[Senate Report 104-267]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 402
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                SENATE    
 2d Session                                                     104-267
_______________________________________________________________________


 
          NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

                                 REPORT

                         [to accompany s. 1745]

                                   on

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 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 VIEWS

                               __________

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE




                  May 13, 1996.--Ordered to be printed


         NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997


                                                       Calendar No. 402
104th Congress                                                   Report
                               SENATE 
 2d Session                                                     104-267
_______________________________________________________________________



                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                       ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

                                 REPORT

                         [to accompany s. 1745]

                                   on

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 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 VIEWS

                               __________

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE




                  May 13, 1996.--Ordered to be printed
  

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

   (104th Congress, 2d 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
   Les Brownlee, Staff Director
 Arnold L. Punaro, Staff Director 
         for the Minority
  


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Purpose of the bill..............................................     1
Committee overview and recommendations...........................     2
Explanation of funding summary...................................     4

            Division A--Department of Defense Authorization

Title I--Procurement.............................................    11
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................    12
        Section 107. Chemical demilitarization program...........    12
            Chemical Demilitarization Program....................    12
    Subtitle B--Army Programs....................................    13
        Section 112. Army assistance for chemical 
          demilitarization citizens advisory commissions.........    24
    Other Army Programs..........................................    24
        Army aircraft............................................    24
            C-XX medium range aircraft...........................    24
            AH-64 Apache modifications...........................    24
            CH-47 modifications..................................    24
            AH-64D attack helicopter.............................    25
            OH-58D Kiowa Warrior.................................    25
            Aircraft survivability equipment.....................    25
        Army missile.............................................    25
            Javelin medium anti-tank weapon......................    25
            Multiple Launch Rocket System rocket.................    26
            Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) launcher........    26
            Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)................    26
            Patriot modifications................................    27
            Stinger missile modifications........................    27
            Avenger modifications................................    27
            TOW modifications....................................    27
            Dragon missile.......................................    28
        Weapons and tracked combat vehicles......................    28
            Bradley fighting vehicle.............................    28
            Field artillery ammunition support vehicle (FAASV)...    28
            Carrier modifications (M113).........................    28
            M109A6 Paladin.......................................    29
            Field artillery ammunition supply vehicle (FAASV) 
              product improvement program (PIP) to fleet.........    29
            Improved Recovery Vehicle............................    29
            M1 Abrams tank (modifications).......................    29
            Small arms programs..................................    30
        Army ammunition..........................................    30
            Procurement of ammunition--Army......................    30
            Armament retooling and manufacturing support (ARMS)..    31
        Other army procurement...................................    31
            High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)...    31
            Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)............    31
            Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV).............    32
            Enhanced position location reporting system (EPLRS)..    32
            SINCGARS family......................................    32
            Army communications..................................    32
            All source analysis system (ASAS)....................    33
            Forward area air defense (FAAD) ground based sensor..    33
            Night vision devices.................................    33
            Advanced field artillery tactical data system 
              (AFATDS)...........................................    34
            Total distribution system............................    34
            Standard integrated command post system..............    34
            Inland petroleum distribution system.................    34
            Construction equipment, items less than $2.0 million.    35
            Base level communications equipment..................    35
    Subtitle C--Navy Programs....................................    36
        Section 121. EA-6B aircraft reactive jammer program......    53
        Section 122. Penguin missile program.....................    55
        Section 123. Nuclear attack submarine programs...........    56
        Section 124. Arleigh Burke class destroyer program.......    57
    Other Navy Programs..........................................    59
        Navy aircraft............................................    59
            AV-8B remanufacture..................................    59
            F/A-18C/D............................................    59
            MV-22................................................    59
            Flight simulators....................................    60
            Restoration of E-2C procurement......................    60
            Airborne self-protection jammer (ASPJ)...............    60
            Helicopter crash attenuating seats...................    61
            Vertical replenishment helicopter replacement program    61
            P-3 intelligence support.............................    61
            P-3C anti-surface warfare improvement program........    62
        Navy weapons.............................................    63
            Tomahawk land attack missile.........................    63
            Standard missile procurement.........................    64
        Navy and Marine Corps ammunition.........................    64
            Procurement of ammunition--Marine Corps..............    64
        Navy shipbuilding and conversion.........................    64
            Seawolf submarine....................................    64
            LPD-17 class amphibious ships........................    65
            Oceanographic survey ship............................    66
            SWATH oceanographic research ship....................    66
        Other Navy procurement...................................    66
            WSN-7 inertial navigation system.....................    66
            Mine warfare.........................................    67
            AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation radar.................    68
            Surface ship torpedo defense.........................    68
            Shipboard integrated communications system...........    69
            Challenge Athena.....................................    69
            Global broadcast.....................................    70
            Rolling air frame missile launcher for LSD-52........    71
            Afloat planning system...............................    71
            NULKA decoy development..............................    72
            Elevated causeway (modular)..........................    72
            Oceanographic equipment..............................    73
        Marine Corps Procurement.................................    73
            Marine Corps Javelin missile.........................    73
            AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar...........................    73
            Joint task force deployable communications support...    74
            Intelligence upgrades................................    74
            Telecommunications infrastructure....................    74
            Marine Corps combat operations centers...............    75
            Marine Corps common end user computer equipment......    75
            Mobility enhancements................................    75
            Multiple integrated laser engagement system..........    75
            Combat vehicle appended trainer (CVAT)...............    76
    Subtitle D--Air Force Programs...............................    77
        Section 131. Multiyear contracting authority for the C-17 
          aircraft program.......................................    88
    Other Air Force Programs.....................................    88
        Air Force aircraft.......................................    88
            B-2..................................................    88
            F-16.................................................    88
            C-17 airlift aircraft................................    89
            WC-130J acquisition..................................    89
            Joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS).......    90
            Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System 
              (JSTARS)...........................................    91
            B-1B bomb modules....................................    91
            SR-71................................................    91
            AWACS re-engining....................................    92
            Satellite communications terminals...................    92
            RC-135 re-engining...................................    92
            Rivet Joint technology transfer......................    92
            KC-135 simulators....................................    93
            Aircraft budget exhibits.............................    93
        Air Force missile........................................    93
            Precision guided munitions...........................    93
            Space boosters.......................................    94
        Air Force ammunition.....................................    94
            Procurement of ammunition--Air Force.................    94
        Other Air Force procurement..............................    95
            60K Loader...........................................    95
            Joint force air component commander situational 
              awareness system...................................    95
    Defense-Wide Programs........................................    96
        Defense-wide.............................................   101
            Common automatic recovery system.....................   101
            C-130 aircraft modifications.........................   101
            Advanced SEAL delivery system........................   101
            Special mission radio system.........................   102
            SCAMPI communications system.........................   102
            Briefcase multi-mission advanced tactical terminal...   102
            Procurement of ammunition--Special Operations........   102
        Other items of interest..................................   103
            Individual body armor................................   103
            Procurement of recycled ammunition...................   103
            C-130 remanufacture prototyping......................   104
            Predator UAV leasing.................................   104
            National Guard and Reserve procurement reports.......   105
Title II--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation............   107
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   111
        Section 203. Defense nuclear agency......................   111
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   113
        Section 211. Space launch modernization..................   113
        Section 212. Department of Defense Space Architect.......   113
        Section 213. Space-based infrared system program.........   113
        Section 214. Research for advanced submarine technology..   114
        Section 215. Clementine 2 micro-satellite development 
          program................................................   115
        Section 217. (Includes Sections 216 and 217) Defense 
          airborne reconnaissance program........................   115
        Section 218. Cost analysis of F-22 aircraft program......   118
        Section 219. F-22 aircraft program.......................   119
        Section 220. Nonlethal weapons and technologies programs.   120
        Section 221. Counterproliferation support program........   122
        Section 222. Federally funded research and development 
          centers and university-affiliated research centers.....   125
    Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense........................   125
        Section 231. United States compliance policy regarding 
          development, testing, and deployment of theater missile 
          defense systems........................................   125
        Section 232. Prohibition on use of funds to implement an 
          international agreement concerning theater missile 
          defense systems........................................   127
        Section 233. Conversion of ABM Treaty to multilateral 
          treaty.................................................   127
        Section 234. Funding for upper tier theater missile 
          defense systems........................................   127
        Section 235. Elimination of requirements for certain 
          items to be included in the annual report on the 
          ballistic missile defense program......................   128
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   128
        Section 241. Live-fire survivability testing of F-22 
          aircraft...............................................   128
        Section 242. Live-fire survivability testing of V-22 
          aircraft...............................................   128
    Subtitle E--National Oceanographic Partnership...............   128
        Section 252. Matters relating to oceanographic 
          partnership............................................   128
    Additional Matters...........................................   131
        Army.....................................................   131
            Basic research programs..............................   137
            High modulus polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber....   137
            Hardened materials...................................   137
            Liquid propellant technology.........................   137
            Military engineering technology......................   138
            Wave net technology..................................   138
            Nautilus/Tactical High Energy Laser Program..........   138
            Missile and rocket advanced technology...............   138
            Land mine detection technologies.....................   139
            Battle Integration Center............................   139
            Next tank research and development...................   139
            Night vision systems advanced development............   140
            Combat service support control system (CSSC).........   140
            Comanche helicopter..................................   140
            Javelin medium anti-tank weapon......................   141
            Heavy assault bridge.................................   141
            Air defense command, control, & intelligence (C2I)...   141
            Brilliant Anti-armor Technology (BAT) submunition....   142
            Longbow development/night vision systems.............   142
            High Energy Laser Systems Test Facility..............   142
            Combat vehicle improvement program...................   143
            Improved Cargo Helicopter............................   143
            Force XXI digitization...............................   143
            Air Defense Alerting Device (ADAD)...................   144
            Missile/air defense product improvement program......   144
            Other missile product improvement programs...........   144
            Force XXI initiatives................................   145
        Navy.....................................................   146
            Continuous wave superconducting radio frequency free 
              electron laser.....................................   152
            Power electronic building blocks.....................   152
            Materials, electronics and computer technology.......   152
            Undersea weapons technology..........................   152
            Navy affordability initiative........................   153
            Project M............................................   153
            Environmentally compliant torpedo fuel...............   153
            Integrated combat weapons system.....................   154
            Research for advanced submarine technology...........   154
            Submarine towed array processing software............   157
            Aircraft carrier research and development............   157
            Navy surface combatant...............................   158
            Intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine...........   158
            Advanced amphibious assault vehicle..................   159
            Lightweight 155MM howitzer program...................   159
            ``Smart Base'' technology demonstration..............   159
            Cooperative engagement capability....................   160
            Naval surface fire support...........................   160
            Strike missile evaluation............................   161
            Light airborne multi-purpose system helicopter 
              program............................................   162
            Joint maritime command information system/Navy 
              tactical command system-afloat.....................   162
            Smart Ship initiative................................   163
            Arsenal Ship.........................................   163
            AQS-20 airborne minehunting sonar....................   165
            Airborne mine detection systems......................   165
            Multi-purpose processor..............................   167
            Seawolf shock test...................................   167
            Infrared search and track............................   168
            Evolved sea sparrow missile..........................   168
            Quick reaction combat capability.....................   168
            Fixed distributed system-1...........................   169
            RDT&E science and technology management..............   169
            Sea Dragon initiative................................   169
            Nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine security.   169
            Joint tactical combat training system................   170
            CINCs'' technology initiative........................   170
            Medium tactical vehicle remanufacturing..............   170
            GEOSAT follow-on.....................................   170
            Manufacturing technology (MANTECH)...................   171
            Acquisition center of excellence.....................   172
        Air Force................................................   173
            Carbon/carbon nosetips...............................   179
            Ejection seat development............................   179
            Thermally stable jet fuels...........................   179
            High frequency active auroral research program.......   180
            Airborne laser program...............................   180
            National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental 
              Satellite System...................................   180
            Joint Advanced Strike Technology Program.............   181
            Hardened and deeply buried target technology 
              demonstration......................................   181
            B-1 bomber virtual umbilical device..................   181
            B-1B upgrades........................................   181
            Variable Stability In-Flight Simulator Test Aircraft 
              (VISTA)............................................   182
            Milstar automated communication management system....   182
            Global Positioning System............................   182
            Minuteman third stage upgrade........................   182
            Minuteman safety enhanced reentry vehicle............   183
            Rocket System Launch Program.........................   183
            Data links...........................................   183
            Theater Battle Management Core Systems (TBMCS).......   184
            Blade repair program.................................   184
        Defense-Wide.............................................   185
            Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive 
              research (DEPSCoR).................................   190
            Small low-cost interceptor device....................   190
            Hard carbon-based coatings...........................   190
            High temperature superconductivity...................   190
            Diamond substrates...................................   191
            Joint Department of Defense-Department of Energy 
              munitions..........................................   191
            Cruise missile defense funding.......................   191
            Large millimeter wave telescope......................   192
            Crown royal..........................................   193
            Thermophotovoltaics..................................   193
            Generic logistics R&D technology demonstrations......   193
            Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts (RAMP).......   193
            Integrated weapons system database...................   193
            High performance computing modernization.............   194
            Defense dual-use applications program................   194
            Non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare...................   195
            Fuel cells...........................................   196
            Commercial technology insertion program..............   196
            Ballistic missile defense funding and programmatic 
              guidance...........................................   196
            Data review and analysis monitoring aid..............   203
            Advanced SEAL delivery system........................   203
            M4A1 Carbine INOD, Special Operations Command........   204
            AC-130 aircraft enhancements, Special Operations 
              Command............................................   204
    Other Items of Interest......................................   204
        Battle group airborne anti-submarine warfare.............   204
        FFG-7 modernization......................................   205
        Integrated ship control systems..........................   205
        CV-22....................................................   207
        Parametric airborne dipping sonar........................   208
        National automotive center...............................   208
        National Solar Observatory...............................   209
        United States-Japan management training..................   209
        Totally integrated munitions enterprise (TIME)...........   209
        Strategic deterrent development capability...............   210
        Post-boost propulsion for strategic delivery systems.....   210
        Chemical-biological defense program......................   210
Title III--Operation and Maintenance.............................   215
    Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations..................   245
        Section 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile 
          Transaction Fund.......................................   245
        Section 305. Civil Air Patrol............................   245
        Section 306. SR-71 contingency reconnaissance force......   245
    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   245
        Section 311. Funding for second and third maritime 
          prepositioning ships out of National Defense Sealift 
          Fund...................................................   249
        Section 312. National Defense Sealift Fund...............   249
        Section 313. Nonlethal weapons capabilities..............   249
        Section 314. Restriction on Coast Guard funding..........   249
    Subtitle C--Depot-Level Activities...........................   249
        (Sections 321-330--Department of Defense depot 
          maintenance and repair services).......................   249
    Subtitle D--Environmental Provisions.........................   254
        Section 341. Establishment of separate environmental 
          restoration transfer accounts for each military 
          department.............................................   254
        Section 342. Defense contractors covered by requirement 
          for reports on contractor reimbursement costs for 
          response actions.......................................   254
        Section 343. Repeal of redundant notification and 
          consultation requirements regarding remedial 
          investigations and feasibility studies at certain 
          installations to be closed under the base closure laws.   255
        Section 344. Payment of certain stipulated civil 
          penalties..............................................   255
        Section 345. Authority to withhold listing of Federal 
          facilities on National Priorities List.................   256
        Section 346. Authority to transfer contaminated Federal 
          property before completion of required remedial actions   257
        Section 347. Clarification of meaning of uncontaminated 
          property for purposes of transfer by the United States.   258
        Section 348. Shipboard solid waste control...............   258
        Section 349. Cooperative agreements for the management of 
          cultural resources on military installations...........   260
        Section 350. Report on withdrawal of public lands at El 
          Centro Naval Air Facility, California..................   260
        Section 351. Use of hunting and fishing permit fees 
          collected at closed military reservations..............   260
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   260
        Section 361. Firefighting and security-guard functions at 
          facilities leased by the Government....................   260
        Section 362. Authorized use of recruiting funds..........   261
        Section 363. Noncompetitive procurement of brand-name 
          commercial items for resale in commissary stores.......   261
        Section 364. Administration of midshipmen's store and 
          other Naval Academy support activities as 
          nonappropriated fund instrumentalities.................   261
        Section 365. Assistance to committees involved in 
          inauguration of the President..........................   261
        Section 366. Department of Defense support for sporting 
          events.................................................   262
        Section 367. Renovation of building for Defense Finance 
          and Accounting Service Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison, 
          Indiana................................................   262
    Additional Matters of Interest...............................   263
        Army.....................................................   263
            Army strategic mobility..............................   263
            Ammunition management................................   263
            End Item Materiel Management Program.................   263
            Power Projection C4I.................................   264
        Navy.....................................................   264
            Intermediate maintenance.............................   264
            Ship depot maintenance...............................   264
            Active and reserve component P-3 squadrons...........   264
        Marine Corps.............................................   265
            Personnel support equipment..........................   265
            Corrosion prevention and control.....................   265
            Ammunition rework....................................   265
            Joint task force headquarters deployable 
              communications support.............................   265
            Commandant's warfighting laboratory..................   266
        Air Force................................................   266
            AWACS Extend Sentry..................................   266
            Air Force depot maintenance..........................   266
        Defense-Wide.............................................   266
            Homeless support initiative..........................   266
            Federal Energy Management Program....................   267
            Office of the Secretary of Defense...................   267
            Civilian personnel levels............................   267
            Real property maintenance............................   267
            Operation and maintenance, Special Operations Command   268
        Other items of interest..................................   268
            United States Army marksmanship units................   268
            Quality of Life and the Military Traffic Management 
              Command's Re-engineering Personal Property 
              Initiative Pilot Program...........................   269
            Aquifer study at Fallon Naval Air Station............   270
            Exclusion of uncontaminated parcels from the national 
              priorities list....................................   270
            Kaho'olawe cleanup...................................   271
            Proposed reduction of the current permissible 
              exposure level for manganese.......................   271
            Defense Commissary Agency designation as a 
              Performance Based Organization.....................   272
            Electronic warfare squadrons.........................   272
        Revolving funds..........................................   273
            Reliability, Maintainability and Sustainability 
              Program (RM&S).....................................   273
            Advance billing in Defense Business Operating Fund...   273
            National defense features............................   273
            National defense reserve fleet.......................   274
            Maritime training ship...............................   275
Title IV--Military Personnel Authorizations......................   277
    Subtitle A--Active Forces....................................   277
        Section 401. End strengths for active forces.............   277
        Section 402. Temporary flexibility relating to permanent 
          end strength levels....................................   278
        Section 403. Authorized strengths for commissioned 
          officers in grades O-4, O-5, and O-6...................   278
        Section 404. Extension of requirement for recommendations 
          regarding appointments to joint 4-star officer 
          positions..............................................   278
        Section 405. Increase in authorized number of general 
          officers on active duty in the Marine Corps............   279
    Subtitle B--Reserve Forces...................................
        Section 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve..........   279
        Section 412. End strengths for Reserves on active duty in 
          support of the reserves................................   280
    Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations..................   280
        Section 421. Authorization of appropriations for military 
          personnel..............................................   280
Title V--Military Personnel Policy...............................   283
    Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy.........................   283
        Section 501. Extension of authority for temporary 
          promotions for certain Navy lieutenants with critical 
          skills.................................................   283
        Section 502. Exception to baccalaureate degree 
          requirement for appointment in the Naval Reserve in 
          grades above O-2.......................................   283
        Section 503. Time for award of degrees by unaccredited 
          educational institutions for graduates to be considered 
          educationally qualified for appointment as reserve 
          officers in grade O-3..................................   283
        Section 504. Chief Warrant Officer promotions............   283
        Section 505. Frequency of periodic report on promotion 
          rates of officers currently or formerly serving in 
          joint duty assignments.................................   284
    Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components...........   284
        Section 511. Clarification of definition of active status   284
        Section 512. Amendments to Reserve Officer Personnel 
          Management Act provisions..............................   284
        Section 513. Repeal of requirement for physical 
          examinations of members of National Guard called into 
          federal service........................................   284
        Section 514. Authority for a Reserve on active duty to 
          waive retirement sanctuary.............................   284
        Section 515. Retirement of Reserves disabled by injury or 
          disease incurred or aggravated during overnight stay 
          between inactive duty training periods.................   285
        Section 516. Reserve credit for participation in the 
          Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance 
          Program................................................   285
        Section 517. Report on guard and reserve force structure.   285
    Subtitle C--Officer Education Programs.......................   285
        Section 521. Increased age limit on appointment as a 
          cadet or midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers' 
          Training Corps and the service academies...............   285
        Section 522. Demonstration project for instruction and 
          support of Army ROTC units by members of the Army 
          Reserve and National Guard.............................   286
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   286
        Section 531. Retirement at grade to which selected for 
          promotion when a physical disability is found at any 
          physical examination...................................   286
        Section 532. Limitations on recall of retired members to 
          active duty............................................   286
        Section 533. Disability coverage for officers granted 
          excess leave for educational purposes..................   286
        Section 534. Uniform policy regarding retention of 
          members who are permanently nonworldwide assignable....   287
        Section 535. Authority to extend period for enlistment in 
          regular component under the delayed entry program......   287
        Section 536. Career service reenlistments for members 
          with at least 10 years of service......................   287
        Section 537. Revisions to missing persons authorities....   287
        Section 538. Inapplicability of Soldiers' and Sailors' 
          Civil Relief Act of 1940 to the period of limitations 
          for filing claims for corrections of military records..   288
        Section 539. Medal of honor for certain African-American 
          soldiers who served in World War II....................   288
    Subtitle E--Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service..   288
        Section 561. Applicability to Public Health Service of 
          prohibition on crediting cadet or midshipmen service at 
          the service academies..................................   288
        Section 562. Exception to grade limitations for Public 
          Health Service officers assigned to the Department of 
          Defense................................................   289
    Subtitle F--Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification, 
      Conversion, and Stabilization..............................   289
        Section 571. Authority to expand law enforcement 
          placement program to include firefighters..............   289
        Section 572. Troops-to-teachers program improvements 
          (Also refer to Section 1122)...........................   289
    Subtitle G--Armed Forces Retirement Home.....................   289
        Section 582. Acceptance of uncompensated services........   290
        Section 583. Disposal of real property...................   290
        Section 584. Matters concerning personnel................   290
        Section 585. Fees for residents..........................   291
        Section 586. Authorization of appropriations.............   291
    Other items of interest......................................   292
        Legislative fellows from the Department of Defense.......   292
        Relocation assistance programs...........................   293
        Review of opportunities for ordering individual reserves 
          to active duty with their consent......................   293
Title VI--Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits..............   295
    Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances...............................   295
        Section 601. Military pay raise for fiscal year 1997.....   295
        Section 602. Rate of cadet and midshipman pay............   295
        Section 603. Pay of senior noncommissioned officers while 
          hospitalized...........................................   295
        Section 604. Basic allowance for quarters for members 
          assigned to sea duty...................................   296
        Section 605. Uniform applicability of discretion to deny 
          an election not to occupy government quarters..........   296
        Section 606. Family separation allowance for members 
          separated by military orders from spouses who are 
          members................................................   296
        Section 607. Waiver of time limitations for claim for pay 
          and allowances.........................................   296
    Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays...........   297
        Section 611. Extension of certain bonuses for reserve 
          forces.................................................   297
        Section 612. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay 
          for nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and 
          nurse anesthetists.....................................   297
        Section 613. Extension of authority relating to payment 
          of other bonuses and special pays......................   297
        Section 614. Increased special pay for dental officers of 
          the armed forces.......................................   297
        Section 615. Retention special pay for Public Health 
          Service optometrists...................................   297
        Section 616. Special pay for nonphysician health care 
          providers in the Public Health Service.................   298
        Section 617. Foreign language proficiency pay for Public 
          Health Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
          Administration officers................................   298
    Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances.............   298
        Section 621. Round trip travel allowances for shipping 
          motor vehicles at government expense...................   298
        Section 622. Option to store instead of transport a 
          privately-owned vehicle at the expense of the United 
          States.................................................   298
        Section 623. Deferral of travel with travel and 
          transportation allowances in connection with leave 
          between consecutive overseas tours.....................   298
        Section 624. Funding for transportation of household 
          effects of Public Health Service officers..............   299
    Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related 
      Matters....................................................   299
        Section 631. Effective date for military retiree cost-of-
          living adjustment for Fiscal Year 1998.................   299
        Section 632. Allotment of retired or retainer pay........   299
        Section 633. Cost-of-living increases in SBP 
          contributions to be effective concurrently with payment 
          of related retired pay cost-of-living increases........   299
        Section 634. Annuities for certain military surviving 
          spouses................................................   299
        Section 635. Adjusted annual income limitation applicable 
          to eligibility for income supplement for certain widows 
          of members of the uniformed services...................   299
    Subtitle E--Other Matters....................................   300
        Section 641. Reimbursement for adoption expenses incurred 
          in adoptions through private placements................   300
        Section 642. Waiver of recoupment of amounts withheld for 
          tax purposes from certain separation pay received by 
          involuntarily separated members and former members of 
          the armed forces.......................................   300
        Other Items of Interest..................................   300
            Foreign Language Proficiency Pay Qualification.......   300
            Special Duty Assignment Pay, Army Special Operations 
              personnel..........................................   301
Title VII--Health Care Provisions................................   303
        Section 701. Implementation of requirement for Selected 
          Reserve dental insurance plan..........................   303
        Section 702. Dental insurance plan for military retirees 
          and certain dependents.................................   303
        Section 703. Uniform Composite Health Care System 
          software...............................................   303
        Section 704. Clarification of applicability of CHAMPUS 
          payment rules to private CHAMPUS providers for care 
          provided to enrollees in health care plans of uniformed 
          services treatment facilities..........................   304
        Section 705. Enhancement of third party collection and 
          secondary payer authorities under CHAMPUS..............   304
        Section 706. Codification of authority to credit CHAMPUS 
          collections to program accounts........................   304
        Section 707. Comptroller General review of health care 
          activities of the Department of Defense relating to 
          Persian Gulf Illnesses.................................   304
        Other Items of Interest..................................   305
            Portability and reciprocity for TRICARE Prime 
              enrollees across regions...........................   305
            Continuation of support for telemedicine initiatives.   306
            Study of the extension of the Federal Employees 
              Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) option to military 
              retirees...........................................   306
            Centers for Prisoners of War Studies.................   306
            Dental readiness.....................................   307
Title VIII--Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management, and 
  Related Matters................................................
        Section 801. Procurement technical assistance programs...   309
        Section 802. Extension of pilot mentor-protege program...   309
        Section 803. Modification of authority to carry out 
          certain prototype projects.............................   309
        Section 804. Revisions to the program for the assessment 
          of the national defense technology and industrial base.   309
        Section 805. Procurements to be made from small arms 
          industrial base firms..................................   310
        Section 806. Exception to prohibition on procurement of 
          foreign goods..........................................   310
        Section 807. Treatment of Department of Defense cable 
          television franchise agreements........................   310
        Section 808. Remedies for reprisals against contractor 
          employee whistleblowers................................   311
        Section 809. Implementation of information technology 
          management reform......................................   311
        Other Items of Interest..................................   312
            Procurement goals for small business concerns owned 
              by women...........................................   312
            Economy Act transfer regulatory implementation.......   313
            Research projects: transactions other than contracts 
              and grants.........................................   313
Title IX--Department of Defense Organization and Management......   315
    Subtitle A--General Matters..................................   315
        Section 901. Repeal of reorganization of the Office of 
          the Secretary of Defense...............................   315
        Section 902. Codification of requirements relating to 
          continued operation of the Uniformed Services 
          University of the Health Sciences......................   315
        Section 903. Codification of requirement for United 
          States Army Reserve Command............................   316
        Section 904. Transfer of authority to control 
          transportation systems in time of war..................   316
        Section 905. Executive oversight of defense human 
          intelligence personnel.................................   316
        Section 906. Coordination of defense intelligence 
          programs and activities................................   316
        Section 907. Redesignation of Office of Naval Records and 
          History Fund and correction of related references......   316
    Subtitle B--National Imagery and Mapping Agency..............   317
        (Sections 911-934--Matters relating to National Imagery 
          and Mapping)...........................................   317
Title X--General Provisions......................................   321
    Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................   321
        Section 1003. Authorization of prior emergency 
          supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1996.......   321
        Section 1004. Use of funds transferred to the Coast Guard   321
        Section 1005. Use of military-to-military contacts funds 
          for professional military education and training.......   321
        Section 1006. Payment of certain expenses relating to 
          humanitarian and civic assistance......................   321
        Section 1007. Prohibition on expenditure of Department of 
          Defense funds by officials outside the department......   322
        Section 1008. Prohibition on use of funds for Office of 
          Naval Intelligence representation or related activities   322
        Section 1009. Reimbursement of Department of Defense for 
          costs of disaster assistance provided outside the 
          United States..........................................   322
        Section 1010. Fisher House Trust Fund for the Navy.......   322
        Section 1011. Designation and liability of disbursing and 
          certifying officials for the Coast Guard...............   323
        Section 1012. Authority to suspend or terminate 
          collection actions against deceased members of the 
          Coast Guard............................................   323
        Section 1013. Check cashing and exchange transactions 
          with credit unions outside the United States...........   323
    Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards......................   323
        Section 1021. Authority to transfer naval vessels........   323
        Section 1022. Transfer of certain obsolete tugboats of 
          the Navy...............................................   324
        Section 1023. Repeal of requirement for continuous 
          applicability of contracts for phased maintenance of AE 
          class ships............................................   324
        Section 1024. Contract options for LMSR vessels..........   324
    Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities..........................
        (Sections 1031-1033--Drug interdiction and counterdrug 
          activities)............................................   325
    Subtitle D--Matters Relating to Foreign Countries............   328
        Section 1041. Agreements for exchange of defense 
          personnel between the United States and foreign 
          countries..............................................   328
        Section 1042. Authority for reciprocal exchange of 
          personnel between the United States and foreign 
          countries for flight training..........................   329
        Section 1043. Extension of counterproliferation 
          authorities............................................   329
    Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements.............   329
        Section 1051. Annual report on emerging operational 
          concepts...............................................   329
        Section 1052. Annual joint warfighting science and 
          technology plan........................................   329
        Section 1053. Report on military readiness requirements 
          of the Armed Forces....................................   330
    Subtitle F--Other Matters....................................   331
        Section 1061. Uniform Code of Military Justice amendments   331
        Section 1062. Limitation on retirement or dismantlement 
          of strategic nuclear delivery systems..................   331
        Section 1063. Correction of references to Department of 
          Defense organizations..................................   332
        Section 1064. Authority of certain members of the Armed 
          Forces to perform notarial or consular acts............   332
        Section 1065. Training of members of the uniformed 
          services at non-Government facilities..................   332
        Section 1066. Third-party liability to United States for 
          tortious infliction of injury or disease on members of 
          the uniformed services.................................   332
        Section 1067. Display of State flags at installations and 
          facilities of the Department of Defense................   332
        Section 1068. George C Marshall European Center for 
          Strategic Security Studies.............................   333
        Section 1069. Authority to award to civilian participants 
          in the defense of Pearl Harbor the congressional medal 
          previously authorized only for military participants in 
          the defense of Pearl Harbor............................   333
        Section 1070. Michael O'Callaghan Federal Hospital, Las 
          Vegas, Nevada..........................................   333
        Section 1071. Naming of building at the Uniformed 
          Services University of the Health Sciences.............   333
    Other items of interest......................................   333
            Support for the Young Marines program................   333
            Support services at the Port of Haifa................   334
            U.S.-Asian military-to-military dialogue.............   334
            Implementation of arms control agreements............   335
Title XI--Department of Defense Civilian Personnel...............   337
    Subtitle A--Personnel Management, Pay and, Allowances........   337
        Section 1101. Scope of requirement for conversion of 
          military positions to civilian positions...............   337
        Section 1102. Retention of civilian employee positions at 
          military training bases transferred to National Guard..   337
        Section 1103. Clarification of limitation on furnishing 
          clothing or paying a uniform allowance to enlisted 
          National Guard technicians.............................   337
        Section 1104. Travel expenses and health care for 
          civilian employees of the Department of Defense abroad.   337
        Section 1105. Travel, transportation, and relocation 
          allowances for certain former nonappropriated fund 
          employees..............................................   337
        Section 1106. Employment and salary practices applicable 
          to Department of Defense overseas teachers.............   338
        Section 1107. Employment and compensation of civilian 
          faculty members at certain Department of Defense 
          schools................................................   338
        Section 1108. Reimbursement of Department of Defense 
          domestic dependent school board members for certain 
          expenses...............................................   338
        Section 1109. Extension of authority for civilian 
          employees of Department of Defense to participate 
          voluntarily in reductions in force.....................   338
        Section 1110. Compensatory time off for overtime work 
          performed by wage-board employees......................   338
        Section 1111. Liquidation of restored annual leave that 
          remains unused upon transfer of employee from 
          installation being closed or realigned.................   338
        Section 1112. Waiver of requirement for repayment of 
          voluntary separation incentive pay by former Department 
          of Defense employees reemployed by the Government 
          without pay............................................   339
        Section 1113. Federal holiday observance rules for 
          Department of Defense employees........................   339
        Section 1114. Revision of certain travel management 
          authorities............................................   339
    Subtitle B--Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification, 
      Conversion, and Stabilization..............................   339
        Section 1121. Pilot programs for defense employees 
          converted to contractor employees due to privatization 
          at closed military installations.......................   339
        Section 1122. Troops-to-teachers program improvements 
          applied to civilian personnel. (Refer to Section 572)..   341
        Other Items of Interest..................................   341
            Flexible, compressed and alternative schedules.......   341
            Authority to conduct civilian personnel demonstration 
              projects...........................................   341
Title XII--Federal Charter for the Fleet Reserve Association.....   343
        (Sections 1201-1216--Matters relating to the Federal 
          Charter for the Fleet Reserve Association).............   343

