements and put extraordinary stress on 
shipbuilding budgets that require a very large commitment of 
capital resources for each ship that is bought. When 
modernization is underfunded relative to requirement and 
capacity, both force structure and the shipbuilding industrial 
base are jeopardized.
    Based on these considerations the committee recommends a 
provision that would permit the Department of Defense to modify 
its acquisition policy for specific shipbuilding programs, in 
selected cases, to allow split funding of ship acquisition. 
This provision incorporates the following concepts:
          1. applies only to shipbuilding programs because of 
        the extraordinary unit cost and the time required to 
        construct;
          2. in preparing its budget request the Department of 
        Defense would divide the total amount required for 
        procurement of a ship, including provision for 
        escalation, into two equal parts that would be 
        requested in consecutive budget requests;
          3. authorization and appropriation of the first 
        increment of funding would be sufficient for the Navy 
        to enter into a contract for the full cost of the ship;
          4. the contract would include a provision for a 
        termination liability reserve in the event that the 
        second increment of funding does not become available;
          5. only ship construction programs that have been in 
        progress for a sufficient amount of time for the costs 
        to be well understood and predictable will be eligible 
        for split funding; and
          6. the Secretary of Defense will propose ships for 
        split funding subject to approval of the committee and 
        the House National Security Committee.
    The committee has incorporated split funding into its 
recommendations on the fiscal year 1996 budget request. 
Accordingly, in fiscal year 1996 the committee recommends 
authorization of $2.2 billion, the budget request, for the full 
funding procurement of two DDG-51 Class destroyers. Of this 
amount $6.8 million is advanced procurement in fiscal year 1996 
to support the fiscal year 1997 DDG-51 budget request. Further, 
the committee recommends an increase of $650.0 million for the 
acquisition of two additional DDG-51 Class destroyers under the 
split funding provision.

                          OTHER NAVY PROGRAMS

                             Navy Aircraft

AV-8B remanufacture

    The budget request contained $148.0 million for the 
remanufacture of four US Marine Corps AV-8B harrier aircraft 
into the Harrier II Plus configuration. The Harrier II Plus 
configuration provides needed radar-equipped aircraft for day/
night/adverse weather use with improved survivability and 
enhanced multi-mission capability. Because additional aircraft 
are needed for fleet deployments of radar-equipped aircraft, 
the committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million to 
procure an additional four aircraft. Procurement of eight AV-8B 
aircraft is a more cost-effective approach than the budget 
request and provides the Marine Corps with increased combat 
capability at a more efficient production rate.

Additional F/A-18C/D strike fighters

    The committee understands that the F/A-18C has substantial 
upgrades over the older F/A-18A's that significantly increase 
its operational capability and warfighting effectiveness. 
Improvements such as AMRAAM, JSOW, JDAM, APG-73 radar, and 
night vision compatibility provide the F/A-18C greater 
capability with greater survivability.
    When the last F/A-18C is delivered in 1998, the F/A-18C 
inventory will peak at approximately 400 aircraft, 36 short of 
the requirement for an all F/A-18C carrier force. This figure, 
436, includes regular squadrons, RDT&E, and pipeline aircraft. 
It does not account for attrition.
    The budget request for 12 F/A-18C's in fiscal year 1996 and 
none in fiscal year 1997 is a reduction of 36 aircraft from the 
Navy's plan for 24 in each of those years. However, the 
requirement for those aircraft still exists to sustain combat 
effectiveness through the early 21st century as the Navy 
transitions to the newer F/A-18 E/F. The night strike F/A-18C's 
will serve until 2015 and beyond.
    The committee is persuaded by the need for more capable 
strike fighter aircraft on carrier decks both now and in the 
future, and recommends the acquisition of 24 F/A-18C's, an 
increase of twelve, and an increase of $564.0 million in the 
APN account of the fiscal year 1996 budget request to provide 
the needed capability.

CH-53E helicopters

    This year the committee is aware of the continuing need of 
the Marine Corps for additional CH-53E helicopters for its 
active and reserve component. In fiscal year 1995 the Navy 
proposed to resolve Marine Corps CH-53E shortages by 
transferring MH-53E helicopters from its airborne mine 
countermeasures (AMCM) squadrons. The committee remains 
concerned about the overall condition of the Navy's mine 
countermeasures capability and has concluded that any 
reductions in the Navy's AMCM squadrons to help satisfy the 
requirement of the Marine Corps would be imprudent. Therefore, 
the committee recommends an increase of $90.0 million for the 
purpose of buying additional CH-53E helicopters for the Marine 
Corps. This action should eliminate any need for the Navy to 
transfer more CH-53E helicopters from the Navy to the Marine 
Corps.

F-14 Forward looking infrared (FLIR)/Laser

    The committee understands the Navy has a continuing need 
for F-14 capability upgrades as the A-6 medium attack aircraft 
retires, and the F-14 assumes the A-6's long range strike role. 
Operational requirements for a FLIR/Laser Designator system 
have only recently been documented in an Operational 
Requirements Document (ORD 406-88-95) of June 1995. This 
emergent requirement is a high priority for carrier operations, 
and will be budgeted in future years by the Navy in the budget 
request. However, the committee understands that before the 
Navy can proceed with any upgrades, it must comply with 
requirements in the Appropriations Conference Committee Report 
(H. Rpt. 103-747) regarding F-14 modernization programs.
    The committee recognizes the need for upgrading F-14 
capabilities and recommends an increase in aircraft procurement 
Navy (APN-5) of $17.1 million to be used with existing funds to 
incorporate a FLIR/Laser in the F-14. These additional funds 
are not to be obligated until previous reporting requirements 
are complied with. The committee understands that the Navy will 
not obligate these funds without providing for funding in the 
FYDP.

Thermal imaging modifications for USMC aircraft

    In order to improve flight safety and navigation, and 
enhance effectiveness of USMC UH-1N helicopters in search and 
rescue missions, the Navy has undertaken a program to upgrade 
them with AN/AAQ-22 navigation thermal imaging systems. To 
ensure that this equipment is procured at an efficient and 
cost-effective rate, the committee recommends an increase of 
$13.0 million to the budget request for the purpose of 
equipping UH-1N helicopters of the Marine Corps' active 
helicopter fleet.

AN/APR-39A(V)-2 radar warning receiver

    The committee has been made aware of the status and need 
for radar warning receivers in helicopters and other low flying 
aircraft. The AN/APR-39A(V)-2 provides warning against radar-
guided and radar-aided threats, and is a joint program led by 
the Army. Now in engineering and manufacturing development, the 
system recently passed Operational Test and Evaluation, but was 
not included in the fiscal year 1996 budget request because the 
services were awaiting the completion of testing before 
requesting funding. The committee recognizes the need for the 
system and recommends an increase of $30.0 million for initial 
procurement of the AN/APR-39A(V)-2 radar warning receiver. The 
committee's recommendation supports the non-recurring 
engineering field support and procurement of an estimated 50 
systems. The committee further expects the department to ensure 
future year acquisition of the system will be budgeted for by 
the department in the FYDP prior to obligating any amounts for 
the acquisition of the initial sets.

Undergraduate NFO Training

    The committee has been advised of a proposal to sell 
seventeen T-39N aircraft plus spare engines and simulators for 
$45.0 million. The aircraft are now leased to the Navy for 
undergraduate Naval Flight Officer flight training. This is the 
only undergraduate aircrew training system in the DOD that is 
not owned by the military. The committee has been informed that 
ownership of these assets by the Navy may result in future 
savings amounting to over $100.0 million. Accordingly, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide an 
analysis of the proposal to the committee no later than March 
29, 1996, so that it can be reviewed for possible further 
action.

                              Navy Weapons

Tomahawk missile

    In its review of the budget request, the committee 
determined that $41.7 million, authorized and appropriated in 
fiscal year 1995, had not been obligated because contract 
savings eliminated the need. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an authorization of $120.0 million in fiscal year 
1996 for the procurement and remanufacture of Tomahawk missiles 
and further recommends that $41.7 million of funds previously 
authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1995 be made 
available in fiscal year 1996 to satisfy the balance of funds 
required for the procurement of 164 Tomahawk missiles, the 
quantity of missiles contained in the budget request.

Direct broadcast service

    The committee has followed the progress of several new 
commercial satellite communications (SATCOM) technologies with 
special interest in direct broadcast service. The committee 
supports insertion of this technology into the military 
communications master plan to reduce the load on dedicated 
military SATCOM systems as well as to provide near-real-time 
information to the warfighter. The committee believes that the 
most affordable means for achieving a near-term Global 
Broadcast Service (GBS) capability is to use the Navy's ultra-
high frequency follow-on (UFO) satellite system. The committee 
is aware of other concepts to provide a GBS capability, and is 
willing to allow the newly established Deputy Under Secretary 
of Defense (DUSD) for Space to evaluate the tradeoffs.
    In order to support a timely resolution of this issue, the 
committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million to PE 
0303109N. If the DUSD for Space does not submit a written 
report justifying an alternative GBS concept to the 
congressional defense committees within 30 days after the 
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1996, the Secretary of the Navy shall proceed to obligate 
the $30.0 million to integrate a direct broadcast capability on 
UFO satellites 8, 9, and 10. If the DUSD for Space selects, and 
justifies in writing, an alternative approach, the committee 
authorizes the DUSD for Space to proceed to employ the $30.0 
million on the preferred GBS approach, beginning 30 days after 
the committees have received the written report. The committee 
will consider the selected approach to be a pilot program for a 
future military GBS system, which will be incorporated into the 
Department of Defense's future MILSATCOM architecture.

                    Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion

Amphibious lift

    The budget request did not contain funds for procurement of 
additional amphibious lift. The committee understands that 
there exists a shortfall in the Navy's ability to satisfy the 
2.5 Marine expeditionary brigade (MEB) requirement of the 
Defense Planning Guidance with active ships. This lift is badly 
needed by the Marine Corps to satisfy its mission as an 
expeditionary force that is ready to respond to emerging crises 
on short notice. One prominent shortfall is in the area of 
large deck, aviation-capable, amphibious assault ships with the 
command and control capabilities needed to support amphibious 
task force commanders. The LHD-7, for which a negotiated 
contract option exists, would satisfy that shortfall.
    The operational requirement for LHD-7 is clear. In written 
reports and testimony before the committee a series of senior 
military leaders have confirmed the strong requirement of LHD-7 
as the anchor for a twelfth amphibious ready group (ARG).
    Last year Congress authorized $50.0 million for the purpose 
of extending the existing contract option for LHD-7 until this 
year. The contractor agreed to extend the option at no cost to 
the government. An additional $50.0 million was appropriated in 
fiscal year 1994.
    Exercising the contract option at this point, while the 
production is in progress, rather that procuring LHD-7 in 2001, 
as currently reflected in the six-year shipbuilding plan, will 
result in a substantial cost savings. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends an increase to the budget request of $1.3 
billion for LHD-7 with the understanding that funds previously 
appropriated in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 will be made 
available as the additional increment needed to fully fund LHD-
7 at $1.4 billion.

LCAC service life extension program

    During its consideration of the budget request, the 
committee received a contractor proposal for a service life 
extension program (SLEP) for the Navy's fleet of landing craft, 
air cushion (LCAC). The proposal raised the committee's 
awareness on how best to maintain the future condition of the 
Navy's LCACs over their projected twenty year service life. A 
related question concerns any capability improvements that may 
be needed to deal with increased lift demands of new weapons 
systems that have been fielded since the LCAC was originally 
designed. Of concern is the fact that production of new LCACs 
already on contract will be completed in fiscal year 1997. It 
may be necessary to take action to preserve the LCAC 
contractor's production capability if it is determined that an 
LCAC SLEP would best be conducted at his production facility 
rather than in home port.
    Discussions between the committee and the Navy determined 
that the Navy has not yet developed a detailed plan for a LCAC 
SLEP program, based on its evaluation that the need for such a 
plan was not imminent. Given current affordability constraints 
in its budget, the Navy had decided that a decision on a LCAC 
SLEP program could be deferred for at least two years. It is 
not clear, however, that the Navy fully considered the future 
status of the LCAC production line when it made this decision. 
The committee also determined that there had not been any 
substantive dialogue between the contractor and the Navy about 
the scope, timing, and costs of a LCAC SLEP program.
    The committee needs more information before it can act on 
the LCAC SLEP program. Accordingly, the Navy is directed to 
prepare a detailed plan for such a program and submit it to the 
committee in company with its fiscal year 1997 budget request, 
ensuring that the costs, benefits, and timing of an option to 
perform the LCAC SLEP on the exiting production line are fully 
considered.

Shipbuilding contract retentions

    The committee is concerned that the Navy may need to revise 
its current procedures for retaining payments on shipbuilding 
and conversion contracts. The committee fears that current 
practices may provide insufficient incentive to the builder for 
improved performance, or may deny shipbuilders needed operating 
capital. These procedures could weaken the Navy's fragile 
shipbuilding industrial base.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Navy to work with the shipbuilding industry to review its 
practices with respect to progress payments, retentions, and 
dispute resolution. The committee directs the Secretary to 
report on the results of this review to the Committee on Armed 
Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security 
of the House by March 1, 1996. The committee expects that the 
report will propose any procedural changes that may better 
sustain the naval shipbuilding industrial base and encourage 
improved shipbuilder performance, without forgoing protection 
of the taxpayers' interests.

                         Other Navy Procurement

Submarine navigation sets

    In fiscal year 1995 the Navy began limited rate procurement 
of the MK-49 ring laser gyro (RLG) navigator. These navigation 
sets will be installed on DDG-51 class destroyers. Other 
candidate ships for this system include cruisers, attack 
submarines, aircraft carriers, and other major combatants. An 
attractive aspect of this plan is that for the first time a 
common navigation set will be installed on surface combatants 
and submarines, greatly simplifying logistics support.
    The navigation system currently installed on U.S. Navy 
submarines is the electrically suspended gyro navigator (ESGN). 
Input from senior submarine force commanders in both the 
Atlantic and Pacific fleets indicates that the ESGN continues 
to be a maintenance and fiscal burden. They recommend 
replacement of submarine force ESGN sets with RLG sets at the 
earliest opportunity.
    Although the Navy has just begun to procure the MK-49 RLG 
navigator, they have been in service as a NATO standard and in 
continuous production since 1987. In service they have proven 
more reliable and accurate than the older spinning mass units 
that they will replace.
    The committee acknowledges the strong recommendations of 
the Navy's senior submarine force operational commanders. It is 
mindful of their conclusion that prompt installation of RLG 
navigation sets in place of existing ESGN sets will generate an 
immediate and significant drop in maintenance costs for the 
U.S. Navy's submarine force. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends an increase of $10.0 million to purchase and install 
MK-49 RLG navigators in U.S. Navy submarines. As a partial 
offset for this increase, the committee authorizes only $1.6 
million, a reduction of $2.5 million, for the ESGN. The $2.5 
million reduction was included in the budget request for ESGN 
reliability modifications. The committee believes that these 
funds would be better utilized for the purchase and 
installation of new MK-49 RLG navigators rather than for 
modifying a system they will soon replace.

AN/SLQ-32 electronic warfare system

    The SLQ-32 advanced capability (ADCAP) program has been 
designed to improve the SLQ-32's active countermeasures 
capabilities against modern threats, support combined and 
integrated operation with decoys, and improve the system's 
counter-targeting capabilities against advanced search and 
targeting radars. The SLQ-32 ADCAP successfully completed 
operational testing after the budget request had been prepared. 
Consequently, the request contained no provision for 
procurement of the SLQ-32 ADCAP in fiscal year 1996. Because of 
affordability constraints, the current future years program 
spreads production over several years at quantities that are 
below economically efficient rates. Upgrades to the system can 
be accomplished by simple removal of old components and 
insertion of new components without the need for a shipyard 
availability.
    The committee believes that the improvements afforded by 
SLQ-32 ADCAP provide badly needed capabilities against modern 
threats and will provide far better electronic countermeasures 
in littoral operations. Consequently, the committee recommends 
an increase of $23.0 million for this program and recommends 
that the Secretary of the Navy consider a multiyear procurement 
approach that will permit the program to be executed in a cost 
effective manner.

Integrated communications for aircraft carriers

    In recent years, major technological improvements have been 
made in command and control systems installed in the Navy's 
aircraft carriers. However, it is the committee's opinion that 
no substantial progress has been made in fielding improvements 
to the interior communications (IC) systems on the aircraft 
carriers or to effectively integrate them with other shipboard 
communications systems. For example, the Navy's newest aircraft 
carrier, CVN 74, will get underway for sea trials with an IC 
system that is not integrated and is based on 40 year old 
technology.
    A formal operational requirement exists for the Navy to 
provide an integrated wired IC system that would provide 
seamless interior and exterior connectivity for the aircraft 
carriers. The committee is aware of a non-developmental item 
system that has been tested aboard CVN 73 with very positive 
results, indicating that there are systems currently available 
that will correct this serious deficiency in the IC systems on 
the aircraft carriers. Whether this system is the best one to 
meet the Navy's needs remains to be fully evaluated. However, 
the committee believes that the Navy needs to promptly survey 
available candidate systems and initiate a procurement program 
for the most suitable one, rather than continuing to pursue the 
lengthy development process that is ill-suited to the rapid 
evolution occurring in information systems technology. The 
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to prepare a report 
on its plan to replace the obsolete IC technology currently 
installed on the Navy's aircraft carriers and submit it to the 
committee no later than December 31, 1995. The committee also 
authorizes an increase of $3.5 million in the budget request 
for the purpose of procuring the best candidate system and 
installing it in an aircraft carrier that the Secretary deems 
most suitable.

Challenge Athena

    The committee has followed the progress of several 
commercial satellite communications (SATCOM) technologies with 
special interest in commercial wideband service such as that 
demonstrated by the Chief of Naval Operations special project 
Challenge Athena. The committee is interested in how this 
technology could be effectively inserted into the military 
communications master plan to reduce over-subscribership to 
current military SATCOM systems as well as provide near real-
time information to the warfighter. Operationally, these 
commercial systems will provide near real-time imagery for 
precision targeting/precision strike, video teleconferencing, 
as well as other high data rate computer capabilities. In 
addition, this connectivity will provide for the health and 
welfare of deployed sailors through the use of video 
telemedicine/telepsychiatry, sailor telephone, and video 
training. The committee recommends an increase of $14.4 million 
to fund wideband terminals in support of commercial 
communications for afloat warfighters.

Sonobuoy procurement

    The statement of managers accompanying the conference 
report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 
fiscal Year 1994 (H. Rept. 103-254) directed the Navy to submit 
a report on sonobuoy inventories. That report was supposed to 
project inventories over a five year period, by accounting for: 
(1) shelf life, (2) procurement rates, (3) usage rates, and (4) 
future inventory requirements. The Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition submitted the 
report on April 13, 1994.
    In reviewing the Navy's report, the committee found that 
the Navy's fiscal year 1995 budget did not carry out the 
report's recommendations. Consequently, the committee shifted 
funds among the individual types of sonobuoys without adding 
funds to the sonobuoy request.
    The Navy budget request for fiscal year 1996 also fails to 
implement the Navy's requirements. The committee understands 
that the Navy made a combination of errors in preparing and 
establishing priorities when developing its budget. More 
important, the budget request fails to satisfy the requirements 
of the Unified and Specified Commanders in Chief. They have 
supported buying roughly 125,000 sonobuoys per year as 
necessary to meet minimum training and operational 
requirements.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following:

        Sonobuoy                                                 Million
AN/SSQ-36.........................................................  $0.2
AN/SSQ-53.........................................................     0
AN/SSQ-62.........................................................   4.1
AN/SSQ-110........................................................  21.9

Electro-optical sight/weapons director

    The committee is aware that the Navy has a broad range of 
electro-optical (E-O) requirements for day/night surveillance 
that the gunfire control systems installed on its surface 
combatants should satisfy. The committee is also aware that a 
wide variety of E-O devices and systems are currently installed 
on Navy combatants. While many of these systems perform similar 
or nearly similar functions, each requires unique life cycle 
support, maintenance and operator training.
    The committee has been informed that the MK-46 E-O sight 
and gun director has demonstrated excellent at-sea performance 
aboard the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers. The committee 
questions why the Navy has chosen not to use this E-O system, 
which is a congressionally funded Navy program, fully life-
cycle supported, and has established Navy school house 
maintenance and operator training in place, for the Navy's CG-
47 Aegis class cruisers and DD-963 Spruance Class destroyers. 
Instead the Navy appears intent on developing and introducing 
yet another E-O system with its own set of unique support 
requirements.
    In the absence of additional information it would appear 
that the Navy has not been pursuing a cost effective approach 
to procurement of E-O systems for its ships. To clarify this 
situation, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 
submit a report to the committee by February 1, 1996 that will 
specifically address the Navy's E-O plans and the future 
funding requirements required to provide the CG-47 Aegis class 
cruiser, the DD-963 class destroyer, and other classes of ships 
with a fully integrated E-O surveillance sight and gun 
director.

Vertical launch system

    During its review of the budget request, the committee 
determined that the Navy's fiscal year 1996 budget could be 
reduced by $1.9 million because fiscal year 1995 installation 
costs for vertical launch systems had proven lower than 
expected. The excess fiscal year 1995 funds can be used in 
fiscal year 1996. Therefore, the committee recommends 
authorization of only $3.6 million for the vertical launch 
system in fiscal year 1996, a reduction of $1.9 million.

Forklift trucks

    During the review of the Navy's fiscal year 1996 budget 
request, the committee determined that funds requested for the 
procurement of forklift trucks can be reduced by $2.0 million 
because excess fiscal year 1995 funds are available to satisfy 
the requirement. Therefore, the committee recommends 
authorization of $1.8 million for the procurement of Navy 
forklift trucks, a reduction of $2.0 million.

                        Marine Corps Ammunition

Marine Corps ammunition

    The committee recommends the following adjustments to the 
budget request for Marine Corps ammunition procurement:

        Item                                                    Millions
7.62mm............................................................ $10.0
cal. .50 SLAP.....................................................  10.0
cal. .50 4&1......................................................  15.0
81mm M889A1 (HE)..................................................  24.0
81mm M816 (IR)....................................................  11.4
120mm APFSDS-T M829A2.............................................   5.0
120mm M830A1 HEAT-MP-T............................................   5.0
Prop Charge, M203A1...............................................  26.0
Grenade, Smoke, V. G955...........................................   0.7
Igniter, M766.....................................................   0.4
Demo Sheet........................................................   2.2
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Subtotal....................................................$109.7

                              Marine Corps

M1A1 tank modifications

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1995, directed that 24 M1A1 tanks be transferred to the Marine 
Corps Reserves. The statement of managers in the conference 
report accompanying the Act (H. Rept. 103-701) indicated that 
the transfer in fiscal year 1995 was intended to be the first 
year of a two-year program to eliminate a shortfall of 48 tanks 
in the Marine Corps Reserve tank battalions. The committee 
recommends an increase of $110.0 million for an additional 24 
M1A2 upgrades for the Army and directs the Army to transfer 24 
M1A1 tanks to the Marine Corps Reserve in accordance with 
procedures set out in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1995. The Marine Corps has indicated a 
requirement to modify these tanks to standards of the Marine 
tank fleet. The committee recommends an increase of $12.3 
million to the modification kits (trkd veh) program to modify 
48 M1A1 tanks to Marine Corps baseline configuration.
    The committee also recommends an increase of $2.2 million 
to the same program to procure 268 modification kits and other 
enhancements for M240G ground-mount medium machine guns.

Operational enhancements

    The committee is aware of several enhancements which would 
provide significant operational improvements for the Marine 
Corps. The committee recommends increases indicated below to 
implement these enhancements:
          --$1.6 million for HAWK Launch modifications.
          --$1.0 million in items less than $2 million for
procurement, modification, and downsizing of four Improved 
Direct Air Support System Central (IDASC) systems.

PSC-5 radios

    The committee understands that the Marine Corps has a 
requirement for critical satellite communications with multi-
service interoperability. The committee recommends an increase 
of $3.0 million to procure 174 PSC-5 radios to complete the 
planned acquisition.

Advanced field artillery tactical data systems (AFATDS)

    The committee strongly supports the AFATDS and is advised 
that operations will be substantially enhanced and savings 
achieved by accelerating procurement and completing the planned 
acquisition for the Marine Corps. The committee recommends an 
increase of $11.0 million to procure 186 AFATDS units currently 
planned for fiscal year 1997, in fiscal year 1996.

Night vision devices (NVD)

    The committee supported efforts last year to upgrade night 
weapon sights which incorporate older generation night vision 
technology. Generation III image intensification technology is 
available as direct drop-in replacements for older tubes. The 
replacement tubes double the range of the weapon's sights and 
increase the useful life of the image tube by a factor of five 
times over that currently experienced. The committee recommends 
an increase of $2.0 million in the Night Vision Equipment 
program for procurement of the 25 millimeter replacement tubes.
    The committee also recommends an increase of $3.0 million 
in the Marine Enhancement Program for procurement of Night 
Vision Magnification Devices which provide 3X magnification, 
significantly extending the range of the current night vision 
goggles.

Computer upgrades

    The committee is advised that the Marine Corps has a 
requirement to upgrade selected computer networks which have 
become technically obsolete and do not interface effectively 
with more modern equipment used by the other services. The 
committee recommends increases indicated below within the ADP 
Equipment program to facilitate necessary upgrades.
          --$17.8 million for Asset Tracking Logistics and 
        Supply System to replace current supply and maintenance 
        system with deployable, integrated system.
          --$3.8 million for procurement of 1580 Lightweight 
        Tactical Computer Units to replace obsolete units.

Trailers

    The committee is aware of the need for the Marine Corps to 
replace its fleet of 40-ton low-bed trailers which are reaching 
the end of service life. The committee recommends an increase 
of $5.5 million for the procurement of M101A3 and M870A2 
trailers.

Water purification and support equipment

    The committee is aware of the need to provide additional 
equipment for both active and reserve Marine Corps units to 
enable Marine forces to purify, store and distribute water in 
tactical operations. The committee recommends increases in the 
tactical fuel systems as indicated below to enhance current 
capabilities:
          --$1.9 million to procure additional equipment used 
        for water storage and distribution.
          --$.5 million to procure 13 medium freshwater 
        purification units for the Marine Corps Reserve.

Training simulators

    The committee strongly supports increased use of training 
simulators by Marines, especially during extended deployments 
aboard ship, when combat skills are subject to rapid 
deterioration. The committee encourages the Marine Corps to 
explore opportunities for greater use of simulation for active 
units and reserve units, especially aboard amphibious ships to 
maintain Marine combat skills. The committee recommends the 
following increases to the training devices program for various 
simulators and devices:
          --$27.5 million for 181 Indoor Simulated Marksmanship 
        Trainers.
          --$5.9 million to modify 287 systems and procure 48 
        additional system trainers for TOW and Dragon antitank 
        weapons.
          --$0.6 million to procure Marine Corps Tank Full Crew 
        Interactive Simulator.
        
        
                           Air Force Aircraft

Strategic airlift

    The Milestone III Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) 
Integrated Airlift Force Decision is planned for November, 
1995. The committee understands this decision will determine 
the proper size and composition of the airlift fleet. If the 
November Milestone III DAB Integrated Airlift Force Decision 
recommends a mixed fleet of additional C-17 and Non 
Developmental Airlift Aircraft (NDAA) to best support our 
airlift requirements, the committee encourages the Air Force to 
begin a robust procurement of those aircraft. To initiate this 
effort, of the funds provided in the fiscal year 1996 budget 
request in the Strategic Airlift account, $183.0 million may be 
used for the NDAA program or for advanced procurement for the 
C-17. The committee also encourages the Air Force to merge the 
$85.0 million remaining from fiscal year 1994 with these funds. 
The committee further expects the Air Force to program funds in 
the future year defense program, starting with fiscal year 
1997, for procurement of the recommended NDAA program in order 
to accelerate and achieve the airlift goals.

C-17 Spares

    The committee is aware that the Air Force's fiscal year 
1996 request for spares and repair parts can be reduced by 
$21.9 million for initial spares allocated to the C-17 because 
the aircraft requires only $95.6 million for initial spares 
instead of the requested $117.5 million. These data are based 
on the assumption of a 120 aircraft C-17 program.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in 
aircraft procurement, Air Force spares and repair parts.

                          Air Force Ammunition

Air Force ammunition

    The committee recommends the following adjustment to the 
budget request for Air Force ammunition procurement:

        Item                                                    Millions
CBU 87............................................................ $30.0
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Subtotal....................................................  30.0

                           Air Force Missile

Defense Support Program procurement

    The budget request included $102.9 million for Defense 
Support Program (DSP) procurement. The committee understands 
that $35.9 million in fiscal year 1995 funds are excess and 
being considered for reprogramming for non-DSP purposes. The 
committee, therefore, reduces the fiscal year 1996 DSP 
procurement budget by $35.9 million and directs the Air Force 
to use the excess fiscal year 1995 funds to fulfill fiscal year 
1996 requirements.

Minuteman guidance replacement program

    The Department of Defense's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) 
recommended that the United States maintain three wings of 
Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) for 
the foreseeable future. The NPR recommended the replacement of 
the aging Minuteman III guidance system electronics and the 
remotoring of the missiles. The committee strongly supports 
rapid implementation of these recommendations and the 
maintenance of 500 operational Minuteman III missiles.
    Minuteman III guidance systems were produced from 1970 to 
1978 with all systems now 7 to 15 years beyond their design 
life of 10 years. To ensure the timely replacement of the aging 
Minuteman III guidance system, the committee recommends an 
increase of $10.0 million in procurement funds to begin the 
guidance replacement program and to ensure that the first 
article delivery, now scheduled for September 1998, does not 
slip again, and that all installations on the 500 Minuteman III 
missiles are complete in the 2002 timeframe.

Global Positioning System block IIF advanced procurement

    In fiscal year 1996 the Air Force plans to begin both 
development and advanced procurement of the Block IIF Global 
Positioning System (GPS) satellites. The budget request for 
advanced procurement was $38.4 million. Due to the excessive 
amount of concurrency between development and procurement of 
this system, the committee believes that a one year delay is 
warranted. The committee believes that this delay will not 
seriously impact the Air Force's ability to develop and deploy 
the Block IIF. Moreover, the delay will allow time to solve 
technical issues associated with the Block IIR. The committee 
therefore recommends no funds for GPS Block IIF advanced 
procurement in fiscal year 1996.

Space boosters

    Due to savings possible by combining Titan, Atlas and 
Centaur activities at the launch bases and manufacturing 
facilities, the committee recommends a $15.0 million reduction 
in the Air Force budget for space booster procurement.

Defense Satellite Communications System

    The budget request for the Defense Satellite Communications 
System (DSCS) procurement was $25.7 million. Due to reduced 
launch costs, the committee recommends a reduction of $7.5 
million in Air Force procurement for DSCS.

                      Other Air Force Procurement

Avionics support equipment

    The Navy has been developing the consolidated automated 
support system (CASS) to provide a common ground support system 
for its sophisticated aircraft avionics. The committee notes 
that the Navy has been making progress on CASS, with 
reliability currently at rates greater than three times the 
operational requirement. Further, the recent competition for 
CASS production has provided significant procurement cost 
savings. The Navy expects that fully fielding the CASS program 
will yield up to $8.0 billion in life-cycle cost savings for 
Navy aviation units.
    The committee is concerned about the Air Force's plans to 
pursue a separate path for supporting each of its aircraft 
avionics systems, despite the similarities among different 
aircraft avionics. Since the Navy has consolidated its support 
requirements for multiple types of aircraft, the committee 
questions whether the additional research and development, 
procurement, and support for each Air Force aircraft system is 
a prudent expense.
    The committee believes that the Air Force should 
investigate using the Navy CASS program as the basis for 
consolidating its avionics support requirements. The committee 
notes that the Air Force has identified airlifting support 
equipment as a major concern for any future deployments. Since 
the Air Force has also established several composite wings, it 
seems reasonable to consider providing common support equipment 
to lessen the potential deployment burdens for these wings. The 
committee understands that the Navy's CASS architecture would 
allow repackaging for a deployable configuration to meet this 
requirement.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to provide a report to the congressional defense 
committees on the potential of applying the Navy's CASS program 
to meet the Air Force's requirements. The Secretary should 
submit the report by March 1, 1996.

                       SUBTITLE D--OTHER PROGRAMS

Section - 131. Tier II predator unmanned aerial vehicle program.

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 
limited the Tier II UAV to ten air vehicles and three ground 
stations, and expressed concern regarding the overall DOD 
management of UAV programs. The committee is unaware of 
additional requirements for Tier II UAV that would justify 
continued procurement, and continues to be concerned about the 
proliferation of different types of UAV's and the capability of 
the DOD organizational structure to manage the number of 
complex and diverse UAV programs in development and 
procurement. The committee notes the lack of progress in 
fielding effective, operational UAV systems, and believes that 
the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office and the UAV Joint 
Program Office could manage fewer programs more effectively. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision which would 
prohibit obligating or expending funds for further procurement, 
research, development, test or evaluation of the Tier II 
Predator UAV program. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report to the defense committees along with 
the fiscal year 1997 budget request indicating measures to 
strengthen the management of UAV programs in order to 
facilitate more timely fielding of required operationally 
effective systems.

Section - 132. Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle program.

    The committee has strongly supported the adaptation of the 
CARS to the entire family of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for 
several years to reduce total personnel requirements, reduce 
the requirement for pilot training, and extend operational 
capabilities by enabling UAV recoveries in all weather 
conditions during day and night operations. The committee is 
convinced that use of CARS will dramatically reduce accidents 
during UAV recoveries, currently a major source of aircraft 
loss and damage.
    The committee has repeatedly identified this system as an 
example of desired commonality, and directed that it be applied 
promptly to all UAV systems in use and under development. The 
committee understands that five sets of CARS are to be procured 
in the summer of 1995 for Pioneer UAVs, and that the remaining 
four of the nine Pioneer systems are to be transferred to the 
Navy.
    As a result of the continuing delay in fielding of CARS on 
UAVs, the committee directs that the Secretary of the Navy 
ensure that five sets of CARS are procured as government 
furnished equipment (GFE) and installed on Navy UAVs as soon as 
possible.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million and 
directs the Secretary of the Navy to procure four additional 
sets of CARS as GFE and install them on the four remaining 
Pioneer systems. The committee reaffirms its commitment that 
CARS should be integral to every UAV system used by U.S. 
military services, and directs the Secretary of the Navy to 
report to the defense committees with the fiscal year 1997 
budget submission a plan for procurement and integration of 
CARS to all U.S. military UAVs.
    The committee recommends a provision which would restrict 
the obligation of funds for the operations and activities of 
the UAV Joint Program Office until all nine Pioneer systems are 
equipped with CARS.


Mark V special operations craft

    The Mark V special operations craft is an 81-foot aluminum 
monohull craft with a displacement of 55 tons, a sustained top 
speed of 45 to 50 knots and a range of 250 to 300 nautical 
miles. The Mark V is intended to provide a medium range 
insertion and extraction capability for Special Operations 
Forces in a low to medium threat environment and a secondary 
mission of coastal patrol and interdiction. The budget request 
provided $19.5 million for the procurement of two Mark V craft 
with associated equipment. Commander-in-Chief, Special 
Operations Command in testimony before the Armed Services 
Committee in February, 1995 stated that four craft were 
required in fiscal year 1996.
    The committee recommends an increase of $17.7 million to 
procure two additional Mark V craft and associated equipment in 
fiscal year 1996.

Rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB)

    The committee supports the effort to acquire a fleet of 
RHIBs as the standard mobility platform for SEAL platoons, and 
is aware that the initial 10-meter RHIB design proved 
unsatisfactory. The committee recommends a decrease of $4.3 
million in Special Operations Forces (SOF) Maritime Equipment 
and a corresponding increase of that amount to the RDT&E 
account program element 116404BB to provide adequate funds for 
a follow-on developmental effort. The committee authorizes the 
Special Operations Command to use funds remaining in the SOF 
Maritime Equipment account to procure 24-foot RHIB craft from 
industry until the new RHIB under development can be procured 
in sufficient quantities.

                  National Guard and Reserve Equipment

    The committee continues its strong support for the National 
Guard and the other reserve components but remains concerned 
about the degree to which the National Guard and the other 
reserve components are being modernized. The committee is 
convinced that the Department of Defense has grown to rely on 
annual congressional increases for equipment for the National 
Guard and the other reserve components and does not include in 
annual budget requests adequate resources to properly equip the 
reserve components. The committee recommends a provision in 
title X, described elsewhere in this report, which would 
require the Secretary of Defense to submit a special report to 
the congressional defense committees dealing with these issues.
    The committee recommends an increase of $777.4 million for 
equipment for the National Guard and the other reserve 
components as indicated in the following table:

                           Title I Procurement

National Guard and Reserve Equipment
    Army Reserve                                               Thousands
        Medium Truck ESP......................................   $10,000
        Heavy Truck Modernization.............................    15,000
        Night Vision Equipment................................     5,000
        Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System 
          (SINCGARS)..........................................     5,000
        Chemical/Biological Defense Equipment.................     2,000
        Miscellaneous Equipment...............................    25,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

                                                                 $62,000
    Naval Reserve
        C9 Upgrade............................................   $25,000
        F-18 Upgrades.........................................    24,000
        MIUW TS Q-108.........................................    10,000
        Miscellaneous Equipment...............................    15,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

                                                                 $74,000
    Marine Corps Reserve
        AH-1W Helicopters (3).................................   $35,000
        SINCGARS..............................................     5,000
        Night Vision Equipment................................     5,000
        Miscellaneous Equipment...............................    10,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

                                                                 $55,000
    Air Force Reserve
        C-130J (5)............................................  $210,000
        C-20G (1).............................................    30,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

                                                                $240,000
    Army National Guard
        Avenger (1BN).........................................   $54,000
        Paladin/FAASV (1BN)...................................    55,000
        MLRS (1BTRY)..........................................    16,400
        M113A3 Upgrades.......................................    10,000
        M113A3 Night Viewers..................................     2,000
        Medium Truck ESP......................................    10,000
        Heavy Truck Modernization.............................    10,000
        Night Vision Equipment................................     5,000
        Chemical/Biological Defense Equipment.................     2,000
        SINCGARS..............................................     5,000
        AH-64 Mission Simulator...............................    15,000
        AH-1 Boresighting Device..............................     5,000
        Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (CH-47).....     5,000
        Miscellaneous Equipment...............................    15,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

                                                                $209,400
    Air National Guard
        C-130 H (3)...........................................  $102,000
        KC-135 Re-engining (1)................................    26,000
        C-26 (2)..............................................     9,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

                                                                $137,000
        Total.................................................  $777,400

National Guard artillery modernization

    The committee remains committed to ensuring the Army 
National Guard is adequately modernized. A key component in the 
modernization plan of the Army National Guard is the upgrade of 
51 battalions and seven additional batteries with the M109A6 
Paladin system. Initial cost estimates of this modernization 
exceed current levels of funding.
    A possible interim solution to this modernization problem 
is an upgrade of the M109A5 system currently in the Army 
National Guard inventory. The committee encourages the Army to 
evaluate the M109A5 upgrade for digital and survivability 
advantages and other enhancements until the M109A6 can be 
fielded to all appropriate Army National Guard units.
    In order to accomplish this evaluation, the Army is 
authorized to use RDTE funds to prototype and evaluate not more 
than two M109A5 systems for use by the Army National Guard.

High Capacity Air Ambulances

    The committee understands the Army will complete a mission 
needs statement (MNS) and operational requirements document 
(ORD) before October 1, 1995 for a High Capacity Air Ambulance 
(HCAA). These documents will provide the rationale and 
definition for a program of responsive casualty evacuation 
combined with enroute treatment.
    Because of the existing expertise within the National Guard 
in emergency medical service, aviation, and operations, the 
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to assign the mission, 
once developed, to the National Guard; and to report to the 
committee not later than April 15, 1996 on the recommended 
doctrine, organization, and mission statement for the High 
Capacity Air Ambulance concept.

Naval Reserve C-9B Aircraft

    The committee is aware of the need to get the longest use 
of existing systems through periodic upgrades. The committee 
recommends $25.0 million of the total funds authorized for 
National Guard and Reserve equipment be used for the purpose of 
continuing the avionics modernization program for the C-9B 
aircraft in an effort to avoid block obsolescence of these 
efficient and durable aircraft.
      TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION (RDT&E)

    The committee recommends investments in research and 
development to address mission needs and to ensure that 
military systems embody the most advanced technologies.
    Appropriate subcommittees of the full committee conducted 
hearings and reviewed information on various research and 
development program requests including: national and theater 
missile defense programs; Army general purpose programs; new 
ships and related ship programs; tactical and strategic 
aircraft and associated systems; counterproliferation programs; 
command, control and communications programs; science and 
technology programs; and DOD dual-use technology programs.
    The committee's research and development priorities were to 
focus on improving battlefield capabilities assuring 
contingency U.S. military superiority and to achieving future 
savings. In the case of the request for science and technology 
programs, the committee agreed to reduce funding for the 
maintenance of the RDT&E infrastructure and for unspecified 
investment in favor of maintaining strong technology base 
programs in the military departments.
    The committee recommendations appear in subsequent tables.
Explanation of tables
    The tables in this title display items requested by the 
administration for fiscal year 1996 and the committee's actions 
in regard to the requested amounts. As in the past, the 
administration may not exceed the amounts approved by the 
committee (as set forth in the tables or if unchanged from the 
administration request, as set forth in the Department of 
Defense's budget justification documents) without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.

    SUBTITLE B--PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS

Section - 211. A/F117X long-range, medium attack aircraft.
Joint advanced strike technology program
    The Department of Defense established the joint advanced 
strike technology (JAST) program to develop technologies that 
would lead to replacements for several different aircraft 
systems for the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Navy. Each 
of the three services has distinctly different requirements. 
The Air Force needs a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) 
aircraft to replace the F-16. The Marine Corps needs a 
vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) aircraft to replace 
the AV-8B. The Navy needs a survivable medium attack variant to 
meet the requirements formerly filled by the A-6. The committee 
believes that the JAST program represents a bold leap ahead in 
technology integration, with an emphasis on cost-effective 
solutions.
    The organization, management and technical expertise 
embodied in the JAST program leadership have made a favorable 
impression on the committee. However, even with the best 
leadership and expertise, the program faces substantial 
challenges.
    The most doubtful aspect of the program's future is its 
ability to fulfill the needs of three different services. Two 
years ago, the committee asked the Department to report on the 
potential for having the Navy participate in the F-22 program 
as a way to meet the Navy's requirements for a highly capable 
aircraft platform. The DOD report explained the difficulty of 
having the Navy join the F-22 program, although the F-22 
program had not completed a single engineering and 
manufacturing development (EMD) aircraft. So, while the 
Department claims that the F-22 cannot be modified before 
production for a naval mission, the Department asserts that the 
JAST program will provide Air Force, Marine and Navy variants.
    The committee believes that there are two separate 
approaches that would be appropriate to reduce risk that JAST 
will not meet expectations.

Risk Reduction--Current Program

    For the JAST program to be deemed a complete success, the 
program must deliver a true, low cost family of operational 
aircraft to meet the needs of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine 
Corps. The committee believes that concept demonstration 
aircraft flight testing is critical to making such a successful 
transition. A test of full scale, full thrust demonstration 
aircraft by competing contractors would provide test data 
applicable to evaluating the unique attributes required by each 
Service. It would also be in keeping with the committee's 
longstanding ``fly-before-buy'' philosophy. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, from within funds 
in the original fiscal year 1996 budget, to ensure that the 
JAST program leads to such a competitive demonstration.
    Further, the committee believes supporting competitive 
propulsion programs would help reduce risk and lead to higher 
confidence of achieving more affordable life cycle costs. The 
committee fears that the current JAST approach may lead to 
selecting one power plant manufacturer prematurely. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Secretary to evaluate at least two 
propulsion concepts from competing engine companies as part of 
the full scale, full thrust aircraft demonstrators.

Risk Reduction--Additional Program Scope

    Of the three sets of requirements, the committee believes 
that Navy's is most demanding. Unfortunately, the Department of 
Defense will have few alternatives for meeting the medium 
attack variant requirement if the JAST program cannot.
    The committee is aware of a proposal to develop a carrier-
capable variant of the F-117 stealth fighter that could greatly 
benefit from capabilities pioneered in the F-117 program. The 
F-117 has a distinguished combat record. Developing a carrier-
capable variant would be in keeping with a near-term 
modernization strategy of acquiring developed systems. This 
could help provide confidence in a workable solution to meet 
the Navy's needs through capitalizing on development already 
done, and could provide an available alternative in case the 
JAST program is unable to fulfill all three sets of 
requirements.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to conduct a thorough examination of this proposal in fiscal 
year 1996 to develop a carrier-capable variant of the F-117 
stealth fighter, a so-called ``A/F-117X,'' in defining a 
potential program. The committee expects the essential risk 
reduction efforts to include: large scale high and low speed 
wind tunnel testing, radar cross section (RCS) component 
testing, detailed propulsion design, structural analysis to 
validate carrier suitability, and completion of required trade 
studies and reports to validate A/F-117X capability to meet 
defined Navy requirements.
    The committee recommends an additional $175.0 million in 
fiscal year 1996. The committee directs that the Navy not 
expend more than $25.0 million of this amount to conduct the 
initial examination. The Secretary shall submit a report on the 
results of this examination to the congressional defense 
committees by March 29, 1996. Final analysis by the Navy should 
assess production risk, scope, aircraft performance, and cost 
for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) program.
    The remaining $150.0 million would be made available to 
execute an A/F-117X EMD program, presuming that the Secretary 
of the Navy approves the results of program definition effort. 
The committee expects that these additional EMD funds will be 
used to modify an existing F-117A test asset to a configuration 
able to demonstrate carrier suitability, flying qualities, and 
low observables durability in a shipboard environment in the 
near-term. Such demonstrations should allow the Navy to assess 
the critical carrier suitability qualities of the A/F-117X 
design concept early in the execution of a full EMD program.
    The committee also directs the Secretary of the Air Force 
to review the manufacturer's offer to complete the originally 
planned F-117 force structure, including potential upgrades 
through inserting technology from present development efforts. 
This effort should serve as the basis for comparing 
alternatives for meeting future Air Force requirements, 
including JAST products, F-22 attack variants, and an upgraded 
F-117.

Section - 212. Navy mine countermeasures program.

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 
1992 and 1993 included a provision that transferred the primary 
responsibility for developing and testing naval mine 
countermeasures systems to the Director, Defense Research and 
Engineering during fiscal years 1993 through 1997. The 
provision contained a waiver that would permit the Navy to 
retain responsibility for developing and testing naval mine 
countermeasures if (1) the Secretary of Defense determined that 
the Secretary of the Navy had annually submitted to him an 
updated mine countermeasures master plan whose budget was 
adequately funded in the future years defense plan and (2) the 
Secretary of Defense certified the adequacy of the Navy's plan 
to the congressional defense committees each year during the 
effective period of the provision. The National Defense 
Authorization Act of 1994 amended the applicable period to 
include fiscal years 1995 through 1999.
    To better assign responsibility to the cognizant official 
in the Department of Defense, the committee recommends an 
amendment that would substitute the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition and Technology in lieu of the Director, Defense 
Research and Engineering as the person responsible for 
developing and testing naval mine countermeasures systems. The 
amendment would also change the applicable period to include 
fiscal years 1997 through 1999.

Section - 213. Marine Corps shore fire support.

    The committee has strongly encouraged the Navy/Marine Corps 
team over the past five years to develop or acquire shore fire 
support capability to supplant the firepower lost when the 
Navy's battleships were decommissioned. The committee has 
repeatedly indicated its views to the Navy and the Marine Corps 
that the capability to provide indirect fire suppression, 
essential for the conduct of amphibious operations, is an 
urgent requirement. The committee is unimpressed with Navy/
Marine Corps efforts to date to devise a solution to this 
deficiency.
    The committee is aware of improvements to the Army Multiple 
Launch Rocket System (MLRS) which may make the MLRS a suitable 
system to provide requisite shipboard indirect fire suppression 
for Marine Corps amphibious operations. The Army has already 
developed and will soon begin production of the Extended Range 
(ER) rocket which will increase the range from 30 to 45 
kilometers. The Army also has a program underway to improve the 
actuator system on the launcher which may provide sufficient 
stabilization to the system to enable MLRS to be fired 
effectively from the deck of a ship. The Army also has a 
developmental program to adapt Global Positioning System (GPS) 
guidance to both the MLRS launcher and rocket. These 
improvements indicate the potential of the MLRS to assume a 
major role in filling the Marine Corps requirement for sea-
based indirect fire suppression.
    The committee believes the Navy could conduct a live-fire 
demonstration in fiscal year 1997 if funding is provided in 
fiscal year 1996 to allow preparation for such demonstration.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million and 
recommends a provision which would direct the Secretary of the 
Navy to make necessary preparations in fiscal year 1996 to 
conduct a shipboard demonstration of ER-MLRS, incorporating the 
improved launcher mechanical system (ILMS) and a guided rocket 
in fiscal year 1997. The Secretary of the Navy is also directed 
to ensure that the Navy/Marine Corps team thoroughly examines 
two potential applications of ER-MLRS: (1) firing the improved 
ER-MLRS from the deck of a ship to support an amphibious 
assault; and, (2) transporting the MLRS launchers via LCAC to 
the beach where these launchers then would become the Marine 
Corps general support artillery. The Secretary of the Navy 
shall also submit to the congressional defense committees a 
progress report on this program in May and September, 1996.
    The committee does not intend this effort to supplant Navy 
shore fire support developmental efforts, but to complement 
such efforts. The committee believes, however, that the sea-
based MLRS concept could be fielded early, providing a near-
term capability.

Section - 214. Space and missile tracking system program.

    The Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) will replace and 
provide increased performance over the existing Defense Support 
Program (DSP) system. SBIRS will incorporate new technologies 
to enhance detection, provide direct reporting of strategic and 
theater ballistic missile launches, and provide mid-course 
tracking and discrimination data for national and theater 
missile defense. The system will consist of sensors located in 
geosynchronous orbits (GEO), highly elliptical orbits (HEO), 
and low earth orbits (LEO), and an integrated centralized 
ground station serving all space elements of SBIRS as well as 
DSP.
    The committee commends the Department of Defense for the 
process that was employed in deciding upon the SBIRS 
architecture and the streamlined acquisition strategy that has 
been adopted. The committee expects the resulting integrated 
structure to provide the basis for program stability and 
efficiency in what has been an overly turbulent and protracted 
search for a DSP follow-on. More importantly, the committee 
expects the SBIRS program to be a catalyst in the development 
of a new approach to missile warning. Tactical Warning and 
Attack Assessment (TW/AA) can no longer be viewed as a mission 
which stands separate from ballistic missile defense. Future 
national and theater missile defenses must be integrated with, 
and take maximum advantage of, the SBIRS architecture. SBIRS 
also signals a dramatic technical departure from past 
approaches. The introduction of a distributed LEO constellation 
will provide tremendous advantages and opportunities, some of 
which are not yet fully understood. In addition to its role in 
missile defense, the LEO system will make major contributions 
in the areas of technical intelligence and space object 
characterization and surveillance.
    The budget request for SBIRS included $130.7 million for 
Demonstration/Validation (Dem/Val), $152.2 for Engineering and 
Manufacturing Development (EMD), and $19.9 million for 
Procurement. Of the funds requested for Dem/Val, $114.8 million 
was for the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS), formerly 
known as ``Brilliant Eyes.''
    After evaluation of its original ground system development 
plan, the Air Force has decided to restructure the program to 
re-phase hardware purchases and software engineering to allow 
for a more careful evaluation of system costs versus military 
utility. Hence, the $19.9 million procurement request is no 
longer needed for the previously identified purpose. The 
committee, therefore, recommends no funding for SBIRS 
procurement (PE 35915F), and recommends that $10.0 million of 
these funds be transferred to SBIRS EMD (PE 0604441F) to 
support ground system risk reduction, for a total of $162.2 
million. Of this amount, the committee directs the Secretary of 
the Air Force to use $9.4 million to launch the third Miniature 
Sensor Technology Integration (MSTI-3) satellite. MSTI-3 will 
provide critical infrared background clutter phenomenology data 
for the SBIRS high element EMD program.
    Although the committee endorses the priority and schedule 
for the GEO and HEO components of SBIRS, it views the current 
schedule for the LEO segment to be unacceptably prolonged. 
Current plans do not call for the first launch of an objective 
SMTS satellite until 2006. This leisurely schedule is based on 
the assumption that SMTS will not be needed to support national 
or theater missile defenses before this date. The committee 
strongly disputes this planning assumption. Theater missile 
defense systems that will be able to exploit SMTS data will 
become operational before the turn of the century. More 
important, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 (Subtitle C of Title 
II), is premised in part on an SMTS initial operational 
capability in fiscal year 2003.
    The committee notes that there are no technical obstacles 
to having a first launch of an SMTS user operational evaluation 
system (UOES) satellite in 2001. The committee, therefore, 
recommends a provision which requires the Secretary of the Air 
Force to restructure the SMTS program to support a first launch 
of UOES satellites in fiscal year 2001, with the full SMTS 
constellation (consisting of a combination of UOES satellites 
and objective satellites) on orbit by the end of fiscal year 
2003. To support this restructured schedule, the committee 
recommends an authorization of $250.0 million in fiscal year 
1996 for the SMTS program, an increase of $135.0 million over 
the budget request. The committee directs the Air Force to 
restructure the SMTS schedule to meet the following milestones:
          --Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design 
        Review (CDR) of the flight demonstration system (FDS) 
        in fiscal year 1996.
          --System Requirements Review (SRR) for the objective 
        SMTS satellites in fiscal year 1996.
          --Formal Requirements Review (FRR), deployment 
        decision, and PDR for the objective SMTS satellites in 
        fiscal year 1997.
          --Launch of the FDS satellites in fiscal year 1998.
          --CDR for the objective satellites in fiscal year 
        1999.
    The objective SMTS system shall be designed, developed, 
tested and constructed to detect, characterize, track, and 
synthesize stereo track information concerning ballistic 
missile attack. The system shall be designed to generate and 
transmit, in a sufficiently timely manner, all data necessary 
to enable defensive interceptors to commit, launch, fly-out, 
and receive in flight target updates and guidance information 
in advance of--or in place of--the defensive system's 
associated radar, and in a way which maximizes the kinematic 
potential of the defensive interceptor to conduct ballistic 
missile intercepts.
    To ensure that this schedule and these technical 
specifications are met, the committee recommends a provision 
which would require the Air Force to seek the concurrence of 
the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization 
before implementing any decision that would have any of the 
following results regarding SMTS: (1) a reduction in funds 
available in any fiscal year; (2) an increase in the total 
program cost; (3) a schedule delay; or (4) a modification of 
the performance parameters or specifications.
    As a result of budgetary constraints, the Air Force has 
been forced to down-select to a single flying contractor for 
the SMTS FDS. While the committee does not oppose this 
decision, it does believe that the Air Force should consider 
alternatives for maintaining competition and reducing risk. The 
committee is aware of proposals to have the non-flying 
contractor conduct a low-cost flight experiment to provide a 
second SMTS concept capable of moving forward into EMD. The 
committee understands that such a flight experiment could be 
conducted for a total of $80 million over three years. The 
committee urges the Air Force to carefully evaluate this 
alternative and to determine whether this approach could in 
fact reduce risk and help meet the deployment goals specified 
above. If the Secretary of the Air Force determines that this 
approach would help achieve the deployment goals specified 
above, the committee authorizes the use of up to $40 million of 
the funds authorized for SMTS in fiscal year 1996 to begin such 
a low-cost flight experiment.

Section - 215. Precision guided munitions.

    The Heavy Bomber Study required by the National Defense 
Authorization for Fiscal Year 1995 emphasized the value of 
precision guided munitions (PGM) in future air campaigns as an 
especially cost effective warfighting capability.
    While the committee is persuaded of the importance and 
value of precision guided munitions, it is also concerned over 
the management and rationalization of the many disparate 
programs in production and under development. The military 
services have bought or are developing 33 types of PGM with 
over 300,000 individual munitions to attack surface targets. 
The services estimate that when planned development and 
procurement are complete, the United States will have invested 
nearly $58.6 billion (then year dollars) in the 33 PGM types. 
Presently there are 19 munition types in inventory and 
production with a total of 130,422 munitions acquired at a cost 
of $30.4 billion.
    Within the overall category of PGM, the committee has 
acknowledged three areas for concern: upgrades to the bomber 
force to enable them to employ PGM; the need for a long-term 
cohesive, joint PGM program; and a coherent, interim plan to 
provide limited numbers of precision munitions that are now 
available while the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) family 
of weapons completes development.

Interim PGM

    The committee acknowledges the requirement for precision 
munitions, both those than can be procured now as ``interim'' 
capability, and those under development for the future. 
However, the committee also recognizes the need for a rational, 
structured program for both near-term and long-term PGM 
requirements, while acknowledging the individual Services' 
concepts of operations and unique platform characteristics. In 
requiring a comprehensive review of PGM procurement and 
development, the committee's intent is not to develop a single 
weapon that embodies excessive compromises to fit each 
service's platform characteristics, but rather to ensure 
complementary development of systems to cover a wide range of 
targets.
    The committee is persuaded of the need to rationalize and 
oversee the acquisition of PGM's to ensure:

          --adequate future commitment to completion of the 
        acquisition programs;
          --a comprehensive evaluation of complementary and 
        joint use of weapons to attack a comprehensive target 
        set (fixed, mobile, land and sea) from a variety of 
        delivery systems;
          --efficient development and procurement of systems.

Section - 216. Defense Nuclear Agency programs.

    The committee is concerned with the decline in funding for 
research and development for the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) 
and the resulting detrimental impact on nuclear expertise and 
the ability of the Services to operate in a nuclear, 
biological, and chemical environments. Funding for DNA research 
and development has declined by around 40 percent over the past 
fifteen years, and based on documents provided to the 
committee, it appears that the Secretary of Defense intends to 
make even further reductions. This action is extremely 
disturbing, considering the threat of the proliferation of 
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and technology, as 
stated by the President, the Secretary of Defense, the 
Commanders in Chief and the Services, in statements and 
testimony before the Congress.
    Equally, if not more troubling, is the idea that radiation 
hardening of microelectronics to protect space-based systems is 
unnecessary and not affordable in today's security environment. 
The demand for radiation hardened chips has dropped since the 
end of the Cold War, however, the threat of proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction makes limited nuclear use in 
regional conflicts much more likely. Current U.S. strategy and 
conventional superiority relies on high technology systems 
which are becoming inherently vulnerable to the effects of 
radiation and electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Current and next 
generation military satellites are vulnerable to a single 
nuclear strike, undermining our conventional warfighting 
capability. Given the attention the Department places on 
proliferation and the maintenance of conventional superiority 
in a regional contingency, the current lack of attention on 
radiation hardening is strategically shortsighted.

DNA Mission

    The committee is also concerned that the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense continues to question DNA's mission, 
despite a series of exhaustive congressionally-mandated reviews 
spanning several years, which concluded that DNA should serve 
as the Department of Defense's center for nuclear expertise; 
and that its expertise should be applied to the emerging 
nuclear and related weapons of mass destruction (WMD) 
challenges and related defense needs, particularly in the area 
of counterproliferation targeting technologies and biological 
and chemical agent destruction. The committee expects the 
Department of Defense to maintain this mission and to maximize 
the DNA's inherent expertise over a wide range of national 
security challenges, as well as consolidate further nuclear 
support missions within the Agency. Furthermore, as the agency 
with expertise in nuclear matters for the Department, the 
committee expects DNA to be an outspoken advocate for its 
missions. In order to be effective, the resources necessary to 
perform simulation of weapons effects using non-nuclear testing 
methods and other applications to enhance the span of lethality 
options must be included in its budget. The committee is not 
convinced that in this era of declining budgets that the 
Services will allocate or prioritize the necessary funds to 
compensate DNA for such tests. It is the committee's experience 
that, faced with conflicting priorities, the Services would 
place simulation and testing near the bottom of their priority 
lists. Additionally, DNA can offer efficiencies, as DOD's 
center for nuclear expertise, which the Services cannot offer. 
In this era of declining budgets, consolidating funding and 
effort should be guiding principles in dealing with the WMD 
threat. DNA remains a key player in the national nuclear 
support infrastructure and a central participant in the 
national response to the WMD challenge.

DNA Budget Request

    The committee recommends authorization of $252.9 million 
for fiscal year 1996 for the Defense Nuclear Agency, a $23.0 
million increase to the fiscal year 1996 budget request. Of 
those funds authorized, the committee directs the following:
          --$3.0 million for the establishment of a tunnel 
        characterization/neutralization program to be managed 
        by DNA as part of the department's counterproliferation 
        effort. The initial source of funding for this effort 
        shall include the $10 million directed by the Deputy 
        Secretary to DNA in Fiscal Year 1996 for this purpose;
          --$6.0 million for the establishment of a long-term 
        radiation tolerant microelectronics program to ensure 
        the continued operability of U.S. military systems in 
        regional WMD-threat scenarios. DNA shall serve as the 
        focal point for this DOD-wide effort to develop 
        affordable and effective hardening technologies, ensure 
        their incorporation into systems, and sustain the 
        supporting industrial base. Additionally, the Secretary 
        is directed to provide a report to Congress on the 
        effort to be conducted and the outyear funding 
        required, no later than 120 days after the enactment of 
        this Act.
    The committee strongly encourages the Department to 
maintain DNA research and development funding at no less than 
the current level and to apply greater resources in the 
outyears to ensure continued nuclear competence.

Electro-Thermal Chemical (ETC) Gun Program

    Lastly, the committee is pleased to learn of the 
significant technical progress of DNA's Electro-Thermal 
Chemical (ETC) Gun Program. This program is an ideal example of 
the outgrowth of DNA nuclear expertise being used for 
conventional purposes. Using nuclear expertise developed at DNA 
for pulse power and plasma physics, the DNA ETC gun program 
meets the United States Navy's requirement for Naval Surface 
Fire Support as a low cost, high performance alternative with 
sufficient range and lethality, as well as required rate-of-
fire. This past year, DNA completed a series of firings with a 
conventional propelling charge and a low vulnerability (LOVA) 
propellant which demonstrated better repeatability than the 
current naval gun system. Equally significant, DNA 
technological advancements have dramatically reduced the 
electrical requirement, significantly reducing the size of the 
Pulse Forming Network. Recognizing the revolutionary potential 
of this new technology, the United States, British, German, and 
French armies are now pursuing analogous electric armaments 
research. The committee encourages Army consideration of ETC 
propulsion for future tank applications. DNA is encouraged to 
support these expanded U.S. and allied efforts. To compensate 
for the reduction made in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations 
process, the committee recommends an additional $4 million in 
fiscal year 1996 for the DNA ETC Gun Program.

Thermionics

    The committee is dissatisfied with the slow pace of the 
thermionics conversion technology under Air Force management, 
and therefore recommends the transfer of the thermionics 
conversion technology from the Air Force Weapons program 
(PE62601F) and unobligated funds authorized and appropriated in 
prior years, totalling around $12.0 million to the Defense 
Nuclear Agency program (PE62715H). This program converts 
thermal energy from a number of different sources into 
electricity without the use of moving parts. There are a number 
of defense applications for satellite power and propulsion 
systems as well as potential commercial applications in energy 
conservation. The committee also recommends an increase of 
$10.0 million to accelerate this program in fiscal year 1996.

Section - 217. Counterproliferation support program.

    The fiscal year 1996 budget request included $108.2 million 
for the Counterproliferation Support Program to accelerate the 
development and deployment of essential military 
counterproliferation technologies and capabilities in the 
Department and the military services. The committee recommends 
an increase of $36.3 million to the budget request.
    Since the end of the Cold War, the committee has been 
reviewing programs of the Department of Defense, the Department 
of Energy, and the intelligence community to prevent the 
proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and 
their delivery systems. The committee has supported robust 
funding in research and development programs for near-, mid-, 
and long-term approaches to addressing the problem. To 
prioritize and optimize funding for non/counterproliferation 
initiatives, the Congress created the Counterproliferation 
Program Review Committee (CPRC).
    The proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological 
weapons are a major potential threat to national security. 
Areas of continuing concern to the committee are biological 
detection, deep underground detection and attack, and emergency 
preparedness and response. The committee is also concerned that 
funds requested for the Counterproliferation Support Program 
for accelerating or enhancing research and development 
activities in the chemical and biological weapons defense 
program are not being used appropriately. Funds in this program 
should be used to significantly accelerate or enhance programs, 
or to promote advanced procurement of advanced commercial 
technologies which would provide the services with operation 
capabilities in a cost-effective manner.

Biological Detection

    Biological agents and weapons are a powerful threat to the 
security of our nation, our allies, and innocent people 
everywhere because they are easy to produce, easy to conceal, 
cheap, and extremely lethal. The Department of Defense has 
established programs to develop capabilities to detect and 
defend against biological agents. However, delivery to the 
services, with limited exceptions, is expected to be around 
between the years 2000 to 2005. DOD's Defense Science and 
Technology Strategy states that ``Bolder detection of and 
defense against biological agents, however they are developed, 
is needed today.'' Universities and non-profit industry have 
developed potential technologies for biological detection which 
include ultraviolet fluorescence sensors, fiber optic wave 
guide biodetectors, upconverting phosophor detectors, micro-
electromechanical systems, whole cell biosensors, and bio-
sensing mini-mass spectrometers, which could provide the 
military Services with operational capability at an earlier 
date.
    The committee recommends that $15.0 million of the funds 
authorized for the Counterproliferation Support Program for 
fiscal year 1996 be used for biological detection research and 
development. It is the committee's view that used separately or 
jointly, the above mentioned biological detectors would provide 
for much earlier operational capability for detection and, in 
some cases, near real-time detection of biological agents.

Special Operations Forces

    In recognition of the Secretary of Defense's direction to 
prepare United States special operations forces to conduct 
operations in support of counterproliferation objectives, the 
committee recommends that $6.3 million of the funds authorized 
for the Counterproliferation Support Program be allocated to 
the Special Operations Command (SOCOM). Funds are provided 
expressly for the purposes of broadening SOCOM's 
counterproliferation activities to include those needs 
consistent with the Commanders-in-Chiefs' (CINCs) priorities 
and the program guidance reflected in the May 1995 Report on 
Activities and Programs for Countering Proliferation.

Underground and Deep Underground Structures

    The United States' record of detecting underground 
facilities is very poor. The number of facilities, activities 
in the facilities, and equipment stored in facilities, has been 
consistently underestimated. U.S. intelligence clearly 
underestimated the number and size of underground facilities, 
the amount of equipment stored, and the number of research and 
prototype production facilities built in the underground 
facilities in Germany, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, South 
Africa, and Iraq. Tunnels and underground facilities in North 
Korea and China are even more difficult for current detection 
systems to penetrate.
    The Department must continue to pursue an aggressive 
program of developing detection and attack capabilities. 
Discriminate destruction of deep underground targets remains 
important, and concepts such as ``deep digger'' should be 
explored for discriminate attack on such facilities. ``Deep 
digger'' can potentially be used for a variety of missions, 
especially special operations, and can be delivered a number 
ways, ranging from special forces to aircraft. The committee 
directs that $1.5 million of the funds identified for hard 
target characterization be used to explore the ``deep digger'' 
concept.

Cruise Missile Proliferation

    The committee is concerned about the growing threat posed 
by cruise missiles. At least a dozen countries now have land-
attack cruise missiles under development. Several of those 
countries appear willing to export complete systems, including 
systems with low observable features and component technologies 
and development expertise. The widespread availability of cheap 
guidance, navigation, and digital mapping technologies would 
enable developing countries to convert widely proliferated 
anti-ship cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles to land-
attack roles. Cruise missile accuracy and aerodynamic stability 
make them excellent platforms for delivery of biological and 
chemical agents, which could threaten U.S. and allied 
projection forces.
    Given the emerging cruise missile threat, the committee 
believes that certain prudent measures should be taken, and 
recommends an increase of $35.0 million in program element 
0203801A to upgrade Patriot PAC-1 missiles to provide an 
improved anti-cruise missile capability. Further details of 
this recommendation are contained in the report section on Army 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) programs.

Proliferation of Space Technology

    Now more than ever before, the United States military 
relies on space. The military owns, operates, and sustains a 
broad mix of space and ground-based capabilities to meet the 
spectrum of multi-service and joint warfighting requirements.
    The Department of Defense and the military services are 
moving to greater use of commercial-off-the-shelf space 
technology. At the same time, the United States is granting 
export licenses for a number of these commercial technologies 
to foreign countries. Items which have been exported include 
commercial satellite communications, remote sensing, satellite-
based navigation, and space launch services. In a conflict the 
United States could be faced by an adversary with significant 
space capabilities, or with access to space-derived data.
    The administration believes it is in the United States' 
interests to export these technologies so that the nation can 
compete effectively in the foreign market. However, the 
committee is concerned about the ability of the United States 
to counter the technological gains by proliferant countries who 
may gain access through massive decontrol of these technologies 
for export.
    The committee is committed to ensuring that the United 
States can influence when and how those capabilities are used 
in a conflict. The committee recommends $30.0 million for the 
continuation of the Army tactical antisatellite technologies 
(ASAT) program (PE 633292A) for a user operational evaluation 
system (UOES) contingency capability. This program would 
provide a contingency capability enabling the United States, if 
necessary, to influence the use of these technologies in a 
conflict, and prevent the misuse or denial of space systems and 
access to space.

Emergency Preparedness and Response

    The nerve gas attack in Japan, the bombing in Oklahoma this 
year, and the 1981 contamination of the New York City water 
supply with U-235 serve to highlight the need for disaster 
preparedness. Additionally, because of recent reports of 
attempts to smuggle highly enriched uranium and plutonium in 
Eastern Europe and Russia, there is concern that those 
materials could make their way into the United States.
    The Congress included a provision (section 1704) in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 
expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should 
strengthen the capabilities of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) interagency emergency planning and other 
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies to respond to 
the use of chemical or biological agents by terrorists against 
the United States.
    The following year, the Congress included provisions in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 to 
enable FEMA to provide, among other things, financial 
assistance, training, and equipment by loan or grant to the 
states for emergency preparedness to respond to the use of 
radiological, chemical, bacteriological, and biological agents 
or weapons.
    The committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and Energy 
and the intelligence community to conduct an assessment of its 
military disaster preparedness and civil defense plans and 
programs, including who will coordinate those programs, and 
how, to anticipate and respond to the use of chemical, 
biological, nuclear, and radiological agents or weapons.

Transfer Authority

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Department of Defense to transfer up to $50.0 million from 
fiscal year 1996 defense-wide research and development accounts 
for counterproliferation support activities that are determined 
by the Counterproliferation Program Review Committee (CPRC) to 
be necessary and in the national security interests.

Report to Congress

    The CPRC failed to meet the requirement to provide the 
Congress with the annexes on special compartmented programs and 
special access and activity programs. The committee reminds the 
Department that the decision of a program manager to 
compartment information does not supersede the law, nor grant 
him the right not to produce and send the information required 
by law to the Congress. The committee directs the Department to 
comply with the legislation in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995.

Section - 218. Nonlethal weapons program.

    Non-lethal weapons (NLW) offer field commanders important 
new capabilities across the spectrum of conflict, but are 
especially valuable in non-traditional operations where high 
collateral damage can inflame the situation, put U.S. lives at 
risk, and undermine the political objectives of the mission. 
NLW disable or incapacitate personnel and equipment while 
causing minimal collateral damage. They can also be used to 
make reversible attacks against infrastructure--roads or power 
grids, for example. NLW systems can also locate and destroy an 
enemy's weapons or the projectiles fired by them.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
authorized $41.0 million for work on non-lethal weapons 
technology applicable to peacekeeping and law enforcement. The 
committee supports the continuation of the effort to identify, 
evaluate, develop, and field non-lethal systems and 
technologies, and recommends $37.2 million for fiscal year 
1996. This effort includes dual use technologies that will 
benefit both military forces and law enforcement. Thus the 
fiscal year 1996 authorization for a NLW program will 
incorporate the joint program conducted under the Memorandum of 
Understanding between the Department of Justice and the 
Department of Defense, and managed in fiscal year 1995 by the 
Advanced Research Projects Agency.
    The committee notes the interest on the part of the 
Department of Defense in developing near-term NLW capabilities 
because of their possible value in complex, ambiguous 
situations that demand operational flexibility. In particular, 
the committee commends the initiative of the Marine Corps in 
transitioning non-lethal technologies for employment in 
Operation United Shield. Although limited in scope, the Marine 
Corps experience validated the operational utility of NLW. It 
also revealed significant shortcomings in the U.S. military's 
ability to deploy nonlethal and less-than-lethal systems.
    Consequently, the committee directs that a new, 
consolidated program for non-lethal systems and technology be 
established and managed by the Office of Strategic and Tactical 
Systems of the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Technology, 
which has demonstrated a commitment to systemization and 
fielding of mature NLW technologies. The focus of this new 
Program Office shall be to create the earliest possible 
operational capabilities for deployed forces. The committee 
establishes a new Program Element/budget line item for this 
program, and directs the following transfer of funds to the new 
Program Element: from PE 603570D Defense Laboratory Partnership 
Program, $6.0 million; from PE 603750D Advanced Concept 
Technology Demonstrations, $3.4 million; from PE 602702E 
Tactical Technology (Advanced Land Systems), $17.8 million; and 
from PE 603226E Experimental Evaluation of Major Innovative 
Technologies, $10.0 million.
    The committee intends that these funds be used to execute 
the NLW program plan recently approved by the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquistion and Technology. However, the 
committee is also aware of other funds being used to support 
highly classified programs in non-lethal technology and 
Operations Other Than War. The committee recommends that the 
new Program Office for Non-lethal Systems and Technology be 
given responsibility for coordinating a comprehensive, 
Department-wide effort in NLW and Operations Other Than War, 
including currently classified programs.

Section - 219. Federally funded research and development centers.

    The committee is pleased at the degree to which the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology is 
attempting to assert greater management control over the 11 
Department of Defense federally-funded research and development 
centers (FFRDC) and the similar university affiliated research 
centers (UARC). The committee supports the current initiatives 
within the Department of Defense to improve the management of 
fees, to define the core work that FFRDC's and UARC's perform, 
to compete the non-core work, and to establish an independent 
advisory committee to review and report annually on Department 
of Defense management of FFRDC's and UARC's. The committee 
intends to review the implementation of these initiatives in 
future hearings to insure that implementation is timely and 
aggressive.
    The committee notes that the recent DOD FFRDC management 
efforts have included two independent reviews of the 
controversial issue of executive compensation. Both the DOD 
Inspector General and the private sector Hay Group analyzed 
this issue and found that executive compensation levels at 
FFRDC's were generally either at or below the market averages. 
Therefore, the committee believes that continuation of a 
congressionally-mandated salary ceiling is inappropriate.
    In recognition of the continuing decline in funding for 
research and development, the committee recommends an 
undistributed reduction in FFRDC funding of $90.0 million below 
the ceiling for fiscal year 1995 and has established a 
statutory ceiling for FFRDC's of $1.162 billion in fiscal year 
1996. The committee expects that this reduction will be 
implemented by moving non-core work, from FFRDCs other than 
Studies and Anaylses FFRDCs, to other competitively-awarded 
contracts as determined by the ongoing DOD review of core 
capabilities for FFRDC's. The committee directs the Department 
to ensure adequate funding this year for those FFRDCs engaging 
in studies and analyses for the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense and the services. The committee further directs the 
Department to provide Congress with a recommended funding 
ceiling for the UARCs for fiscal year 1996. The committee 
directs that no more than one third of the total funds for 
UARCs be released until the proposed ceiling is transmitted to 
Congress.

Section - 220. States eligible for assistance under Defense 
        Experimental Program To Stimulate Competitive Research.

    The committee recommends an amendment to section 257 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 that 
would modify the graduation criteria for states participating 
in the Department of Defense EPSCoR program.

Section - 221. National defense technology and industrial base, defense 
        reinvestment, and conversion.

    In fiscal year 1993 the committee created the Technology 
Reinvestment Project (TRP), in response to the rapidly 
declining percentage of the national research program devoted 
to military research. This investment was part of a larger 
defense reinvestment program designed to respond to the 
declining defense budget.
    For the last three years, the committee has supported large 
investments in the TRP portion of the defense reinvestment 
program. The projects under the TRP have been required to be 
competitively selected and have incorporated a requirement that 
the non-government participants at least match the funds 
invested by the federal government in the development of the 
technology.
    This year a number of policy issues have arisen that 
require the committee to consider the degree to which the TRP 
should be funded in fiscal year 1996 and beyond. The 
Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology reviewed these 
issues during a hearing on May 17, 1995.
    The first issue involves the relevance of the selected 
projects to the science and technology priorities of the 
Department of Defense and the degree to which the military 
services are involved in the process of selecting the 
technology projects. The committee has heard a number of 
criticisms about the insufficient involvement of the military 
services in the selection process for the fiscal year 1993 
competition. The General Accounting Office provided testimony 
indicating that some of the projects, especially in the 
deployment portion of the program, had only an indirect 
relevance to a military mission. The GAO also testified, 
however, that defense relevance has played an increasing role 
in the selection process since fiscal year 1993. The committee 
is pleased to see the emphasis on defense relevance underscored 
further in the most recent solicitation for the fiscal year 
1995 competition. The committee is concerned, however, that 
statutory selection criteria for the Defense Advanced 
Manufacturing Technology Partnerships are still being 
interpreted by the Department of Defense to allow benefits such 
as environmental hazard reduction to be given weight equal to 
the potential direct defense benefits of the proposed project.
    Another management concern is the outyear funding 
associated with some of the technology projects and the lack of 
congressional oversight of the expenditure of these funds. For 
example, the Affordable Composites for Propulsion project will 
have required a total of $130 million in federal funds over 
five years for completion. The option for fiscal year 1996 
requires $35.0 million. The justification documentation 
supporting the request for defense reinvestment gives no 
insight into such amounts that, on an annual basis, are larger 
than many separate programs which the committee reviews and 
approves. Consequently, the committee has inadequate insight 
into the degree to which many of the projects in the TRP are 
integrated with other programs in similar technology thrust 
areas.
    Finally, the committee is faced with the difficult choice 
of either funding a new competition in fiscal year 1996 under 
the TRP, or putting priority on the technology programs of the 
services. At the hearing on May 17, the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition and Technology voiced strong support 
for continuing this program because of its unique collaborative 
features. Despite this strong support for the TRP, the 
Department of Defense has yet to define the technology thrusts 
that would be the subject of a new competition. Therefore, 
under the current budget constraints, the committee believes 
that a new TRP competition in fiscal year 1996 involving 
unspecified technologies is a lower priority than ensuring the 
funding of defined research and development projects in the 
technology base programs of the services. To reflect this, the 
committee has recommended reducing the amount of the request by 
$262.0 million.
    In order to preserve the proven benefits of the competitive 
and collaborative approach under the TRP, however, the 
committee recommends an authorization of $238.0 million in the 
defense reinvestment account (PE 603570E) to continue the 
existing program. The committee expects that these funds will 
be used to fund options on 20 major and small business 
innovative research projects awarded in prior fiscal years as 
well as to allow full funding of the fiscal year 1995 
competition. The committee directs that the Secretary of 
Defense provide to the Committees on Armed Services and 
National Security by December 15, 1995, a list of all projects, 
including the Small Business Innovative Research Program's 
Phase II projects, which are under consideration for funding 
under the TRP in future fiscal years. This list should include 
the proposed federal and non-federal funding required to 
complete each.
    The committee has also recommended legislation which would 
redesignate the program as the Defense Dual-use Technology 
Initiative, repeal the statutory authorization for all but the 
Defense Dual-use Critical Technology Partnerships and the 
Defense Advanced Manufacturing Technology Partnerships, and 
clarify the primacy of direct defense relevance in the criteria 
for the award of the projects under the program.

Section - 222. Revisions of manufacturing of science and technology 
        programs

    The committee remains disappointed that the Department of 
Defense has yet to develop an adequate program for the 
development and implementation of process technologies for the 
production of systems and subsystems for military services. The 
request for $119.3 for the total programs of the services and 
OSD is substantially less than current requirements for these 
efforts. The goal of increasing the affordability of DOD 
programs will not be achieved unless the Department succeeds to 
a much greater extent than in the past in linking funding 
requests for the manufacturing science and technology program 
with the requirements of the individual program managers. The 
Department must also strengthen the interservice coordination 
process through such organizations as the Joint Directors of 
Laboratories to avoid duplication and to ensure that priority 
technology thrusts within manufacturing science and technology 
are addressed. A further prerequisite of a sound investment 
approach is the ability to more adequately measure the return 
on manufacturing technology investments.
    While recognizing that the manufacturing science and 
technology programs remain underfunded, the committee 
recommends approval only of funding at the requested amount. In 
the case of the Navy, the committee directs that funding for 
the Navy program in PE603771N be allocated strictly in 
accordance with the budget item justification exhibit R-2, 
dated February 1995, submitted for the program. The committee 
reiterates its strong support for requirements for cost-sharing 
by non-federal participants in all cases where there is a 
potential for the development of dual-use technologies. The 
committee urges the services to more aggressively seek cost-
sharing in the projects under their programs.
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2525 of title 10, United States Code, in two ways. 
First, the committee recommends a change that would clarify the 
role of the Joint Directors of Laboratories in establishing the 
Manufacturing Science and Technology Program. Second, the 
committee has recommended language that would clarify its 
intent that producers of manufacturing equipment be involved 
more directly in the projects funded under this program. Such 
producers are a primary mechanism for the dissemination of new 
technologies throughout the defense industrial base. As such, 
they should be involved as partners in the individual projects 
wherever practicable.

Section - 223. Preparedness of the Department of Defense to respond to 
        military and civil defense emergencies resulting from a 
        chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack.

    The tragic events of the past--the nerve gas attack in 
Japan and the bombing in Oklahoma this year, and the 1981 
contamination of the New York City water supply with U-235--
serve to highlight the need for disaster preparedness. There 
are also reports of highly enriched uranium and plutonium being 
smuggled out of Eastern Europe and Russia, which could 
potentially find its way to the United States. These are only 
recent manifestations of a continuing problem.
    Due to concern with the threat of possible use of these 
weapons of mass destruction in the United States by terrorist 
or subnational groups, a provision (Section 1704) was included 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 
expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should 
strengthen the capabilities of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) interagency emergency planning and other 
appropriate federal, state, and local agencies to respond to 
the potential use of chemical or biological agents or weapons 
use by terrorists against the United States.
    The following year, the Congress included provisions (Title 
VI) in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1995 that would enable FEMA to provide financial assistance, 
training, and equipment by loan or grant, to the states for 
emergency preparedness to respond to the use of radiological, 
chemical, bacteriological, and biological agents or weapons.
    The committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and 
Energy, in consultation with the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) to submit a report to Congress by February 28, 
1996 of its military and civil defense plans and programs to 
respond to the use of chemical, biological, nuclear, and 
radiological agents or weapons.

                      SUBTITLE C--MISSILE DEFENSE

                        Sections 231 through 241

Missile Defense Act of 1995

    The committee recommends that the Missile Defense Act of 
1991 be replaced by a provision (Subtitle C of Title II) that 
more completely responds to the challenges and opportunities of 
the post-Cold War era, and which charts a firmer and clearer 
course for missile defenses than the United States is currently 
on. The Missile Defense Act of 1995 would: (1) accelerate and 
focus U.S. theater missile defense (TMD) efforts; (2) establish 
a deployment plan for a national missile defense (NMD) system; 
(3) establish a cruise missile defense (CMD) initiative to 
strengthen and coordinate current CMD programs while preparing 
systems that will be highly capable against future threats; (4) 
set forth a compliance standard for air and theater missile 
defense with regard to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; 
(5) advocate a cooperative transition to a regime that does not 
feature mutual assured destruction as the basis for strategic 
deterrence and stability; and (6) recommend establishment of a 
Senate select committee to conduct a comprehensive review of 
the continuing value and validity of the ABM Treaty and 
recommend a specific course of action.
    The committee has received extensive testimony and 
briefings from the intelligence community, administration 
officials, and non-governmental experts on the expanding 
ballistic and cruise missile threat. It is clear that the 
threat to the national security of the United States posed by 
the proliferation of such missiles is significant and growing, 
both qualitatively and quantitatively. It is equally clear in 
the committee's view that the United States must respond 
aggressively by deploying effective defenses against ballistic 
missiles of all ranges and against cruise missiles.

Theater Missile Defense Architecture

    The committee recommends rapid development and deployment 
of a core theater missile defense program. The committee 
recommends a provision that would specify that the following 
systems shall define the core program: the Patriot PAC-3 
system, the Navy Lower Tier system, the Theater High-Altitude 
Area Defense (THAAD) system, and the Navy Upper Tier system. 
The provision would also establish guidelines for advancing new 
systems into the core TMD program. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to ensure that the systems in the core 
program are developed aggressively so that they become 
operational as soon as possible.
    THAAD--The committee understands that the THAAD user 
operational evaluation system (UOES), consisting of operational 
prototype hardware, will meet the primary system performance 
requirements against the full threat spectrum. The budget 
request for the THAAD program in fiscal year 1996 includes 
funds to acquire 40 UOES missiles. Additional funding will be 
required to support testing of the UOES missiles in fiscal year 
1997. The THAAD UOES systems delivered during 1997 and 1998 
will provide a warfighting commander-in-chief (CINC) with a 
critical capability to deploy advanced theater missile defenses 
in the event of a crisis. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to execute the option to procure the UOES 
missiles. Upon completion of the demonstration/validation 
(DemVal) phase, the THAAD program will enter a four year 
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. Limited 
rate initial production (LRIP) will begin after adequate 
testing of the EMD missiles. The purpose of the EMD program 
should be to build on the DemVal system by addressing the 
manufacturing technology, producibility, and reliability 
improvements, all while maintaining the continuity necessary to 
achieve reductions in procurement and life cycle costs. Thus, 
the committee believes there should be a smooth transition from 
DemVal to EMD and LRIP. Since the UOES missile appears to meet 
most system performance requirements in its current 
configuration, the committee believes that additional missiles 
should be made available for contingency use before the year 
2000. To accomplish all these objectives, the committee 
believes that LRIP could be initiated concurrently with the 
testing of the EMD missiles, once initial tests have verified 
that performance has not been degraded by any EMD design 
changes. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit, as part of the TMD reporting requirement 
contained in the Missile Defense Act of 1995, an analysis of 
these planning issues and the department's plan for 
implementing a smooth transition from DemVal to production, all 
while providing additional EMD missiles to augment the initial 
UOES inventory.
    NAVY LOWER AND UPPER TIER--The committee is equally 
concerned that the Navy Lower Tier and Upper Tier systems 
become operational as soon as possible. The committee has 
recommended sufficient funding, which, if continued in the out 
years, would ensure availability of Navy Lower Tier UOES 
missiles in fiscal year 1997 and an initial operational 
capability (IOC) of the objective system in fiscal year 1999. 
For Navy Upper Tier, the committee's recommended funding would 
provide a UOES in fiscal year 1999 and an IOC in fiscal year 
2001. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 
sufficient funding to ensure that these schedules are met. 
Regarding Navy Upper Tier, the committee supports a thorough 
comparison of the Lightweight Exoatmospheric Projectile (LEAP) 
system and a ``marinized'' version of the THAAD kill vehicle, 
along with associated boosters, to reduce risk and ensure that 
the best system is selected. This comparison should reflect the 
results of the ongoing cost and operational effectiveness 
analysis (COEA), as well as actual technical developments and 
demonstrated performance. The committee urges the Navy to 
consider developing a program plan for a competition between 
these two kill vehicle/missile concepts, including parallel 
development activities and flight tests, followed by a down-
select in time to achieve a UOES capability in fiscal year 1999 
and an IOC in fiscal year 2001.
    TMD BATTLE MANAGEMENT/COMMAND AND CONTROL--The committee is 
aware both of an ongoing Ballistic Missile Defense Organization 
(BMDO) study on missile defense command and control, and of 
individual missile defense command and control efforts by the 
services, notably the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability 
(CEC) and the Army's Battlefield Integration Center (BIC). The 
committee welcomes the effort by the Department to examine the 
command and control requirements for effective theater missile 
defenses, in light of the numerous programs currently under 
development. However, the committee is concerned that the CEC 
and BIC efforts appear to be proceeding on independent paths, 
with little interaction between them; and even less effort on 
the requirement for their ultimate integration into a 
``seamless'' theater-level command and control network under 
the control of a Theater CINC. The committee sees little 
evidence that Theater CINCs--the ultimate users--have been 
consulted as to their preferences for the design and operation 
of theater missile defense command and control centers. 
Moreover, any command and control solution for Theater CINCs 
must be designed for effective operations under a variety of 
possible scenarios, including such variants as the CINC's 
initial command center being remote from the theater of 
operations, or initial operations from shipboard with a 
subsequent transfer of command and control authority to a 
facility ashore. Finally, the theater missile defense center 
has to be capable of dealing with both ballistic missile and 
cruise missile threats within the theater. Because of the 
evident complexity of the theater missile defense command and 
control problem, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to expand the charter and focus of this ongoing study effort. 
This effort should involve close consultation and interaction 
with Theater CINCs regarding the development of a ``seamless'' 
command and control center capable of rapid integration of 
sensor information, surveillance information, and interceptor 
allocations, whether land or sea based.
    OTHER TMD ACTIVITIES--Despite its strong support for TMD in 
general and the core programs in particular, the committee is 
concerned that approximately eighty percent of our investments 
in BMD are currently being directed to TMD activities. The 
committee is also troubled by the expanding number of new TMD 
systems that are headed for acquisition. If the current course 
is allowed to continue, the United States will expend virtually 
all its effort and resources on a plethora of TMD systems that 
are designed for narrow in-theater applications. The committee 
does not understand how the Department of Defense can 
contemplate an entirely new development and acquisition program 
to provide air and missile defense for maneuver forces when it 
is already planning to spend $15.8 billion on the Patriot PAC-3 
and THAAD systems. Also, while the committee is strongly 
supportive of developing systems capable of intercepting 
ballistic missiles in the boost phase, it does not understand 
how the Department of Defense can push a fighter-launched 
kinetic energy boost-phase intercept (BPI) system in the 
direction of acquisition when serious technical and operational 
obstacles remain to be solved.
    The committee recommends a more focused TMD investment 
strategy and increases to other BMD activities to restore a 
more balanced BMD program. The committee is not opposed to the 
emergence of new core TMD systems, but insists that such 
systems be coherent and affordable, and that they leverage to 
the extent possible existing systems and technologies. Follow-
on TMD investments must be targeted so as to build on existing 
investments, or to support significant leaps ahead in the 
technological state of the art. The United States cannot afford 
and does not need six kinetic-energy TMD systems that approach 
the threat fundamentally in the same technical manner.
    The committee, therefore, recommends the termination of the 
existing Corps SAM and kinetic-energy BPI programs. To satisfy 
the Corps SAM requirement, which the committee views as valid, 
the Department of Defense should propose a restructured 
program, which essentially merges ongoing efforts in PAC-3 and 
THAAD to produce a mobile hybrid system with 360 degree 
coverage. The committee believes that such a system will 
satisfy the requirement more rapidly and in a more cost-
effective manner than the Corps SAM/MEADS program. The 
committee also believes that this will present an opportunity 
to begin replacing existing Patriot infrastructure, which is 
excessively large and manpower-intensive, with a new type of 
system that is essentially a mobile PAC-3. If implemented 
properly, production of the new system could be phased into 
ongoing PAC-3 production, thereby providing savings from both 
ends of the spectrum.
    The committee is sensitive to the diplomatic implications 
of canceling the MEADS program, but believes that it is better 
to restructure the program in its infancy rather than later. 
The committee is not opposed to having an international aspect 
to the restructured program. More important, the committee 
believes that the United States should seek to foster 
cooperation with its allies on wide-area missile defense. The 
primary threat to our European and Asian allies will not be 
countered by a MEADS-like system. The committee believes that 
the United States should place greater emphasis on fostering 
cooperation on programs such as THAAD and Navy Upper Tier.
    With regard to boost-phase intercept, the committee remains 
highly skeptical about a BPI system based on manned tactical 
aircraft. Even if the needed interceptor technology should 
mature, the operational implications of this system make it 
almost unsustainable. To the extent that kinetic-energy BPI 
systems hold promise for TMD applications, the committee 
believes that reliance should be placed on unmanned aerial 
vehicles (UAVs). The committee notes that the United States is 
conducting extensive work on UAVs and has an ongoing, though 
severely under-funded, program to study a UAV/BPI concept with 
the State of Israel. The committee believes that leveraging 
existing U.S. UAV programs and the ongoing effort with Israel 
would provide the basis for a much more cost-effective BPI 
program. The committee, therefore, recommends that the 
Secretary of Defense initiate a cooperative program between the 
United States and Israel, which leverages the work both 
countries have done on missile defense and UAVs.

National Missile Defense Architecture

    The committee notes that there is greater ambiguity and 
more disagreement regarding the future ballistic missile threat 
to the territory of the United States than there is regarding 
the threat posed by short- and medium-range missiles, which are 
already deployed in large numbers throughout the world. With 
regard to ballistic missile threats to the United States 
itself, there are really two subcategories--existing threats 
that we have lived with for some time, and emerging new 
threats. Most of the debate has surrounded the question of new 
threats.
    The committee notes that the intelligence community does 
not presently forecast the emergence of a new indigenously-
developed ballistic missile threat to the continental United 
States within the next ten years. Nevertheless, the 
intelligence community does confirm that the proliferation 
trend is toward longer-range and more sophisticated ballistic 
missiles, and that there are a number of ways for determined 
countries to rapidly acquire intercontinental ballistic 
missiles (ICBM) by means other than indigenous development. The 
intelligence community also confirms that North Korea is 
developing an ICBM class missile (the Taepo Dong II), which may 
become operational within five years, and which may have 
sufficient range to target Alaska. Some analysts speculate that 
this missile could have an even longer range. In any event, the 
mere existence of this North Korean program is cause for 
questioning the intelligence community's ten year forecast. It 
also highlights how suddenly a new ICBM threat can emerge. 
Given North Korea's history as a missile proliferator and its 
ongoing cooperation with Iran on such programs, the committee 
views these developments as extremely threatening.
    The committee does not believe that the intelligence 
community's ten year threat assessment in any way undermines 
the case for accelerating deployment of a national missile 
defense system. Even if it were certain that a new threat would 
not materialize for ten years, the United States would still 
need to get started now to ensure that it develops a highly 
effective and affordable system in time. As previously noted, 
however, there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the 
ten year estimate. The United States must be prepared to 
respond earlier if necessary. Perhaps more important, deploying 
an NMD system prior to the unambiguous emergence of new missile 
threats to the United States may serve to deter countries that 
would otherwise seek to acquire ICBMs. A vulnerable United 
States merely invites proliferation, blackmail, and even 
aggression.
    In addition to dealing with emerging threats to the United 
States, NMD can help pave the way for a more reliable and less 
adversarial form of strategic stability. Mutual vulnerability 
is clearly not a necessary basis for a stable deterrence 
relationship. In the near-term, NMD deployments would serve to 
stabilize mutual deterrence by reducing prospective incentives 
to strike first in a crisis. The committee believes that even 
modest NMD deployments can reduce the vulnerability of U.S. 
strategic forces and thereby strengthen stability. Over time, 
as political circumstances permit, increasingly robust defenses 
can serve to devalue offensive forces, especially those that 
are most destabilizing, virtually eliminating first strike 
incentives and establishing the basis for deeper offensive 
reductions.
    Indefinitely extending Cold War notions of nuclear 
deterrence based on vulnerability and threats of retaliation is 
likely to perpetuate basic animosities and security concerns, 
and prohibit the development of the more positive relations 
necessary for a genuinely stable U.S.-Russian strategic 
relationship. Arms reductions alone cannot accomplish this 
goal. By easing concerns about possible non-compliance and 
third party ballistic missile threats, missile defenses can 
help provide the confidence necessary to move toward deeper 
offensive reductions. In sum, the argument that effective 
national ballistic missile defenses are inconsistent with 
deterrence and arms control is as outdated as the Cold War 
itself.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision which would 
establish an NMD program to deploy a multiple-site, ground-
based interceptor system by 2003, with a more limited 
contingency capability available by the turn of the century. 
The committee believes that there is an urgent need to 
establish explicit milestones and performance goals for the NMD 
program in order to achieve these deployment goals. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to employ 
streamlined acquisition procedures and other cost saving 
measures as appropriate to ensure rapid and cost-effective 
development of an NMD system.
    The committee notes that the ground-based interceptor (GBI) 
program, with its exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV), has been 
underway for almost five years, and has achieved significant 
technical progress. The committee also notes the existence of 
various options for off-the-shelf boosters for the GBI, but 
questions whether these can be optimized for the GBI mission. 
The committee therefore recommends that a detailed analysis be 
conducted in order to select an optimized booster configuration 
that balances cost and performance considerations. The 
committee supports aggressive development and testing of the 
EKV to support the deployment goals specified above. The 
committee is troubled by recent schedule delays in the EKV 
program and the fact that BMDO is considering a down-select to 
a single design and contractor before conducting flight tests. 
To ensure that the best design is selected upon demonstrated 
performance, and to minimize program risk, the Secretary of 
Defense is directed to maintain competition in the EKV program 
through successful completion of flight demonstrations.
    In order to develop and deploy optimized sensor support for 
an NMD system, the committee supports upgrading existing early 
warning radars while new X-band fire control radars are readied 
for deployment. The committee also strongly supports the 
development of the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS), 
which is being developed by the Air Force as part of the Space-
Based Infrared System (SBIRS). The committee believes that SMTS 
should be developed for a first launch in fiscal year 2001, 
with an IOC in fiscal year 2003, to support the objective 
multiple-site NMD system. The committee believes that the 
proper mix between space-based sensors and ground-based radars 
must be achieved to maximize coverage and effectiveness while 
minimizing the ultimate cost of the NMD system. With robust 
space-based sensor support, the system may not require new 
radars at each interceptor deployment location.
    The committee recognizes that there may be opportunities to 
significantly improve the cost and operational effectiveness of 
a ground-based NMD system by including space-based and/or sea-
based defensive systems in the NMD architecture. The committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to include an analysis of such 
options in the NMD implementation plan.

Cruise Missile Defense Initiative

    In a significant departure from the Missile Defense Act of 
1991, the Missile Defense Act of 1995 addresses the threat 
posed by existing and emerging cruise missiles. The committee 
believes that CMD has not been given the degree of attention 
warranted by the threat, and notes with concern the 
intelligence community's estimate that at least twelve 
countries have land-attack cruise missiles under development. 
Although there are many programs in the Department of Defense 
involving CMD, for the most part these have not been 
sufficiently emphasized, funded, or coordinated. The committee 
believes that the Secretary of Defense should seek to 
coordinate and leverage activities involving air defense, CMD 
and BMD to maximize synergies and cost savings.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
coordinate the department's CMD and BMD efforts and to ensure 
that existing air defense systems are upgraded to improve 
capabilities against cruise missiles. The committee also 
directs the Secretary to undertake a high priority development 
program to support the future deployment of systems that are 
highly effective against advanced cruise missiles, including 
cruise missiles with low observable features. Finally, the 
committee directs the Secretary to prepare a plan for 
implementing a cruise missile defense initiative, including an 
assessment of organizational and managerial changes that could 
strengthen and further coordinate the cruise missile defense 
activities of the Department of Defense. The committee 
recommends a substantial increase in funding for cruise missile 
defense activities, which is described in a separate funding 
section below.

Policy Regarding the ABM Treaty

    The committee acknowledges that many of the policies and 
recommendations contained in the Missile Defense Act of 1995, 
if implemented, would require relief in one form or another 
from the ABM Treaty. Rather than recommend a specific course of 
action at this time, however, the committee believes that 
Congress should undertake a comprehensive review of the 
continuing value and validity of the ABM Treaty with the intent 
of making a well informed and carefully considered 
recommendation on how to proceed by the end of the 104th 
Congress.
    The Missile Defense Act of 1995 would establish a policy to 
seek a cooperative transition to a regime which does not 
feature mutual assured destruction as the basis for deterrence 
and stability, yet it is not presently clear how best to 
achieve this goal. Incremental amendments to the treaty must be 
considered, but there is a risk that such incrementalism may 
undermine the ultimate goal of replacing the treaty with a more 
appropriate and up-to-date regime. Congress also will want to 
evaluate the Secretary of Defense's NMD implementation plan and 
a variety of technical and policy issues before recommending a 
specific course of action. Furthermore, given that there are no 
ABM Treaty limitations on research, development, or testing of 
ground-based NMD systems or components, it is prudent to 
dedicate a year to studying all ABM Treaty-related issues and 
alternatives. The committee, therefore, recommends a provision 
that calls for the Senate to undertake a careful one-year 
review of the continuing value and validity of the ABM Treaty, 
during which time all efforts by the administration to modify, 
clarify, or otherwise alter U.S. obligations under the ABM 
Treaty should cease.
    To conduct this comprehensive review and to issue specific 
guidance, the committee recommends that the Senate consider 
establishment of a select committee on the future of the ABM 
Treaty, which would convene for a one-year period of time. The 
select committee would conduct hearings and interviews, review 
all relevant documents, and carefully consider the full range 
of policy issues. At the end of the 104th Congress, the select 
committee would issue a report and be disbanded.
    To facilitate the Senate's review and to foster full and 
open debate, the committee recommends requiring the 
declassification of the ABM Treaty negotiating record. This 
action would be consistent with the classification policy in 
Executive Order 12958, announced by the administration on April 
17, 1995. The Reagan Administration, which declassified a 
significant portion of the ABM Treaty record, established the 
precedent for this action. The committee understands that in 
connection with the 1987 study of the ABM Treaty by the State 
Department Legal Advisor, most of the negotiating record along 
with a complete index was compiled. The committee suggests that 
this would be a good starting point for the administration in 
providing Congress with the information requested.

Development, Testing and Deployment of Non-ABM Systems

    The committee observes that the ABM Treaty does not limit 
the development or deployment of TMD or air defense systems; 
yet, as a result of ambiguities in the treaty, the United 
States has for years unilaterally limited the development of 
non-ABM systems. These self-imposed restraints exceed not only 
the requirements of the Treaty, but common sense. Article VI(a) 
of the ABM Treaty states that non-ABM systems may not be 
``tested in an ABM mode'' and may not be ``given capabilities 
to counter strategic ballistic missiles.'' Unfortunately, these 
terms and concepts remain essentially undefined. In this void, 
the Department of Defense developed an arbitrary methodology, 
based on computer simulations of one-on-one engagements, to 
determine whether defensive systems have ``capabilities to 
counter strategic ballistic missiles.'' This approach, 
unfortunately, conforms neither to operational reality nor to 
the requirements of the ABM Treaty. Since the treaty is 
verified and monitored solely by ``national technical means,'' 
compliance standards based on computer simulations clearly 
exceed the terms and requirements of the Treaty. There is no 
evidence that Russia, or the Soviet Union before it, has ever 
employed anything as onerous and self-limiting as this.
    The results of this excessive self-regulation have recently 
become very apparent. Recent compliance reviews have imposed a 
variety of constraints on our ability to proceed efficiently 
and aggressively with TMD programs such as THAAD and Navy Upper 
Tier. Both systems are now being forced down a very precarious 
path between artificial ABM Treaty constraints and the pressing 
need to maximize their operational capability.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 
codify in precise terms that a demonstrated standard shall be 
used for evaluating the compliance of TMD and air defense 
systems. The provision would establish that TMD and air defense 
systems are not subject to the terms of the ABM Treaty unless 
flight tested against a ballistic missile with a range greater 
than 3,500 kilometers or a velocity in excess of 5 kilometers 
per second. The committee did not select these parameters 
arbitrarily; in fact, they formed the basis for the official 
United States position tabled at the Standing Consultative 
Commission in November 1993. The committee finds that specific 
performance or deployment limitations on TMD systems would be 
inconsistent with our current treaty obligations and United 
States national security interests in general. Unlike the 
demonstrated standard recommended by the committee, such 
limitations would establish new legal obligations for the 
United States under the ABM Treaty, essentially transforming it 
into a TMD treaty.

Ballistic Missile Defense Program Elements

    The committee recommends a provision that would realign the 
program element (PE) structure of BMDO's budget, reducing the 
number from thirteen to seven. The committee believes that all 
core TMD programs should be covered in individual PEs, and that 
all other TMD programs, projects and activities should be 
covered in the Other TMD Activities PE. The committee believes 
that battle management, command, control and communications 
(BM/C3) programs should be covered in the Other TMD or the NMD 
PEs, and that funding for program support activities should be 
included in the relevant PEs.

Ballistic missile defense funding

    The fiscal year 1996 budget request for the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) was $2.9 billion, including 
research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E), 
procurement, and military construction. The committee 
recommends a total BMDO authorization of $3.4 billion, an 
increase of $490.0 million over the request. The committee 
notes that this funding level is approximately $136.0 million 
lower than the amount recommended for fiscal year 1996 by the 
Clinton Administration's own Bottom-Up Review, and 
approximately $4.0 billion lower than the amount recommended 
for fiscal year 1996 in the last budget submitted by the Bush 
Administration.
    The committee recommends the following budget allocation:

                                                                        
                          [Millions of dollars]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Program               Request       Change    Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patriot System*...............        666.9  ...........          666.9 
Navy Lower Tier*..............        254.4       + 45.0          299.4 
THAAD**.......................        589.9  ...........          589.9 
Navy Upper Tier...............         30.4       +170.0          200.4 
Hawk Upgrade*.................         28.3  ...........           28.3 
TMD BM/C3*....................         70.8  ...........           70.8 
Corps SAM.....................         30.4        -30.4  ..............
BPI...........................         49.1        -49.1  ..............
Other TMD**...................        463.0        +15.0          478.0 
NMD**.........................        371.5       +300.0          671.5 
Support Technology............        172.7       + 70.0          242.7 
Management....................        185.5        -30.0          155.5 
                               -----------------------------------------
      Total BMDO..............      2,912.9       +490.5       3,403.4  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes RDT&E and Procurement                                        
** Includes RDT&E and Military Construction                             

                 Core Theater Missile Defense Programs

    The committee recommends the establishment of a core TMD 
program consisting of the Patriot PAC-3 system, the Navy Lower 
Tier system, the THAAD system, and the Navy Upper Tier system. 
The committee notes that this prioritization is consistent with 
the Department of Defense's Bottom-Up Review, which recommended 
that these four programs be funded as major acquisitions in the 
fiscal year 1995-99 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). The 
committee recommends a total core TMD funding level of $1.8 
billion in fiscal year 1996. This includes an increase of $45.0 
million for Navy Lower Tier, an increase of $170.0 million for 
Navy Upper Tier, and full funding of the requests for THAAD and 
Patriot. The committee understands that this funding profile, 
if sustained, would lead to the following operational 
capabilities:
          --For Patriot PAC-3, a First Unit Equipped (FUE) in 
        fiscal year 1998.
          --For THAAD, a user operational evaluation system 
        (UOES) capability in fiscal year 1997 and an IOC in 
        fiscal year 2002, which may be accelerated by as many 
        as three years.
          --For Navy Lower Tier, a UOES capability in fiscal 
        year 1997 and an IOC in fiscal year 1999.
          --For Navy Upper Tier, a UOES capability in fiscal 
        year 1999 and an IOC in fiscal year 2001.
    The committee endorses this schedule and directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide sufficient funding in the 
outyears to sustain it. The committee also directs the 
Secretary to ensure that funds authorized for core TMD programs 
not be utilized for other purposes without the express consent 
of the congressional defense committees. The committee also 
directs that no funds authorized for the Navy Upper Tier 
program be used for additional Terrier-LEAP flight tests.

Other Theater Missile Defense Activities

    The committee believes that BMDO's TMD activities lack 
sufficient focus. Establishment of a well funded, high 
priority, core TMD program will help but will not solve this 
problem. The committee believes that other theater missile 
defense (OTMD) activities must also be focused and made more 
efficient. In addition to providing core support activities 
such as targets, the committee believes that OTMD funds must be 
pooled and focused so as to satisfy outstanding TMD 
requirements. Some difficult choices will have to be made and 
greater efficiencies will have to be realized.
    Therefore, the committee recommends the termination of the 
Corps SAM and Boost-Phase Interceptor (BPI) programs. As 
explained elsewhere in this report, there are more efficient 
ways to satisfy the requirements that these programs are 
attempting to fulfill. The committee believes that the 
Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) program, which has 
been funded as part of the BPI program, should be transferred 
to the OTMD PE, and be restructured as a follow-on kill vehicle 
technology program.
    The committee does recommend an increase of $15.0 million 
in the OTMD PE to initiate a joint U.S.-Israel boost-phase 
intercept program based on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The 
committee looks forward to evaluating a restructured Corps SAM 
program, which leverages to a much greater degree existing 
systems, technologies and programs.

National Missile Defense

    The Missile Defense Act of 1995 (Subtitle C of Title II) 
would establish a highly focused effort to defend the United 
States against limited ballistic missile attacks. The NMD 
program as it now exists is structured to spend approximately 
$400 million a year for the foreseeable future without 
deploying a single element of defensive capability. The 
committee views this as a wasteful expenditure and a program 
that fundamentally neglects a serious emerging threat to the 
national security of the United States. The committee, 
therefore, recommends an increase of $300.0 million for the NMD 
program, for a total of $671.5 million, to accelerate key 
technologies and systems pending the outcome of a detailed NMD 
deployment plan.
    The committee recognizes that deploying a multiple-site NMD 
system by 2003 will require significant investments in the out 
years, and directs the Secretary of Defense to budget 
accordingly. Given the consequences of not being prepared for 
the emerging threat, the committee believes that this 
investment should be one of the Secretary's highest priorities.
    The committee believes that the ultimate cost of deploying 
an NMD system can be significantly reduced by employing 
streamlined acquisition procedures and a sense of urgency. The 
Missile Defense Act of 1995 would establish a requirement for 
the Secretary to prescribe and employ such procedures as well 
as other cost saving measures. The committee believes that, for 
purposes of acquisition, the Secretary should consider NMD 
deployment a national priority, requiring highly streamlined 
treatment. The committee notes the case of the Pershing II 
intermediate-range ballistic missile development and deployment 
effort during the late 1970s and early 1980s, in which 
streamlined acquisition procedures and a sense of urgency 
produced rapid, cost-effective and technically very 
satisfactory results. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to emulate this model for NMD as much as possible.

Support Technologies

    The committee notes that of the BMDO budget request, only 
approximately 6 percent is for advanced follow-on technology 
development. While the committee is pleased that BMDO is now 
pursuing a variety of major acquisition efforts, it is 
concerned that the pendulum may have swung too far away from 
technology development. If the present funding allocation 
continues, the United States will soon have ``consumed its seed 
corn'' and built structural obsolescence into its deployed BMD 
systems. Moreover, the United States will have abandoned 
promising missile defense technologies, which offer the 
possibility of vastly improving BMD cost and operational 
effectiveness.
    The committee is particularly troubled by the 
administration's plans to terminate our last remaining space-
based missile defense program, the space-based laser, at the 
end of fiscal year 1997. The committee believes that it is 
critical for the United States to continue developing space-
based defenses to preserve the option of deploying highly 
effective global defenses in the future. The committee notes 
that a space-based laser would be the most effective system for 
intercepting ballistic missiles of all ranges in the boost 
phase. The committee therefore recommends an increase of $70.0 
million to the Support Technologies PE for the space-based 
laser program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to reinvigorate this program and to ensure that sufficient 
funds are provided in the outyears to continue a robust effort.

Cruise missile defense funding

    The committee has become increasingly concerned by the 
growing threat of cruise missiles. The committee is 
particularly alarmed by the emerging threat posed by land-
attack cruise missiles, especially those that employ low 
observable technologies. Although the Department of Defense has 
a number of programs designed in part or whole to deal with 
this threat, the committee believes that more can and must be 
done to enhance and coordinate these efforts. The committee 
therefore recommends a provision, as part of the Missile 
Defense Act of 1995, that would establish a Cruise Missile 
Defense Initiative. To support this effort, the committee 
recommends a funding increase of $145.0 million for various 
cruise missile defense programs and activities. The allocation 
of this proposed increase is presented below.
    The committee endorses the Defense Science Board's 
recommendation to enhance existing air defenses through 
improved connectivity among existing shooter and sensor assets. 
To help foster this improved connectivity, the committee 
recommends an additional $15.0 million to accelerate joint 
programs between the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) 
and the military services. Specifically, the committee 
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in each of the following 
three service program elements for ARPA/Service seeker 
development: (1) 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE; (2) 0207163F AMRAAM; 
(3) 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE.
    The most serious aspect of the emerging cruise missile 
threat is the severe reduction it will cause in available 
battlespace to detect and intercept low-flying, low-observable 
missiles. Existing and planned improvements in theater air 
defenses will not restore that battlespace. Fortunately, 
advanced sensors and sensor platforms being developed by ARPA 
and the services are maturing and offer vastly improved 
capabilities to detect and track low-observable targets at 
ranges of several hundred kilometers. Fixed-wing platforms 
offer flexibility for a centralized airborne surveillance and 
fire control system. By contrast, lighter-than-air platforms, 
including aerostats and airships, would significantly reduce 
cost, technical risks, and acquisition time, at some marginal 
degradation in operational flexibility. Life-cycle costs also 
favor lighter-than-air options over fixed-wing alternatives. To 
explore this potential, the committee recommends an additional 
$5.0 million in PE 0603009A for aerostat risk reduction 
evaluations jointly conducted by ARPA and the Army. The 
committee believes that airships may offer the most cost-
effective alternative to the airborne sensor problem. Airships 
would provide sufficient payload volume, weight, and power to 
carry the sensors capable of providing three dimensional target 
resolution sufficient to acquire a target at considerable 
standoff ranges, and provide target illumination and data link 
services for a beyond the horizon intercept. Hence, the 
committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million in PE 
0603238N to begin the development of an airship and mission 
system that is militarily significant in scope, of full size 
and operationally capable of demonstrating a counter-cruise 
missile capability for ground and naval forces. The committee 
also recommends an additional $10.0 in PE 0603226E to support 
ARPA's classified cruise missile defense activities.
    The committee is particularly supportive of the Navy's 
Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) program, which will 
dramatically enhance air and missile defense effectiveness. The 
committee encourages the Navy's efforts to include the Army and 
the Air Force in the CEC program. CEC integration into systems 
such as Patriot, Hawk, THAAD and AWACS appears to be quite 
promising. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of 
$20.0 million in PE 0603755N to accelerate joint Army-Navy and 
Air Force-Navy exploitation of CEC for cruise missile defense 
and theater missile defense.
    The committee is aware of a proposal to refurbish and 
upgrade existing Patriot missiles within the Army's current 
inventory to provide an improved anti-cruise missile 
capability. This effort would provide a new seeker for older 
Patriot missiles to optimize their performance against cruise 
missiles. The committee strongly supports this upgrade. The 
committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $35.0 million 
in PE 0203801A for the first year of a three-year research and 
development effort for the proposed upgrade.


High modulus polycrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber

    Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber is a critical 
composite material used in the Theater High Altitude Air 
Defense (THAAD) missile component. Currently, the only company 
supplying this material is located in Japan. In order to 
develop at least two domestic sources for this material, the 
committee recommends an additional authorization of $4.0 
million in PE 602105A to fund this effort. The committee 
directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in 
the award of any contracts or other agreements under this 
program, and that cost-sharing requirements for non-federal 
participants be utilized where appropriate.

Army technology base programs

    The committee notes and applauds the degree to which the 
Army is attempting to evaluate and embrace new concepts of 
warfare in its Force XXI vision for shaping the Army for the 
year 2010. Unfortunately, these intentions are jeopardized by 
the investment strategy the Army is pursuing in the technology 
base budget request for fiscal year 1996. The fiscal year 1996 
request for programs in the basic research, exploratory 
development, and advanced development categories are 10 
percent, 30 percent and 40 percent respectively below the 
amounts appropriated for programs in those categories in fiscal 
year 1995.
    The Force XXI vision draws its essence from the current 
efforts in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and elsewhere to determine 
the elements of the next revolution in military affairs. The 
Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technologies reviewed these 
efforts in a hearing on May 5. The testimony of Admiral Owens, 
Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated the 
degree to which the aggressive development of a broad spectrum 
of technologies will be necessary to put the new forms of 
warfare within reach over the next 10 to 15 years. The current 
Army technology base program is inadequate to the emerging 
challenge.
    The committee urges the Army leadership and the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense to break the cycle of the recent past, 
in which the Army and the Department of Defense chronically 
underfunded the Army technology base, and provide more balanced 
funding for the Army technology base program in relation to the 
other Army accounts in the fiscal year 1997 request. To 
partially address the underfunding issue in fiscal year 1996, 
the committee has recommended an increased authorization of 
$24.0 million to be distributed as follows:
                                                                 Million
PE 602211A Aviation Technology....................................  $3.0
PE 602303A Missile Technologies...................................   5.0
PE 602624A Weapons and Munitions Tech.............................   3.0
PE 602709A Night Vision Technology................................   2.0
PE 602782A C3 Technologies........................................   2.0
PE 603006A C3 Advanced Technologies...............................   3.0
PE 603734A Military Engineering Adv. Technology...................   6.0

Environmental Policy Simulation Laboratory (EPSL)

    The committee notes that the department faces increasing 
environmental challenges with decreasing environmental 
budgetary resources. It also faces a subsequent mandate to 
avoid any costly false starts and to optimize first-time field 
deployments while encouraging maximum innovation and technology 
transfer. In this regard, the committee encourages the 
Department of Defense to simulate new environmental technology 
processes and products whenever possible. The committee also 
recommends the establishment of the Environmental Policy 
Simulation Laboratory (EPSL) under the direction of the Army 
Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI). The EPSL will develop 
policy simulation models for air, water, soil, noise, and 
visual pollution characteristics of military operations in 
order to increase pollution prevention and risk compliance, and 
to reduce costs of integrating innovative environmental 
technology solutions to military missions. The committee 
recommends that $3.0 million be added to PE 602720A to provide 
for the competitive establishment of EPSL operations. No part 
of these funds may be used for construction of facilities. 
During its second operating year, the committee directs the 
EPSL to report all ongoing and potential environmental 
technology deployment cost savings resulting from its 
operation.

Funding for medical total access programs (telemedicine)

    The committee commends the Army for its innovative and 
timely use of medical total access programs, especially 
pertaining to teledentistry program development, outpatient 
referral service for telemedicine, and its planned program for 
both active duty soldiers and their dependents. The committee 
also wishes to commend the Navy for its outstanding field tests 
of telemedicine on the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower. The 
committee believes that further total access program 
development by the military offers each of the services the 
possibility of increasing available medical care of its patient 
population while possibly decreasing associated costs for 
health care.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increased 
authorization of $3.0 million in PE 603002A for total access 
programs in the fiscal year 1996 authorization bill, and 
directs the Army to coordinate with and include the Air Force 
and the Navy in its total access program format. Further, the 
committee requests that the Army report to the committee not 
later than March 1, 1996 on the implementation of its total 
access programs.

Wave net technology

    The committee supports the Army's efforts to enhance 
command, control, and communications for the digital 
battlefield by applying emerging technologies. The committee 
understands that, in connection with evaluating various 
technologies to enhance its battlefield digitization efforts, 
the Army is interested in examining wave net technology which 
has the potential to reduce costs, increase bandwidth 
utilization, and provide increased command and control 
capability. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 
million to program element 603006A for development and testing 
of wave net technology for possible application to the Army's 
digitization initiatives.

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)

    The committee recommends authorizing PE 603105A at the 
requested level of $2.9 million and directs that $1.0 million 
of that amount be used to continue domestic clinical HIV 
programs.

Multiple launch rocket system (MLRS) enhancements

    The committee strongly supports the MLRS/Army Tactical 
Missile System (ATACMS) and is aware of developmental efforts 
which have potential to greatly enhance the effectiveness of 
these systems. The committee recommends the following 
increases:
          --$3.7 million to program element 603778A for MLRS 
        improved launch mechanical system;
          --$7.0 million to program element 603313A for MLRS 
        low cost guidance;
          --$7.0 million to program element 604768A for ATACMS/ 
        Brilliant Anti-armor submunition risk reduction; and
          --$5.0 million to program element 603313A for 
        development of Low Cost Autonomous Attack Submunition 
        (LOCAAS).
    The committee believes there is potential to employ the 
MLRS/ATACMS as a sea-based indirect fire suppression weapon for 
amphibious assaults and has directed the Secretary of the Navy 
to conduct a test/demonstration firing of an Extended Range 
MLRS rocket with low cost guidance from a launcher with 
improved launch mechanism and GPS location device. The 
committee expects the Army to cooperate fully to ensure items 
suitable for Navy/Marine Corps test/demonstration are available 
in fiscal year 1997.

Objective individual combat weapon (OICW)

    The committee supports the effort to improve the 
effectiveness of individual infantrymen and is aware of the 
effort to develop an Objective Individual Combat Weapon. The 
committee is advised of a shortage of funds within the Joint 
Service Small Arms Program, and recommends an increase of $3.0 
million in program element 0603607A to permit continued 
competitive development of OICW through Phase 3 of the 
development process.

Advanced artillery propellant development

    The budget request included $10.9 million to continue 
development of advanced solid propellant (unicharge) and a 52 
caliber solid propellant armament system as a backup to the 
advanced field artillery system-liquid propellant (AFAS-LP). 
While the committee continues to support the AFAS program, it 
recognizes that even if AFAS-LP is fully successful, there will 
still remain in the Army--certainly in the National Guard--a 
large number of conventional 155mm cannon. With a bolt-in/bolt-
out gun mount, it is anticipated that a significant number of 
155mm cannon could be candidates for conversion to the 52 
caliber solid propellant system.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.7 million to 
program element 603640A for continued development of the 52 
caliber solid propellant system and the advanced solid 
propellant as a hedge against risk in the AFAS-LP program and 
for possible integration in the M109A6 Palladin and other field 
artillery systems.

Armored systems modernization (ASM)

    The committee recommends the following increases to the 
Army's budget request:
          $5.3 million, Armored Gun System, program element 
        604645A/D413
          $4.5 million, CMS/Grizzly, program element 603649A/
        DG24
          $9.9 million, CMS/Grizzly, program element 604649A/
        DG25
          $4.2 million, CMS/Wolverine, program element 604649A/
        DC26
          $1.3 million, Abrams tank, program element 203735A/
        D330
    The Abrams tank modification line is reduced $25.3 million 
to offset these increases.

Small arms common module fire control system (SACMFS)

    The committee is aware of new fire control system 
technology which has the potential to significantly increase 
the lethality and probability-of-hit of the Mark-19 grenade 
machine gun. In addition to enhanced performance of the Mark-
19, the new fire control system technology could provide 
substantial savings in ammuition and logistical support. The 
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to program 
element 603802A to initiate a program to upgrade the Small Arms 
Common Module Fire Control System (SACMFS), and directs the 
Secretary of the Army to report to the defense committees by 
March 1, 1996 on the progress of this effort.

Command and control centers

    The committee supports continuing efforts in the Army to 
improve operations through enhanced command and operations 
centers and recommends the following increases:
          --$11.0 million to program element 604201A for 
        prototype airborne command and control system for Task 
        Force XXI;
          --$10.0 million to program element 604741A for Air 
        Defense Artillery Brigade Operations Centers for 
        Patriot and Forward Area Air Defense command and 
        control.

Comanche helicopter

    The budget request included $199.1 million for continued 
research and development of the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter. The 
committee continues to be supportive of the Comanche, but is 
concerned that the development program continues to be extended 
while the procurement is pushed further into the future. If the 
Comanche is truly the ``quarterback'' of the Army's Force XXI, 
then the program must be viewed as viable--with a realistically 
credible fielding date. Repeated reductions in the research and 
development program by the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
delay the program unnecessarily and discourage the Army from 
putting more funds at risk.
    The committee recommends an increase of $174.0 million for 
the Comanche program. The Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of the Army are directed to submit a jointly 
developed plan with the fiscal year 1997 budget request, 
indicating restoration of funding in the outyears to provide 
for procurement of Comanche commencing by fiscal year 2001 with 
initial operating capability by 2003.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 
structure the engineering development program to ensure that 
the upgraded T800 (T801) engine is appropriately flight 
certified and included in the second Comanche prototype.