            Division B--Military Construction Authorizations

Title XXV--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
  Program........................................................   375
    Section 2503. Redesignation of North Atlantic Treaty 
      Organization Infrastructure program........................   375
Title XXVIII--General Provisions.................................   377
    Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family 
      Housing Changes............................................   377
        Section 2801. Increase in certain thresholds for 
          unspecified minor construction projects................   377
        Section 2802. Clarification of authority to improve 
          military family housing................................   377
        Section 2803. Authority to grant easements for rights-of-
          way....................................................   377
    Subtitle B--Defense Base Closure and Realignment.............   377
        Section 2811. Restoration of authority under 1988 base 
          closure law to transfer property and facilities to 
          other entities in the Department of Defense............   377
        Section 2812. Disposition of proceeds from disposal of 
          commissary stores and nonappropriated fund 
          instrumentalities at installations being closed or 
          realigned..............................................   378
        Section 2813. Agreements for services at installations 
          after closure..........................................   378
    Subtitle C--Land Conveyances.................................   378
        Section 2821. Transfer of lands, Arlington National 
          Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia..........................   378
        Section 2822. Land transfer, Potomac Annex, District of 
          Columbia...............................................   379
        Section 2823. Land conveyance, Army Reserve Center, 
          Montpelier, Vermont....................................   379
        Section 2824. Land conveyance, former Naval Reserve 
          Facility, Lewes, Delaware..............................   379
        Section 2825. Land conveyance, Radar Bomb Scoring Site, 
          Belle Fourche, South Dakota............................   379
        Section 2826. Conveyance of primate research complex, 
          Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico....................   380
        Section 2827. Demonstration project for installation and 
          operation of electric power distribution system at 
          Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio...................   380
        Other Items of Interest..................................   381
            Improvements to military family housing units, Army..   381
            Planning and design, Army............................   381
            Report on the Fort Lawton Joint Armed Forces Reserve 
              Center, Seattle, Washington........................   381
            Improvements to military family housing units, Navy..   381
            Planning and design, Navy............................   381
            Improvements to military family housing units, Air 
              Force..............................................   381
            Planning and design, Air Force Family Housing 
              Construction.......................................   382
            Availability of funds for credit to Defense Military 
              Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund.............   382
            Naval Air Station Sigonella..........................   382
            Report on the implementation of the Hawaiian Home 
              Lands Recovery Act.................................   382
            Planning and design, Guard and Reserve forces 
              facilities.........................................   383

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

Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs......   385
    Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........   403
        Section 3101. Weapons activities.........................   403
        Section 3102. Environmental restoration and waste 
          management.............................................   404
        Section 3103. Other defense activities...................   405
        Section 3104. Defense nuclear waste disposal.............   407
    Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 
      Limitations................................................   407
        Section 3131. Tritium production.........................   407
        Section 3132. Modernization and consolidation of tritium 
          recycling facilities...................................   408
        Section 3133. Modification of requirements for 
          manufacturing infrastructure for refabrication and 
          certification of nuclear weapons stockpile.............   408
        Section 3134. Limitation on use of funds for certain 
          research and development purposes......................   408
        Section 3135. Accelerated schedule for isolating high-
          level nuclear waste at the Defense Waste Processing 
          Facility, Savannah River Site..........................   409
        Section 3136. Processing of high-level nuclear waste and 
          spent nuclear fuel rods................................   409
        Section 3137. Fellowship program for development of 
          skills critical to Department of Energy nuclear weapons 
          complex................................................   410
    Subtitle D--Other Matters....................................   410
        Section 3151. Requirement for annual five-year budget for 
          the national security programs of the Department of 
          Energy.................................................   410
        Section 3152. Requirements for Department of Energy 
          weapons activities budgets for fiscal years after 
          fiscal year 1997.......................................   411
        Section 3153. Repeal of requirement relating to 
          accounting procedures for Department of Energy funds...   411
        Section 3154. Plans for activities to process nuclear 
          materials and clean up nuclear waste at the Savannah 
          River Site.............................................   411
        Section 3155. Update of report on nuclear test readiness 
          postures...............................................   412
        Section 3156. Reports on critical difficulties at nuclear 
          weapons laboratories and nuclear weapons production 
          plants.................................................   412
        Section 3157. Extension of applicability of notice-and-
          wait requirement regarding proposed cooperation 
          agreements.............................................   413
        Section 3158. Redesignation of Defense Environmental 
          Restoration and Waste Management Program as Defense 
          Nuclear Waste Management Program.......................   413
        Section 3159. Commission on Maintaining United States 
          Nuclear Weapons Expertise..............................   413
        Section 3160. Sense of Senate regarding reliability and 
          safety of remaining nuclear forces.....................   413
        Other items of interest..................................   414
        Department of Energy work force reduction plan...........   414
        Accelerating radioactive waste cleanup...................   415
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.............   417
        Section 3201. Authorization..............................   417
Title XXXIII--National Defense Stockpile.........................
        Section 3301. Authorized uses of stockpile funds.........   419
Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum Reserves............................   421
Title XXXV--Panama Canal Commission..............................   423
    Legislative Requirements.....................................   425
    Departmental Recommendations.................................   425
    Committee Action.............................................   425
    Fiscal Data..................................................   426
    Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate....................   428
    Regulatory Impact............................................   428
    Changes in Existing Law......................................   428
    Additional views of Senator William S. Cohen.................   429
    Additional views of Senator John McCain......................   433
    Additional views of Senator Bob Smith........................   438
    Additional views of Senator Carl Levin.......................   440
    Additional views of Senator Edward M. Kennedy................   448
    Additional views of Senator John Glenn.......................   450
    Additional views of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman..............   454



104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 2d Session                                                     104-267
_______________________________________________________________________



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

                                _______


                  May 13, 1996.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 1745]

    The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an 
original bill to authorize appropriations during the fiscal 
year 1997 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 1997;
          (2) authorize the personnel end strength for each 
        military active duty component of the armed forces for 
        fiscal year 1997;
          (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the 
        Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of 
        the armed forces for fiscal year 1997;
          (4) authorize the annual average military training 
        student loads for the active and reserve components of 
        the armed forces for fiscal year 1997;
          (5) impose certain reporting requirements;
          (6) impose certain limitations with regard to 
        specific procurement and RDT&E 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 1997; and
          (8) authorize appropriations for national security 
        programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
        1997.

Committee overview and recommendations

    As the committee continued to carry out its legislative 
responsibilities for the 104th Congress pursuant to the 
Senate's rules and constitutional powers, the Chairman and the 
Members established priorities to guide the committee through 
the authorization process for fiscal year 1997.
    National security is the federal government's first 
obligation to its citizens. With this in mind, the committee's 
top priority was to guarantee our national security and the 
status of the United States as the world's preeminent military 
power. Accordingly, the committee approved provisions which 
provide for: an appropriate balance between near-term readiness 
and long-term readiness through investments in modernization, 
infrastructure and research; sufficient end-strengths at all 
grade levels and policies supporting the recruitment and 
retention of high quality personnel; fielding of the type and 
quantity of weapons systems and equipment needed to fight and 
win decisively with minimal risk to our troops; and ensuring an 
adequate, safe and reliable nuclear weapons capability.
    In order to improve the operation of the Department of 
Defense (DOD), as well as to adhere to the expected committee 
budget allocation, the committee sought to eliminate defense 
spending that does not contribute directly to the national 
security of the United States. Such efforts included reducing 
DOD overhead and emphasizing successful demonstrations prior to 
full-scale procurements. Savings were also realized by 
accelerating programs, where appropriate, and by limiting new 
program starts. Fiscal and national security concerns also 
support the committee's ongoing effort to evaluate U.S. 
involvement in non-traditional military operations, and its 
impact on combat readiness, programming and budgeting, 
personnel retention and our national interests.
    As with last year, the committee worked to protect the 
quality-of-life of our military personnel and their families. 
Quality-of-life initiatives included provisions designed to 
provide equitable pay and benefits to military personnel, 
including a 3.0 percent pay raise to protect against inflation, 
and the restoration of appropriate levels of funding for the 
construction and maintenance of troop billets and military 
family housing.
    The committee also remained acutely concerned about 
military readiness. In particular, the committee ensured that 
U.S. armed forces remain the preeminent military force in the 
world by funding a more robust, progressive modernization 
effort aimed at providing the capabilities needed for future 
requirements. The committee also directed efforts toward 
enhancing the utilization and effectiveness of reserve 
component forces; reducing the backlog in maintenance and 
repair of equipment; providing funds for an appropriate 
quantity and quality of training; enhancing infrastructure and 
base operations programs; encouraging efforts by the services 
to develop new operational capabilities based on emerging 
technologies; and supporting efforts maintaining adequate 
stocks of supplies, repair parts, fuel and ammunition.
    Finally, and importantly, the committee sought to 
accelerate development and deployment of missile defense 
systems to protect U.S. and allied forces against the growing 
threat of cruise and ballistic missiles. Accordingly, this bill 
supports expeditious deployment of land- and sea-based theater 
missile defense systems. The committee also makes clear that 
the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 does not apply 
to the theater missile defense systems envisioned by the 
committee.
    The committee was disappointed by the administration's 
budget request of $254.3 billion for defense spending in fiscal 
year 1997. The administration's fiscal year 1997 budget request 
was $18.6 billion less in real terms than the level enacted for 
fiscal year 1996. Even after the committee added $12.9 billion 
in additional authorization, the total authorized amount for 
defense spending in fiscal year 1997 is $5.6 billion less in 
real terms than defense spending in fiscal year 1996.
    The committee has continually expressed its concerns about 
the effects of decreasing levels of defense spending on our 
armed forces. In real terms, the fiscal year 1997 defense 
budget will be at its lowest level since 1950. History has 
demonstrated that superpower status cannot be sustained 
cheaply. Nor can it be sustained by budget requests which do 
not provide for adequate modernization of our forces. The 
administration's representations regarding future increases in 
funding for modernization have been contradicted by its actual 
budget requests; consequently, the administration's commitment 
to modernization is met with increasing skepticism in the 
Congress as well as by senior military leaders.
    Decreases in defense spending are occurring at the same 
time our military personnel are being asked to do more and 
more. If defense funding levels do not increase, the committee 
fears the increased operational and personnel tempos, coupled 
with deteriorating readiness, may result in an exodus of high 
quality, trained personnel and, ultimately, a military crises.
    One aspect of the administration's budget request that the 
committee found encouraging was that it included, for the first 
time, a request for funds for ongoing contingency operations.
    During the past three months, the committee worked in its 
traditional bipartisan manner, placing the national security 
interests of the United States and the safety of the American 
people above other considerations. The National Defense 
Authorization Bill for 1997 reflects a bipartisan approach to 
these priorities, and provides a clear basis and direction for 
U.S. national security policies and programs into the 21st 
century.

Explanation of funding summary

    The administration's budget request for the national 
defense function of the federal budget for fiscal year 1997 was 
$254.3 billion, of which $184.9 billion was for programs which 
require specific funding authorization.
    The committee's authorization recommendation is 
substantially larger ($267.3 billion in budget authority) than 
the amount requested. The primary reason for this difference is 
that the committee authorized an additional $7.7 billion in 
procurement and $3.7 billion in Research and Development.
    The following table summarizes both the direct 
authorizations and equivalent budget authority levels for 
fiscal year 1997 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 $267.3 billion in 
budget authority, which is consistent with the fiscal year 1996 
Budget Resolution, an increase of $12.9 billion above the 
President's budget request.


            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

    The committee noted concerns over declining defense 
procurement budgets in the report to accompany S.1026 (S. Rept. 
104-112), and registered concern over the impact of deficient 
procurement levels on long-term readiness. In hearings last 
year, senior military leaders repeatedly expressed concerns 
about the effects of sharply reduced procurement funding on 
future modernization. Optimistically, they noted the 
administration's plan to increase procurement modestly to $43.5 
billion in fiscal year 1997.
    However, when the budget request was announced for fiscal 
year 1997, the decline in procurement spending continued. In 
hearings on the fiscal year 1997 budget request witnesses 
warned of the future effects of cutting modernization.
    The committee views with concern the Department of 
Defense's continuing trend of promising a better future while 
reducing current resources. Since 1993, the administration has 
forecast increased funds for procurement for the next year, 
only to have the amount actually requested for procurement 
decline again when the budget is submitted.
    Admiral William Owens, then Vice Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, when testifying on overall defense 
procurement, described the situation as a ``crisis,'' and said, 
``We've got to stop promising ourselves and start doing 
something . . . .'' Senior military leaders willingly provided 
detailed listings of equipment and resources needed by their 
services, but not included in the administration request.
    It is not hard to see why the uniformed services have to 
resort to making up ``wish lists'' to equip their services: the 
administration budget does not provide the resources to equip 
the forces it says are needed. The defense budget is in its 
twelfth straight year of decline. The procurement budget is at 
its lowest level since 1950 with procurement accounts declining 
72 percent since 1985. Armed Services Committee hearings have 
confirmed a shared concern by the service secretaries and 
chiefs that recapitalization of our forces has continued to be 
projected further into the future with each succeeding budget 
since 1993. However, when the committee acts to provide modest 
modernization increases over the administration's ever 
declining requests, concerns are expressed about additions for 
which the Pentagon did not ask. Nothing could be farther from 
reality; senior military leaders have repeatedly asked for 
additional resources and the committee has included them in its 
recommendation.
    Last year the committee gave priority to buying basics, 
investing to achieve savings, and investing in the future. This 
year the committee has again adhered to this strategy. The 
committee's emphasis on acquiring equipment in economic lots 
and on efficient schedules is evident throughout this report.
    Last year's authorization and appropriation bills were 
repeatedly criticized for making additions not asked for by the 
Pentagon. While the Department of Defense has not requested 
additions to its own request, uniformed military leaders have. 
Through testimony and in written requests, senior military 
leaders have requested a variety of equipment and programs that 
were left out of the budget request.
    The committee recognizes its critical role in the Senate's 
responsibilities under the Constitution set out in Article I, 
Section Eight, ``to raise and support Armies, provide and 
maintain a Navy, and make the rules for the government and 
regulation of land and naval forces.'' The committee notes the 
propriety of the Congress's decisions on appropriate force 
structure, equipment, and policies for the armed services.
    To provide for the common defense and national security, 
the committee urges the Department to provide consistent 
planning and budgeting for future defense requirements, so as 
to deter possible adversaries and assure allies that the 
administration and the Congress are both committed to providing 
the resources necessary for America's strength, both now and in 
the future.

Explanation of tables

    The tables in this title display items requested by the 
administration for fiscal year 1997 for which the committee 
either increased or decreased 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 $931.4 million for the chemical 
agents and munitions destruction program for operation and 
maintenance ($477.9 million), procurement ($273.6 million), 
research and development ($48.3 million) and military 
construction ($131.6 million).
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to the 
budget request for research and development to expedite and 
accelerate the development and fielding of critical advanced 
sensors that are part of the Army's mobile munitions assessment 
system.

                       SUBTITLE B--ARMY PROGRAMS


Section 112. Army assistance for chemical demilitarization citizens 
        advisory commissions.
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 172 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1993 to make it consistent with the reassignment of 
program management. Currently, Section 172 of the Act directs 
the Secretary of the Army to provide a representative from the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, 
Logistics, and Environment) to meet periodically with citizen 
commissions to hear their concerns regarding the Army chemical 
agents and munitions disposal program. Responsibility for this 
program was reassigned last year to the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army (Research, Development and Acquisition).

                          OTHER ARMY PROGRAMS

                             Army Aircraft

C-XX medium range aircraft
    Last year the committee recommended an increase of $23.0 
million for competitive procurement by the Army of four new 
production C-XX turbofan aircraft, now designated UC-35A. The 
committee has learned that the contract for the first two 
aircraft was awarded in January of 1996 and that this contract 
was funded by fiscal year 1995 funds. The Army has identified 
the UC-35A as its highest priority fixed-wing program due to 
the operational efficiencies derived from its modern design. 
The committee also notes the savings achieved through the 
competitive procurement of this aircraft.
    Understanding the Army's requirement for a total of 35 
aircraft, the committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million 
for competitive procurement by the Army of eight production UC-
35A turbofan aircraft.

AH-64 Apache modifications

    The budget request included $43.2 million to procure 30 of 
the originally planned 38 upgrades to the Apache system. The 
committee is concerned about potential program delays for the 
Apache Longbow and remains committed to fielding this vital 
system on schedule. The committee recommends an increase of 
$75.0 million to restore the previous upgrade schedule.

CH-47 modifications

    The budget request included $7.8 million to procure safety 
and operational modifications for the CH-47 helicopter fleet. 
The committee remains concerned about the heavy lift capability 
for the Army and the ability of an aging fleet to perform this 
critical mission. Over time, modifications to the existing CH-
47 airframe have added significant weight to the aircraft, 
requiring an upgrade to the current engine configuration. It is 
expected that the proposed T55-L-714 engine will increase 
payload capability by up to 3900 pounds and greatly reduce 
operation and maintenance costs over the life cycle of the new 
engine. The committee recommends an increase of $52.3 million 
to begin the upgrade process for the fleet.

AH-64D attack helicopter

    The budget request included $373.9 million to procure 
Longbow systems for the AH-64D Apache helicopter and associated 
equipment. The committee notes the Army budget does not meet 
outstanding requirements for Apache Longbow systems and 
recommends an increase of $130.0 million to procure an 
additional six new aircraft with training devices. The 
committee directs the Army to consider future force 
requirements and budget the resources necessary to procure 
additional aircraft as soon as possible.
    The committee is also concerned that only one Longbow crew 
trainer will be procured through the current fiscal year 1997 
budget. Recognizing the complex nature of the Longbow system, 
it is imperative that organizations fielding this system have 
access to these important training devices to ensure they are 
capable of training the operators who must maintain these 
critical systems.
    The committee recommends an increase of $130.0 million to 
procure six Longbow aircraft and an additional $53.0 million to 
procure five training devices for two institutional training 
facilities.

OH-58D Kiowa Warrior

    The budget request included $9.1 million to complete 
fielding of previously procured Kiowa Warrior systems. The 
committee notes that budget decrements from fiscal year 1994 
through fiscal year 1996 have left the Army unable to complete 
the retrofit of 16 Kiowa Warrior helicopters and believes it 
important that these final airframes be retrofitted and 
returned to the field. Even with the completion of this 
retrofit requirement, the Army will still be short of the 
number of Kiowa Warrior systems needed to fill essential 
warfighter requirements. The committee, therefore, recommends 
$38.4 million to complete outstanding retrofit requirements and 
an additional $120.0 million to procure an additional 15 
aircraft, for a total of $167.5 million.

Aircraft survivability equipment

    The budget request included $4.8 million to support 
aircraft survivability enhancements. The committee supports 
Army efforts to provide crew warning devices that alert pilots 
when they have been illuminated by threat defense systems; 
these devices reduce aircrew vulnerability in a hostile 
environment. The committee recommends the following increases:
          (1) $11.0 million to procure the AV/AVR-2A(V) laser 
        detecting sets needed to protect the attack aviation 
        fleet;
          (2) $10.0 million to begin integrating radar 
        deception and jamming devices on Army aircraft in 
        fiscal year 1997; and
          (3) $13.0 million to accelerate procurement of 
        installation kits for the advanced threat infrared 
        countermeasure for installation on the Longbow Apache 
        production line.