Medium tactical truck extended service program (ESP)

    The committee is aware of deficiencies in the Army's truck 
programs, especially its medium trucks. The committee is 
advised that only 6,000 new medium tactical vehicles (MTV) are 
scheduled to be procured through the year 2002. Nearly 27,000 
vehicles will be over age by that time. Further, approximately 
35 percent of the five-ton fleet will be beyond 20 years old, 
which will impact unit readiness and operations and support 
costs. The committee strongly supports current Army efforts to 
remanufacture two and one-half ton trucks and believes the Army 
should immediatiely initiate a similar program for five-ton 
trucks.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to 
program element 604604A for initiation of a five-ton truck 
extended service program to:
          --remanufacture M809 and M939 series vehicles to 
        augment the MTV buy and replace over age vehicles;
          --insert technologies to improve reliability, correct 
        operational deficiencies, and comply with EPA and 
        safety requirements;
          --co-manage Marine Corps Medium Tactical Vehicle 
        Replacement (MTVR) program with the Army five-ton ESP; 
        and
          --include Air force and Navy requirements to known 
        Army and Marine Corps quantities for five-ton truck 
        ESP.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide 
a report on the five-ton truck ESP to the defense committees 
with the fiscal year 1997 budget submission addressing all the 
points above and laying out a schedule leading to five-ton 
truck remanufacture commencing in fiscal year 1997. The 
committee expects the Army to harmonize requirements for the 
other military services to take maximum advantage of medium 
truck ESP currently underway, to minimize additional 
procurements to avoid industrial overcapacity, and to give 
consideration to reliable manufacturers who have demonstrated 
capabilities to produce military trucks.

Heavy tactical vehicles

    The committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million in 
program element 0604622A for development of a water heater/
chiller for the Army's water tank semitrailer.

High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)

    The committee recognizes that many of the HMMWV's in both 
the Army and Marine Corps are reaching age and mileage levels 
leading to increased maintenance and operating costs and lower 
reliability. This indicates the need for an extended service 
program (ESP). Therefore, the committee recommends an increase 
of $5.0 million to program element 604642A to initiate 
prototype development leading to an ESP for HMMWV. The 
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report 
to the defense committees with the fiscal year 1997 budget 
request describing a program to develop and test prototypes and 
to initiate a program to remanufacture HMMWV's for both the 
Army and the Marine Corps. The committee directs the Army and 
the Marine Corps to conduct a joint program, harmonizing their 
requirements for ESP.

Laser warning component-suite of survivability enhancements

    The committee is aware of the growing threat to ground 
combat vehicles in the form of laser-based range finders and 
anti-tank guided missiles, and recognizes that many nations 
throughout the world already have programs underway to field 
laser warning systems on their ground combat vehicles. The 
committee is concerned that efforts within the U.S. Army have 
not been adequately funded, and recommends an increase of $3.0 
million in program element 604740A to be used for development 
of the laser warning component of the suite of survivability 
systems.

Mark-19 universal bracket

    The committee recommends an increase of $0.5 million in 
program element 604802A for type classification of a non-
developmental universal mounting bracket for the Mark-19 
grenade machine gun.

High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility

    The committee continues to support the operation of the 
High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility (HELSTF) as the central 
test facility to support the nation's high energy laser 
development. The committee is disappointed with the $3.0 
million request for HELSTF, which would be insufficient to 
carry out the current Army plan to terminate the Mid-Infrared 
Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL), but continue the operation of 
the rest of the facility. That plan would require $19.6 million 
in fiscal year 1996 according to Army documents. The committee 
does not agree with the plan to terminate MIRACL, particularly 
when constraints on testing the laser against objects in space 
will not be imposed in fiscal year 1996, and the full potential 
of the facility can be realized for the first time. The 
committee therefore has added $21.8 million to the request for 
this facility.

Nautilus/Tactical High Energy Laser Program

    The committee continues to support the joint Army-Israel 
Ministry of Defense Nautilus program to assess the potential of 
high energy lasers to meet tactical threats. The committee has 
added $5.0 million to PE603308A to fund the U.S. share of phase 
II of the Nautilus program. The committee also understands that 
the tactical high energy laser (THEL) concept is drawing 
increasing support within the Army, ranking as the highest 
science and technology priority of the Depth and Simultaneous 
Attack Battle Lab, and second of 140 concepts in Mobile Strike 
Force 2010 planning. The Marine Corps has also established a 
mission need statement for THEL. The committee therefore 
provides $5.0 million in PE603308A to initiate program planning 
for a THEL technology demonstration in fiscal year 1996.

Army Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS)

    The committee has been advised that upgrades and digital 
links are required to adapt AFATDS for digitization exercises 
in conjunction with Task Force XXI. The committee recommends an 
increase of $6.2 million to program element 203726A for this 
purpose.

Stinger missile modifications

    The committee recommends an increase of $9.8 million to 
program element 203801A to continue and accelerate the Stinger 
missile modification block II program.

Communications enhancements

    The committee is aware of communications developmental 
efforts where relatively small investments now could lead to 
significantly enhanced communications as well as savings. The 
committee recommends the following increases:
          --$2.3 million in program element 303142A to 
        accelerate development and fielding of the Single 
        Channel Anti-jam Man Portable (SCAMP) Block II., and
          --$7.2 million in program element 208010A to 
        accelerate development and fielding of the Integrated 
        System Control (ISYSCON).
        
        
Defense research sciences (Navy)

    The committee recommends a reduction of $3.0 million in PE 
601153N to fund other priority programs.

Power electronics building block

    The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million in PE 
602121N for the development of the power electronics building 
block technology for the rapid switching and control of high 
power electrical systems. The committee recommends academic 
participation to ensure that supporting technologies, such as a 
computational testbed for system simulation, are developed to 
expedite the widespread application of this technology. The 
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be 
used in the award of any contracts or other agreements under 
this program, and that cost sharing requirements for non-
federal participants be utilized where appropriate.

Parametric airborne dipping sonar

    Parametric sonar projectors transmit two relatively high 
frequency acoustic beams that interact to form a narrow, low 
frequency beam for detection and classification of underwater 
objects. This technology could provide reduced reverberation 
and superior range and bearing resolution relative to lower 
frequency sonars. Parametric sonar technology has potential for 
improved weapons system performance in applications such as 
dipping sonars installed in helicopters. The Navy has been 
conducting a technology demonstration to evaluate a parametric 
system. The demonstration will culminate with planned delivery 
of a prototype parametric projector during fiscal year 1995. 
Although laboratory tests and model runs have indicated a 
parametric sonar may offer significant benefits over other 
developmental systems, funding constraints have prevented the 
Navy from pursuing further development of this technology in 
the fiscal year 1996 budget request.
    The committee believes that parametric sonar technology has 
shown considerable promise for anti-submarine warfare (ASW), 
particularly in littoral areas where the high power and low 
frequency of existing and developmental systems optimized for 
open ocean ASW tend to limit their effectiveness in shallower 
water. The committee supports continued development and 
evaluation of a parametric sonar system for possible airborne 
dipping sonar application. Consequently the committee 
recommends an increase of $4.8 million in PE 0602314N for the 
following purposes:
          1. expand the scope of the current effort to provide 
        three dimensional stabilized steerable beams around 360 
        degrees at full source level for an over-the-side 
        demonstration;
          2. further characterize the technology for mine 
        avoidance applications;
          3. evaluate whether parametric technology merits 
        further pursuit; and
          4. report the conclusions of this analysis to the 
        committee as promptly as possible after testing and 
        data analysis are complete.

Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology

    The committee views with great interest the initiatives 
taken by the Chief of Naval Research in support of the Chief of 
Naval Operations to make emerging technologies more readily 
available to the fleet. The Technologies for Rapid Response 
Initiative which is designed to give operational forces access 
to mature technologies is particularly noteworthy. To further 
Commander in Chief (CINC) access to these technologies, the 
committee recommends a transfer of $9.0 million from PE 601153N 
to PE 603217N, Air Systems and Weapons Advanced Technology. 
This increase is to be used by the Chief of Naval Operations to 
support fleet CINC use of the Technologies for Rapid Response 
Program with the view that these technologies will provide 
enhanced operational capability as well as allow the 
development of new tactics and concepts of operations.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide 
the committee with a report by March 1, 1997 of lessons learned 
from this technology insertion initiative.

Intercooled recuperated gas turbine

    In its review of the budget request, the committee noted 
that the Department of Defense had transferred the project for 
development of the intercooled recuperated gas turbine from the 
Advanced Surface Machinery (ASM) demonstration/validation 
program to PE 0603508N in the technology base. The committee is 
concerned that the transfer may have been done as an expedient 
bookkeeping action without taking into account the 
interrelationship between the program for development of the 
new ICR engine and other elements of the ASM program.
    To restore ASM program integrity, the committee directs the 
transfer of $25.6 million, the amount requested in PE 0603508N, 
to PE 0603573N to restore the integrity of the ASM program and 
authorizes this amount for continued development of the ICR 
engine.

Remote minehunting vehicle

    During its consideration of the budget request, the 
committee was briefed by the Navy on a developmental program 
that integrates commercial and Navy hardware to provide a 
contingency organic mine reconnaissance capability that can be 
remotely operated by surface ships. During an amphibious 
exercise conducted in March and April 1995, this remotely 
operated vehicle located exercise mines very effectively in 
support of an amphibious assault. The Navy believes that this 
remote minehunting operational prototype (RMOP) has shown real 
promise in filling a gap in its mine countermeasures 
operational capabilities, a deficiency that was highlighted by 
the impact of mines on operational planning during Desert 
Storm. The committee concurs, and recommends an increase of 
$7.5 million in PE 0603502N to accelerate development of this 
remote minehunting system.

Advanced armored amphibious vehicle (AAAV)

    The committee strongly supports the Marine Corps AAAV 
program, and understands that the current funding profile is 
inadequate. In that regard, the committee recommends an 
increase of $6.0 million for turbo charger development efforts 
for the AAAV 2600 horsepower main propulsion engine and 
upgrading of modeling and simulation efforts. The committee 
directs that any funding changes or undistributed reductions to 
program element 603611M may not be made without prior approval 
of the defense committees.

Lightweight 155mm howitzer

    The committee supports the joint Marine Corps/Army effort 
to develop and field a lightweight 155mm howitzer, and 
recommends an increase of $4.2 million to accelerate 
development. The committee understands that additional funding 
will be used for technical testing of cannon assemblies and 
studies regarding various fire control measures.

Cooperative engagement capability

    The Navy is developing a cooperative engagement capability 
(CEC) that will enable greatly enhanced engagement coordination 
as well as remote cuing of sensors and fire control systems by 
coordinating all battle force anti-air warfare sensors into a 
single, real-time composite track picture having fire-control 
quality data. When fielded, CEC will distribute sensor data 
from each ship and aircraft or cooperating unit to all other 
cooperating units in the battle force through a real-time, 
line-of-sight, high-data rate sensor and engagement data 
distribution network. Because the CEC link will be line-of-
sight, its integration into an airborne platform is 
particularly important. An airborne platform will be able to 
transmit to, and relay from, cooperating units that are over 
the horizon and beyond direct line-of-sight of units on the 
surface.
    To continue accelerated development of the airborne 
component of CEC, the committee recommends an increase of $22.5 
million to the budget request.

Naval surface fire support

    During its review of the budget request for fiscal year 
1996 the committee was briefed on a revised naval surface fire 
support (NSFS) program that focuses on near term improvements 
to naval NSFS systems. These included demonstration and 
development of a long range rocket-assisted guided projectile 
that would incorporate an advanced, low-cost global 
positioning/inertial navigation (GPS/INS) guidance technology 
and improvements in the existing MK-45 5-inch naval gun. While 
other weapons systems, such as a naval variant of the Army's 
tactical missile system (ATACMS), are also included in this new 
program, the Navy has given top priority to improvements to the 
5-inch gun that is installed on the majority of its surface 
combatants, and its associated projectile. The Navy and Marine 
Corps assert that this new NSFS program was conceived after the 
services had evaluated a recently completed cost and 
operational effectiveness analysis (COEA) and determined that 
its recommended solution was not achievable in a realistic time 
frame due to affordability constraints. Consequently, with 
close involvement by the Marine Corps in evaluating mission 
requirements, the Navy has conceived a program that in its 
judgment makes the best use of existing assets, is affordable 
and achievable in a much shorter time period, yet will still 
cover the majority of potential targets for an opposed 
amphibious assault.
    The Navy has also informed the committee, however, that, 
because this new NSFS program emerged in the interval between 
preparation of the budget request and its review by the 
committee; it is underfunded by over $160.0 million across the 
future years defense program. Further, far term requirements 
have not yet been adequately addressed.
    The committee has stressed the issue of NSFS repeatedly 
over the past several years but has found the Navy's response 
to be lackluster and highly variable as a new program or 
approach emerged each year. The committee's concern about this 
apparent lack of commitment by the Navy was once more raised 
this year. With no advance coordination with the committee, the 
Secretary of the Navy decided to strike the Navy's four 
remaining Iowa class battleships, its only remaining potential 
source of around-the-clock, accurate, high volume, heavy fire 
support, in apparent disregard of the loss of NSFS capability 
that would result. In the committee's judgment, its queries to 
the Navy on this subject have not produced any substantive 
response. The committee remains unclear on any existing or near 
term NSFS capability that could adequately replace the 
capability lost by this decision.
    Because the need is so strong and because the Navy finally 
appears committed to pursuing a program to completion, the 
committee is willing to provide initial support this year to 
the Navy's program to upgrade the capability of its 5-inch 
guns, based on the assurances of the Navy's leadership that the 
Navy will follow through with consistent, stable, and adequate 
future years funding. Consequently, the committee recommends an 
increase in funding of $19.2 million in PE 0603795N and notes 
the need for the Navy to put increased emphasis on pursuing a 
long-term program to satisfy the NSFS mission requirements that 
can not be met by improvements to the 5-inch naval gun. 
Further, the committee recommends a provision that would direct 
the Secretary of the Navy to restore at least two Iowa class 
battleships to the naval register and to retain them in its 
strategic reserve until the Secretary of the Navy is prepared 
to certify that the Navy has replaced the potential NSFS 
capability that they can provide. A recommendation for testing 
of an extended range multiple launch rocket system for the 
shore fire support mission is also included elsewhere in this 
report.

S-3B Project Gray Wolf

    The Navy has been testing the concept of equipping an S-3 
aircraft with a multi-mode synthetic aperture radar, designated 
AN/APG-76. The Navy has called this demonstration ``Project 
Gray Wolf.'' With such a system, S-3B aircraft could support 
fleet operations in littoral warfare missions by providing real 
time, stand-off surveillance, targeting, and strike support. 
The committee is aware of the success the Navy has achieved in 
limited demonstrations of the system's capability in fleet 
exercises and in the ``Roving Sands'' experiment at White Sands 
Missile Range.
    The committee recommends an increase of $13.2 million in 
program element 0604217N to:
          1. buy an AN/APG-76 radar system, a ground station, 
        and a data link capability;
          2. modify the radar system to include a commercial, 
        off-the-shelf (COTS) processor; and
          3. provide contractor logistics support for further 
        testing.
    The committee believes that the Department should consider 
identifying Project Gray Wolf as an advanced concept technology 
demonstration if testing and evaluation continues to show such 
promising results.

V-22 Osprey

    The committee notes that the proposed low production rate 
for the V-22 results in a 27 year production run to field the 
required 523 aircraft for the Marines, Special Operations 
Forces and the Navy. The committee understands this is 
primarily due to a cap placed by the Department of the Navy on 
V-22 procurement by the Department of Defense of $1.0 billion 
in fiscal year 1994 dollars. The committee questions this 
approach as unnecessarily lengthy and inefficient. The 
committee is aware of Defense Science Board recommendations to 
reduce costs by treating the three Low Rate Initial Production 
lots as a package in order to permit more efficient purchasing 
of parts and materials.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide an analysis of the Defense Science Board proposal 
including more efficient production profiles of up to 36 
aircraft per year for the Department of the Navy. The report is 
to be submitted no later than 15 April 1996 to the defense 
committees.
    The committee is also interested in the success of the 
development of the Special Operations Forces version, or CV-22, 
and consequently requests the Department to provide a detailed 
program overview, including funding and schedule details 
concerning the current CV-22 program, with any possible 
alternatives to accelerate initial operational capability of 
the Special Operations Forces aircraft.

Airborne electronic warfare

    Last year, the statement of managers accompanying the 
conference report on S. 2182 (H. Rept. 103-701) directed the 
Secretary of the Navy to provide for a robust upgrade of EA-6B 
electronic jammers by taking advantage of technologies 
developed in the previously canceled advanced capabilities 
(ADVCAP) program. The report also directed the Secretary to 
submit the long overdue joint tactical airborne electronic 
warfare study (JTAEWS) by December 31, 1994.
    Although it had successfully passed all development and 
testing milestones, the Navy canceled the ADVCAP program. The 
ADVCAP program would also have provided funding for safety, 
reliability, maintainability, configuration commonality, and 
depot level maintenance for the Navy's EA-6B airborne jammer. 
The Navy's decision to cancel ADVCAP failed to account for 
continuing these other needed efforts that were unrelated to 
the capability upgrade portion of the ADVCAP program. The 
committee also believes that decision incorrectly ignored the 
EA-6B's dwindling capability against a widening array of 
threats.
    Since last year, the Department has also decided to cancel 
the EF-111 system improvement program (SIP) and retire the 
aircraft on a phased basis by fiscal year 2000. The Department 
intends to use an additional 20 EA-6B aircraft to support the 
Air Force stand-off jamming mission. The report recently 
released by the Roles and Missions Commission noted the 
importance of supporting specific interoperability initiatives, 
such as upgrading the Navy/Marine Corps EA-6B force to meet all 
DOD airborne electronic standoff jamming needs. Unfortunately, 
the budget does not include the funding needed to support this 
decision.
    The committee has concluded that airborne electronic 
warfare (EW) has drifted backward. The committee sees no 
coherent DOD plan for a joint future capability to conduct 
integrated strike air warfare. The JTAEWS analysis was supposed 
to define the future shape of airborne EW by examining the 
dominant elements of EW: jamming, self protection, suppression 
of enemy air defenses (SEAD), and stealth. However, the budget 
does not even implement the results of that analysis.
    The Department has ignored congressional intent time and 
again in this matter. With no coherent plan, and with disregard 
for Congressional direction, the Department appears to hope the 
problem will solve itself. The committee believes that this is 
an unacceptable situation. The combatant commanders will not 
launch strikes without EW support, yet airborne electronic 
warfare is not important enough to receive upgrade funds. 
Unfortunately, because of previous and planned cancellations, 
the combatant commanders now have less EW capability available 
now than they had during Desert Storm.
    For these reasons, the committee recommends a provision 
directing the Navy to include a warfighting capability 
improvement component in its planned series of upgrades to the 
EA-6B.
    The committee recommends additional funding as follows:
          1. $25.0 million in program element 0604270N for 
        warfighting capability improvements. These upgrades 
        should, at a minimum, address gaps in the aircraft's 
        ability to counter emerging threats by improving the 
        low band receiver system to enhance our ability to 
        conduct smart communications and radar jamming.
          2. $40.0 million dollars to begin a robust band 9/10 
        capability upgrade for the EA-6B fleet. Additionally, 
        the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to work 
        with the Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that 
        technologies developed in the EF-111 SIP program for 
        band 9/10 jammers are used in the EA-6B program.
          3. $140.0 million to upgrade 20 EA-6B aircraft to the 
        Block 89 configuration to support the additional Air 
        Force stand-off jamming mission.
    The committee notes that these items and initiatives are 
consistent with the Operational Advisory Group's (OAG) top war 
fighting priorities and represent a prudent step to ensure that 
the Department maintains needed airborne EW capability.

NULKA decoy development

    NULKA is a joint U.S.-Australian project to develop an 
anti-ship missile decoy system. Increased funding in fiscal 
year 1996 would allow for the integration of NULKA with the 
Ship Self-Defense System for installation on amphibious ships 
and other self-defense ships, to conduct testing of the 
integrated system, and commence development of improvements to 
the payload needed to counter improvements in anti-ship missile 
technology. The committee strongly supports these objectives 
and recommends an increase of $9.0 million in program element 
0604755N for three purposes:
          1. $4.4 million would be used to integrate NULKA into 
        the Shipboard Self-Defense System and the Electronic 
        Warfare Decoy Device Integration, making it a fully 
        coordinated component of a ship's self-defense 
        architecture;
          2. $3.6 million would be used for the Enhanced 
        Payload Improvement Program upgrade to allow NULKA to 
        counter advanced threats; and
          3. $1.0 million would be used for Navy support of the 
        program.

Infrared search and track

    The budget request reduced funding and restructured the 
infrared search and track (IRST) program for affordability 
reasons. The committee believes that the IRST system has the 
potential to play a very important role in defending naval 
ships against sea skimming antiship missiles. A recently 
completed cost and operational effectiveness analysis (COEA) 
supports this conclusion. The committee strongly believes the 
Navy should emphasize early integration of the IRST system with 
both Aegis and non-Aegis ships and place priority on early 
completion of its development. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE 0604755N to 
accelerate plans for combat system integration and design of 
the IRST system.

BARAK 1--ship self defense

    The committee has been very concerned about protecting U.S. 
Navy ships from the proliferation of maneuvering, sea-skimming, 
low observable, anti-ship cruise missiles. The committee 
recognizes that budget realities make it necessary to examine 
existing available solutions. Consequently, the committee is 
pleased that the existing BARAK 1 is currently under 
consideration as a candidate defense system for LPD-17. The 
committee wishes to be kept informed on the LPD-17 cost and 
operational effectiveness analysis progress and results. 
Furthermore, the committee directs the Navy to present by 
December 1995 a plan that could lead to testing of the BARAK 
system in the U.S. during fiscal year 1996.
    Because of the advantage to the fleet of an early 
deployment of a robust ship self defense system, the committee 
directs that the Navy also examine and report on BARAK 
applicability to other ship classes. The results of this study 
should be provided to the committee by January 1996.

Medium tactical vehicle remanufacture (MTVR)

    The committee supports the Marine Corps plan to 
remanufacture its medium truck fleet and recommends an increase 
of $9.4 million to program element 206624M for additional truck 
variants and development of simulation models and testing. The 
committee directs the Marine Corps and the Army to harmonize 
requirements for their respective medium truck extended service 
programs (ESP), to take maximum advantage of medium truck ESP 
currently underway, to minimize additional procurements to 
avoid industrial overcapacity, and to give consideration to 
reliable manufacturers who have demonstrated capabilities to 
produce military trucks.

Crash attenuating seats for helicopters

    The committee has learned of an initiative to accelerate 
the inclusion of crash attenuating seats for passengers in 
military helicopters. While there is a program to include such 
seats, it is not scheduled for execution until fiscal year 1999 
and beyond. In order to accelerate the effort and take 
advantage of non-developmental options, the committee 
recommends the release of the $2.7 million appropriated in 
fiscal year 1995 to be used in defining specifications and 
qualification of non-developmental seats, and to report to the 
committee no later than 15 May 1996 on the non-developmental 
options available to provide crash attenuating seats for 
military transport helicopters.

                Plasma Electric Waste Converter Program

    The committee noted in fiscal year 1995 that a new 
technology--Plasma Electric Waste Converter technology--was 
available which could help the Navy solve its solid waste 
disposal problem on board its deployed ships. Congress 
authorized the Navy to spend $1.8 million in fiscal year 1995 
to explore plasma electric waste converter technology as a 
solution to this problem. Recognizing the growing problem of 
base cleanup efforts as the base closure process progresses, 
Congress believes that this technology might also have 
application in such cleanup efforts. Thus, the Navy is urged to 
consider ways to test the application of this technology to 
cleaning up bases which are being closed or realigned and at 
which there is environmental or waste disposal problems.


Adaptive optics

    The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 
601102F for adaptive optics research.

Defense research sciences (Air Force)

    The committee recommends a reduction of $9.0 million in the 
Defense Research Sciences program of the Air Force to allow the 
funding of higher priority projects.

Human systems technology

     The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million in 
PE 602202F to fund other priority programs. The committee notes 
that this reduction would still allow for a substantial 
increase in funding for this program in fiscal year 1996.

Thermally stable jet fuels

    The committee recommends an additional authorization of 
$3.0 million in PE 602203F for the acceleration of a program to 
develop thermally stable jet fuels using chemicals derived from 
coal.

Range tracking and safety

    The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 
0603311F for suborbital flight testing at White Sands Missile 
Range of ballistic missile guidance, range tracking and safety 
equipment that is based on existing Global Positioning System 
equipment.

Micro-satellite development program

    The Air Force Phillips Laboratory, in conjunction with the 
Air Force Space Command's Space Warfare Center, has initiated a 
small satellite program to develop and demonstrate a variety of 
miniaturized space technologies. The micro-satellite program 
builds upon the highly successful Clementine satellite program. 
The committee recommends an authorization of $20.0 million in 
fiscal year 1996 to continue this effort, under the control of 
the Space Warfare Center and executed by the Clementine Team 
(Phillips Laboratory, Naval Research Laboratory, and Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory). The committee recommends the 
$20.0 million authorization be included in PE 0603401F, 
``Advanced Spacecraft Technology.''

Polar satellite communications

    The Department of Defense has an urgent requirement to 
provide secure communications for operations in the polar 
region. The most critical of these requirements can be 
satisfied in the near-term through an Air Force program to 
place extremely high frequency (EHF) communications packages, 
similar to the ones used on the Ultra-High Frequency Follow-On 
program (UFO), on host satellites. Having already approved this 
program as a new start in fiscal year 1995, the committee 
recommends the authorization of $58.0 million in fiscal year 
1996 in PE 603432F to acquire the communications payload and 
perform integration and test activities in support of a 1997 
launch of this capability aboard a host satellite. To offset 
this increase, the committee recommends the realignment of 
funds from the MILSTAR program (PE 604479F) that are no longer 
required for termination liability fees.

National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System

    The budget request included $23.9 million for the national 
polar-orbiting operational environmental satellite system 
(NPOESS), a converged Department of Defense, Department of 
Commerce, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
national weather satellite program. The committee has long 
supported such a convergence. The committee understands that a 
slower than expected start-up of the Integrated Program Office 
and delay in the demonstration/validation phase of the program 
have reduced required funding. The committee, therefore, 
recommends a reduction of $10.0 million.

Reentry vehicle applications

    The Nuclear Posture Review, conducted by the Department of 
Defense during the fall of 1994, recommended sustaining the 
industrial base for strategic ballistic missile reentry 
vehicles (RVs). The United States Strategic Command has 
reported that the RV industrial base, especially the expertise 
and capability to manufacture specialized material, is rapidly 
eroding. In response to this critical requirement, the 
Department of Defense has directed the Air Force and the Navy 
to sustain key elements of the RV industrial base through an RV 
applications program.
    The budget request includes $5.7 million for the Air Force 
and $10.0 million for the Navy to pursue this effort. However, 
the Air Force funding level is inadequate. Therefore, the 
committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE 603851F 
to balance the Air Force and Navy efforts. To help bolster this 
effort, the committee also recommends an increase of $750,000 
in PE 0602102F to the Thermal Protection Materials Reentry 
Vehicle Project for the purchase, testing, and evaluation of 
three nosetip billets and related technologies; and an increase 
of $2.2 million in the Strategic Submarine and Weapons System 
Support program (PE 0101221N) for the fabrication and testing 
of carbon-carbon composite shape stable nosetip billets for 
submarine launched ballistic missile RV system applications.

Interim precision guided munitions (PGM)

    Last year, the committee directed the Department of Defense 
to conduct a Heavy Bomber Study to define the future needs for 
long range bombers. The Heavy Bomber Study strongly endorsed 
the need for PGM's. Accordingly, while awaiting the analysis 
and recommendations required by the Bill's related provision on 
PGM's, the committee recommends an increase of $353.0 million 
as a cost-effective method of procuring capability instead of 
acquiring further B-2 aircraft. The committee is persuaded by 
that argument, and recommends an increase in the budget request 
as detailed below.

Precision Guided Munitions Procurement

          Procure 100 AGM-130 missiles, an increase of $40.0 
        million.
          Convert 200 AGM-86 ALCM's to conventional 
        configuration an increase of $27.2 million.
          Procure 50 Have Nap PGM's for use on B-52 H aircraft, 
        an increase of $38.0 million.
          Procure additional conventional bomb modules for B-1 
        bombers through an addition of $85.0 million.
          Make necessary modifications to the B-1 weapons 
        carriage system to support an interim Joint Standoff 
        Weapon (JSOW) through an addition of $11.6 million.
          Procure up to 25 interim JSOW's, an addition of $10.4 
        million.

Precision Guided Munitions RDT&E

          $20.0 million in PE 0604226F to acquire an interim 
        precision munition for the B-1B, known as the B-1B 
        Virtual Umbilical Device (BVUD), provided the Secretary 
        of the Air Force certifies to the congressional defense 
        committees that the BVUD is a valid requirement by May 
        15, 1996. Failing such certification, the funds 
        provided are to be used for further acceleration of 
        upgrades to the B-1B through the Conventional Munitions 
        Upgrade Program (CMUP).
          An increase $20.0 million to integrate the AGM-130 
        with the B-52H bomber and begin qualification and 
        testing of the extended-range version of the AGM-130, 
        in PE 0101113F.
          $40.0 million in PE 0604226F to provide a portion of 
        the B-1 fleet with an interim capability for employing 
        the Joint Standoff Weapon.
          An increase of $7.0 million for Interferometric 
        Terrain Aided Guidance (ITAG) technology demonstration 
        to improve JDAM accuracy, PE 0604618F.

Conventional Bomber Enhancements

          Accelerate the Conventional Munitions Upgrade Program 
        (CMUP) for the B-1 bomber, an increase of $47.2 million 
        in PE 0604226F.
          Increase by $6.6 million PE 0604226F to allow for an 
        acceleration of the ECM upgrade by funding the Systems 
        Requirements Review in fiscal year 1996, rather than 
        the budget's planned start in fiscal year 1997.
    These additions and program accelerations are made with the 
intent of satisfying the requirements for capable, conventional 
bombers as soon as practicable.

F-22 program

    The committee held hearings on tactical aviation forces 
modernization this year and reviewed the F-22 engineering and 
manufacturing development (EMD) program. The committee notes 
that issues have been raised on the level of concurrency, 
projected weight, and projected engine performance with 
specific fuel consumption (SFC).
    There are conflicting viewpoints. A report of the Defense 
Science Board concluded that, ``There is no reason based on 
risk/concurrency to introduce a schedule stretch at this 
time.'' But the General Accounting Office (GAO) believes that 
the F-22 program ``exhibits a high degree of concurrency.''
    Based on hearing testimony the committee believes that the 
Department should address promptly a number of questions. The 
committee is making no finding as to the level or risk of 
concurrency on the F-22 program at this time. However, the 
committee would have serious concerns about any program that 
involves an inappropriately high level of concurrency that 
possesses high risk.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report to the congressional defense committees before September 
1, 1995. That report shall address the concerns on concurrency, 
weight and SFC, and shall, at a minimum, answer the following 
questions.

A. Concurrency:

          1. What metrics for measuring the level of program 
        concurrency are important for predicting the potential 
        for a program to deliver the promised product, on 
        schedule, at or below cost, with the required 
        performance?
          2. What is the level of concurrency risk in the F-22 
        program, given that the present program calls for 80 
        production planes before completion of research, 
        development, and testing?
                  a. What is the risk of the current F-22 EMD 
                program to cost, schedule, and performance of 
                the overall F-22 program?
                  b. What change could or should be made to 
                reduce whatever level of concurrency exists in 
                the F-22 EMD program?
          3. What is the department's view of what constitutes 
        low, medium, and high levels of concurrency in general, 
        and specifically as to the present F-22 program?
          4. What are the benchmarks that the Congress should 
        use to gauge when any program should be pursued with 
        moderate or high levels of concurrency?
          5. How should concurrency relate to risk, either in 
        terms of cost, schedule, or performance?
          6. How should the Congress compare the F-22 EMD 
        program's projected level of concurrency to that 
        experienced in the A-12 program?
          7. What are the similarities and differences between 
        the F-22 and the A-12 programs that prevent a re-
        occurrence of the A-12 problems in the F-22 EMD 
        program?

B. Weight:

          1. What is the current condition of projected weight 
        of production aircraft?
          2. Since no EMD or production aircraft has been 
        built, on what basis is the Department projecting an 
        overweight condition?
          3. What was the outcome of the JROC review regarding 
        weight? If the JROC approved the Air Force's change 
        request, what was the basis for making that decision?
          4. What would be the effect on military capability of 
        F-22 aircraft if they are delivered at the currently 
        projected weight?
          5. What is the risk that weight will grow above the 
        current projection?
          6. How large a weight increase above the current 
        projection should the Congress be willing to accept 
        without restructuring the program?
          7. What has been the experience of other aircraft 
        development programs in incurring additional weight 
        after the critical design review milestone?
          8. Absent fiscal concerns, could the weight goal be 
        attained? What is the estimated cost of achieving the 
        original weight goal?

C. Specific fuel consumption:

          1. What is the current condition of projected SFC of 
        engine operating in production aircraft?
          2. Since no EMD or production aircraft has been 
        built, on what basis is the Department projecting an 
        SFC deficiency?
          3. What was the outcome of the JROC review regarding 
        SFC? If the JROC approved the Air Force's change 
        request, what was the basis for making that decision?
          4. What would be the effect on military capability of 
        F-22 aircraft if they are delivered with engines 
        operating at the currently projected SFC?
          5. What is the risk that SFC performance will fall 
        below the current projection?
          6. How much of a performance decline should the 
        Congress be willing to accept without restructuring the 
        program?
          7. What has been the experience of other aircraft 
        development programs in incurring poorer SFC 
        performance after the critical design review milestone?
          8. Absent fiscal concerns, could the SFC performance 
        goal be attained? What is the estimated cost of 
        achieving the original SFC performance goal?
    The committee recommends $2.1 billion for the F-22 program. 
However, the committee directs that, of these funds, $600.0 
million shall not be made available for obligation until 60 
days after the Department of Defense submits the requested 
report.

Sensor Fuzed Weapon Improvement Program

    The committee understands that the Air Force has the 
opportunity to substantially increase the effectiveness of the 
sensor fuzed weapon (SFW) through a pre-planned product 
improvement program (P3I). The committee further understands 
that if an increase in Air Force funding were available for 
fiscal year 1996, the program's Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development could begin at once.
    Realizing the opportunity to increase the weapon's 
performance by 300 percent for a 15 percent increase in 
production cost, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million for the start of the EMD for the Sensor Fuzed Weapon 
(P3I). The committee further understands that the Air Force 
will budget for the program in the FYDP by the Air Force prior 
to obligating these funds.

Ultra-high frequency satellite communications

    The budget request for Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) satellite 
communications was $15.6 million. The Air Force has recently 
changed its acquisition strategy to down-select to a single 
Network Control Station contract earlier than planned. As a 
result, the committee recommends a reduction of $6.5 million.

RC-135 Re-engining

    The committee continues to appreciate the critical role of 
the RC-135 ``Rivet Joint'' Signal Intelligence aircraft. The 
committee is aware of a plan by the Department to re-fit two 
retired EC-135 aircraft to add to the RC-135 fleet, and that 
these aircraft are currently awaiting sensor integration.
    To facilitate an affordable program for the RC-135 upgrade 
program, the committee recommends an increase in the Defense 
Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO) authorization of $79.5 
million, to include $31.5 million of non recurring integration 
activity and $48.0 million for two CFM56 engine kits. This 
upgrade has the support of the GAO, and is a prudent investment 
in future capability.

Joint air-to-surface standoff missile (JASSM)

    The committee expects the Department to establish a joint 
program for the Air Force and the Navy for development of a 
replacement for the canceled Tri-Service Standoff Attack 
Missile (TSSAM). The committee is aware that the Air Force and 
the Navy have jointly developed JASSM requirements, are working 
on an aggressive development schedule/strategy, and have 
established a program office. The committee also understands 
JASSM will have an affordability focus, leveraging off existing 
technologies and lessons learned from the TSSAM program. The 
committee agrees with the focus on affordability, but expects 
the Air Force to emphasize weapons performance as well.
    The committee understands the TSSAM cancellation occurred 
too late in the budget cycle for either service to address the 
requirement for JASSM in the fiscal year 1996 budget request. 
Now the program is being considered in the Air Force fiscal 
year 1997 request as a new program. The Air Force has a more 
urgent need for JASSM missiles, and is therefore funding the 
early development of the joint requirement. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in Air Force 
RDT&E for this purpose.

Standoff Land Attack Missile Extended Response

    The committee recognizes the Navy's need for an upgrade 
program to the standoff land attack missile (SLAM) to make it 
operationally suitable and effective. Accordingly, the 
committee supports the budget request of $40.5 million in PE 
64603N for continued development of the Standoff Land Attack 
Missile Extended Response (SLAM ER) to upgrade the 700 SLAM in 
the current inventory.

Rivet Joint technology transfer program

    The committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million to 
the theater missile defense (TMD) program element (PE 208060F) 
to initiate the migration of the Cobra Ball medium wave 
infrared acquisition technology to the Rivet Joint RC-135 
tactical reconnaissance fleet. With the transfer of this 
technology, the Rivet Joint fleet would be provided with a 
cost-effective means to significantly improve theater missile 
defense long-range surveillance, warning, and rapid cueing for 
attack operations as well as impact point prediction for both 
active and passive defensive measures. The committee 
understands that the Department of the Air Force has programmed 
the balance of the funds in the outyears to complete the TMD 
migration program.

Information systems security

    The committee strongly supports efforts to develop multi-
level security systems for the Department of Defense's 
information systems. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
authorization of $1.5 million in PE 0303140F to complete 
research and development of the Trusted RUBIX database 
management system.

Defense Support Program

    The budget request for Defense Support Program (DSP) RDT&E 
was $43.7 million. $5.0 million in fiscal year 1995 funds have 
been identified as excess and are expected to be reprogrammed 
as part of the fiscal year 1995 Omnibus reprogramming. The 
committee directs the Air Force to use these funds for fiscal 
year 1996 requirements and therefore reduces the fiscal year 
1996 request by $5.0 million.

Fighter data links

    The committee finds the Air Force's decision to equip its 
air superiority fighters (F-15Cs) with the data link called 
``Link 16'' encouraging. Nevertheless, the committee does not 
understand why the Air Force is planning to equip only this 
subset of its forces with data links. Getting tactical data 
links for Air Force attack aircraft has been a difficult 
challenge over the years. The committee believes the added 
situational awareness resulting from sharing data among various 
platforms has real potential for making our forces more 
effective warfighters.
    The committee believes that the Air Force should place a 
higher priority on increasing situational awareness of our 
attack aircraft. The other Services are taking a more 
determined approach:
          1. The Army is installing the improved data modem and 
        data links among helicopters, and between helicopter 
        forces and other Army and Air Force units.
          2. The Navy is installing multifunction information 
        distribution system (MIDS) terminals in its fighter and 
        attack aircraft. The MIDS program is an international 
        effort to provide this capability for a variety of 
        weapons platforms for the U.S. and our allies.
    The Air Force says that it cannot afford to outfit all of 
its aircraft with the full MIDS terminal. The committee 
understands that the budget process and tight fiscal 
constraints force the Services to make tough choices. However, 
the committee remains puzzled by the relative priority that the 
Air Force has accorded data link capability. In response to 
inquiries, the Air Force provided the congressional defense 
committees a prioritized list of how it would choose to spend 
extra funds if they were available. That list totals more than 
$1.8 billion in fiscal year 1996 alone. The list shows that the 
Air Force would choose to spend none of any additional funds on 
spreading this data link capability.
    The committee believes that investing in additional data 
links could yield a several fold increase in combat capability 
in the near-term and provide much greater leverage than many 
items on the Air Force's list.
    The Air Force has also said that its forces do not need all 
the capability that the Navy requires from its MIDS terminals. 
The committee understands that the Air Force has been 
considering a proposal for a lower-cost joint tactical 
information distribution system, called ``JTIDS 2R.''
    Department of Defense officials have told the committee 
that a variant of the current MIDS terminal could achieve the 
reduced costs the Air Force seeks, while avoiding the overhead 
associated with launching another program. In view of this 
information, the committee will not support initiation of a 
new, redundant program to meet similar requirements. The common 
approach should reduce the department's costs of ownership and 
increase interoperability with our allies, and will help 
promote cooperative development efforts.
    The committee recommends that the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Acquisition and Technology) continue to pursue a MIDS 
production strategy that maximizes competition for U.S. 
industry, while maintaining the benefits of the MIDS 
architecture and commonality. The Air Force should share the 
results of the Mountain Home Air Force Base technology 
demonstrations with the MIDS program office to assist in 
fulfilling the Air Force's fighter data link requirement.


Combat readiness research

     The committee is aware of the potential to accelerate 
certain research activities affecting combat readiness within 
the university community. The committee recommends an addition 
of $10.0 million to the University Research Initiative account 
(601103D) to allow the Secretary of Defense to enter an 
agreement with a qualified institution of higher learning with 
strong capabilities in areas of combat research, including 
chemical and biological warfare, target acquisition and 
identification, anti-submarine warfare, combat medicine, 
biodeterioration, and command, control and communications. The 
committee directs the Secretary to follow all applicable 
competitive procedures in awarding this agreement, to require 
the institution awarded the agreement to contribute at least 
twice the amount provided by the federal government to execute 
the program, and to stipulate in the agreement specific savings 
in research or other federal expenditures that will accrue from 
accelerating research covered under the agreement.

DODDS Director's fund for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering

    The committee is again pleased with the progress made in 
this important program. The Department of Defense Dependent 
School System (DODDS) is one of the nations only two federal 
school systems. It enrolls children from every state in the 
union and from sponsors who range in rank from the lowest 
enlisted grades to the highest flag ranks. Many of the DODDS 
schools also enroll students from other federal agencies and 
from allied nations.
    The director's fund is intended to allow the Director to 
focus modern technology on the most pressing educational needs 
of students in the system in the disciplines of science, 
mathematics, and engineering. Its success to date is 
demonstrated by the increasing progress DODDS has made toward 
meeting the Goals 2000 educational standards.
    The committee is aware of the many stresses that an 
overseas assignment places on the families of the men and women 
in uniform. Not the least of these is the challenge that 
children of service members face as they attend relatively 
small schools remote from American life, often in locations 
that are widely dispersed. This program is designed to insure 
that these children have the benefit of the best technology 
possible as they acquire the technical disciplines that so 
often lead to higher education, and the technical and medical 
skills needed by our nation.
    The committee remains concerned that these funds be at the 
disposal of the Director of the DODDS system. The committee 
recognizes the need for program management and for the 
integration of this program with other educational programs of 
the department. Nevertheless, the ultimate authority on the 
allocation of these resources should be the Director of the 
DODDS system who has the overall responsibility to educate the 
children of our military personnel serving overseas. The 
committee directs that $10.0 million of the funds in PE 601103D 
be provided for this program.

University Research Initiatives

    The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million in 
the University Research Initiatives program to fund other 
priority programs.

Medical Free Electron Laser program

    The committee notes the continued progress of the Medical 
Free Electron Laser (MFEL) Program, which was initiated to 
develop medical applications of free electron laser technology 
at university medical centers. This technology has proven 
itself in a number of military and civilian clinical 
applications, such as the treatment of skin lesions, skin 
burns, cancers, and kidney and gallstones. The geographically-
distributed, merit-selected medical centers have been 
successful in transferring significant amounts of technology to 
the private sector.
    Given the success of the MFEL program to date, the 
committee is concerned about the impact of the reduction in the 
funding request for fiscal year 1996 of $13.0 million below the 
amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995. The committee notes 
that the Department of Defense intends to restore the funding 
level in the request for fiscal year 1997 to $24.8 million. In 
order to ensure an orderly continuation of the MFEL program, 
the committee has recommended an addition of $8.0 million to PE 
602227D in fiscal year 1996. Additionally, the committee 
continues to support the DOD practice requiring that no less 
than four-fifths of the funds authorized be applied through the 
university-based centers to adapt tunable, short-pulsed, high-
peak power free electron laser applications in medicine, 
photobiology, surgery, and associated material sciences.

Software reuse

    The committee recommends an additional authorization of 
$3.0 million in PE 602301E to continue software reuse 
activities in the Department of Defense.

Tactical landing system

    The committee recommends an additional authorization of 
$6.5 million in PE 62702E for the completion of the tactical 
landing system program.

Diamond substrates

    The Advanced Research Projects Agency has had an ongoing 
program to address issues in the manufacture of industrial 
diamond materials for use in thermal management in integrated 
circuits. With the growth of on-chip integration of 
transistors, developers and producers are facing serious 
limitations because of the need to dissipate ever increasing 
thermal energy. Diamond has the highest thermal conductivity of 
any known material combined with high electrical resistance, 
making it a leading material for addressing this problem. 
Successful reduction in the cost of producing diamond 
substrates using the chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process 
could result in significant increases in power and decreases in 
size and weight of military electronics. Therefore, the 
committee recommends an additional authorization of $8.0 
million to PE 602712E to accelerate the program. The committee 
directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in 
the award of any contracts or other agreements under this 
program and that cost sharing requirements for non-federal 
participants be utilized where appropriate.

High temperature superconductivity

    High temperature superconductivity (HTS) offers the 
opportunity to realize the processing speed benefits of 
superconductivity while cooling electronic devices to a 
temperature no lower than that of liquid nitrogen. There are 
significant potential military benefits from this technology 
including reduction in the size of electronic components, 
increases in the sensitivity of radars and other sensors, and 
increases in useful bandwidth. There are a number of 
manufacturing issues that must be addressed to make this 
technology operational, including reducing processing costs and 
increasing the yields within those processes. To enable ARPA to 
address these issues in a coherent framework, the committee 
recommends an additional authorization of $8.0 million in PE 
602712E. The committee directs that all applicable competitive 
procedures be used in the award of any contracts or other 
agreements under this program and that cost sharing 
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where 
appropriate.

Pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) technology

    Congress initiated funding for the Department of Defense in 
1991 to develop non-intrusive cargo detection which has 
resulted in the Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis (PFNA) technology. 
PFNA is an automated, non-intrusive detection technology that 
recognizes the presence of hidden explosive material and other 
contraband. It can be particularly useful in detecting the 
contents of sealed cargo containers through the use of a 
scanning beam which measures the elemental composition of the 
cargo. The committee recommends an authorization of $2.0 
million in PE 603122D for continued development of PFNA cargo 
inspection technology under the direction of the Technical 
Support Working Group of the Department of Defense.

Thermophotovoltaics

    The thermophotovoltaics program (TPV) is a collaborative 
program between ARPA and NASA to demonstrate and develop a 
passive power generator powered by liquid and gaseous fuels. 
TPV has potential for a number of military applications 
including power generation in unmanned underwater vehicles. The 
committee recommends an additional authorization of $5.0 
million in the Experimental Evaluation of Major Innovative 
Technologies to continue the program in fiscal year 1996. The 
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be 
used in the award of any contracts or other agreements under 
this program and that cost sharing requirements for non-federal 
participants be utilized where appropriate.

Large Millimeter Wave Telescope

    The Large Millimeter Wave Telescope (LMT) design project 
has significant potential for advancing the state of the art 
for radio telescopes through the use of intelligent structures. 
The design could greatly improve capability for acquisition and 
recognition of targets in space, as well as demonstrate the 
feasibility of long range directed energy devices. The 
committee recommends an additional authorization of $3.0 
million for the continuation of the LMT program in the Advanced 
Space Technology Project within the Advanced Research Project 
Agency's Experimental Evaluation of Major Technologies program 
(PE 603226E). The committee directs that cost sharing 
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized under the 
program where appropriate.

Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts

    The committee continues to support efforts to develop and 
deploy technologies under the rapid acquisition of manufactured 
parts (RAMP) program. The committee recommends an additional 
authorization of $12.0 million to the CALS Initiative program 
(PE 603736D) to complete the research and development portion 
of the RAMP program in fiscal year 1996.

Advanced electronics technologies

    The committee recommends a reduction of $50.0 million from 
PE 603739E for lower priority activities and activities not 
directly related to electronics research and development. The 
committee directs that the reduction be distributed among the 
projects in the program as follows:

                                                                Millions
    MT-07 Centers of Excellence...............................    -$23.6
    MT-08 Manufacturing Technology............................     -20.0
    MT-11 CALS/Electronic Commerce............................      -6.4

    The committee notes that the U.S.-Japan Management program 
requested in project MT-07 is now managed in the Office of 
Scientific Research in the Air Force. The committee notes that 
the Air Force may, at its discretion, apply funds authorized in 
PE 601102F to continue the program at its present level.

Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology (SEMATECH)

    The committee notes the request for $89.6 million in the 
request to provide direct funding for the SEMATECH consortium 
to continue research in semiconductor manufacturing technology. 
SEMATECH has made a major contribution to reestablishing the 
competitiveness of the U.S. semiconductor industry. However, 
with the funding requested for fiscal year 1996, the direct 
federal participation in the program will have exceeded by 
three years the five year period of such participation foreseen 
during the establishment of the consortium in fiscal year 1988. 
The committee agrees with the managers of SEMATECH that the 
time has come for the industry members to take responsibility 
for directly funding the operation of the consortium. 
Therefore, the committee recommends approval of the requested 
amount for fiscal year 1996, but expects that there will be no 
further direct federal funding requested for SEMATECH for 
fiscal year 1997 and beyond.

ATD-111 non-acoustic sensor technology

    The Department of Defense has sponsored several programs to 
develop non-acoustic sensor technology for anti-submarine 
warfare and mine detection applications. Congress has 
consistently supported such initiatives in order to fully 
explore the potential of various types of non-acoustic sensors, 
including a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system known as 
ATD-111. The statement of managers accompanying the conference 
report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1994 (H. Rept. 103-357) directed the Secretary of the Navy 
to prepare a report that (1) searched for any competitive 
research and development projects; (2) evaluated the relative 
maturity, capability, and life cycle costs of ATD-111 and any 
other programs identified in the search; (3) outlined an 
appropriate acquisition strategy that could carry them forward 
from the development phase; (4) identified additional possible 
missions these technologies might satisfy; and (5) reported the 
results to the congressional defense committees.
    The department's report was prepared by Johns Hopkins 
University's Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL). It was 
submitted to Congress in June of 1995. It found no technology 
or program more mature, more promising, or more capable, 
relative to stated Navy mission requirements, than ATD-111. 
However, the report did not identify an acquisition plan as 
directed in the statement of managers. Further, the fiscal year 
1996 budget request contained no funding for continued 
development of ATD-111 or any proposal for acquisition under 
the future years defense program.
    The committee is concerned that the Navy has not chosen to 
continue development of the ATD-111 system nor to fully address 
the potential contribution of the ATD-111 system for anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) or countermine applications. In the 
committee's opinion, the system has strong potential as a non-
acoustic alternative for ASW at a time when the Navy has 
repeatedly testified before and briefed the committee on the 
shrinking acoustic advantage of United States ASW systems 
relative to those of other countries. For example, much of the 
debate associated with submarine procurement discussed 
elsewhere in this report has centered on the need to regain an 
acoustic advantage over other nations at a time when each 
incremental improvement is achieved at a cost of hundreds of 
millions of dollars.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase in funding 
in PE 603714D of $10.0 million: (1) to test ATD-111 system 
upgrades; (2) to provide for system corrections identified 
during field tests; (3) to bring the test systems to a common 
configuration; and (4) to evaluate carriage on alternate 
airborne platforms. The committee further directs the Secretary 
of the Navy to prepare a plan for the acquisition and 
deployment of the ATD-111 system and to provide this plan to 
the congressional defense committees is with the fiscal year 
1997 budget request.

NATO research and development program

    The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in the 
NATO Research and Development program to fund other priority 
areas. The committee makes this reduction without prejudice and 
notes that this recommended reduction would still provide for 
an increase above the amount appropriated for this account for 
fiscal year 1995.

Fuel cells

    For several years the Congress has provided funding for a 
cooperative fuel cell development program between the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. The 
committee supports these ongoing programs but has concerns that 
the programs have expanded and lengthened beyond their original 
scope. The committee is also concerned that these programs do 
not have substantial cost sharing provisions despite their 
obvious dual-use nature. The committee is willing to continue 
its support for this research but only on the condition that 
the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy report 
to the committee no later than February 15, 1996 regarding the 
duration and long-term goals of the programs. The committee 
also directs the two departments to obtain cost sharing 
agreements with the developers of these fuel cells before 
additional funds are released. The committee recommends $9.4 
million in PE 63226E for carbonate-based fuel cells, and $12.0 
million in PE 63851D for fuel cells for DOD installations.

Special Operations Forces counterproliferation support

    The committee recognizes that Special Operations Forces are 
relied upon for multiple counterproliferation objectives and 
contingency operations. The committee recommends that of the 
funds provided in the Counterproliferation Support program, 
$6.3 million shall be allocated to the U.S. Special Operations 
Command (SOCOM) for preparation and support of 
counterproliferation activities.

Technical studies, support and analysis

    The committee recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in PE 
605104D without prejudice to fund other priority programs.

Technical assistance and SBIR administration

    The committee recommends a denial of the authorization of 
$4.92 million in PE 605129D and $1.57 million in PE 605790D. 
The committee believes that the Procurement Technical 
Assistance Center program for which the committee elsewhere has 
recommended an additional $12.0 million would provide an 
adequate infrastructure for offering technical assistance and 
other services to potential government contractors.

U-2 Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) sensor upgrades

    While the committee supports the Defense Airborne 
Reconnaissance Office's (DARO) initiative to define a Joint 
Airborne SIGINT Architecture (JASA), the committee is also 
concerned with DARO's apparent decision not to continue 
upgrading current platforms while focusing funding exclusively 
on a new development program. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an authorization of $20.0 million for the DARO to 
initiate the Remote Airborne SIGINT (RAS-1B) upgrade program 
for the U-2 fleet. The committee expects DARO to budget for the 
remaining funds to complete the upgrade, and directs that this 
upgrade be fully compliant with JASA standards.

U-2 defensive system upgrade

    The committee appreciates the need for updating the 
defensive system of the U-2 aircraft, especially as it could be 
called on to fly over hostile territory. The committee further 
understands that the warfighting commanders-in-chief 
unanimously endorse the need for an improved self-defense 
capability for the U-2. Accordingly, the committee recommends 
an authorization of $13.0 million for the purpose. The 
committee expects that the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance 
Office (DARO) will budget for the remaining funds for the 
upgrade.

Maritime unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)

    The committee is advised that a variant of the fixed wing, 
short-range Joint Tactical UAV currently under development is 
intended to fill the role of the Navy's short-range maritime 
UAV system. This system will require the Navy to take off from 
and land the system on the flight deck of a ship--either an 
amphibious ship or an aircraft carrier. The committee is 
concerned about the suitability of a tactical fixed wing UAV 
for Naval forces.
    Vertical take-off/landing (VTOL) UAV's address both Naval 
and land forces' requirements for UAV's with minimal launch and 
recovery space constraints. A VTOL variant Joint Tactical UAV 
may provide an effective and complementary air vehicle solution 
for the multi-service need for real time data in support of 
reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting, battle damage 
assessment, and off-board electronic countermeasure anti-ship 
missile defense (ASMD) against radar-guided missiles. 
Congressionally mandated VTOL UAV variants which have 
demonstrated potential to meet these operational needs should 
be matured and evaluated further.
    The committee continues to insist on maximum commonality 
among various UAV's--especially on such items as sensors, 
avionics, control systems, data links and automatic landing and 
recovery systems. However, the committee also believes that UAV 
air frames and their operating characteristics must fit the 
needs of the user. Therefore, the committee directs the DOD to 
reexamine the requirements for Joint Tactical UAV for Naval 
forces and to allocate $12.5 million of the funds provided for 
the Joint Tactical UAV for fiscal year 1996 to support 
continued development and evaluation of VTOL Joint Tactical UAV 
variants.
    The Secretary of Defense will provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees on the requirements for Joint 
Tactical UAV for Naval forces and how those requirements are 
being addressed by February 15, 1996.

Advanced SEAL delivery system (ASDS)

    The committee has supported the development of a long-range 
submersible capability to deliver special operations forces for 
clandestine missions and is pleased with the joint efforts of 
the Special Operations Command (SOC) and the Navy to develop 
ASDS. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in 
program element 116404BB to facilitate testing and fielding of 
the ASDS.

Rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB)

    The committee is aware that the Special Operations Command 
(SOC) has found the 10 meter RHIB design, on which initial 
developmental efforts were focused, unsatisfactory and has 
adopted a new strategy for development of a RHIB to meet 
Special Operations Forces requirements. The committee 
recommends an increase of $4.3 million in program element 
116404BB to support this developmental effort. The committee 
makes a corresponding reduction of $4.3 million in the 
procurement account for SOF maritime equipment to offset this 
increase.

Expertise on defense trade and international technology

    U.S. government policy on the export and trade of U.S. and 
foreign technologies and products continues to evolve. These 
policy changes have put new emphasis on the requirement for DOD 
to evaluate and monitor the availability of technologies in the 
world marketplace. The committee commends the efforts of Office 
of the Secretary of Defense in establishing a special internal 
trade and technology capability in the C3I FFRDC community to 
provide broad-based technical and engineering support to policy 
makers in the evaluation of complex international trade and 
technology areas. The committee believes it is important to 
enhance support to the Department of Defense in international 
technology monitoring, technology transfer risk management, 
industrial base analyses, and the development of opportunities 
for trade cooperation.

RDT&E infrastructure

    The committee continues to be concerned about the inability 
of the Department of Defense to manage the size of the 
infrastructure supporting research, development, test and 
evaluation efforts. Especially in the test and evaluation area, 
the size of the infrastructure is not decreasing in proportion 
to the reductions made in the research and procurement programs 
that such infrastructure supports. The committee notes that at 
a time when the budget request for the technology base programs 
has decreased by over 10 percent, funding for the RDT&E support 
programs has declined less than 4 percent. The result is that 
an increasing proportion of our annual RDT&E investments pays 
for infrastructure maintenance rather than research and 
development supporting defense missions. Absent a clear 
approach to infrastructure consolidation from the Secretary of 
Defense, the committee has recommended reductions in the 
following RDT&E support accounts:

                                                            Millions    
    PE 604759A................................................    -$10.0
    PE 605103A................................................      -5.0
    PE 605896A................................................     -20.0
    PE 605864N................................................      -5.0
    PE 605807F................................................     -20.0
    PE 604940D................................................     -10.0
    PE 605804D................................................     -10.0

    In the past two years, the committee has supported a number 
of initiatives to help offset the growing burden of 
infrastructure support costs. The committee urges the managers 
of the test and evaluation infrastructure to use existing 
legislative authority granted under section 846 of the Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 to sell use of the test 
ranges to paying customers other than the DOD in appropriate 
cases. While the authority was enacted at the specific request 
of the Department of Defense, the managers of the test ranges 
have been slow to use it. In particular, our allies are showing 
a much greater interest in using U.S. test ranges and 
facilities because of encroachment problems overseas, and the 
Department should be more aggressive in encouraging and 
facilitating such requests. On the other hand, the committee is 
concerned about reports that laboratory and test facilities are 
using section 846 authorities to compete with private 
enterprise for test services. It was not the intent of the 
committee that those authorities be used to foster government 
competition with the private sector. Continued committee 
support for these authorities will be contingent on the 
implementation of effective barriers to such competition.

Individual lift vehicle development

    The committee understands that there is a proposal for 
developing technology that could lead to an individual flying 
vehicle (``X-Jet'') that could have a wide variety of military 
applications. The committee believes that such a system could 
be particularly useful to the special operations community. The 
committee is interested in an evaluation by the Special 
Operations Command to determine the merits and demerits of 
developing such a system, and whether there is a requirement 
for such a system in the U.S. Special Operations Command or 
elsewhere within the Department.
    The committee directs SOCOM and the Joint Requirements 
Oversight Council to provide this analysis to the congressional 
defense committees by March 1, 1996.

               Defense Developmental Test and Evaluation

Environmental technology

    The Department of Defense strategy for environmental 
technology is based on two key elements: (1) systematic 
identification of technology needs and (2) development, 
demonstration, and validation of technologies. The Defense 
Environmental Quality Program Annual Report to Congress for 
fiscal year 1994 briefly addressed the elements of 
environmental technology, but the report raised more questions 
than it resolved.
    It is essential that defense environmental technology have 
a focus that ensures comprehensive and effective management of 
the existing projects and resources. Such management should 
include the following: centralized review and categorization of 
identified needs; oversight and accountability for all aspects 
of environmental technology; and consolidation of activities 
related to demonstration and validation of technologies. 
Centralization and consolidation of the elements of defense 
environmental technology will facilitate matching technology 
sources with identified needs, and will minimize duplication of 
effort.
    The committee desires that the Secretary of Defense conduct 
a complete review of all aspects of Defense environmental 
technology and submit a detailed recommendation for 
restructuring environmental technology activities and relating 
those activities to funding for the next budget cycle. That 
recommendation should be an integral part of the Defense budget 
proposal for fiscal year 1997.
    In addition, the committee has become aware that the 
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, the 
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, and 
the National Defense Center of Environmental Excellence have 
all engaged in the development of three distinct computerized 
databases designed to facilitate the exchange of information 
relevant to the development and demonstration/validation of 
environmental technology. The Department of Defense should 
ensure that these databases are not duplicative.
                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

    The President's budget request included $91,634.4 million 
for operation and maintenance of the Armed Forces and component 
agencies of the Department of Defense in fiscal year 1996.
    The committee recommends authorization of $91,426.7 million 
for the operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts for fiscal 
year 1996, a decrease of $207.7 million. The recommended amount 
authorized for the O&M accounts includes, to the extent 
provided in appropriations acts, transfer of $150.0 million 
from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.
    The committee recommends authorization of $878.7 million 
for the revolving and management funds.
    The O&M accounts include approximately 36 percent of the 
total Department of Defense budget. Expenditures from these 
accounts pay the costs for:
         --day-to-day operations of our military forces in the 
        United States and around the world;
         --all individual and unit training for military 
        members, including joint exercises;
         --maintenance and support of the weapons, vehicles, 
        and equipment in the military services;
        --purchase and distribution of spare parts and supplies 
        to support military operations;
        --support, maintenance, and repair of buildings and 
        bases throughout the Department of Defense.
    The funding in these accounts has a direct impact on the 
combat readiness of U.S. military forces. While insufficient 
O&M funds would lead to problems with short-term or current 
readiness, excessive or unnecessary O&M expenditures for low 
priority or non-defense programs would also serve to restrict 
the availability of funds for modernization programs. 
Modernization is nearly synonymous with long-term or future 
readiness.
    The quality of overall readiness essentially depends on 
adequate funding for both current and future readiness. 
Although this funding mix is often portrayed as a balance, the 
committee suggests it is a fundamental obligation of the 
federal government to provide adequate resources for both 
current and future readiness.
    This year the committee received testimony on readiness 
issues from the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the service Secretaries, the Chiefs of Staff, 
and the unified combatant commanders. The committee also 
received testimony from four commissioned officers of various 
ranks from each service, who illustrated the condition of the 
armed forces.
    The Subcommittee on Readiness conducted three hearings this 
year, receiving testimony from retired senior commissioned 
officers, the service Chiefs of Staff, the Comptroller of the 
Department of Defense, and the Comptroller General of the 
United States on financial management.
    Concerns about readiness were heightened this year as a 
result of an announcement by the Secretary of Defense in 
November 1994 that three Army divisions had reported themselves 
at readiness level C-3 due to deficiencies in training. Some 
have noted that three divisions had not been C-3 for training 
deficiencies since the ``Hollow Force'' years, when the Army 
had 18 divisions, and the announcement seemed to confirm the 
existence of a problem. Although the administration 
subsequently determined that these divisions would not deploy 
in the first increment in response to a regional contingency 
crisis, the significance of this development is open to debate. 
The committee is nonetheless concerned that the senior 
Department of Defense leadership did not appear to be aware of 
the readiness situation.
    The committee received information this year about DOD 
efforts to improve readiness reporting, including an effort to 
measure ``Joint Readiness.'' While the committee recognizes the 
need for DOD to improve its understanding of readiness, it 
would suggest that readiness reporting is not a science. 
Readiness comprises a variety of nonquantifiable factors. It is 
broadly subjective, and readiness reports become less 
statistically relevant as data are aggregated at higher levels. 
The probability that meaningful or predictive information may 
be derived from a joint readiness report is low. However, 
attempts to understand the relationship between inputs and 
outputs could be helpful.
    While current readiness is not robust, future readiness is 
a larger and more serious problem. The committee believes 
future readiness deficiencies must be addressed now. If not, 
more serious indicators will emerge within the next two years 
and the solution will become far more difficult. Current 
readiness must be protected at the same time to ensure military 
forces have the best possible chance to accomplish their 
missions with minimum casualties and without exposure to 
unnecessary risk.
    The committee recommends a reduction in O&M funding for low 
priority and non-defense programs. Funds made available from 
these reductions should be authorized for current and future 
readiness programs so that the Armed Forces can begin the next 
century with less obsolete and worn-out equipment. This 
planning consideration required the committee to make some 
difficult decisions. However, declining defense budgets and 
serious problems with force modernization have made such 
decisions necessary.


              SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section - 303. Armed Forces Retirement Home.

    The committee recommends $59.1 million for the operation of 
the AFRH in fiscal year 1996, and $45.0 million to be added to 
the balance of the AFRH Trust Fund to provide for the continued 
solvency of the Fund. The impending depletion of the Fund is 
the consequence of reductions in the size of the active duty 
force, which has reduced the funding stream envisioned by the 
Congress in establishing the AFRH.

Section - 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile Transaction 
        Fund.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense, to the extent provided in 
appropriations acts, to transfer $150.0 million from the 
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund to the O&M 
accounts.

             SUBTITLE B--DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR

Section - 311. Policy regarding performance of depot-level maintenance 
        and repair for the Department of Defense.

    The committee recommends a provision which would provide 
DOD with the direction, flexibility, and legislative relief 
necessary to develop and execute a comprehensive depot 
maintenance policy during fiscal year 1996.
    The single most important consideration of this policy must 
be to ensure a reliable maintenance and repair capability. The 
quality of depot work affects the safety and effectiveness of 
our men and women in uniform, and the responsiveness of the 
depot system affects the ability of the armed forces to achieve 
vital national security objectives. These considerations, 
rather than simple business practices, are most important.
    Congress previously enacted various measures to preserve 
the capacity to perform depot-level work, absent a viable 
policy within DOD. These measures have tended over time to 
limit flexibility to the point where restructuring in order to 
respond to new requirements and conditions is very difficult.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to recommend 
a policy for the performance of depot-level work by March 31, 
1996, for approval by the Committee on Armed Services of the 
Senate and the Committee on National Security of the House. The 
recommendation should articulate core requirements to be 
performed by public depots, and delineate what competencies, 
skills, volumes, and plant capacities are needed for the 
services to perform their missions. The Secretary should then 
describe how these requirements might best be met.
    Both public and private sector capabilities should be 
considered in developing this policy. Broad latitude to 
interservice work should be assumed in order to take maximum 
advantage of all capabilities.
    The ability to capture accurate total cost data has been a 
consistent shortcoming among public sector entities, which the 
policy recommendation should address. When competitions are 
conducted, they should be based on auditable, verifiable data.
    The committee cautions DOD that the most effective public-
private mix may not be the most cost effective solution. 
Although cost is obviously a prime factor in this matter, 
national security considerations must take precedence over 
simple cost avoidance.
    The committee recognizes that DOD needs the ability to 
select among various options for performing depot-level work. 
The recommended provision would enhance flexibility by 
repealing two current provisions of law (10 U.S.C. 2466 and 
2469) which amount to artificial constraints. The repeal would 
become effective only upon the enactment of legislation which 
accepts or modifies the DOD policy recommendation. This affords 
Congress the latitude to retain the limitations in the event 
DOD is not able to develop a satisfactory policy.

Section - 312. Extension of authority for aviation depots and naval 
        shipyards to engage in defense-related production and services.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through fiscal year 1996 the authority provided by section 1425 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, 
as amended, for naval shipyards and aviation depots of all the 
services to bid on defense-related production and services.

                  SUBTITLE C--ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS

Section - 321. Revision of requirements for agreements for services 
        under environmental restoration program.

    Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2701(d), the Secretary of Defense has 
entered into agreements to reimburse states and territories for 
regulatory oversight services provided at Department of Defense 
installations within their boundaries. Forty-four states and 
four territories have signed DSMOAs and are eligible to receive 
reimbursement. The Defense fiscal year 1996 budget request for 
DSMOAs is $20,897 million.
    At a time when the Congress is struggling with the need to 
produce a balanced budget and reduce the deficit it is 
necessary for state and federal government agencies to conduct 
business in a manner that ensures financial accountability. To 
the extent that a state or territory is undertaking a 
regulatory activity under generally applicable federal or state 
environmental laws, the committee believes that the activities 
should be funded from appropriate federal and state sources, 
not the Department of Defense.
    The committee recommends an amendment to 10 U.S.C. 2701(d) 
that would limit the basis for state reimbursement. Under the 
amendment, states or territories participating in the DSMOA 
program could only receive reimbursement for providing 
technical and scientific services. The committee also 
recommends a provision that would limit the total amount of 
funds available for state reimbursement.

Section - 322. Discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces.

    The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, 
and implementing regulation currently exempt incidental vessel 
discharges from permitting requirements. Incidental discharges 
remain subject to varying state regulation. The lack of 
uniformity has presented operational problems for the Navy.
    The administration has proposed legislation to address 
incidental discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces in a 
comprehensive and rational manner through the development of 
the Uniform National Discharge Standards. The committee 
recommends this provision in order to establish the process 
necessary to develop those standards.
    The Uniform National Discharge Standards provision will 
substantially advance shipboard environmental protection in a 
manner that respects and enhances the operational capabilities 
of the Navy. The provision is modeled after section 312 of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1322. Section 
312 establishes uniform national discharge standards for sewage 
discharges from all vessels. The Uniform National Discharge 
Standards provision extends this model to regulate non-sewage 
incidental discharges from vessels of the armed forces.

Section - 323. Revision of authorities relating to restoration advisory 
        boards.

    The Department of Defense is developing a funding program 
for installation Restoration Advisory Boards, pursuant to 10 
U.S.C. 2705. Section 2705 provided that RABs would be 
established to assist the Department with environmental 
restoration activities at military installations and to provide 
funding for local community members of RABs and existing 
technical review committees.
    About 200 Restoration Advisory Boards have been established 
at operational and closing installations and Formerly Used 
Defense Sites. The RAB funding sources for local community 
member participation and for technical assistance are the 
Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) and the Base 
Realignment and Closure Account (BRAC). Section 2705(e)(3)(B) 
provided for $7.5 million limit on available DERA and BRAC 
funds for RABs technical assistance in fiscal year 1995. Under 
section 2705(d)(3) routine administrative expenses for RABs may 
be paid out of funds available for the operation and 
maintenance of an installation, without any limit on the amount 
of funds that may be expended for that purpose.
    Section 2705 of title 10 has been amended to limit funding 
sources to BRAC and DERA, not to exceed $4 million. Technical 
assistance shall be provided through federal, state, and local 
agencies responsible for overseeing environmental restoration 
at the installation, the contractors carrying out environmental 
restoration at the installation, or available Department of 
Defense personnel, unless those existing sources of technical 
expertise cannot serve the objective for which technical 
assistance is requested.

                     SUBTITLE D--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

Section - 331. Minimum number of military reserve technicians.

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
floor for military technicians in the Army and Air Force 
Reserve and National Guard for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
    The recommended military technician authorizations are:
          Army National Guard--25,750
          Army Reserve--7,000
          Air National Guard--23,250
          Air Force Reserve--10,000
    The committee notes that the severe reductions directed in 
the military technician program by the Department of Defense 
were not based on changes in force structure or missions. 
Rather, it appears that the directed reductions were arbitrary, 
full-time-equivalent targets assigned to meet National 
Performance Review goals. Testimony before the committee 
confirmed that the directed reductions would have an adverse 
effect on reserve readiness and the ability of the reserve 
component to accept missions which would relieve active 
component personnel tempo requirements.

Section - 332. Exemption of Department of Defense from personnel 
        ceilings for civilian personnel.

    The committee recommends a provision that would preclude 
the management of civilian personnel in the Department of 
Defense by artificial limits on manyears, end strength, full-
time equivalents (FTEs), or other such personnel ceilings. The 
committee is concerned about certain aspects of the ongoing 
reductions in the Department of Defense civilian work force. It 
is apparent that, regarding the reductions in the military 
component, the Department has made a serious effort to 
associate reductions with force structure and programmatic 
changes. Efforts to do the same regarding the civilian work 
force, however, are far less apparent. The committee is 
concerned by the use of FTEs and the department's willingness 
to apply uniform, ``salami slice'' reductions to the military 
departments and defense agencies.
    The Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 provided an 
aggregate ceiling for all federal civilian personnel measured 
in FTEs. Subsequently, the Department of Defense chose to 
provide annual FTE ceilings for each military department and 
each defense agency covering fiscal years 1994 through 2001. 
These ceilings apportion the overall reduction uniformly across 
the Department of Defense without regard to differences among 
the departments and agencies, force structure changes, workload 
fluctuations, the potential results of the Base Realignment and 
Closure Commission process, or readiness.
    The administration's report: ``Cutting Red Tape--Creating a 
Government That Works Better and Costs Less'' in referring to 
``Full Time Equivalents'' (FTEs) provides that ``The President 
should direct OMB and agency heads to stop setting FTE ceilings 
in fiscal year 1995.''
    The practical effects on readiness of management by FTEs 
are exceptionally troublesome. Management by FTE assumes a 
level of workload predictability that is inapplicable to 
numerous activities. It severely restricts the flexibility of 
depots and shipyards to adjust their workforce in response to 
funded customer requirements. Despite the availability of 
funds, FTE ceilings preclude these activities from adjusting 
the size of their workforce in response to operational 
commitments, contingencies, and other surges in workload. 
Additionally, certain defense agencies frequently produce goods 
and services for other defense agencies and are appropriately 
reimbursed. The imposition of FTEs precludes agency heads from 
retaining or hiring necessary personnel for which funds are 
available through this reimbursement mechanism. In addition, 
management by FTEs could actually require a military department 
or defense agency to take more than the mandated reduction if 
the reductions are postponed until late in the fiscal year to 
make up manyears executed early in the fiscal year.

Section - 333. Wearing of uniform by National Guard technicians.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
military technicians to wear military uniforms in their jobs. 
The provision would also place technician officers on the same 
footing as Active Guard and Reserve officers for purposes of 
qualifying for a uniform allowance.

Section - 334. Extension of temporary authority to pay civilian 
        employees with respect to the evacuation from Guantanamo, Cuba.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization for the Navy to continue to pay evacuation 
allowances until January 31, 1996 to civilian employees whose 
dependents were evacuated from Guantanamo, Cuba, in August and 
September 1994. The provision would require a monthly report 
regarding the number of employees with dependents in an 
evacuation status, their positions of employment, the number 
and location of their dependents, and the actions that the 
Secretary of the Navy is taking to eliminate the conditions 
making the payments necessary. The committee is disappointed 
that it is necessary to extend this authority. The evacuation 
allowances authority limits the period for evacuation payments 
to 180 days. In April 1995, the Congress extended the authority 
through the end of the fiscal year to permit the Navy more time 
to take the necessary actions to replace the civilian workers 
under an accompanied tour contract with military personnel, or 
with civilian personnel in an unaccompanied status. To date, 
the Navy has not taken any action to eliminate the conditions 
making these payments necessary. The lack of action by the Navy 
has resulted in the families of the civilian employees living 
in temporary arrangements separated from their spouses and 
unsure of what the future holds for almost a full year. This 
lack of action reflects an insensitivity to the professional 
development and quality of life of the affected civilian 
employees. The situation is particularly aggravated since the 
Navy changed the tours for military personnel assigned to Naval 
Station Guantanamo to alleviate a similar situation affecting 
the military personnel and their families. While the Secretary 
of the Navy has limited influence on the diplomatic and 
political dynamics of the situation in Cuba, that lack of 
influence is not an excuse for permitting families to remain in 
an evacuee status for such an extended period. The committee 
urges the Secretary of the Navy to take the necessary steps to 
eliminate the conditions which require extending this authority 
before this final extension expires.

Section - 335. Sharing of personnel of Department of Defense domestic 
        dependent schools and Defense Dependents' Education System.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to direct the sharing of personnel 
resources between the Department of Defense Overseas School 
System and the Defense Dependents' Education System to provide 
administrative, logistical, personnel, or other support 
services to either system for a period to be prescribed by the 
Secretary.

Section - 336. Revision of authority for appointments of involuntarily 
        separated military reserve technicians.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3329 of title 5 United States Code to eliminate the 
requirement that separated technicians receive a job offer 
giving them placement rights over other separated DOD civilian 
employees. The provision would also eliminate the requirement 
to artificially create a vacancy to accommodate a separated 
technician.

Section - 337. Cost of continuing health insurance coverage for 
        employees voluntarily separated from positions to be eliminated 
        in a reduction in force.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 8905a(d)(4) of title 5 United States Code, to extend 
continued health insurance coverage and payment of the employer 
portion of the premium and administrative fee for surplus 
employees who voluntarily resign in response to base closures, 
realignments, or formal force reduction procedures.

Section - 338. Elimination of 120-day limitation on details of certain 
        employees.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3341 of title 5 United States Code, to eliminate the 
requirement that the administration of details for civilian 
employees be managed in 120-day increments.

Section - 339. Repeal of requirement for part-time career opportunity 
        employment reports.

    The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate 
the requirement in section 3407 of title 5 United States Code, 
that agencies provide progress reports on the part-time career 
employment program.

Section - 340. Authority of civilian employees of Department of Defense 
        to participate voluntarily in reductions in force.

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow 
employees who are not affected by a reduction-in-force (RIF) to 
volunteer to be RIF separated in place of other employees who 
are scheduled for RIF separation.

Section - 341. Authority to pay severance payments in lump sums.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 5595 of title 5 United States Code, to permit the lump-
sum payment of severance pay.

Section - 342. Holidays for employees whose basic workweek is other 
        than Monday through Friday.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 6103(b)(2) of title 5 United States Code, to authorize 
agencies some discretion in designating holidays for employees 
whose basic work week is other than Monday through Friday.

Section - 343. Coverage of nonappropriated fund employees under 
        authority for flexible and compressed work schedules.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit 
nonexempt nonappropriated fund employees to work on a 
compressed schedule without entitlement to overtime.

                SUBTITLE E--DEFENSE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Section - 351. Financial management training.

    The budget request included $88.9 million to establish a 
financial management training center in Southbridge, 
Massachusetts.
    The committee strongly supports the DOD effort to conduct 
appropriate training for civilians who perform financial 
management work. As financial management increasingly becomes 
an OSD responsibility, the program direction for education and 
training will shift to OSD. The need for OSD involvement in 
curricula, standards, and processes is readily apparent. The 
committee strongly supports this shift and recognizes the need 
for OSD involvement and control.
    The committee recommends a provision which would prohibit 
the obligation of funds to establish a DOD financial management 
training center pending certification by the Secretary of 
Defense of the need for such an organization. The committee 
provision requires DOD to justify the need for such a center 
and the decision to locate it in Southbridge.
    The Secretary would be directed to analyze the requirement 
for a center and consider alternatives in developing a plan to 
achieve clearly stated financial management training 
objectives. The committee further directs the Secretary to 
submit a plan and an accompanying report to the Committee on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National 
Security of the House of Representatives, to implement the 
results of this analysis. The report would also detail the 
long-term and short-term costs, and state what means were 
considered to conduct this training.
    In the event the Secretary determines there is a need to 
establish a new training center, the Secretary should recommend 
a site and describe the process by which the site was selected.
    No funds would be authorized for obligation for a capital 
lease for any such facility until 90 days following submission 
of the Secretary's certification of need, report, and plan to 
the defense committees.

Section - 352. Limitation on opening of new centers for Defense Finance 
        and Accounting Service.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense to conduct a review of the need for 
further expansion of Defense Finance and Accounting System 
(DFAS) centers, and to report to the appropriate committees of 
the Congress prior to establishing any new DFAS centers. The 
committee is concerned that the current expansion plans have 
not been examined against actual requirements, given continued 
consolidation and downsizing of the services.

                  SUBTITLE F--MISCELLANEOUS ASSISTANCE

Section - 361. Department of Defense funding for National Guard 
        participation in joint disaster and emergency assistance 
        exercises.

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
funding authority for National Guard units to participate in 
joint exercises preparing them to respond to civil emergencies 
or disasters.

Section - 362. Office of Civil-Military Programs.

    The committee approved a prohibition on the use of funds 
for the Office of Civil-Military Programs. The committee 
believes civil-military cooperation efforts should be limited 
and at the discretion of local commanders, who are in the best 
position to determine the positive or negative effects of such 
operations on the readiness of the units under their command. 
The committee notes that the military has engaged in these 
activities in the past on an ad hoc basis without central 
direction from the Department of Defense. The committee is not 
aware of any change in circumstances that requires the central 
direction of these activities.

Section - 363. Revision of authority for Civil-Military Cooperative 
        Action Program.

    The committee recommends a provision that would revise 
section 410 of title 10 United States Code, to restrict civil-
military activities under this section to reserve component 
forces and make other technical changes.

Section - 364. Office of Humanitarian and Refugee Affairs.

    The committee approved a prohibition on the use of funds 
for the Office of Humanitarian and Refugee Affairs. The 
committee believes that this office is more appropriately 
funded and operated within the Department of State.

     SUBTITLE G--OPERATION OF MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION FUNDS

Section - 371. Disposition of excess morale, welfare, and recreation 
        funds.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 373 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995 to permit the Marine Corps to retain the MWR 
funds transferred from USMC installations. An unintended 
consequence of the current provision might require the Marine 
Corps to transfer MWR funds from USMC installations to the Navy 
MWR fund.

Section - 372. Elimination of certain restrictions on purchases and 
        sales of items by exchange stores and other morale, welfare, 
        and recreation facilities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate 
the cost, price, size, and country of origin limitations on 
purchases and sales of items sold in the military exchanges and 
MWR facilities. Currently, the exchanges are limited by a 
collection of limitations based on cost, price, size, value and 
country of origin. The committee believes these restrictions 
prohibit the exchanges from selling items service members and 
their families want to purchase. The recommended provision 
should improve the quality of life for service members and 
their families.

Section - 373. Repeal of requirement to convert ships' stores to 
        nonappropriated fund instrumentalities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 371 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1994. The provision would repeal the requirement to 
convert ships' stores operations to a Navy Exchange System 
agency.

                       SUBTITLE H--OTHER MATTERS

Section - 381. National Defense Sealift Fund: availability for Ready 
        Reserve component of the Ready Reserve Fleet.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 
use of National Defense Sealift Fund funds for support of the 
national defense reserve fleet (NDRF). Beginning with the 
fiscal year 1996 request, funds for the operation and 
maintenance of the NDRF will be included in the budget request 
and be subject to committee recommendation for their 
authorization.

Section - 382. Limitation on contracting with same contractor for 
        construction of additional new sealift ships.

    The committee has become aware of a proposal to direct 
procurement of strategic sealift ships to specific 
shipbuilders. By separate action the committee has affirmed its 
commitment to competition in shipbuilding and recommended a 
provision that would provide for competitive procurement of the 
new attack submarine. The committee is also aware of potential 
cost growth in existing contracts for procurement of strategic 
sealift ships. While the committee remains strongly committed 
to meeting the requirements for strategic sealift established 
in the Mobility Requirements Study and subsequent updates, the 
committee does not believe that directing procurement to a 
shipbuilder, particularly one experiencing cost growth in his 
contract with the Navy, is a proper course of action to follow.
    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
ability of the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a new 
contract for additional sealift ships in the event of (1) cost 
growth in an existing contract that would exceed the maximum 
price originally established in the contract; or (2) there are 
outstanding claims against the government that, if approved, 
would increase the maximum price of the existing contract.

Section - 383. Availability of recovered losses resulting from 
        contractor fraud.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
chapter 134 of title 10, United States Code to authorize the 
DOD to retain three percent of single damage funds, or 
$500,000, whichever is less, recovered in contract fraud 
matters at military installations. This percentage would be 
distributed to the military departments, to be credited to the 
O&M accounts of the installations responsible for the 
recoveries.
    This amendment would enable a more business-like approach 
to DOD operations, provide an incentive to pursue cases of 
suspected fraud, and reward success. It would also provide a 
means to fund other investigations and return 97 percent of 
recoveries to the Treasury. Military installations do not have 
budgeted funds available to pursue such cases. They incur costs 
in the conduct of investigations and litigation which this 
provision would reimburse in part.
    The Department of Justice has similar authority under 
section 527 of title 28, United States Code.

Section - 384. Permanent authority for use of proceeds from the sale of 
        certain lost, abandoned, or unclaimed property.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2575 of title 10, United States Code to enable 
installation commanders to use proceeds from the sale of lost, 
abandoned, or unclaimed personal property to offset costs 
incurred against installation O&M accounts to collect, 
transport, store, protect, or sell such property. Any net 
proceeds may be used to support morale, welfare, and recreation 
at the installation.
    Installation commanders are currently required to expend 
O&M funds budgeted for other purposes to dispose of such 
property. The costs of these disposals are currently not 
reimbursed; the recommended authority would enable 
reimbursement. Disposals would be conducted on a business-like 
basis and the recommended authority would provide an incentive 
to obtain the best value.
    This approach to disposal of such property has been 
validated by demonstration projects, authority for which was 
granted in section 343 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993.

Section - 385. Sale of military clothing and subsistence and other 
        supplies of the Navy and Marine Corps.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 651 of title 10, United States Code, to provide the 
Navy and Marine Corps the authority currently granted to the 
Army and Air Force to conduct in-kind replacement sales of 
individual equipment items which have been lost, damaged, or 
destroyed.

Section - 386. Conversion of Civilian Marksmanship Program to 
        nonappropriated fund instrumentality and activities under 
        program.

    The committee recommends a provision to provide for the 
conversion of the Civilian Marksmanship Program to a 
nonappropriated fund instrumentality.

Section - 387. Report on contracting out certain functions of 
        Department of Defense.

    The committee is interested in exploring possibilities to 
achieve efficiencies through privatization of commercial 
functions. Therefore, the committee has included a provision 
requiring the Department to submit a report describing the 
advantages and disadvantages of using contractor personnel, 
rather than civilian employees of the Department of Defense, to 
perform functions of the Department that are not essential to 
the warfighting mission of the Armed Forces.

Section - 390. Impact aid.

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of Education from considering payments to a local 
educational agency from defense funds when determining the 
amount of impact aid to be paid from Department of Education 
funds. Additionally, the recommended provision would make 
technical changes to previous year authorization of impact aid.

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

                                  Army

Army reimbursable positions

    The Army's civilian personnel budget request for Budget 
Activity 4 was based on 32,969 direct-hire work years including 
4,996 reimbursable work years. The correct number of work years 
is 27,973. Based on an average annual salary of $46,604, the 
Army's civilian personnel request is overstated by $233.0 
million. Therefore, the committee has reduced the Army O&M 
budget request by this amount.

Historically black colleges and universities fellowships

    The budget request includes $300,000 to provide fellowships 
for professors from historically black colleges and 
universities. Because the Department of Defense has not 
provided a national security requirement for these fellowships, 
the committee has reduced the Army's operation and maintenance 
budget by the amount that is requested for this purpose.

National Science Center

    The committee notes that the National Science Center has 
plans to begin to move from Army facilities at Fort Gordon into 
new facilities that are being provided by state and local 
funds. This new facility will significantly increase the 
revenues generated by user and entrance fees. The committee 
applauds this move and notes that this move into a facility 
provided by non-federal funding will allow the Army to realize 
significant savings. The committee further notes that the Army 
portion of the cost of operation of the new center should 
decline as new revenues are generated. The committee has 
provided direction in another section of this report for the 
Army to renegotiate its Memorandum of Understanding with the 
center. The committee recognizes that the Army has worked 
closely with the center to prepare a plan which will insure 
that the Army's cost of participation in the center will be 
reimbursed by revenues generated by the center. This plan is 
based on the assumption that the Army costs should be at 
current levels of funding or lower for the next two years and 
then gradually reduced until they are fully covered by 
reimbursements from center revenues by the fifth year of the 
center's operation. The committee directs the Army to work with 
the center to develop a modification to the current plan which 
would allow the Army to be fully reimbursed by the fourth year 
of operation. These plans should be submitted to the committee 
no later than the submission of the President's budget request 
for fiscal year 1997. The committee recommends an authorization 
of $3.5 million for Fiscal Year 1996.

                                  Navy

Nimitz Center

    The budget request included $3.1 million for the Chester W. 
Nimitz Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. The committee 
does not authorize funds for this program because of 
requirements in higher-priority programs.

Active and Reserve P-3 squadrons

    The services of P-3 squadrons are historically in very high 
demand by the unified commanders. In recent years, that demand 
has increased dramatically as the ability of the P-3 aircraft 
to carry out littoral warfare missions has become more 
apparent. Simultaneously, however, budget pressures have forced 
the Navy to cut P-3 force structure in its budget request. The 
current maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) force structure consists 
of 22 squadrons, 13 active and nine reserve squadrons (13/9). 
The budget request would support Navy plans to reduce MPA force 
structure to 20 squadrons, 12 active and eight reserve (12/8).
    The committee believes MPA aircraft make an invaluable 
contribution to antisubmarine warfare missions. The committee 
also recognizes that MPA aircraft are ideally suited to meet a 
variety of mission requirements for littoral operations very 
effectively and efficiently.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $35.0 
million to sustain the MPA force structure at 13/9 in fiscal 
year 1996.

Yard Tugboat Service

    The committee is encouraged by the Navy's effort to improve 
yard tugboat services by contracting out to private industry. 
Long-term tractor tug charters at Kings Bay, Georgia; Mayport, 
Florida; and San Diego, California have proven successful in 
furnishing the Navy with quality products and services at lower 
costs than Navy-owned and operated tug boats. The Navy is 
currently examining several additional ports for conversion to 
long-term tug charters, as well.
    The committee directs the Navy to evaluate the potential 
for expanding the use of private sector tug boat services, and 
report to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 
1996. The report should identify locations where long-term 
charters for yard tug boat service would be cost effective, 
increase safety, and ensure compliance with the Oil Pollution 
Act of 1990. If contracting out would make these benefits 
achievable, the committee encourages the Navy to seek long-term 
contracts for yard tug boat services with private firms.

                              Marine Corps

Marine Corps Extended Cold Weather Clothing System (ECWCS)

    The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million in the 
O&M account for the Marine Corps to field needed protective 
garments to the Fleet Marine Force. The second generation ECWCS 
garments are vapor permeable, waterproof, and windproof. They 
significantly enhance insulation. Garments can be laundered 
aboard ship and are resistant to petroleum contamination. 
Current equipment issued to Fleet Marines does not have these 
properties.
    These are important considerations for deployed Marines, 
who often receive orders to conduct operations not anticipated 
before deployment.

                               Air Force

Civil Air Patrol

    The budget request includes $27.5 million for the Civil Air 
Patrol (CAP). While the committee recognizes the value of the 
Civil Air Patrol in providing for civilian search and rescue 
missions and disaster relief operations, these operations are 
more appropriately funded by another agency or by state 
governments.
    In addition, the committee is concerned that such a 
substantial portion of the CAP's budget goes to personnel and 
overhead costs while only 10 percent is used to reimburse the 
volunteer pilots who dedicate their time and efforts to provide 
the search and rescue operations of the CAP. The committee 
notes that the ongoing reorganization of the CAP to reduce the 
number of active duty military and Air Force civilian employees 
was expected to reduce required funding by $3.0 million a year. 
However, according to the General Accounting Office, this 
reorganization resulted in an increased requirement of $4.0 
million rather than the expected $3.0 million savings.
    The committee therefore recommends a reduction in the level 
of funding for this program by $5.0 million from the fiscal 
year 1996 budget request. The committee intends to explore 
other funding sources for this program in the future to further 
reduce its reliance on the DOD.

                       Civilian Personnel Policy

Modernization and regionalization of civilian personnel management 
        functions

    The committee commends the Department of Defense for the 
progress made in attempting to streamline and improve human 
resource management policy, practices, and service delivery. Of 
particular importance are those initiatives involving the 
modernization and regionalization of civilian personnel 
management functions. Under certain conditions, the 
modernization and regionalization of civilian personnel 
management functions could provide a tremendous opportunity for 
enhanced customer service and substantial savings in overhead 
and staff resources.
    The committee is concerned, however, by the consolidation 
of personnel servicing before a modern, standard personnel data 
system and its supporting communications network are in place. 
Without a modern, standard personnel data system in place and 
without the communications network in place to support such a 
data system, the consolidation of personnel servicing into 
large service centers may not produce substantial cost savings 
without an unacceptable degradation in customer service. The 
very significant--and perhaps premature--reductions in civilian 
personnel specialists which unfortunately coincide with the 
regionalization initiative render the degradation in customer 
service even more probable.
    The continued downsizing of the civilian workforce over the 
next several years will place extraordinary demands on the 
civilian personnel management community. The committee notes 
that 1) planned reductions in personnel specialists and 2) 
regionalization prior to modernization can only further 
complicate the personnel management challenge at a time when 
the department's civilian employees deserve only the highest 
levels of customer service. The committee intends to review 
these issues in the coming months with officials from the 
military services.

                              Defense-Wide

Multi-Technology Automated Reader Card (MARC)

    MARC is a multi-functional, cross-service utility card with 
a magnetic stripe, integrated computer chip (ICC), a bar code 
and static information. It combines non-updatable information 
(name, social security number, blood type, photograph, etc.) 
and updatable information (medical, pay, qualifications) in the 
same card. The ICC can be used to record a wide variety of 
transactions and records. MARC has been shown to be 
particularly useful in reducing administrative requirements and 
errors.
    The committee has noted with interest the success of the 
DOD MARC project. Field tests of this ``Smart Card'' technology 
have demonstrated important gains in efficiency and 
effectiveness in a variety of applications. The committee 
recommends an additional $8.0 million to expand the project.

SR-71

    The committee is pleased with the timely and cost-effective 
reconstitution of a contingency force of manned, high speed, 
penetrating reconnaissance aircraft as a hedge until 
penetrating unmanned aerial vehicles are widely fielded. This 
contingency capability of two SR-71 aircraft was accomplished 
by the Air Force under the direction of the Defense Airborne 
Reconnaissance Office for substantially less than the $100.0 
million appropriated for this purpose last year. The committee 
therefore encourages the Air Force and the Defense Airborne 
Reconnaissance Office to retain this capability in fiscal year 
1996 from such funds as are made available.

Museums

    The committee is concerned with the growing number of 
museums scattered throughout the nation's military facilities. 
The operation and maintenance of these museums absorbs an 
increasing portion of a limited defense budget. The committee 
believes that the military services should assess the necessity 
of maintaining these museums when there are limited funds 
available for training and other essential military needs.
    The committee directs the Department of Defense to submit a 
report by January 1, 1996 that lists each of the military 
museums and the costs required for their operation and 
maintenance.

Spending for non-military missions

    During the course of the year, the committee has become 
increasingly concerned that while the defense budget continues 
to decline and a lack of funds has caused training exercises, 
needed munitions purchases, and modernization programs to be 
canceled, the Department of Defense continues to spend 
increasing portions of its limited budget on non-defense or 
low-priority military programs. These programs include: 
civilian rescue missions, support to homeless shelters, 
assistance to local communities and civilian agencies, civilian 
educational programs, youth outreach programs, foreign disaster 
assistance, and international humanitarian efforts.
    Such programs are often performed with DOD funds, but 
support another agency's mission. The recent report by the 
Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces 
recommended that ``the President should limit the use of 
military forces in both peace operations and operations other 
than war to tasks that cannot be more appropriately assigned to 
others.'' The committee approves of this recommendation and 
encourages the President to assign non-military tasks to more 
appropriate agencies.
    The committee recognizes the importance of many of these 
programs to the nation as a whole, and understands that the DOD 
possesses both the equipment and knowledge to perform them. 
However, the committee believes that the Department of Defense 
should be reimbursed for its costs if it supports the missions 
of other agencies. Therefore, the committee has not provided 
funding for many of these programs.
    The committee believes that the Secretary of Defense needs 
to reassess DOD involvement in low-priority defense activities. 
Over the past several years, the General Accounting Office and 
the Congressional Research Service have reported that these and 
other programs not directly related to warfighting consume 
billions of dollars of the defense budget each year. While such 
programs may be well intentioned, the declining defense budget 
makes it difficult to sustain their continued funding with DOD 
resources.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense 
to provide a report on those activities currently being 
performed by the DOD which support another agency's mission. 
The Secretary of Defense should provide the results of this 
report to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House 
National Security Committee no later than April 1, 1996.

International peacekeeping

    The budget request included $65.0 million for international 
peacekeeping assessments for those operations which the 
Department of Defense would have lead funding and management 
responsibility under proposed new legislation. The committee 
has determined that U.N. assessments for these activities would 
more appropriately be funded through the Department of State as 
has been the practice in the past. Therefore, the committee 
does not support the proposed legislation and denies 
authorization for these funds.

Humanitarian assistance and foreign disaster assistance

    The fiscal year 1996 budget requested $79.8 million for 
humanitarian assistance, including $20.0 million for the 
humanitarian demining program, and an additional $45.3 million 
for foreign disaster relief. The committee is concerned that 
these programs are outside of the department's core mission and 
are not affordable at a time when reductions in the defense 
budget are having a negative impact on essential national 
security functions of the Department of Defense. The committee 
is further concerned about the negative impact on the quality 
of life of military personnel resulting from increased 
deployments to support operations of this nature.
    The committee understands the unique capability of the 
Department of Defense to respond to humanitarian crises, 
including man-made and natural disasters. Nevertheless, the 
committee believes that these activities would more 
appropriately be funded by the Department of State on a 
reimbursable basis. The committee authorizes the $20.0 million 
for the landmine clearance program, but denies the remaining 
portion of the request.

Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps

    The budget request included $131.9 million for the Junior 
Reserve Officer Training Program. The committee recognizes the 
value of this program but authorizes only $119.6 million (the 
fiscal year 1995 level of funding). This results in a $12.9 
million reduction from the budget request for fiscal year 1996.

Civilian personnel levels

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense civilian 
personnel drawdown continues faster than expected. During 
fiscal year 1995, civilian personnel levels in the Department 
of Defense, have been reduced faster than anticipated when the 
fiscal year 1996 budget was drafted. This drawdown means lower-
than-budgeted civilian personnel levels throughout fiscal year 
1996 resulting in savings of $250.0 million. The committee has 
made the appropriate adjustments in the fiscal year 1996 budget 
to reflect these savings.

Federal Energy Management Program

    The budget request included $234.7 million for the Federal 
Energy Management Program. The committee is concerned that the 
Department of Defense could not provide a list of projects to 
support this funding request. Such information is necessary for 
determining the validity of a request this size.
    While the committee believes in the importance of 
conserving energy at the nation's military facilities, it 
believes that base commanders can initiate such projects if 
provided sufficient funding for base operations and real 
property maintenance. The committee notes that these commanders 
are in a position to identify the most important needs of each 
facility, including those which would result in the greatest 
decrease in energy consumption.
    Therefore, the committee has authorized only $50.0 million 
for the Federal Energy Management Program, but it has increased 
the amount of funds for base operations and real property 
maintenance so that base commanders will have sufficient funds 
available for energy conservation and other important 
functions.

Homeless support initiative

    The budget request includes $3.0 million for the Homeless 
Support Initiative. The committee notes that 10 U.S.C. 2546 
allows service Secretaries to provide assistance to homeless 
shelters so long as the assistance does not interfere with 
military preparedness or military requirements. The committee 
further notes that training exercises and modernization 
programs have been canceled because of a lack of funds. 
Therefore, the committee believes that providing $3.0 million 
annually to this program qualifies as interference with 
military preparedness and military requirements.
    While the committee is concerned with the health and 
welfare of the nation's homeless, the committee believes that 
supporting homeless shelters is outside the primary mission of 
the Department of Defense and would more appropriately be 
funded through those agencies with primary funding and policy 
responsibility for this issue.

Civil-military/youth outreach programs

    The budget request includes $69.5 million for civil-
military programs including Civil-Military Cooperation, 
CHALLENGE, and STARBASE.
    The committee is concerned with the cost of these programs 
at a time when the defense budget continues to decline. The 
committee understands that the armed forces can provide useful 
assistance to local communities while at the same time perform 
mission training activities. However, the committee believes 
that civil-military efforts should be limited and at the 
discretion of local commanders who are in the best position to 
determine the positive or negative effects of such operations 
on the readiness of the units under their command. In the past, 
military commanders and personnel have been allowed to assist 
local communities in efforts to improve the infrastructure on 
an ad hoc basis without central bureaucratic direction. The 
committee sees no reason to expand these activities by 
authorizing limited DOD funds for their execution.
    In addition, the committee is concerned with the increase 
in resources being dedicated to youth outreach programs while 
needed training exercises go unfunded. The committee believes 
DOD funding for civil-military youth programs should be limited 
to a single program that has the greatest military relevance--
Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps. The committee continues 
to authorize the National Guard to carry out both CHALLENGE and 
STARBASE, however, funding for these programs will have to be 
provided by another federal agency, state governments, or 
private organizations.

United Services Organization

    The United Services Organization, chartered by Congress, is 
one of the premier voluntary civilian organizations which 
contributes to the quality of life of members of the Armed 
Forces and their families. The USO does not receive any direct 
federal funding, but relies on contributions from individuals 
and corporations. The USO does receive some in-kind assistance 
from the Department of Defense in the form of housing for USO 
personnel overseas, use of military postal services and the 
defense telecommunications system, and access to the DOD 
dependents school system. The committee commends the Secretary 
of Defense for his efforts to assist the USO and encourages him 
to seek opportunities to enhance the in-kind assistance 
provided to the USO.

                            Revolving Funds

National defense features

    The committee report on S. 1298 (S. Rept. 103-112) and the 
statement of managers accompanying the conference report on the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 
1993 (H. Rept. 103-160) expressed continuing support for a 
national defense features (NDF) program. An NDF program would 
provide funds to install important defense features in 
privately-owned merchant vessels during their construction. 
Such features would make these vessels more capable of carrying 
military cargo during a contingency. The commercial ship owner 
would bear the ship construction costs. The owner would 
contract directly with a U.S. shipyard for construction of the 
ship. The nation's shipbuilding industry would benefit from 
such a proposal to the extent that it would provide an 
incentive for commercial ship construction. Costs to the 
government per ship would be much lower than buying a whole 
ship. Through a binding agreement with the ship's owners, it 
would be available for immediate recall in case of a 
contingency.
    To better evaluate the merits of an NDF program, the 
committee requested that the Secretary of Defense provide a 
study by January 1, 1994 of the costs and benefits of this 
program. Unfortunately, the Secretary did not submit his report 
until March 1995--fourteen months later.
    The report supports the concept of an NDF program, but 
considers buying foreign-built roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) ships 
for the Ready Reserve Force (RRF) a higher priority. 
Consequently, the fiscal year 1996 budget request contained 
$70.0 million to purchase and modify more foreign-built RO/RO 
ships for the RRF.
    The committee has reviewed the report and agrees that 
incorporation of additional RO/RO ships into the RRF is 
consistent with the Joint Staff's Mobility Requirements Study 
and its subsequent updates. The committee believes, however, 
that an NDF program has the potential to:
          1. provide the strategic sealift that the country 
        needs while building substantially superior ships;
          2. support the U.S. Merchant Marine;
          3. save or create a significant number of jobs in the 
        shipbuilding industry and the suppliers of that 
        industry; and
          4. assist U.S. shipyards to reenter the commercial 
        shipbuilding market.
The committee believes that these are worthy objectives that 
adding RO/RO ships to the RRF would not satisfy.
    Consequently, of the funds approved in the National Defense 
Sealift Fund, the committee recommends $70.0 million to be used 
as follows:
          1. $20.0 million to modify RO/RO vessels purchased in 
        fiscal year 1995; and
          2. $50.0 million to procure and install defense 
        features on commercial RO/RO ships, to be built in U.S. 
        shipyards.

Maritime prepositioning ship leases

    The committee report on S. 2182 (S. Rept. 103-282) required 
that the Secretary of Defense provide an analysis of a Navy 
proposal to buy-out some of the maritime prepositioning ship 
(MPS) leases before taking any steps to terminate the lease 
contracts. The Department of the Navy submitted justification 
material with the amended budget request indicating that the 
Navy might begin using unobligated balances in the National 
Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) to purchase these vessels. If this 
course of action is pursued, the Navy intends to divert funds 
presently on deposit in the NDSF for acquisition of 
prepositioning/surge ships that are already under contract to 
buy out the MPS leases. The budget request cautions that such a 
buyout would in turn create a need for additional funding for 
these ships.
    Section 2218 of title 10, United States Code requires that 
NDSF budget requests be made by programs, projects, and 
activities. The committee notes that the budget justification 
material does not request any specific amounts to begin buy-out 
of MPS leases. The committee also notes that the Secretary of 
Defense has not submitted the required analysis.
    Therefore, the committee directs that none of the funds in 
the NDSF or other funds available to the Secretary of Defense 
be used to terminate these lease contracts or buy the MPS 
vessels.

Maritime prepositioning ship enhancement

    In fiscal year 1995 the committee developed a new 
initiative, maritime prepositioning ship (MPS) enhancement, to 
expand the capabilities of the three Marine Corps MPS 
squadrons. The committee recommended authorization of $220.0 
million for the purchase and conversion of up to three 
additional ships to permit the Marine Corps to add additional 
tanks, an expeditionary airfield, additional Navy construction 
battalion equipment, a fleet hospital, and other supplies to 
each squadron to better sustain the Marine Corps as an 
expeditionary force. While MPS enhancement had not been 
included in the fiscal year 1995 budget request, the committee 
took action based on its determination that the requirement was 
valid and information that indicated ships were available for 
purchase and conversion under cost effective circumstances. The 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
provided $110.0 million to purchase and convert the first MPS 
enhancement ship.
    An approved requirement for MPS enhancement now exists. 
However, additional funding for the program was not included in 
the budget request. The committee's inquiries determined that 
the ships targeted for procurement and conversion last year are 
no longer available. Consequently, the Department of Defense 
had embarked on an apparently lengthy process to develop a 
design, then seek out alternate candidates that, when 
converted, will satisfy the requirements of the MPS squadrons. 
It does not appear that the department is aggressively 
exploring options, such as commercial ships or dual use of 
existing ready reserve force (RRF) ships for both 
prepositioning and surge missions, that could make an MPS 
enhancement ship available more quickly.
    The committee continues to strongly support MPS 
enhancement. The committee is troubled that, despite an 
approved requirement, the budget request failed to include 
funding for a second ship. Additionally, the committee is 
concerned over the limited progress made in acquiring and 
converting the fiscal year 1995 MPS enhancement ship.
    As a measure of its strong support for the MPS enhancement 
program, the committee authorizes $110.0 million to purchase 
and convert an additional ship. The committee expects the 
Department to aggressively pursue all possible options, 
including the use of RRF RO/ROs or commercial procurement, in 
order to accelerate the purchase, conversion, and delivery of 
the ships authorized in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Further, 
the Secretary of Defense is directed to report on progress 
toward meeting this goal when he submits the fiscal year 1997 
budget request. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to prepare this report because, while an option such as dual 
designation of RRF RO/ROs presently allocated for Marine Corps 
assault follow-on echelon equipment appears a sensible 
proposal, experience indicates that it may generate 
bureaucratic disputes that can only be resolved at his level.

                          Defense Environment

Defense environmental compliance

    There are three basic categories of non-recurring 
requirements in the Defense Environmental Compliance Program: 
Class I--necessary to bring an activity into compliance with 
existing mandates; Class II--necessary to meet future 
compliance milestones, some of which must be completed to avoid 
a future violation within the current budget cycle; and Class 
III--a positive contribution to the environment, but not needed 
to comply with legal requirements.
    The Department of Defense budget cycle requests for 
compliance funding are based on costs related to recurring 
requirements, Class I current violations, and Class II 
violations projected to occur within the programmed year. The 
recurring requirements portion of the budget amounts to about 
one half of the compliance budget.
    Under 10 U.S.C. 2706(b) the Secretary of Defense is 
required to submit to Congress an annual report on the status 
of environmental compliance activities at military 
installations. The report for fiscal year 1994 addresses the 
entire environmental quality program, including compliance. The 
report does not distinguish between the funding levels and 
personnel requirements associated with each of the 
environmental quality pillars of pollution prevention, 
conservation, and compliance. As a result, it is difficult to 
track the basis for the compliance funding request in a given 
budget cycle.
    The committee directs that the department's future annual 
reports on the environmental quality program provide a breakout 
of the funding levels for each of the environmental quality 
pillars addressed in the report. The committee directs that the 
report shall include a projection of the funding levels and the 
number of full-time personnel that will be required for the 
Department of Defense to comply with applicable environmental 
laws during the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted 
and for the following five fiscal years. The report shall 
separately set forth projections for the Department of Defense 
as a whole and for each military installation, broken out by 
environmental quality pillar and by appropriation for recurring 
costs. For non-recurring costs, breakouts shall be provided by 
pillar, appropriation, and media category. Funding projections 
for the budget fiscal year shall include a project listing for 
non-recurring requirements that separately identifies Class I 
and II requirements for each military installation.

Legacy resource management program

    In the Department of Defense 1991 Appropriation Act, the 
Secretary of Defense was directed to establish a Legacy 
Resource Management Program and establish a separate 
appropriations line item for the program. Prior to the 
inception of the Legacy Program, requirements related to the 
preservation of natural and cultural resources under the 
jurisdiction of the Department Defense were planned, 
programmed, and budgeted within the Defense Environmental 
Compliance Program.
    The Legacy Program was designed specifically to address 
those conservation and preservation projects that would be 
valuable and beneficial, but which were not required to be 
performed under applicable environmental laws. The absence of 
funding for those kinds of projects was perceived as a gap in 
the Department of Defense environmental programs.
    The department has since developed a definitive annual 
planning, programming, and budgeting strategy for environmental 
conservation and preservation, so there is no longer a need for 
a separate line item for the Legacy Management Resource 
Program. The committee expects the Department of Defense to 
fulfill its obligation to responsibly manage its 25 million 
acres of valuable natural and cultural resources through the 
Defense Environmental Conservation Program.

Environmental management

    The Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) 
appropriation was created by Congress in fiscal year 1984 to 
consolidate and expand separate Department of Defense 
environmental cleanup programs. DERA was later codified in 
permanent law as section 211 of the Superfund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act, enacted in 1986. As codified, sums 
appropriated to DERA may only be obligated or expended to carry 
out the Secretary of Defense functions related to environmental 
restoration.
    The committee is concerned about the use of DERA funds for 
management and overhead costs of the Office of the Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security. The committee 
has determined that a $1 million decrement to the fiscal year 
1996 DERA budget request is appropriate, and that no more than 
$2.9 million shall be available for management and overhead 
costs of the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
for Environmental Security.
    The committee directs the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
for Environmental Security to initiate a broad review of the 
department's management structure and funding requirements for 
its environmental restoration program. The results of that 
review should be incorporated in the fiscal year 1997 DERA 
budget request, and in the Defense Environmental Restoration 
Program Annual Report to Congress.

Cleanup of National Presto Industries Plant, Eau Claire, Wisconsin

    The committee is concerned that there are unresolved issues 
of hazardous waste contamination related to the National Presto 
Industries Plant, Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The plant was 
originally constructed in 1942 by the War Department as the Eau 
Clair Ordnance Works. In 1948, National Presto Industries, Inc. 
purchased the site and used it to produce commercial products 
and to fulfill contracts with the Army for the design, 
development and maintenance of manufacturing lines for 
artillery shells. In 1978, the company entered into a 
production standby agreement with the Army and remained in 
standby readiness until 1992. The committee strongly recommends 
that the Army and National Presto Industries, Inc. endeavor to 
resolve in good faith any disputes over liability and funding 
for remediation activities to the mutual satisfaction of the 
parties.
              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

    The Congress, exercising its military manpower oversight 
responsibilities, authorizes the end strength of the active and 
reserve forces annually. This year the Subcommittee on 
Personnel held hearings to examine the force structure plans of 
the Department of Defense and the military services. Based on 
those hearings, the administration's budget request and other 
information, the committee recommends end strength ceilings for 
the active and reserve forces, including active component 
support for the reserves. Additionally, the committee 
recommends temporary relief from the Defense Officer Personnel 
Management Act (DOPMA) grade tables since the Department of 
Defense has not responded to the committee's guidance 
concerning development of comprehensive recommendations to 
address the DOPMA grade tables in light of changing 
requirements and officer retention behavior.

                       SUBTITLE A--ACTIVE FORCES

Section - 401. End strengths for active forces.
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
active duty end strength levels for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal 
year 1997 as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal Year                            
                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  1995         1996         1996          1997         1997     
                                             authorization   request   recommendation   request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:                                                                                                           
    Total..................................      510,000      495,000       495,000      495,000       495,000  
    Officer................................  .............     81,300        81,300       80,312        80,312  
Navy:                                                                                                           
    Total..................................      441,641      428,000       428,340      409,400       409,740  
    Officer................................  .............     58,805        58,870       56,550        56,615  
Marine Corps:                                                                                                   
    Total..................................      174,000      174,000       174,000      174,000       174,000  
    Officer................................  .............     17,978        17,978       17,978        17,978  
Air Force:                                                                                                      
    Total..................................      400,051      388,200       388,200      385,400       385,400  
    Officer................................  .............     75,928        75,928       76,494        76,494  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The active component authorization for the Navy is recommended 
to be increased by 340, of which 65 would be officers, to 
permit the Navy to retain an active P-3 squadron. The committee 
recommends the Military Personnel, Navy appropriation be 
increased by $14 million above the request in fiscal year 1996 
to accommodate this increase.
Section - 402. Temporary variation in DOPMA authorized end strength 
        limitations for active duty Air Force and Navy officers in 
        certain grades.
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Navy and Air Force temporary grade relief from the Defense 
Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) grade tables. The Army 
and Marine Corps currently have temporary grade relief in 
effect.
    Section 502 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1993 required the Department of Defense to task an 
outside agency to conduct a review of officer management plans 
and to report by February 1, 1994, the results of that review, 
including recommendations for appropriate changes to the 
Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) to the 
Committee on Armed Services in the Senate and the Committee on 
National Security in the House of Representatives.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 
provided temporary grade table relief for the Marine Corps. In 
doing so, the conferees noted that they expected the Department 
of Defense to address the adequacy of the existing grade tables 
as part of the then overdue report on officer management plans 
required by section 502 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1993. Additionally, the conferees indicated 
that they would consider permanent changes to the grade tables 
after the report was received.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
provided temporary grade table relief for the Army and extended 
the previously provided relief for the Marine Corps. In doing 
so, the conferees indicated they were still reluctant to 
address permanent changes to the grade tables in a piecemeal 
fashion and that they did not understand the department's 
reluctance to address this matter in a comprehensive manner. 
The conferees again indicated that they would consider 
permanent changes to the grade tables after receiving the 
report required by section 502 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993.
    Given the conferees' consistent position on the issue of 
grade table relief, the committee notes with concern and 
disappointment that, again this year, the department has 
requested temporary grade-table relief for the military 
services. While the 1994 Rand Report, ``Future Career 
Management Systems for U.S. Military Officers,'' discusses 
officer planning systems, it does not address the adequacy of 
the existing grade tables nor does it contain recommendations 
upon which the Congress could base permanent changes to the 
grade tables.
    Should the Department of Defense continue to ignore 
congressional guidance and expectations on this matter, neither 
the department nor the military services should expect 
additional grade-table relief or any extension of the temporary 
relief provided in this or previous acts.
    Additionally, the committee expects that the military 
services, and specifically the Navy, will ensure that the 
temporary grade-table relief provided is allocated in a way 
that provides the services' Nurse Corps treatment in 
assignments and promotion timing that is equivalent with that 
of the Line of the Navy or a comparable category in the Army 
and Air Force.

Section - 403. Certain general and flag officers awaiting retirement 
        not to be counted.

    The committee recommends a provision that would exempt a 
retiring Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Chief of Staff of the 
Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air 
Force, or Commandant of the Marine Corps from counting in the 
number of general and flag officers on active duty authorized 
to be serving in the grade of general and admiral during the 
period when they are completing those activities necessary to 
transition to the retired list after they have been relieved 
from their former position. The committee intends that this 
authority would not be used for more than 60 calendar days.
    This provision does not affect the numbers of general and 
flag officers authorized on active duty under 10 U.S.C. 526.

                       SUBTITLE B--RESERVE FORCES

Section - 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
selective reserve end strength levels for fiscal year 1996 and 
fiscal year 1997 as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal year--                                
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       1995                            1996                            1997     
                                   authorization   1996 request   recommendation   1997 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the                                                                                  
 United States..................         400,000         373,000         373,000         367,000         367,000
The Army Reserve................         242,000         230,000         230,000         215,000         215,000
The Naval Reserve...............         102,960          98,602          98,894          96,402          96,694
The Marine Corps Reserve........          42,000          42,000          42,274          42,000          42,682
The Air National Guard of the                                                                                   
 United States..................         115,581         109,458         112,707         107,151         107,151
The Air Force Reserve...........          78,706          73,969          73,969          73,160          73,160
The Coast Guard Reserve.........           8,000           8,000           8,000           8,000           8,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee is pleased that the Naval Reserve completed 
the assessment of its future roles and missions. By turning 
from the traditional role of providing personnel to fill ships 
upon mobilization to an aggressive program of contributory 
support, the Naval Reserve has begun to use the many assets and 
resources available to enhance the readiness and effectiveness 
of the Navy.
    The recommended increase in the Naval Reserve end strength 
reflects the committee's recommendation that one reserve 
component P-3 squadron be retained in the force. The increase 
of 292 in the selected reserve, combined with a recommended 
increase of 97 in full-time support, would permit the Navy to 
retain one reserve P-3 squadron. The committee recommends 
increasing the Reserve Personnel, Navy appropriation by $6.2 
million to accommodate this increase.
    The recommended increase in the Marine Corps Reserve end 
strength is based on the committee's concerns about inadequate 
active duty and full-time support for the Marine Corps Reserve. 
Given the anticipated early deployment role of the Marine Corps 
Reserve in contingency and other operations, the committee has 
increased the authorization for the Marine Corps Reserve to 
accommodate an increase in the number of reserves on active 
duty in support of reserves.
    The committee recommends increasing the Reserve Personnel, 
Marine Corps appropriation by $12.8 million to accommodate this 
increase. In light of the difficulties caused by recent 
decreases in active duty support for the reserve component, the 
committee expects that increases in the Marine Corps full-time 
support program (now called the Active Reserve (AR) Program) 
not be made at the expense of other important reserve programs; 
nor should these increases occasion a further erosion of active 
duty support. Similarly, in future years the committee expects 
that the increase in full-time support be fully budgeted 
without inappropriate cuts in essential reserve programs.
    The committee recommends an increase in the Air National 
Guard end strength of 3,249. This increase, combined with an 
increase of 249 in Air National Guard full-time support will 
permit the Air National Guard to maintain the number of general 
purpose fighter aircraft at 15 in each unit. The committee is 
concerned about the planned reduction of Air National Guard 
general purpose fighter aircraft from 15 per unit to 12 per 
unit. These planned reductions resulted from budget pressures 
within the Air Force. The Air Force decided to maintain the 
number of general purpose fighter units at 27 and reduce the 
number of aircraft within each unit by three to 12. The 
committee is concerned about evidence which indicates that 
these reductions will reduce the effectiveness of the units.
    The committee recommends increasing the Reserve Personnel, 
Air National Guard appropriation by $12 million to accommodate 
this increase. Further, the committee directs the Air Force to 
conduct a comprehensive study of the impact and advisability of 
reducing the number of Air National Guard general purpose 
fighter units or the number of aircraft within the units and 
submit a report with the recommendation on how to properly size 
the Air National Guard general purpose units in conjunction 
with the budget request for fiscal year 1997.

Section - 412. End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of 
        the reserves.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
reserve full-time support end strength levels for fiscal year 
1996 and fiscal year 1997 as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal year--                                
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       1995                            1996                            1997     
                                   authorization   1996 request   recommendation   1997 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of the                                                                                  
 United States..................          23,650          23,390          23,390          23,040          23,040
The Army Reserve................          11,940          11,575          11,575          11,550          11,550
The Naval Reserve...............          17,510          17,490          17,587          17,074          17,171
The Marine Corps Reserve........           2,285           2,285           2,559           2,285           2,967
The Air National Guard of the                                                                                   
 United States..................           9,389           9,817          10,066           9,824           9,824
The Air Force Reserve...........             648             628             628             625             625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee is concerned about the full-time support to 
reserve units in each of the military departments. The 
downsizing of the uniformed services and continued instability 
in the international environment has necessitated an increased 
reliance on reserve components to meet contingency requirements 
as well as continuing existing responsibilities. Together with 
active duty support for reserve programs, the military 
technician programs in the Army and Air Force and the various 
full-time support programs in all of the services are essential 
elements of the long-term readiness of reserve component 
forces.
    In light of the reductions in the military technician 
program planned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 
committee has recommended specific floors for the Army and Air 
Force military technician programs elsewhere in this report.
    The committee also is concerned, however, about reductions 
in active duty support for the reserve components. For example, 
since fiscal year 1993, the active duty Marine Corps has been 
reduced approximately 2.5 percent; the Marine Corps Reserve has 
been reduced less than 0.5 percent; and the Marine Corps' 
active duty support for the Marine Corps Reserve has been 
reduced 11.8 percent.
    Therefore, the committee has recommended full-time support 
levels for the Air Force and for the Marine Corps that are 
above the fiscal year 1995 authorizations. The committee also 
notes that full-time support personnel are intended to 
complement--not substitute for--active duty support. Therefore, 
the committee does not intend for these increases in full-time 
support to cause further erosion of active duty support. This 
is especially important as the reserve components in each of 
the services are called with increasing frequency to relieve 
the personnel tempo pressures being experienced in the active 
components and to participate directly in contingency 
operations.
    The increase of 97 in the authorization for full-time 
manning for the Naval Reserve reflects the requisite increase 
in full-time manning to support the committee's recommendation 
to retain one reserve P-3 squadron.
    The increase of 249 in the authorization for full-time 
manning for the Air National Guard reflects the requisite 
increase in full-time manning to support the committee's 
recommendation to retain the Air National Guard general purpose 
fighter units at 15 aircraft per unit in fiscal year 1996.

Section - 414. Reserves on active duty in support of Cooperative Threat 
        Reduction programs not to be counted.

    The committee recommends a provision that would exempt 
members of a reserve component participating in Cooperative 
Threat Reduction Act programs from counting against the 
authorized active duty end strength.
    Another section of the bill would permit funds appropriated 
for programs under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act to be 
used to reimburse the military personnel accounts for pay and 
allowances paid to reserve component personnel engaged in 
Cooperative Threat Reduction Act programs.

Section - 415. Reserves on active duty for military-to-military 
        contacts and comparable activities not to be counted.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 168 of title 10 U.S.C., by adding a new subsection to 
exempt members of a reserve component participating in 
activities or programs specified in section 168 who serve over 
180 days from counting against the end strengths authorized for 
members of the Armed Services on active duty under section 
115(a)(1)of title 10 United States Code.