                              Army Missile

Javelin medium anti-tank weapon

    The budget request included $162.1 million to procure 1,020 
Javelin missiles. The committee is concerned about the recent 
termination of the armored gun system (AS), the retirement of 
the M551 Sheridan in fiscal year 1997, and the impact that 
these decisions might have on early-entry forces. The 
committee, therefore, supports the Army's proposal to 
accelerate Javelin fielding to the 82nd Airborne Division in 
order to provide these forces with an effective anti-armor 
capability.
    The committee also recognizes the importance of cost 
savings and supports Army efforts to maximize the benefits of 
multi-year contracting for the Javelin system, and supports 
procurement funding to support achievement of an economic order 
quantity (EOQ).
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.7 million for 
accelerated production and fielding of command launch units and 
$34.0 million in procurement funding for EOQ for a total of 
$201.8 million.

Multiple Launch Rocket System rocket

    The budget request included $24.4 million to procure 852 
extended range rockets. The committee is concerned about the 
production dip in fiscal year 1997 and believes sufficient 
funding should be provided to maintain production stability. 
The committee recommends an additional $17.0 million in fiscal 
year 1997 in order to maintain a stable production rate and 
procure additional rockets.

Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) launcher

    The budget request included $38.0 million for program 
support to fielded launchers. The committee supports the effort 
to apply lessons learned from Operation Desert Storm and notes 
an Army Science Board study that recommended the addition of 
one MLRS firing battery of launchers for each heavy division. 
The committee believes that this restructuring should begin as 
soon as possible and recommends an increase of $110.0 million 
to initiate this process in 1997 and procure four batteries of 
the six required. The Army is directed to provide resources for 
the remaining batteries in the fiscal year 1998 budget.
    The committee continues to support Army National Guard 
(ARNG) efforts to convert artillery battalions to MLRS 
configuration and understands that an additional $37.0 million 
would refurbish four additional batteries of launchers (36) 
which could be used to support ARNG modernization.

Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS)

    The budget request included $92.8 million to procure 97 
missiles with spares. The committee supports the Army effort to 
begin a multiyear procurement for the Block 1A version of the 
missile in fiscal year 1998 if funding for economic order 
quantity (EOQ) can be obtained. The multiyear contract would 
reduce program costs by $63.0 million with a corresponding 
reduction of $100,000 per missile (10 percent) for those 
missiles procured in fiscal year 1998 and beyond.
    The committee recommends an increase of $69.0 million for 
EOQ procurement in fiscal year 1997 for a total of $161.8 
million.

Patriot modifications

    The budget request included $11.5 million to support 
fielding of anticipated materiel changes to the Patriot weapon 
system. The committee recognizes critical lessons learned 
during recent technology demonstrations that highlighted the 
benefits of digitizing the maintenance portion of battlefield 
operations. Future Patriot development activities provide the 
opportunity to develop and insert hardware that would support 
the fielding of an integrated diagnostic support system (IDSS). 
The committee is encouraged to note that insertion of IDSS into 
future Patriot modifications could result in $8.5 million in 
annual savings and would greatly reduce the need for an 
intermediate level of maintenance.
    The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for 
IDSS development and hardware procurement for a total of $23.5 
million.

Stinger missile modifications

    The budget request included $16.9 million for missile 
hardware and software modifications. The committee notes that 
while the Block I retrofit program is fully funded, the 
modification pace does not provide an economic production rate 
that could reduce retrofit costs by $2,200 per unit. The 
committee also understands that there is an outstanding 
requirement to modify computer chip modules in gripstocks and 
circuit cards in fielded missiles in order to capitalize on 
improvements in accuracy and performance.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million to 
increase the production rate to an economic level and $15.8 
million to support production and installation of new modules 
in Force Package 1 and 2 platforms for a total of $39.7 
million.

Avenger modifications

    The budget request included no funding for Avenger 
modifications in fiscal year 1997. The committee notes that in 
fiscal year 1998, the Army will begin funding a slew-to-cue 
(STC) modification to the Avenger system that will increase the 
overall system effectiveness by 55 percent and will make the 
system more survivable. By investing in the STC modification in 
fiscal year 1997, the Department of Defense will save 
approximately $9.0 million in overall funding.
    The committee recommends an increase of $29.0 million for 
fiscal year 1997.

TOW modifications

    The budget request included no funding for tube launched, 
optically tracked, wire guided (TOW) missile modifications in 
fiscal year 1997. The committee notes that a low-rate initial 
production decision is scheduled for June, 1996 for the 
improved target acquisition system (ITAS) associated with the 
TOW system. Correspondingly, an acceleration of the ITAS buy 
with procurement funds in fiscal year 1997 could result in 
approximately $4.0 million in inflation savings for this 
activity.
    The committee also recognizes and supports the requirement 
to maintain a continuous source of training missiles and 
believes that by using a modification of out-of-production 
missiles in lieu of procuring new training rounds, the 
Department of Defense can save precious resources.
    The committee recommends an additional $26.0 million to 
accelerate the ITAS buy (for 45 ITAS units), and an additional 
$7.0 million to procure and install modification kits to 
support training activities, for a total of $33.0 million.

Dragon missile

    The budget request included $3.2 million to support 
fabrication and application of safety circuits in Dragon 
missiles. The Army budget only supports the modification of 
3,722 Dragon training missiles. The committee is very concerned 
about soldier safety and the ability of National Guard forces 
to deploy with viable organic weapon systems. Additionally, the 
committee understands that significant work has been 
accomplished to date towards increasing system lethality. The 
committee understands that development work can be completed 
for a modest investment this fiscal year and supports that 
effort. The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of 
$25.0 million for a total of $28.2 million to complete required 
modifications.

                  Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles

Bradley Fighting Vehicle

    The budget request included $134.4 million for the Bradley 
base sustainment program. The committee notes the budget 
request supports the procurement of the first low-rate initial 
production models of the A3 version of the Bradley Fighting 
Vehicle (BFV). Recognizing the enhanced capabilities of the A3 
model as well as the benefit of achieving the low rate initial 
production requirement faster, the committee recommends an 
increase of $57.2 million to procure an additional 18 vehicles.
    The committee also recommends an increase of $35.5 million 
to complete a buy of reactive armor tiles for BFV in sufficient 
quantity to outfit a brigade combat team and to establish a 
domestic production capability.
    The committee, therefore, recommends a total of $227.1 
million for the BFV.

Field artillery ammunition support vehicle (FAASV)

    The budget request included $34.4 million to procure FAASV 
systems. The committee believes it is important to support the 
fielding of complete Paladin artillery systems to the National 
Guard and, therefore, understands the requirement to procure an 
additional 36 FAASV systems to be available to support National 
Guard modernization fielding activities. The committee 
recommends an increase of $50.8 million to procure 36 FAASV 
systems that would be available to support fielding of two 
complete battalion sets to the Army National Guard.

Carrier modifications (M113)

    The budget request included $23.0 million to continue 
modernization of the M113 armored personnel carrier family of 
vehicles. The committee continues to support steady funding for 
this critical upgrade program and recommends an increase of 
$20.0 million.

M109A6 Paladin

    The budget request included $75.0 million for M109A6 
Paladin systems. The committee is aware of Army studies that 
conclude the artillery mission is well-suited for Army National 
Guard units and continues to be concerned with the rate of 
modernization of National Guard artillery battalions. The 
committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $61.2 million 
to procure 36 additional Paladin systems that would be 
available for Army National Guard requirements.

Field artillery ammunition supply vehicle (FAASV) product improvement 
        program (PIP) to fleet

    The budget request included $4.7 million to modify FAASV 
systems with upgraded equipment. One element of the modernized 
Paladin/FAASV system that has not been funded is the vehicle 
intercom system for FAASV. The committee understands that an 
enhanced digital intercom system modification has been made on 
the Paladin production line with no corresponding modification 
for FAASV production efforts. This has resulted in incompatible 
headset connectors between the Paladin system and the 
associated FAASV vehicle. The committee recommends an increase 
of $2.0 million to begin the process of providing for 
commonality between these two systems.

Improved Recovery Vehicle

    The budget request included $28.6 million to procure 12 
M88A1E1 Hercules recovery vehicles. The committee understands 
the importance of procuring these vehicles as soon as possible 
because the older M88A1 lacks necessary horsepower and braking 
to safely support recovery of the Abrams main battle tank. 
Additionally, current procurement rates do not provide for the 
best economic quantity order which would be realized at 36 per 
year and would achieve savings of 15 percent per vehicle. The 
committee recommends an increase of $50.1 million to provide 
resources necessary to procure 36 vehicles in fiscal year 1997 
and an additional $1.0 million for associated spares and repair 
parts.

M1 Abrams tank (modifications)

    The budget request included $50.2 million to procure 
modification kits for the M1 Abrams tank to improve lethality, 
survivability, and safety. The committee is concerned about 
operation and maintenance costs for the Abrams fleet and has 
noted the successful application of external auxiliary power 
units (EAPU) in reducing the requirement for main engine idling 
during defensive operations. Demand for the EAPU by soldiers in 
Bosnia is a significant endorsement for this modification.
    Additionally, the committee notes progress toward 
correcting an established Operation Desert Storm deficiency 
with the air filtration system on the Abrams. Recognizing the 
enhancement made by installing the pulse-jet air system (PJAS) 
to the combat capability of a unit, the committee supports an 
acceleration of procurement for these devices.
    The committee recommends an increase of $28.5 million to 
procure 1,000 EAPU's and 100 additional PJAS systems for a 
total of $78.7 million. The Army is encouraged to ensure future 
year funding is provided to complete the modifications required 
for the Abrams fleet.

Small arms programs

    In fiscal year 1994, the committee expressed concerns with 
the overall status of the small arms industrial base. At that 
time, the committee directed the Secretary of the Army to 
establish a panel, under the auspices of the Army Science 
Board, to develop a viable plan to preserve critical elements 
of the small arms industrial base. The panel identified several 
ways to preserve this base at minimal cost and recommended 
production of modest quantities of selected arms. In fiscal 
years 1995 and 1996, the committee again stated its support for 
the thrust of the panel's recommendations and provided 
additional funding to support small arms procurement. It has 
become evident that as procurement funding continues to decline 
for small arms, the Army must look to other recommendations 
made by the panel if the small arms base is to remain viable. 
Thus, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review 
the original recommendations of the panel and take immediate 
steps to implement those actions that support sustainment of 
this critical production base. The committee also recommends 
increases for fiscal year 1997 for the following programs: 
$20.0 million to begin procurement of the M240 medium machine 
gun; $0.9 million to maintain an economical production rate of 
the M4 carbine; $1.0 million to maintain a stable production 
rate for the M16 assault rifle and approximately 2,000 
additional weapons; $1.0 million to maintain a stable 
production rate and approximately 384 additional M249 squad 
automatic weapons; $28.9 million to meet Army requirements and 
maintain stable production rate for the MK19 automatic grenade 
launcher.

                            Army Ammunition

    The committee is concerned with the inadequate funding for 
ammunition that was contained in the President's budget 
request. Ammunition is an important contributor to military 
readiness, for training and in anticipation of conflict. The 
committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget 
request for Army ammunition procurement:

Item:
    Small Arms:                                               $ millions
        5.56 mm...............................................       1.3
        7.62 mm...............................................       2.1
        9 mm..................................................       3.0
        20 mm.................................................       0.3
        25 mm.................................................      50.0
        30 mm.................................................      15.0
    Mortar:
        60 mm HE, M720........................................      12.5
        60 mm Illum, M721/M767................................       7.0
    Tank:
        120 mm APFSDS-T M829A2................................      12.0
        120 mm HEAT-MP-T M830A1...............................      45.0
        120 mm TP-T M831/M831A1...............................       2.4
        120 mm TPCSDS-T M865..................................       3.2
    Artillery:
        Proj Arty 155MM HE M795...............................      55.0
        Proj Arty 155MM SADARM M898...........................      33.5
    Other:
        Selectable Lightweight Attack Munitions...............       3.0
    Production Base:
        Armament Retooling & Manufacturing Spt................      58.0
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

          Total...............................................     303.3

Armament retooling and manufacturing support (ARMS)

    The committee authorizes $58.0 million for the continued 
operation of the Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support 
(ARMS) program. The committee expects these funds to be 
utilized in the most effective manner to ensure preservation of 
those facilities most likely to be required to fulfill the 
military's needs to support the national military strategy. 
Accordingly, the committee directs the Army to prioritize 
facility reutilization and provide the committee with a report 
addressing the Army's efforts to preserve ammunition facilities 
in the most efficient manner by January 1, 1997. The report 
should also address the amount of cost savings that have been 
achieved to date by those facilities receiving ARMS funding.

                         Other Army Procurement

High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)

    The budget request included $96.785 million to procure 
1,126 HMMWV's. This number reflects a significant reduction 
from previous years, despite the fact that there remains a 
valid requirement for these vehicles. The committee understands 
that the minimum sustaining rate to maintain a viable supply of 
required vehicles is not achieved by the current budget 
request.
    Additionally, the committee is concerned about the number 
of up-armored HMMWV's (UAHMMWV) being produced. In light of 
lessons learned in Bosnia and recognizing the importance of 
force protection, the committee believes that more UAHMMWV's 
should be procured. In order to meet the needs of the military 
services and maintain industrial production capacity at a 
minimum level, the committee recommends an increase of $41.0 
million to support the production base, a total of 2,350 
vehicles, and an additional $25.0 million to procure an 
additional 233 UAHMMWV's, a total procurement of 360 in fiscal 
year 1997.

Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)

    The budget request included $233.1 million to procure 1,603 
trucks based on a common chassis but varied by payload and 
mission. The committee is pleased to see the Army placing 
necessary resources to meet the requirements for the medium 
truck fleet. Despite the increase in truck procurement, there 
is still a shortfall in funding for required tarp and bow kits 
to support the initial fielding of the FMTV system. The 
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to procure the 
kits necessary to support the fielding plan.

Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)

    The budget request included $163.3 million to procure 
vehicles necessary to support modern and highly mobile combat 
units. The committee recognizes that equipment, over time, has 
become heavier and mobility continues to be a key to success on 
the battlefield. While the Army has placed more resources into 
improving capabilities in the heavy lift area, it still is a 
function that needs improvement. The committee recommends 
increases in the family of heavy tactical vehicles budget line 
for the following components of the heavy vehicle fleet: $40.0 
million for 80 additional heavy equipment transporters that are 
necessary for the activation of new transportation units; $50.0 
million to buy 167 palletized load systems which can be used to 
support three truck units in the Army National Guard; and $33.0 
million for 126 heavy expanded mobility tactical trucks to meet 
all Force Package 1 requirements.

Enhanced position location reporting system (EPLRS)

    The budget request included $50.5 million to procure this 
critical battlefield system. The EPLRS provides real-time data 
distribution and serves to enhance situational awareness. The 
committee believes that EPLRS enhances combat power and reduces 
risk. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to 
procure 485 additional EPLRS units with installation kits, for 
a total procurement in fiscal year 1997 of 1285 systems.

SINCGARS family

    The budget request included $297.5 million to procure 
25,616 ground radios, 593 airborne radios, and 13,405 data 
transfer devices. The committee is pleased to note the funding 
request was raised to complete the accelerated buyout of single 
channel ground and airborne radio system (SINCGARS) radios. The 
committee understands that some prior year funding has been 
withdrawn by the Department of Defense due to internal budget 
decisions. These reductions have had an adverse impact on the 
fielding schedule. The committee believes the original schedule 
should be maintained and is encouraged to note that an 
investment of an additional $30.0 million would procure 
approximately 4,500 radios and save $10.0 million.
    Also of interest to the committee is the outstanding 
requirement to upgrade existing aircraft platforms with 
modification kits required to install new radios.
    The committee therefore recommends the following increases: 
$30.0 million to procure an additional 4,500 ground-based 
radios and $13.3 million to procure the kits for installing 
SINCGARS in aircraft and complete required modifications.
    These increases result in a total of $340.8 million for 
fiscal year 1997.

Army communications

    The Army continues to modernize the area common user system 
(ACUS) and to transition to the warfighter information network 
(WIN) to capitalize on advances made in information technology. 
WIN is the number one command, control, communications, and 
computer item being addressed in the Army Program Objective 
Memorandum (POM) for fiscal years 1998-2004, and has received 
funding increases in recent years. The committee understands 
that a shortfall exists to continue this work in fiscal year 
1997 and believes it is important to continue this work. The 
committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million to develop 
tactical communications systems further and transition to the 
WIN modernization effort.

All source analysis system (ASAS)

    The budget request included $12.3 million to replace 
selected, aging Block 1 workstations and to support 
digitization efforts. The committee recognizes the value to 
force capabilities by fielding ASAS workstations to tactical 
echelons below division level. The committee recommends an 
increase of $9.7 million to field workstations to maneuver 
brigade and battalion warfighters.
    The committee has also noted with great interest the work 
completed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
(DARPA) in developing the first operational prototype of an 
intelligence fusion system known as the integrated battlespace 
intelligence server, or IBIS. This meritorious work would 
support Army efforts associated with ASAS. The committee 
directs that this work be integrated into the Army effort and 
recommends an increase of $2.0 million for PE 604321A to 
support technological transfer requirements.

Forward area air defense (FAAD) ground based sensor

    The budget request included $51.2 million to procure 16 key 
radar-based sensors for forward deployed Army units. The 
forward area air defense sensor serves to acquire targets and 
alert forces of the proximity of fixed wing aircraft, rotary 
wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise missiles. 
The committee is aware that the current production rate is at 
an uneconomical level and prevents this key force protection 
device from reaching the field as soon as required. As a 
result, the committee recommends an increase of $29.2 million 
to allow the program to procure a total of 36 systems with a 
per unit saving of $900,000.

Night vision devices

    The committee is encouraged by the increased attention 
given this critical area. The budget request for fiscal year 
1997 included $111.9 million to continue developing and 
fielding critical night vision devices that will allow the Army 
to ``own the night'' and to field systems to core contingency 
operations forces. The committee is convinced that these 
devices will increase battlefield effectiveness and lethality, 
reduce the risk to our soldiers, and supports an aggressive 
fielding effort. Therefore, the committee recommends the 
following increases: $50.0 million to fill the requirement for 
approximately 1,000 thermal weapon sights (TWS) for Special 
Operations Forces (SOF); $50.0 million to procure approximately 
7,500 night vision goggles (NVG) for critical combat units in 
the SOF and other light units; $9.1 million for aiming lights, 
including $4.1 million to procure 19,260 AN/PAQ-4B&4C aiming 
lights to fill the modified infantry basis of issue plan and 
upgrade existing lights, and $5.0 million to procure 5,100 AN/
PEQ-2 illuminator/aiming lights for the Army and 2,500 devices 
for the Marine Corps; and $25.0 million for initial spares and 
facilitization of total package fielding for these devices.
    The committee encourages the Army to continue research and 
development in this area to ensure the force is well equipped 
to fight and win at night.

Advanced field artillery tactical data system (AFATDS)

    The budget request included $31.6 million to continue 
fielding of the AFATDS system to high priority units. The 
committee has been advised that the successful use of this 
equipment has resulted in a new requirement to field the 
battlefield coordination element (BCE) at each corps 
headquarters. The BCE will provide an interface capability at 
echelons above corps that gives commanders the capability to 
orchestrate the deep battle and interface with the fighting 
corps/division. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 
million to procure the equipment necessary to ensure that the 
fielding of active Army units is completed by fiscal year 2002, 
as originally scheduled.

Total distribution system

    The budget request included $19.7 million to field 
equipment supporting Army logistical requirements to 
distribute, track, and account for supplies and equipment in 
peace and in war. The committee supports the timely fielding of 
this equipment and notes the corresponding increase in 
efficiency and cost savings in managing inventory. This program 
will enhance logistics operations and should be fielded 
throughout the Army as soon as practicable. The committee 
recommends an increase of $6.0 million to procure the necessary 
equipment to support fielding requirements.

Standard integrated command post system

    The budget request included $26.3 million to procure tents, 
shelters and kits for command post systems. However, the 
committee understands that there is a significant shortfall in 
procuring necessary shelters to house command and control 
systems that are being fielded. Recognizing the importance of 
fielding modernized systems as soon as possible, it is clear 
that this shortfall must be addressed. The committee, 
therefore, recommends an increase of $12.7 million to buy the 
shelters required through fiscal year 1997 and to ensure that 
fieldings can occur on schedule.

Inland petroleum distribution system

    The committee recognizes the importance of improving 
capabilities of Army logistical systems to support deployment 
requirements. The committee believes the inland petroleum 
distribution system will provide a vital resource to a deployed 
force and recommends an increase of $60.0 million to procure 
the equipment required for this system.

Construction equipment, items less than $2.0 million

    The committee continues to support efforts to modernize the 
equipment associated with engineer organizations to allow these 
units to perform critical engineer support functions. One of 
the less glamorous areas that frequently falls short in the 
prioritization process is heavy equipment. The committee notes 
an outstanding Army requirement for 20-ton dump trucks and 
recommends an increase of $60.0 million to procure 300 
vehicles.

Base level communications equipment

    The committee is concerned to note that base communications 
facilities have not received the modernization resources 
required to support existing requirements. The committee 
recommends an increase of $27.0 million to begin modernization 
of base level communications equipment.

                       SUBTITLE C--NAVY PROGRAMS


Section--121. EA-6B aircraft reactive jammer program.

    The committee last year recommended an addition to the 
budget request of $216.0 million to ensure the Department of 
Defense (DOD) had the resources to update badly outdated and 
increasingly important electronic warfare aircraft. The 
committee's recommendation would have dealt with immediate 
needs and would have begun a modest program to provide low cost 
reactive jamming capability.
    The committee understands the Department has initiated 
various projects to halt the deterioration of some of the 
aircraft and return others to service. However, the Department 
has informed the committee of its intention to delay 
development of new receivers or a reactive jamming capability 
until fiscal year 1999. In view of the resources applied by the 
Congress to this program in the fiscal year 1996 budget, the 
committee finds such an approach difficult to understand.
    In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1996, the conferees noted the inconsistent nature of the Navy's 
actions regarding tactical electronic warfare (EW) in recent 
years and voiced deep concern with the Navy's vacillating 
commitment and support for meaningful upgrades for the EA-6B 
aircraft. In the statement of managers accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (H. 
Rept. 104-450), the conferees directed the Secretary of the 
Navy to:
          (1) initiate the EA-6B modifications identified in 
        the report; and
          (2) provide the congressional defense committees 
        with:
                  (a) a program and budget plan for completing 
                the directed modifications;
                  (b) the Joint Tactical Airborne EW Study 
                (JTAEWS).
    The conferees prohibited the Department from obligating 
more than 75 percent of the procurement funds for F/A-18 
aircraft until the Department complied with this guidance.

EA-6B aircraft reactive jammer program

    Although funds were authorized and appropriated for fiscal 
year 1996 to initiate a reactive jammer program for the EA-6B, 
the Department of Defense chose not to initiate such a program, 
and elected instead to program funds for such an effort from 
fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2001.
    The committee finds these actions of ignoring congressional 
direction and refusing to start a modest reactive jamming 
program unacceptable. The EA-6B is currently using obsolete 
receivers with technology from the 1960s. The EA-6B is 
scheduled to be the only airborne standoff jamming capability 
within DOD. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 
$55.0 million in PE 060427N to begin at once a program to 
develop and field a reactive jamming capability in the EA-6B.
    It appears to the committee that the Department of the Navy 
intends to abide by the letter, but not the spirit of the law, 
particularly regarding reactive jamming capability. The 
committee received the report required by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 simultaneous with the 
deadline for obligating the funds for the F/A-18 program. This 
action leads the committee to believe that the language dealing 
with this and other important programs will have to be more 
detailed and explicit. Therefore, the committee feels compelled 
to recommend a provision that would require the Secretary to: 
(1) certify obligation of funds for a reactive jamming program; 
and (2) submit a plan for a complete program to the 
congressional defense committees before obligation of any funds 
for other recommended increases the EA-6B program. The 
provision would also provide that all additional funds listed 
below be transferred to the Air Force for upgrading and 
operating EF-111 aircraft, if such certification is not made by 
June 1, 1997.
    The committee notes that the General Accounting Office 
published a recent report, ``Combat Air Power--Funding Priority 
for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses May Be Too Low'' (GAO-
NSIAD-96-128). That report concludes, ``DoD's planned actions 
in the next few years will have a negative impact on SEAD 
[suppression of enemy air defenses] and may need to be reversed 
in the future, at much greater expense and effort.'' The report 
further suggests that, ``DoD, prior to retiring the F-4G and 
the EF-111, reassess the relative funding priority of SEAD and 
other elements of combat air power based on their war-fighting 
and peacetime contributions''. The committee agrees that the 
Secretary of Defense should postpone the retirement of the EF-
111 until the Department reassesses these funding priorities.

Band 9/10 ECM transmitters

    Last year, the committee recommended an increase to begin 
procurement of a robust band 9/10 capability upgrade for the 
EA-6B fleet. The band 9/10 jammer has been identified as among 
the most immediate of available upgrades. The committee 
understands that the Navy could acquire up to 49 additional 
band 9/10 jammers by exercising options on an existing 
contract. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of 
$40.0 million to acquire as many band 9/10 jammer pods as can 
be secured by exercising existing options.

USQ-113 communications jammer

    The committee recommends an addition of $11.0 million to 
acquire an additional 24 units of the USQ-113 communications 
jammer.

Universal exciter upgrade

    In order to operate the EA-6B weapon system effectively in 
the modern electronic warfare battlefield, the Navy should 
incorporate sophisticated waveform generators in the aircraft. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million in PE 060427N to perform laboratory and field tests to 
develop the required techniques.

Overhead connectivity

    EA-6B flight crews are using laptop computers to obtain and 
process data necessary to conduct operational missions. The 
committee understands that this approach has been successful in 
increasing operators' situational awareness to date. The 
committee encourages innovative approaches to problem solving 
and the use of prototype units. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends an increase of $22.0 million to extend the 
connectivity capability to more fleet assets.
    A summary of recommended increases and their references is 
provided below:

                                       AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC WARFARE FUNDING                                      
                                              [Dollars in millions]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Budget Request       Change     Total            Reference        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procurement:                                                                                                    
    Band 9/10........................    .......................      40.0     $40.0  APN line 19               
                                                                                      OSIP 19-79                
    USQ-113..........................    .......................      11.0      11.0  APN line 19               
                                                                                      OSIP 32-85                
    Overhead connectivity............    .......................      22.0      22.0  APN line 19               
                                                                                      OSIP 32-85                
Research & Development:                                                                                         
    Reactive jamming initiative......    .......................      55.0      55.0  RDT&E, Navy               
                                                                                      PE 060427N                
    Universal exciter upgrade........    .......................      10.0      10.0  RDT&E, Navy               
                                                                                      PE 060427N                
                                      ---------------------------                                               
      Total..........................    .......................  ........    $138.0                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 122. Penguin missile program.

    The budget request contained no funding for the procurement 
of Penguin anti-ship missiles for carriage aboard battle group 
helicopters.
    The SH-60B and SH-60F helicopters that operate from the 
fleet's ships were built to conduct antisubmarine warfare. 
Operation Desert Storm and contingency operations have 
identified the need to equip these helicopters with an 
antisurface capability that would permit them to conduct a 
stand-off engagement of enemy ships. To address this 
operational shortfall, the Navy signed, in 1990, a multi-year 
contract with options to purchase up to a quantity of 193 
Penguin missiles. The basic contract and three of five options 
were exercised to purchase 101 missiles, leaving a shortfall of 
92. The remaining two options were not exercised because of 
affordability constraints in a period of declining resources. 
Exercise firings since procurement was terminated have raised 
the current shortfall to 106 missiles.
    The committee has been informed that the contractor has 
recently offered the Navy an opportunity to satisfy its 
outstanding requirement through a multi-year procurement at 
about 55 percent of the unit cost of the initial procurement.
    To take full advantage of an opportunity to meet an 
outstanding requirement for air to surface missiles at a far 
more affordable price, the committee recommends a provision 
that would permit the Navy to enter into a contract for multi-
year procurement of not more than 106 Penguin missiles, in 
accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code. 
The total amount that could be expended would be limited to 
$84.8 million.

Section 123. Nuclear attack submarine programs.

    The budget request included $296.2 million of advance 
construction and procurement funding for a fiscal year 1998 
nuclear attack submarine and $699.1 million for procurement of 
the third Seawolf class submarine, SSN-23. It included no 
advance construction and procurement funding for the 
procurement of a second nuclear attack submarine in fiscal year 
1999, as called for in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1996 and the Navy's six year shipbuilding plan, 
submitted in conjunction with the budget request.
    In fiscal year 1996, Congress authorized and appropriated 
$100.0 million for advance construction and procurement of a 
nuclear attack submarine in fiscal year 1999. This funding was 
in consonance with a plan for competition for the future 
procurement of nuclear attack submarines that was contained in 
the Senate bill S. 1026 (S. Rept. 104-112). During the ensuing 
fiscal year 1996 conference with the House National Security 
Committee, administration representatives expressed support for 
the Senate's plan for future competition. However, the budget 
request did not contain the funding necessary to implement it. 
This omission has raised serious concerns in the committee's 
mind about the commitment of the administration to its 
previously expressed support for competitive procurement of 
future nuclear attack submarines.
     While full implementation of the report, Report on Nuclear 
Attack Submarine Procurement and Submarine Technology, 
submitted by the Secretary of Defense on March 26, 1996, will 
clearly be the subject of future interaction between the 
Department and Congress, it is the committee's view that the 
administration made an unambiguous commitment last year to 
construction of a nuclear attack submarine at Newport News 
Shipbuilding in fiscal year 1999. The funding proposed in the 
budget request would imply otherwise. The committee's 
recommendation regarding the future procurement of nuclear 
attack submarines is designed to clarify the situation.
    For future procurement of nuclear attack submarines, the 
committee recommends a provision that would:
    (1) authorize $804.1 million for continued construction of 
SSN-23 to satisfy the budget request of $699.1 million and also 
accelerate the last increment of $105.0 million for SSN-23 from 
fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 1997;
    (2) authorize $296.2 million for long-lead and advance 
construction and procurement of a nuclear attack submarine that 
would be built at Electric Boat, commencing in fiscal year 
1998;
    (3) authorize $701.0 million for advance construction and 
procurement for a nuclear attack submarine that would be built 
at Newport News Shipbuilding, commencing in fiscal year 1999 to 
satisfy all known long-lead requirements for this submarine;
    (4) stipulate that the obligation and expenditure of fiscal 
year 1997 funds for the fiscal year 1998 and 1999 submarines 
shall be in accordance with a memorandum of agreement among the 
Department of the Navy, Newport News Shipbuilding, and Electric 
Boat, dated April 5, 1996, relating to design data transfer, 
design improvements, integrated process teams, updated design 
data base, and other research and development initiatives 
related to the design of these submarines;
    (5) direct that the Secretary of the Navy may enter into 
contracts with Electric Boat for the fiscal year 1998 submarine 
only if he also enters into contracts with Newport News 
Shipbuilding for the fiscal year 1999 submarine;
    (6) limit the amount of funds authorized in fiscal year 
1997 that can be obligated or expended on SSN-23, the fiscal 
year 1998 submarine, or the fiscal year 1999 submarine to a 
total of not more than $100.0 million until the Secretary of 
Defense makes written certification to Congress of his 
intention to comply with the plan for future competition for 
procurement of nuclear attack submarines pursuant to the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996; and
    (7) limit the amount of funds authorized in fiscal year 
1997 that can be obligated or expended on SSN-23, the fiscal 
year 1998 submarine, or the fiscal year 1999 submarine to a 
total of $100.0 million until the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition and Technology submits a report in writing to 
Congress detailing:
          (a) his oversight activities as of the date of such 
        report and his future plans for development and 
        improvement of the Department of the Navy's nuclear 
        attack submarine program;
          (b) the implementation of, and activities under, the 
        advanced submarine technology program required to be 
        established by the Director of the Defense Advanced 
        Research Projects Agency (DARPA) by section 131(i) of 
        the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
        1996; and
          (c) a description of all research, development, test 
        and evaluation programs, and other projects within the 
        Department of Defense that are designed to or could, in 
        the opinion of the Under Secretary, contribute to the 
        development and demonstration of advanced submarine 
        technologies that could lead to a more affordable, more 
        capable submarine, and include a discussion of plans 
        for the future involvement of the two shipyards that 
        are responsible for the construction of nuclear attack 
        submarines.
    Authorization, in fiscal year 1997, of the funding levels 
contained in the committee's recommended provision will permit 
the Navy to order components for the fiscal year 1998 and 1999 
submarines in economic quantities and facilitate the transfer 
of design information from Electric Boat to Newport News 
Shipbuilding. According to the Navy, the new design-build 
process being used by the Navy and Electric Boat for the new 
attack submarine will accelerate completion of its detailed 
design to a level never achieved for other classes when the 
contract for the lead submarine, the fiscal year 1998 boat, is 
awarded. Timely advance procurement and construction funding at 
the level recommended for the fiscal year 1999 submarine should 
eliminate much of the schedule and cost risk that could have 
been expected for a first follow-ship under previous design 
practice.

Section 124. Arleigh Burke class destroyer program.

    The budget request includes $3,384.1 million for the 
procurement of four Arleigh Burke class destroyers and advance 
procurement for future destroyers of this class.
    During hearings associated with the budget request, the 
committee has learned that the Navy's request for Arleigh Burke 
class destroyers was developed in an effort to comply with a 
provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1996 that authorized six Arleigh Burke class destroyers 
and authorized the Secretary of the Navy to enter into 
contracts for three of these ships in fiscal year 1996 and 
three of them in fiscal year 1997. The funding amount included 
in the fiscal year 1997 budget request is predicated on 
reprogramming $104.0 million in fiscal year 1996 to permit the 
Navy to exercise a contract option for a third ship in fiscal 
year 1996. The balance of funds needed for this third ship was 
contained in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. The fiscal 
year 1997 request also includes full funding for an additional 
three destroyers. By pursuing this acquisition strategy, the 
Navy has testified that it can save about $280.0 million on the 
acquisition of a total of six destroyers in the two fiscal 
years, 1996 and 1997.
    Although the Navy has testified that it is both cost 
effective and necessary from an industrial base perspective to 
maintain two building shipyards for production of Arleigh Burke 
class destroyers, the committee has also learned that resource 
constraints in the Navy's future years defense programs have 
limited the planned procurement to only two in fiscal year 
1998. This quantity would make it extremely difficult to 
maintain the existing industrial base and would also greatly 
increase the unit cost of the two fiscal year 1998 destroyers.
    Appearing before the committee's seapower subcommittee on 
March 21, 1996, the Department of the Navy's senior acquisition 
executive testified that the most cost effective method of 
procuring additional Arleigh Burke class destroyers during the 
period fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2001 would be by the 
authorization of 12 ships over the four year period. Such an 
authorization would permit him to negotiate contracts and 
contract options that would sustain the industrial base and 
generate savings of about $1.0 billion for the procurement of 
these 12 ships.
    As a result of information gathered during its hearings, 
the committee recommends:
          (1) authorization of the budget request for Arleigh 
        Burke class destroyers;
          (2) authorization of $750.0 million above the budget 
        request for advance procurement of Arleigh Burke class 
        destroyers in fiscal year 1998 to permit the Navy to 
        plan for and acquire three destroyers in fiscal year 
        1998;
          (3) a provision that would authorize 12 Arleigh Burke 
        class destroyers from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 
        2001 to provide a stable procurement program that would 
        allow the Navy to acquire these ships at a substantial 
        cost savings; and
          (4) the Secretary of the Navy continue the contract 
        award strategy that he has used in recent years to 
        provide stability and planning continuity for the 
        Arleigh Burke class industrial base.

                          OTHER NAVY PROGRAMS

                             Navy Aircraft

AV-8B remanufacture

    The budget request contained $304.9 million for the 
remanufacture of 10 AV-8B Harrier aircraft into the Harrier II 
Plus configuration and for advance procurement for future 
remanufactures. The planned procurement of 12 remanufactured 
Harrier aircraft in fiscal year 1997, which was reflected in 
last year's budget request, was reduced to 10 because of 
resource constraints. The Harrier II Plus configuration 
provides day/night/adverse weather improvements to the AV-8B 
aircraft. Last year the committee recommended the addition of 
funds to double the administration's request for four such 
remanufactures in order to procure them at a more cost 
effective rate.
    The committee notes that the same logic that applied last 
year is equally relevant in fiscal year 1997. A more aggressive 
near-term buy of remanufactured AV-8B Harrier II's will result 
in both long-term savings and improved near-term capability. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $68.0 
million to procure an additional two aircraft and the necessary 
integrated logistics support for the AV-8B program that the 
future years defense program presently defers to fiscal years 
1999 and 2000.

F/A-18C/D

    The committee understands that the overall inventory 
objective for the F/A-18C in the Navy's ten active airwings is 
a minimum of 436 aircraft. However, although the Navy had 
previously programmed for sufficient numbers of aircraft for 
its force structure needs, recent Department of Defense budgets 
have not included the originally programmed quantities.
    Realizing the increased combat capabilities of the F-18C 
over the earlier models, and the need to have modern, capable 
carrier-based strike aircraft, the committee recommends an 
increase of $234.0 million for six F/A-18C aircraft, their 
ancillary equipment, and logistics support.

MV-22

    The budget request for the MV-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft 
was $558.7 million to procure four aircraft and associated 
support equipment.
    While the operational requirements document requires the 
MV-22 program to achieve a fiscal year 1999 initial operating 
capability (IOC), the budget request only supports an IOC in 
fiscal year 2001. The committee understands that an increase of 
$302.0 million for MV-22 procurement would accelerate the 
acquisition of two aircraft from fiscal year 2021 to fiscal 
year 1997. The program manager believes that this action would 
result in a cost saving of $32.0 million from fiscal year 1998 
through fiscal 2001. The committee has further been informed 
that there are no technical or programmatic impediments to 
making an acceleration.
    The committee is well aware of the funding history for 
development of the MV-22 in recent fiscal years. It is clear 
that the program has represented a large block of money that 
has frequently been used as a source for minor reprogrammings 
and adjustments to meet new requirements in the Department of 
Defense. The committee has concluded that these actions have 
left virtually no margin to the program manager to deal with 
the normal minor problems that emerge during transition of a 
major program from the late stages of development into 
production. A modest increment of additional funding in fiscal 
year 1997 could well prevent disruptive delays during the first 
years of low-rate, initial production.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $232.0 
million for V-22 procurement to acquire an additional two MV-22 
aircraft and $70.0 million for long lead funding to support 
production in fiscal year 1998 of 12 aircraft. Additionally, 
the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 
64262N for risk mitigation during the first year of low-rate 
production.

Flight simulators

    The committee supports the maximum use of flight simulators 
that provide required training while eliminating costs 
associated with range and ammunition usage. The committee 
recommends an increase of $60.0 million to procure or upgrade 
simulators for three systems, as well as to support relocation 
of fielded systems to collocate them with using units, as 
follows:

        System                                                  Millions
V-22.............................................................. $49.0
AV-8B.............................................................  10.0
CH-53D............................................................   1.0

Restoration of E-2C procurement

    The E-2C aircraft is a carrier-based aircraft designed for 
early warning, interceptor and strike control, as well as other 
missions. The Navy resumed production in fiscal year 1995, with 
the intent of purchasing four aircraft per year for a total of 
36 aircraft. That planned acquisition rate of E-2Cs has been 
reduced from four aircraft to two in the budget request for 
fiscal year 1997. The committee understands that procuring two 
more E-2C aircraft, which are already in production at the 
previously programmed rate, would lead to a savings of $13.2 
million per aircraft. Accordingly, the committee recommends an 
increase of $139.0 million to acquire a total of four E-2C 
aircraft in fiscal year 1997.

Airborne self-protection jammer (ASPJ)

    The budget request did not include funding to modify F/A-
18C/Ds with the AN/ALQ-165, or airborne self-protection jammer 
(ASPJ), although the ASPJ has performed capably in Bosnia 
operations. Realizing that the ASPJ system is available at 
reasonable costs and that the integrated defensive electronic 
countermeasures (IDECM) system has just begun development, the 
committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million to buy 36 
ASPJ systems, including aircraft interface units (racks), 
spares and additional integrated logistic support for three 
deployed F/A-18C/D squadrons.

Helicopter crash attenuating seats

    Section 136 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 directed the initiation of a program to 
provide crash attenuating troop seats for H-53 helicopters, 
using commercially developed, energy absorbing seats. As a 
result of congressional direction, the Department of Defense 
initiated efforts to define the requirements for a competition 
for procuring such sets as non-developmental items (NDI).
    The committee has been informed that the necessary program 
definition has been completed and the program is nearing 
release of the standards needed to begin a full and open 
competition to procure such seats. The committee understands 
the program has defined an option to procure 2,400 seats 
through competitive bids.
    The committee is gratified at the Department's progress in 
launching this important safety initiative. However, the 
program has evolved out of phase with the budget process, and, 
accordingly, was not included in the budget request.
    The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million for 
the competitive procurement of crash attenuating seats for the 
H-53 helicopter. Should the recommended increase be more than 
needed for this procurement, the committee directs the 
Secretary to apply such funds to the definition of needs for 
other helicopters.

Vertical replenishment helicopter replacement program

    The committee understands that the Navy has an urgent 
requirement to replace its obsolete and costly CH-46 vertical 
replenishment (VERTREP) helicopter fleet with either a new 
helicopter or a derivative of an existing helicopter. The 
committee is also aware that:
          (1) based on recent studies, efficiencies could be 
        gained within Naval aviation from the use of a common 
        helicopter airframe; and
          (2) Navy planning for modernizing its VERTREP 
        helicopter fleet has progressed to a point that a start 
        in fiscal year 1997 is possible.
    The committee has also been informed of an agreement that 
has been reached between the Army and the Navy to support 
initiation of the Navy's VERTREP helicopter replacement program 
through:
          (1) the use of engineering change proposals; and
          (2) the use of an airframe that would be provided by 
        the Army and a main/tail rotor system that would be 
        provided by the Navy.
    When possible, the committee has supported efforts by the 
services to accelerate programs to achieve efficiencies in 
procurement and operations. In support of such an initiative, 
the committee recommends increasing funding by $10.0 million 
above the budget request to initiate a VERTREP helicopter 
replacement program in fiscal year 1997.

P-3 intelligence support

    The budget request included $17.6 million within the P-3 
aircraft modifications line to procure non-developmental, 
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS), roll-on/roll-off signals 
intelligence (SIGINT) sensors for use aboard P-3C aircraft. 
While budget documentation provides little information on this 
concept, it appears that the Navy intends to incorporate this 
capability as an adjunct to its P-3 anti-surface warfare (ASUW) 
improvement program (AIP).
    The committee is concerned that the Navy has not developed 
an operational concept for employing the SIGINT capability that 
it proposes to add to the P-3C aircraft. Nor is it clear that 
the Navy's proposal relates well to the capability already 
provided by its existing fleet of EP-3 aircraft. It would 
appear that the Navy is attempting to expand the scope of the 
P-3 AIP without first providing a sound rationale for doing so. 
Important questions that should be answered to address the 
committee's initial concerns would be:
          (1) to what degree would P-3C aircraft equipped with 
        such a COTS SIGINT package be interoperable with other 
        SIGINT platforms?
          (2) are sufficient specially trained personnel 
        available to support both existing SIGINT systems and 
        this one as well?
    The committee recommends against approving the procurement 
of COTS SIGINT sensors in fiscal year 1997, and that the budget 
request for P-3 modifications be reduced by $17.6 million.

P-3C anti-surface warfare improvement program

    The P-3C anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP) was 
begun in fiscal year 1994 to provide a commercial off-the-shelf 
(COTS)/non-developmental item (NDI) upgrade to the Navy's 
existing fleet of P-3C aircraft to improve its capability to 
conduct anti-surface warfare (ASUW), over the horizon (OTH) 
targeting, and command and control interface with other command 
centers and fleet units. Prior review of this program by the 
committee has shown that the P-3C AIP gives the aircraft a much 
better capability to execute littoral warfare missions at a 
reasonable price.
    Unfortunately, while the nation's operational commanders-
in-chief (CINCs) have given the P-3C AIP program strong 
support, the Navy has consistently short-changed its resources. 
To meet an operational requirement that calls for the 
procurement of 68 kits between fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 
2001 at an economical procurement rate of 12 kits per year, the 
Navy has budgeted resources for only one kit in fiscal year 
1997. In fiscal year 1996 the Navy budgeted for only seven.
    It appears to the committee that the Navy has come, 
increasingly, to look to Congress to sustain the P-3C AIP. This 
was the case in fiscal year 1996 when Congress added five kits. 
Fiscal year 1997 reflects the same behavior to a much greater 
degree.
    The committee recommends an increase of $87.0 million for 
the procurement of 11 additional P-3C AIP kits in fiscal year 
1997. Procurement funding at this level would reduce the unit 
cost of the kits procured by at least 70 percent and satisfy 
CINC requirements.
    Aside from the merits of the P-3C AIP, the Navy should 
understand that a principal reason the committee has 
recommended this increase is to give the Navy an opportunity to 
evaluate the priority of the P-3C AIP, negotiate with the CINCs 
as to their requirements, and determine whether it will 
continue to pursue the P-3C AIP in the future. Budget requests 
at the rate of one kit per year make no sense to the committee.
    While the committee believes that the P-3C AIP has merit, 
there are many other programs in the requirements queue eager 
to claim resources. Consequently, the committee wants to make 
it clear that the committee does not intend to take on the P-3C 
AIP as a permanent future entitlement.
    If the Navy chooses not to request 12 P-3C AIP kits in its 
fiscal year 1998 budget request, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to submit a report, to accompany the 
budget request, that:
          (1) identifies the requirements for the P-3C AIP that 
        the CINCs have provided to the Navy;
          (2) discusses any changes to those requirements that 
        may have occurred in conjunction with preparation of 
        the fiscal year 1998 budget request;
          (3) provides the Navy's plan, as reflected in the 
        fiscal year 1998 future years defense program, of how 
        the Navy intends to satisfy the CINC requirements; and
          (4) provides explicit rationale for any disparity 
        between the Navy plan and the CINC requirements.

                              Navy Weapons

Tomahawk land attack missile

    In both Iraq and Bosnia, the Tomahawk land attack missile 
(TLAM), once considered primarily a strategic weapons system, 
has been increasingly used in a tactical role. Tactical use has 
increased the demand for this missile at a time when budget 
reductions have reduced procurement below previously planned 
levels and left a required five year recertification of 
existing Block IIC missiles unfunded. As a consequence of these 
deferred certifications, operational commanders have been 
forced to rely on the practice of crossdecking missiles from 
returning ships to those that are preparing to deploy. The 
budget request would procure 120 Block IIIC missiles, contains 
no funding for remanufacture of existing Block IIC missiles to 
the Block IIIC configuration, and recertifies only 23 percent 
of the missiles with maintenance due dates in fiscal years 1996 
and 1997. Recertification funding at this level would be 
inadequate to permit operational commanders to satisfy their 
deployment loadout requirements after fiscal year 1996.
    The committee has also learned that an effort made by 
Congress last year to accelerate development of the Tomahawk 
Block IV missile would be thwarted by a substantial reduction 
in program funding that was made during development of the 
fiscal year 1997 budget request. Funds needed to continue the 
effort were diverted to fund ongoing contingency operations.
    The committee recommends an increase of $111.8 million 
above the budget request for the TLAM program. Of this amount, 
$32.0 million would be for the procurement of new Block IIIC 
missiles, $14.4 million for remanufacture of Block IIC missiles 
to the Block IIIC configuration, $40.6 million for the 
recertification of existing Block IIC missiles, and $29.0 
million would be for continued development of the Tomahawk 
Block IV missile in PE 24229N.

Standard missile procurement

    The committee has learned that additional procurement 
funding for the Navy's Standard missile would resolve valid 
Navy inventory requirements, produce production efficiencies 
that would lower missile unit cost, and increase overall 
stability in the program. The program has been subject to 
considerable disruption by reprogramming of its fiscal year 
1996 funds.
    The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million above 
the budget request for the procurement of additional SM2 Block 
IV missiles to help rationalize the Standard missile production 
base and support ballistic missile defense development options.

                    Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition

    The committee is concerned with the inadequate funding for 
ammunition that was contained in the President's budget 
request. Ammunition is an important contributor to military 
readiness, for training and in anticipation of conflict. The 
committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget 
request for Marine Corps ammunition procurement:

        Item                                                    Millions
155 mm CHG. Prop. Red Bag......................................... $24.0
155 mm D864, Base Bleed...........................................  45.0
Fuze, ET, XM762...................................................  29.0
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total.......................................................  98.0

                    Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion

Seawolf submarine

    Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for the 
procurement of three Seawolf class submarines. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 imposed a cost 
cap on the total procurement cost associated with these three 
submarines. The committee has been informed by the Department 
of the Navy that its current cost projections for the 
procurement of the SSN-21, the fiscal year 1989 authorized 
ship, SSN-22, the fiscal year 1991 authorized ship, and SSN-23, 
the fiscal year 1996 authorized ship, are very close to the 
cost cap. The committee has also been advised by the Department 
of the Navy that $278.0 million of class detail design costs 
were never included under the cost cap for the three 
submarines. These costs had been allocated to now canceled 
portions of the Seawolf program and were, mistakenly, not 
included when the cost cap amount was calculated and agreed to 
between Congress and the Department of the Navy. As a result, 
these class detail design costs were not treated by Congress or 
the Department of the Navy as obligations or expenditures for 
purposes of establishing the cost cap for procurement of SSN-
21, SSN-22, and SSN-23.
    The committee directs the Navy to continue to include these 
procurement costs, and all other Seawolf related costs, in 
reports that it provides to Congress on the total cost of the 
Seawolf program. The committee will not look favorably on any 
additional procurement costs that may emerge and be 
characterized as not having been included in the cost cap.

LPD-17 class amphibious ships

    The budget request contained no funding for procurement of 
an LPD-17 class amphibious ship.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
authorized and appropriated $938.5 million for procurement of 
the lead ship of the LPD-17 class. Under the future years 
defense program, the Navy will request authorization for the 
next ship of this class in fiscal year 1998.
    Because of the emphasis that the committee has placed on 
reducing pressure on the shipbuilding account by accelerating 
the procurement of ships in the future years defense program, 
the committee considered accelerating the LPD-17 class. There 
is a clear requirement for timely procurement of 12 LPD-17 
class ships to join the Navy's 12 amphibious ready groups 
(ARGs) and resolve current shortfalls in the Navy's ability to 
provide the 2.5 MEB amphibious lift called for in the Bottom-Up 
Review.
    Tempering acceleration of the LPD-17 class, however, was 
the committee's knowledge of a long established Navy practice 
for the construction of a new class of ships. This practice, 
based on a considerable amount of hard won experience, provides 
for a single gap year between the authorization of the lead 
ship of a class and authorization of the second ship of the 
class. This gap year provides the shipbuilder and the Navy with 
an opportunity to execute a sufficient amount of the detail 
design of the lead ship to considerably reduce the risk of 
schedule slippage and cost growth for the follow-ships. The 
committee reviewed the production history of a number of ship 
construction programs over the last twenty years and found that 
92 percent of the programs that were pursued without a gap year 
between lead ship and first follow-ship produced schedule 
slippage, in several cases in excess of two years, and 
consequential cost growth in the first follow-ship. In a number 
of instances, this schedule slippage propagated into subsequent 
follow-ships as well.
    During a hearing on shipbuilding, held in conjunction with 
the committee's review of the budget request, the Navy 
expressed some optimism that, with a contract award late in 
fiscal year 1997, it would be able to avoid the pitfalls that 
had plagued earlier programs. In evaluating this testimony, 
however, the committee is also aware that the contract award 
date for the lead LPD-17 ship has now slipped until late into 
fiscal year 1996, and may slip more. Consequently, it would 
appear that the rationale upon which the Navy's testimony was 
based is no longer valid.
    Given past experience with attempts to accelerate a new 
class of ships before sufficient design work has been completed 
and the additional consideration that the contract award for 
LPD-17 will not occur until late in fiscal year 1996, the 
committee concludes that it would not be prudent to accelerate 
authorization of the first follow-ship into fiscal year 1997. 
However, the committee does recommend an increase of $8.0 
million in PE 64311N to allow the Navy to pursue a reduced 
manning initiative for the LPD-17 class. Since contract award 
for the lead ship may still occur in fiscal year 1997, pursuit 
of this initiative must begin as early as possible in order for 
its results to be incorporated in the detail design of the 
ship.