              SUBTITLE C--MILITARY TRAINING STUDENT LOADS

Section - 421. Authorization of training student loads.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
active and reserve average military training loads for fiscal 
year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal year--                                
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       1995                            1996                            1997     
                                   authorization   1996 request   recommendation   1997 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army............................          69,420          75,013          75,013          79,275          79,275
Navy............................          43,064          44,238          44,238          44,121          44,121
Marine Corps....................          25,377          26,095          26,095          27,255          27,255
Air Force.......................          36,840          33,232          33,232          35,522          35,522
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

    The committee addressed a number of military personnel 
policy issues as a result of information received during 
hearings conducted by the full committee and the Subcommittee 
on Personnel. The committee began a review of officer promotion 
policy which will continue next year. The committee identified 
several anomalies within the officer promotion system which are 
addressed in the recommended provisions. These anomalies 
involved legitimate activities which had not been reviewed in 
light of the changing requirements and reduced size of the 
officer corps. In other policy initiatives, the committee 
addressed issues pertaining to the reserve components, Service 
Academies, travel and transportation, and the pay and 
allowances for military personnel sentenced to extended 
confinement by courts martial.

                  SUBTITLE A--OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY

Section - 501. Joint officer management.
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend joint 
officer management policies. The provision would: (1) reduce 
the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to designate at 
least 1,000 critical joint duty assignment positions to 500. 
The Joint Duty Assignment study determined that approximately 
500 billets should be critical joint duty assignments; (2) 
allow the Secretary of Defense to award joint duty assignment 
credit to certain officers who serve in qualifying joint task 
force positions. The Department requested authority to 
designate in-service billets as qualifying for joint duty 
assignment. The committee notes that initially the number of 
in-service billets was estimated to be 250 and that language 
accompanying the legislative proposal indicates that 421 
positions may be designated as joint duty assignments. The 
committee believes this indicates an inability to discipline 
the process within the Department. In addition, the committee 
believes that authorizing the Secretary of Defense to award 
joint duty credit for certain officers serving in joint task 
force positions will permit virtually all the deserving in-
service assignments to receive joint duty assignment credit; 
(3) allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the education and 
sequencing requirements and award the joint specialty 
designation without a 10 percent restriction by grade for each 
fiscal year for general and flag officers; (4) allow the 
Secretary of Defense to exempt selected officers from certain 
requirements for the management of joint duty tour requirements 
to permit early release of officers on a second joint tour.
    The Senate version of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1993 included several amendments to the 
statutory provisions governing joint officer management. 
Although these amendments were not agreed to in conference, a 
DOD report to Congress on joint duty assignments was mandated. 
The committee believes that the modifications to the Joint 
Officer Management provisions included in the Fiscal Year 1996 
recommendation are a direct result of the committee's earlier 
initiatives. These modifications give the Department of Defense 
and the military services sufficient flexibility to manage and 
enhance the quality of joint specialty officers. The committee 
expects the Secretary of Defense to closely manage the award of 
joint duty credit for duty in joint task forces.
    The committee is disappointed that the joint duty 
assignment study, which was required to be submitted not later 
than April 15, 1993, still has not been received. Additionally, 
the committee was disappointed to learn that, despite the time 
the Department has taken to do this study and our urging, the 
study will not include a billet-by-billet review.

Section - 502. Revision of service obligation for graduates of the 
        service academies.

    The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the 
service obligation for graduates of the service academies from 
six years to five years. The recommended provision would ensure 
that no service academy graduate would be obligated to serve 
more than five years on active duty by reducing the obligation 
for those cadets/midshipmen currently enrolled as well as 
future cadets/midshipmen. It would also require a report on the 
effects that various periods of active duty service obligations 
would have on the number and quantity of applicants to the 
service academies.

Section - 503. Qualifications for appointment as Surgeon General of an 
        armed force.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 3036, 5137 and 8036 of title 10, United States Code to 
permit educationally and professionally qualified officers such 
as dentists, nurses, and clinical psychologists as well as 
doctors to be appointed as Surgeon General of an Armed Force. 
Currently, only physicians may be appointed as Surgeon General 
of an Armed Force.

Section - 504. Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 8037 of title 10, United States Code, to adjust the 
tenure of the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force 
from two years to four years and authorize the grade of the 
deputy to be major general.

Section - 505. Retiring general and flag officers: applicability of 
        uniform criteria and procedures for retiring in highest grade 
        in which served.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 
retirement of three- and four-star general and flag officers to 
be considered under the same standards and procedures as other 
general and flag officer retirements at the one- and two-star 
level. It will also ensure that three- and four-star officers 
facing retirement are not subjected to confirmation procedures 
that do not apply to their civilian superiors or other civilian 
government officials.
    Promotions to three- and four-star positions are treated as 
temporary rather than permanent promotions. The individual 
holds the three- or four-star grade only ``while serving'' in 
the three- or four-star position. The member also may hold the 
grade for brief transitional periods to cover transfers between 
assignments, hospitalization, and before retirement.
    Because these grades are ``temporary,'' an individual who 
is in a three- or four-star grade retains his ``permanent 
grade,'' which is typically a two-star grade. If the individual 
is not nominated, confirmed, and appointed to another three- or 
four-star position, the individual will revert to his permanent 
(e.g., two-star) grade.
    Under current law, these considerations apply to 
retirements as well as promotions. As a result, if a three- or 
four-star officer who retires is not nominated, confirmed, and 
appointed to retire in a permanent three- or four-star grade, 
the individual will revert to his permanent (e.g., two-star) 
grade upon retirement--with the attendant loss of retired pay 
and status.
    This situation applies uniquely to three- and four-star 
officers. Other flag and general officers, as well as other 
commissioned officers, retire in the highest grade held, 
subject to minimum time-in-grade requirements, without a 
requirement for nomination, Senate confirmation, and 
appointment to a retired grade.
    Similarly, both tenured and non-tenured civilian officials 
who retire from the civil service are not required to face 
Senate confirmation, no matter how high their grade. Thus, a 
cabinet or sub-cabinet official, as well as career civil 
service officials who qualify for civil service retirement will 
receive their full retired pay without action by the President 
or the Senate.
    The recommended provision would not change the current 
requirement for nomination and Senate confirmation of all 
three- and four-star active duty promotions, assignments, and 
reassignments.

Section - 506. Extension of certain reserve officer management 
        authorities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
several reserve officer management authorities currently 
extended by section 514 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1994. When the Reserve Officer Personnel 
Management Act becomes effective on October 1, 1996, no further 
extension will be required.

Section - 507. Restrictions on wearing insignia for higher grade before 
        promotion.

    The committee recommends a provision that would define 
``frocking'' and limit the numbers of officers that could be 
frocked to grades O-4 through O-7.
    Frocking is the practice of allowing an officer to wear the 
insignia of a higher grade prior to that officer's being 
appointed to that higher grade. While the Department of Defense 
has attempted to control the extent of frocking through 
regulation, the practice remains a means by which the services 
circumvent the statutory limits on the number of officers 
authorized to serve in certain grades.
    While frocking can be defended as a cost-free way to boost 
the morale of those officers awaiting promotion, it masks 
erroneous expectations and dissatisfaction about promotion 
timing on the part of the individual and encourages the 
services to select individuals for promotion unreasonably far 
in advance of the anticipated date of promotion. For example, 
the committee is aware of a November 1993 Navy flag list from 
which, as of June 1995, fewer than half the selectees have been 
promoted. Yet, all have been frocked. The practical result of 
overselecting in order to frock is that an individual can be 
selected for promotion to O-7, frocked to O-7 for over a year 
in a highly visible position in which he exercises supervisory 
authority over other O-6s, and subsequently retire without ever 
having been promoted to O-7.
    Frocking has also evolved, unfortunately, to be a 
significant factor in the officer assignment process. The Joint 
Staff and the Combatant Commanders expect individuals assigned 
to their organizations to be in the correct grade. The services 
routinely assign newly-selected individuals to joint positions 
requiring the grade to which they have been selected with 
little or no thought to when the individual will actually be 
promoted. As a direct result the committee is routinely 
pressured by the services to confirm promotion lists abnormally 
in advance of the earliest effective date just so the 
individuals can be frocked. These developments represent an 
unacceptable distortion of the officer assignment and selection 
systems.
    The committee recognizes the existence of certain 
situations, primarily in the international arena, in which it 
may be in the best interests of the United States to frock 
certain officers. The committee believes, however, that such 
situations should be viewed as the exception and not the rule.

Section - 508. Director of Admissions, United States Military Academy: 
        retirement for years of service.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to involuntarily retire the Director 
of Admissions, United States Military Academy, after 30 years 
of service as a commissioned officer. Currently, the Secretary 
of the Army can retire permanent professors at the Academy 
after 30 years of service. This provision would provide the 
Secretary of the Army the same authority for the Director of 
Admissions.

           SUBTITLE B--MATTERS RELATING TO RESERVE COMPONENTS

Section - 511. Mobilization income insurance program for members of 
        Ready Reserve.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to establish an income protection 
insurance plan for members of the ready reserve. Participation 
under the recommended provision would be voluntary, would be 
financed by premiums paid by participants, and would pay income 
protection benefits to reservists involuntarily called to 
active duty by the President.

Section - 512. Eligibility of dentists to receive assistance under the 
        financial assistance program for health care professionals in 
        reserve components.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
financial assistance for qualified dentists in certain 
specialties engaged in training for a dental specialty which is 
critically needed in wartime. Physicians and nurses are 
currently eligible for similar assistance. This provision 
authorizes equal treatment for certain dentists in return for a 
commitment to serve in the ready reserve.

Section - 513. Leave for members of reserve components performing 
        public safety duty.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 6323(b) of title 5, United States Code, that would 
permit employees who elect, when performing public safety duty, 
to use either military leave, annual leave, or compensatory 
time to which they are otherwise entitled.

              SUBTITLE C--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

Section - 522. Definitions.

     The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
article 1 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 
801) to define the terms ``classified information'' and 
``national security''. The definitions would be similar to 
those used in the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 
U.S.C. App. 1).

Section - 523. Article 32 investigations.

    Under present law, charges must be investigated by an 
officer appointed under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice before being referred to a general court-
martial. If the Article 32 officer uncovers evidence of 
additional misconduct in the course of the investigation, the 
information must be provided to the convening authority, and 
then referred back to the Article 32 officer before it can be 
investigated by the Article 32 officer. This is a burdensome 
and unnecessary procedure.
    The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 
Article 32 officer to investigate additional misconduct 
uncovered during the investigation so long as the accused 
receives all the rights provided under Article 32 with respect 
to the additional charges, including full notice of the charges 
and the rights of legal representation, presentation of 
evidence, and cross-examination.

Section - 524. Refusal to testify before court-martial.

    Article 47(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
currently limits the punishment which may be imposed by a 
Federal District Court for a civilian witness's refusal, after 
being subpoenaed, to appear or testify before a court-martial. 
If a civilian witness who has been subpoenaed to appear or 
testify before a court-martial refuses to do so, a Federal 
District Court under current law may impose ``a fine of not 
more than $500.00, or imprisonment of not more than six months, 
or both''.
    The punishment for the same offense in a civilian trial, 
however, is a matter within the discretion of the court under 
18 U.S.C. 401-402. The committee recommends a provision that 
would amend Article 47 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
to provide district courts with the same power in military 
cases as they have in civilian cases.

Section - 525. Commitment of accused to treatment facility by reason of 
        lack of mental capacity or mental responsibility.

    The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not currently 
provide for the commitment of an accused to a treatment 
facility if that accused is incompetent to stand trial or is 
found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility. In 
such cases, the accused potentially is subject to a medical 
separation. Any subsequent restraint or treatment is dependent 
on action by state civil authorities.
    Reliance on determinations by officials of different states 
to treat or restrain a mentally incompetent military accused 
introduces an element of inconsistency into the military 
justice process.
    The Armed Forces clearly have an interest in preserving the 
integrity of the military justice system through consistent 
action on the issue of restraint or treatment of a mentally 
incompetent military accused. Those interests can best be 
preserved by making use of the existing federal criminal law 
procedures under 18 U.S.C. 4247(j). The committee recommends a 
provision that would permit the convening authority, in the 
case of any soldier, airman, sailor, or Marine found 
incompetent to stand trial, or found not guilty by reason of 
lack of mental responsibility, to commit the individual to the 
custody of the Attorney General for action in accordance with 
18 U.S.C. 4243(e).

Section - 527. Deferment of confinement.

    The committee recommends an amendment to the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice that would combine the current authority 
for deferment of confinement (Article 57(d)) with two new 
provisions.
    The first would permit the Service Secretary concerned to 
defer confinement when a Judge Advocate General submits a case 
for review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 
Forces under Article 67(a)(2).
    The second would allow the convening authority to defer the 
running of a sentence to military confinement so that the 
accused would not receive credit for time served during a 
period of civilian confinement following a court-martial in 
circumstances in which the military is obligated by an 
agreement, such as the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 
18 U.S.C. App. 2(2) or a treaty, to return the accused to state 
or foreign custody after a court-martial is completed.

Section - 528. Submission of matters to the convening authority for 
        consideration.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Article 60(b)(1) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to 
require post-trial submissions by an accused for consideration 
by a convening authority to be in writing.

Section - 529. Proceedings in revision.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to authorize 
a proceeding in revision, prior to authentication of the record 
of trial by the military judge, to correct an erroneously 
announced sentence. The sentence may be corrected even if the 
severity of the sentence is increased, but only to the extent 
that federal civilian courts are authorized to do so under 
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The amendment would 
apply only to correction of an erroneously announced sentence 
and would not authorize reconsideration.

Section - 530. Appeal by the United States.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Article 62 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to allow the 
government to file an interlocutory appeal of rulings or orders 
issued by the military judge which direct the government to 
disclose classified information, impose sanctions for 
nondisclosure of classified information, or refuse a protective 
order sought to prevent the disclosure of classified 
information. The provision would apply to courts-martial the 
same protections with regard to classified information as apply 
to orders or rulings issued in Federal District Courts under 
the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App. 7).

Section - 531. Flight from apprehension.

    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify 
Article 95 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to make it 
clear that Article 95 proscribes fleeing from apprehension 
without regard to whether the accused otherwise resisted 
apprehension.
    The clarification is needed because the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Armed Forces in United States v. Harris, 29 
M.J. 169 (C.M.A. 1989), and United States v. Burgess, 32 M.J. 
446 (C.M.A. 1991), held that resisting apprehension does not 
include fleeing from apprehension, despite the longstanding 
provisions to the contrary in the Manual for Courts-Martial.

Section - 532. Carnal knowledge.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Article 120(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by 
making the crime of carnal knowledge gender neutral, bringing 
Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice into 
conformity with the spirit of the Sexual Abuse Act of 1986 (18 
U.S.C. 2241-2245).
    The provision also would amend Article 120 by adding a new 
subsection (d) to conform military law to federal civilian law 
(18 U.S.C. 2243) in terms of the affirmative defense of mistake 
of fact for alleged carnal knowledge, and regarding the age of 
the person with whom the accused committed the act of sexual 
intercourse.

Section - 533. Time after accession for initial instruction in the 
        Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Article 137(a)(1) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice by 
increasing the period of time in which training in certain 
provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice must be 
provided to new enlistees from six to fourteen days after entry 
onto active duty.

Section - 535. Permanent authority concerning temporary vacancies on 
        the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

    Section 1301 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 authorized the Chief Justice of the 
United States, upon request of the Chief Judge of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, to appoint 
Article III judges to fill vacancies on the Court of Appeals 
for the Armed Forces. This provision will expire in 1995. Based 
on the success of this provision in permitting the Court to 
address the problem of temporary vacancies in a timely manner, 
the committee recommends that the authority be made permanent.

Section - 536. Advisory panel on UCMJ jurisdiction over civilians 
        accompanying the Armed Forces in time of armed conflict.

    Article 2(10) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
establishes court-martial jurisdiction ``[i]n time of war'' 
over ``persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in 
the field''. In United States v. Averette, 41 C.M.R. 363 
(C.M.A. 1970), the Court of Military Appeals ruled that an Army 
civilian employee in Vietnam who was convicted of theft from 
the Army could not be tried by court-martial because the Court 
interpreted Article 2(10) as requiring a war formally declared 
by Congress.
    Since that time, the Armed Forces have made increasing use 
of contractor personnel to provide important technical and 
administrative services to deployed military forces, including 
forces deployed in armed conflicts not involving a declared 
war. Since World War II, none of the significant armed 
conflicts involving the United States--including Korea, 
Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and the Persian Gulf--have involved a 
formal declaration of war. The committee is concerned that 
current law does not provide adequate jurisdiction to try 
civilians accompanying the Armed Forces in such circumstances. 
The committee also recognizes that court-martial jurisdiction 
exists primarily for the disciplinary needs of the Armed 
Forces, and that any use of that jurisdiction over civilians 
would require the most careful consideration.
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General jointly to 
establish an advisory panel to review this issue and make 
appropriate recommendations to the Congress concerning 
jurisdiction over the Armed Forces in time of conflict not 
involving a formal declaration of war. The review would 
specifically consider the options of: (1) establishing court-
martial jurisdiction over civilians; (2) establishing 
sufficient jurisdiction in the Article III courts over such 
civilians; and (3) establishing separate Article I courts with 
jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the Armed Forces in 
the field in time of armed conflict.

                   SUBTITLE D--DECORATIONS AND AWARDS

Section - 541. Award of Purple Heart to certain former prisoners of 
        war.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
award of the Purple Heart to prisoners of war captured before 
April 1962 who were injured or wounded in conjunction with 
their capture or imprisonment.

Section - 542. Meritorious and valorous service during Vietnam era: 
        review and awards.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense or the Secretaries of the military 
departments to award a decoration for an act, achievement or 
service performed during the Vietnam era but which was not 
awarded. The provision would establish a one-year period in 
which award recommendations could be submitted for 
consideration using existing award review procedures. At the 
end of one year, the Secretary would be required to report to 
the Congress on the results of this review.

Section - 543. Military intelligence personnel prevented by secrecy 
        from being considered for decorations and awards.

    The committee recommends a provision expressing the Sense 
of the Senate that the secretaries of the military departments 
should review the records of personnel who performed military 
intelligence duties during the Cold War period. The committee 
is aware that there are cases in which the secrecy of the 
mission prevented recognition through the military awards 
system. It is the view of the committee that these oversights 
should now be corrected.

                       SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS

Section - 551. Determination of whereabouts and status of missing 
        persons.

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
chapter to title 10, United States Code requiring the Secretary 
of Defense to centralize the oversight and policy 
responsibility for accounting for missing persons at the 
Department of Defense level. The recommended provision 
establishes procedures for review of cases of those who are 
missing. The recommended provision would protect the missing 
service member from being declared dead solely because of the 
passage of time. The committee believes that the recommended 
provision will assist the Department of Defense and the next-
of-kin of missing service members as both struggle with the 
emotion and frustration of a system which has, to date, proved 
insensitive and unresponsive.

Section - 552. Service not creditable for periods of unavailability or 
        incapacity due to misconduct.

    The committee recommends a provision that would equalize 
the accrual of service credit between officers and enlisted 
personnel.

Section - 553. Separation in cases involving extended confinement.

Section - 526. Forfeiture of pay and allowances and reduction in grade.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
forfeiture of pay or allowances or reduction in grade included 
in a sentence of a court-martial to be effective 20 days after 
the date the sentence is adjudged or upon approval of the 
convening authority, whichever is earlier. The recommended 
provision would also require that a sentence which includes 
confinement for one year or more or a punitive discharge would 
result in a forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The committee 
recommends an additional provision that would authorize the 
administrative separation of a service member who is sentenced 
by court-martial to a period of confinement for one year or 
more.
    The committee notes that, in general, individuals sentenced 
to extended confinement are discharged from military service 
and lose their entitlement to military pay. There are some 
circumstances under current law, however, in which an 
individual can remain on active duty and continue to receive 
pay and allowances. The provisions recommended by the committee 
would make it clear that persons serving extended confinement 
should not receive pay or allowances and should not remain on 
active duty.

Section - 554. Duration of field training or practice cruise required 
        under the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 
Secretary of a military department to prescribe the length of 
the field training portion or practice cruise that persons who 
have not participated in the first two years of Reserve 
Officers' Training Corps must complete to be enrolled in the 
Reserve Officers' Training Corps Advance Course. Currently, the 
training must be at least six weeks long.

Section - 555. Correction of military records.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretaries of the military departments to review the 
composition of the Boards for the Correction of Military 
Records and the procedures used by those boards. The provision 
would require a report to the appropriate committees of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives by April 1, 1996.
    The committee is concerned about the perception among 
service members that the boards have become lethargic and 
unresponsive, and have abdicated their independence to the 
uniformed service staffs.
    These boards are to be the honest broker, the forum for 
adjudication of claims from service members who allege errors 
in military records. If these boards become extensions of the 
military staffs, they will have lost their sole reason for 
existence.
    This provision would require a comprehensive review of the 
make-up, current board procedures, and recommendations for 
improving the process. The reports from the military 
departments would be submitted through the Department of 
Defense. The committee expects that the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense will carefully review the reports and, where 
applicable, standardize processes and procedures to ensure 
efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness to the services 
and service members.

Section - 556. Limitation on reductions in medical personnel.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 711 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1991, section 718 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993, and section 
518 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1993 to modify the limitations on reductions in medical 
personnel. The provision would permit active or reserve medical 
personnel to be reduced by not more than 5 percent per year or 
a total of 10 percent over 3 years without the requirement to 
certify that CHAMPUS costs will not increase and that the 
reductions are excess to the current and projected needs of the 
military department.
    The committee understands that the military departments 
need to have a degree of flexibility to reduce the medical 
force in conjunction with the overall force reductions. 
However, the committee is aware that it is possible to reduce 
medical personnel in a manner and to an extent that might be 
characterized as less than prudent. The committee directs the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, in 
conjunction with the Surgeons General of the military 
departments, to develop a comprehensive plan for ``right 
sizing'' medical personnel over the next five years. This plan 
will be submitted to the appropriate committees of the Senate 
and House of Representatives not later than March 1, 1996.

Section - 557. Repeal of requirement for athletic director and 
        nonappropriated fund account for the athletics programs at the 
        service academies.

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 4357 of title 10, United States Code, and subsections 
(b), (d) and (e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995.
    The committee acknowledges the report from the Secretary of 
the Navy which described plans to implement corrective actions 
with respect to the Naval Academy Athletic Association. The 
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the 
appropriate committees of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives when the actions recommended in the report are 
implemented.

Section - 558. Prohibition on use of funds for service academy 
        preparatory school test program.

    The committee recommends a provision that would terminate 
any test program for determining the cost effectiveness of 
transferring, in whole or in part, the mission of the military 
academy preparatory schools to the private sector.

Section - 559. Centralized judicial review of Department of Defense 
        personnel actions.

    Judicial review of Department of Defense personnel actions 
occurs under a disparate variety of jurisdictional statutes. 
The committee has received various proposals for centralized 
judicial review, but believes that the views of experts should 
be obtained prior to further consideration. The committee 
recommends a provision that would establish an advisory panel 
on the issue of centralized judicial review. The report of the 
advisory panel should specifically consider the utility of a 
statutory exhaustion requirement, discuss the need for 
centralized judicial review, and examine the potential effects 
of conducting such reviews through the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Armed Forces.

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Capstone course for new general and flag officers

    In fulfillment of its oversight responsibilities, over the 
last three years the committee has encouraged the National 
Defense University to revise the Capstone course curriculum for 
new general and flag officers to include instructional segments 
on the roles and functions of the Congress with regard to 
national security matters. The Capstone course was mandated by 
the Congress as part of the landmark Goldwater-Nichols 
Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986.
    Despite this urging, however, the Capstone course 
curriculum has only added a few hours of instruction on the 
legislative liaison function of the Department of Defense and 
the Services, and on presenting Congressional testimony. While 
these additions may be useful, they fail to provide new general 
and flag officers with an appreciation of the essential role of 
Congress, a co-equal branch of government that plays a major 
role in the organization, funding, and uses of the Armed Forces 
of the United States.
    The committee has been heartened by the recent decision of 
the administration of the National Defense University to add 
two new instructional segments to the curriculum of the 
Capstone course. The first addition would add a one hour 
segment on the constitutional separation of powers and its 
implications for the military. The second would add a segment 
of two back-to-back seminars to be conducted on Capitol Hill to 
address congressional procedures and substantive defense issues 
being considered by the Congress.
    The committee intends to continue its oversight in this 
area and pledges its assistance to the National Defense 
University to ensure that the added courses, particularly the 
seminars on Capitol Hill, are successfully carried out. The 
committee already conducts such seminars for a number of the 
Service colleges. These additions to the course should serve to 
ensure that our new general and flag officers have a greater 
appreciation for the roles and functions of the Congress in 
national security matters.

Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA)

    The Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) was 
enacted as Title XVI of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1995. Section 1691 of this Act established the 
effective date for the new policies in ROPMA as October 1, 
1996. The accompanying report language states that the 
conferees agree that the Senate would consider perfecting 
legislation, including accelerating the effective date of 
ROPMA.
    Based on discussions with the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Reserve Affairs and the Reserve Chiefs, the 
committee did not recommend any perfecting legislation or an 
acceleration of the effective date. The committee is committed 
to the provisions of ROPMA; however, the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, the military services and the reserve 
components are not prepared to accelerate implementation of 
ROPMA. The committee believes that by maintaining the current 
effective date of October 1, 1996, the Department of Defense 
and the military services will have sufficient time to 
promulgate, staff, and implement the necessary directives which 
will result in a more efficient transition to ROPMA.

Reserve officers not on the active duty list

    Section 666 of title 10 U.S.C., as added by the Goldwater-
Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, 
requires the Secretary of Defense to establish personnel 
policies emphasizing education and experience in joint matters 
for reserve officers not on the active duty list. The policies 
are, to the extent practicable for the reserve components, to 
be similar to those provided by law for active duty officers.
    The committee has learned that the Department of Defense 
does not yet have a directive or other authoritative joint 
officer policy document relating to reserve officers. A study 
to determine a strategy to meet the joint professional military 
education and joint officer management policy needs for reserve 
officers, which was started in fiscal year 1993 and placed on 
hold in fiscal year 1994, is once again under way, albeit 
reduced in scope. A decision was recently made to allocate one 
quota per Capstone class for new general and flag reserve 
officers, with a view toward allocation of additional quotas. 
Finally, a reserve general officer has very recently reported 
to the Joint Staff to serve as the first Reserve Mobilization 
Assistant to the Director of the Joint Staff. His primary role 
is to provide the Joint Staff with senior level perspective on 
the capabilities, roles, and missions of reserve component 
forces.
    The committee urges the Secretary of Defense and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to expedite authoritative 
policy guidance relating to the joint professional military 
education and joint officer management for reserve officers not 
on the active duty list, and to increase and allocate 
additional Capstone seats for new general and flag reserve 
officers.

Service academy directives

    The committee is concerned about Department of Defense 
Directive 1322.22, dated August 24, 1994, entitled ``Service 
Academies'' and Department of Defense Directive 1025.4, dated 
October 18, 1994, entitled ``Service Academy Resources 
Report.'' The committee understands that these directives were 
prepared in response to the requirement in the Conference 
Report accompanying The National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1993, which required the Secretary of Defense to 
review oversight procedures and to promulgate a regulation 
which provides for the uniform oversight and management of the 
military service academies.
    While the committee recognizes the importance of enhanced 
oversight, the directives in question may have taken that 
direction too far, unnecessarily restricting the authority of 
the Service Secretaries and Academy Superintendents. Examples 
of possible micromangement include:
          (1) directing detailed organizational structure of 
        the academies and preparatory schools;
          (2) regulating the details of the cadet/midshipmen 
        daily routine;
          (3) levying unnecessary or redundant report 
        requirements on the service academies and preparatory 
        schools; and
          (4) specifying the composition of attendees at the 
        annual Superintendent's conference.
    The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to 
review the directives in question with a view toward rescinding 
or revising those sections that impose unnecessary restrictions 
on the authority of the service secretaries or academy 
superintendents. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense should 
submit a copy of the revised directives to the Committee on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National 
Security of the House of Representatives not later than March 
1, 1996.

Tuition assistance program

    The committee strongly supports the tuition assistance 
program. Through this program military personnel may receive 
financial assistance while enrolled in higher education 
programs. The result is more qualified service members, 
increased readiness, better retention, and improved morale.
    Since tuition assistance is not specifically funded in a 
budget line, the funds are fungible within the local Operation 
and Maintenance accounts. The committee has found that 
installation commanders, responding to budgetary pressures, are 
reducing the funds available for tuition assistance in favor of 
base operations, training, or maintenance.
    The committee respects the necessity for the local 
installation commander to have the flexibility to transfer 
funds to meet critical requirements. However, the committee 
urges the military departments and local commanders to use the 
funds intended for tuition assistance for tuition assistance.

Quality of life while on independent duty

    The committee has recommended a number of legislative 
provisions that reflect the committee's concern about the 
quality of life of all service members, their families, and the 
retiree community. Additionally, the committee has special 
concerns about the quality of life of those who serve on 
independent duty, i.e., those who are stationed away from major 
military installations.
    Each service assigns personnel to positions which, by their 
very nature, are located in areas which do not enjoy a 
significant military presence. This type of duty includes 
recruiters and recruiting support personnel, ROTC instructors 
and support personnel, and active duty personnel supporting 
reserve component activities. These individuals and their 
families are ordered to various locations ranging from high-
cost, major, urban areas to remote and isolated rural 
locations. In these instances, commissaries, exchanges, family 
and bachelor housing, military medical treatment facilities and 
other aspects of normal military life are not available to the 
service members and their families.
    The committee encourages the civilian and military leaders 
of the Department of Defense to be particularly mindful of the 
challenges these individuals and their families face on and off 
the job on a daily basis, and to develop initiatives intended 
to address those challenges. Areas in which increased attention 
and initiative could prove beneficial include: the availability 
of affordable health care and adequate housing; the 
availability of reasonable office or working conditions, 
including modern, automated systems; appropriate transportation 
and supply support; and an enhanced responsiveness of 
administrative chains in recognition of the unique pressures 
and requirements of these duties.

Recoupment

    The report of the Senate Armed Services Committee (Senate 
Report 103-282) on the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995 directed the Secretary of Defense to review 
the recoupment of pay or benefits received by members who fail 
to complete military service obligations related to the receipt 
of such pay or benefits. The report was due on February 1, 
1995. On February 24, 1995 the Chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee was informed that the report would be submitted by 
March 15, 1995, but the report has not been submitted to date.
    It is essential for the committee's consideration of this 
issue that such a report be prepared. Recoupment of pay or 
benefits is complex and could represent a substantial loss of 
revenue for the Department of Defense. In order for this issue 
to be fully examined, the committee directs that the report 
must be submitted to the committee by February 1, 1996.
          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

    The committee addressed a number of pay, allowances and 
other compensation issues during its oversight hearings. One of 
the committee's priorities this year was to improve the quality 
of life for military personnel, their families, and retired 
service members and their families. The committee recommends a 
number of provisions which will significantly improve the 
quality of life and living conditions, and provide equitable 
compensation for military personnel to protect against 
inflation. The committee also recommends several initiatives 
which address the Servicemen's Group Life Insurance program and 
establish procedures under which the Secretary of Defense will 
determine the status of personnel who are missing. In general, 
the committee's recommendations reflect a commitment to 
enhancing quality of life and concern for the welfare of 
military personnel and their families.

                     SUBTITLE A--PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Section - 601. Military pay raise for fiscal year 1996.
    The committee recommends a provision that would waive 
Section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, and increase the 
rates of basic pay and basic allowance for subsistence for 
members of the uniformed services by 2.4 percent. Additionally, 
the provision would increase the rates of the basic allowance 
for quarters for members of the uniformed services by 5.2 
percent. These increases are effective January 1, 1996.
Section - 602. Election of basic allowance for quarters instead of 
        assignment to inadequate quarters.
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
payment of the basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) and variable 
housing allowance (VHA) (and overseas housing allowance (OHA) 
if assigned overseas) to single E-6 and above personnel 
assigned to quarters which do not meet minimum adequacy 
standards established by the Department of Defense. The 
committee believes that personnel in the career force should 
have the option of electing not to live in inadequate bachelor 
quarters.
Section - 603. Payment of basic allowance for quarters to members of 
        the uniformed services in pay grade E-6 who are assigned to sea 
        duty.
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
payment of the basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) and variable 
housing allowance (VHA) (and overseas housing allowance (OHA) 
if assigned to a ship homeported overseas) to single E-6 Navy 
personnel assigned to shipboard sea duty. Current law only 
permits single E-7 Navy personnel to receive BAQ, VHA and OHA 
(if applicable) while assigned to shipboard sea duty. The other 
military services already have similar BAQ/VHA/OHA authority.
Section - 604. Limitation on reduction of variable housing allowance 
        for certain members.
    The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the 
amount of variable housing allowance (VHA) paid to an 
individual from being reduced as long as the service member 
retains uninterrupted eligibility to receive VHA in the housing 
area and the service member's housing costs are not reduced.
Section - 605. Clarification of limitation on eligibility for family 
        separation allowance.
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
family separation allowance (FSA II) for a member embarked on 
board a ship away from homeport or on temporary duty for 30 
consecutive days whose dependents were authorized to accompany 
the member to the homeport or permanent duty station, but 
voluntarily chose not to do so.

           SUBTITLE B--BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

Section - 611. Extension of certain bonuses for reserve forces.
Section - 612. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay for nurse 
        officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists.
Section - 613. Extension of authority relating to payment of other 
        bonuses and special pays.
    The committee recommends provisions that would amend 
sections 308b(f), 308c(e), 308e(e), 308h(g), and 308i(i) of 
title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay 
bonuses for (1) enlistment, re-enlistment, or affiliation with 
the selected reserve; (2) enlistment, re-enlistment, or 
extension of an enlistment in the ready reserve other than the 
selected reserve; and (3) enlistment in the selected reserve of 
individuals with prior service.
    The recommended provisions would also amend section 
2130a(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to extend the 
authority to pay a nurse officer candidate accession bonus; 
amend section 302d(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, to 
extend the authority to pay an accession bonus for registered 
nurses; amend section 302e(a)(1) of title 37, United States 
Code, to extend the authority to pay an incentive special pay 
to certified registered nurse anesthetists.
    The recommended provisions would amend section 301b(a) of 
title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay 
the aviation officer retention bonus; amend section 308(g) of 
title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay a 
re-enlistment bonus to active duty service members who re-
enlist or extend in a regular component of the service 
concerned for at least three years; amend sections 308a(c) and 
308f(c) of title 37, United States Code, to extend the 
authority to pay an enlistment bonus to a person who enlists in 
an Armed Force for at least four years in a skill designated as 
critical or who extends their initial period of active duty to 
a total of at least four years in a skill designated as 
critical or who enlists in the Army for at least three years in 
a skill designated as critical; amend section 308d(c) of title 
37, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay 
additional compensation to enlisted members of the selected 
reserve assigned to high priority units; amend section 16302(d) 
of title 10, United States Code, to extend the authority to 
permit the repayment of educational loans of health 
professionals who serve in the selected reserve and who possess 
professional qualifications in a health profession that the 
Secretary of Defense has determined to be needed critically to 
meet identified wartime combat medical skill shortages; amend 
section 613(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1989 to extend the authority to pay a special pay 
to a health care professional who is qualified in a specialty 
designated by regulation as a critically short wartime 
specialty and who agrees to serve in the selected reserve for 
at least one year; amend sections 312(e), 312b(c) and 312c(d) 
of title 37, United States Code, to extend the authority to pay 
certain bonuses to attract and retain highly qualified nuclear 
career officers.
    The committee remains concerned that, with the reduction in 
the number of nuclear submarines and the downsizing of the 
Navy, the nuclear bonuses may not have been adjusted 
accordingly. The committee directs the Navy to review 
alternatives to the current bonuses and report the results of 
this review to the appropriate committees of the Senate and the 
House of Representatives not later than March 1, 1996.

Section - 614. Hazardous duty incentive pay for warrant officers and 
        enlisted members serving as air weapons controllers.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
special hazardous duty incentive pay for enlisted members 
serving as air weapons controllers aboard airborne warning and 
control systems. The Air Force is converting officer air 
weapons controller positions to enlisted billets. This 
provision permits the enlisted air weapons controllers to 
receive hazardous duty incentive pay on the same basis as their 
officer counterparts.

Section - 615. Aviation career incentive pay.

    The committee recommends a provision that would change the 
number of years required to serve in an aviation billet to 
qualify for continued aviation career incentive pay. The 
provision would also restrict the authority to grant waivers of 
the number of years to the service Secretary.

Section - 616. Clarification of authority to provide special pay for 
        nurses.

    The committee recommends a provision that would add 
military nurses to the health care professionals who may 
receive a special pay for being board certified in their 
specialty.

Section - 617. Continuous entitlement to career sea pay for crew 
        members of ships designated as tenders.

    The committee recommends a provision that would specify 
duty aboard submarine and destroyer tenders as qualifying for 
career sea pay on the same basis as on other ships.

Section - 618. Increase in maximum rate of special duty assignment pay 
        for enlisted members serving as recruiters.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
payment of additional special duty assignment pay to 
recruiters. The committee expects the Secretaries of the 
military departments to increase the special duty assignment 
pay proportionally for all recruiters to offset financial 
hardships endured by these service members.

            SUBTITLE C--TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES

Section - 621. Calculation on basis of mileage tables of Secretary of 
        Defense: repeal.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 104(d)(1)(A) of title 37, United States Code, to repeal 
the requirement that travel mileage tables be prepared under 
the direction of the Secretary of Defense. This provision would 
enable the Secretary of Defense to use commercially available 
mileage tables and eliminate the requirement for the Department 
of Defense to maintain in-house mileage tables.

Section - 622. Departure allowances.

    The committee recommends a provision that would equalize 
evacuation allowances to ensure equitable treatment of military 
dependents, civilians and their dependents when officially 
authorized or ordered to evacuate an overseas area.

Section - 623. Dislocation allowance for moves resulting from a base 
        closure or realignment.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the current dislocation allowance entitlement to service 
members who must relocate in a base realignment and closure 
(BRAC) location when their mission has not changed. This 
provision will permit a service member who must relocate 
locally from a military installation or housing area as a 
result of a BRAC activity to receive a dislocation allowance on 
the same basis as one who relocates to another installation.

Section - 624. Transportation of nondependent child from sponsor's 
        station overseas after loss of dependent status while overseas.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the return of certain formerly dependent children to the United 
States. The provision would permit someone who accompanied a 
military sponsor to an overseas station in dependent status but 
who, by virtue of turning age 21, lost dependent status to 
return to the United States at government expense.

  SUBTITLE D--COMMISSARIES AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES

Section - 631. Use of commissary stores by members of the Ready 
        Reserve.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit 
members of the ready reserve to use commissaries on the same 
basis as members on active duty.

Section - 632. Use of commissary stores by retired reserves under age 
        60 and their survivors.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit 
survivors of ``gray area'' retirees, members of the retired 
reserve who have not attained the age of 60 years, to use 
commissaries as if the sponsor had attained 60 years of age and 
was receiving retirement benefits.

Section - 633. Use of morale, welfare, and recreation facilities by 
        members of reserve components and dependents: clarification of 
        entitlement.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1065 of title 10, United States Code, to give members 
of the retired reserve who would be eligible for retired pay 
but for the fact that they are under 60 years of age the same 
priority of use of morale, welfare, and recreation facilities 
of the military services as members who retired after active-
duty careers.

                       SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS

Section - 641. Cost-of-living increases for retired pay.

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 
the military retired pay cost-of-living adjustment payment of 
1996 on April 1. In subsequent years the cost-of-living 
adjustment would be paid on January 1 of each year.

Section - 642. Eligibility for retired pay for non-regular service 
        denied for members receiving certain sentences in courts-
        martial.

     The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretaries of the military departments to deny retired pay 
to non-regular service members who are convicted of an offense 
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and whose sentence 
includes death, a dishonorable discharge, a bad conduct 
discharge, or dismissal. The provision would authorize the 
military departments to treat both regular and non-regular 
service members equitably.

Section - 643. Recoupment of administrative expenses in garnishment 
        actions.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 5502 of title 5, United States Code, to shift the 
burden for paying administrative costs incurred incident to 
garnishment actions from the employee to the creditor.

Section - 644. Automatic maximum coverage under Servicemen's Group Life 
        Insurance.

    The committee recommends a provision that would 
automatically enroll service members at the maximum insurance 
level of $200,000 instead of the $100,000 level currently in 
law.

Section - 645. Termination of Servicemen's Group Life Insurance for 
        members of the Ready Reserve who fail to pay premiums.

     The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to terminate coverage under the 
Servicemen's Group Life Insurance for members of the ready 
reserve who fail to make premium payments for 120 days.
    The committee recommends this provision in order to provide 
the Secretary of Defense the authority necessary to preclude 
paying benefits to certain personnel who did not continue 
premium payments. However, the committee urges the Secretary of 
Defense, when implementing directives are developed, to ensure 
there are adequate safeguards, including a reliable 
notification process, to prevent inappropriate or premature 
termination of benefits.

Section - 646. Report on extending to junior noncommissioned officers 
        privileges provided for senior noncommissioned officers.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to study and report to the Congress on 
methods of improving the working conditions of noncommissioned 
officers in pay grades E-5 and E-6. This report and the 
accompanying legislative recommendations should provide the 
committee a road map to continue quality of life improvements 
begun in this bill.

Section - 647. Payment to survivors of deceased members of the 
        uniformed services for all leave accrued.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit 
survivors of deceased members of the uniformed services to be 
paid for all leave accrued. Currently, payment is limited to 60 
days of accrued leave. This provision will enable survivors to 
be paid for leave accrued above the 60 day limit. A similar 
temporary authority was granted during Operation Desert Shield/
Desert Storm.

Section - 648. Annuities for certain military surviving spouses.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to pay an annuity to the surviving spouses 
of retired service members who died before March 21, 1974. This 
group of surviving spouses has become known as the ``Forgotten 
Widows'' since they were widowed before the Survivor Benefit 
Plan was enacted.

Section - 649. Transitional compensation for dependents of members of 
        the Armed Forces separated for dependent abuse: clarification 
        of entitlement.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1059(d) of title 10, United States Code, to include 
transitional compensation for dependents whose sponsor 
forfeited all pay and allowances, but was not separated from 
the service. This provision would correct an unintended 
consequence in the current law.

                         OTHER ITEM OF INTEREST

    The committee is concerned about the method the Air Force 
uses when determining eligibility for aviation career pay. The 
committee commends the Navy for targeting aviation career pay 
eligibility for specific types of aircraft for which there are 
actual or projected crew shortages. The committee urges the Air 
Force to seriously consider modifying its procedure for 
determining eligibility for new awards of aviation career pay.
                         TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE

    The committee addressed a number of health care issues 
during its budget review process. One of the committee's 
priorities this year was to improve the quality of life for 
military personnel, their families, and retired service members 
and their families. The committee views health care as an 
important aspect of quality of life. The committee recommends 
several provisions concerning Uniformed Services Treatment 
Facilities and initiatives to improve the department's ability 
to implement managed care. The committee was not able to 
include a provision which would provide for Medicare to 
reimburse the Department of Defense for care provided to 
Medicare eligible beneficiaries. The committee believes 
medicare subvention would be fiscally beneficial to Medicare 
and would enable the Department of Defense to continue to 
provide health care to DOD beneficiaries within TRICARE. In 
general, the committee's recommendations reflect a commitment 
to enhancing quality of life and concern for the welfare of 
military personnel and their families.
TRICARE
    The committee is concerned about several aspects of the 
implementation of the Department of Defense managed health care 
plan, TRICARE. Authoritative sources suggest that the pace of 
implementation should be slowed, and that the Department is not 
taking time to benefit from the experience in contracting and 
implementation gained in those regions that have converted to 
TRICARE. Other authoritative sources suggest that the pace of 
implementation is too slow, that eligible beneficiaries in the 
eastern regions are being disenfranchised as they are forced to 
wait while the remainder of the nation enjoys the benefits of 
managed care, lower co-payments, and improved management 
processes.
    The committee believes that a primary challenge facing the 
Department in a managed care environment is the need to control 
costs while maintaining quality care. Unfortunately, it is 
possible that cost-containment incentives of managed care could 
result in underservice and less-than-optimal care. A viable 
managed care environment is more than simply managing 
resources. It is important, therefore, that the Department of 
Defense, measure on a regular basis the adequacy of the care 
provided through the TRICARE system in terms that include 
accessibility, comprehensiveness, coordination, continuity, and 
provider accountability.
    The committee remains concerned about the ability of the 
Department of Defense and CHAMPUS to evaluate contracts as 
complex and as technical as the TRICARE region contracts. 
TRICARE is the first real attempt to implement a nation-wide 
managed care system. Although military officers and DOD 
civilian employees in health affairs are very capable 
professionals, the optimum expertise and experience necessary 
to evaluate contracts of this magnitude may not be resident in 
the Department of Defense. The region contracts must be awarded 
and implemented according to a planned schedule. Delays caused 
by repeated protests will disrupt the schedule and 
implementation. Protests that are upheld may have a significant 
impact on other contracts. The committee has discussed these 
issues with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health 
Affairs and offered to provide resources and authority to use 
private sector resources to assist the Department of Defense 
and CHAMPUS.
    Other issues about which the committee has concerns 
include: (1) the impact of proposed civilian personnel 
reductions on the Military Health Service System (MHSS); (2) 
ineffective or inadequate marketing to the beneficiary 
population of the TRICARE benefit and implementation; (3) the 
ability of the Department of Defense to provide health care to 
the retired beneficiaries, especially the Medicare-eligible 
population; (4) resolution of the continuing debate between the 
responsibilities of the lead agent, the contractor and the 
military treatment facility commanders; (5) portability of 
benefits among TRICARE regions in CONUS and overseas; (6) and 
public perception about the benefits and availability of care 
within TRICARE. Each of these concerns are discussed in detail 
in the following sections:
          (1) Directed reductions to civilian personnel have 
        been discussed in conjunction with recommended 
        legislative proposals in title III of this bill. When 
        the military services began to drawdown in 1990, the 
        medical departments began to civilianize selected 
        medical positions in order to meet increasing demands 
        for military health care. At the time, these efforts 
        were applauded as good management by prudent military 
        health care leaders. In 1995, the services were 
        directed to reduce civilian personnel by four percent 
        per year for five years. These civilian reductions were 
        applied equally to the medical communities. As a result 
        of these two factors, the medical communities are being 
        forced to accept deeper reductions than previously 
        anticipated. The civilian reductions were assigned to 
        meet specified full-time-equivalent targets without 
        regard for the impact on costs or medical readiness. 
        One consequence of these mandated reductions is that 
        TRICARE contractors will be required to provide more 
        health care, at potentially higher cost, than could be 
        provided in a medical treatment facility.
          (2) The current marketing plan for TRICARE is 
        inadequate. The committee commends the Office of 
        CHAMPUS for holding their recent TRICARE marketing 
        conference. Initiatives such as this should result in a 
        more proactive, better coordinated and more effective 
        program to inform participants, eligible personnel, 
        civilian providers and chains of command about the 
        TRICARE system. Until there is a common understanding 
        of the benefit, procedures, and costs, TRICARE cannot 
        be successfully implemented.
          (3) The committee commends the department's efforts 
        to continue to provide health care to Medicare-eligible 
        retirees. These efforts cost the Department of Defense 
        about $1 billion per year. These costs are not 
        reimbursed by the Health Care Financing Agency (HCFA) 
        through the Medicare system. Last year the committee 
        approved a proposal to require HCFA to reimburse DOD on 
        an annual basis for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries who 
        enrolled in TRICARE. The committee believes the 
        Department of Defense would provide health care to 
        these Medicare-eligible beneficiaries for lower cost 
        than could be provided by Medicare providers. 
        Unfortunately, the committee has not been successful in 
        getting Medicare reimbursement legislation enacted. The 
        current situation results in higher liability to HCFA, 
        dissatisfied Medicare-eligible beneficiaries, and lost 
        opportunities for DOD health care professionals to 
        treat diseases and conditions not found in healthy, 
        young service members and their families.
          (4) The role of the TRICARE lead agent vis-a-vis the 
        TRICARE contractor is unclear to the committee, and, we 
        suspect, the lead agents themselves. Clearly, in the 
        MHSS, the military lead agent should be considered the 
        final authority. However, there are a large number of 
        functions which can be accomplished more efficiently 
        and more effectively by the TRICARE contractor. The 
        committee believes that the issue of how responsibility 
        is shared cannot be ambiguous and must be guided by 
        military medical readiness and stewardship of the 
        available resources. The Assistant Secretary of Defense 
        for Health Affairs and the Surgeons General must 
        clearly define the sharing of responsibilities and 
        ensure that there is no doubt or confusion on the part 
        of the lead agents or the TRICARE contractors.
          (5) The committee strongly supports the concept of a 
        uniform benefit for beneficiaries of the MHSS. 
        Additionally, the processes, procedures and methods of 
        operating should be seamless between regions. Active 
        duty service members expect the process for attaining 
        health care to be standard wherever they are assigned. 
        A family member or retiree should expect no less. In 
        the infancy of TRICARE, this has not been a problem, 
        but as TRICARE matures there is potential for disparate 
        procedures and processes to evolve from region to 
        region. This is especially true since the lead agents 
        represent different services and the TRICARE 
        contractors will be different. The committee believes 
        that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health 
        Affairs and the Surgeons General should assign a task 
        force to ensure the benefit remains uniform and the 
        processes and procedures remain standard so that there 
        is seamless portability for beneficiaries as they move 
        between regions. Consistent with the principles of 
        managed care, standardization should not stifle local 
        initiatives to improve health care delivery and lower 
        costs. However, the processes should be invisible to 
        the user.
          (6) Inevitably, a great deal of the success of 
        TRICARE will depend in large measure on how it is 
        perceived by the beneficiaries and the public. Health 
        care is one of the most visible and important factors 
        in the enlistment and reenlistment decisions. If 
        TRICARE is perceived to be a failure or ineffective, 
        the impact will be manifested in the services' 
        inability to meet enlistment quotas and in retention 
        statistics. Less visible, but no less critical, is the 
        impact of perceptions about TRICARE within the civilian 
        health care provider community. If TRICARE is seen as 
        an important, positive step toward managed care, 
        civilian providers will willingly join the networks and 
        will work with the Department of Defense to improve the 
        system. On the other hand, if TRICARE is perceived as 
        cumbersome, ineffective, or inefficient, civilian 
        providers will not be willing to join in partnership 
        with the Department of Defense. Should this occur, 
        costs will rise and negative perceptions will increase. 
        The best way to ensure the perceptions of TRICARE are 
        positive is to work to ensure the MHSS continues to be 
        a model of excellence.
    The committee remains positive in its assessment of 
TRICARE. However, future evaluations will assess how well 
today's military and civilian medical leaders have done. 
TRICARE may well be the Department of Defense's best 
opportunity to reform the MHSS while maintaining medical 
readiness and meeting the increasing demands for health care. 
The committee urges the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
Health Affairs, the Surgeons General, and the military and 
civilian leadership of the Department of Defense and the 
military services to work together with the Congress to ensure 
TRICARE succeeds.

                    SUBTITLE A--HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Section - 701. Medical care for surviving dependents of retired 
        reserves who die before age 60.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit 
survivors of ``gray area'' retirees, members of the retired 
reserve who have not attained the age of 60 years, to receive 
medical care as if the sponsor had attained 60 years of age and 
was receiving retirement benefits.

Section - 702. Dental insurance for members of the Selected Reserve.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish a dental insurance plan for 
members of the selected reserve. The provision would require a 
plan similar to the active duty dependent dental insurance plan 
with voluntary enrollment and premium sharing by the member.
    The committee believes participation in this program will 
be significant. Once the dental insurance program is in place, 
the committee would consider a recommendation to modify 
provisions in Title IX, Army Guard Combat Reform Initiative, in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 to 
require members of the selected reserve to maintain certain 
standards of dental readiness.

Section - 703. Modification of requirements regarding routine physical 
        examinations and immunizations under CHAMPUS.

    The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 
``well baby'' care and immunizations available through the 
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services 
(CHAMPUS) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to determine 
the types and schedule of immunizations, routine physicals, and 
other health screening or ``wellness'' visits. Under this 
provision school physicals and routine immunizations for 
dependents above six years of age will be covered under 
CHAMPUS.

Section - 704. Permanent authority to carry out specialized treatment 
        facility program.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1105 of title 10 United States Code, by repealing 
subsection (h), the sunset provision. This provision would make 
the Specialized Treatment Facility Program permanent.

Section - 705. Waiver of medicare part B late enrollment penalty and 
        establishment of special enrollment period for certain military 
        retirees and dependents.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
Social Security Act to authorize a waiver of the penalty for 
late enrollment in Medicare Part B for Medicare-eligible 
Department of Defense beneficiaries who reside in geographic 
areas affected by the closure of military hospitals under the 
Base Realignment and Closure process. The provision would 
authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a special 90-
day Medicare Part B enrollment period for Medicare-eligible 
Department of Defense beneficiaries residing in each Base 
Realignment and Closure area, and would allow waiver of the 
penalties for late enrollment during the special 90-day 
enrollment period.

                      SUBTITLE B--TRICARE PROGRAM

Section - 712. Provision of TRICARE uniform benefits by uniformed 
        services treatment facilities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities to implement the 
TRICARE uniform benefit concurrent with the implementation of 
TRICARE in that region. The recommended provision would exempt 
a covered beneficiary who has been continuously enrolled on and 
after January 1, 1995.

Section - 713. Sense of Senate on access of medicare eligible 
        beneficiaries of CHAMPUS to health care under TRICARE.

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
Sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should 
develop a program to ensure that covered beneficiaries who are 
eligible for Medicare and who reside in a region in which 
TRICARE has been implemented have access to health care 
services under TRICARE and that the Department of Defense be 
reimbursed for those services.

Section - 714. Pilot program of individualized residential mental 
        health services.

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to implement a program of residential 
treatment for seriously emotionally disturbed and complex-needs 
adolescents. This treatment would incorporate the concept of 
``wraparound services'' in one TRICARE region. The committee 
notes that there are providers who have been successful in 
delivering these services. The Secretary would be required to 
report on the evaluation of this program not later than 
eighteen months after the program is implemented.

          SUBTITLE C--UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT FACILITIES

Section - 721. Delay of termination of status of certain facilities as 
        uniformed services treatment facilities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
designation of Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities (USTF) 
as military treatment facilities (MTF) until September 30, 
1997.
    The committee recognizes that the USTFs are currently 
operating under at-risk contracts negotiated with the 
Department of Defense. These contracts expire on September 30, 
1997. The committee also recognizes the importance of the 
eventual integration of the USTFs into the TRICARE system and 
the existence of several key milestones in that integration. 
These milestones include the current expiration of the 
designation as MTFs; the expiration of existing contracts 
negotiated with the Department of Defense; the implementation 
by region of the TRICARE program; and the implementation of the 
Uniform Benefit and related cost shares. The committee believes 
that, insofar as possible and given certain grandfathering 
provisions elsewhere in this report, the dates of these 
milestones should coincide.

Section - 722. Applicability of Federal Acquisition Regulation to 
        participation agreements with uniformed services treatment 
        facilities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
Uniformed Services Treatment Facility's exemption to the 
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). The provision would 
apply to any future modification of existing agreements and to 
any new participation agreements entered into after the date of 
enactment.

Section - 723. Amount payable by uniformed services treatment 
        facilities for health care services provided outside the 
        catchment areas of the facilities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1074 of title 10 United States Code, to include the 
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities (USTF) in the authority 
under which a USTF could be reimbursed for care provided to a 
DOD eligible enrollee who receives care out of the local area 
of the USTF in which they are enrolled.

   SUBTITLE D--OTHER CHANGES TO EXISTING LAWS REGARDING HEALTH CARE 
                               MANAGEMENT

Section - 731. Investment incentive for managed health care in medical 
        treatment facilities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 3 
percent of the total amount of the annual Operation and 
Maintenance account for the Defense Health Program authorized 
to be appropriated to remain available until the end of the 
following fiscal year. This provision would permit savings 
generated from management practices in one fiscal year to be 
used during the following fiscal year.

Section - 732. Revision and codification of limitations on physician 
        payments under CHAMPUS.

    The committee recommends a provision that would codify 
section 8009 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 1995, which establishes a process for gradually 
reducing CHAMPUS maximum payment amounts to the limits for 
similar services under Medicare. Additionally, the provision 
would provide special authority to exceed the allowable amounts 
where managed care plan enrollees obtain emergency care from 
non-network providers.

Section - 733. Personal services contracts for medical treatment 
        facilities of the Coast Guard.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Transportation to use the same personal 
services contract authority currently available to the 
Secretary of Defense to contract for health care providers in 
support of the Coast Guard.

Section - 734. Disclosure of information in medicare and medicaid 
        coverage data bank to improve collection from responsible 
        parties for health care services furnished under CHAMPUS.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1144 of the Social Security Act to extend access to 
information in the data bank to the Department of Defense. This 
information will enhance the effectiveness of the Department of 
Defense third party collection program since employers are 
required to submit health care insurance coverage data on 
individuals electing coverage under employers' health plans to 
the data bank annually.

                       SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS

Section - 741. TriService nursing research.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
establishment of a tri-service research program at the 
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences designed 
to further research on the furnishing of care and service by 
nurses in the Armed Forces.

Section - 742. Fisher House trust funds.

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
trust funds on the books of the Treasury for Fisher Houses. The 
interest earned by these trust funds will be used for the 
administration, operation, and maintenance of Fisher Houses 
within the Army and Air Force.

Section - 744. Applicability of limitation on prices of pharmaceuticals 
        procured for Coast Guard.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 8126 of title 38 United States Code, to include the 
Coast Guard in the authority to enter into master 
pharmaceutical pricing agreements.

                         OTHER ITEM OF INTEREST

Telemedicine

    The committee continues to support the initiative to 
enhance the transportable computer-based patient record 
capability of the Composite Health Care System. The committee 
eagerly anticipates the day when a patient's record is 
available via the same telemedicine network on which digitized 
pictures and/or other diagnostic tools are passed in real time 
for expert consultation and collaboration. The committee is 
aware of the initial successes in the Pacific Medical Network 
(PACMEDNET) telemedicine test and the progress made by the 
Army's Center for Total Access at Fort Gordon, GA; Eisenhower 
Army Medical Center; and Fort Jackson, SC. The committee urges 
the Department of Defense to expand these efforts to maximize 
technological advances in improving access to quality care and 
in enhancing medical readiness.
    The committee directs the Department of Defense to advise 
the committee not later than March 1, 1996, regarding plans to 
exploit these initiatives.
  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

    On April 6, 1995, the Subcommittee on Acquisition and 
Technology received testimony from the Department of Defense, 
the General Accounting Office, and the private sector on ways 
to build on the acquisition reforms enacted in the Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. To begin addressing that 
issue, the committee has recommended a number of provisions 
from title XII the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1996 (S. 727) as well as other legislation concerning issues 
that have come to the attention of the committee. The 
individual provisions are described in the following pages of 
this report.

                     SUBTITLE A--ACQUISITION REFORM

Section - 801. Waivers from cancellation of funds.
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow for 
the availability of funds for satellite incentive fees beyond 
the five-year limitation set forth in 31 U.S.C. 1552. The funds 
would be available until the fee is earned under the contract 
subject to other applicable provisions of law.
Section - 802. Procurement notice posting thresholds.
    The committee recommends a provision that would conform the 
notice posting thresholds in 41 U.S.C. 416(a)(1)(B) applicable 
to the Department of Defense to the thresholds applicable to 
federal civilian agencies.
Section - 803. Prompt resolution of audit recommendations.
    The committee recommends a provision that would conform 
section 6009 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 
1994 to the reporting requirements in the Inspector General Act 
of 1978, as amended.
Section - 804. Test program for negotiation of comprehensive 
        subcontracting plans.
    Section 834 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 established a test program for the 
negotiation of comprehensive small business subcontracting 
plans. The test was limited to one contracting activity in each 
military department and defense agency, and was intended to 
determine whether such comprehensive subcontracting plans would 
result in increased opportunities for small businesses under 
DOD contracts. In order to more fully validate the test 
program, the committee recommends a provision that would amend 
the test authority to remove the limitation on the activities 
that may be included in the test. The provision would also 
reduce the number of contracts and aggregate dollar value of 
those contracts that are required to establish a condition for 
a contractor's participation in the test progam.
Section - 805. Naval salvage facilities.
    The committee recommends a provision that would simplify 
the provisions of chapter 637 of title 10 relating to naval 
salvage facilities.
Section - 806. Authority to delegate contracting authority.
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 10 
U.S.C. 2356 which unnecessarily duplicates the inherent 
authority of the Secretary of Defense to delegate research 
contracting authorities.
Section - 807. Coordination and communication of defense research 
        activities.
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 10 
U.S.C. 2364 to clarify that papers prepared by a defense 
research facility on a technological issue relating to a major 
weapon system must be available for consideration at all 
decision reviews for the program.
Section - 808. Procurement of items for experimental or test purposes.
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 10 
U.S.C. 2373 to conform the newly-codified section to the scope 
of the service-specific statutes it replaced.

Section - 809. Quality control in procurements of critical aircraft and 
        ship spare parts.

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 10 
U.S.C. 2383 regarding quality requirements for critical spare 
parts for ship or aircraft. This repeal is intended to assist 
the DOD in shifting from reliance on outdated military 
specifications and standards to use of modern industrial 
manufacturing methods to ensure quality in critical spare 
parts.

Section - 810. Use of funds for acquisition of rights to use designs, 
        processes, technical data and computer software.

    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify 10 
U.S.C. 2386 regarding types of information the Secretary of 
Defense may acquire from DOD contractors.

Section - 811. Independent cost estimates for major defense acquisition 
        programs.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit 
military departments and defense agencies, independent of their 
respective Acquisition Executives, to prepare independent cost 
estimates for major defense acquisitions that are assigned to 
individual components for oversight. The proposed provision 
would align the responsibility for independent cost estimating 
with the level of the decision authority.

Section - 812. Fees for certain testing services.