Oceanographic survey ship

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
authorized and appropriated $15.6 million of advance 
procurement for an oceanographic survey ship, TAGS-64. The 
budget request did not contain the additional increment needed 
to fully fund this ship. The future years defense program would 
not procure this ship until fiscal year 1999. Procurement of 
this ship, to satisfy a well documented requirement, through an 
existing contract option, would result in substantial cost 
savings. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase to 
the budget request of $54.4 million to complete procurement of 
TAGS-64.

SWATH oceanographic research ship

    The Navy has well-documented requirements, approaching 240 
ship-years of backlog, for additional oceanographic survey 
work, particularly in the littoral areas of the world. A 
substantial percentage of these requirements cannot be 
satisfied by the Navy fleet of seven survey ships that are 
either in service or under construction. Even if the Navy were 
to build additional ships for its own use, the Oceanographer of 
the Navy does not have sufficient operating funds programmed to 
pay for all of the additional survey work needed to eliminate 
his backlog.
    The committee has reviewed the matter and concluded that 
the Navy could pursue another approach to getting additional 
survey work performed. The committee has learned that there are 
currently five oceanographic research ships that are owned by 
the Navy and operated by a civilian university or research 
institute under the supervision of the Chief of Naval Research. 
One of these oceanographic research ships will soon be retired 
due to obsolescence. The committee believes that, when this 
ship is replaced, the Navy and the recipient could enter into 
an agreement whereby the Navy would provide the university or 
research institute a vessel, and the university or research 
institute would schedule and pay for some portion of its year's 
research work to support Navy oceanographic survey 
requirements. Such an arrangement could modernize an important 
capability and also reduce future demand for Navy operation and 
maintenance funding to pay for ship survey operations.
    The committee recommends an increase to the budget request 
of $45.0 million to provide the additional funding needed to 
build a small water plane area, twin-hulled (SWATH) 
oceanographic vessel based on the TAGOS-23 class of 
surveillance ships. The committee directs the Navy to negotiate 
a time sharing agreement with the university or institute that 
will operate it, whereby a certain portion of the ship's annual 
operating time would be dedicated to meeting the Navy's needs. 
The Navy should report to the congressional defense committees 
on its progress in achieving this agreement by December 15, 
1997.

                         Other Navy Procurement

WSN-7 inertial navigation system

    The budget request included $11.7 million for procurement 
of the WSN-7 ring laser inertial navigation system.
    The WSN-7 is a passive shipboard navigation system capable 
of worldwide operations without the need for external position 
reference information over the course of a 14 day reset 
interval. The Navy is procuring the WSN-7 as a common system to 
replace three different inertial navigation systems currently 
installed on aircraft carriers, surface combatants, and 
submarines. Accelerated procurement of this highly reliable, 
easily maintained system could provide substantial maintenance 
savings.
    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million above 
the budget request for the procurement of additional WSN-7 
navigation sets. It is estimated that this investment could 
save $28.7 million in maintenance cost avoidance during the 
period of the future years defense program from fiscal year 
1997 to fiscal year 2001.

Mine warfare

    During hearings associated with the fiscal year 1997 budget 
request the committee explored progress made by the Navy in 
correcting deficiencies in its mine countermeasures (MCM) 
capabilities that were revealed during Operation Desert Storm. 
Mines present an inexpensive and challenging deterrent to 
amphibious operations in the littoral areas where the 
Department of the Navy has concentrated its strategic focus 
since the end of the Cold War. Studies conducted after 
Operation Desert Storm demonstrated that the Navy's historical 
approach to allocating resources for MCM has been cyclical. 
While greater priority has occasionally been given for short 
periods to this mission when mines prevented execution of an 
amphibious operation as they did in both Korea and Operation 
Desert Storm, emphasis has soon waned and funding has been 
reduced to subsistence levels.
    To some degree, this pattern has repeated itself in the 
recent past. After Operation Desert Storm, Department of the 
Navy and congressional interest caused MCM resources to 
increase. The committee has learned, however, that funding for 
mine warfare and MCM represents only about one percent of the 
Department's budget request, resulting in an amount that 
corresponds to historical, subsistence level norms. The amount 
available to the resource sponsor directly responsible for mine 
warfare and MCM on the Chief of Naval Operations staff is even 
less, at only about 0.6 percent.
    This return to historical norms has caused many exploratory 
programs that were initiated with the increased resources 
allocated after Operation Desert Storm to become starved for 
lack of funding. Further, a substantial portion of the funding 
associated with MCM during recent fiscal years has had to be 
used to address maintenance and reliability problems associated 
with existing systems or systems coming into service, rather 
than for improving capabilities.
    The committee also learned that, during the past year, the 
mine warfare resource sponsor has devoted considerable effort 
to developing a campaign plan that identifies ``all the money 
being spent in the name of mine warfare'' and establishes an 
integrated, prioritized effort to resolve mine warfare 
shortfalls. This plan, if executed, would address maintenance 
shortfalls, modernize existing systems, and address capability 
gaps, in that order. However, because of the timing associated 
with the development of this plan relative to the Department's 
budgeting cycle, virtually all of the highest priority items in 
the campaign plan are not funded in the fiscal year 1997 budget 
request.
    In summary, the committee has concluded that, while the 
Navy has improved its operational capabilities within the 
constraints imposed by existing equipment and resource 
allocation, much remains to be done to satisfy mission 
requirements that would be essential elements of a successful 
amphibious assault. Accordingly the committee recommends an 
increase in funding of $64.0 million to accelerate several of 
the Navy's highest priority MCM programs. Specific 
authorizations in priority order would be:

        Item                                          Funding (millions)
SQQ-32/SLQ-48 Spares..........................................      $6.3
Integrated Combat Weapons System (ICWS).......................      17.8
AQS-14A Console Upgrade Procurement...........................       5.7
Very Shallow Water MCM Unit Outfitting........................       1.5
MCM Battle Space Profiler (BSP)...............................       1.7
Air MCM C4I Upgrades..........................................       7.8
EOD C4I Product Improvement...................................       1.0
MK-105 Sled Upgrades..........................................      21.2
EOD Full Face Mask............................................       1.0

    The committee also recommends an increase of $4.0 million 
in PE 63782N for completion of the science and technology 
demonstration program for the beach zone array subsystem of the 
explosive neutralization program. This subsystem has shown 
strong promise in the early stages of its development to 
provide an important contribution toward meeting the full 
operational requirement for MCM forces to conduct in-stride 
mine clearance of amphibious assault beach lanes.

AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation radar

    There is no funding in the budget request for the 
procurement of AN/BPS-16 submarine radar navigation sets or 
mast assemblies.
    The Navy has been procuring a commercial off-the-shelf 
(COTS) variant of the AN/BPS-16 radar navigation set and its 
associated mast assembly for installation on new construction 
submarines and on SSN-688 class submarines that will remain in 
service in the fleet. Procurement of the COTS variant has 
resulted in a 40 percent savings over a comparable system built 
to military specifications. The AN/BPS-16 replaces an existing 
radar system that has proven unreliable in service and is labor 
intensive to maintain. Procurement of additional AN/BPS-16 
radar sets in fiscal year 1997 will avoid a production break 
and associated start up costs for the procurement of additional 
radar sets currently included in the future years defense 
program.
    The committee recommends an increase of $16.9 million for 
the procurement of additional AN/BPS-16 radar sets. This amount 
would be sufficient to satisfy the inventory objective for 
radar sets and radar mast assemblies for SSN-688 class 
submarines.

Surface ship torpedo defense

    The budget request contains no funding for the procurement 
of surface ship torpedo defense (SSTD) kits. These kits include 
a torpedo alertment processor (TAP), which provides torpedo 
alert, a launcher, and a launched expendable acoustic device 
(LEAD) designed to decoy enemy torpedoes. Both TAP and LEAD are 
based on low cost, low maintenance, commercial off-the-shelf 
(COTS) technology. Procurement of SSTD kits is an ongoing 
program that was funded in fiscal year 1996 and includes future 
years defense program funding in fiscal year 1998 and beyond. 
Funding for the program in fiscal year 1997 was eliminated 
during preparation of the budget request to meet other urgent 
readiness requirements.
    The committee recommends an increase of $12.5 million above 
the budget request for the procurement of additional SSTD kits 
for installation on amphibious ships, combat logistic force 
ships, and an aircraft carrier.

Shipboard integrated communications system

    In fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $6.3 million to 
procure a modern interior communications (IC) system for Navy 
aircraft carriers that can provide seamless interior and 
exterior connectivity for fleet units. In last year's report to 
accompany S. 1026 (S. Rept. 104-112), the committee dealt at 
some length with the apparent stagnation in Navy programs whose 
stated objective is to provide such a system. Virtually all 
Navy ships are still forced to rely on technology that was 
developed during World War II. In the committee's recent 
experience, the Navy has pursued the development of one poorly 
conceived alternative after another, producing nothing, while 
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) non-developmental systems that 
are already available languish unused.
    In response to committee direction (S. Rept. 104-112) to 
prepare a report on its plan to replace obsolete IC technology, 
the Navy produced a cursory response that continues to focus on 
its need to define a baseline system architecture that could be 
used to procure a COTS system at some undetermined point in the 
future. This is essentially the same response that the Navy 
provided two years ago when the committee first raised the 
question in a less formal way. The Navy report gives the 
committee no confidence that the Navy is giving priority to 
acquisition of an existing system rather than trying to re-
invent what is already available.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million above 
the budget request, specifically for the competitive 
procurement of an existing integrated communications system 
that can be installed aboard aircraft carriers and other fleet 
units without delay. The committee also strongly encourages the 
Department of the Navy's senior acquisition executive to 
personally review the Navy's interior communications program 
and to report his findings, in more detail than is contained in 
the report he submitted in response to S. Rept. 104-112, no 
later than January 31, 1997.

Challenge Athena

    The budget request included no funding for the Chief of 
Naval Operation's special project Challenge Athena. This budget 
decision was made despite a series of favorable reports by the 
Navy's operational commanders on the very significant 
contributions that Challenge Athena had made to the success of 
their operational deployments.
    As noted in its report to accompany the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (S. Rept 104-112), the 
committee has followed the progress of several commercial 
satellite communications (SATCOM) technologies to evaluate how 
this technology could be best utilized to reduce the load on 
existing military systems and come closer to the goal of 
providing near real-time information to the warfighter. One 
such program, Challenge Athena, offers the technology to 
provide a communications data rate of greater than 1.554 Mbps. 
This data rate permits transmission of near real-time imagery 
for precision targeting and strike, video teleconferencing, 
telemedicine, and nearly transparent inter-theater 
communications.
    The committee has concluded that the additional 
capabilities provided by Challenge Athena are of sufficient 
priority that additional funding is warranted and recommends an 
increase of $41.7 million above the budget request for 
Challenge Athena, $14.7 million for procurement and $27.0 
million for operation of the system.

Global broadcast

    The budget request included $113.2 million for launch 
services for UHF follow-on (UFO) satellites 8, 9, and 10. These 
satellites will support UHF, EHF, and global broadcast service 
(GBS) communications. However, the budget request did not 
contain funding for the ground and sea-based equipment needed 
to implement the GBS capability.
    The committee has noted a tendency of defense acquisition 
to focus on procurement of major intelligence gathering and 
production systems and sophisticated weapons systems while not 
giving comparable attention to the communications and data 
links needed to support them. Given the fact that modern 
warfighting systems are inherently dependent on the 
transmission of vast amounts of data to realize their full 
potential, a lack of emphasis on the data links and 
communications pipelines that feed them is short-sighted. Under 
present conditions, for example, the existing network of 
military communications satellites is under great pressure from 
the growing demands of the nation's warfighters for detailed 
imagery, intelligence, and tactical information.
    A program to address these information demands emerged last 
year. It would involve the use of satellite direct broadcast 
technology. This technology is inherent in the design of 
commercial satellites and can be incorporated as an add-on 
package to military satellites, such as the UFO series. 
Suitably equipped commercial and military satellites will be 
capable of providing high capacity, one-way broadcast 
transmissions to very small terminals. For the military this 
capability has become known as the GBS.
    Because of its need to provide a wide-band communications 
capability to ships that are space constrained and widely 
distributed world-wide, the Navy has been particularly active 
in seeking to benefit from GBS. The Navy has identified two 
near-term phases that would first make use of commercial 
satellites to provide GBS support, then incorporate the 
capability into its UFO satellite series beginning in fiscal 
year 1998. However, the transition from concept to a concrete 
program has progressed at a more rapid pace than the Department 
of Defense's planning, programming, and budgeting cycle. As a 
consequence, while the space segment of GBS has received some 
measure of funding in the fiscal year 1997 budget request, the 
ground and afloat segment received none. Additional funding in 
fiscal year 1997 will ensure that GBS can be included in UFO 
satellites 8, 9, and 10. It would also procure a sufficient 
number of ship and shore terminals to provide GBS through the 
use of commercial satellites to a large cross section of the 
fleet and the Navy's ashore commanders even sooner.
    To ensure that the diverse requirements of the Navy's GBS 
program progress in a complementary manner, the committee 
recommends an increase of $50.5 million above the budget 
request as follows:
          (1) $39.0 million for the procurement and 
        installation of shipboard GBS satellite terminals;
          (2) $7.0 million for the procurement and installation 
        of shore GBS satellite terminals; and
          (3) $4.5 million to provide for launch services for 
        UFO satellites 8, 9, and 10.

Rolling air frame missile launcher for LSD-52

    In fiscal year 1996, Congress authorized and appropriated 
$20.0 million to install the ship self-defense system (SSDS) MK 
1 and the rolling airframe missile (RAM) system in LSD-52, an 
amphibious ship that is now under construction. The committee 
has learned that $20.0 million would be insufficient to cover 
both the hardware procurement and ship installation costs. 
Consequently, the Navy was unable to purchase one of the two 
RAM launchers needed for a complete equipment suite. 
Procurement of this launcher in fiscal year 1997, in 
conjunction with the six launchers already included in the 
budget request, will lower its unit cost.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million above 
the budget request for the procurement of one RAM launcher for 
LSD-52.

Afloat planning system

    The budget request contains $1.1 million for the afloat 
planning system (APS). This amount would be for the 
installation of systems purchased in prior years.
    The APS is being procured for installation in the Navy's 
aircraft carriers and for rapid deployment, when required, to 
meet the strike planning needs of a joint task force commander. 
It complements the planning of Tomahawk land attack missile 
(TLAM) missions by shore-based cruise missile support 
activities by giving an afloat or deployed commander the 
ability to modify existing, pre-planned missions or plan new 
ones. The committee has learned that a diversion of funds from 
this program in fiscal year 1996 and lack of funding in fiscal 
year 1997 threaten to severely disrupt the production line, 
increasing unit costs dramatically and delaying the 
introduction of a capability that the Navy states will 
significantly improve its warfighting capability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million above 
the budget request for the procurement and installation of 
additional APS suites. Information provided to the committee by 
the Navy indicates that this level of funding would be 
sufficient for the Navy to satisfy its full requirement for APS 
suites and also procure them in a most cost effective manner.

NULKA decoy development

    The budget request contains $4.4 million for continued 
development of the NULKA active countermeasures decoy. It also 
contains $12.0 million to procure NULKA decoys, launch 
subsystems, and training systems.
    The committee has learned that a modest amount of 
additional development funding would permit modification of the 
NULKA decoy to accommodate advanced friendly radars that will 
soon enter fleet service. An additional increment of 
procurement funding would permit the purchase of sufficient 
systems to outfit one deploying battle group and preclude the 
need for crossdecking of rounds.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
64755N to improve the performance of the NULKA decoy in the 
presence of friendly emitters and to counter modern threat 
missiles. The committee also recommends an increase of $9.0 
million for procurement of additional NULKA rounds and launch 
subsystems and for production improvements.

Elevated causeway (modular)

    The budget request included no funding for expanding an 
existing elevated causeway (modular) (ELCAS(M)) prototype from 
a length of 2,000 feet to the 3,000 feet needed to satisfy 
logistics-over-the-shore (LOTS) operational requirements.
    The committee has learned that expeditionary logistics 
support of the Marine Corps or a joint service force may often 
require assault follow-on echelon or other LOTS off-load in a 
variety of unimproved, adverse beach environments or degraded 
ports. The ELCAS(M), which the Navy could rapidly install, 
provides an elevated pier that overcomes high surf conditions, 
shallow beach gradients, and other hydrographic conditions that 
inhibit direct shoreside cargo discharge. The Navy has included 
funding for completion of two ELCAS(M) systems in the future 
years defense program. However, the Navy would not complete the 
current ELCAS(M) system until fiscal year 1999 because of 
budget constraints.
    Our armed services have had difficulties in conducting LOTS 
operations in recent contingency operations, due in large part 
to challenges that the ELCAS(M) system is designed to overcome. 
The committee has concluded that acceleration of this program, 
to provide at least one fully operational system, is warranted. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.7 
million above the budget request to expand the existing 
prototype system to a full 3,000 foot operational length, and 
also to acquire the ancillary support and installation 
equipment, such as lighting, piling, and safety lines, 
necessary to make it fully operational.
    The committee also understands that the Navy has an 
operational requirement for an amphibious cargo beaching 
lighter (or barge) that can operate in sea state 3 (SS3). To 
meet this requirement, the Navy must be able to assemble 
floating pontoons into larger sections in sea states reaching 
and exceeding SS3. The Navy designed the ELCAS(M) system to be 
able to operate sections of the system as a lighter in sea 
states up to SS3. However, the current design for the ELCAS(M) 
connector system does not allow the Navy to join the sections 
into larger units in sea states this high.
    The Navy budget includes a program to develop and field a 
system to meet the amphibious cargo beaching lighter 
requirement that would not begin procurement until fiscal year 
2001. The committee understands that the contractor building 
the ELCAS(M) system has also developed a connector system that 
could be operated under SS3 conditions. The committee believes 
that the Navy should evaluate the potential of using this new 
connector system in conjunction with the current ELCAS(M) 
sections to meet the amphibious cargo beaching lighter 
requirement. The committee directs the Navy to provide a report 
to the congressional defense committees on its analysis of this 
alternative with its submission of the fiscal year 1998 budget 
request.

Oceanographic equipment

    During its review of the fiscal year 1997 budget request, 
the committee determined that investment funding for 
oceanographic equipment was reduced significantly in both 
fiscal year 1996 and in the budget request. Naval oceanography 
employs equipment such as fathometers, global positioning 
satellite (GPS) receivers, recording equipment, and side-scan 
sonars to conduct ocean surveys. These are sensitive units that 
are used in the Navy's survey vessels or incorporated into 
travel packs for use by Navy oceanographers onboard foreign 
ships. They can be easily affected or damaged by rough handling 
or extended exposure to a marine environment. Replacement on a 
regular basis is necessary. It would appear that funding in 
fiscal year 1996 and in the budget request is not sufficient to 
maintain an adequate replacement program
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million above 
the budget request to provide additional funding for 
procurement of oceanographic survey equipment.

                        Marine Corps Procurement

Marine Corps Javelin missile

    The budget request included $28.2 million to begin 
procurement of the Javelin missile and its associated command 
launch unit (CLU) for the Marine Corps. This amount, when 
combined with the amount budgeted for Javelin procurement for 
the Army, would be insufficient to purchase Javelin missiles at 
an economic order quantity that would allow them to be procured 
at a cost effective rate.
    The committee understands the need to field the Javelin 
missile as soon as possible and recommends an increase of $20.0 
million to accelerate production, provide an additional 59 
missiles and 16 CLUs for the Marine Corps, and procure missiles 
for the Army and Marine Corps at a cost effective rate.

AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar

    The budget request included $30.4 million to procure 
upgrades to the Marine Corps AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar, which 
is designed to support counter-battery operations.
    The Army and the Marine Corps participate jointly in the 
AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder radar program with the Army as lead 
service. The Army has developed upgrades to the radar. The 
budget request contained funding to incorporate those upgrades 
into the Marine Corps radars.
    The committee has been informed that, due to length of 
service and resultant system modifications, the existing Marine 
Corps AN/TPQ-36 radars are not standardized. The budget request 
did not include sufficient funding to standardize the antenna 
group of these radars when system upgrades are introduced.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.8 million to 
ensure standardization of Marine Corps AN/TPQ-36 radars after 
system upgrades have been completed.

Joint task force deployable communications support

    The committee supports Marine Corps efforts to enhance its 
communications support capabilities. The committee recognizes 
the outstanding requirement for a deployable satellite 
communications system and recommends an increase of $1.7 
million to procure this system for the Marine Corps joint task 
force headquarters.

Intelligence upgrades

    The committee is concerned about the modernization of 
Marine intelligence support capabilities and notes outstanding 
requirements in two separate areas: tactical photography and 
communications intelligence dissemination.
    The tactical photography (TACPHOTO) camera system is a 
state-of-the-art imagery collection device that greatly 
enhances the real time tactical intelligence products needed by 
Marine Corps field commanders. The committee recommends an 
increase of $11.2 million to accelerate the initial operational 
capability date for this system by one year and to procure all 
509 TACPHOTO systems required.
    The committee also recommends an increase of $3.4 million 
to procure three team portable communication intelligence 
systems (TPCS), which will meet the acquisition objective and 
provide the Marine air ground task force (MAGTF) commander with 
a vital intelligence tool.

Telecommunications infrastructure

    The budget request contained no funding to upgrade the 
communications network at the Marine Corps base at Camp 
Pendleton.
    The committee supports ongoing efforts to upgrade existing 
telecommunications infrastructure at Marine Corps 
installations. The budget contains funding to support such 
infrastructure upgrades, but falls short of providing the 
resources necessary to upgrade Camp Pendleton. Establishing a 
high speed fiber optic backbone and switching systems at Camp 
Pendleton would meet existing base requirements and facilitate 
future expansion to meet new requirements.
    The committee recommends an increase of $18.8 million to 
provide a more efficient, state-of-the-art telecommunications 
infrastructure at Camp Pendleton.

Marine Corps combat operations centers

    The Marine Corps has seven deployable combat operations 
centers (COC) and six fixed command centers (CC). These centers 
have been baselined with a common configuration, but require 
additional equipment to provide full interoperability with 
comparable command centers in the other services.
    The committee recommends an increase of $7.4 million above 
the budget request to upgrade the capability of the Marine 
Corps COCs and CCs in order to make them fully interoperable 
with the other services, and to provide the additional data 
capacity now required by Marine Corps operational units.

Marine Corps common end user computer equipment

    The budget request contained no funding for Marine Corps 
common end user computer equipment (CEUCE).
    The Marine Corps CEUCE program procures stand-alone 
computer work stations to support supply, maintenance, 
logistics, training, and administrative functions. Additional 
funding in fiscal year 1997 would permit the Marine Corps to 
satisfy its inventory objective for this equipment and afford 
all Marine Corps units the ability to deploy with the same 
equipment that they use in garrison. The current need to rely 
on leased or sub-custodied equipment or to perform a function 
manually would be eliminated.
    The committee recommends an increase of $9.8 million above 
the budget for the procurement of additional Marine Corps 
CEUCE.

Mobility enhancements

    The budget request included $1.3 million to procure 20 
M870A2 lowbed trailers and an additional $1.5 million to 
procure 261 International Standard Organization (ISO) beds for 
transporting fuel and water for the Marine Corps. The committee 
supports efforts to improve the mobility of heavy equipment and 
recommends an increase of $28.3 million for Marine Corps 
mobility equipment. Of this total:
          (1) $5.5 million would be for procurement of 
        additional M870A2 lowbed trailers; and
          (2) $22.8 million would be for procurement of ISO 
        beds to buy out the program.

Multiple integrated laser engagement system

    The budget request contained no funding for procurement of 
the multiple integrated laser engagement system (MILES) for the 
Marine Corps.
    The committee is aware of the benefits of employing 
training devices such as MILES to provide realistic force-on-
force training. The committee understands that the Marine Corps 
intends to begin procurement of MILES in fiscal year 1998 and 
complete the procurement of 10 reinforced battalion sets by 
fiscal year 2001. A savings of $7.8 million could be realized 
if the program were accelerated to fiscal year 1997 and 
procurement completed in one year.
    The committee recommends an increase of $49.0 million to 
complete procurement of MILES and provide an important training 
aid to the Marine Corps as soon as possible.

Combat vehicle appended trainer (CVAT)

    The committee is concerned that the Marine Corps has not 
funded the development of new, state-of-the-art, full crew 
mission simulators for armored vehicle systems. These devices 
have proven their utility over time and greatly reduce training 
costs. The committee recommends an increase of $9.2 million to 
make engineering changes to existing Army systems to meet 
unique Marine Corps requirements.

                     SUBTITLE D--AIR FORCE PROGRAMS


Section 131. Multiyear contracting authority for the C-17 aircraft 
        program.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into one or more 
multiyear contracts for the procurement of not more than a 
total of 80 C-17 aircraft. This provision is identical in 
content to a free standing bill (S. 1710) previously reported 
out by the committee.

                        OTHER AIR FORCE PROGRAMS

                           Air Force Aircraft

B-2

    In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1996 the Senate Conferees recommended that an increased 
authorization of $493.0 million for the B-2 be used for 
components, upgrades, and modifications that would be valuable 
for the existing fleet of B-2 bombers.
    Additionally, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995 allowed the relaxation of program caps on the 
program to allow for any future decision for further production 
of the B-2. Subsequently, the Department decided to apply the 
additional funds to refurbishing AV-1, the initial B-2 test air 
vehicle. The committee notes that the two year effort to 
refurbish the AV-1 and place it into operational status 
preserves the option of building additional B-2 bombers without 
the requirement for additional funds until the refurbishment 
effort is completed.
    Additionally, the committee is aware of controversy 
surrounding the Heavy Bomber Study required by the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1995. Consequently, 
the committee intends to closely monitor the progress and 
structure of the follow-on study of requirements, which has 
been appended to the Joint Staff's Deep Attack Weapons Mix 
Study (DAWMS) to ensure objectivity and that the methodology 
used is analytically sound, includes no pre-determined 
conclusions regarding the B-2. To ensure the objectivity, 
clarity and relevance of the analysis, the committee directs 
that the regional Commanders in Chief review and comment on the 
study both for its conclusions with respect to their 
operational responsibilities, and for the objectivity and 
soundness of the analysis.

F-16

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
provided for an increase of $159.4 million to acquire six F-16s 
for the Air Force. The additional aircraft were intended to 
preserve the Air Force's twenty wing force structure in the 
years to come by acquiring the aircraft now, while the 
production line is still active.
    The committee notes that the Air Force has budgeted some of 
its limited procurement resources to acquire four new F-16s in 
the fiscal year 1997 budget request. While the Air Force had a 
goal of acquiring six of these aircraft in fiscal year 1997, 
there are insufficient funds available for the full buy. 
Realizing that the Air Force has itself made the decision to 
devote scarce resources to F-16 investments, the committee is 
persuaded to recommend an increase of $107.4 million ($97.4 
million for procurement and $10.0 million for advanced 
procurement) for the acquisition of eight F-16s in fiscal year 
1997.

C-17 airlift aircraft

    The budget request contained $2,142.8 million for 
procurement of eight C-17 airlift aircraft in fiscal year 1997, 
and for advance procurement of additional C-17 aircraft in the 
future. The committee later learned of an offer from the C-17's 
manufacturer to provide substantial savings in the program to 
buy an additional 80 aircraft (120 total) if awarded a seven 
year multi-year contract. Subsequently, the committee held a 
hearing on the issue to clarify and define the offer and its 
implications.
    The committee reported out a bill, Multiyear Contracting 
Authority for the C-17 Aircraft Program (S. 1710), to authorize 
a seven year multi-year procurement of C-17s after the 
Department of Defense made a strong case in the hearing for 
such authority.
    During that process, an analysis by the Congressional 
Budget Office (CBO) was reviewed that indicated further program 
savings were possible if the seven year program were 
accelerated into six years. This could be done by acquiring the 
last five C-17 aircraft, now planned for production in fiscal 
year 2003, over the next three years. CBO estimated the total 
program savings that would accrue from such an acceleration to 
be $300.0 million.
    The committee is persuaded by the CBO analysis to authorize 
an increase of $194.0 million for one additional C-17 aircraft 
in fiscal year 1997, $49.0 million for advance procurement for 
an additional two C-17 aircraft in fiscal 1998, and $6.0 
million for initial spares.

WC-130J acquisition

    The Air Force has informed the committee that the remaining 
service life of their theater airlift C-130's currently in 
service is not yet critical, since the first such aircraft will 
not reach the end of its projected service life until shortly 
after the turn of the century. However, specialized mission 
versions of the C-130, such as weather reconnaissance aircraft, 
could benefit from near-term modernization. Additionally, the 
committee understands that the Air Force, by conducting 
training at C-130 operational units as was done for 
introduction of the C-17 airlifter, will not need to procure a 
quantity of C-130J aircraft specifically dedicated to the 
transition to this newer model.
    The committee also understands that the Air Force failed to 
budget for necessary spare parts when the C-130J aircraft 
authorized last year were procured. Consequently, to ensure 
proper logistic support of both active and reserve C-130J 
aircraft, additional funding is necessary in fiscal year 1997.
    Based on the above information, the committee recommends a 
total increase of $204.5 million above the budget request for 
procurement and conversion of C-130J aircraft, and to procure 
the support needed for these aircraft and for C-130J aircraft 
procured in prior years. Of this total:
          (1) $142.2 million would be for procurement of three 
        C-130J aircraft in addition to the budget request 
        quantity of four;
          (2) $21.0 million would be for conversion of seven of 
        these aircraft to the WC-130J configuration and to 
        provide the specialized support that they will need for 
        weather reconnaissance; and
          (3) $41.3 million for logistic support of C-130J 
        aircraft.
    To avoid a future mismatch between procurement and support, 
which occurred in fiscal year 1996 and would have occurred this 
year without committee intervention, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Air Force to create a consolidated support 
funding line for C-130J's for inclusion in future budget 
requests. The committee also directs the Secretary of the Air 
Force to budget for necessary logistic support in future budget 
requests for C-130J aircraft.

Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS)

    The committee recognizes that the JPATS program has been 
subjected to a number of delays in executing the program. Last 
year the committee recognized the opportunity to buy the 
program more efficiently. Based on projected contract prices, 
the Air Force determined that the fiscal year 1996 budget 
request would support purchasing eight aircraft, five more than 
had been requested in the budget. Rather than authorizing a 
smaller amount to purchase three aircraft, the Congress decided 
to authorize and appropriate the requested amount to purchase 
additional aircraft.
    The Department of Defense instead decided to reduce funds 
available for JPATS and contract for only three aircraft in 
fiscal year 1996. The Air Force has estimated that accelerating 
the program to finish it in fiscal year 2004, rather than in 
fiscal year 2009, could yield an estimated savings of $151.0 
million in acquisition costs and $89.0 million in operating 
costs. The committee is disappointed that the Department chose 
not to avail itself of the opportunity to achieve greater 
efficiencies in this program.
    The committee understands that $40.5 million is unobligated 
and available in the Air Force's fiscal year 1995 Aircraft 
Procurement account for JPATS aircraft. The terms of the JPATS 
contract permit the government to add or subtract up to three 
aircraft in any year, while maintaining the current contract 
prices. Internal Air Force rules would prohibit the JPATS 
program from using these funds to buy additional aircraft when 
added to funds from later fiscal years. The committee believes 
that the Air Force should make an exception to its own rule in 
this situation. Accordingly, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Air Force to ensure those prior year funds are 
applied to the purchase of additional JPATS aircraft. The Air 
Force has testified that using these funds would allow the 
service to buy three more aircraft in both fiscal years 1996 
and 1997. Such an action would be in keeping with the 
committee's initiatives to acquire equipment at more efficient 
rates to provide overall program savings.
    The committee understands that the Air Force has 
inadvertently made an incorrect allocation in the budget 
request. The requested amounts and the corrected requirements 
are displayed in the table below:

                 TRAINING AIRCRAFT FUNDING REQUIREMENTS                 
                          [Dollars in millions]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Request  Requirement   Change 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procurement--JPATS.....................     $67.1       $69.1      +$2.0
                                        ================================
Research and Development:                                               
    Specialized undergraduate pilot                                     
     training..........................      84.3        82.3       -2.0
    JPATS..............................      67.1        55.3       -9.2
    T-38...............................      19.8        27.0       +7.2
                                        --------------------------------
      Total............................     151.4       151.4        0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Therefore, the committee recommends $69.1 million for 
JPATS procurement, and $82.3 million for specialized 
undergraduate pilot training research and development, 
including $55.3 million for the JPATS program and $27.0 million 
for the T-38 program.

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)

    The budget request contained $417.8 million for the 
procurement of two E-8C aircraft, and $111.1 million for 
advanced procurement for two E-8Cs in fiscal year 1998, and 
$30.2 million for initial spares. Trainers and support 
equipment were included in the procurement. Funding in the 
amount of $207.3 million for follow on development and testing 
was also requested in PE 64770F.
    The Chief of Staff of the Air Force has testified that 
accelerating the procurement of the JSTARS aircraft is the top 
unfunded priority of the Air Force. The committee understands 
that accelerating delivery of one JSTARS aircraft will provide 
significant cost savings/avoidance.
    The JSTARS effectiveness has been proven during Operation 
Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and also recently in Bosnia. The 
battlefield awareness provided by the JSTARS to combat 
commanders is critical to rapid reaction and operational 
success. Consequently, the committee is convinced that 
acceleration of one JSTARS aircraft from fiscal year 2005 to 
2001 is a cost-effective way to acquire effective operational 
capability. The committee recommends an increase of $240.0 
million for the procurement of one aircraft, including an 
additional $30.0 million for initial spares.

B-1B bomb modules

    The committee understands that there is an Air Combat 
Command analysis that validates a continuing need for 
conventional bomb modules (CBM) in the cluster bomb unit (CBU) 
configuration. In view of the evolving conventional role for 
the B-1B, the committee recommends an increase of $56.5 million 
to procure 34 conventional bomb modules to equip two squadrons 
of B-1B's. This enhanced capability will increase B-1B strike 
capability by enabling the B-1B to more fully employ 
conventional weapons.

SR-71

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
provided $5.0 million for costs associated with the 
refurbishment of SR-71 aircraft. The budget request for fiscal 
year 1997 did not include funding for SR-71 modifications. The 
committee understands that a prudent modification program can 
be incorporated into the SR-71 to improve its effectiveness as 
a hedge until unmanned aerial vehicles become widely available. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 
million for ELINT system reinstallation, clip in kits, 
navigation/GPS, and an on board processor and data link study.

AWACS re-engining

    The budget request did not include funds for the re-
engining of E-3 AWACS aircraft. The E-3 has been tasked 
worldwide, and considering the aircraft's importance in near-
term and long-range operational plans, the committee is 
persuaded of the need to invest in longevity and sustainability 
of the aircraft through a re-engining program. Because of the 
extensive operational use of AWACS, a re-engining would be a 
cost-effective alternative because of the rapid payback in 
operating costs, as well as increased capability.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $109.0 
million to initiate a program to re-engine E-3 AWACS aircraft, 
and the committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to 
budget for the out year requirements for the program in the 
fiscal year 1998 Program Objective Memorandum and beyond.

Satellite communications terminals

    The Joint Chiefs of Staff have mandated that ultra-high 
frequency (UHF) satellite communications users implement the 
demand assigned multiple access (DAMA) capability for all 
users. The Air Force is procuring DAMA ground terminals but has 
not requested funding for airborne terminals in the budget 
request. Without these airborne terminals, aircraft will not be 
able to effectively communicate with other platforms. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends $21.2 million in aircraft 
procurement funding to begin procuring these UHF airborne DAMA 
terminals. The committee understands that additional funds will 
be required in the out years to complete this effort and 
directs the Air Force to include sufficient funding in future 
years budget requests.

RC-135 re-engining

    Last year the committee recommended an increase of $79.5 
million for re-engining RC-135 aircraft. Providing modern, 
efficient engines for these heavily used aircraft allowed for a 
rapid recapture of the investment involved, while avoiding the 
costs of supporting out of production engines. The committee 
understands that the Air Force is programming resources for 
continuation beyond fiscal year 1998 to complete the entire 
fleet of aircraft.
    Under the assumption that the Air Force will program the 
required funding to complete the program past fiscal year 1997, 
the committee recommends an increase of $145.2 million to 
procure engine kits for six aircraft.

Rivet Joint technology transfer

    The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to 
the budget request for defense airborne reconnaissance program 
(DARP) to migrate medium wave infrared acquisition technology 
from the Cobra Ball program to the Rivet Joint RC-135 tactical 
reconnaissance fleet. The committee understands that the Air 
Force is reordering priorities to fund the Rivet Joint 
technology transfer program in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. 
Funds authorized in fiscal year 1997 would allow the Air Force 
to maintain a schedule to field upgraded systems that would 
enhance theater missile defense surveillance activities 
beginning in 1997.

KC-135 simulators

    The Air Force is currently funding a three phase program to 
upgrade C-5, KC-10, and KC-135 simulators. If the program were 
accelerated to attain completion in fiscal year 2001, which is 
five years early, the Air Force would save from $33.0 million 
to $52.0 million per year, depending on the amount of simulator 
training done in lieu of flight training.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $63.0 
million for fiscal year 1997 to allow the Air Force to acquire 
the remaining nine visual training systems.

Aircraft budget exhibits

    The committee is aware of the efforts of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff (JCS) to bring some order to the terminology for 
aircraft inventory management. The committee believes that this 
standardization is long overdue. The previous service-unique 
accounting schemes led to much confusion. The committee also 
believes that information on the total overall aircraft 
inventories would be a useful addition to the budget 
documentation. Such displays would provide detail by the 
appropriate total active inventory and total inactive inventory 
categories, as compared to the total inventory requirements 
approved by the JCS.
    The committee believes that such changes could ultimately 
result in streamlining the budget review process, both for the 
administration and the Congress. These changes could reduce the 
amount of time that is now wasted in reviewing the budget by 
people at all levels manually collating data from different 
sources, including asking (and answering) questions seeking to 
clarify factual data.
    The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Comptroller) to implement new aircraft budget exhibits that 
display the following information for each aircraft type for 
the period of the Future Years Defense Program:
          (1) total overall aircraft inventory;
          (2) active aircraft inventory, including primary 
        aircraft inventory (with appropriate subcategories for 
        mission aircraft, training aircraft, dedicated test 
        aircraft, and others), backup aircraft inventory, and 
        attrition/reconstitution reserve;
          (3) inactive aircraft inventory, including bailments, 
        drones, foreign military sales or other transfers, 
        leases, loans, maintenance training, reclamation, and 
        storage; and
          (4) the JCS approved inventory requirements.

                           Air Force Missile

Precision guided munitions

    Two years ago, the committee directed the Department of 
Defense (DOD) to conduct a Heavy Bomber Study to define the 
future needs for long range bombers. The Heavy Bomber Study 
strongly endorsed the need for adding precision guided 
munitions (PGMs) to the inventory. The conclusions from the 
Heavy Bomber Study, however, provided little insight into the 
best mix of weapons and capabilities that would be required to 
support stated military requirements.
    Last year, the committee noted the need for DOD to develop 
a long-term cohesive, joint PGM program. Section 261 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
directed DOD to develop such a plan. The Department has 
informed the committee that the analysis necessary to develop 
this plan will not be complete until later this year. The 
committee believes that DOD should not wait for another whole 
year to begin providing additional PGM capability beyond that 
supported in the budget request.
    Accordingly, while awaiting this analysis and the 
Department's recommendations based on this analysis, the 
committee recommends an increase of $187.2 million as detailed 
below:

                                      PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS INITIATIVE                                     
                                              [Dollars in millions]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Request--      SASC Rec--       Change--                              
                                      ------------------------------------------------            Ref           
                                         ($)     Qty     ($)     Qty     ($)     Qty                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procurement:                                                                                                    
    AGM-142..........................      --      --    39.0      54    39.0      54  MPAF line 2.             
    CALCM............................      --      --    15.0     100    15.0     100  MPAF line 12.            
    AGM-130..........................      --      --    40.0     100    40.0     100  MPAF line 8.             
    SFW..............................   131.1     400   152.7     500    21.6     100  MPAF line 48.            
    Hard Target Smart Fuze...........      --      --     2.0      --     2.0      --  MPAF 59a.                
    AMRAAM (AF)......................   116.3     133   139.8     200    23.5      67  MPAF line 7.             
    AMRAAM (USN).....................    36.1      37    58.1     100    22.0      63  WPN line 6.              
Research and Development:                                                                                       
    SFW P\3\I........................      --      --    19.1      --    19.1      --  RDAF line 142, PE 27320F.
    Hard Target Smart Fuze...........      --      --     5.0      --     5.0      --  RDAF line 81, PE 604604F.
                                                                      --------                                  
      Total..........................  ......  ......  ......  ......   187.2                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Space boosters

    The budget request included $489.6 million in Missile 
Procurement, Air Force, for space boosters. The committee 
understands that a portion of the request may not be needed as 
a result of funding received from the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration. The budget request also appears to 
contain a larger amount of advance procurement than required. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $40.8 
million.

                          Air Force Ammunition

    The committee is concerned with the inadequate funding for 
ammunition that was contained in the President's budget 
request. Ammunition is an important contributor to military 
readiness, for training and in anticipation of conflict. The 
committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget 
request for Air Force ammunition procurement:

        Item                                                    Millions
Sensor Fuzed Weapon............................................... $21.6
Hard Target Smart Fuze............................................   2.0
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total.......................................................  23.6

                      Other Air Force Procurement

60K Loader

    Strategic airlift remains an area of interest and concern 
to the committee. While the success of the C-17 has been 
gratifying, the difference between the retirement rate of C-
141s and fielding of C-17s has created a gap in capabilities. 
Additional ground handling equipment, such as the 60K loader, 
can partially make up shortfalls in lift capacity. The 
committee understands that accelerated acquisition of 60K 
loaders through an additional 20 loaders in fiscal year 1997 
could reduce Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) costs of these 
loaders by $27.4 million.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $23.1 
million to acquire a total of 57 of the new 60K loaders, with 
the understanding that the Department of Defense has programmed 
sufficient funds in the outyears to complete the planned 
acquisition of 60K loaders.

Joint force air component commander situational awareness system

    The committee understands the need for a situational 
awareness tool to provide joint force commanders with an 
integrated display from multiple sources focused on dominant 
battlespace awareness. The joint force air component commander 
(JFACC) situational awareness system (JSAS) technology 
demonstration provides this interim capability and will aid in 
the definition of user requirements for future situational 
awareness systems. Therefore, the committee recommends a net 
increase of $9.5 million in fiscal year 1997 for this effort 
($6.3 million in Other Procurement, Air Force, and $3.2 million 
in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force).

                         DEFENSE-WIDE PROGRAMS


                        Defense-Wide Procurement

Common automatic recovery system

    The committee is encouraged by the actions taken by the 
Department of the Navy and the Joint Program Office to meet the 
integration and fielding requirements of the common automatic 
recovery system (CARS) into the Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle 
(UAV) system and with the planned initiatives to field CARS in 
all UAVs. The committee believes that this low cost system will 
reduce mishaps and improve operational effectiveness. 
Accordingly, the committee directs the integration of CARS into 
both the tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV) and the 
Predator systems as soon as practicable and recommends an 
increase of $8.0 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide, Line 7 
(DARP).

C-130 aircraft modifications

    The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has an 
ongoing program to incrementally modify its special mission 
aircraft to incorporate mature technology and preserve their 
capability to counter evolving threats. The committee has 
learned that additional funding in fiscal year 1997 would make 
possible improvements to USSOCOM's AC-130U gunships and the MC-
130H Combat Talon II aircraft that would upgrade display 
generation units, suppress the infrared signature of aircraft 
engines, and improve sustainment for certain weapon systems. 
Funding for these improvements could not be accommodated within 
the budget request because of resource constraints.
    The committee recommends an increase of $23.8 million for 
survivability and sustainment improvements to the USSOCOM's 
fleet of AC-130U Gunships and the MC-130H Combat Talon II 
aircraft.

Advanced SEAL delivery system

    The budget request contains no procurement funding for the 
advanced SEAL delivery system (ASDS) for the special operations 
forces.
    The committee has learned that a changing interpretation of 
administrative procedures between preparation of the fiscal 
year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 budget requests caused $4.4 
million of advance procurement funding for the ASDS to be 
deleted from the fiscal year 1997 budget request at the last 
minute. In fact, initial printed budget justification materials 
that the committee received from the Department of Defense 
still included this advance procurement in their tabular 
displays. The consequence of this cut in funding would be a one 
year delay in fielding the ASDS system.
    To restore the ASDS program to its original schedule, the 
committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million over the 
budget request for the procurement of long-lead steel and 
integrated control and display consoles needed for fabrication 
of the first production ASDS. The U.S. Special Operations 
Command estimates that acceleration of this funding from fiscal 
year 1998 to fiscal year 1997 will avoid costs of about $10.0 
million.

Special mission radio system

    The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has a program 
to procure a special mission radio system (SMRS). SMRS is 
needed to satisfy long-range communications requirements of the 
special forces. The operational requirements document for SMRS 
was approved in May 1995, and the program is included in the 
future years defense program. The committee has been informed 
by USSOCOM that accelerated procurement could save $11.3 
million through avoidance of future costs.
    The committee recommends an addition of $9.4 million for 
procurement of the SMRS.

SCAMPI communications system

    The budget request contained no funding for procurement of 
the SCAMPI communications system for the U.S. Special 
Operations Command (USSOCOM). Additional funding in fiscal year 
1997 would enable USSOCOM to procure the equipment necessary to 
relocate and modernize three principal SCAMPI hubs to 
accommodate bandwidth requirements.
    The committee recommends an increase of $3.7 million to 
complete hub relocation for USSOCOM's SCAMPI communications 
system.

Briefcase multi-mission advanced tactical terminal

    The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has been 
engaged in an ongoing program to develop and procure the 
briefcase multimission advanced tactical terminal (BMATT). This 
program responds to a validated requirement for BMATT that is 
contained in an October 1995 joint operational requirements 
document. Procurement for BMATT is included in the future years 
defense program. The Special Operations Command has informed 
the committee that accelerated procurement of this proven, 
operationally effective system will save $0.5 million and 
enable the special forces to access, in near-real time, 
intelligence information that is very important for mission 
planning and execution.
    The committee recommends an addition of $4.5 million to 
accelerate the procurement of BMATT.

Procurement of ammunition--Special Operations

    The committee is concerned with the inadequate funding for 
ammunition that was contained in the President's budget 
request. Ammunition is an important contributor to military 
readiness, for training and in anticipation of conflict. The 
committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget 
request for Special Operations Forces ammunition procurement:

        Item                                                    Millions
Selectable Lightweight Attack Munitions...........................  $5.0
Time Delay Firing Device..........................................   8.0
                        -----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ________________________________________________
      Total.......................................................  13.0

                        Other Items of Interest

Individual body armor

    The committee is aware that current funding constraints 
prevent the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) from 
procuring and issuing a set of individual body armor to each 
member of special forces units that should use such equipment. 
Special forces members who deploy for operational missions are 
required to draw body armor from common stocks and turn it in 
upon return. The rationale for this system appears to be that:
          (1) it would be too expensive to issue an individual 
        set of body armor to each person; and
          (2) more advanced equipment cannot be procured 
        because of the cost to replace all equipment at the 
        same time.
    The committee has been informed that USSOCOM's current 
system for management of individual body armor is unpopular 
among special forces units because SEALs and other individuals 
are often compelled to use equipment that is heavily soiled 
from having been worn next to the body by other personnel for 
long periods of time under demanding circumstances. The 
committee understands that there is a different system for 
similar equipment in conventional units, where troops, such as 
infantrymen, are issued a helmet upon being assigned to the 
unit for their exclusive use while assigned. Upon completion of 
a tour of duty with their unit, infantrymen clean their helmets 
and turn them in for reissue. The committee would support a 
similar system for individual body armor for special forces.
    The committee also notes that the current system appears 
shortsighted and counterproductive, because the wear and tear 
from repeated readjustment of the equipment to fit numerous 
individuals is likely to be greater than if the equipment were 
used by one person. Also, contrary to USSOCOM's apparent 
procurement assumption, the committee finds no compelling 
reason why all individual body armor must be replaced at the 
same time for special forces personnel. It would seem that 
advanced equipment could be procured annually, at a rate 
sufficient to replace older equipment as it wears out.
    The committee has learned that the estimated cost of 
furnishing appropriate special forces with a set of individual 
body armor is approximately $3.0 million. However, this 
estimate lacks sufficient precision to merit a specific 
recommendation by the committee in fiscal year 1997 to 
implement such a program. Consequently, the committee directs 
the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command to 
report to the congressional defense committees, not later than 
March 3, 1997, on the advisability of changing the current 
system and the associated costs of implementing any proposed 
changes.

Procurement of recycled ammunition

    Until this year, military specifications have required that 
ammunition purchased by the military be manufactured entirely 
from new components. This requirement effectively precluded the 
use of recycled ammunition. While the committee believes that 
such a prohibition may be appropriate for ammunition which is 
intended to be used for war, it appears to be unnecessary for 
training ammunition.
    The committee is aware that there exists in the United 
States large inventories of small caliber ammunition, most of 
which is considered unsuitable for use in wartime or even 
training. Because this ammunition cannot be used for either 
purpose it is slated for destruction at considerable cost to 
the Department.
    Recently, it has been demonstrated that unserviceable 
ammunition can be recycled, resulting in ammunition which is 
serviceable for training purposes. This could be done at half 
the cost of procuring new ammunition. This development, coupled 
with legislative relief from the military specifications 
requirement, has presented the Department of Defense with the 
opportunity to substantially reduce the overall cost of 
training ammunition. The Marine Corps has taken the lead in 
this effort and is currently exploring the procurement of 
several different types of recycled training ammunition. The 
committee endorses this practical and innovative approach to 
providing the resources necessary to training at reduced costs 
and encourages a broader exploration of such practices.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 
to the congressional defense committees by January 31, 1997 a 
report outlining current ammunition recycling programs in which 
the Department is exploring or participating, the financial 
implications of these programs, any safety concerns regarding 
recycled ammunition, and the reliability of such ammunition.

C-130 remanufacture prototyping

    The committee is aware of a proposal to remanufacture aging 
C-130 aircraft. A prototyping program to design, develop, and 
produce renewed C-130 aircraft could demonstrate the 
feasibility of such an approach. Remanufacturing could yield 
significant improvement in affordability for the Department in 
modernizing its C-130 fleets throughout the Department of 
Defense, in both the active and reserve forces of each of the 
services. A validated remanufacturing process would provide 
maximum flexibility for the Department in determining its 
overall C-130 modernization plans.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a report no later than March 1, 1997 on the net 
benefits of pursuing such a program of definition and 
demonstration of C-130 remanufacture. The report should 
address, at a minimum: a listing of the C-130 fleets of each 
service; each service's requirements for C-130s; the 
Department's present long-range modernization plan for C-130s 
for both active and reserve forces; and present plans for 
disposal of replaced C-130s.

Predator UAV leasing

    The committee is aware of the successful results of the 
Predator UAV advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) 
program, and the role the Predator has played during the crisis 
in Bosnia. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has 
established a requirement for 16 Predator systems, but fewer 
than three systems are now available in the inventory.
    As a way of providing commanders in the field with 
additional Predator systems in the most timely fashion, the 
committee believes that the Department of Defense should 
consider the option of leasing a small number of Predator 
systems. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to report to the congressional defense committees by 
November 1, 1996 on the feasibility, desirability, cost-
effectiveness, and net benefits of proceeding with near-term, 
full service leasing of the Predator UAV system.