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
flexibility for the Secretary of Defense to require 
reimbursement of indirect as well as direct costs from private 
sector users of DOD testing facilities.

Section - 813. Construction, repair, alteration, furnishing, and 
        equipping of naval vessels.

    The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 included a 
provision that inadvertently repealed legislation regarding the 
application of the Walsh-Healey Act to contracts for the 
construction, alteration, furnishing or equipping of naval 
vessels. The committee recommends legislation requested by the 
Department of Defense that would restore the prior policy.

Section - 814. Civil Reserve Air Fleet.

    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 
conditions under which a contractor under the Civil Reserve Air 
Fleet program is required to commit aircraft for use by the 
Department of Defense.

                       SUBTITLE B--OTHER MATTERS

Section - 821. Procurement technical assistance programs.

    The committee recommends an addition of $12.0 million to 
continue the procurement technical assistance center program in 
1996. The committee is pleased that the centers, established on 
a cost-shared basis throughout the United States, have enabled 
significant numbers of small and other businesses to compete 
for contracts with federal agencies since 1986. The committee 
recognizes the potential of the procurement technical 
assistance centers to support ongoing acquisition reform 
efforts, and urges the Secretary of Defense to utilize the 
infrastructure of the centers to implement acquisition 
streamlining initiatives, such as electronic commerce, in the 
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.

Section - 822. Treatment of Department of Defense cable television 
        franchise agreements.

    In the committee's report on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, the committee expressed 
concerns about the lack of consistency in the Department of 
Defense's treatment of cable television franchise agreements by 
the military departments. In order to clarify the status of 
cable television franchise agreements, the committee recommends 
a provision that would state that such agreements shall be 
considered contracts for telecommunications services as such 
services are defined in Part 49 of the Federal Acquisition 
Regulations.

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Ship propellers

    The statement of managers accompanying the conference 
report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1994 directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report 
of the U.S. industrial capacity to pour and finish non-ferrous 
castings for both fixed-pitch and controllable-reversible pitch 
propellers. The Navy, responding for the Secretary of Defense, 
submitted the report on August 22, 1994. The report dealt with 
large diameter propellers (diameters greater than 12 feet) that 
are used on Navy submarines, combatants and auxiliaries, and 
some Military Sealift Command Ships. The report found that the 
manufacturing industrial base for propellers of this type was 
in a fragile state due to a reduction in Navy orders and the 
lack of commercial shipbuilding. It concluded that, if 
shipbuilding programs were reduced from the then current future 
years defense plan, there might be only enough propeller work 
to sustain one fully integrated facility. The report further 
stated that the Department might then be required to take 
special efforts to preserve a U.S. industrial base for the 
manufacture of large propellers needed for U.S. Navy ships, 
including limiting procurement to only U.S. sources.
    During its review of the budget request, the committee 
considered recommending a provision that would limit the 
procurement of Navy ship propellers to domestic sources. To 
better evaluate the need for such a provision, the committee 
consulted both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
the Navy concerning the need for such a provision. The 
Secretary of Defense offered the opinion that such a provision 
was not needed at this time because he already had the 
authority under 10 U.S.C. 2304 to take protective action.
    The committee remains very concerned about the condition of 
the domestic propeller manufacturing base and urges the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy to take the 
necessary steps to preserve it.

Worker's compensation coverage on overseas contracts

    Chapter 12 of title 42, United States Code mandates that 
all non-U.S. government personnel employed by federal 
contractors overseas be covered by uniform worker's 
compensation insurance. This insurance coverage is provided on 
a 24-hour basis for sickness and most accidents and injuries. 
Currently, each DOD contractor secures its own insurance and 
writes the cost of the insurance into its contract proposals. 
The premium charge for this coverage on individual contracts 
can be very expensive.
    The committee is aware that the State Department and the 
Agency for International Development have instituted programs 
to consolidate all overseas workers' compensation coverage 
under a single large contract to realize significant cost 
savings through economies of scale. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense, within thirty days upon enactment of the 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, to review this 
approach for providing mandated insurance coverage of foreign 
national employees by defense contractors overseas, and to 
assess the feasibility and desirability of such an approach 
based on potential cost savings and such other factors as the 
Secretary deems appropriate. If the Secretary finds such an 
approach to be feasible and desirable, the committee directs 
the Secretary, not later than March 1, 1996, to develop and 
issue a request for proposals using full and open competitive 
procedures to establish an agency-wide program for providing 
worker's compensation coverage mandated under chapter 12 of 
title 42 United States Code. The committee directs the 
Secretary to provide to the congressional defense committees no 
later than March 31, 1996 a report of his findings and his 
decision with respect to the feasibility and desirability of 
providing insurance coverage through a consolidated contract, 
and a summary of the actions he has undertaken to implement 
that decision.
      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Section - 901. Redesignation of the position of Assistant to the 
        Secretary of Defense for Atomic Energy.
    The committee recommends a provision that would change the 
name of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic 
Energy to be the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for 
Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs.

                             OTHER MATTERS

Joint Exercise, Training, and Doctrine Command
    The committee strongly supports the efforts of the 
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command (USACOM), in 
assisting in the development of joint doctrine, establishing 
the standards for joint readiness, and meeting the requirements 
of a combatant CINC.
    The committee urges the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff 
(CJCS), taking into consideration the functions presently being 
performed by the Joint Staff and USACOM with respect to joint 
doctrine, joint readiness, and joint training, to consider 
forming a Joint Exercise, Training, and Doctrine Command which 
would concentrate on joint training and readiness. The CJCS 
might assign this command the responsibility of assisting in 
ensuring the preparedness and joint readiness of military units 
stationed in the United States. Such an organization might 
optimize the efforts of both the Joint Staff and USACOM with a 
resultant improvement in readiness, training and joint 
doctrine.
    The committee notes that the Joint Warfighting Center at 
Fort Monroe, Virginia, has the mission to assist the CJCS, 
CINCs and Chiefs of Services in their preparation for joint and 
multinational operations in conceptualization, development and 
in the accomplishment of joint and multinational training and 
exercises. This center is designed to support the efforts of 
other commands and agencies through simulation, providing 
controllers, conducting after action reviews, and developing 
and reviewing doctrine. While the Joint Warfighting Center 
could be the nucleus from which a Joint Exercise, Training and 
Doctrine Command could be formed, the responsibilities of such 
a new organization would be significantly greater than those 
currently assigned to the Joint Warfighting Center.

Reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense

    The committee believes that careful consideration should be 
given to reorganizing the management headquarters of the 
Department of Defense, particularly as the military departments 
and the defense agencies downsize and streamline their 
activities. While the committee is not making specific 
recommendations on how such a reorganization might be 
accomplished, the Report of the Commission on Roles and 
Missions provides a base from which to begin.
    Specifically, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct a comprehensive study of the management 
headquarters of the Department of Defense, including the 
military services, with the goal of identifying any 
reorganization and streamlining necessary to prepare those 
headquarters for the 21st century. The Secretary shall report 
the results of the study to the Congress, specifically 
addressing the need for the reorganization and streamlining of 
such headquarters and how best to accomplish any necessary 
reorganization and streamlining, including any proposed 
legislation to bring such about. The report, separate from the 
Secretary's comments concerning the Roles and Missions 
Commissions' report, should be delivered to the appropriate 
committees of the Congress not later than May 1, 1996.
    The committee believes that many of the recommendations in 
the Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions merit 
careful consideration. For example, the Commission on Roles and 
Missions made a specific recommendation that the Secretary of 
Defense create an objective integration element within the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense. Such an integration element 
could be a Chief of Staff or Director of the Defense Staff with 
the function of ensuring integration and coordination so as to 
facilitate unity of effort of OSD. This function could be 
accomplished, for example, by assigning additional duties to 
the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
    The committee notes that the Roles and Missions Commission 
made several recommendations concerning the organization and 
roles of the Service secretariats and service staffs. The study 
directed by the committee should make recommendations 
concerning the advisability of maintaining the current layering 
of civilian and uniformed service staffs or propose changes to 
make these staffs more effective.
    The committee believes that the primary focus of the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense should be the formulation and 
review of policy and that operational issues should be the 
primary function of the Joint Staff. The Roles and Missions 
report recommended the Secretary of Defense develop a directive 
clarifying the scope of responsibilities and relationships for 
the OSD staff. Such a directive could assist in reducing 
redundancy and improving responsiveness to new and evolving 
missions.
    Finally, the committee notes that the Roles and Missions 
Commission recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct 
that additional analytical and technical resources be provided 
to the Joint Staff to assist the Chairman and Vice Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, particularly with respect to 
expansion of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.
    In a separate but related effort, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to review and report on the actual size of 
the management headquarters within the Department of Defense, 
including the military services, not later than March 1, 1996. 
As the operating forces are being reduced, there is a 
perception that management headquarters are growing. In the 
past when the Congress has directed reductions in management 
headquarters, personnel and spaces have been transferred to 
field operating agencies and activities without any substantive 
change in their activities or responsibilities. This directed 
review and report should include the management headquarters 
and all field operating agencies or activities. The report 
should include a description of actions planned or implemented 
as a result of the study and any recommended legislative 
changes which would assist the Department in achieving improved 
readiness, effectiveness and efficiency.
                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     SUBTITLE A--FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section - 1002. Disbursing and certifying officials.
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the designation and appointment of disbursing and certifying 
officials within the Department of Defense (including the 
military departments, defense agencies and field activities). 
This provision would strengthen internal controls by providing 
a separation of duties between personnel who authorize payments 
(certifying officials) and personnel who make payments 
(disbursing officials). Liability for payment authorized would 
be at the source of origination (the certifying official), 
which is more in line with normal financial procedures.
     This provision supports the department's financial 
management consolidation efforts by defining the 
responsibilities and liabilities of disbursing and certifying 
officials. Relief from liability is provided for in appropriate 
cases where accountability for the loss is determined and a 
diligent effort to collect money owed to the government has 
been made.
Section - 1003. Defense modernization account.
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
Defense Modernization Account to encourage savings within DOD, 
and make those savings available to address the serious 
shortfall in funding for modernization.
    Under the proposed legislation, the Secretary of Defense 
could place in the Defense Modernization Account funds saved 
from achieving economies and efficiencies in procurement 
programs and installation management. In order to encourage 
savings by the military departments and DOD components, funds 
placed in the account would be reserved for use by the 
department or component that generated the savings.
    Funds placed in the account could be used only for 
modernization of an existing system, modernization of a system 
that is the subject of an ongoing procurement, or increasing 
the quantity of a procurement in order to achieve a more cost-
efficient production rate. No funds could be made available 
from the account except through established reprogramming 
procedures, including applicable congressional approval 
requirements. Reprogramming procedures could not be used to 
exceed statutory funding or quantity ceilings applicable to the 
program. The amount that could be reprogrammed in any one year 
for DOD as a whole could not exceed $500 million. Amounts more 
than $500 million could not be made available except through 
legislation authorizing and appropriating the funds.
    The committee believes that this provision will provide an 
important incentive for the military departments and DOD 
components to achieve savings, and will provide a means for 
directing such savings to the urgent shortfalls in 
modernization funding.

Section - 1004. Authorization of prior emergency supplemental 
        appropriations for fiscal year 1995.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the emergency supplemental appropriations enacted in the 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1995 (Public Law 
104-6). This supplemental provided funding for fiscal year 1995 
expenses related to military operations in Southwest Asia, 
Haiti, Cuba, Somalia, Bosnia, and Korea.

Section - 1005. Limitation on use of authority to pay for emergency and 
        extraordinary expenses.

    In January 1995, the Department of Defense notified 
Congress that $4.7 million had been obligated from operation 
and maintenance accounts for the purchase and shipment of heavy 
oil to North Korea, in partial fulfillment of U.S. commitments 
under the U.S.-North Korea Nuclear Framework Agreement 
concluded on October 21, 1994. This obligation was incurred 
under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 127 to pay emergency and 
extraordinary expenses of the Department of Defense which 
cannot be anticipated or classified.
    The administration advised Congress that this defense 
spending authority was invoked because Department of State 
funds normally used for foreign aid were not available in this 
case because of the long-standing statutory prohibition on 
using foreign assistance funds to aid terrorist nations. North 
Korea is included on the Department of State's list of nations 
that support or engage in international terrorism.
    Although the exercise of the emergency and extraordinary 
expenses authority cited above does not require prior 
consultation with Congress, the committee is concerned that the 
administration apparently chose voluntarily not to discuss this 
matter with Congress in advance of taking the unusual step of 
using defense funds for foreign aid. The committee is 
particularly concerned that such aid was provided to North 
Korea from Department of Defense funds rather than Department 
of State foreign assistance funds.
    Therefore, the committee supports a provision that requires 
prior notifications to Congress for any use of the emergency 
and extraordinary expenses authority in excess of $500,000, 
except in cases where the Secretary of Defense determines that 
such advance notification would compromise national security.

Section - 1006. Transfer authority regarding funds available for 
        foreign currency fluctuations.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
foreign currency fluctuation account for the military personnel 
appropriation. This authorization is limited to the fiscal year 
1993 and subsequent year appropriations. Overseas allowances 
are subject to currency fluctuations and this authority will 
give the military departments flexibility to manage the 
military personnel appropriation.

Section - 1007. Report on budget submission regarding reserve 
        components.

    The committee believes that the National Guard and the 
other reserve components should be adequately equipped in order 
to perform effectively the missions required of them both in 
peace and war.
    As the active components of our military services have been 
downsized over the past several years, reliance on our reserve 
components has grown. The Bottom-Up Review relies on the 
enhancement of National Guard brigades in order to execute the 
``two nearly-simultaneous major regional conflict'' strategy.
    As a result of shortfalls of modern weapons and equipment 
in the reserve components and the lack of adequate resources 
requested for National Guard and Reserve equipment in annual 
budget submissions, the committee has supported over several 
years initiatives originating within the Congress to provide 
more modern weapons and equipment for National Guard and 
Reserves. While the committee believes this support has done a 
great deal to enhance the capabilities and effectiveness of 
reserve components, it is apparent that the Department of 
Defense has grown to rely on annual congressional increases for 
National Guard and Reserve equipment and does not include in 
annual budget requests adequate resources for reserve 
components.
    The committee is also concerned that the reserve components 
do not receive appropriate priority for the allocation of 
military construction projects and notes that a similar 
practice of annual increases by the Congress has ensued.
    The committee intends that the National Guard and Reserves 
should be adequately resourced by the DOD. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a special report to the 
congressional defense committees at the same time as the fiscal 
year 1997 budget submission, describing measures taken within 
DOD to ensure that the reserve components are appropriately 
funded, and listing the major weapons and items of equipment as 
well as the military construction projects provided for the 
National Guard and Reserves.

                       SUBTITLE B--NAVAL VESSELS

Section - 1011. Iowa class battleships.

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of the Navy to restore at least two Iowa class 
battleships to the naval register, and to retain them in its 
strategic reserve, available for reactivation, until he is 
prepared to certify that the Navy has replaced the potential 
shore fire support the battleships could provide with an 
operational surface fire support capability that equals or 
exceeds it. The discussion of naval surface fire support of 
this report sets forth in Title II the rationale for this 
recommendation in more detail.

Section - 1012. Transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign countries.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to transfer eight FFG-7 Class guided 
missile frigates to various countries. The Chief of Naval 
Operations has certified that these naval vessels are not 
essential to the defense of the U.S. Any expense incurred by 
the United States in connection with the transfer will be 
charged to the recipient.

                  SUBTITLE C--COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Section - 1021. Revision and clarification of authority for Federal 
        support of drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the 
        National Guard.

Section - 1022. National Drug Intelligence Center.

Section - 1023. Assistance to Customs Service.

    The budget request for drug interdiction and counterdrug 
activities totals $680.4 million, plus $131.5 million for 
OPTEMPO which is included within the operating budgets of the 
military services. These numbers compare with $714.2 million 
for drug interdiction and counterdrug activities, and $199.1 
million for OPTEMPO in the military services' budgets in the 
fiscal year 1995 budget request.
    The committee is advised that approximately 70 percent of 
the illegal drugs entering the United States comes mainly by 
air into Mexico and is then transported across the southwest 
border, primarily by trucks and automobiles. Since Mexico is 
not assigned to any of the combatant commands, the committee 
recommends that the Commander, SOUTHCOM or the Commander, 
USACOM, be assigned responsibility for Mexico, if only for 
counterdrug and drug interdiction purposes.
    The committee continues to believe that the development and 
employment of effective non-intrusive inspection devices at key 
border entry points would provide significant deterrence and 
seizure capabilities. The committee has strongly supported 
these efforts over the past five years. Results of tests of 
these devices continues to be encouraging. The advanced X-ray 
at Otay Mesa, CA successfully completed tests and has been 
turned over to the U.S. Customs Service. The committee 
continues to support a strategy of developing mobile detection 
systems, with different technologies for deployment to test 
sites, for demonstration and evaluation. If successful, these 
systems will provide effective coverage of a large number of 
ports with a limited number of inspection systems.
    The committee believes that investment in non-intrusive 
inspection devices will yield much higher payoff than other DOD 
efforts to assist law enforcement agencies. Therefore, the 
committee recommends a provision which would provide necessary 
authority for the procurement of these devices by DOD or 
transfer of funds from DOD to Customs Service for this purpose. 
The committee also recommends $25.0 million for the procurement 
and deployment of non-intrusive detection devices. In turn, the 
Commissioner of Customs has agreed to provide $12.0 million for 
the additional procurement of such devices, and has committed 
to operate and maintain all these devices with Customs 
resources. The committee expects these devices to be procured 
and deployed as soon as possible at entry points along the 
southwest border.
    The committee is pleased with the progress of the Gulf 
States Counterdrug Initiative (GSCI), and recommends an 
increase of $2.0 million to enhance GSCI efforts in Mississippi 
to bring those operations up to the level of those in Alabama 
and Louisiana. The committee commends the Department of Defense 
and the Coordinator for Drug Enforcement Policy and Support for 
their support of the GSCI program and encourages the DOD to 
continue to provide necessary funding for this program in the 
future.
    The committee is aware of a number of initiatives which 
would enhance counterdrug and drug interdiction operations in 
the source countries, and recommends $15.2 million for 
development and procurement of the following items/systems: 
refurbishment and relocation of U.S. ground-based radars, high 
frequency secure communications among allied (Andean Ridge) 
nations, night vision goggles and global positioning systems, 
FAA flight plan computers, podded radars, direction-finding 
capability, and secure tactical field and aircraft radios. The 
committee cautions DOD to ensure that all applicable laws are 
observed in the execution of these programs, including, in 
particular, section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (10 U.S.C. 374 note).
    The committee notes that the National Drug Intelligence 
Center (NDIC) is an activity operated by the Department of 
Justice but totally financed by the DOD. The committee 
recommends a provision which would prohibit further DOD funding 
of NDIC. If the Department of Justice chooses to operate NDIC 
with DOJ funds, the Secretary of Defense may continue to 
provide DOD intelligence personnel to support intelligence 
activities at NDIC as long as the number of personnel provided 
by DOD does not exceed the number provided to support 
intelligence activities at NDIC on the date of enactment of 
this bill.
    The committee recommends deletion of funding for community 
outreach programs within the DOD Interdiction and Counterdrug 
Program.
    The committee recommends a provision which would revise and 
clarify authority for federal support of drug interdiction and 
counter-drug activities of the National Guard.

 Drug Interdiction & Counterdrug Activities, Operations and Maintenance 
                        (in thousands of dollars)

                                                               Thousands
Fiscal Year 1996 Drug and Counterdrug Request.................  $680,400
    Source Nation Support.....................................  $127,300
    Dismantling Cartels.......................................   $64,300
    Detection and Monitoring..................................  $111,700
    Law Enforcement Agency Support............................  $279,300
    Demand Reduction..........................................   $97,800
Reductions
    Community Outreach Programs...............................    $8,236
    National Drug Intelligence Center.........................   $34,000
Increases
    Non-Intrusive Inspection Devices, Procurement.............   $25,000
    Gulf States Counterdrug Initiative........................    $2,000
    Source Nation Support Initiatives.........................   $15,236
Recommendation................................................  $680,400

          SUBTITLE D--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Section - 1031. Continuation of the Uniformed Services University of 
        the Health Sciences.

    The committee recommends a provision that would reaffirm 
the prohibition of the closure of the University, and establish 
minimum staffing levels.

Section - 1032. Additional graduate schools and programs at the 
        Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional graduate schools and programs at the Uniformed 
Services University of the Health Sciences. This provision 
would permit the Board of Regents to establish a graduate 
school of nursing at the University.

Section - 1033. Funding for basic adult education programs for military 
        personnel and dependents outside the United States.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the military continuing education programs 
of the armed services and adult members of their families 
stationed or residing outside the United States. This provision 
would authorize funding of the same literacy and citizenship 
programs now available to persons residing in the United 
States.

Section - 1034. Scope of education programs of Community College of the 
        Air Force.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 9315 of title 10, United States Code to limit the scope 
of the Community College of the Air Force to Air Force 
personnel.

Section - 1035. Date for annual report on Selected Reserve Educational 
        Assistance Program.

    The committee recommends a provision that would change the 
date on which the annual report on selected reserve educational 
assistance program is due to the Congress from December 15 to 
March 1 of each year.

  SUBTITLE E--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER 
                              SOVIET UNION

Section - 1041. Cooperative Threat Reduction programs defined.

Section - 1042. Funding matters.

Section - 1043. Limitation relating to offensive biological warfare 
        program of Russia.

    In 1991, the Congress established the Nunn-Lugar Program, 
now called the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program, 
authorizing the Department of Defense to assist the Soviet 
Union and its successor countries to destroy their weapons of 
mass destruction and reduce the threat posed by the 
proliferation of these weapons. To date, the Congress has 
approved $1.25 billion to achieve the objectives established 
for the program.
    The fiscal year 1996 budget included a request for $371.0 
million in the operation and maintenance account of the 
Department of Defense to continue activities to denuclearize 
and reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the 
countries of the former Soviet Union.
    The committee recommends a reduction of $6.0 million to the 
budget request for fiscal year 1996. The committee is concerned 
about reported problems with achieving CTR program objectives, 
including: progress in full implementation of audit and 
examination agreements to determine that CTR funds are being 
used for their intended purposes; Department of Defense funding 
of housing for Russian military officers; and uncertainties 
regarding the successful evaluation of the technology which 
Russia has selected for destruction of its chemical weapons 
stockpile. At the same time, the committee takes note of the 
Secretary of Defense's written rebuttal of these criticisms. 
The committee continues to be concerned about Russia's 
compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and 
recommends a provision that would require the President to 
certify Russia's compliance with the BWC.
    The committee supports Department of Defense efforts to 
facilitate the dismantlement and destruction of strategic 
offensive weapons in the states of the former Soviet Union and 
military and defense exchanges between the U.S. and the 
countries of the former Soviet Union. The committee also 
supports joint business partnerships formed between U.S. 
industry and defense enterprises and partners in the former 
Soviet Union to engage defense enterprises associated with the 
research, development and production of strategic offensive 
arms to private, peaceful commercial activities.
    The committee recommends an amendment to Section 1206 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 to 
allow funds authorized to execute the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program to be used to reimburse the military 
personnel appropriations accounts for pay and allowances paid 
to reserve component personnel while they are engaged in 
military-to-military or defense contacts authorized in the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program.

             SUBTITLE F--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

Section - 1051. Cooperative research and development agreements with 
        NATO organizations.

    The committee recommends a provision that would make a 
technical and conforming amendment to section 2350b of title 
10, United States Code, to make it consistent with action taken 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, 
which amended section 2350a.

Section - 1052. National security implications of United States export 
        control policy.

    The increased use of commercial-off-the shelf technologies 
by the Department of Defense and the military services, and the 
relaxation of export controls on dual-use items and sensitive 
military technologies, has caused the committee great concern. 
Lowering export controls on dual-use items and technologies may 
place current U.S. technologies and defense capabilities at 
risk. In particular, the committee is concerned about the 
export of satellite, satellite-related technologies, and 
services.
    The committee is also troubled by the administration's 
efforts to support the inclusion of countries as members of the 
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and consulting with 
Congress about the administration's efforts, only after it is a 
fait accompli. Recently, the administration has made overtures 
of support to a number of countries whose records on the sale 
of space launch vehicle (SLV) technology is at variance with 
the goals of the MTCR regime.
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Department of Defense to provide a detailed report on its role 
in the review of licenses for dual use technologies.
    The report shall include the following:
          (1) administration plans to revise its export control 
        policy on dual-use items and militarily critical 
        technologies which could have adverse consequences for 
        national security;
          (2) The process for resolving disputes between the 
        Department of Defense, Department of State and 
        Department of Commerce, over licensing requirements for 
        particular items, or whether to grant a license to a 
        particular country, so that export policy serves both 
        United States national security interests as well as 
        U.S. economic interests.

Review of export licenses for biological pathogens

    The committee is concerned about exports of biological and 
medical samples that could be used to support a biological 
warfare program. Because the Department of Defense must prepare 
for military operations in areas or against nations with known 
or suspected biological warfare programs, the committee 
believes that the Department of Defense should take an active 
role in reviewing and approving export licenses for class 2, 3, 
and 4 biological pathogens with a potential for use in 
biological warfare program.
    Additionally, the committee believes that copies of all 
export license requests for class 2, 3, and 4 biological 
pathogens to countries with known or suspected biological 
warfare programs, even if denied, should be made available to 
the appropriate intelligence community elements to facilitate 
the full and ongoing evaluation of those programs.

Section - 1053. Defense export loan guarantees.

    During a period of reduced funding for purchases of weapon 
systems and other defense equipment, defense exports make a 
significant contribution to the preservation of the industrial 
and technology base supporting national security. Such exports 
are a major factor in preserving jobs for some of the most 
skilled American workers. The international defense market, 
however, is very competitive, and the ability of a defense 
company to offer better-than-market financing can be decisive 
for the consummation of an export sale. In fact, to an 
increasing extent countries are now requiring the provision of 
export loan guarantees as a precondition for submitting a bid 
for the sale of defense articles. For that reason, most foreign 
defense suppliers have access to government-subsidized loan 
guarantees for the export of defense equipment.
    In order to provide the same advantage to U.S. defense 
companies, the committee recommends a provision that would 
establish a loan guarantee program in the Department of Defense 
for the export of defense articles, services, or design and 
construction services. Countries eligible for loan guarantees 
under this section include the members of NATO, major non-NATO 
allies, the democratic states of Eastern Europe, and the member 
nations of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). The 
obligations under the program would be paid from a revolving 
fund financed through exposure fees charged to the recipients 
of the loan guarantees.

Section - 1054. Landmine clearing assistance program.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$20.0 million in operation and maintenance accounts for the 
Department of Defense to carry out humanitarian landmine 
clearing activities during fiscal year 1996. The committee also 
terminates the use of Department of Defense funds to carry out 
this activity after fiscal year 1996. The committee believes 
that this activity is more appropriately funded through the 
international affairs budget function. Additionally, the 
committee requires that the Secretary of Defense certify 30 
days in advance of obligation of funds that the involvement of 
personnel in this activity fulfills military training 
requirements.
    The committee also recommends a provision that would amend 
the current definition of landmine to clarify that ``remotely 
operated devices'' are not included for the purposes of the 
landmine export moratorium.

Landmine Convention

    The United States military services have identified land 
mines as a significant threat to future force projections and 
military operations other than war. As a result, the United 
States, through the services have provided training and 
education assistance for humanitarian landmine activities, to 
include the development of technology for mine detection, 
classification, mapping, and neutralization to regions such as 
Africa, Asia and Latin America. In March 1995, the Senate 
provided its advice and consent to ratification of the 
Convention on Conventional Weapons (Treaty Document 103-25). In 
providing its support for ratification of this treaty, the 
committee identified a number of concerns related to future 
amendments to the Convention at the upcoming September 1995 
Review Conference.
    The committee is concerned about possible administration 
plans to amend the Convention to establish a verification and 
compliance commission. The committee believes a large, 
expensive bureaucracy should not be established and that 
careful consideration be given to the precedent-setting nature 
of an enforcement commission.
    Lastly, the committee also believes that command-detonated 
claymore-type mines must be excluded from the coverage of any 
future amendments intended to tighten restrictions on the use 
of landmines.
    The committee urges the administration to continue to 
encourage more nations to ratify the Convention, particularly 
undeveloped nations where internal conflicts are on the rise, 
and where the use of landmines and booby-traps are likely.

Section - 1055. Strategic cooperation between the United States and 
        Israel.

    The committee recommends a provision which expresses the 
sense of Congress supporting continued cooperation between the 
United States and Israel in military and technical areas; in 
particular, in missile defense systems. This provision calls 
for the elimination of unnecessary barriers to collaboration 
between the two allies in order to maintain Israel's 
qualitative edge over potential adversaries in conventional 
weaponry and missile defenses.
    The committee believes that both the United States and 
Israel have benefitted from this collaborative effort. The 
committee recognizes that Israel is engaged in a peace 
initiative that could pose increased risks to its security. 
Maintaining Israel's defense qualitative edge is thus more 
critical now than perhaps at any other time. However, the 
committee also notes that U.S. national security concerns, such 
as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, must limit 
cooperation in certain technical areas.

Section - 1056. Support services for the Navy at the Port of Haifa, 
        Israel.

    The Navy relies heavily on the Port of Haifa, Israel to 
support fleet operations in the eastern Mediterranean. Sixth 
Fleet ships operating in that region conduct most of their port 
calls in Haifa. The Navy has completed an initial phase of 
upgrades to enhance the support services available at Haifa.
    The committee recommends a provision expressing the sense 
of Congress that the Navy should pursue a follow-on phase of 
upgrades to improve these services; and ensure that such 
support remains available in the future as commercial 
activities continue to expand at Haifa. For example, the port 
uses a water taxi system to transport personnel from larger 
ships moored away from the piers. Measures to enhance safety of 
the water taxi system are of particular interest to the 
committee. The committee notes that 21 U.S. sailors died in 
1990 when their water taxi capsized. The committee believes 
that a modernized water taxi system could prevent another such 
accident.
    The committee directs the Navy to begin discussions 
promptly with Port of Haifa and other local officials. The 
committee expects the Navy to use these discussions to develop 
detailed plans for the next phase of support services upgrades. 
Plans should include, at a minimum, safety of water taxi 
service available to the Sixth Fleet at Haifa. The Navy is 
directed to report periodically to the committee on its 
progress in developing these plans.

Section - 1057. Prohibition on assistance to terrorist countries.

    As noted in report language accompanying the bill section 
on ``Limitation on Use of Authority to Pay for Emergency and 
Extraordinary Expenses,'' the committee is troubled by the use 
of the department's Emergency and Extraordinary Expenses 
account to pay for the purchase and shipment of heavy oil to 
North Korea, a nation listed by the Department of State as 
supporting international terrorism. Although this obligation 
was incurred to fulfill a U.S. commitment to North Korea under 
the Nuclear Framework Agreement, the committee believes, 
nevertheless, it was a questionable use of defense funds.
    Consequently, the committee recommends a provision, similar 
to language in the annual foreign assistance legislation, which 
would prohibit the use of any funds available to the Department 
of Defense to assist nations on the terrorism list.

Section - 1058. International military education and training.

    The IMET program is central and cost-effective to the 
success of U.S. regional security strategies. The Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commanders in Chief (CINCs) 
of the regional combatant commands have testified repeatedly 
that the IMET program is, dollar-for-dollar, the best tool in 
establishing security relationships with friendly nations. 
Because of today's fast-breaking and sometimes unpredictable 
developments, IMET contributes to more inter-operability and 
smoother coalition-building with other nations. From fiscal 
year 1988 through fiscal year 1993, annual IMET appropriations 
ranged from $47.4 million to $42.5 million. Then, in fiscal 
year 1994, funding was precipitously cut in half, to $21.3 
million, with only a modest recovery to $25.5 million in fiscal 
year 1995.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that 
would grant discretionary authority to the Secretary of 
Defense, upon the recommendation of Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff or a regional combatant CINC, to provide up to 
$20.0 million for the provision of international training and 
education to countries allied and friendly to the United 
States. This amount is authorized to be funded from amounts 
appropriated for operation and maintenance for defense-wide 
activities and is subject to the provisions of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961. This would help to return IMET closer 
to traditional funding levels.

Section - 1060. Implementation of arms control agreements.

    The fiscal year 1996 budget request for arms control 
implementation is based on assumptions regarding the dates on 
which treaties will likely enter into force and includes funds 
for the On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA), the military 
services, and defense agencies. To date, a number of treaties 
and agreements have not been ratified by all signatories, thus 
resulting in a delay in the date of entry into force. Those 
treaties and agreements not yet entered into force include the 
Open Skies Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, START II, 
and the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Destruction Agreement. As a 
result, the committee recommends a reduction of $12.0 million 
in the O&M account for OSIA, and reduction of $6.0 million to 
the Army, $7.0 million to the Navy, and $8.0 million to the Air 
Force O&M accounts for arms control compliance activities as a 
result of reduced requirements in fiscal year 1996.
    The statement of managers accompanying the conference 
report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1994 (H. Rept. 103-357) directed the Department of Defense 
to notify the congressional defense committees in writing 30 
days prior to U.S. agreement to any recommendations of the 
various consultative commissions that would result in either a 
technical change to the treaty or agreement affecting 
inspection and monitoring provisions, or that would result in 
increased costs of implementation.
    The department's notification to the Congress of agreement 
to recommendations of the consultative commissions made by 
treaty partners or by the United States has been erratic at 
best. The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the use of defense funds to reimburse expenses that 
signatories, other than the United States, are obligated to 
incur pursuant to treaties or agreements with the United States 
which have entered into force, where the Congress has not 
received 30 days notice prior to agreement between the parties 
in the consultative commission.
    Furthermore, the committee remains concerned that the arms 
control consultative commissions are being used to facilitate 
changes or modifications to arms control treaties and 
agreements, such as inspection or monitoring provisions, or 
obligations of the parties, which should be brought to the 
Senate for its advice and consent.

Section - 1061. Sense of Congress on limiting the placing of United 
        States forces under United Nations Command or Control.

    The committee recommends a provision expressing the sense 
of Congress on placing U.S. forces under the operational 
control of the United Nations for the purpose of conducting 
peace operations.
    The administration's policy on peace operations, spelled 
out in Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25) in May 1994, 
places considerable emphasis on U.N. peacekeeping and peace 
enforcement as a major foreign policy tool of the United 
States. The administration's preference for acting under the 
U.N. rather than unilaterally (or through other, more limited 
multi-lateral arrangements) is usually justified on the grounds 
that it reduces the burden to the U.S. by spreading costs among 
U.N. member nations. However, this redoubled commitment to the 
U.N. has led to a marked increase in the number and scope of 
peace operations undertaken by the U.N. Thus the potential 
reduction in the burden borne by the U.S. is offset by the 
proliferation of extended and costly operations. Moreover, the 
U.N., with the full support of the U.S. government, has in many 
cases taken on tasks which exceed its capabilities. The results 
have ranged from disappointing to disastrous.
    Furthermore, the administration's emphasis on the U.N. as a 
key component of U.S. foreign and security policy suggests 
confusion over the legitimacy of the unilateral use of force by 
the United States. The administration appears to believe that 
activities under U.N. authority give global legitimacy to 
mediating disputes, demobilizing armed factions, arranging 
cease fires, or providing emergency and humanitarian relief. 
Conversely, the administration's actions suggest a belief that 
unilateral U.S. actions are less legitimate and less 
justifiable than actions taken under the auspices of the U.N.
    This belief in the superiority of U.N. action over 
unilateral U.S. action has logically and inevitably led to a 
willingness to place U.S. forces under the operational control 
of U.N. in peacekeeping missions. However, inherent 
deficiencies in U.N. command and control arrangements, combined 
with the lack of mission clarity inherent in peace operations, 
have undermined the success of some peacekeeping missions, and 
contributed to the endangerment and loss of life of 
participating personnel.
    Consequently, the committee supports the section expressing 
the sense of Congress that U.S. forces should not be placed 
under operational control of the U.N. without close and prior 
consultation with Congress; should only be placed under 
qualified commanders and clear, effective command and control, 
and then only when clearly in the national interest; and that 
U.S. forces should not be placed under the operational control 
of foreign commanders in peace enforcement missions except in 
the most extraordinary circumstances.

          SUBTITLE G--REPEAL OF CERTAIN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Reduction of reporting requirements

    The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate 
67 statutory reports recommended for elimination by the 
Department of Defense under section 1151 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994.

                       SUBTITLE H--OTHER MATTERS

Section - 1081. Global positioning system.

    The committee has received the reports on the Global 
Positioning System (GPS) prepared by the National Academy of 
Public Administration (NAPA) and the National Research Council 
(NRC), pursuant to a provision the committee recommended in the 
Fiscal Year 1994 National Defense Authorization Act. The 
committee expresses its deep appreciation to the participants 
from both groups for their comprehensive reports.
    The committee also acknowledges the recent findings and 
recommendations of the Defense Science Board (DSB), which will 
soon issue its own report on GPS. With a few salient 
exceptions, the DSB and NAPA/NRC reports contain similar 
recommendations. Both recommend that the Department of Defense 
begin immediately to prepare for situations in which GPS 
signals are denied, either as a result of U.S. or foreign 
jamming. Both recommend that DOD prepare for widespread 
availability of differential GPS. Both also urge the military 
to move rapidly to heavy, if not exclusive, reliance on the 
encrypted P(Y) code. Although the DSB and NAPA/NRC reports 
differ on the timetable for suspending the use of the Selective 
Availability (SA) feature (NAPA/NRC calls for immediate 
suspension), both indicate that DOD must prepare for the day 
when SA is turned off.
    The committee generally accepts the findings and 
recommendations from these reports, with one exception: the 
committee believes that an immediate suspension of SA, as 
recommended in the NAPA/NRC reports, would be both premature 
and risky. The committee agrees that the SA function should be 
eliminated by a date certain, and before the end of this 
decade. The committee further agrees that, in the interim prior 
to termination of the SA function, DOD must undertake a 
vigorous research and development program focused on two 
interrelated objectives. First, DOD needs to develop methods to 
jam or otherwise counter potential enemy use of GPS signals to 
target U.S. forces and installations within a theater of 
operations. Second, DOD needs to develop methods to improve the 
performance of our GPS-equipped weapons platforms, and, even 
more important, the effectiveness of our GPS-aided weapons, 
against hostile efforts (or even the effects of our own denial 
actions) to jam or degrade high-precision GPS signals.
    Accordingly, the committee increases the requested RDT&E 
funds for the GPS Block IIF program by $10.0 million in program 
element 0604480F for the development of a comprehensive plan, 
and to initiate those R&D activities necessary to insure 
effective use of high-precision GPS signals by U.S. forces, and 
effective denial of the use of those signals by potential 
enemies. To ensure that this matter is taken seriously, the 
committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to turn off SA by May 1, 1996 unless the 
Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees a 
plan for achieving a capability to deny hostile use of GPS 
without hindering our own ability to exploit GPS, and for 
substantially improving the jam-resistance of our GPS-aided 
weapons and platforms. The Secretary's report should address 
the full range of recommendations issued by the National 
Research Council and the Defense Science Board in their 
respective studies, including the recommendations to add 
another GPS signal to the Block IIR and Block IIF satellites, 
and to improve the operational control segment. The committee 
believes that these recommendations, if implemented, would 
enhance the military, civilian, and commercial utility of the 
system at modest cost, and help to ensure that GPS will not 
face meaningful competition in the future.

Section - 1082. Limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic 
        nuclear delivery systems.

    The committee has reviewed the findings and recommendations 
of the administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The NPR 
recommends reductions to the B-52 bomber force beginning in 
fiscal year 1996, and the scrapping of four Trident submarines 
beginning in 2000, if the START II Treaty has been ratified and 
is on track to enter into force. As part of the entry into 
force of the Treaty, the U.S. would make an irrevocable 
declaration that its accountable sea-based forces consist of 14 
Trident submarines, each containing 24 launchers, with each 
launcher containing 5 reentry vehicles (RVs). The committee is 
concerned that those NPR recommendations appear to be cost-
effective only under the assumption that the START II Treaty 
will be ratified and enter into force and that there will be no 
further arms reductions treaties.
    The planned retirements recommended in the NPR of 28 of the 
94 B-52 bombers during the next fiscal year, and four of the 18 
Trident submarines beginning in the year 2000 (with each 
remaining Trident missile to carry five RVs), would clearly 
retain nearly the same total weapons loading as would be 
permitted under the START II Treaty if there were no 
retirements of delivery systems, and would reduce the long-term 
operating cost. However, the required backfitting of Trident II 
missiles into the four West Coast Trident submarines to be 
retained would eliminate most of those potential savings in 
operating costs until well after the turn of the century. Thus, 
if the START II Treaty were implemented promptly, not 
abrogated, and not superseded by further arms control 
agreements, long-term savings would accrue.
    Other futures are possible, indeed, more probable, given 
the uncertainties of the post-Cold War world. For example, the 
NPR argues that its reduced force structure would provide an 
adequate ``hedge'' capability against the possibility of a 
failure of democracy in Russia. Yet it is clear that a force 
structure containing all 94 B-52s and all 18 Trident submarines 
would provide both higher force survivability and a larger 
number of available weapons than the NPR force structure. Thus, 
the larger force structure would be more effective than the NPR 
force, should international events force us to increase our 
nuclear deterrent.
    Another possible future is that the START II Treaty will be 
ratified and enter into force on (roughly) the timetable 
contained in the Treaty. In this instance, it may be judged 
likely that there will be further arms control negotiations. 
Should such negotiations begin, the U.S. will be entering them 
from a position in which it has just unilaterally retired four 
Trident submarines as a part of its implementation of START II, 
plus the retirement during 1996 of 28 B-52 bombers. It is 
unlikely that any negotiating partner would give the U.S. side 
any credit for our prior unilateral reductions. Thus, it is 
entirely possible that U.S. negotiators could be pressed during 
``START III'' negotiations to agree to lower limits on 
precisely those weapons systems that were unilaterally and 
unnecessarily retired while the START II Treaty was being 
implemented. This could even lead to a situation in which the 
U.S. would face the prospect of retiring one or more of the 
Trident submarines that had just undergone a costly backfit of 
Trident II missiles.
    Thus, the committee concludes that the NPR recommendations 
appear to be cost-effective only under the narrow assumption 
that the START II Treaty is rapidly implemented, adhered to 
faithfully, and not superseded by more restrictive treaty 
limits. In that case, modest long-term savings would begin to 
accrue sometime after the turn of the century. Under other, 
more plausible scenarios, however, the NPR would clearly be 
less cost-effective than retaining the largest force structure 
consistent with the terms of the START I and START II Treaties. 
The committee does not regard the possibility of modest savings 
in the long-term as an adequate rationale for the selection of 
an inferior deterrent posture.
    Given these uncertainties, the committee proposes several 
actions. First, the committee recommends a provision expressing 
the sense of Congress that no strategic nuclear delivery system 
should be retired until START II enters into force. This 
provision also prohibits the retirement, or preparation for 
retirement, of such delivery systems during fiscal year 1996. 
Second, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 
fully fund all activities necessary for the backfitting of 
Trident II missiles into at least four West Coast Trident 
submarines on the schedule recommended in the NPR. The 
committee recommends a provision to repeal the existing 
prohibition on backfit of Trident submarines. Third, the 
committee directs the Department of the Navy to continue to 
fund both in its fiscal year 1997 budget and in the Future 
Years Defense Program adequate operational support for Trident 
I missiles to insure the option of retaining all 18 Trident 
submarines on full operational status, assuming backfits of the 
final four submarines with Trident II missiles would be 
scheduled following the completion of the first four 
conversions.
    The committee is also concerned by the administration's 
failure to prepare a plan for maintaining the nuclear weapons 
necessary for a credible upload hedge. The committee notes that 
this was an integral part of the NPR recommendation and is 
critical to the maintenance of a credible hedge. Unfortunately, 
to date the Department of Energy has failed in its 
responsibility to support such a hedge. The committee believes 
that maintaining 3,500 active warheads pursuant to the START II 
limitations is only half of a credible plan. In order to have a 
serious and credible hedge capability, in addition to the 
active stockpile, DOE must maintain an inactive stockpile that 
is ready to be promptly uploaded onto existing delivery 
systems. This inactive stockpile must be maintained at a level 
no lower than that which would be required to promptly and 
fully upload all existing strategic nuclear delivery systems in 
today's inventory. Therefore, the committee recommends a 
provision that would require DOE to maintain, and remanufacture 
as necessary, sufficient warheads to be able to implement the 
upload outlined above.

Section - 1083. National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities Pilot 
        Program.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization for the National Guard Youth Opportunities 
program through 1997. No funding was authorized by this 
provision.

Section - 1084. Report on Department of Defense boards and commissions.

    The committee is concerned over growth in the number of 
congressionally mandated boards and commissions that may not 
merit the department's continued support, either through 
funding or manpower. The committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a list to Congress that identifies those 
boards and commissions that are deemed desirable for retention 
and compatible with efficient management, and those that are 
not. In each case, the Secretary shall also describe the level 
of funding and manpower required, and provide a brief summary 
of the reasons for the proposed retention or dissolution of 
such boards.

Section - 1085. Revision of authority for providing Army support for 
        the National Science Center for Communications and Electronics.

    The committee has included a legislative provision that 
would clarify the Army's relationship with the foundation and 
the National Science Center Discovery Center, a non-profit 
organization. The committee is pleased with the progress made 
to establish the discovery center as a national center 
dedicated to communication and electronics. The committee urges 
the center to expedite its transition to self-supporting status 
through entry fees. The committee also directs the Army to 
establish revised or new memorandums of agreement with the 
center and the foundation to implement this new legislation.

Section - 1086. Authority to suspend or terminate collection actions 
        against deceased members.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3711 of title 31 United States Code to rescind the 
requirement to initiate and pursue collection action against 
the estates of service members who die on active duty while 
indebted to the government. The provision would provide the 
Secretary of Defense discretionary authority to suspend or 
terminate collection actions when a service member dies while 
indebted to the government and the Secretary determines that 
collection action is inappropriate.

Section - 1087. Damage or loss to personal property due to emergency 
        evacuation or extraordinary circumstances.

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Transportation when 
the Coast Guard is not acting as part of the Department of 
Defense, to waive the settlement and payment limitations in 
certain instances up to $100,000 per claim. The current maximum 
is $40,000. This authority would be available when the claims 
concern damage or loss of personal property, and the Secretary 
concerned determines that such claims arose from an emergency 
evacuation or other extraordinary circumstances. The provision 
would assist service personnel in obtaining appropriate 
compensation in instances similar to the evacuation of Clark 
Air Force Base, without the need for special legislation.

Section - 1088. Check cashing and exchange transactions for dependents 
        of United States Government personnel.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
United States disbursing personnel to extend check-cashing and 
currency exchange services to the dependents of military and 
civilian personnel at government installations that do not have 
adequate banking facilities. The provision would require that 
the dependent's sponsor provide written authorization to enable 
the dependent to present checks. The sponsor would be 
responsible for any loss incurred by the government as a result 
of a dishonored check.

Section - 1089. Travel of disabled veterans on military aircraft.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit 
veterans eligible for compensation for a service-connected 
disability the same entitlement to space-available 
transportation as retired members of the Armed Forces.

Section - 1090. Transportation of crippled children in Pacific rim 
        region to Hawaii for medical care.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to permit space-available 
transportation of crippled children in the Pacific Rim region 
to Hawaii for medical care in non-military medical facilities.

Section - 1091. Student information for recruiting purposes.

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
Sense of the Senate that educational institutions, including 
secondary schools, should not deny military recruiters access 
to their campuses or schoolyards.
    Across the nation, military recruiters are facing an 
increasingly difficult time attracting quality individuals to 
military service. In view of this challenging environment, the 
Congress has been very responsive in terms of increased funding 
for recruiting and advertising.
    It has long been recognized that high school graduates are 
the single most important source of enlisted recruits. To 
permit public high schools and community colleges to deny 
access to military recruiters while authorizing significant 
amounts of tax dollars to support military recruiting and 
advertising is counterproductive, at best.

Section - 1092. State recognition of military advance medical 
        directives.

    The Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) (42 U.S.C. 
1395cc(f)(1)) requires medical facilities that receive Medicaid 
and Medicare funds to establish procedures for handling 
patients' advance medical directives (AMDs), and to inform 
patients about their rights to make AMDs under state law. The 
PSDA left the substance of the law to the states, resulting in 
the adoption of different forms and procedural requirements.
    Members of the armed forces and their families are subject 
to frequent travel from state to state because of reassignments 
and duty requirements. As a result, it is very difficult to 
ensure that a military member's AMD prepared in one state will 
be honored in another. In view of diverse state requirements 
and the inherently mobile military lifestyle, there is a need 
for uniform treatment of AMDs prepared for military personnel.
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
in 10 U.S.C. 1044c a requirement that AMDs prepared by members 
of the armed forces, their spouses, or other persons eligible 
for legal assistance under section 1044 of title 10, United 
States Code, be recognized by the state where the member, 
spouse, or other person is located at the time of 
incapacitation.

Section - 1093. Report on personnel requirements for control of 
        transfer of certain weapons.

    On four previous occasions, the Congress has enacted 
legislation requiring the Departments of Defense and Energy to 
submit a report describing the personnel resources for 
implementing nonproliferation policy responsibilities relating 
to weapons of mass destruction. To date, the departments have 
not complied with any of these statutory requirements.
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Departments of Defense and Energy to submit the report within 
thirty days of enactment of this Act and explain its 
noncompliance with previous reporting requirements.

Section - 1094. Extension of period of Vietnam era.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 101(29) of title 38, United States Code, to extend the 
beginning of the ``Vietnam Era'' from August 5, 1964 to July 1, 
1958. This provision would align the beginning of the Vietnam 
Era with the earliest date established by the Army for award of 
medals for U.S. personnel who engaged in combat action. The 
provision would only apply to those who served in the theater 
of operations. No benefits would accrue for periods before the 
date of enactment.

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

    The budget request included $68.0 million for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for fiscal year 1996. The 
committee denies authorization of appropriations for the civil 
defense activities of FEMA. Based on an understanding that the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would transfer the civil 
defense program to domestic budget accounts in fiscal year 
1996, the committee included a legislative provision (sec. 
3411) in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1995 to transfer all civil defense activities of FEMA out of 
the defense function to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

Department of Defense space management and organization

    The committee is encouraged by the efforts of the 
Department of Defense to reorganize space management, which 
have resulted in the creation of a Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Space, and plans for the consolidated management of 
DOD space systems and architectures. While this appears to be a 
positive step, the committee believes that DOD still has a long 
way to go to achieve a truly efficient space management 
structure. With certain conditions, the committee supports 
further integration of DOD and Intelligence Community space 
management structures and procedures. The National 
Reconnaissance Office (NRO) must become increasingly responsive 
to the needs of the combatant commanders. At the same time, 
however, the committee is concerned that the NRO not be plagued 
by the Department of Defense's overly bureaucratic and 
cumbersome acquisition process.
    As DOD centralizes oversight of space acquisition and 
planning, it must ensure that each of the military services is 
given adequate influence over space architectures and systems. 
While the Air Force manages the majority of the Department of 
Defense's space budget, the Army and the Navy are the largest 
warfighting consumers of space products. The committee is 
concerned that the needs and equities of the other services 
could be overwhelmed by the tendency of the large Air Force 
infrastructure and numerous space personnel to dominate newly 
created, jointly manned offices, particularly when those 
offices are located within the Air Force acquisition structure. 
This large infrastructure also makes the goal of merging DOD 
and NRO acquisition activities--while preserving the 
streamlined advantages of the NRO--more difficult.
    The committee is not convinced that having the new DOD 
Space Architect reporting through the Air Force Acquisition 
Executive is the best means of achieving savings or 
efficiencies. The committee is concerned that strengthening Air 
Force control of space management will offset centralized 
oversight in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, dilute the 
other services' ability to influence space acquisition, and 
make it more difficult to merge the activities of DOD and the 
NRO. The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees no 
later than March 31, 1996, addressing the following issues: (1) 
progress to date in centralizing DOD space management; (2) the 
organizational structure that will be achieved upon completion 
of the DOD and intelligence community consolidation, and date 
consolidation will be completed; (3) how DOD plans to protect 
service-unique interests and other equities in the new 
centralized organization; (4) the reductions or savings in 
infrastructure and personnel that will be realized in 
transitioning to a new space management structure; and (5) the 
degree to which effectiveness and efficiency will be enhanced 
by the new structure and associated procedures.

Joint military intelligence program

    On April 7, 1995, the Deputy Secretary of Defense signed 
Department of Defense Directive Number 5205.9, which created 
the Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP), a new budget 
and organizational category for intelligence programs, projects 
and activities within the Department of Defense (DOD). The 
Deputy Secretary of Defense is the JMIP Program Executive and 
Chair of the Defense Intelligence Executive Board (DIEB), which 
oversees JMIP resources and participates in the management of 
all DOD intelligence resources. The Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence 
(ASD-C3I) is the executive secretary of the DIEB and is 
responsible for ensuring the consolidation of the JMIP budget. 
The JMIP budget occurs within the normal DOD Planning, 
Programming, and Budgeting System.
    The JMIP presently consists of four component programs, 
each of which was formerly funded in the Tactical Intelligence 
and Related activities (TIARA) aggregation:
          (a) Defense Cryptologic Program (DCP).
          (b) Defense Imagery Program (DIP).
          (c) Defense Mapping, Charting, and Geodesy Program 
        (DMCGP).
          (d) Defense General Intelligence and Applications 
        Program (DGIAP), which consists of five sub-programs, 
        each of which was formerly funded in the TIARA 
        aggregation:
                  (1) Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program 
                (DARP).
                  (2) Defense Intelligence Counterdrug Program 
                (DICP).
                  (3) Defense Intelligence Agency's Tactical 
                Program (DIATP).
                  (4) Defense Space Reconnaissance Program 
                (DSRP).
                  (5) Defense Intelligence Special Technology 
                Program (DISTP).
    The JMIP was created with the intention of improving the 
oversight of selected defense-wide intelligence programs and 
resources. As stated in the JMIP Congressional Justification 
Books, ``JMIP was established to focus on customers with joint, 
Defensewide needs.''
    The committee notes that the creation of the JMIP has 
raised a jurisdictional question in the Senate as to committee 
oversight responsibilities. The Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence (SSCI) shares authorization and oversight 
jurisdiction over the National Foreign Intelligence Program 
(NFIP) with the Senate Armed Services Committee. The committee 
has sole authorization jurisdiction over TIARA programs, but 
receives--and welcomes--informal TIARA recommendations by the 
SSCI each year prior to its markup of the Defense Authorization 
Act. This year, the SSCI has chosen to treat the JMIP as the 
functional equivalent of the NFIP by including it in its markup 
of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1996 and submitting a 
formal Schedule of Authorizations for the JMIP as well as for 
the NFIP.
    While the committee values and welcomes the well informed 
views of the SSCI on the JMIP, as it does each year with TIARA 
programs, the committee regards the SSCI's markup of the JMIP 
as a serious infringement on the committee's clear and long-
standing jurisdiction over the Department of Defense. The 
committee notes that each and every JMIP program is a former 
TIARA program and that the purpose of the JMIP is to serve 
multiple DOD consumers. The JMIP management is also strictly 
DOD, although some component managers have other 
responsibilities within the NFIP. The JMIP is also assembled as 
part of DOD's normal budgeting process. Stated simply, the JMIP 
is of DOD for DOD, and hence clearly and unquestionably within 
the sole authorizing jurisdiction of the Armed Services 
Committee within the Senate. Accordingly, the committee intends 
to pursue such measures as appropriate to ensure that this 
year, and in the future, the JMIP is handled in the same manner 
as TIARA programs have always been handled. The committee looks 
forward to receiving the same superb support on JMIP as it has 
received from the SSCI on TIARA program for many years.

Reusable launch vehicles

    The committee believes that a reusable single-stage-to-
orbit (SSTO) launch vehicle should be a high priority for the 
United States. Such a launcher offers the potential for 
radically reduced costs as well as increased safety, 
reliability, and operability. It would also make a significant 
contribution to restoring United States launch competitiveness.
    At present, NASA is pursuing a reusable launch vehicle 
(RLV) known as the X-33. The X-33 effort at NASA is vitally 
important to the Department of Defense and to national security 
since it will provide warfighters highly responsive access to 
space. In the committee's view, DOD should be a direct 
participant in the X-33 program. The Department of Defense's 
own Space Launch Modernization Plan recommended that DOD have 
an equity participation in NASA RLV programs. The committee, 
therefore, urges the Secretary of Defense to consider options 
for participating in the NASA program, to include the provision 
of funding from the Department of Defense budget.

Chinese military developments

    The People's Republic of China is emerging as an East Asian 
leader in economic growth and military power. Recent Chinese 
efforts to significantly enhance their naval and air 
capabilities have raised questions regarding the future of 
Chinese military and foreign policy objectives. The growth of 
Chinese power is the subject of major concern for the other 
nations of East Asia and for the United States.
    In light of these developments, continued dialogue on 
security matters between the United States and the major 
nations of East Asia, including the People's Republic of China, 
is critical to promoting stability in the region and protecting 
American interests and the interests of our Asian allies. The 
committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue its 
efforts to engage senior Chinese defense officials in exchanges 
and other forms of dialogue.

Private contracting for military assistance to Newly Independent 
        Democracies of Eastern Europe

    The committee strongly supports military-to-military 
contacts with the newly independent states of Eastern Europe to 
assist their military establishments in making the transition 
to democracy, civilian oversight and more efficient forces. The 
committee also notes that military-to-military resources and 
IMET funds are severely limited.
    The Department of Defense has the authority to contract 
with the private sector to provide foreign military assistance 
to the newly independent democracies of Eastern Europe. In 
fact, such assistance is currently being provided to the 
Republic of Albania to help in the reorganization of its 
military.
    The committee believes private contracting offers great 
flexibility and can be a ``force multiplier'' in the military 
assistance mission. The committee encourages the department to 
use funds allocated for Partnership for Peace activities to 
expand its provision of privately contracted military 
assistance to newly independent democracies in Eastern Europe. 
In some cases, there are a number of retired servicemen with 
the skills and experience to be of particular assistance. The 
committee further encourages the department, in appropriate 
cases, to work with officials of the recipient nations in 
identifying retired service members that can be of assistance.
            DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

    The purpose of Division B is to provide military 
construction authorization and related authority to support the 
military departments and defense agencies during fiscal year 
1996. The administration's budget request is reflected in S. 
728, as introduced by request. This division, as recommended by 
the committee, totals $10,822,995,000 in authorization of 
appropriations for fiscal year 1996.
    This authorization provides funding for construction and 
military family housing operations for the military services, 
the reserve components, the defense agencies, and the NATO 
infrastructure program. It also provides authorization for the 
three base closure accounts.
Committee Action
    The committee recommends an overall authorization for the 
Department of Defense military construction program that is 
above the administration's request for fiscal year 1996. For 
fiscal year 1996 the Department of Defense requested 
authorization of appropriations of $6,579,073,000 for military 
construction, and $4,125,221,000 for family housing 
construction and support. The committee recommends 
$6,629,748,000 for military construction, and $4,193,247,000 
for family housing construction and support for fiscal year 
1996.
    The increase in the funding authorization focused on 
improving readiness and quality of life related facilities such 
as housing and working conditions. The committee added in 
excess of $202.0 million for family housing and barracks 
construction or rehabilitation. These housing projects as well 
as other projects added to the administration's request met the 
stringent criteria established by the committee last year and 
included in a Sense of the Senate provision, section 2856 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995.
    The committee supports deferring or realigning specific 
projects amounting to $275.0 million. The most significant 
funding deferral is for chemical demilitarization facilities. 
The committee recommends the use of unobligated funds 
authorized for construction in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 to 
proceed with construction at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas and 
Umatilla Army Depot Activity, Oregon. The committee recommends 
reallocating a portion of the requested funds to support 
additional projects such as new barracks, modernization or 
replacement of existing barracks, various family housing 
improvements programs, and critical mission facility 
requirements.
    The committee also recommends deferring two land transfer 
transactions pending a review of the transfers by the General 
Services Administration. It is the committee's view that in 
cases other than base closure land transactions the Federal 
Property Disposal Act of 1946, as amended, should be enforced.
    The following table identifies the recommended fiscal year 
1996 military construction projects:


Base closure and realignment accounts

    The committee recommends authorization of $3.9 billion in 
fiscal year 1996 for the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
Account 1990 that supports the recommendations of the 1991, 
1993, and 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
Commissions.
    The committee will continue to carefully monitor the 
justification for the construction projects funded within these 
accounts and the other cost elements of these accounts.
    Although funding is not specifically limited to projects 
identified in its budget justification, the Department of 
Defense identified the following construction projects for 
fiscal year 1996 that it plans to fund from these accounts:


                            TITLE XXII--NAVY

Section - 2205. Authorization of appropriations
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2204 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995 to authorize the $10.0 million appropriated 
for the Large Anechoic Chamber Facility at the Naval Air 
Warfare Center, Patuxent River, Maryland in the Military 
Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995. This 
authorization would permit the Navy to proceed with award of a 
construction contract in the amount of $30.0 million for the 
first phase of the $61.0 million project.
Section - 2206. Authority to carry out land acquisition project, 
        Norfolk Naval Base, Virginia.
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2201(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1993 to authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
acquire 191 acres of land in Hampton Roads, Virginia. This 
acquisition is in addition to the land acquisition at Damneck, 
Virginia, authorized in that Act.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Navy to make every 
attempt possible to acquire both parcels of land using the 
previously authorized $4.5 million. If additional funds are 
required, the committee expects the Secretary to utilize cost 
variation and reprogramming procedures.
Section - 2207. Acquisition of land, Henderson Hall, Arlington, 
        Virginia.
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to acquire a 0.75 acre parcel of land 
located at Henderson Hall, Arlington, Virginia. The parcel, 
which is currently occupied by an abandoned and vandalized 
mausoleum, is required to construct a public works complex to 
support the Headquarters Battalion, United States Marine Corps. 
The provision would authorize the demolition of the mausoleum 
and the use of appropriated funds to remove and provide 
appropriate disposal of the remains abandoned in the mausoleum.
    The provision would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to 
obtain architectural, engineering and facility design services 
for future construction of a public works facility.
                      TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

Chemical munitions disposal facilities
    The budget request included $108.0 million for construction 
of chemical agent disposal facilities in Pine Bluff, Arkansas 
($40.0 million) and Umatilla, Oregon ($55.0 million) and 
planning and design activities ($13.0 million) at various 
locations where chemical agent disposal facilities are to be 
built. The committee recommends a reduction of $95.0 million to 
the budget request. The Army, as Executive Agent of the program 
for the Department of Defense, has informed the committee that 
$132.5 million remains unobligated from funds authorized for 
construction in fiscal years 1994 and 1995. The unobligated 
funds have been set aside for construction of the Anniston 
chemical munitions disposal facility, pending the outcome of 
the Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommendation on 
Fort McClellan, Alabama, and issuance of environmental permits 
by the State of Alabama. The committee directs the Department 
of Defense and the Army to use these unobligated funds for the 
construction of facilities in Pine Bluff and Umatilla.
                    TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing

Section - 2801. Special threshold for unspecified minor construction 
        projects to correct life, health, or safety deficiencies.
Section - 2802. Clarification of scope of unspecified minor 
        construction authority.
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2805 of title 10, United States Code to include as a 
minor military construction project any military construction 
intended solely to correct a life, health, or safety deficiency 
if the approved cost is equal to or less than $3.0 million. The 
provision would authorize the expenditure of operation and 
maintenance funds to carry out projects to correct a life, 
health, or safety deficiency costing no more than $1.0 million.
    The provision would also clarify the definition of minor 
military construction by making it consistent with the 
definition of minor military construction found in section 2801 
of title 10, United States Code.
Section - 2803. Temporary waiver of net floor area limitation for 
        family housing acquired in lieu of construction.
    The committee recommends a provision that would waive for a 
five year period beginning in fiscal year 1996 the net floor 
area limitation established in section 2826 of title 10, United 
States Code, if existing family housing is acquired in lieu of 
construction.
Section - 2804. Reestablishment of authority to waive net floor area 
        limitation on acquisition by purchase of certain military 
        family housing.
    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
permanent section 2826(e) of title 10, United States Code, that 
allows a waiver for a 20 percent increase in the square footage 
limitation when acquiring, through purchase, military family 
housing units for members of the Armed Forces in pay grades 
below 0-6.
Section - 2805. Temporary waiver of limitations on space by pay grade 
        for military family housing units.
    The committee recommends a provision that would waive 
section 2826 of title 10, United States Code, for housing 
authorized for construction for five years beginning in fiscal 
year 1996. The waiver would permit the construction of family 
housing units without regard to space limitations as long as 
the total number of housing units is the same as authorized by 
law.
Section - 2806. Increase in number of family housing units subject to 
        foreign country maximum lease amount.
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2828(e) of title 10, United States Code, to increase 
from 300 to 450 the number of military family housing units 
allowed to exceed the $20,000 per year lease threshold for 
military family housing in foreign countries. The provision 
would also increase from 220 to 350 the number of units the 
Secretary concerned may waive to exceed the maximum lease 
threshold of $25,000 per year.