National Guard and Reserve procurement reports

    With the demise of the Air Force's follow-on tactical 
reconnaissance program several years ago, the Air Force found 
itself relying only on RF-4C aircraft to provide manned 
tactical reconnaissance capability. When the Air Force Chief of 
Staff decided to retire all remaining RF-4s, the Air Force 
decided to use fiscal year 1994 funds authorized and 
appropriated for the Air National Guard to provide an interim 
capability on F-16 aircraft. This involved starting a new 
program to buy a non-developmental system carried in a pod.
    Both the statement of managers accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (H. Rept. 103-
357) and the conference report accompanying the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (H. Rept. 103-
339) required the Department of Defense to report to Congress 
on how the funds provided in miscellaneous equipment categories 
would be spent. The list provided by the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Reserve Affairs specified how the $50.0 million for 
the Air National Guard would be spent. That list identified no 
funding for F-16 pods. The only funding related to F-16s was an 
item for ``220E aircraft engine upgrades.''
    The committee is unable to find any indication that the 
Department notified the congressional defense committees before 
diverting these funds for a new start program. The committee 
has supported providing the Air Force with a continuing manned 
reconnaissance capability. However, the committee takes a very 
dim view of having a service not use normal procedures for 
notifying the Congress of such funding shifts that involve 
starting a new program that was neither included in the budget 
nor approved by the Congress. The committee insists that the 
Department follow normal reprogramming and notification 
procedures for funds authorized and appropriated for National 
Guard and Reserve procurement programs.
         TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

    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 service efforts to support emerging 
operational concepts. The committee's research and development 
priorities were to focus on improving battlefield capabilities 
to assure continuing U.S. military superiority and to achieve 
future savings.
Explanation of tables
    The tables in this title display items requested by the 
administration for fiscal year 1997 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.
Technology and future military operations
    On May 5, 1995, the Subcommittee on Acquisition and 
Technology received testimony from Admiral William Owens, Vice 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Mr. Andrew Marshall, 
Director of Net Assessment in the Department of Defense on the 
emerging outlines of a revolution in military affairs. This 
fundamental change to the nature of military operations derives 
from the potential applications of new technologies, especially 
information technologies, geopolitical changes begun with the 
end of the Cold War, and organizational changes in the 
Department of Defense accelerated with the passage of the 
Goldwater-Nichols reforms in 1986. One working definition of a 
revolution in military affairs was provided by Dr. Andrew 
Krepinevich, Director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary 
Assessments, during the hearing as follows:

          A military revolution occurs when the application of 
        new technologies to military systems combines with 
        innovative operational concepts and organizational 
        adaptation to alter fundamentally the character of 
        conflict by producing a discontinuous leap in the 
        combat potential and effectiveness of armed forces.

    During the hearing, Admiral Owens pointed to a number of 
critical factors that are necessary for potentially 
revolutionary military capabilities to emerge over the next 20 
to 30 years. Admiral Owens recommended focusing technology on 
creating a ``system of systems'' for dominance of the 
battlefield on an ever-larger scale rather than on improving 
existing capabilities. Key components of the system of systems 
approach are information technologies for surveillance and 
communication as well as precision weapons technologies.
    Another key element in the quest to achieve revolutionary 
capabilities is the need to drive this transformation from the 
top down in a joint warfighting context either through the 
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) or the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff. An additional factor often overlooked, but which is 
exceedingly important, is the creation of a climate within each 
of the military services which actively fosters bold, 
innovative thinking about warfighting concepts within the 
officer corps. The service academies and the war colleges will 
play a central role in developing or impeding this environment.
    Mr. Marshall, Dr. Krepinevich, and Dr. Daniel Goure (Deputy 
Director, Political-Military Studies, Center for Strategic and 
International Studies) raised a number of issues with regard to 
the so-called revolution in military affairs and the manner in 
which the concepts underlying future warfare are being 
developed and supported in the Department of Defense. During 
the hearing, there was disagreement over the pace at which a 
military revolution may be possible or whether, as Dr. Goure 
asserted, such a revolution must involve a much greater 
redefinition of the meaning of power in the international order 
than is currently under discussion in the Department of 
Defense. Both witnesses raised concerns about the likelihood 
that the focus on more traditional operational concepts in the 
Bottom-Up Review strategic blueprint is driving budget 
decisions that would sacrifice the development of long-term 
revolutionary capabilities by funding the near-term 
requirements embodied in the two-MRC scenario.
    On March 15, 1996, the Subcommittee on Acquisition and 
Technology continued exploring the impact of emerging, 
potentially revolutionary concepts of future warfare by 
receiving testimony from representatives of the military 
services on their current efforts to develop these concepts and 
to integrate them into their technology investment programs for 
fiscal year 1997 and beyond. The services have all embarked on 
efforts to define and support emerging operational concepts. 
The Army has a relatively mature program through its Force XXI 
process. The Marine Corps, with personal and strong support 
from the Commandant, General Krulak, has developed an 
aggressive five-year plan for concept development and 
experimentation in the Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory as 
part of its Sea Dragon process. The Navy, through the CNO-
sponsored Vision 2020 process, is just beginning to focus on 
operational concepts that will influence the Navy Science and 
Technology budget in future years. The Air Force is beginning 
to assess the impact of the Air Force Science Board 
recommendations in the New World Vistas study, as well as 
recommendations in a number of other studies, on its Science 
and Technology investment strategy. In each of the service 
programs, several common technology themes predominate, 
however, that are consistent with the concepts under review in 
the discussion about the potential for a revolution in military 
affairs. They include: information dominance, precision 
targeting and delivery, and increased maneuver. Testimony 
during the hearing also made clear the need for continuing 
acquisition reform to decrease cycle times for introducing new 
technologies into the services and for increasing access to 
technologies being rapidly developed and deployed by the 
commercial sector.

Major areas of concern

    The committee is pleased that each of the services has 
embarked on a sustained process for developing emerging 
operational concepts that flow out of current discussions about 
the impending revolution in military affairs. There are 
numerous issues that must be addressed in the near term, 
however, to ensure that emerging operational concepts result in 
adequately leveraged technologies to guarantee battlefield 
dominance through the first half of the 21st century.

Jointness

    The committee is aware that the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff is about to complete Joint Vision 2010, a 
document that has the potential to provide a joint guidance 
overlay for the service efforts to define new operational 
concepts. To date, however, as each of the services undertakes 
to define new operational concepts, it is not clear that there 
is any process above the service level to ensure the necessary 
coordination and focus of a joint vision. Each of the services 
appears to be planning new approaches to warfare without 
involving the other services directly in the process. Each of 
the services appears to be following different assumptions 
concerning the threat environment, technology applications, and 
the future of military power in the emerging international 
order. There are several programs at the level of the JROC and 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure that the joint warfighting 
requirements in the nearer term are reflected in the 
programming and budgeting decisions through the Chairman's 
Program Assessment and the Chairman's Program Recommendations 
to the Defense Planning Guidance. What is lacking is a process 
to ensure that the emerging long-term visions of each of the 
services will be melded into an affordable, coordinated series 
of operational concepts that will drive the Joint Warfighting 
Science and Technology Plan developed in the Office of the 
Director of Defense Research and Engineering.

Affordability

    The committee is also concerned that affordability issues 
and present and future defense budget realities are not being 
considered appropriately in the services'' attempts to develop 
concepts of future warfare. One witness noted in testimony 
before the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee that, ``The 
greatest challenge we face in this new world order is the 
constrained budget environment in which we operate.'' The 
problem is particularly acute for the Army and the Marine 
Corps, which are being called upon to carry out a greater 
number of missions in an expanding spectrum of operations with 
less operational and investment funding.
    Each of the services programs to define and exploit new 
operational capabilities focuses to a great extent on deploying 
new and expensive technologies within many of the traditional 
roles and missions of the services. It is doubtful whether 
future defense budgets will support the deployment of such new 
technological capabilities on the scale proposed by current 
analyses without a greater focus on affordability initiatives. 
Too much effort may be expended chasing unachievable 
operational capabilities, while more revolutionary approaches 
to joint operations, radical transformations in roles and 
missions, and fundamental reorganizations remain undeveloped in 
the service processes.

Incremental versus revolutionary approaches

    New technology advances offer a very significant temptation 
to forego pursuit of longer-term, but less certain, 
revolutionary capabilities in favor of substantial improvements 
in existing operational capabilities. Each of the service 
witnesses at the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee 
hearing on March 15, 1996 admitted the difficulty of balancing 
evolutionary and revolutionary approaches to future warfare. 
Increasing operational demands on the military to support 
peacekeeping and other non-traditional missions combined with a 
constrained budget environment serve to strengthen pressures to 
devote analysis and resources to extend capabilities to meet 
current operational shortfalls rather than forging 
revolutionary capabilities. A more aggressive top-down approach 
across traditional roles and missions is needed to ensure that 
a potential revolution in military capabilities is not 
foreclosed by a focus on dramatic but ultimately incremental 
enhancements to performance of existing platforms and 
organizations.

Out of phase processes

    As the testimony presented at the March 15 Acquisition and 
Technology Subcommittee revealed, the services are all at very 
different stages of a process to come to grips with emerging 
operational concepts. The Army's Force XXI process is the most 
mature with many of the technology priorities reflected in the 
research and development and procurement portions of the 
administration's budget request for fiscal year 1997. The 
Marine Corps has also vigorously pursued efforts to carry out 
its Sea Dragon program with minimal resources. The Navy and Air 
Force, on the other hand, are both at a relatively early stage 
in their respective processes with the likelihood that the 
earliest impact of the current analyses and wargames will not 
be seen until the fiscal year 1998 Science and Technology 
budget requests for those services are submitted. This lack of 
coordination across the services may significantly impede the 
development of the revolutionary military capabilities that cut 
across traditional roles and missions.

Initiatives for future operational capabilities

    Investment in technology is only one, albeit important, 
pillar in the development of revolutionary capabilities. The 
committee has noted several shortfalls, however, in the fiscal 
year 1997 request for technology base programs and the 
associated authority in law for the use of such funds. The 
committee has recommended a number of initiatives to address 
these concerns and to ensure that sufficient funding in the 
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation account is available 
to support continuous effort by the services to pursue 
revolutionary operational capabilities.

Affordability

    The committee has recommended $80.0 million in increases to 
programs supporting near- and long-term affordability of 
systems. These recommendations, which are described in more 
detail below, include increases in funding for manufacturing 
technology programs in the services, focused affordability 
initiatives in the Navy, and a number of programs designed to 
reduce the cost of advanced materials and advanced electronic 
technologies.

Development of advanced operational concepts

    The committee has recommended an increase of $100.0 million 
for Force XXI initiatives to accelerate the acquisition of 
promising technologies for rapid field testing in the Army's 
various experiments and demonstration programs under Force XXI 
for potential follow-on acquisition under the Warfighting Rapid 
Acquisition Program. The committee has also recommended an 
increase of $40.0 million for the support and acceleration of 
the Marine Corps Sea Dragon technology supporting experiments 
conducted by the Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory. 
Additionally, the committee has recommended a provision that 
would extend to the military services the authority currently 
available to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to 
use other transactions for prototyping experiments under 
section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1994.

Jointness and connectivity

    In order to promote a greater degree of jointness in the 
efforts of each of the services to develop emerging operational 
concepts, the committee has recommended a provision that would 
require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his role 
as Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to 
review and annually report to Congress on the current service 
efforts in this area and to describe the methods by which these 
efforts are being coordinated above the service level. The 
committee has also recommended a provision that would require 
the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress the annual Joint 
Warfighting Science and Technology Plan to ensure that the 
technology priorities being identified as a result of current 
experiments and wargames in the services are adequately 
supported in the request for defense science and technology 
funding.

              SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 203. Defense Nuclear Agency.

    The budget request included $314.3 million for the Defense 
Nuclear Agency (DNA) for operation and maintenance ($85.1 
million), procurement ($7.9 million) and research and 
development ($221.3 million). The committee recommends an 
increase of $15.0 million to the DNA budget request. The 
committee directs that the funds be used: to increase the 
frequency of nuclear weapons incident field training exercises 
($3.0 million for operations and maintenance); to leverage DNA 
capabilities developed to combat nuclear threats during the 
Cold War by establishing a counter terrorism technology support 
program; and to establish a nuclear weapon delivery sustainment 
program which, in conjunction with the military services, will 
provide affordable technologies, manufacturing processes, and 
test and evaluation techniques to maintain nuclear delivery 
systems over their anticipated extended life cycles ($12.0 
million).

Maintaining critical skills necessary to sustain U.S. nuclear strategic 
        forces

    As noted during hearings this year and in previous years, 
the committee remains concerned with the ability of the (DOD) 
to maintain the core competencies of expertise necessary to 
sustain its nuclear force, in the absence of nuclear testing, 
in the foreseeable future. The committee recommends that DOD 
take additional steps to sustain this expertise within the 
military services and civilian personnel in the Department.
    The President has directed that the future safety and 
reliability of the nuclear force be maintained through the 
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program of the Department 
of Energy. The safety, security, and reliability of the all 
nuclear weapons systems, to include the delivery system and 
related command and control and other associated subsystems, is 
the responsibility of the Department of Defense. In order for 
DOD to ensure the safety and reliability of its nuclear forces, 
its military and civilian personnel must maintain their nuclear 
expertise and core competencies.
    In order to retain core competencies and critical 
scientific and engineering skills of the military services and 
civilian personnel, it is the committee's understanding that 
DOD and DOE will archive data, manufacturing processes and test 
procedures. In the absence of underground nuclear testing, the 
archival of data is important; however, it cannot assure future 
nuclear expertise. The committee believes that more immediate 
action by the Department is needed to retain core competencies 
and to pass on this knowledge base and critical skills to 
future nuclear defense-oriented scientists, engineers and 
weapons systems developers.
    The committee understands that DNA, the national 
laboratories and the military service laboratories have 
initiated efforts to work together through an alliance to 
sustain the scientific and engineering skills necessary to 
maintain our nuclear forces. The committee appreciates the 
efforts of DNA, Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos 
National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and Phillips 
Laboratory to respond to the critical requirement to maintain 
core competencies.
    The Department shall report to the committee by October 1, 
1996 on potential initiatives to retain core competencies that 
would involve developing key science and technology programs. 
The report should also identify potential opportunities for 
conducting cooperative training and education programs between 
educational institutions, industry, and the Defense Nuclear 
Weapons School, the national laboratories and the military 
services. Lastly, the report should identify potential career 
paths for entry-level engineers and scientists and the funding 
necessary to sustain a program of this nature.

    SUBTITLE B--PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS

Section 211. Space launch modernization.

    The committee supports the Department of Defense's Evolved 
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program because of the 
potential for significant near-term reductions in launch cost 
and improvements in responsiveness. However, the committee 
believes that the Department should also begin planning for how 
it would use a reusable launch vehicle (RLV). Well before we 
have an operational RLV, the Department of Defense (DOD) will 
have to rethink its technological and operational approaches to 
the use of space for meeting communications, reconnaissance, 
and other military requirements. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 63401F to begin 
the necessary technical and operational developments that will 
be required for the Department to fully utilize RLV systems 
once they become operational. The committee notes that the 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Space has expressed 
serious interest in coordinating the efforts within the 
Department of Defense and between the Department of Defense and 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on RLV 
development and planning. The committee applauds this 
initiative.
    The committee recommends a provision that would not permit 
the use of DOD funds for RLV in an amount in excess of that 
dedicated to the program by NASA. The provision also prohibits 
the obligation of funds authorized for EELV in fiscal year 1997 
until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the DOD plans to 
obligate the funds authorized for RLV in a manner consistent 
with this Act.

Section 212. Department of Defense Space Architect.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to include the kinetic energy tactical 
anti-satellite (ASAT) program in the space control architecture 
that will be developed by the Department's new Space Architect. 
The provision would prohibit the use of fiscal year 1997 
defense funds to support the Space Architect until the 
Secretary certifies that he will include the ASAT program in 
the space control architecture and that he has obligated fiscal 
year 1996 funds and will obligate fiscal year 1997 funds 
appropriated for the kinetic energy ASAT, consistent with 
congressional guidance.

Section 213. Space-based infrared system program.

    Section 216 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) requires the Secretary of 
Defense to prepare and submit to Congress a new program 
baseline for the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) program, 
including an accelerated schedule for development and 
deployment of the Space and Missile Tracking System (SMTS). The 
committee has been disappointed by the Department's delay in 
responding to this statutory guidance and reluctance to 
obligate funds appropriated for SMTS in fiscal year 1996. Due 
to this lack of responsiveness, the committee recommends a 
provision that would provide for the conditional transfer of 
SMTS back to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), 
where the program had previously resided.
    The committee is aware, however, that the Department of the 
Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense have 
instituted a process that will purportedly bring the Department 
of Defense into compliance with section 216 (Public Law 104-
106). Based on assurances to this effect, the committee has 
decided to condition the transfer of the SMTS program. If, 
within 30 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Defense certifies to Congress that the requirements of section 
216 (Public Law 104-106) have been carried out, then the 
requirement to transfer SMTS to BMDO shall cease to be 
effective.
    The committee notes that the Air Force has informed the 
committee that the program baseline required by section 216 
(Public Law 104-106) is achievable at a reasonable level of 
risk. The committee has been in regular contact with the Air 
Force to review in detail draft schedules for the new program 
baseline. The committee also notes that its desire to foster 
greater competition in the SMTS program has been endorsed by 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Air Force. The 
committee has been informed by senior Department of Defense 
officials that the Department's decision to recommend 
rescission of $51.0 million of the fiscal year 1996 SMTS 
appropriation was a mistake based on incomplete information, 
and that the Department is eager to obligate such funds for the 
purpose for which they were originally authorized and 
appropriated. Finally, the committee notes that both the Air 
Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense unofficially 
recommended an increase of $134.0 million in fiscal year 1997 
to enhance competition in the SMTS program and to preserve the 
option of accelerating the SMTS schedule, consistent with 
section 216 (Public Law 104-106).
    The committee recommends sufficient funding in fiscal year 
1997 for the overall SBIRS program to implement the program 
baseline established in section 216(a) of P.L. 104-106. Since 
the budget request is deficient for both the space segment high 
and the space segment low (SMTS), the committee recommends an 
increase of $134.0 million in PE 63441F to support SMTS 
acceleration, and an increase of $19.1 million in PE 64441F to 
restore SBIRS high to the baseline program previously approved 
by the committee and to preclude a slip in fielding one or both 
of the overseas relay ground stations supporting the 1999 
Defense Support Program consolidation.

Section 214. Research for advanced submarine technology.

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 132 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996. Additional discussion of the rationale for 
this provision may be found in the section of this report 
dealing with national defense features.

Section 215. Clementine 2 micro-satellite development program.

    In fiscal year 1996, the Air Force Space Command, in 
conjunction with the Air Force Phillips Laboratory, initiated a 
Clementine 2 micro-satellite program as a follow-on to the 
highly successful Clementine 1 mission. The Clementine 2 
program will develop, test, and flight-validate a variety of 
miniaturized spacecraft technologies with applications to a 
wide number of military and intelligence space programs. By 
using near-earth asteroids as sensor demonstration targets, the 
mission will also provide benefits to the civil science 
community. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 
$50.0 million in PE 63401F to continue this effort under the 
control of the Space Warfare Center, with execution by the 
Clementine team (Phillips Laboratory, the Naval Research 
Laboratory, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory).
    The committee also recommends a provision that would 
prohibit the use of funds authorized in this Act for the Global 
Positioning System Block IIF satellite system until the 
Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that: (1) funds 
appropriated for fiscal year 1996 for the Clementine 2 micro-
satellite program have been obligated; and (2) the Secretary 
has made available for obligation funds appropriated for fiscal 
year 1997 for the Clementine 2 micro-satellite program.

Section 217. Defense airborne reconnaissance program.

    The budget request for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) 
included $438.6 million for research and development for a 
variety of reconnaissance programs within the defense airborne 
reconnaissance program (DARP) as listed below:

                                          DARP RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT                                         
                                              [Dollars in millions]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Program                                        Purpose                      Amount    Change 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tactical UAV (TUAV).........................  Provide warfighters with day/night aerial          $64.6     -12.8
                                               reconnaissance to support combat operations.                     
Endurance UAV (EUAV)........................  Provide wide area reconnaissance support with      176.4  ........
                                               the following UAV systems: ``Predator'' (Tier                    
                                               II) medium altitude endurance (MAE); ``Global                    
                                               Hawk'' (Tier II+) conventional, high altitude                    
                                               endurance (CONV HAE); and ``Dark Star'' (Tier                    
                                               III-) low observable, high altitude endurance                    
                                               (LO HAE).                                                        
Manned Reconnaissance Program...............  Support the entire range of users from              28.3     +42.7
                                               tactical to National Command Authority.                          
Distributed Common Ground System............  Provide a system capable of receiving and           55.3  ........
                                               processing data from multiple airborne                           
                                               platforms.                                                       
Airborne Reconnaissance Program (ARP).......  Respond to evolving threats by funding and         114.0      -6.5
                                               coordinating other advanced airborne                             
                                               reconnaissance technologies.                                     
                                                                                             -------------------
      Total.................................  ..............................................     438.6     +23.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Program

    The committee applauds the attempts by the Department of 
Defense to rationalize programs for meeting the requirements of 
users at the tactical level. The committee believes that the 
Department has offered a reasonable plan to move toward a set 
of systems to meet requirements in the long-term. However, the 
committee remains concerned about the pressure to proliferate 
systems to meet particular niche markets. This makes the 
tactical UAV development program all the more important.
    The Department has proposed to manage the tactical UAV 
program as an advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD). 
This proposal differs from previous ACTDs, however, in that the 
budget supports an immediate transition into production of the 
candidate system that wins the tactical UAV competition.
    The committee understands that a request for proposals 
(RFP) has been released, and contract award is expected within 
one month of this report. The restructuring of the program and 
the creation of an ACTD has resulted in an excess of unexpended 
funds from fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996; accordingly, 
the committee recommends a reduction of $12.8 million and 
encourages the Department to reprogram any remaining funds 
within the DARP.
    The committee notes the success achieved in the Predator 
ACTD, which has achieved many operational successes in Bosnia. 
The Predator program is the first ACTD that will ``graduate'' 
from development status into production. There has been 
sufficient time to operationally test the Predator before we 
committed resources in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) 
to any major production program. This is in stark contrast to 
the Hunter UAV program, where production began much too soon. 
In a rush to production and deployment, the Department now owns 
multiple Hunter systems that will be stored for potential 
future use.
    This presents both a problem and an opportunity. We will be 
saddled with a one-of-a-kind system and storage costs. 
Nevertheless, having the Hunter systems available (and the 
Pioneer and Predator UAV systems) means that we do not need to 
rush to production of the tactical UAV. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Department of Defense not to enter into 
any limited production for tactical UAVs beyond the number 
required to conduct the core ACTD program.

Dark Star UAV

    The committee is encouraged that the Dark Star UAV has 
finally achieved first flight. Unfortunately, achieving this 
milestone was delayed by more than six months from the date 
estimated by the contractors last year, and the aircraft 
crashed on its second flight. This is in direct contrast to the 
pleas that the program was ahead of schedule and could use 
additional funds in fiscal year 1996 for additional air 
vehicles. The committee understands that this delay was caused 
by deficiencies in the avionics system, resulting from software 
problems. A problem with software has been an all too common 
problem in other programs and has frequently been a harbinger 
of even bigger problems later. The committee believes that 
achieving theater-level support promised by the Dark Star is 
too important to have this program burdened by the problems 
deriving from too much production with too little progress in 
the air. While the specific causes of a recent Dark Star crash 
are as yet unknown, the committee views with concern the 
headlong rush to accelerate the program.
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision to direct 
the Department of Defense to refrain from awarding contracts 
for additional air vehicles beyond the original ACTD proposal, 
or any other work related to additional air vehicles, as a 
hedge against further program surprises.

Predator

    The Predator UAV, formerly known as the Tier II, has 
enjoyed significant success in Bosnia operations. The committee 
understands the Department is interested in procuring a 
substantial number of Predator systems for future fielding. The 
Predator was itself an ACTD, as is the Dark Star. Full scale 
acquisition of Predators will be a benchmark for ACTDs, since 
no other ACTDs have gone to full production. ACTDs are designed 
for limited scale demonstrations, rather than as acquisition 
programs, and are hence free from various acquisition 
regulations.
    The committee is gratified by the Predator's successes, and 
interested in a comparison of Predator's capabilities versus 
those of the Tier III- . The committee has frequently noted 
concern over the number of UAV types and apparent mission 
overlap between the various programs. Specifically, could the 
Predator be a substitute for the Tier III- if the Dark Star 
endured further program setbacks? If Predator can successfully 
transition to production, it may be a near-term solution while 
other UAVs are in development. Conversely, if the Predator does 
not have sufficient capability for future missions, the 
resources devoted to Predator acquisition might be better used 
for the developing Dark Star program. Accordingly, the 
committee recommends a provision to direct the Defense Airborne 
Reconnaissance Office (DARO) to withhold Predator acquisition 
until 60 days after submitting a report that compares the 
capabilities and costs of the two programs and makes 
recommendations for the future of the two programs should 
funding for only one program be available.

                     Manned Reconnaissance Upgrades

    While there have been strides made in UAV's and there are 
promising developmental programs in progress for sensor 
integration, the committee notes the gap between fielded UAV's 
and required capabilities. In order to ensure continuing 
reconnaissance capacity, the committee recommends close 
attention be paid to U-2 capabilities, payloads and training 
now.

SIGINT payloads

    Last year the committee recognized the need for incremental 
upgrades to the SIGINT capabilities of the U-2. Noting the 
development of the joint airborne SIGINT architecture (JASA) as 
an important initiative for future intelligence gathering, the 
committee also acknowledges the need to remain capable in the 
near-term, while awaiting JASA development.
    The committee is aware that the DARO has listed U-2 
recapitalization, specifically procurement of two additional 
Senior Glass payloads, as their top unfunded priority. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $32.7 
million to procure and integrate two additional Senior Glass 
payloads. Also, the committee is aware of an initiative within 
the DARO to reprogram excess funds from the cancelled Hunter 
UAV program which contains additional Senior Glass payloads for 
the U-2. The committee expects to receive such a request in the 
near future.

Senior Year electro-optical reconnaissance system (SYERS)

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
recommended an increase in the DARO budget for U-2 sensor 
upgrades, including the SYERS.
    The SYERS provides the U-2 with its only operational real-
time imaging system. Following the Gulf War, the DARO initiated 
a program to enhance SYERS capabilities to provide wide area 
coverage, geolocation ability, multi-spectral imaging 
capability, and simultaneous operation with other sensor 
packages. However, the program has not been funded to 
completion, leaving a final package upgrade, the U-2000 
program, unfunded. Accordingly, the committee recommends an 
increase of $10.0 million to repackage the SYERS sensor for 
simultaneous operation with other sensors, and to begin the 
effort to add geolocation and broad area coverage, and multi 
spectral capabilities.