Section - 2807. Expansion of authority for limited partnerships for 
        development of military family housing.

    The committee recommends a provision that would expand to 
each of the military services the limited partnership authority 
provided to the Department of the Navy by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. The provision would 
also extend the expiration of the authority to September 30, 
2000.

Section - 2809. Authority to convey damaged or deteriorated military 
        family housing.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretaries of the military departments to sell, at fair 
market value, family housing facilities at non-base closure 
installations which have deteriorated beyond economical repair 
or are no longer required. The sale may include the parcel of 
land on which the family housing facilities are located.
    The provision would direct that the proceeds from the sale 
of the property be used to replace or revitalize housing at the 
existing installation or at another installation. The provision 
would also require the Secretary concerned to notify Congress 
before proceeding with conveyance of family housing facilities 
under this authority.

Section - 2810. Energy and water conservation savings for the 
        Department of Defense.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2865 of title 10, United States Code to include water 
conservation in the Department of Defense's comprehensive 
energy conservation plan.

Section - 2811. Alternative authority for construction and improvement 
        of military housing.

    The committee recognizes that living conditions for single 
military service members and military families are in many 
cases inadequate. Many of these housing units and quarters are 
over 30 years old and have received minimal funding for 
maintenance, repair, or modernization. The Department of 
Defense has found almost 60 percent of these units to be 
substandard.
    The committee is concerned that these housing conditions 
may result in low retention rates for the military services, 
and believes that adequate housing is an integral part of the 
overall readiness of the Armed Forces.
    The committee supports the efforts of the Secretary of 
Defense in recognizing the military housing problems and 
realizing that drastic improvements are required. The Secretary 
found that correcting housing deficiencies will take several 
decades using current construction practices and budget 
processes. To address these funding and process problems, the 
committee recommends a legislative provision, supported by the 
Secretary of Defense, which would allow the military services 
to utilize several existing and new authorities to stimulate 
private sector financing of military housing construction and 
revitalization projects. The legislative provision would allow 
the military services to combine several authorities to tailor 
a funding strategy to a specific location and local economic 
conditions. The provision would waive the unit size and type 
limitations, and use local construction standards as a basis 
for sizing family housing. The Department would be authorized 
to provide up to 35 percent of the development cost in cash, 
either as debt or equity. Where land or buildings are part of 
the government's contribution to the project, the total cash 
and property may not exceed 45 percent of the development cost.
    The provision would also establish a Department of Defense 
Housing Improvement Fund, which would be used as the sole 
source to finance costs associated with the acquisition of 
housing and supporting facilities. The authorities provided in 
this provision would expire on September 30, 2000.
    In addition to recommending legislative provisions to 
improve the quality of military housing, the committee supports 
a funding increase in the military services' family housing 
improvements accounts and additional barracks and dormitory 
military construction projects.

Section - 2812. Permanent authority to enter into leases of land for 
        special operations activities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
permanent the authority provided in section 2680 of title 10, 
United States Code which grants the Secretary of Defense the 
authority to lease property required for special operations 
activities conducted by the Special Operations Command. The 
provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
provide a report to the Congress by March 1 of each year which 
identifies each leasehold interest acquired using the authority 
provided in this section during the previous year.

Section - 2813. Authority to use funds for certain educational 
        purposes.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2008 of title 10, United States Code to authorize the 
Department of Defense to continue to use appropriated funds for 
repair, maintenance, and construction of Department of 
Education school facilities located on military installations.

            Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Section - 2821. In-kind consideration for leases at installations to be 
        closed or realigned.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 
Service Secretaries to accept in-kind services (improvements, 
maintenance, protection, repair, or restoration services) on 
any portion of the installation from a lessee in lieu of cash 
rents for leases of property that will be disposed of as a 
result of a base closure or realignment.

Section - 2822. Clarification of authority regarding contracts for 
        community services at installations being closed.

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Service Secretaries to use less formal agreements in addition 
to formal contracts when obtaining certain caretaker services 
at military installations being closed.

Section - 2823. Clarification of funding for environmental restoration 
        at installations approved for closure or realignment in 1995.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Department of Defense to fund environmental restoration at 
installations selected for closure by the 1995 Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission with funds authorized for 
the Defense Environmental Restoration Account for fiscal year 
1996. After fiscal year 1996, environmental restoration for 
these installations must be funded using the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Account.

Section - 2824. Authority to lease property requiring environmental 
        remediation at installations approved for closure.

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Department of Defense to enter into long-term lease agreements 
while any phase of environmental restoration is on going at a 
closing military installation.

                      Subtitle C--Land Conveyances

Section - 2831. Land acquisition or exchange, Shaw Air Force Base, 
        South Carolina.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Air Force to acquire, through exchange or 
gift, a parcel of property consisting of 1,100 acres located 
adjacent to the eastern end of Shaw Air Force Base, South 
Carolina and extending to Stamey Livestock Road in Sumter 
County, South Carolina. In the event of land exchange, the 
Secretary would be required to determine that it is in the best 
interest of the Air Force; and, that the fair market value of 
the parcel to be conveyed would not exceed the fair market 
value of the parcel to be acquired.

Section - 2832. Authority for Port Authority of State of Mississippi to 
        use certain Navy property in Gulfport, Mississippi.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to enter into an agreement with the 
Port Authority in the State of Mississippi for joint use of up 
to 50 acres of property located at the Naval Construction 
Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi for a period of not 
more than 15 years. The agreement would require the Port 
Authority to pay to the Secretary of the Navy fair market 
rental value for the use of the land.

Section - 2833. Conveyance of resource recovery facility, Fort Dix, New 
        Jersey.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to transfer, without reimbursement, 
the Resources Recovery Facility at Fort Dix, New Jersey to 
Burlington County, New Jersey. In return Burlington County 
would provide refuse and steam service to Fort Dix at a rate 
negotiated by the Secretary of the Army and approved by the 
appropriate federal or state regulatory authorities.

Section - 2834. Conveyance of water and wastewater treatment plants, 
        Fort Gordon, Georgia.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to convey, without reimbursement, to 
the City of Augusta, Georgia, water and wastewater treatment 
plants located at Fort Gordon, Georgia. In exchange the City 
would provide water and sewer services to Fort Gordon at a rate 
negotiated by the Secretary of the Army and approved by the 
appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities.

Section - 2835. Conveyance of water treatment plant, Fort Pickett, 
        Virginia.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to convey, without reimbursement, to 
the Town of Blackstone, Virginia, the water treatment plant 
located at Fort Pickett, Virginia. In exchange the Town would 
provide water and sewer services to Fort Pickett at a rate 
negotiated by the Secretary of the Army and approved by the 
appropriate federal and state regulatory authorities.

Section - 2836. Conveyance of electric power distribution system, Fort 
        Irwin, California.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to convey, without reimbursement, to 
the Southern California Edison Company, California, the 
electrical system located at Fort Irwin, California. In 
exchange the Company would be required to maintain and operate 
the system and provide electrical services to Fort Irwin at a 
rate negotiated by the Secretary of the Army and approved by 
the appropriate federal or state regulatory authorities.

Section - 2837. Land exchange, Fort Lewis, Washington.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to convey, at fair market value, two 
parcels of land located on the Fort Lewis Military Reservation, 
Pierce County, Washington to the Weyerhaeuser Real Estate 
Company, Tacoma, Washington. In return Weyerhaeuser would 
convey to the Army approximately .39 acres, plus improvements, 
located within the boundaries of Fort Lewis. Weyerhaeuser would 
also be required to provide infrastructure improvements and 
other considerations to ensure that the value of its share of 
property is no less than the value of the property conveyed by 
the Army.

   Subtitle D--Transfer of Jurisdiction and Establishment of Midewin 
                       National Tallgrass Prairie

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to transfer to the Department of 
Agriculture approximately 19,000 acres of land located at the 
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant to establish the Midewin Tallgrass 
Prairie. The provision would also authorize the Secretary of 
the Army to convey, without compensation, to the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs 910 acres of land at Joliet Army Ammunition 
Plant to establish a national cemetery.
    The provision would further authorize the Secretary of the 
Army to convey, without consideration, to the County of Will, 
Illinois 425 acres of land at Joliet Army Ammunition Plant to 
be used for a landfill. As a part of this conveyance, the 
County of Will would be required to permit the federal 
government use of the landfill at no cost.
    The provision would also authorize the Secretary of the 
Army to convey, at fair market value, 1,900 acres and 1,100 
acres of land located at the Joliet Army Ammunition Plant to 
the Village of Elwood, Illinois and the City of Wilmington, 
Illinois, respectively, to establish industrial parks. All 
proceeds from any future sale of these parcels or portions of 
these parcels shall be remitted to the Secretary of the Army.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

Section - 2861. Department of Defense laboratory revitalization 
        demonstration program.

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
test program to allow the heads of selected defense 
laboratories greater flexibility to undertake facility 
modernization initiatives. The purpose of the program is to 
reduce the amount of time required to upgrade research and 
development capabilities at Department of Defense laboratories. 
The committee recognizes that the highly technical nature of 
facility requirements at the laboratories impose construction 
costs relative to these facilities consistently higher than 
other types of construction.
    For test program laboratories, the provision would raise 
the minor construction threshold from $1.5 million to $3.0 
million for projects that the Secretary of Defense may carry 
out without specific authorization in law. The provision would 
also raise the threshold for minor military construction 
projects requiring prior approval of the Secretary of Defense 
from $500,000 to $1.5 million. Finally, the provision would 
raise, for the selected laboratories, the threshold from 
$300,000 to $1.0 million for the value of any unspecified 
military construction project for which operation and 
maintenance funds may be used.
    The provision would provide for the expiration of the test 
authority on September 30, 2000. It would also require the 
Secretary of Defense to designate participating laboratories 
before the test may begin, establish a review procedure for 
each project to be funded under this section, and report to 
Congress on the lessons learned from the test program one year 
before the program is terminated.

Section - 2862. Prohibition on joint civil aviation use of Miramar 
        Naval Air Station, California.

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the Secretary of the Navy from entering into any agreement that 
would provide for the regular use of Naval Air Station Miramar, 
California by civil aircraft.

Section - 2863. Report on agreement relating to conveyance of land, 
        Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the Congress on the 
current status of the negotiations between the Secretary of the 
Army and Fairfax County, Virginia on the use of the Engineer 
Proving Grounds, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The committee notes 
that it has been six years since the conveyance of the property 
was authorized in section 2821 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991. The committee 
believes that it is necessary for the Secretary to make a final 
determination as to whether the current reuse plans are 
feasible or whether alternative plans are preferable. The 
provision would require the Secretary of the Army to submit the 
report to the Congress within 60 days of enactment of this Act.

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Planning and design

    The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts 
for planning and design, the military services conduct planning 
and design activities for the following projects:

                                                                 ($000s)
USA:
    Pohakuloa Training Site, HI, Road Improvement................. 2,000
USAF:
    Eielson AFB, AK, Boiler Rehabilitation........................   300
    Fallon Air Base, NV, Galley and Child Care Center.............   200
USAR:
    Manchester, PA, Armed Forces Reserve Center, AMSA, 
      Organizational Maintenance Shop............................. 1,650
ARNG:
    Fort Harrison, MT, Training Site Support Facility.............   785
    Lincoln, NE, Medical Facility.................................   200
ANG:
    Robins AFB, GA, B-1 Site Improvements, Utility Upgrade........   270
    Nashville, TN, Squadron Operations Facility...................   360
    Burlington IAP, VT, Squadron Operations Facility..............   225

    The committee notes that these projects are required to 
correct facility deficiencies which impact readiness, quality 
of life, and productivity. The committee urges the Service 
Secretaries to make every effort to include these projects in 
the fiscal year 1997 budget request.

Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center, Fort Lawton, Washington

    The committee is concerned that the Secretary of the Army 
did not request funding for phase II construction of the Joint 
Armed Forces Reserve Center, Fort Lawton, Washington. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
authorized the funds for phase I construction, with the 
understanding that funding for the subsequent phases would be 
included in the budget request. The committee believes that the 
Center will enhance the training and administration of the 
reserve units in the area and urges the Secretary of the Army 
to include funding for phase II in the fiscal year 1997 
military construction request.

Fire fighting training system, Department of the Army

    The committee is aware of a need to provide environmentally 
and individually safe training for uniformed and civilian 
firefighters. Due to violations on the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) regulations several Army Fire Fighting Training 
sites have been closed, and the remaining few are scheduled to 
be shut down in the next 18 months. There are computer-
controlled, natural gas/propane systems in operation in other 
services which safely replicate the required training 
environment and satisfy all EPA requirements. The committee 
believes that the Department of the Army should develop a 
program to replace the remaining 12 sites in regions where 
multiple commands can take advantage of a single site. 
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 
identify the appropriate locations in which sites should be 
placed, and urges that the necessary military construction 
funds to support the construction of these sites be included in 
the Army military construction program over a four-year period. 
The committee directs that the Secretary submit the list of the 
recommended locations to the committee by January 1, 1996.

Repair of unsafe bridges

    The committee understands that there are serious structural 
problems impacting the safety and carrying capacity of bridges 
on Army installations. The committee strongly recommends that 
the Secretary of the Army use funds authorized for Real 
Property Maintenance, Army to correct deficiencies identified 
in the following structures:
    Railroad Trestles, Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant, Nevada; 
and, Vehicular Bridges, Fort Knox, Kentucky.
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

    Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for the atomic energy 
defense activities of the Department of Energy, including the 
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 
equipment; research and development; nuclear weapons; naval 
nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration and waste 
management; operating expenses; and other expenses necessary to 
carry out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization 
Act (Public Law 95-91). The title would authorize 
appropriations in four categories: weapons activities; defense 
environmental restoration and waste management; materials 
support and other defense programs; and defense nuclear waste 
disposal.
    The fiscal year 1996 budget request for the Department of 
Energy atomic energy defense activities totaled $11.2 billion. 
Of the total amount requested, $3.5 billion was for weapons 
activities, $6.0 billion for defense environmental restoration 
and waste management, $1.4 billion for other defense 
activities, and $198.4 million for defense nuclear waste 
management.
    The committee is concerned with the Department of Energy's 
apparent unwillingness to invest funds appropriately to 
maintain confidence in the safety and reliability of the 
strategic nuclear weapons stockpile and to acquire a viable 
near-term nuclear weapons refabrication and manufacturing 
infrastructure. According to the Department of Defense Nuclear 
Posture Review (NPR) the United States will continue to depend 
on a deterrent nuclear force, including a rapid upload hedge 
capacity, for a long period of time. It is the committee's view 
that in order to maintain a reliable, safe and effective 
nuclear force, adequate funding is necessary to ensure that the 
enduring stockpile, including both active and inactive weapons, 
be maintained in a state of full readiness indefinitely into 
the future. The committee's actions reflected in this bill are 
to redirect the Department to focus its resources and emphasis 
on a stockpile management program geared to the near-term 
refabrication and certification requirements of the NPR. These 
include meeting full refabrication and tritium production 
requirements, tritium recycling, and pit remanufacturing for 
the entire enduring stockpile. This will ensure the safety and 
reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile and the long-term 
credibility of U.S. nuclear deterrence in the post-cold war 
world. The committee recommends authorization of the budget 
request, totalling $11.2 billion, including $3.6 billion for 
weapons activities, $6.0 billion for defense environmental 
restoration and waste management, $1.3 billion for other 
defense activities, and $198.4 million for defense nuclear 
waste management.
    The following table summarizes the request and the 
committee recommendation:


         Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

Section - 3101. Weapons activities.

    The committee recommends authorization of $3,641,814,000 
for weapons activities, an increase of $101,639,000 above the 
Department of Energy budget request, for the following 
activities: $1,384,675,000 for stockpile stewardship 
activities; $2,250,483,000 for stockpile management activities; 
and, $118,000,000 for program direction of all Atomic Energy 
Defense Activities authorized by Title XXXI. The committee 
recommends approval of the department's request for a reduction 
of $111,344,000 for use of prior year balances and contractor 
streamlining.

Congressional guidance on stockpile stewardship

    The Congress expressed serious concern over the stockpile 
stewardship program in the National Defense Authorization Act 
of Fiscal Year 1995. The report stated, ``The conferees are 
troubled that the Department of Energy (DOE) did not request 
sufficient funds for fiscal year 1995 to support the stockpile 
stewardship plan developed by the administration. This 
underfunding cannot continue without seriously undermining the 
department's ability to fulfill its ongoing stewardship 
responsibilities. Therefore, the conferees direct the 
Department to request funds for fiscal year 1996 that are 
consistent with the stockpile stewardship program plan 
developed by the Administration . . .''. Despite last year's 
congressional direction, there was only a small funding 
increase in the fiscal year 1996 budget request for weapons 
activities. Furthermore, based on the DOE National Security 
Five Year Budget Plan, which projects unallocated cuts of more 
than $1.2 billion per year in fiscal year 1997 and out-years 
against Atomic Energy Defense Activities, even this increase 
may not be sustained. These unallocated cuts are in addition to 
the DOE projected cuts in the Defense Environmental Restoration 
and Waste Management Program. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Department to request sufficient funds to meet all of the 
requirements of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The committee 
also directs DOE not to spread any generalized reductions in 
its Office of Management and Budget (OMB) passback against 
Atomic Energy Defense Activities in general, and against 
weapons activities in particular.

Stockpile confidence concerns

    The committee is concerned that science-based stockpile 
stewardship (SBSS) is insufficient to maintain confidence in 
the enduring stockpile. DOE and laboratory witnesses have 
acknowledged in hearings before the committee and other 
congressional committees that there are no guarantees that the 
SBSS methodology will work. The scientific challenges are 
significant, with the likelihood of success of the stewardship 
program uncertain, and the timeframe for achieving its ultimate 
objective long. The committee is concerned about sole 
dependence on this approach for future stockpile confidence, 
and the absence of a strategy for maintaining stockpile 
confidence in the near-term.

Stockpile confidence strategy

     A key unresolved issue is whether SBSS will include 
testing and/or hydronuclear experiments. The committee 
understands that this issue is unresolved within the 
administration. However, the committee is concerned about 
current trends. For example, readiness to conduct an 
underground nuclear test program at the Nevada Test Site has 
fallen to three years, despite the administration's stated 
policy to be ready to conduct such a program within 6 months. 
Many in the weapons community believes that hydro-nuclear tests 
are a cost effective means of maintaining the stockpile. The 
committee seeks to determine whether treaty-compliant 
hydronuclear experiments would be a cost effective means of 
maintaining stockpile confidence. The committee wishes to 
determine the appropriate yield levels for such testing. The 
committee believes that combining these experiments now with 
the predictive capability of the experimental physics 
facilities and computational advances proposed by the SBSS 
program is the only practical option for preventing the near 
term deterioration of stockpile confidence and is, therefore, a 
prudent measure. This near-term deterioration of confidence in 
the enduring stockpile is not addressed by the Department of 
Energy's evolving stockpile stewardship strategy. On this 
basis, the committee directs DOE to prepare to implement such a 
program and to prepare a report on the value of hydronuclear 
tests focused on the near-term as well as long-term 
requirements of the Nuclear Posture Review.

Stockpile confidence: testing strategy

    The committee also expresses its concern about the safety, 
reliability, and readiness of our nuclear weapons. The 
committee strongly endorses a policy that allows for at least 
sub-kiloton experiments. The committee recognizes that the 
administration is currently negotiating a Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty (CTBT) in an effort to preclude or make more 
difficult the spread of nuclear weapons. However, the committee 
notes that sub-kiloton hydronuclear experiments are not 
particularly suitable for bomb development or giving foreign 
military planners confidence in a nuclear weapon design. They 
are the type of experiments required to insure that a nuclear 
weapon, once produced, is safe and reliable.

Maintaining integrity of test readiness capability

    In the meantime, the committee remains concerned about the 
readiness of the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The committee urges 
DOE to give full consideration to maintaining the readiness of 
the NTS before planning or implementing any management 
restructuring or realignments. Finally, to insure continued 
test readiness, including for sub-kiloton tests, the committee 
authorizes an additional $50.0 million above the administration 
request for Stockpile Stewardship for the laboratories and the 
Nevada Test Site.

Reemphasis on maintaining the stockpile is required

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Energy's 
emphasis on SBSS has led to the neglect and underfunding of the 
Stockpile Management Program. This neglect and underfunding are 
especially apparent when sized against the clear requirements 
of the NPR. The committee is concerned that weapons 
engineering, manufacturing capabilities, and required 
production capacity are inadequate to meet the requirements of 
the NPR, in particular the requirement to maintain a hedge 
against post-Cold War threats. The committee finds that DOE 
investments and programs are insufficient in these areas and 
are not compatible with the U.S. nuclear deterrent strategy. 
The committee directs the Nuclear Weapons Council to provide by 
April 15, 1996 a plan to meet the stockpile management 
requirements of the NPR, and to update that report on an annual 
basis. It also directs DOE to reactivate the defense program 
status of those portions of the Savannah River Site devoted to 
tritium recycling, and to establish a pit remanufacturing plant 
there sized to the requirements of the post-NPR active and 
inactive stockpile.

Conclusions from the Nuclear Posture Review

    The committee's hearing records indicate that the current 
DOE strategy does not appear to be compatible with the 
requirements of the NPR. The NPR's requirements include the 
ability to: (a) maintain nuclear weapon capability; (b) 
demonstrate the capability to refabricate and certify weapons 
in the enduring stockpile; (c) maintain the capability to 
design, fabricate, and certify new warheads for the enduring 
stockpile; (d) assure an adequate science and technology base; 
and (e) assure an upload hedge for tritium production. The 
committee's recommendations provide a basis for meeting these 
requirements.

Tritium production strategy

    The committee expresses a particular concern about 
inadequate production and supplies of tritium. Tritium, a 
naturally decaying isotope, is an absolutely essential 
ingredient to the performance of nuclear weapons. The committee 
believes that we cannot risk depending solely on development of 
accelerator technology to provide this crucial material. The 
committee directs DOE to assess nuclear reactors which can 
perform multiple functions, ranging from tritium production, to 
plutonium disposition, to electrical power production. Research 
and development on producing tritium in current domestic, 
commercial reactors is funded as an emergency back-up option 
for the future. The committee also requests a study on foreign 
tritium sources.

Human resources for the weapons activity mission

     Highly skilled nuclear weapons scientists and production 
engineers are leaving their positions in the weapons complex 
and are not being replaced. The committee is concerned that 
personnel programs to alleviate this situation are not working. 
For this reason, the committee directs the Department of Energy 
to institute a decentralized defense programs fellowship 
program within the weapons program of each laboratory and site.

Technology partnerships

    The committee has emphasized on a number of occasions that 
the funds authorized for national security programs of the 
Department of Energy are available for technology partnerships 
to the extent they contribute directly to the national security 
mission. Specifically, the primary objective of technology 
partnerships funded by stockpile stewardship or by stockpile 
management resources should be to meet the requirements of 
those programs. Industry benefit is secondary. These criteria 
of the DOE weapons support agreements should be applied to both 
the laboratories and the production sites. The committee has 
misgivings about a separate ``technology transfer'' line item 
managed at the DOE headquarters level, rather than at the 
laboratory or production site level. The committee therefore 
recommends the weapons activities ``technology transfer'' line 
item be eliminated.
    The committee does not intend the consolidation of these 
line items to encourage the laboratories to pursue a go-it-
alone, duplicative approach to developing dual-use technologies 
critical to stockpile stewardship and stockpile management. 
However, the committee does intend to insure that all stockpile 
stewardship research and development funds are used to meet 
mission needs and are not diverted to peripheral ``industrial 
competitiveness'' activities directed from DOE headquarters. In 
particular, the committee disapproves the DOE request for $14.9 
million for new projects within the New Generation Vehicle 
Initiative. Elements of manufacturing and computation related 
partnerships which can be reoriented toward concrete weapons 
program requirements may be considered for retention, based on 
the overall priorities of the weapons program and its specific 
requirements. The committee believes that planning and 
implementing partnerships in laboratory organizations which are 
separate from the weapons directorates is counterproductive to 
the weapons mission.

Inertial confinement fusion

    The committee recommendation for inertial confinement 
fusion (ICF) is $230.7 million, a $10.0 million reduction to 
the budget request. Inertial fusion seeks to provide a 
laboratory-scale, controlled thermonuclear capability. The ICF 
program investigates weapons physics and other high-energy-
density phenomena important to the SBSS program. It is one of 
several essential components to assure the nation's nuclear 
deterrent in the absence of underground testing of weapons 
secondaries. The committee commends the Los Alamos and Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratories for progress on the NOVA laser. 
The committee notes the timely, on-budget completion of the 
OMEGA upgrade at the University of Rochester. The committee 
urges DOE to move quickly to a cryogenic target capability on 
OMEGA as a means of enhancing confidence in the performance of 
the National Ignition Facility. The committee asks the National 
Academy of Sciences to form another ICF Panel to provide an 
update of its 1990 report to the Congress by May 30, 1997.

National Ignition Facility

    The National Ignition Facility has a good probability of 
achieving controlled thermonuclear fusion in the laboratory 
based on a thorough, long-term program of scientific 
breakthroughs and engineering demonstrations. Such developments 
may prove to be a significant part of the U.S. nuclear weapons 
program, especially in a no test/few test environment.

Stockpile Management

    The committee recommends a substantial increase to the DOE 
request for the Stockpile Management Program by $343.6 million, 
to enable the Department of Energy to immediately prepare the 
manufacturing capacity to rebuild the aging stockpile. A 
properly sized manufacturing capacity and infrastructure to 
rebuild the stockpile to meet the requirements of the NPR must 
be in place by the year 2002. That capacity must include both 
active and inactive stockpiles. The committee has concluded 
that, by focusing almost exclusively on long range science, DOE 
has overlooked the essential fact that the stockpile is the 
basis for nuclear deterrence. Therefore, the first priority is 
to deal directly with the refabrication and certification of 
the nuclear weapons stockpile as the primary mission of the 
program. The committee believes that the weapons laboratories 
are inadequate to deal with the refabrication capacities 
required by the active and inactive stockpiles. Therefore, the 
committee directs $100.0 million be provided to enhance the 
manufacturing infrastructure and modernize the manufacturing 
technology of the Pantex Plant, the Kansas City Plant, the 
Savannah River Plant, and the Y-12 Plant to meet the 
refabrication requirements of the enduring stockpile by the 
year 2002. In particular, the Pantex Plant is to restore its 
weapons integration capacity to those levels required by the 
NPR for each type of weapon which reaches its design life in 
the period 2002-2013; similarly, the Y-12 plant is to restore 
its capacity to build weapons secondaries to those levels 
required by the NPR during this same period. The Savannah River 
Plant is to begin installing in existing structures the 
capability to refabricate and modify as needed weapons pits and 
primaries (functions formerly carried out at the Rocky Flats 
Plant) and to achieve a capacity which meets the numerical 
requirements of the entire enduring stockpile. The Kansas City 
Plant is to develop its non-nuclear components manufacturing 
capability to supply all the requirements of the nuclear 
weapons stockpile from 2002 to 2013. The committee also 
allocates $145.0 million to enhance near term and long-term 
stockpile production, maintenance, surveillance activities and 
to develop active surveillance methods by 2002. In this set of 
activities, the three nuclear weapons laboratories are to 
establish a strong technical support and liaison relationship 
with the four production plants to assure that the most modern 
and reliable equipment is installed at the production plants 
for both production and surveillance purposes. This includes 
development on a cooperative basis by the laboratories and the 
plants, of a family of active microelectronic sensors to 
provide early detection of physical and chemical changes in a 
nuclear weapon. An additional $20.0 million is approved to 
develop the dual revalidation technique recently conceived. 
This technique uses two independent teams from the DOE, in 
coordination with the Department of Defense to baseline the 
detailed design parameters of each weapon type in the enduring 
stockpile and to measure any changes in that baseline via 
measurements over time. Finally, the committee authorizes $43.6 
million for a cooperative effort between the three weapons 
laboratories and the four production plants which will lead to 
the installation of advanced computerized manufacturing 
processes at the four production sites by the year 2002. This 
equipment is to provide a detailed quality control record of 
the manufacturing process for each nuclear weapon and nuclear 
weapon type.

Section - 3102. Environmental restoration and waste management.

    This section authorizes the administration's request of 
$6.0 billion for the activities of the Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management (EM) program as follows: 
corrective activities, $3.4 million; environmental restoration, 
$1,576.0 million; waste management, $2,401.0 million; 
technology development, $490.5 million; transportation 
management, $16.2 million; nuclear materials and facilities 
stabilization, $1,596.0 million; compliance and coordination, 
$81.2 million; analysis, education and risk management, $157.0 
million. The committee approved the DOE request for a reduction 
in the amount of $313.9 million for use of prior year balances 
and for the Savannah River pension refund.

Assessment of Environmental Waste Management Program

    The Department of Energy recently published a baseline 
report which estimates that the total cost of the EM Program 
will be between $120 billion and $350 billion over 75 years. 
The committee reviewed the assumptions behind this range of 
estimates and assessed the influence of the ``risk aversion 
factor'' raised in the Galvin Report. The 75-year baseline 
report assumes no significant use of advanced technology, which 
partially explains the huge cost estimate. Overall, the 
committee questions the assumptions and analysis underlying 
this report. The committee continues to have concerns related 
to program funding, performance, and priorities.

Providing the tools for a solution

    The committee notes that the United States no longer 
reprocesses spent nuclear fuel. The administration eliminated 
the Integral Fast Reactor Program last year. The committee 
believes that DOE must consider using the available tools to 
reduce high level nuclear waste to a manageable volume, while 
minimizing the risk to human health and safety. The committee 
recommends $100.0 million above the fiscal year 1996 budget 
request for technology development to fund electrometallurgical 
processing at Argonne West and to accelerate the processing of 
nuclear materials at the canyons at Savannah River, including 
processing for space and nuclear weapons missions. DOE should 
also use these funds to initiate programs at INEL and the 
Savannah River Site to assess and demonstrate high leverage 
technology related to corroding spent fuel rods. 
Characterization and processing of high level waste at the 
Hanford site should also be addressed.
    The committee urges DOE to emphasize staffing headquarters 
and field operations with experts in nuclear engineering and 
nuclear waste disposal. Further, the committee notes that all 
federal staffing in the fiscal year 1996 request for Atomic 
Energy Defense Activities is aggregated under Weapons 
Activities. The resources for EM program direction shall be 
listed separately, beginning with the fiscal year 1997 budget 
submission.

Section - 3103. Other defense activities.

Section - 3142. Authority to reprogram funds for disposition of certain 
        spent nuclear fuel.

    The committee authorizes $1,330,520,000 for other defense 
activities, a reduction of $101,639,000 from the fiscal year 
1996 DOE request. The programs authorized are:

Verification and control technology.....................    $353,200,000
Nuclear safeguards and security.........................      83,395,000
Security investigations.................................      25,000,000
Security evaluations....................................      14,707,000
Office of Nuclear Safety................................      15,050,000
Worker & community transition...........................     100,000,000
Fissile materials control...............................      70,000,000
Naval Reactors..........................................     682,168,000

Korean reactor reprogramming

    The committee provides reprogramming authority to the 
Secretary of Energy to complete efforts to safely store and 
safeguard spent nuclear fuel in North Korea. Activities for 
which reprogramming authority is provided include: storage pool 
treatment and stabilization, canning and storage of spent fuel 
to meet International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguard 
standards, and further disposition of spent nuclear fuel. The 
committee notes that a reprogramming of $10.0 million in fiscal 
year 1995 funds was approved for this purpose.
    The committee is supportive of cost share partnerships with 
U.S. industry, known as the Industrial Partnering Program, to 
provide long-term engagement for former Soviet weapons 
scientists, engineers, and technicians in non-weapons science 
and commercial activities.

Arms Control

    The committee recommends a reduction of $15.0 million to 
the fiscal year 1996 budget request for material protection, 
control, and accounting (MPC&A), international security 
safeguards, and capital equipment activities. The committee 
supports efforts of the Department of Energy to implement MPC&A 
systems at selected facilities in the Newly Independent States 
(NIS).
    The reduction to the budget request for fiscal year 1996 is 
not made with prejudice. The committee directs the department 
to report to the Congress within 30 days of the enactment of 
this Act on the plans to implement and utilize the funds 
provided for MPC&A programs in the Former Soviet Union (FSU). 
Additionally, prior to obligation of funds, the committee 
directs the Department to notify the Congress 30 days prior to 
obligation of funds. Concurrent with the 30 day notification of 
obligation to Congress, the committee requires that the 
notification include a certification by the Secretary that an 
audit and examination agreement has been agreed to by the 
recipient FSU country, and implemented to ensure that the funds 
used for these activities are accounted for and used for the 
purposes for which they were authorized.

Nonproliferation and verification research and development

    The committee recommends a decrease of $62.6 million to the 
fiscal year 1996 DOE budget request. The committee guidance to 
DOE is to focus the program on more specific near-term needs, 
rather than on a generalized long-term technology base. The 
committee also recommends the development of forensic 
capabilities to detect and track shipments of nuclear weapons 
material. In addition, the Department of Energy should broaden 
involvement in this area to encompass the entire laboratory 
complex by including Savannah River Site, the Idaho National 
Engineering Laboratory, the Argonne National Laboratory and, 
where appropriate, industry.

Section - 3104. Defense nuclear waste disposal.

    The committee recommends authorization of the budget 
request of $198.4 million for defense nuclear waste disposal 
activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1996.
    The committee directs that the increase requested above the 
fiscal year 1995 level be shared by the Savannah River Site and 
the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, which DOE has 
designated as the interim storage sites for corroding spent 
fuel rods from a variety of other Department of Energy sites. 
The designation of these sites by DOE included no provision for 
the proper technological solution to the problem of near and 
long-term processing and storage of spent nuclear fuel. As a 
result, this has been a controversial issue within the states 
involved.

Section - 3105. Payment of penalties assessed against Rocky Flats Site.

    This provision would authorize the Secretary of Energy to 
pay civil penalties assessed against the Rocky Flats site in 
Colorado. The committee does not regard this authorization as 
establishing a precedent for routine payment of fines and/or 
civil penalties. The committee recognizes that the Department 
of Energy, under previous administrations, entered into a 
number of legally enforceable agreements for cleanup and 
remediation that are now clearly impossible to fulfill. Those 
agreements are the basis for the assessed fines and penalties. 
The committee does not believe that the diversion of scarce DOE 
funds to pay fines and penalties advances either site cleanup 
or public health and safety. The committee intends to address 
this issue next year.

                Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions

Section - 3121. Reprogramming.

    This provision would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in 
amounts that exceed, in a fiscal year, the lesser of 110 
percent of the amount authorized for the program, or in excess 
of $1 million above the amount authorized for the program. The 
prohibition of such a reprogramming will stand until the 
Secretary of Energy has notified the congressional defense 
committees of the intent to perform such a reprogramming, and a 
period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on which the 
reprogramming request is received by each defense committee. 
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 provision would limit the initiation of ``general 
plant projects'' authorized by the bill if the current 
estimated cost for any project exceeds $2.0 million.

Section - 3123. Limits on construction projects.

    This provision 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 the amount 
authorized for the project or 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 provision also specifies that the 125 percent 
limitation would not apply to projects estimated to cost under 
$5 million.

Section - 3124. Fund transfer authority.

    This provision would authorize funds 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 provision 
would 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.

    The committee recommends a new provision that would limit 
the Secretary of Energy's authority to request construction 
funding until the Secretary has certified a conceptual design. 
If the estimated cost of completing the conceptual design is 
greater than $3.0 million, the Secretary must submit a request 
to the congressional defense committees for the funds needed to 
do the conceptual design. This request for conceptual design 
funds must be submitted before the funding request for the 
proposed construction project is submitted to the Congress. 
This provision provides an exception in the case of emergency 
planning, design and construction activities, and does not 
apply to construction projects with a total estimated cost 
under $2.0 million. Within the amounts specified by this title, 
the Department of Energy (DOE) may carry out construction 
design, including architectural and engineering services, on a 
project if the cost for such a design does not exceed $600 
thousand. Construction design estimates above this amount must 
be authorized by law. This provision recognizes the need for 
careful planning and early scrutiny of construction projects.

Section - 3126. Authority for emergency planning, design, and 
        construction activities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 
Secretary of Energy to utilize available funds for any national 
security program construction project, provided 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 provision 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 provision 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. Tritium production.

Section - 3132. Plutonium disposition.

    The committee has been critical of the Department of 
Energy's lack of progress in establishing a long-term source 
for tritium, necessary to maintain the nation's nuclear 
deterrent capability. The committee is aware that the 
Department of Energy is reviewing the costs of alternative 
tritium production technologies, including reactor options and 
an accelerator option.
    The committee is concerned that, despite guidance from the 
Congress, the Department of Energy is not giving rigorous and 
balanced consideration to the use of multipurpose reactors. 
That option could provide the required levels of tritium 
production, for the disposition of surplus weapons plutonium 
and for the co-production of revenue-producing electric power. 
Studies by the department and those of various private 
organizations indicate that multipurpose reactors are 
technically practical, can be employed in the needed time 
frame, and would afford significant economic benefits.
    Furthermore, the committee is concerned that DOE is not 
performing a proper engineering systems analysis and attendant 
cost analyses. The committee directs DOE to pursue parallel 
risk reduction activities for the next three years. DOE should 
begin three-year parallel risk reduction research and studies 
for both multipurpose reactor options and for accelerator 
production of tritium. A total of $50.0 million in fiscal year 
1996 is directed for this purpose. Both privatized and 
government funded alternatives shall be considered. 
Congressional hearings will be conducted to review this issue.
    The committee further directs DOE to do an integrated 
systems analysis and environmental assessment of the combined 
tritium production mission and plutonium disposition mission, 
with attendant cost analyses. The result of this effort shall 
be compared with the results of the environmental assessments 
of each separate mission. This will enable the Congress to 
determine the major cost-benefits and technical risk reductions 
associated with the multipurpose reactor and accelerator 
methods. DOE is also directed to assemble a group of 
independent reactor and accelerator experts to assess the 
objectivity and completeness of the process described in this 
provision.
    The committee recognizes that the eventual success of the 
long-term tritium source program will be dependent upon a 
skilled work-force and community support for the operation of 
such a facility. The committee strongly recommends that the 
logical, cost effective site for the tritium production mission 
would be an existing, already paid-for, tritium recycling 
infrastructure.

Section - 3133. Tritium recycling.

    The committee notes that a large capital investment has 
been made over the years on tritium gas recycling at the 
Savannah River Site. It also notes that the conference report 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for the 
fiscal year 1995 contained a provision which prohibited DOE 
from moving the tritium recycling work from the Mound 
Laboratory to any other location, except the Savannah River 
Site. The committee directs DOE to refrain from duplicating or 
establishing parallel tritium recycling capability other than 
at the Savannah River Site. However, it recognizes that 
tritium-related inertial fusion target work and tritium related 
research work may be done at the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory.

Section - 3134. Manufacturing infrastructure for refabrication and 
        certification of enduring nuclear weapons stockpile.

    The committee directs DOE to halt the implementation of its 
strategy to reduce the weapons complex to the three nuclear 
weapons laboratories. This strategy is driven by the pressure 
to reduce federal budgets and was arrived at without sufficient 
cost analysis and consideration of the impact on national 
security. The committee believes that the Nuclear Posture 
Review (NPR) recommendations on the DOE infrastructure require 
that the U.S. maintain the actual manufacturing capacity to 
refabricate and recertify old weapons, and maintain the ability 
to design and manufacture new weapons.

Weapons Refabrication Strategy

    The committee directs DOE to increase investments in the Y-
12 plant, the Pantex Plant, the Kansas City Plant, and the 
Savannah River Site's tritium and plutonium handling 
capabilities. These are the remaining locations with the 
capacity to begin remanufacturing the enduring nuclear weapons 
stockpile. Projected annual needs for weapons refabrication 
will far exceed the mini-production capabilities of the weapons 
laboratories.

Defense Programs Planning Council

    The committee further urges the Assistant Secretary for 
Defense Programs to form a balanced planning council which will 
include the directors of the nuclear weapons production 
facilities named above, along with the three national nuclear 
weapon laboratory directors. Federal field offices should not 
serve as buffers between DOE headquarters and these nuclear 
weapons production facilities.

Integrated weapons refabrication plan

    The committee directs DOE to develop an integrated program 
plan geared to the requirements of the NPR and the 
refabrication milestones, from the year 2002 to 2013. The plan 
should be made available to the committee no later than March 
30, 1996. This plan shall be updated annually.

Section - 3135. Hydronuclear experiments.

     As defense budgets decline, the emphasis of U.S. weaponry 
programs has turned to testing. Testing both existing and new 
weapons is essential to insure both safety and reliability. The 
committee finds that the one defense component that is not 
currently being tested is the nuclear warhead.
    The committee believes that the ability to do experiments 
involving high explosives and plutonium are absolutely critical 
to providing the kind of stockpile stewardship necessary to 
guarantee the safety and reliability of the enduring nuclear 
stockpile. The committee has directed the Department of Energy 
to produce a report presenting the costs and benefits of 
various levels of experimentation and testing in section 3165 
of this title. In the meantime, the committee has concluded 
that new activities at the weapons laboratories and at the 
Nevada Test Site aimed at preparing for actual experiments need 
to be funded at the $50.0 million per year level. Actual 
experimental activities will be needed to prevent the near term 
decline in stockpile confidence.

Section - 3136. Fellowship program for development of skills critical 
        to the Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex.

    The committee perceives the need for additional aggressive 
efforts by the nuclear weapons laboratories and the production 
sites, including the Savannah River Site, to work with academic 
scientists and engineers engaged in research which is closely 
related or directly relevant to ongoing research and program 
needs in the nuclear weapons program. The committee believes 
that the current and potential graduate students and 
postdoctoral fellows of these academicians are an important 
source of future personnel for the nuclear weapons program. For 
this reason, the committee designated $20.0 million for this 
purpose in fiscal year 1996, and for each fiscal year 
thereafter. These resources would support the salaries of these 
graduate students and postdoctoral candidates, in whole or in 
part, while participating in weapons relevant research and 
engineering science activities at their academic institution or 
at the laboratory or site administering the fellowship.
    Because the committee believes that a decentralized program 
is in order, responsibility for recruiting the best students 
from America's science and engineering graduate schools should 
be left largely to the key scientists within the weapons 
program. The weapons director within each laboratory or site 
should allocate research fellowships to be awarded by 
scientists within his directorate based on a balanced judgement 
between the requirements of the program for specific personnel 
in the near and long-terms, and the opportunity to recruit 
world class candidates as future employees of the nuclear 
weapons program.
    The director of each laboratory and production site, and 
the head of each corresponding Department of Energy field 
office shall exercise appropriate oversight of this fellowship 
program to ensure the effectiveness of the program. This 
oversight function shall also examine the selectees and the 
selection process to assure that selections are based on merit 
and program need, and that no abuses, such as nepotism, occur. 
The Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs shall allocate the 
resources for these fellowships in a balanced manner among the 
three nuclear weapons laboratories and the four production 
sites ( Kansas City, Pantex, Savannah River, Y-12). The data 
base for this allocation shall be the projected requirements 
for specific types of critical personnel which each laboratory 
and each production site shall present to the Assistant 
Secretary for Defense Programs.
    The goal of this program is staffing the long-term U.S. 
nuclear weapons program. This goal is to be stated explicitly 
to potential candidates and given to them in written form. 
Candidates are also to be limited to U.S. citizens. Emphasis 
should be on acquiring the best recruits for the U.S. weapons 
program, not the most. Acceptance of a fellowship shall be 
accompanied by a written commitment to work in the nuclear 
weapons program. The commitment should hold a recipient liable 
for payment of the cost of the fellowship, if the individual 
declines employment for a reasonable, specified period within 
the nuclear weapons program.

Section - 3137. Effect of issuance of environmental impact statements 
        on use of funds for certain Department of Energy facilities.

    The committee finds that all of the facilities funded by 
this authorization (1) can be independently justified on 
national security grounds or on grounds of meeting 
environmental requirements; (2) that each such facility will 
have completed or will have to complete its own environmental 
impact statement; and (3) that going forward with the 
constuction and/or operation of each such facility will not 
bias the outcome of any planned or ongoing programmatic or site 
specific environmental impact statement.
    On this basis, the committee does not wish the Department 
of Energy to make internal administrative decisions to halt or 
delay the construction or operation of projects which have 
completed all of their individual National Environmental Policy 
Act requirements through and including the record of decision. 
In particular, such projects should not be halted or delayed by 
internal DOE administrative decisions because such facilities 
may come under the umbrella of site-wide or programmatic 
environmental impact statements aimed at assessing an 
aggregation of facilities or a major federal strategy.

Section - 3138. Dual-axis Radiographic Hydrotest Facility.

    The Department of Energy is scheduled to complete all 
National Environmental Policy Act documentation for the DARHT 
facility before October 30, 1995. The committee has determined 
that DARHT is of significant importance to national security 
and can be independently justified under any future nuclear 
weapons strategy, including any potential stockpile stewardship 
and management strategy. The committee requires the Secretary 
of Energy to proceed with this schedule by producing the 
environmental impact statement and the record of decision for 
the DARHT project by October 30, 1995. The committee has also 
determined that the construction and operation of DARHT will 
not prejudice the outcome of the site-wide Los Alamos 
environmental impact statement nor will it prejudice the 
outcome of any stockpile stewardship and stockpile management 
environmental impact statement (EIS) because it does not 
preclude reasonable alternatives for that programmatic EIS.

Section - 3139. Limitation on use of funds for certain research and 
        education purposes.

    The committee prohibits the Department of Energy and its 
contractors from diverting any Atomic Energy Defense Activities 
funds to the Laboratory Directed Research and Development 
Program. The committee believes that the scientific challenges 
embodied in the stockpile stewardship program represent a 
sufficiently wide variety of major scientific unknowns that it 
is more than sufficient to maintain the laboratories' cutting 
edge, while keeping a sufficiently tight focus on the weapons 
programs' pressing needs.

Section - 3140. Processing of high level nuclear waste and spent 
        nuclear fuel rods.

    The committee provides a $100.0 million increase to the 
budget request for technology development in the Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management Program and directs the 
Department of Energy to assess the best technological solutions 
for problems associated with the disposition of spent nuclear 
fuel. The options to be assessed include nuclear waste 
reprocessing, conventional chemical processing of nuclear 
waste, direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a geologic 
repository, and vitrification processes with and without 
separation of materials. This should include the beginning of 
conceptual engineering evaluations and life-cycle cost 
analyses.
    Specifically, $2.5 million shall be used for 
electrometallurical processing activities at Idaho National 
Engineering Laboratory and/or Argonne West; $15.0 million for 
research and development at the Idaho National Engineering 
Laboratory on processing, storage and disposition of non-
aluminum clad spent nuclear fuel rods; $15.0 million for 
research and development at the Savannah River Site on 
processing, storage, and disposition of aluminum-clad spent 
nuclear fuel rods. The balance of the $100.0 million increase 
in technology development should be used for reactivation and 
development of high level nuclear waste processing technology 
at the Hanford Reservation, the Idaho National Engineering 
Laboratory and/or Argonne West, and at the Savannah River Site.

Section - 3141. Department of Energy Declassification Productivity 
        Initiative.

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
authority for the Department of Energy to use up to $3.0 
million of funds authorized for other defense activities in 
fiscal year 1996 for the Declassification Productivity 
Initiative (DPI).

Section - 3143. Protection of Workers at Nuclear Weapons Facilities

    The committee recommends authorization of $10.0 million 
from the operations and maintenance resources of the 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program to carry 
out activities related to worker protection at nuclear weapons 
facilities. This provision allows the Secretary of Energy to 
establish a grant program to develop criteria and to train 
workers engaged in hazardous substances response or emergency 
response actions.

Subtitle D--Transfer of Jurisdiction Over Department of Energy National 
                           Security Functions

Section - 3151. Plans for transfer of jurisdiction over Department of 
        Energy national security functions.

    This section requires the Secretary of Energy and the 
Secretary of Defense to jointly produce two alternative 
national plans. One plan is to describe in detail the transfer 
of the responsibility and functions of the 053 account (Atomic 
Energy Defense Activities) from the U.S. Department of Energy 
to the U.S. Department of Defense. The other plan is to 
describe the same aspects of such a transfer to a new 
independent establishment. The transfer would include all 
federal and contractor personnel and institutions which receive 
significant amounts of Atomic Energy Defense Funds to carry out 
the missions of this Title.
    The primary reason for the committee taking this action is 
to preserve the focus of these institutions on their primary 
national security functions of nuclear weapons research, 
development, testing, production and surveillance.

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

Section - 3161. Responsibility for Defense Programs Emergency Response 
        Program.

    The committee is concerned about efforts to consolidate all 
DOE emergency response functions under the responsibility of a 
DOE official outside of the purview of the Assistant Secretary 
for Defense Programs. The committee believes that this 
emergency response function is an essential part of the Defense 
Programs stockpile maintenance responsibility. The committee 
has determined that the Defense Programs emergency response 
function, including federal personnel, and contractor 
capabilities should remain under the authority of the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Stockpile Management and Support.

Section - 3162. Requirements for Department of Energy weapons 
        activities budgets for fiscal years after fiscal year 1996.

    The conference report accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 expressed concerns 
regarding the Department of Energy's budget submission for 
fiscal year 1995. The committee observes that the fiscal year 
1996 submission has not effectively resolved those concerns. In 
particular, discrete weapons programs need to be costed out and 
explained from year to year on the same line. The committee 
directs that each DOE laboratory and site develop a fiscal year 
1996 weapons activities program plan. This plan should be 
provided to the Congressional defense committees no later than 
December 31, 1995, and annually every year thereafter. This 
plan should serve as the basis for the fiscal year 1997 
congressional budget submission.

Section - 3163. Enduring nuclear weapons stockpile.

    The committee points out that a ready inactive stockpile is 
essential if the ``upload hedge'' called for in the Nuclear 
Posture Review is to have any real meaning in the context of 
the ``lead'' and ``hedge'' strategy embodied in the Nuclear 
Posture Review. The committee believes that maintaining 
sufficient warheads on presently deployed platforms is only one 
element of a credible plan. In order to have a serious and 
credible hedge capability, DOE must maintain an inactive 
stockpile that is ready to be uploaded onto existing delivery 
systems. The committee directs the Department of Energy to put 
in place a production infrastructure of sufficient capacity to 
deal with at least all end of design life rebuilds, gas fills, 
and limited life component replacements, test and quality 
control units for both the active and inactive stockpiles.

Section - 3164. Report on proposed purchases of tritium from foreign 
        suppliers.

    The committee urges the Department of Energy to explore the 
possibility of purchasing foreign-produced tritium to insure an 
adequate supply of tritium should the presently proposed 
production methods fail. The committee recommends a provision 
that would require the President to prepare and submit a report 
not later than May 30, 1997 on the feasibility of foreign 
tritium purchases. The report shall be in unclassified form, 
with a classified annex.

Section - 3165. Report on hydronuclear testing.

    The committee continues to be concerned about the safety 
and reliability of the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons 
over the long-term.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to make 
available $9.0 million from funds authorized for the 
preparation of a comprehensive report by the directors of the 
two nuclear weapons design laboratories on the relative costs 
and benefits of alternative limits on the permitted levels of 
hydronuclear testing, to include: 4 pounds, 400 pounds, 4,000 
pounds, and 40,000 pounds of yield (TNT equivalent). The 
committee requests the preparation of a single report, with 
additional and/or dissenting views by each director as they 
deem appropriate. The report shall be delivered to the 
congressional defense committees, the Secretaries of Defense 
and Energy, and the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Strategic 
Command for their comments thereon, not later than February 1, 
1996. Arms control considerations need not be included in the 
report by the laboratory directors.

Section - 3166. Master plan on warheads in the enduring nuclear weapons 
        stockpile.

    The Department of Energy has failed to develop a 
requirements-based plan for stockpile stewardship and for 
stockpile management. For this reason, the Department of Energy 
is not in a position to develop a detailed plan for assuring 
the safety, reliability and effectiveness of the enduring 
stockpile. The committee recommends a provision that would 
require the President to prepare and submit a master plan that 
describes the proposed refabrication and certification of 
warheads for an enduring stockpile, and the capability to 
design, fabricate, and certify new warheads. The plan shall 
include details of the full manufacturing capacity needed to 
deal with refabricating and certifying the entire active and 
inactive stockpiles between the years 2002 and 2013. This plan 
shall be submitted to the Congress not later than March 15, 
1996.

Section - 3167. Prohibition on international inspections of Department 
        of Energy facilities pending certification of protection of 
        restricted data.

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Energy 
intends to permit inspections of U.S. nuclear weapons 
facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency without 
adequately safeguarding sensitive nuclear weapons design 
information. The committee recommends a provision that would 
prohibit such inspections, unless protection of such sensitive 
data is certified by the Secretary of Energy.

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Merger of operating and capital resources into one category

    The committee recommends merging the distinct categories of 
operating funds and capital funds into one category called 
``operation and maintenance'' for the purposes of dealing with 
future Department of Energy budget submissions. The committee 
directs the Department of Energy to continue to reflect capital 
equipment separately in financial and accounting reports.

Nuclear stockpile dismantlement

    The committee is aware of no concrete evidence that the 
Russian Federation is dismantling a specific number of nuclear 
warheads at a specific rate. On the other hand, the U.S. is 
attempting to dismantle up to 2,000 per year. The committee 
wishes to continue a program of corresponding nuclear 
dismantlement with the Russian Federation, but in a manner that 
insures that both stockpiles are reduced at the same level, the 
same rate, over the same period of time. The committee directs 
the Intelligence Community to provide a report on this subject 
in both classified and unclassified forms to the Congress, no 
later than May 30, 1996. This report shall be updated annually.

Nuclear reactor safety in Ukraine

    Two of the fourteen ``reaktory bolshoi moshchnosti 
kanalnye'' (RBMK) graphite moderated reactors, known in the 
United States as light water graphite reactors (LWGR) currently 
in operation in Ukraine are similar in design to the reactor 
which caused great disaster in Chernobyl. The operation of 
these fourteen reactors is critical to the economic well-being 
of Ukraine. However, they all fail in major ways to meet 
international safety standards.
    The committee recommends that the Department of Energy, in 
coordination with the International Atomic Energy Agency 
(IAEA), report to the Congress on the safety issues which need 
to be addressed, and possible recommendations. The report 
should include the following: the feasibility of obtaining 
alternative energy sources; the loss of trained nuclear reactor 
operators; and the likelihood of operator error or accidents. 
The report should also assess the need for computerized 
monitoring and more reliable communications networks.

Accountability for civilian nuclear materials

    Concerns regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons 
continue to increase. It is imperative that nuclear materials 
necessary to produce nuclear weapons are kept from countries 
with proliferation risk. To achieve this objective, it is 
necessary to insure adequate physical protection of plutonium 
and highly enriched uranium, in this country and abroad. The 
committee supports the efforts of the Department of Energy to 
collect and analyze data on the production, transportation, 
storage, and disposition of nuclear materials in peaceful 
activities worldwide.
    The committee supports the efforts of the Department of 
Energy's Office of Nonproliferation and National Security 
international nuclear analysis program, which tracks and 
accounts for nuclear materials worldwide.
                 TITLE XXXIII--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

Section - 3301. Sale of Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 (Elk Hills).
    The committee recommends a provision to offer National 
Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 (NPR-1) for sale by competitive 
bid in fiscal year 1996. The reserves were established in the 
early 1900's to assure availability of oil fuels for the Navy, 
which was converting its vessels from coal to oil prior to 
World War I. In 1976, Congress enacted the Naval Petroleum 
Reserves Production Act (P.L. 94-258) which ordered production 
from the fields at the maximum efficient rate.
    The committee believes that the rationale for the NPR has 
faded in light of developments subsequent to the Arab oil 
embargo. The likelihood of a sustained interruption in supply 
has fallen, and the market has shown itself to be responsive in 
pricing and allocating oil during periods of uncertain supply. 
The committee is concerned about the long-term implications of 
government participation in the commercial oil business. 
Furthermore, the committee is required under the reconciliation 
instructions in the FY 1996 Budget Resolution to achieve $1.5 
billion in savings in direct spending within the committee's 
jurisdiction, which this provision would satisfy.
    The provision would require the Secretary of Energy to 
obtain credible appraisals of the value of the field before 
setting a minimum acceptable price. In addition to standard 
industry considerations, the valuation must include 
infrastructure included in the sale, the estimated quantity of 
petroleum and natural gas in the reserve, and the anticipated 
revenue stream that the Treasury would receive if it were not 
sold.
    The Secretary could not accept bids lower than the minimum 
acceptable price and could not enter into a contract for sale 
until the end of a 31 day period following notification to 
Congress. In the event only one credible offer is made, the 
Congress must approve the sale by a joint resolution.
    The Secretary would be required to finalize equity 
interests between the federal government and Chevron U.S.A. 
Production Company within three months of enactment of this 
Act.
    In response to a potential legal claim by the California 
State Teachers Retirement Fund, the provision would set aside 
seven percent of the net proceeds in a contingent fund. Any 
such claim must be resolved by a court of competent 
jurisdiction in order to be considered valid.
    The Secretary would be required to maintain full production 
of NPR-1 until the sale is consummated. In the event the 
Secretary is not able to comply with the deadlines included in 
this provision, the Secretary and the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget would be required to notify the 
congressional defense committees and submit a plan of 
subsequent action.
Section - 3302. Study regarding future of Naval Petroleum Reserves 
        (other than Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1).
    The committee recommends a provision which would require 
the Secretary of Energy to study options for the management of 
the NPR.
                 TITLE XXXIV--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

Section - 3401. Authorized uses of stockpile funds.
    This provision would authorize the Stockpile Manager to 
obligate $77.1 million from the National Defense Stockpile 
Transfer Fund during fiscal year 1996 for the authorized uses 
of funds under section 9(b)(2) of the Strategic and Critical 
Materials Stock Piling Act.
Section - 3402. Disposal of obsolete and excess materials contained in 
        the National Defense Stockpile.
    This provision would authorize disposal of excess materials 
from the National Defense Stockpile. Under current law, the 
Stockpile Manager cannot dispose of excess materials unless the 
proposed disposal has been reviewed by the Market Impact 
Committee and included in the Annual Materials Plan or a 
revision of the Plan. The committee expects that many of these 
disposals will require long sale programs in order not to 
disrupt markets and producers.
Section - 3403. Disposal of chromite and manganese ores and chromium 
        ferro and manganese metal electrolytic.
    This provision would require the granting of right of first 
refusal, for certain disposals, to domestic ferroalloy 
upgraders.
Section - 3404. Restrictions on disposal of manganese ferro.
    This provision would require that certain grade manganese 
ferro may not be disposed of until the disposal of lower grade 
inventory material has been completed.
Section - 3405. Excess defense-related materials: transfer to Stockpile 
        and disposal.
    This provision would direct the transfer of suitable, 
uncontaminated DOE inventory items to the National Defense 
Stockpile for disposal.
    The DOE has determined that numerous commodities purchased 
for defense purposes are now excess. Congress established 
controls for disposal of such commodities in order to obtain 
best value for the government and prevent undue market 
disruption. DOE has no such system for disposals and would 
expend considerable funds to duplicate the Stockpile operation.
    Prior to transfer of any non-radioactive materials that are 
listed in the National Defense Stockpile inventory, the DOE 
must obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense on the 
advice of the National Defense Stockpile Manager. Materials 
will then be disposed of in accordance with the Strategic and 
Critical Materials Stock Piling Act.
    The committee anticipates this transfer would avoid 
duplication of effort, yield savings for not having to store 
these items, and dispose of the excess inventory efficiently 
without undue market disruption.
                  TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

    Title XXXV would authorize expenditures from the Panama 
Canal Revolving Fund for the operation and maintenance of the 
Panama Canal and would also authorize the Panama Canal 
Commission to expend funds for the purchase of replacement 
vehicles. In no case can a replacement vehicle cost more than 
$19,500.
                        LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

                      DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS

    By letter dated April 20, 1995, the General Counsel of the 
Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate 
proposed legislation ``To authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 1996 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1996, 
and for other purposes.'' The transmittal letter and proposed 
legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication 
743 to the Committee on Armed Services on April 27, 1995. 
Executive Communication 743 is available for review at the 
committee. Senators Thurmond and Nunn introduced this 
legislative proposal as S. 727, by request, on April 27, 1995. 
The statement made by Senator Thurmond upon introduction of S. 
727, together with the text of the legislation, appear in the 
Congressional Record of April 27, 1995 on pages S5805-5832.
    By letter dated April 24, 1995, the General Counsel of the 
Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate 
proposed legislation ``To authorize certain construction at 
military installations for fiscal year 1996, and for other 
purposes.'' The transmittal letter and proposed legislation 
were officially referred as Executive Communication 862 to the 
Committee on Armed Services on May 4, 1995. Executive 
Communication 862 is available for review at the committee. 
Senators Thurmond and Nunn introduced this legislative proposal 
as S. 728, by request, on April 27, 1995. The statement made by 
Senator Thurmond upon introduction of S. 728 appears in the 
Congressional Record of April 27, 1995 on pages S5832-5834.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    In accordance with the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
1946, as amended by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 
there is set forth below the committee vote to report the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.
    In favor: Senators Thurmond, Warner, Cohen, McCain, Lott, 
Coats, Smith, Kempthorne, Hutchison, Inhofe, Santorum, Nunn, 
Exon, Kennedy, Glenn, Robb, Lieberman, and Bryan.
    Opposed: Senators Levin, Bingaman, and Byrd.
    Vote: 18-3.
    The other roll call votes on amendments to the bill which 
were considered during the course of the mark-up have been made 
public and are available at the committee.

                              FISCAL DATA

    Section 252 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 
(Public Law 91-510) requires that the report accompanying each 
bill reported by a Senate committee contain certain information 
on five-year cost projections.
    The letter received in compliance with this statutory 
requirement is shown below. The bill is an annual authorization 
and does not, within its own terms, generate costs beyond 
fiscal year 1996 even though the funds authorized to be 
obligated by this act may not be expended for several years in 
the future. The fiscal year authorizations herein provided are 
reviewed annually by the committee and the Congress.


               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

    It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget 
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not 
available at the time the report was filed. It will be included 
in material presented during floor debate on the legislation.

                           REGULATORY IMPACT

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the 
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds 
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of 
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law 
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in 
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the 
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such 
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and 
reduce the expenditure of funds.
                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. McCAIN

    I strongly commend Senator Thurmond for his expertise and 
leadership in crafting the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense 
Authorization bill. His considerable legislative experience was 
apparent in his successful efforts to resolve the great number 
of difficult issues which came before the Committee during our 
deliberations on this bill.
    On most issues, I support the Committee's recommendations. 
Enhanced quality of life for our military personnel and their 
families, near-term military readiness, and additional funding 
for ballistic and cruise missile defense programs were given 
high-priority in the Committee's recommendations. In 
particular, I believe the Committee correctly chose to allocate 
to force modernization programs the majority of the additional 
$7 billion in defense budget authority provided in the FY 1996 
Budget Resolution.
    There are, however, a number of particular matters of 
concern with respect to the Committee's recommendations.
Reductions in Non-Defense and Low-Priority Military Programs
    The Committee endorsed many of the recommendations of the 
Readiness Subcommittee to eliminate over $1 billion in funding 
for non-defense and low-priority military programs from the 
defense budget, in order to make funds available for higher 
priority military requirements. In addition to increasing 
funding for near-term readiness requirements, savings generated 
by these cuts were used to fund the F-117X development program, 
M1 Abrams tank upgrades, and the Cruise Missile Defense 
Initiative.
    However, several of the subcommittee's recommendations were 
overturned by the full Committee, which restored $234 million 
of the cuts in non-defense programs.
    For example, among these reversals of the subcommittee's 
recommendations was the restoration of $15 million to fund DOD 
support of the Atlanta Olympics. The subcommittee 
recommendation would have allowed assistance by DOD, provided 
that the organizing committee reimbursed the Department for its 
costs if the Olympics realized a profit at the end of the 
games. Still, the Committee voted to earmark $15 million for 
the Olympic games and rejected the subcommittee proposal to 
require reimbursement from profits.
    Obviously, we still have a long way to go in stripping non-
defense funding from the defense budget. The credibility of 
those who support a strong national defense is badly damaged 
when the taxpayers are asked to pay for programs with defense 
dollars which do little or nothing to enhance our national 
security. I intend to propose amendments on the Senate floor to 
reverse some of these decisions and restore the subcommittee's 
recommendations.

Military Construction

    I am pleased that the Committee adhered to the stringent 
criteria adopted in last year's Defense Authorization bill for 
evaluating Members' requests for additional military 
construction projects.
    Because the Readiness Subcommittee was able to find savings 
within the military construction budget, we added over $200 
million in high-priority projects which were not included in 
the President's budget request. Each of these projects met the 
established criteria.
    I am concerned, however, that the full Committee chose to 
authorize an additional $125 million for military construction 
above the total amount requested in these accounts. While all 
of these additional projects met the established criteria, I 
believe that these additional funds should have been used for 
higher priority requirements in other accounts.

Funding for Contingency Operations

    Unfortunately, the Committee chose not to respond to 
Secretary Perry's urgent request for $1.2 billion to pay for 
ongoing contingency operations in Iraq, Cuba, and Bosnia during 
the coming fiscal year. Funding for these operations was not 
included in the FY 1996 budget request, as had been directed by 
Congress.
    While many may not support the continuation of these 
operations, neither are they prepared to take action in 
Congress to terminate them. Therefore, the costs of conducting 
the operations must be paid.
    The Committee authorized only $125 million of the 
additional $7 billion allocated to defense in the budget 
resolution to pay for these ongoing operations. Lacking 
adequate funding but operating under an agreed U.N. mandate, 
the Department of Defense must submit a supplemental funding 
request to Congress. While the supplemental request is being 
prepared and until its approval by Congress, the Department 
will continue to use training and maintenance funds to pay for 
the operations.
    The Committee is fully aware of the deleterious effect on 
military readiness of diverting operation and maintenance 
funding for contingency operations. I deeply regret the 
Committee's decision to put off action on these must-pay bills.

F-22

    In my view, excessive concurrency and weight problems in 
this program argue strongly for slowing down its development. I 
supported the initial staff recommendation to reduce funding 
for the F-22 program by $600 million, which the Committee voted 
to restore in its final recommendations.

B-2

    In a strong vote, the Committee defeated efforts to add 
funding for additional B-2 bombers. The Department of Defense 
has repeatedly insisted that the current fleet of 20 aircraft 
is sufficient to fulfill operational requirements in the two 
Major Regional Contingencies upon which force planning of the 
future is predicated. Buying additional bombers, at a cost of 
$36 billion over the next ten years, would be a waste of scarce 
defense resources for aircraft without a clear mission 
requirement in the post-Cold War world.

Attack Submarine Programs

    Unfortunately, the reasoning which led the Committee to 
reject additional funding for the B-2 bomber program did not 
extend into the Committee's action on attack submarine 
programs. The Committee chose to authorize funding for the 
third Seawolf submarine--another costly relic of the Cold War--
and to delay cost-saving competition for the follow-on New 
Attack Submarine until sometime in the next century. I disagree 
strongly with both of these recommendations.
    I have long opposed the Seawolf program both because of its 
exorbitant cost and its lack of a necessary military mission.
    Overall, the Seawolf program has already cost nearly $11 
billion, or more than $5 billion per submarine. Since the 
contracts for the first two Seawolf submarines were originally 
signed, their procurement cost has increased by $1.4 billion. 
The third Seawolf submarine is estimated to cost more than $2.4 
billion, slightly more than last year's estimate.
    Because of these increasing costs, the Congress included in 
last year's defense authorization legislation a cost cap on 
procurement of the first two Seawolf submarines. As a result of 
the legislative cost cap, the Navy instituted a new program 
management team, which has been successful so far in containing 
the costs of these two submarines, and hopefully, no further 
taxpayer dollars will be required to finish these two 
submarines. However, the cost cap would not apply to a third 
submarine, if one is authorized, which could therefore cost 
much more than the $2.4 billion currently estimated by the 
Navy.
    The Committee report flatly states that the Navy's argument 
of an operational requirement for the SSN-23 was not compelling 
as a reason to build another Seawolf submarine. At a hearing 
before the Committee, the General Accounting Office witness 
testified that the intelligence analysis upon which the Navy 
based its claims of a growing Russian submarine threat was 
incomplete and, in some cases, disputed within the intelligence 
community. At the same hearing, the Congressional Research 
Service witness testified that a third Seawolf submarine is not 
necessary to fulfill the Joint Chiefs of Staff requirement for 
10 to 12 stealthy attack submarines by the year 2012. Thus, 
military requirements do not support authorization of an 
additional submarine.
    Essentially, I believe the Committee's authorization of 
$1.5 billion to complete the third Seawolf submarine amounts to 
a capitulation to the administration's submarine industrial 
base arguments. It is clear from the Committee's explanation of 
its recommendation to authorize the third Seawolf submarine 
that cost considerations took second place to industrial base 
arguments. No other reasoning could explain the Committee's 
action.
    The Navy's stated policy is to maintain the two nuclear-
capable shipyards currently in operation in the U.S.--Newport 
News in Virginia and Electric Boat in Connecticut. Under this 
policy, Newport News would build only carriers (although it is 
capable of building submarines) and Electric Boat would build 
only submarines (and is not capable of building carriers).
    However, separate analyses by the Navy and by Newport News 
Shipbuilding Company demonstrate that maintaining one nuclear-
capable shipyard is cheaper than maintaining two yards. For the 
period FY 1996 to 2012, the Navy estimates savings of $1.9 
billion, while Newport News estimates $5.8 billion.
    Yet, the Committee chose to endorse, at least through the 
end of this century, that part of the administration's 
industrial base policy which requires maintaining two nuclear-
capable shipyards. The Committee explicitly directed that the 
first New Attack Submarine be built at Electric Boat, but in a 
departure from the administration's policy, then directed that 
the second would be built at Newport News.
    The Committee appeared to support the concept of 
competition for submarine procurement, but then chose to delay 
implementing cost-saving competition between the two shipyards 
until sometime in the next century. Under the Committee's 
recommendation, however, future competition for the third and 
later submarines will not necessarily result in a ``winner-
take-all'' contract award, which could mean that both shipyards 
would stay in business indefinitely.
    Essentially, the Committee kicked the can down the road, 
granting one submarine contract to each shipyard without 
addressing future competition. The bottom line is that the 
taxpayers will see no savings from competition until the next 
century, if at all.
    Because of this arbitrary delay in imposing competition for 
submarine procurement, the Committee found it necessary to 
accept the Navy's contention that building the third Seawolf 
submarine at Electric Boat was required to maintain Electric 
Boat shipyard as a viable competitor in the future. Thus, the 
Committee authorized $1.5 billion for the SSN-23--an overly 
expensive submarine for which the threat will not materialize 
in the foreseeable future.
    A more than adequate alternative to procuring a third 
Seawolf submarine and beginning the New Attack Submarine 
program in FY 1998 as planned is extending the service life of 
the existing attack submarine force.
    Currently, as of May 1, 1995, the U.S. attack submarine 
force consists of 83 SSNs. The Bottom Up Review stated a long-
term requirement for a force of only 45 to 55 attack 
submarines. In order to reduce the current force to the 
required levels, the Navy plans to retire, rather than refuel, 
a substantial portion of the SSN-688 class submarines. The Navy 
plan would mean scrapping submarines with an average of 18 
years of service life remaining.
    The cost of buying a replacement submarine far exceeds the 
cost of refueling existing submarines, as well as the estimated 
savings from decommissioning existing submarines. For example, 
$1.5 to $2 billion is the estimated cost of a New Attack 
Submarine, while the estimated savings from early 
decommissioning of an SSN-688 is only $600 to $700 million. 
Clearly, if the newest of the Navy's SSN-688 class submarines 
were retained in inventory throughout their remaining service 
life, the Bottom Up Review requirement for 45 to 55 attack 
submarines could be met well into the next century--at a cost 
much less than the cost of buying the SSN-23 and buying New 
Attack Submarines on a non-competitive basis.
    Terminating the Seawolf program and deferring a decision on 
a follow-on attack submarine program would provide needed time 
to reassess the need for and the design of a follow-on program. 
Such a decision, however, requires that we clearly face the 
stark reality of declining defense budgets in the future--
budgets which require tough decisions about sustaining 
duplicative infrastructure at the cost of billions of dollars.
    The real question is, how much is enough? How much of our 
scarce defense dollars are we willing to spend to maintain two 
shipyards capable of producing nuclear-powered submarines? I 
cannot support spending another $1.5 billion on a third Seawolf 
submarine, nor can I support procurement of a non-competitive 
follow-on submarine when our existing submarine force remains 
capable and can be maintained into the next century.
    Spending $1.5 billion, as requested in the FY 1996 budget, 
to complete the third Seawolf submarine is a waste of money on 
a militarily unnecessary jobs program. I intend to propose 
amendments during Senate consideration of this legislation to 
strike funding for the third Seawolf program and to allocate 
these funds to higher priority military requirements.

Missing Service Personnel provisions

    Section 1023 of the FY 1995 National Defense Authorization 
Act directed the Secretary of Defense to review current law 
related to missing service personnel and report to Congress on 
recommended changes. In addition to offering the required 
recommendations, the Department of Defense accommodated the 
Committee's concerns by agreeing to several changes that went 
considerably beyond the scope of the initial Section 1032 
recommendations.
    In their legislative recommendations, the Committee has 
gone as far as the Congress should on this issue. I believe the 
Committee and the Department of Defense have agreed on a course 
of action that will improve current procedures without imposing 
a new and cumbersome bureaucracy on the Department, the 
Services, and commanders in the field.
    However, the report language accompanying the bill does not 
accurately reflect the intention of the bill language in one 
key aspect. The recommended provision would not prohibit the 
Department of Defense from declaring a serviceman dead when 
there are obvious indications that he is indeed dead, including 
the passage of time. Contrary to the report language, the bill 
language does not confer immortality on MIAs. Further, I do not 
share the editorial characterization of the accounting system 
as ``insensitive and unresponsive.'' Whereas this may have been 
true many years ago, the Department of Defense and the Services 
have since taken extensive measures to make the system 
``sensitive,'' ``responsive,'' and most important, workable.
    I urge my colleagues to steadfastly oppose ill-advised 
amendments to the language recommended by the Committee, and I 
expect to work together to oppose the provisions in the House 
bill which, in my view, are unwise and unworkable.

Service Academy Directives

    Finally, the report includes a discussion about recent DOD 
directives concerning the Service Academies. I strongly support 
the Committee's reservations and direction stated in that 
language.
    Briefly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
review the DOD directives relating to the Service Academies 
with a view toward rescinding or revising those sections that 
impose unnecessary restrictions on the appropriate authority of 
the Service Secretaries or Academy Superintendents. The 
Committee properly states that the DOD directives in question 
have gone too far and have infringed upon the statutory 
authority of the Service Secretaries to provide for the 
training and education of cadets and midshipmen. The Board of 
Visitors of the three Service Academies are predominantly made 
up of Members of Congress and provide the appropriate oversight 
of the Service Academies as their mission.
    Historically, the responsibility for and the authority over 
the Service Academies is vested in the hands of the Service 
Secretaries, and it is a well-recognized view that the Service 
Secretaries should retain that oversight. DOD directives which 
attempt to somehow constrain or restrict Service Secretaries or 
to promote uniform oversight and management of all the Service 
Academies would have a serious negative effect on the timeless 
notions of the Service Academies' mission--honor, integrity, 
loyalty, and courage.

Conclusion

    Because I believe the major provisions of this bill will 
enhance the security of our nation in the future, I voted to 
report the Committee's recommendations to the Senate. I will 
work with the Committee to ensure that the bill is not amended 
on the floor to weaken or reverse any of its very positive 
provisions. I believe, however, that there are some areas in 
which the bill could be improved, particularly those discussed 
above, and I intend to offer or support amendments that would 
strengthen the bill.
    Because of the need to balance the federal budget and 
reduce our nation's massive federal debt, the debate in the 
future will focus ever more narrowly on ``guns versus butter''. 
We cannot continue to fund every new program with a unique or 
interesting capability. Instead, we must thoroughly assess our 
national security interests and then carefully select only 
those programs which are directly relevant to protecting those 
interests and which are affordable in the shrinking defense 
budgets of the future. If we don't make the hard choices in 
entering into commitments with our allies and friends, and if 
we then fail to prioritize among weapons systems to enable us 
to support those commitments, we will fail in our most basic 
responsibility--protecting the security of the American people.

                                                       John McCain.
                      ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. EXON

    The Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act 
reported out by the Senate Armed Services Committee represents 
a regrettable and potentially harmful U-turn that will, unless 
corrected, return the United States to the confrontational Cold 
War policies of the 1980s before the fall of the Soviet empire.
    While much in the committee bill is laudable and will 
greatly enhance the readiness and capabilities of our armed 
services, I am fearful that these constructive elements of the 
authorization bill will be offset by misguided efforts to 
defend against threats that do not exist and hostile attempts 
to scuttle international agreements intended to enhance our 
security through peaceful means. As originally drafted, this 
bill attempted to abolish the Department of Energy, gut the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction program responsible for the 
removal of over 2500 Russian nuclear warheads, prevent the 
administration from carrying out a number of important nuclear 
non-proliferation agreements relative to North Korea and the 
former Soviet Union, and purchase unwanted B-2 bombers at a 
potential cost totalling tens of billions of dollars.
    While the majority of the committee was successful in 
overturning these and other astonishing hardline 
recommendations, many provisions remain in the reported bill 
that would return us to the Cold War mentality of yesteryear. 
Among the most objectionable of these reversals are bill 
provisions that advocate violation of the Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty, add over $500 million in ``Star Wars'' missile 
defense funding, endanger ratification of the START II Treaty, 
resurrect at least two battleships at a cost of a half-million 
dollars a year, and mandate the resumption of nuclear weapons 
testing.
    The $50 million provided for subkilton nuclear weapons 
testing is a particularly mischievous add-on to the President's 
budget. The mandate is in violation of existing law (i.e. the 
FY 1993 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill) which states that 
all proposed nuclear tests be included in the annual 
administration report on our nation's nuclear weapons stockpile 
and the need, if any, to conduct tests. Specifically, the bill 
violates the provision of law that states ``only the numbers 
and types of tests specified in the report . . . may be 
tested.'' In short, the bill totally negates the process 
already in existence for proposing and approving, with 
congressional concurrence, new nuclear tests. More central to 
the point is whether these subkilton tests are needed. No 
safety or reliability problem is known to exist with any of our 
nation's nuclear weapons to justify new tests. On this point, 
there is no disagreement. Administration officials from the 
laboratories all the way up to the President are unanimous in 
this opinion. There is no explanation in the committee bill as 
to which warheads are to be tested, why they are to be tested, 
or how many tests are to be conducted. Absent a known safety 
and reliability problem, the primary purpose for the resumption 
of testing, according to majority committee staff, is to 
maintain worker expertise at the Nevada Test Site, though there 
is no testimony to suggest flight of workers is occurring or, 
if it was, that the authorized funds would stem their 
departure.
    The true reason for the committee's actions is a basic 
belief that we should test for the sake of testing even if it 
means (or in the hopes of ?) undermining the U.S. efforts in 
Geneva to negotiate a Comprehensive Test Ban (CTB) Treaty. As 
part of the administration's nuclear non-proliferation policy, 
the U.S. has spent two years laying the groundwork for a 
permanent extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
(NPT) and an agreement on a CTB. The NPT extension was approved 
this spring with the nuclear powers, including the U.S., 
recommitting themselves to a prompt agreement on a test ban. 
The committee bill looks to bust the U.S. testing moratorium, 
renege on these commitments made during the NPT conference, and 
undermine our efforts to halt the spread of nuclear weapons 
around the world. The cumulative effect will be to weaken, not 
enhance, our national security. For this reason, I will move to 
strike the $50 million add-on for the resumption of nuclear 
testing when the bill reaches the floor of the Senate.
    In summary, I am concerned with the tone and substance of 
the bill. The level of micromanagement placed on the Pentagon 
and the Department of Energy is unprecedented and harmful to 
our nation's standing in the international community. Many of 
the committee initiatives are driven by a desire to defend 
against a superpower threat to U.S. security that simply does 
not exist. At a time when our one-time enemies are now allies 
and the world community is committed more than ever before to 
the peaceful resolution of conflicts, the committee bill is at 
odds with reality and in strong need of amendment before it can 
properly serve our nation's security interests.

                                                     J. James Exon.
             ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY

    The FY 1996 Defense Authorization Bill reported by the 
Senate Armed Services Committee has serious weaknesses that 
should be corrected by the full Senate. Our goal is to develop 
a post-Cold War military that gives us the capability to defend 
our nation at home and our vital interests abroad, with a 
sufficient margin to deal with unforeseen dangers and 
contingencies, but without resorting to wasteful and 
unnecessary programs in this era of heavy pressures on all 
aspects of the federal budget.
    I commend the committee for its decisive vote to reject 
further funding for procurement of B-2 bombers, and to allocate 
funds proposed earlier for B-2 procurement to other pressing 
defense needs. Further expenditures on this capable yet 
exceedingly costly system would burden a defense budget already 
stretched thin by current modernization needs. As Secretary 
Perry made clear to the committee, procurement of additional B-
2s is not needed or wanted by the Department, and the committee 
deserves credit for accepting this recommendation.
    In addition, the committee voted, but by only an 11-10 
majority, to protect the right of women serving overseas in the 
armed forces to choose abortion by guaranteeing continued 
access to safe abortions in U.S. military hospitals if they pay 
for the procedure themselves. The committee was right to reject 
a blanket prohibition on abortions at U.S. military hospitals 
overseas. The committee's action avoids an unacceptable 
situation in which military women seeking to exercise their 
constitutional right to choose to terminate their pregnancy 
would be required to use potentially unsatisfactory foreign 
medical facilities, or else return to the United States at 
substantial expense. I urge the full Senate to preserve the 
committee's action.
    Unfortunately, the committee bill also contains several 
provisions that would seriously undermine our efforts to 
achieve nuclear arms control and prevent nuclear war. That goal 
has been a fundamental part of our national security since 
World War II. It is also the cornerstone of the international 
non-proliferation regime we are attempting to develop now to 
protect our security in the post-Cold War era and prevent 
nuclear conflict in the years ahead.
    One of the most objectionable aspects of the committee bill 
is its threat to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. 
Since the U.S. and the Soviet Union signed this landmark 
treaty, it has been a major part of U.S. nuclear arms control 
policy. By insuring that nuclear arsenals remain effective 
deterrents, the ABM Treaty has brought stability to the nuclear 
relationship for the past quarter century.
    Some believe that the end of the Cold War and the 
relaxation in military tensions between the U.S. and the 
nations of the former Soviet Union have made the ABM Treaty 
obsolete. But the nature of nuclear weapons and their massive 
destructive power has not changed. To discard the ABM Treaty 
would harm the U.S.-Russian strategic relationship, and 
jeopardize the opportunity for further arms control progress 
between the two strongest nuclear powers.
    In spite of this plain rationale, the committee has 
produced a bill that takes initial steps to deploy a multi-site 
national missile defense, even though it would be a clear 
violation of the ABM Treaty, and even though the Secretary of 
Defense has testified that the United States faces no missile 
threats that would make this costly system a worthwhile 
investment in our national security. In unilaterally 
undermining the ABM Treaty, we would start spending billions of 
dollars to deploy a defense against potential enemies whose 
missiles cannot reach our shores. Clearly, there are more 
responsible ways to spend scarce defense dollars, and to deal 
with threats of nuclear attack and nuclear terrorism.
    The committee bill ignores an important characteristic of 
the ABM Treaty--its built-in adaptability to changing military 
realities. The treaty allows the signatories to deploy theater 
missile defenses, and U.S. development of such defenses is 
yielding systems that may have significant capability to defeat 
strategic offensive missiles. As a result, the Clinton 
Administration has entered into negotiations with Russia to 
determine which systems will be permitted under the ABM Treaty. 
In addition, the treaty provides for updates to maintain its 
relevance by discussions and clarifications through the 
Standing Consultative Commission, through amendments negotiated 
at treaty-mandated 5-year review conferences, or through 
special negotiating sessions.
    The bill, however, contains an unjustifiable provision that 
prevents the effective negotiation of any boundary between 
theater and strategic defensive systems. This provision would 
deny the President the power to negotiate this clarification of 
the treaty in a way that will best serve our national security. 
By attempting to achieve by legislative mandate what the 
President should negotiate, the committee is undercutting the 
basic constitutional allocation of treaty-making powers between 
the President and Congress. Rather than giving the President 
the flexibility to negotiate this kind of all-important issue, 
Congress would be legislating a negotiating position while 
negotiations are underway. This step sets a dangerous general 
precedent for the future, and could result in the collapse of 
the ABM Treaty.
    The committee bill also fails to give adequate support to 
one of the President's most important aspects of our foreign 
policy--his commitment to achieve a comprehensive ban on 
nuclear tests. His recent success in obtaining international 
agreement for a permanent extension of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty is one of the administration's most 
important achievements. In securing this extension, the 
administration made a commitment to seek a comprehensive ban on 
nuclear tests as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of 
1996. Many of the nations that initially opposed permanent 
extension of the NPT eventually agreed to the extension, 
provided that the nuclear powers move expeditiously to 
negotiate and sign a nuclear test ban.
    By adding funds to support U.S. nuclear tests, and by 
asserting that these tests are necessary to ensure the safety 
and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the committee 
undermines that commitment and ignores the views of many 
experts that our present technology is clearly sufficient to 
guarantee a safe and reliable nuclear arsenal without further 
U.S. nuclear tests of any size. A Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 
is an essential part of international nuclear non-proliferation 
efforts, and therefore an essential part of the all-important 
goal of preventing nuclear war. Congress should support the 
President's effort to achieve this goal, not undermine it.

                                                 Edward M. Kennedy.
                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. GLENN

    As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Readiness, I 
supported the majority of the recommendations adopted in this 
bill but I must express my concern over some of the funding 
decisions made in the Subcommittee and adopted by the Full 
Committee. I supported the bill, particularly the increases 
made in the areas of Depot Maintenance, Real Property 
Maintenance and Base Operations. I agree that these actions are 
necessary to maintain the so-called ``near term'' readiness of 
armed forces.
    My concerns relate to the proposals to eliminate or reduce 
funding for a number of programs requested in the President's 
budget. For example, the Subcommittee proposed to eliminate or 
reduce funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, 
Arms Control Implementation, Civil Military Cooperative Action 
programs, Junior ROTC, the Defense Acquisition University 
Scholarship program, Humanitarian Assistance, Overseas Disaster 
Relief, Weather Reconnaissance, the Civil Air Patrol and 
Security for the 1996 Olympics.
    While funding for all of these programs was requested in 
the President's budget, elimination of funding or reductions in 
funding to these programs was proposed at the Subcommittee 
either because they were considered to be lower priority 
programs or because the programs were considered ``non-
defense'' defense spending that did not contribute sufficiently 
to our war fighting capabilities.
    In many cases, the Subcommittee's rationale for proposing 
reductions was that the function performed by DOD would more 
properly be performed by another agency of government. My 
concern is that when the budget resolution cuts domestic 
discretionary spending by $10 billion and increases defense 
spending by $7 billion, the likely consequence of eliminating 
DOD funding without making provision for the programs elsewhere 
in the budget is tantamount to outright elimination of those 
programs.
    I was pleased that funding for the majority of these 
programs, particularly those programs that fell within the 
jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee, was restored by the 
Full Committee. I note, however, that funding for DOD 
participation in two important programs, Humanitarian 
Assistance and Overseas Disaster Relief, was eliminated.
    Certainly every effort must be made to insure that taxpayer 
dollars are well spent. The programs outlined above were 
requested by the President and have received bipartisan support 
in Congress in the past. They are not ``added'' programs or 
``earmarked'' funding.
    In my judgement, before we eliminate an ongoing program 
that is in the budget and which has received bipartisan 
support, we need to ask the following questions:
          (1) is this an important federal government function?
          (2) if so, would immediate termination of DOD funding 
        disrupt an important government function?
          (3) does the program contribute to or degrade DOD 
        capabilities?
          (4) does it make operational and budgetary sense for 
        civilian agencies to develop a duplicative capability?
          (5) if the capability is to remain with DOD, but the 
        function is within the responsibility of another 
        agency, should we ensure that the other agency has 
        sufficient funding to pay DOD for its costs?
          (6) if either the operational or funding 
        responsibility is to be transferred to a civilian 
        agency, what transitional provisions are needed in 
        terms of time and funding?
    In many cases, DOD may have unique capabilities to perform 
functions that would be very costly to duplicate in the 
civilian sector. The Committee implicitly recognized DOD's 
unique capabilities in one area by funding aerial and sea 
surveillance operations for the drug interdiction program. This 
program has little direct relevance to DOD's war fighting 
capability, yet the Committee provided over $800 million for 
DOD's role in the counterdrug effort.
    To exclude DOD from participating in other legitimate 
federal functions when DOD may be the best suited to perform 
the function simply because the activity does not directly 
involve war fighting, would be wasteful in my view. I am 
hopeful that the question of funding for DOD's participation in 
the Humanitarian Assistance and Overseas Disaster Relief 
programs can be revisited before passage of the final version 
of the bill.
    I also regret that the Committee chose not to use some of 
the additional $7 billion it received from the budget 
resolution to fund our Fiscal Year 1996 current and ongoing 
``Southern Watch,'' ``Provide Comfort,'' ``Deny Flight,'' 
``Sharp Guard'' and ``Provide Promise'' operations in Iraq and 
Bosnia. Secretary Perry wrote to the Committee to request that 
these operations, with an estimated FY 1996 cost of $1.2 
billion, be funded with the additional funds the Committee 
received.
    Even though these kinds of requests are normally considered 
through a supplemental funding request, I believe the Committee 
missed an opportunity to avoid future funding problems. 
Ignoring these costs now under the assumption that they will be 
funded through a supplemental 6 months from now will degrade 
our near term readiness because these operations will be 
financed out of the Operations & Maintenance accounts until a 
supplemental is approved. Moreover, if offsets are required, 
there is a good chance it will adversely affect the increases 
proposed in the modernization accounts because those increases 
will likely be used to pay for the costs of the supplemental.
    I question the Committee's recommendation to change active 
duty obligation for our military service academy graduates from 
six to five years. Since 1991, when the obligation requirement 
was raised from five to six years, all three academies have met 
their recruiting goals without lowering their acceptance 
standards. To change a policy that would lower our ``return on 
investment''--we currently budget over $1 billion each year for 
military service academies--seems ill-advised.
    I also have serious concerns over other actions taken by 
the Committee that I will address in further detail when the 
bill comes to the floor. First, the bill requires the United 
States to deploy a multiple-site national ballistic missile 
defense network by the year 2003, an action that would violate 
the ABM Treaty. Second, the bill requires ``preparations to 
commence'' explosive hydronuclear testing, an action that will 
serve only to frustrate the achievement of a Comprehensive 
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and to erode international support for 
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Third, the Committee 
majority has slashed the Department of Energy's budget request 
for arms control and nonproliferation verification activities. 
And fourth, the bill provides new funds for plutonium 
reprocessing activities.

                                                        John Glenn.
                   ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. LIEBERMAN

    This bill represents the concerted efforts of a Senate 
committee to do what is best for our nation and our national 
security. I am proud to have been part of this work and 
appreciate the leadership that the Chairman and Ranking Member 
of the Committee as well as the Subcommittee Chairmen and 
Ranking Members demonstrated throughout the process of writing 
the bill. I support this bill and believe, in particular, that 
the provisions pertaining to the maintenance of a strong and 
viable submarine industrial base serve the national interest. I 
am concerned, however, that report language could lead one to 
believe that military requirements were not adequately 
considered in the decision to authorize the third Seawolf, SSN-
23.
    It is undeniable that the Cold War is over and that the US 
military must adjust--and is already adjusting--to a changing 
security environment. The Navy's submarine forces have been at 
the forefront of this adjustment; attack submarine levels are 
being cut by 50 percent and submarine construction by 90 
percent. I fear that we have cut too much and too fast, since 
in the realm of submarine capabilities there are major 
certainties at work. Today, Russia has in the water about six 
submarines with fourth-generation quieting technology. 
Approximately the same number are under construction. These are 
facts that are generally agreed upon by the entire US 
intelligence community. I will focus later on differences that 
the General Accounting Office asserted exist among US 
intelligence agencies. There is no disagreement that these very 
quiet submarines are at sea today and more are under 
construction.
    Building the SSN-23 represents the most critical and timely 
contribution the US can make to address both the Russian 
challenge and the expanded threat of highly capable diesel 
submarines armed with ``smart'' standoff weapons. Much focus 
has been placed on the force level requirement for quiet 
submarines set for 2012 by the Joint Staff. This requirement is 
for 10 to 12 advanced generation submarines that possess 
Seawolf-level quieting. There are equally valid military 
requirements for new generation submarines in the time period 
prior to 2012.
    In a June 19, 1995 letter to the Congress, the Secretary of 
Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff described 
the critical near-term military need for the SSN-23, saying:
          ``Cancellation [of the SSN-23] would deprive our 
        armed forces of a needed military capability to counter 
        the growing number of deployed improved AKULA class 
        submarines which are quieter than our improved 688 
        attack submarines.''
This concern reflects the fact that Russian submarine building 
did not taper off as anticipated in 1993. The fact is that the 
threat is evolving in such a manner that submarines like the 
Seawolf will become even more important to national defense in 
the future than they were during the Cold War. Our submarine 
construction program must introduce our newest generation 
submarines at a rate that counters this military challenge. By 
endorsing the Navy's submarine building plan, Secretary Perry 
and General Shalikashvili acknowledge the pivotal role the SSN-
23 plays as a warfighting, as well as an industrial, bridge to 
the New Attack Submarine class.
    Completing SSN-23 leverages over $920 million already 
invested in specialized Seawolf components, delivers to the US 
Navy the best submarine in the world and does so at the lowest 
cost of any submarine we could buy before the end of the 
century. SSN-23 is also the critical link in executing the two 
nuclear-capable shipyard policy--a policy that supports cost 
control. But beyond the preservation of the industrial base, 
sound business practices and preserving long-term competition, 
completing the third Seawolf satisfies compelling military 
requirements in preserving our maritime superiority.
    A second issue to which I have already referred is the 
question of disagreement among intelligence community estimates 
on the nature of the submarine threat facing the United States. 
The General Accounting Office has indicated that there is a 
significant disagreement. This is a distortion of the consensus 
on the nature of what confronts the submarine force of the 
future.
    There is no disagreement that the Russian Navy has a number 
of Improved AKULA-class submarines in the water today that are 
quieter at tactical operating speeds than the best submarine 
currently in the US inventory.
    There is also no disagreement that the Russian navy is 
returning to submarine operating patterns last seen in the mid-
1980s. While Russian surface operations have been radically 
curtailed, we are observing deployments of a submarine force 
capable of world-wide operations once again. This includes 
operations in the Western Atlantic.
    Finally, there is no disagreement that the Russian Navy has 
laid down and will launch in the next year or so the lead ship 
of a new class of submarines which will be even quieter than 
the AKULA, better armed and with improved sensors. The lead 
ship has been named the Severodvinsk, the first true multi-
mission submarine in the Russian inventory. All our 
intelligence agencies agree on the design and capabilities of 
this very sophisticated class of submarines.
    The underlying reality is that the Russian political and 
military leadership seems to have decided that they want to 
keep Russia a global military power. In order to do so, they 
can scale down many military capabilities and programs, but 
there are several key components critical to military power 
that must be maintained and expanded. Leading this list is 
submarines.
    The disagreement which exists among intelligence agencies 
is at the margin. It is about the capability of the Russians to 
continue to build these advanced submarines at the present 
rate. Some analysts say that they will continue to build at 
demonstrated production rates--thus giving them sixteen or more 
high-quality submarines in the first decade of the next 
century. Other analysts, taking a more optimistic view, believe 
economic difficulties will force the Russians to curtail their 
production rates--perhaps producing only a dozen. The 
disagreement is, thus, by what ratio will US submarine forces 
be outnumbered over the next fifteen years?
    I feel compelled to make a final comment on the compromise 
language which has been developed for competing the next class 
of submarines to be produced in this country--the New Attack 
Submarine. I agree with the report language accompanying this 
bill that ``competition in shipbuilding is an effective means 
to minimize cost to the government.'' Such competition must be 
rigorous and real--based on the whole range of factors which 
would normally be considered by any buyer about to make a major 
purchase. The price offered must be a reasonable and realistic 
price which provides taxpayers the best value for their dollar 
and delivers the product with the quality which has been 
contracted for according to the agreed upon schedule.
    The bill language which directs the Secretary of the Navy 
to ensure such a competition for the New Attack Submarine, in 
my view, recognizes the importance of these principles. It is 
with this understanding that this language has my full support.

                                               Joseph I. Lieberman.
                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. BRYAN

    While I supported reporting the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense 
Authorization bill to the Senate, I feel it is important to 
express my deep concerns related to certain provisions 
contained in the legislation.
    The Department of Energy is currently undergoing an 
extensive review of the best way to fill our tritium production 
needs into the next century. There is broad agreement that this 
issue must be urgently addressed to maintain the United States' 
nuclear deterrence capability.
    There are differing views regarding the best and most cost-
effective technology for tritium production. Scientists at the 
Department of Energy are in the process of identifying the best 
technology, whether it be accelerator or reactor, as well as 
determining the best site for tritium production.
    I am concerned that this legislation attempts to prejudge 
the appropriate technology, while also delaying the date when a 
final technology decision can be made. By requiring further 
studies beyond the extensive studies currently being undertaken 
by the Department of Energy, and by directing tritium 
production funding to two separate technologies, this bill 
could put at risk our readiness to produce tritium when it is 
needed. We should not be tying the hands of the Department of 
Energy on an issue of this importance.
    I also do not support report language in this legislation 
stating that the best site for tritium production would be the 
site with tritium recycling infrastructure. The Department of 
Energy has identified five potential sites for tritium 
production, and this legislation is certainly not the best 
place to determine which site is most appropriate, given the 
wide variety of issues that must be taken into account. I 
personally feel the Nevada Test Site would be the best site for 
a tritium production accelerator. The Nevada Test Site has a 
long history of supporting the nation's nuclear deterrent, and 
producing tritium for the enduring stockpile is consistent with 
the history and appropriate for the ongoing mission of the NTS.

                                                  Richard H. Bryan.
                  MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN

    The FY 1996 Defense Authorization bill reported by the 
Armed Services Committee is out of step with the priorities of 
the Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense and the President. 
The bill funds numerous programs in excess of national security 
requirements, leaves ongoing military operations without 
dedicated funding, and adopts policy actions that could 
endanger our security by provoking proliferation and 
undermining arms reduction agreements.

                             pentagon waste

    There is no sudden, increased threat to justify the hefty 
boost of over $7 billion dollars in defense spending above the 
President's request. While other agencies are taking sharp cuts 
in high-priority programs, the Committee has failed to act to 
cut wasteful spending at the Pentagon despite substantial 
evidence to support significant reductions in overhead.
    The Committee heard testimony that DOD cannot properly 
match its disbursements with its obligations, and the GAO found 
``substantial risk that (1) fraudulent or erroneous payments 
may be made without being detected.'' The DOD itself has 
determined that it has about $30 billion in ``problem 
disbursements''. The DOD Inspector General estimates that every 
year DOD pays private contractors approximately $500 million 
that it does not owe them; GAO estimates that figure to be 
closer to $750 million. The DOD Inspector General estimates 
that in the last eight years, DOD has ordered some $7 billion 
worth of goods and services beyond the amount appropriated. And 
DOD is still spending approximately $20 billion each year on 
new supplies, a figure that has remained relatively constant 
for the last several years, even as force structure has 
declined substantially. Moreover, $1.7 billion of the $19.8 
billion FY 1996 request is for items that DOD admits are excess 
to its needs.
    The Governmental Affairs Oversight Subcommittee heard 
testimony that DOD could save $700 million each year processing 
travel vouchers if it adopted the average industry practices, 
and $800 million to $1 billion if it met private industry's 
best practices for processing travel vouchers.
    The Committee did not take action to fix these 
inefficiencies. As long as Congress keeps funding the 
department's inefficiencies, there is no incentive for DOD to 
make the necessary fixes.

                           Ongoing Operations

    While the bill provides billions of dollars for procurement 
programs not requested by the Pentagon or the President, it 
leaves unfunded over $1.1 billion in known expenses for ongoing 
military operations like the no-fly zones in Iraq and Bosnia 
and Cuban Refugee security activities. If this gap is not 
addressed in the final bill, the very readiness and training 
accounts that members of the Armed Services Committee have 
raised alarms about will be placed directly at risk.
    The Committee also refused to establish and fund a DOD 
requested fund for Contributions to International Peacekeeping, 
even though the Senate approved the exact same provision last 
year. Such a dedicated fund would further protect O&M readiness 
accounts from being temporarily utilized for near-term expenses 
of multinational peace operations in which U.S. combat forces 
participate.

                            Missile Defenses

    On no set of programs are the Committee's actions more 
objectionable than in the area of missile defenses and nuclear 
warhead activities. The Congress should reject the return to 
the Cold War and to ``Star Wars.''
    The bill makes it the policy of the United States to 
violate the ABM treaty, a cornerstone of our strategic security 
for 25 years, by moving ``to deploy * * * a multi-site national 
missile defense.'' This is not a question of interpretation; a 
multi-site national missile defense is explicitly prohibited by 
the treaty. This is a provocative move that could wreck the 
landmark arms reduction treaties achieved by President Bush, 
and spark a buildup of offensive weapons--the opposite of what 
we have been trying to achieve. As the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff General Shalikashvili wrote on June 28, in 
opposition to the bill's provisions: ``we must assume such 
unilateral U.S. States legislation could harm prospects for 
START II ratification by the Duma and probably impact our 
broader security relationship with Russia as well.''
    This program is in direct opposition to the current 
Congressional consensus for continuing research on NMD that is 
consistent with the ABM Treaty, while preserving the option to 
deploy if the threat increases, and seeking ABM Treaty 
understandings or changes that are mutually agreeable between 
the U.S. and Russia.
    There is no new danger of missile attack on the continental 
U.S. to justify the crash program for National Missile Defense 
contained in this bill. DIA Director General Clapper testified 
this year that ``we see no interest in or capability of any new 
country reaching the continental United States with a long 
range missile for at least the next decade.'' The bill nearly 
doubles funding for National Missile Defense (NMD), creating a 
highly-concurrent, rush deployment program. Deploying a multi-
site NMD system by 2003 will require tens of billions of 
dollars in the next five years, but the bill does not identify 
any source of these funds.
    The assault on the ABM Treaty is continued in the bill's 
provisions regarding Theater Missile Defenses. The Bill 
declares a unilateral interpretation of the ABM Treaty by 
asserting a demarcation between theater missile defense (TMD) 
systems (non-strategic) and ABM systems (strategic), and then 
declares that the ABM Treaty does not apply to ABM systems, 
``unless and until'' they are tested against strategic 
ballistic missile targets. Such tests are, of course, strictly 
prohibited by the ABM Treaty.
    The bill even goes so far as to say that the demarcation 
ceases to apply ``when'' a TMD system is tested against a 
strategic target. On a party line vote the committee rejected 
an amendment that would have prohibited the use of FY 96 funds 
to conduct such a Treaty-violating test. One can only conclude 
that the committee's majority members want to violate the ABM 
Treaty as early as possible.
    The bill prohibits the executive branch from adopting any 
other interpretation, even though this demarcation issue is the 
subject of ongoing discussions between the U.S. and Russia. In 
a further affront to the foreign policy-making powers of the 
Presidency, the legislation would effectively bar the 
administration from even discussing any alternative, let alone 
attempting to negotiate clarifications in that treaty with the 
Russians.
    The Senate once defeated an effort by the Reagan 
Administration to unilaterally reinterpret the ABM Treaty. This 
bill seeks the same result the Senate previously prevented.

                   Nuclear Weapons Production Complex

    In a return to Cold War policies, the bill also funds major 
initiatives to resume and expand nuclear weapons materials 
production and warhead manufacturing activities as if the Cold 
War had never ended, earmarking funds for facilities and 
projects that have not been requested by the administration. 
The bill also makes cuts in vital funding for arms control 
verification and non-proliferation research, and for 
safeguarding warheads that Russia is retiring.
    The Committee wants the U.S. to keep its entire stockpile 
of inactive reserve warheads--the same ones we have removed to 
comply with START I--ready to be redeployed on our missiles and 
bombers as a ``hedge'' against uncertainty in Russian arms 
control compliance or reductions. But Russia is ahead of the 
U.S. in its compliance with START I and shows every sign of 
continuing its good record. The Committee's action could 
instead jeopardize reductions in START I and START II that are 
a real source of security to the U.S.
    Today there are fewer missiles and warheads in the former 
Soviet Union capable of being launched at the U.S. than during 
the past 15 years. That number will decline dramatically with 
the entry into force and implementation of START II. But the 
Committee would reverse all these security gains and return us 
to the dangers of the Cold War for no reason. The bill also 
includes funding for hydronuclear tests that the administration 
did not request, a provocative move at this sensitive moment in 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty negotiations, when the U.S. is 
trying to dissuade tests by other countries and conclude a 
final treaty to halt testing.
    The basic premise of these funding increases and policy 
changes is flawed. The safety and reliability of our nuclear 
deterrent is being maintained, and can be maintained in the 
future without nuclear weapons tests. If safety problems arise 
with a warhead that remains in the stockpile, current law 
allows the President to certify that tests are required to 
install safety devices in it. But no such problem has been 
discovered. In 1992 we had Congressional testimony that the Air 
Force, Navy, DOD and DOE had all concluded ``that there is not 
now sufficient evidence to warrant our changing either warheads 
or propellants'' in a warhead because of safety concerns. There 
has been no testimony to the contrary.
    Some of our best scientists have concluded that we do not 
need to conduct small ``hydronuclear'' tests. In August 1994, 
DOE and DOD's scientific advisory group, JASON, concluded that:
          Since hydronuclear tests would be potentially more 
        valuable to proliferants * * * it would be in our 
        national interests to forego them.
          The very limited added value of hydronuclear tests * 
        * * have to be weighed against costs, and against the 
        impact of continuing an underground testing program at 
        the Nevada Test Site on U.S. non-proliferation goals. 
        On balance we oppose hydronuclear testing.
    Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary testified to the Armed 
Services Committee earlier this year that she agrees with those 
conclusions. By pushing such tests, the Committee threatens to 
undercut President Clinton's strong policy against nuclear 
testing and for effective curbs on nuclear proliferation.

                            Other Provisions

    The Committee also earmarked funding for equipment that the 
National Guard did not request, instead of following the 
current Senate practice of providing funding in broad, generic 
categories to meet the priorities of the Guard and Reserve. 
This reversal of a ``good government'' practice will result in 
equipment purchases driven by individual state or district 
interests of particular Members of Congress. It is an example 
of bad government and does not serve the national interest.
    I am concerned about the efficacy and wisdom of a new 
Defense Modernization Account established by this bill. 
Although I agree with the motive behind this effort, creating 
an additional incentive for the services to generate savings 
from efficient program management, this method is unfair and 
could be abused. No other department of government is allowed 
to keep unobligated balances that would otherwise expire, and 
then use those funds to procure items or services that Congress 
has not expressly authorized. And although this new account is 
crafted to try to avoid a repeat of the abuses of the DOD ``M'' 
accounts, I believe the protections are inadequate. The laws 
Congress has passed establishing new buying practices and 
requiring more efficient procurement should provide all the 
incentive needed. If programs can be completed for less money, 
Congress should authorize less money, or rescind unobligated 
balances and return funds to the treasury.
    The Committee did take some important actions to improve 
the bill, removing over $670 million in funding for additional 
B-2 bombers and F-16 aircraft not requested by the Pentagon. 
The Committee also voted against a provision that would have 
prohibited women in the military stationed overseas from 
getting abortions in military hospitals with their own money. 
But these improvements do not outweigh my disappointment in the 
Committee's action on the overall measure.

                                                        Carl Levin.
                     MINORITY VIEWS OF MR. BINGAMAN

    It was not lightly that I cast my first vote in thirteen 
years against a defense authorization bill prepared by the 
Armed Services Committee. But this bill is by far the worst in 
those thirteen years both in its substance and in the process 
by which it was put together.
    If one looks for unifying themes in the committee's 
actions, three are clear: first, bringing back the Cold War if 
at all possible, second, pork, and third, stealing from the 
future. In some cases, such as the Department of Energy's 
defense programs budget, all three themes come together in a 
particularly stark fashion.

                          revival of cold war

    Recently President Yeltsin submitted the START II Treaty to 
the Duma for its consent to ratification. How will this bill 
``help'' in the process of winning Russian approval of START 
II? Let us count a few of the ways: the bill commits the United 
States to deploying a multi-site anti-ballistic missile (ABM) 
defense by 2003 (with an interim capability by 1999) in 
violation of the ABM Treaty and adds hundreds of millions of 
dollars in pursuit of that goal; the bill revives the space-
based chemical laser program in the mistaken hope that this 
will allow the United States to dominate space in the long run 
while providing a second layer of missile defense; the bill 
unilaterally resolves the theater missile defense (TMD) 
demarcation line currently under negotiation with the Russians 
by defining TMDs as those defenses tested against targets 
traveling less than five kilometers/second or against targets 
with a range of less than 3500 kilometers; the bill limits the 
President's ability to retire strategic weapons systems before 
START II is ratified; the bill proposes a nuclear weapons 
manufacturing complex sized to meet the needs of a hedge 
stockpile far above the active START II stockpile of 3500 
weapons; and the bill proposes to resume hydronuclear testing 
(with yields up to hundreds of tons of TNT). The actions by our 
``conservatives'' will undoubtedly play into the hands of 
Russian ``conservatives'' bent on unraveling START II and other 
arms control efforts. The only thing attempting to be conserved 
by this transnational alliance of convenience is the Cold War, 
the end of which has been problemmatic for what President 
Eisenhower termed the military-industrial complexes of both 
nations. The provisions in the bill entitled ``the Missile 
Defense Act of 1995'' would alone justify a Presidential veto 
of this bill.

                         readiness a priority?

    The committee had $7 billion to spend above the President's 
request thanks to the budget resolution conference report 
passed as the committee was marking up the defense bill. This 
is the first time in my thirteen years on the committee that 
the committee was marking above a Presidential request.
    One might have expected the additional funds to be used to 
address the long litany of ``readiness'' problems which 
Republicans have employed as a justification for adding funds 
to the defense budget while drastically cutting back the rest 
of government in pursuit of a balanced budget. Yet the 
Readiness Subcommittee received no net additional funding. All 
of the additions in real property maintenance, base operations, 
and other readiness accounts made by the subcommittee were 
offset by reductions in spending for activities not deemed 
defense enough, such as humanitarian assistance, foreign 
disaster relief, and the Civil Air Patrol.
    Secretary Perry told the committee that his highest 
priority for additional funding was $1.2 billion to cover the 
expected costs of four ongoing military operations: Enhanced 
Southern Watch in southern Iraq, Provide Comfort in northern 
Iraq, Cuban refugee support at Guantanamo, and Bosnia 
(Operations Sharp Guard, Deny Flight and Provide Promise). 
These are bills which we know we will have to pay, if not now, 
then in a supplemental appropriation later. No one in Congress 
is attempting to end these operations with the possible 
exception of Bosnia. But even in the case of Bosnia we face far 
higher costs under all of the alternative options being put 
forward. So Secretary Perry's request for Bosnia operations 
($363 million of the $1.2 billion total) is a floor on the 
likely costs in fiscal year 1996.
    If readiness were indeed a central goal of the committee, 
one might have expected that paying these bills would be the 
first thing the committee would address. By doing so we would 
be preventing the inevitable raiding of the operations and 
maintenance accounts until a supplemental is passed next year. 
Instead, the committee allocated only $125 million to the 
Secretary's highest priority for additional funding, enough to 
cover about one tenth of the FY96 costs. Even this small amount 
would have been lost had Senator McCain not blocked half of a 
list of $250 million in military construction add-ons which had 
been put together outside his oversight as subcommittee 
chairman. Unfortunately, the other half was approved.

                                  Pork

    Where did the $7 billion go if not to readiness? Aside from 
ballistic missile defense, it went largely to hardware of 
interest to members of the committee: for example, a $1.3 
billion amphibious assault ship, two Aegis cruisers bought on 
the installment plan, three different families of trucks, F/A-
18 fighters, a Navy variant of the F-117 stealth attack plane, 
Apache, Kiowa, CH-53 and Comanche helicopters, a National Guard 
package of specific weapons system earmarks totaling more than 
$750 million, and last, but not least, an attack submarine deal 
which Senator McCain has called ``submarines for everybody.''
    Taxpayers are demanding that Congress reduce the federal 
deficit. That has been the first priority in Washington since 
this Congress convened. Needless to say, there will be many 
options available during floor debate on this bill to 
contribute to deficit reduction rather than ``weapons for 
everybody'' to extrapolate my Arizona colleague's phraseology 
to cover the whole bill.

                      Train Wreck in Future Years

    The current bonanza of weapons system add-ons cannot be 
sustained in future year budgets. The military draw-down called 
for in the Bottom Up Review is almost over. Adequately paying, 
housing and training 1.45 million active duty service members 
in future years will require ever greater expenditures for 
personnel, military construction and operations and maintenance 
and further squeeze the procurement and research budgets.
    Defense experts of both parties have pointed to a train 
wreck in the defense budget before the end of the decade. 
Either the Bottom Up Review force structure, driven by the need 
to fight and win two nearly simultaneous major regional 
contingencies, will have to be sharply reduced (and its 
planning assumptions modified) or modernization funds will dry 
up.
    The committee is silent on this fundamental tradeoff we 
will soon be facing. If the committee's priority really is 
``weapons systems for everybody,'' then the committee should be 
honest about the necessity for another drawdown to the 1.0 
million active duty level Daniel Goure of the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies testified would be needed 
or the 1.2 million level Andrew Krepinevich of the Defense 
Budget Project estimated would be needed to restore balance 
between force structure and modernization.

                        Research not a Priority

    One area that clearly is not a priority for the committee 
is long-term research. This is another example of not planning 
for the future. Research was not mentioned in the list of 
priorities handed out by the chairman of the committee before 
the mark-up. Accordingly, the Acquisition and Technology 
Subcommittee was the only subcommittee to be assigned a 
reduction from the President's budget. The reduction was over 
$300 million.
    It is as if the committee is taking our lead in technology 
for granted at precisely the time when we can least afford such 
hubris. Critical military and dual-use technologies are 
inevitably spreading around the globe, driven increasingly by 
the commercial marketplace. Many nations, most notably Japan, 
Germany and other western European countries, approach us in 
scientific and technological competence. Russia has long been a 
scientific leader held back by its industrial infrastructure. 
Within a decade or two, many other nations, such as China and 
India, could join us at the leading edge of science and 
technology.
    The Revolution in Military Affairs is being driven by 
technology, but we have no monopoly on the critical 
technologies underlying that revolution as we did for much of 
the Cold War period. Cutting funding for the Pentagon's science 
and technology base from a request that was itself a 
significant cut from the previous year is the wrong thing to be 
doing. It is unfortunately consistent with the low priority 
being afforded research and development by the Congressional 
budget resolution in the civilian agencies as well. We will not 
long remain a superpower in the twenty-first century if we 
cripple federal research investments.
    The Technology Reinvestment Project took much of the cut 
allocated to the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee. The 
cut in this competitive, cost-shared effort to leverage the 
private sector's much larger investments in technologies 
critical to the Pentagon makes no sense, particularly in light 
of the lavish spending elsewhere in the bill for pork.

                 Department of Energy Budget a Disaster

    It is hard to know where to begin in listing the problems 
with the committee's mark for the Department of Energy's 
defense activities. The proposal put before the Strategic 
Subcommittee in mark-up was alarming to say the least. In the 
course of full committee deliberations the absolutely worst 
elements of the package--for example, an annual cap of 1000 on 
dismantling obsolete nuclear weapons at Pantex and a ban on 
paying political appointees out of DOE defense program funds--
were removed. But much that was dismaying remained in the bill 
as reported.
    There is nothing in the committee's hearing record to 
support the changes made by the committee in the DOE budget 
request. Typically the record strongly supports the 
administration's proposals. Yet the committee in case after 
case substituted its judgement for that of technical experts 
and weapons laboratory directors and short-circuited ongoing 
decision-making processes in the executive branch designed to 
reach informed decisions.
     The bill includes provisions on tritium production and 
plutonium disposition which mandate a multi-purpose reactor 
solution to these problems. The tritium production provision 
would allow research on accelerator production of tritium only 
if a $25 million reactor program, carried through engineering 
design, were first initiated. The plutonium disposition 
provision earmarks an additional $25 million for the reactor 
program for a total of $50 million. It is clear that these 
provisions are intended to preempt executive branch decisions 
in the ongoing programmatic environmental impact statements on 
these subjects. The bill thus attempts to block any decisions 
favoring an accelerator approach to tritium production and an 
alternative approach to plutonium disposition, perhaps along 
the lines of the National Academy of Sciences (Panofsky panel) 
recommendations.
    The bill includes a provision mandating tritium recycling 
be carried out at Savannah River and limiting Los Alamos to 
research activities. The bill adds $12.2 million to initiate a 
tritium recycling at Savannah River to implement the 
committee's decision. Again these actions are designed to 
preempt executive branch decision-making on this matter through 
the stockpile stewardship programmatic environmental impact 
statement (PEIS) currently underway.
    The bill includes a series of provisions on nuclear weapons 
manufacturing capabilities that are fundamentally flawed. These 
provisions are premised on the unfounded notions that the 
science-based stockpile stewardship program, carefully 
developed over the past two years by the DOE Defense Programs 
Office and currently being further developed in the PEIS, will 
provide insufficient manufacturing capability and that the 
program's focus on maintaining competence and capabilities at 
the laboratories is wrong.
    The bill's weapons manufacturing provisions specifically 
exclude the laboratories from the manufacturing infrastructure, 
specifically assume that the present design lifetimes for 
nuclear weapons cannot be extended, and specifically earmark 
funds for a series of projects whose full costs are unknown, 
but will certainly run well over a billion dollars. Notable 
among these is a weapon primary pit refabrication/manufacturing 
and reuse facility at Savannah River. Overall, about $350 
million was added for this stockpile management initiative 
laden with pork and built on a foundation unsupported by any 
testimony or thoughtful analysis.
    The committee did not stop there in its assault on the 
laboratories and the stockpile stewardship program. It 
proceeded to eliminate the laboratory-directed research and 
development (LDRD) program and the technology partnership 
program. The LDRD program, under which the laboratory directors 
use up to six percent of their budgets to fund basic research, 
produces 60 percent of the published research papers of lab 
scientists. It is the essential tool by which the laboratories 
renew themselves and attract and retain the world-class people 
needed to ensure the safety and reliability of the enduring 
nuclear weapons stockpile. The technology partnership program 
is critical to achieving the goals of the stockpile stewardship 
program in areas ranging from advanced computation to 
electronics to materials and manufacturing. With few 
exceptions, it differs from the core weapons R&D program only 
in its leveraging of private sector R&D investments.
    The elimination of these programs will cripple the 
laboratories' ability to carry out their central roles in 
ensuring the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons 
stockpile. The bill talks of the need for ``absolute 
assurance'' of the safety and reliability of the stockpile. One 
wonders how weakening the laboratories and driving out their 
best people will contribute to achieving this goal.
    The committee also cut funding for arms control 
verification and nonproliferation research by $63 million and 
funding for putting Russian nuclear weapons material under 
better safeguards and security by $15 million. These cuts are 
striking in light of the seriousness of the problems we face in 
these areas. It is clear that they were made to pay for the 
stockpile management initiative. Reducing the nuclear danger 
through these programs lost out to building up excess nuclear 
weapons manufacturing capacity.
    The committee increased funding for hydronuclear testing 
(and contemplates testing of devices with yields up to hundreds 
of tons of TNT) while simultaneously admitting that it does not 
understand the costs and benefits of such testing and requiring 
a report on that matter. Obviously, this is not the ideal way 
to make decisions on an issue with such profound consequences. 
Unfortunately, this make-decisions-now, get-the-facts-later 
approach is consistent with the decision-making throughout the 
DOE title of the bill.

                               Conclusion

    The test for whether I can support a defense authorization 
bill is whether on balance it advances our nation's security. 
This bill, as reported by the committee, does not meet that 
test. The nation would be better off if it did not become law.
    Reviving the Cold War and ``weapons for everybody'' are not 
the appropriate foundation for a twenty-first century security 
policy for this country. Because this bill is flawed in so many 
dimensions, it will undoubtedly require extensive debate and 
numerous amendments when it comes before the full Senate. I 
look forward to participating in that debate and offering some 
of those amendments.

                                                     Jeff Bingaman.

                                