U-2 simulator

    The committee appreciates the fact that U-2 operational 
tempo is demanding of both equipment and crews, leaving little 
opportunity for training new crews or ensuring proficiency in 
all aspects of operations. The unique nature of the U-2's 
aerodynamics demands precise flying that can only be perfected 
through practice. The lack of training time available for the 
aircraft, as well as the advances now available in simulation 
at modest cost, combine to suggest the need for simulator 
training for U-2 crews. The committee is persuaded that 
training costs could be reduced and safety enhanced through the 
use of simulation. The committee encourages the Air Force to 
begin a program to acquire a motion-based flight simulator for 
U-2 flight crews, and directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
report to the congressional defense committees on the 
feasibility of U-2 simulation, to include the funding required, 
realistic completion date, and a net benefit analysis of 
acquiring a U-2 flight simulator.

                 Airborne Reconnaissance Program (ARP)

Common data link

    The common data link is an effort to define and implement 
an interoperable command, control, and communications 
capability. The committee understands that the program has not 
been able to execute fully in fiscal year 1996, and accordingly 
recommends a reduction of $6.5 million in the program.

Section 218. Cost analysis of F-22 aircraft program.

    The committee notes that F-22 production costs, as reported 
in the selected acquisition report (SAR), have not changed 
fundamentally since Milestone II in June 1991. It is unclear 
how F-22 costs could remain the same despite significant 
changes in the aircraft's weight, material mix, and avionics 
during these crucial development years.
    Accordingly, the committee was concerned to learn that the 
Department intends to move funding for the four pre-production 
aircraft from the procurement account to research and 
development, since this change could further delay a new 
independent life-cycle cost estimate for the F-22 program. The 
last independent cost estimate occurred at Milestone II in 
1991, the last time there were major cost changes to the 
program.
    Neither the Congress nor the Secretary of Defense should 
have to wait another two to three years, or a total of seven to 
eight years to review F-22 costs. The committee notes the Air 
Force leadership appears to share this concern since it has 
commissioned an F-22 ``cost scrub'' due in the fall of 1996. 
While the committee is pleased that the service has decided to 
review the F-22's costs, the Secretary and the Congress would 
benefit from the completion of an independent cost analysis of 
the program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision 
that directs the Office of the Secretary of Defense Cost 
Analysis Improvement Group (OSD CAIG) to review the program and 
prepare its own independent estimate of the program, and to 
report the results of this estimate to the congressional 
defense committees no later than March 30, 1997, with no more 
than 92 percent of the funds recommended in fiscal year 1997 
for the F-22 program to be spent until the analysis is 
delivered.

Section 219. F-22 aircraft program.

    The budget request included $2,003.0 million for 
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) of the F-22.
    The committee has repeatedly noted its concerns with 
concurrency, that is, overlap of production and testing, in the 
F-22 program. One source of that concern was a Defense Science 
Board report on concurrency and risk in the F-22 program, dated 
April 1995, which was prepared in response to committee 
direction contained in the committee report to accompany S. 
2182 (S. Rept. 103-282). The report's summary conclusions were:
          (1) The program is very ambitious technically.
          (2) For each risk area there are significant 
        achievements that should be demonstrated before release 
        of funding for Lot 2 (12 aircraft) Contract Award.
          (3) The engine and passive surveillance avionics are 
        the highest risk areas.
          (4) In the event of inadequate progress, the program 
        can be slipped by staying at the 4 aircraft per year 
        rate.
          (5) Stretching the program in this way may reduce 
        risk but can create cost, manpower and obsolescence 
        problems.
          (6) There is no risk-concurrency reason to introduce 
        such a stretch at this time.
    The committee held a hearing again this year on tactical 
aviation forces modernization and reviewed the F-22 EMD 
program. During this year's hearings, the Air Force witness 
testified that he was ``comfortable'' with the level of 
concurrency and that he felt the level of risk in the program 
is acceptable. The witness indicated that the F-22 is an 
``event driven program that insures that key criteria are met 
as a prerequisite to production decisions.'' This concept has 
been described as ``event-based.'' Under this approach, the 
program moves to new steps in research and development or low-
rate production contracts only after having demonstrated 
specific progress in achieving definite objectives (called 
``exit criteria''). In other words, the program is ``promoted'' 
based on demonstrated performance.
    During the hearing on tactical aviation, the committee 
agreed with this approach, but noted that at the Critical 
Design Review when the F-22 exceeded weight limits, the action 
taken was to ``make a degradation in the envelope and thereby 
allow the increase in weight.''
    The committee is concerned that the Department intends to 
buy 76 aircraft prior to Milestone III, which substantially 
exceeds the reporting threshold of 10 percent of total program 
procurement (44, or 10 percent of 442 total aircraft in the 
program). The committee notes subsection 2400(a) of the Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, which requires that the 
Secretary of Defense Report on how many items will be procured 
under low-rate initial production (LRIP) for a system. The Act 
requires that the Secretary report on his reasons for buying 
more than 10 percent of the total program under LRIP, if he 
decides at the Milestone II decision point to do so. That 
report must be included in the first selected acquisition 
report (SAR) after having made the decision.
    The committee is aware that the F-22 program is in the 
early stages of EMD, and many event-based decisions are yet to 
come. Not wanting to make arbitrary cuts in the program or 
disturb the balance between research and production, which 
could create cost, manpower and obsolescence problems, the 
committee believes the Department should provide additional 
reports to Congress outside the normal budget cycle. Therefore 
the committee recommends a provision, directing the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to report 
on upcoming event-based decisions and their criteria, and the 
outcomes of those decisions with explanations of the decisions 
made.

Section 220. Nonlethal weapons and technologies programs.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$15.0 million for a joint service research and development 
program for non-lethal weapons technologies capabilities to be 
administered by the executive agent. Additionally, the 
committee recommends authorization of $3.0 million in the 
operation and maintenance account for the Marine Corps and $2.0 
million in the operation and maintenance account for the Army 
to fulfill immediate procurement needs for non-lethal weapons 
to correct inventory deficiencies.
    The committee also recommends a provision that would limit 
the use of funds authorized in program element 605130D (foreign 
comparative testing) and program element 603790D (NATO research 
and development) until funds authorized for the non-lethal 
weapons program element authorized in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, and funds authorized 
for fiscal year 1997, are released to the executive agent of 
the program. Lastly, the committee is aware that the budget 
request for fiscal year 1996 also includes funds in the budget 
request for the Department and separate defense agencies in 
program elements 603220E and 602715H for research and 
development of non-lethal weapons technologies. The committee 
requests that research and development efforts funded by these 
program elements be coordinated with the executive agent for 
the non-lethal weapons technology program.
    Since 1990, the role of U.S. military forces in 
peacekeeping and operations other than war has increased 
dramatically. Examples of operations where U.S. military forces 
have been deployed include evacuation operations in politically 
unstable areas, disaster relief, humanitarian assistance in 
response to internal political upheavals, and peace enforcement 
and peacekeeping. These deployments, in varied and non-
traditional missions, have placed our military forces in 
potentially dangerous noncombat situations involving civilians 
and terrorists. The fielding of non-lethal capabilities in 
Somalia and Haiti, while modest in scope, provided U.S. 
military forces with increased flexibility in the force 
continuum, where previously the only options available were 
either to do nothing or to use deadly force. It is likely that 
U.S. military forces will continue to be confronted by 
unorthodox military challenges in the future, and the committee 
strongly believes that non-lethal capabilities are necessary to 
manage, contain, and defuse certain volatile and low intensity 
situations.
    The committee sought to ensure that the military services 
possess the technologies, systems and munitions necessary to 
perform peacekeeping missions and operations other than war by 
authorizing $41.0 million in fiscal year 1995. In fiscal year 
1996, the Congress directed the Department to centralize 
funding for non-lethal weapons and technologies, and to assign 
management of the program to an executive agent, preferably a 
user of the technologies, such as a military service. This 
executive agent would be in a position to identify and 
prioritize service requirements for non-lethal research and 
development efforts based on operational experience and needs.
    In recent testimony before the committee, the Department 
announced that the Commandant of the Marine Corps, along with 
the Director of the Commandant's War Fighting Laboratory, had 
been designated as the executive agent for the Department's 
non-lethal weapons program. As outlined to the committee, the 
Marine Corps will coordinate activities of the services, 
defense agencies and the U.S. Special Operations Command, but 
would exercise direct control only over the Marine Corps 
activities. According to DOD, all budgetary oversight and 
direction for research, development, and procurement of non-
lethal weapons technologies would remain the responsibility of 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition. The committee 
is deeply concerned by the Department's decision not to comply 
with direction provided last year.
    Additionally, the committee has learned that $37.2 million 
authorized last year for the non-lethal weapons technologies 
program has been withheld from the executive agent by the 
Department. The committee directs the Department to comply with 
section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 and release funds authorized for the non-
lethal weapons technologies to the executive agent for 
implementation of the program.
    Finally, the committee understands that the military 
services have identified the need for additional funding in 
fiscal year 1996 to reduce development risk in a number of 
areas such as kinetics, entanglements and acoustics. 
Additionally, the committee has learned that the military 
services have identified $26.0 million in shortfalls in the 
current non-lethal weapons inventory. The committee recommends 
that the Department seek to reprogram $26.0 million from funds 
authorized in fiscal year 1996 for research and development of 
non-lethal weapons to be used for the procurement of non-lethal 
weapons to meet inventory deficits.

Section 221. Counterproliferation support program.

    The fiscal year 1997 budget request included $93.7 million 
for the Counterproliferation Support Program to accelerate the 
development and deployment of essential military 
counterproliferation technologies and capabilities in the 
Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services. The 
committee recommends an increase of $75.0 million to the budget 
request for the continuation of the Army's tactical 
antisatellite (ASAT) technologies program.

Proliferation of Space Technology

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
included $30.0 million for the Army's tactical antisatellite 
technologies program. The committee is concerned with the 
Department's decision to include the funds authorized and 
appropriated for the Army's tactical antisatellite technologies 
program on the rescission list. The Commander in Chief of Space 
Command has testified before the committee of the importance of 
space and the inherent advantage of controlling this 
operational medium for the military. General Ashy testified 
that, ``the use of space and control of this space medium are 
essential to today's military operations.'' The committee 
understands that the Army's Space and Strategic Defense Command 
did not agree with the decision to rescind the funds authorized 
for the tactical ASAT program because it believes that the 
kinetic energy technology will prove to be a vital capability 
for the future and may have applicability to other programs.
    In order to avoid significant delays and increased costs in 
developing this capability, the Congress directed the 
Department to build on the Army's tactical antisatellite 
technology program. However, the Department's decision to 
include the funds authorized for this program in a rescission 
package may have caused the program to be delayed by a year, 
and potentially increased the cost of the program.
    The committee directs DOD to release the funds authorized 
for this program and comply with section 218 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.

Underground and Deep Underground Structures

    In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1996, the Congress recommended that $1.5 million be made 
available from the counterproliferation support program for the 
exploration of a ``deep digger'' concept for hard target 
characterization. The committee believes that the Department 
must continue to focus its research and development efforts 
aggressively on programs to detect and discriminately attack 
and destroy underground facilities. The ``deep digger'' concept 
could possibly address a critical gap in our armed forces' 
capabilities. The committee understands that only a small 
portion of funds has been released to conduct a feasibility 
study for theoretical validation of the program. Deep digger 
has the potential for use in a variety of missions because it 
could be delivered either by ground forces or by aircraft. The 
committee directs the Department to release the remainder of 
fiscal year 1996 funds and recommends that $3.0 million of the 
funds authorized for the counterproliferation support program 
in fiscal year 1996 be made available for the continuation of 
the proof of principle concept and for the design and testing 
of a prototype.

Chemical and Biological Detection

    The committee recommends that the Department continue to 
place increased emphasis in this area. The potential use of 
biological agents continues to be a powerful threat to national 
security. The committee continues to believe that bolder 
research and development efforts are needed and strongly 
recommends that the program manager for the chemical and 
biological defense program, as well as the program manager for 
the counterproliferation support program, take a more proactive 
position on working closely with universities and industry, and 
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), to take 
advantage of technologies that show potential for biological 
detection. In particular, the committee endorses efforts 
undertaken by DARPA to conduct research on unique means of 
detecting biological agents, such as upconverting phosphors.
    The committee supports the Department's efforts to support 
programs that improve our ability to detect and identify 
chemical agent production and storage facilities. The committee 
understands that $7.9 million from funds authorized in fiscal 
year 1996 for the counterproliferation support program were 
used to support an effort known as SAFEGUARD that employs 
ultra-spectral imaging to detect trace amounts of chemical 
agent. The committee recommends that the Department provide a 
similar level of support for this program in fiscal year 1997.
    With regard to chemical and biological research conducted 
by DARPA, the committee directs DARPA to consult and coordinate 
more closely with the executive agent for the chemical-
biological defense program. Likewise, the committee emphasizes 
its concern that both the chemical-biological defense program 
and the counterproliferation support program work closely with 
DARPA to leverage all existing technologies and capabilities to 
their fullest extent.

Emergency preparedness and response

    The administration has placed a high priority on preventing 
and combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. 
In particular, considerable concern has arisen regarding the 
potential terrorist use of chemical or biological agents as a 
result of the nerve agent attack last year in Japan. Following 
the end of the Cold War, the committee expressed its concerns 
about these potential threats through a number of legislative 
provisions. In fiscal year 1994, the committee included a 
provision expressing its concerns and directing that the 
President direct the Departments of Defense and Energy, and 
other appropriate federal agencies, to report to Congress on 
their plans and programs to respond to the potential use of 
chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological agents or weapons 
against civilian populations. Recently, administration 
witnesses have testified to the Congress that there is a 
coordinated effort within the government to manage the 
consequences of the terrorist use of weapons of mass 
destruction (WMD) against the United States. Despite these 
assurances, the committee remains concerned that interagency 
conflicts are impacting the government's ability to assess the 
threat, identify the available capabilities and develop and 
implement procedures for responding to these threats. The 
committee understands that the President signed a Presidential 
Decision Directive in June 1995, outlining the interagency 
process and directing lead agency responsibilities to support 
the requirements of responding to the terrorist use of weapons 
of mass destruction both here in the United States and 
overseas. Further, the committee understands that the directive 
includes a requirement for coordination of crisis response and 
consequence management, with DOD providing response assistance 
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for crisis 
response and providing support to the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) for consequence management.
    The committee believes that greater efforts are necessary 
to prevent the terrorist use of WMD, and in particular, the use 
of chemical or biological agents against the United States, and 
to prepare the necessary response. Despite the June 1995 
presidential directive, the committee is not sure that a 
coherent plan exists to establish the lines of authority 
between the various federal agencies and departments, as well 
as the state and local authorities, to prepare properly for 
this threat.
    The committee recommends authorization of $5.0 million, in 
defense-wide operations and maintenance, for a comprehensive 
assessment to address the responsibilities and potential 
contributions of each federal agency and department.
    The committee directs the Department to comply with section 
379 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1996, to report to the committee on the Department's plans and 
programs to respond to the terrorist use of chemical, 
biological, radiological or nuclear weapons and agents.

Mission planning and analysis

    The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will 
remain an enduring national security concern and challenge for 
the longterm. To address this challenge, the committee believes 
that U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) mission planning 
analysis must be a permanent element of U.S. defense 
capabilities. The committee recommends that $4.0 million from 
funds authorized for the Air Force operation and maintenance 
account be made available for USSTRATCOM mission planning and 
analysis. The committee further recommends that USSTRATCOM 
mission planning and analysis be included as an element of the 
future years defense program beginning in fiscal year 1998.

Joint DOD/FBI training program

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
included authority and funding for a training program to be 
carried out jointly by DOD and the FBI to assist law 
enforcement agencies in Central Europe, the Baltic countries 
and the former Soviet Union, and to improve their efforts to 
deter the possible proliferation and acquisition of weapons of 
mass destruction. The committee is disturbed by the lack of 
progress in this area by the Department, and concerned about 
the Department's reluctance to carry out direction provided by 
Congress, which could possibly prevent the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction. The committee understands that 
only a small portion of the funds have been used to establish a 
joint DOD/FBI working relationship to date. The committee 
believes that both DOD and the FBI have had more than enough 
time to work out the formal interagency working relationship 
and directs the Department to provide the report required by 
section 1504(e)(B)(3)(B) of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1995.

Transfer authority

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Department of Defense to transfer up to $50.0 million from 
fiscal year 1997 defense-wide research and development accounts 
for counterproliferation support activities that are determined 
by the Counterproliferation Review Committee to be necessary 
and in the national security interests.

Section 222. Federally funded research and development centers and 
        university-affiliated research centers.

    The committee has a continuing interest in the efforts by 
the Department of Defense to more effectively manage the work 
being conducted for the Department by the federally-funded 
Research and Development Centers (FFRDC's) and the University-
affiliated Research Centers (UARC's). The committee recommends 
a provision that would impose a combined ceiling on the funding 
that may be provided to both categories of institutions in 
fiscal year 1997 at the same level as that imposed for fiscal 
year 1996. The committee directs that the Secretary of Defense 
allocate the ceiling between the two categories of institutions 
on the same basis as the allocation for fiscal year 1996. The 
committee continues to believe that a high priority should be 
placed on ensuring robust support for the work of the FFRDC's 
conducting studies and analyses in the portion of the funding 
ceiling allocated to the FFRDC's.

                 SUBTITLE C--BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Section 231. United States compliance policy regarding development, 
        testing, and deployment of theater missile defense systems.

    For the last 24 years, since the ABM Treaty entered into 
force, the United States has lived with a broad set of legal 
obligations regarding the development, testing, and deployment 
of theater missile defense (TMD) systems and other non-anti-
ballistic missile (ABM) systems. Under article VI(a) of the ABM 
Treaty, the United States undertakes ``not to give missiles, 
launchers, or radars, other than ABM interceptor missiles, ABM 
launchers, or ABM radars, capabilities to counter strategic 
ballistic missiles or their elements in flight trajectory, and 
not to test them in an ABM mode.'' Pursuant to these 
obligations, the United States has promulgated a unilateral 
compliance policy and specific compliance standards by which 
all non-ABM systems are evaluated for treaty compliance. There 
has never been any doubt that this unilateral activity is a 
sovereign right and obligation.
    As strategic and technological circumstances have changed, 
so have U.S. compliance standards. For at least five years, it 
has been clear that the United States must again update its 
compliance standards to accommodate new strategic and 
technological circumstances. On this point there has been very 
little disagreement, virtually none between Congress and the 
Executive Branch. There has also been basic agreement on what 
the new standard should be. The debate has been over the form 
that this new compliance standard should assume and whether the 
United States must also assume new obligations under the ABM 
Treaty regarding TMD systems. The administration has attempted 
to codify the new compliance standard in what amounts to a new 
treaty, while Russia has attempted to impose new TMD-related 
restrictions regarding basic ABM treaty obligations. Both of 
these approaches depart dramatically from past practice and are 
legally unnecessary.
    The committee believes that the United States must 
unilaterally update its own internal compliance standards, as 
has been done in the past. This would not entail a new 
interpretation of the treaty or a change in our basic legal 
obligations under the treaty. For purposes of article VI(a) the 
United States simply needs to provide a current definition of a 
``strategic ballistic missile'' and establish criteria for 
judging whether non-ABM systems have been given capabilities to 
counter such missiles or have been tested against them. This 
standard exists today and has existed since the administration 
officially proposed it at the Standing Consultative Commission 
in November 1993.
    The committee recommends a provision that would codify this 
so-called ``demonstrated capabilities'' standard. Such a 
codification would clarify U.S. compliance policy for the 
Department of Defense and other interested parties. It would 
add a large measure of stability to critical U.S. TMD systems, 
including the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system 
and the Navy Upper Tier system. Specifically, the new standard 
would state that until a TMD system is tested against a 
ballistic missile that exceeds a range of 3,500 kilometers or a 
velocity of 5 kilometers per second it will not be judged to 
have been given capabilities to counter a strategic ballistic 
missile or to have been tested in an ABM mode. In practical 
terms, this means that the United States would never be able to 
gain any confidence that its TMD systems possessed 
operationally relevant ABM capabilities. The compliance policy 
language recommended by the committee is identical to sense of 
Congress language contained in section 235 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106), which itself was derived from the administration's own 
expressed position.

Section 232. Prohibition on use of funds to implement an international 
        agreement concerning theater missile defense systems.

    Section 235 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) prohibited the use of 
fiscal year 1996 funds by the Department of Defense to 
implement a so-called theater missile defense (TMD) demarcation 
agreement unless such agreement was consistent with the so-
called ``demonstrated capabilities'' standard, was approved in 
a statute, or was approved through the treaty-making powers 
under the Constitution. This means that any agreement would 
have to be approved by a majority of both Houses of Congress, 
by a two-thirds vote in the Senate, or be consistent with a 
pre-approved standard. Unfortunately, subsequent to enactment 
of Public Law 104-106, Congress was informed that the ``pre-
approved'' approach would likely be employed even for an 
agreement, or elements of an agreement, that has been viewed by 
Congress as beyond the pre-approved definition.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision modeled 
on section 235 (Public Law 104-106) that would prohibit the use 
of funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the 
Department of Defense to implement any TMD demarcation 
agreement unless approved in statute or pursuant to the treaty 
making power under the Constitution.

Section 233. Conversion of ABM Treaty to multilateral treaty.

    The committee is aware that the Executive Branch is engaged 
in negotiations to change the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) 
Treaty from a bilateral treaty between the United States and 
the Soviet Union to a multilateral treaty that includes several 
of the independent states of the former Soviet Union. The 
committee believes that such a change would constitute a 
substantive change requiring Senate advice and consent. 
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 
specify that the United States shall not be bound by any 
international agreement entered into by the President that 
would add one or more countries as signatories to the ABM 
Treaty or would otherwise convert the treaty from a bilateral 
treaty to a multilateral treaty, unless the agreement is 
entered pursuant to the treaty making power under the 
Constitution.

Section 234. Funding for upper tier theater missile defense systems.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
funds for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system 
and the Navy Upper Tier theater missile defense (TMD) system. 
The provision would also prohibit the use of funds during 
fiscal year 1997 by the Undersecretary of Defense for 
Acquisition and Technology for official representation 
activities until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress 
that: (1) fiscal year 1997 funds for THAAD and Navy Upper Tier 
have been made available for obligation; and (2) the Navy Upper 
Tier system has been included in the core TMD program.

Section 235. Elimination of requirements for certain items to be 
        included in the annual report on the ballistic missile defense 
        program.

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

                       SUBTITLE D--OTHER MATTERS

Section 241. Live-fire survivability testing of F-22 aircraft.

    Section 254 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995 directed the Secretary of Defense to request 
the National Research Council (NRC) to study the desirability 
of waiving live fire tests for the F-22. Subsequently, the NRC 
recommended a waiver of the requirement for full-up, full-scale 
live fire tests for the F-22, saying that such tests would be 
impractical and would offer low benefits for the costs. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision to authorize 
a retroactive waiver for full-up, full-scale live fire tests 
for the F-22 program.

Section 242. Live-fire survivability testing of V-22 aircraft.

    Section 2366 of title 10, United States Code, requires 
realistic survivability testing of systems before they proceed 
beyond low-rate initial production. Such testing may be waived 
by the Secretary of Defense if a certification is made to 
Congress that the tests would be unreasonably expensive and 
impractical.
    The V-22 proceeded beyond low-rate initial production 
before enactment of the legislation requiring live fire 
testing. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision to 
allow the Secretary of Defense retroactive waiver authority for 
the V-22 program, and also requires alternative survivability 
test requirements.

             SUBTITLE E--NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP

Section 252. National Oceanographic Partnership Program.

    The committee believes that a strong national oceanography 
program is essential not only for long-term national security, 
but for other areas of national interest as well. For several 
years the committee has expressed concern that a window of 
opportunity currently exists to obtain access to littoral 
waters previously closed for oceanographic survey during the 
Cold War.
    The committee remains concerned that instead of taking 
advantage of this situation, the nation's oceanographic 
capabilities are being reduced rather than increased. While the 
basic science budget of the federal government has increased 
over the last 14 years, the percentage of the budget devoted to 
ocean research has declined steadily over the same period.
    The committee's concern for the relative importance of 
oceanographic survey and research is based on the value of this 
information to the warfighter. Oceanographic survey data is 
essential for successful littoral operations, whether in 
support of amphibious landings, submarine operations in shallow 
littoral regions or in application of data on currents, water 
temperature or bottom characteristics which affect sound 
propagation in such areas. In addition, many advanced weapon 
systems in use today require accurate and timely environmental 
data to strike military targets effectively. In each instance, 
oceanographic survey and research data contribute directly to 
the successful conduct of these military operations. By staying 
on the leading edge of oceanography and leveraging national 
oceanography programs, naval forces can better use the ocean 
environment to military advantage.
    The committee recommends a provision to establish a 
National Oceanographic Partnership program for the purpose of 
leveraging all U.S. oceanographic efforts in the Navy, in 
industry and in academia to benefit national security. The 
committee finds that it is important that the components of the 
oceanography community within the United States, including the 
Navy, industry and academia maintain a close working 
relationship to meet our national goals and provide new 
capabilities. The program therefore provides for the 
establishment of a National Ocean Research Leadership Council, 
chaired by the Secretary of the Navy or his designee and 
composed of representatives of federal agencies, industry and 
academia, to coordinate national oceanography programs, 
partnerships and facilities. In order to revitalize the current 
oceanography program and capitalize on past investments in 
infrastructure and equipment, the committee also recommends an 
increase of $13.0 million in the Navy's Oceanographic and 
Atmospheric Technology program (PE 62435N) for support of the 
National Oceanography Partnership Act to be allocated as 
follows:
          $0.5 million for the establishment and operation of 
        the National Ocean Research Leadership Council;
          $5.0 million for the conduct of a partnership program 
        among the Navy, university research groups and other 
        federal data users in support of the goals outlined in 
        the program. Such partnerships shall be established 
        using merit-based competitive procedures and shall 
        require cost-sharing by non-federal participants on at 
        least a one-for-one basis.
          $2.0 million for the creation of a Federal Ocean Data 
        and Remote Sensing Center to ensure a centralized 
        database for all sensor information (classified and 
        unclassified) for ocean analysis and modeling by 
        federal agencies and federally-sponsored researchers. 
        Site selection shall be determined by the council using 
        merit-based competitive procedures.
          $2.0 million for the establishment of a National 
        Littoral Warfighting Laboratory to coordinate Navy 
        modeling and oceanographic analysis in support of 
        unique and emerging littoral warfare requirements. Site 
        selection shall be determined by the council using all 
        applicable merit-based competitive procedures.
          $1.0 million for the continued operation in fiscal 
        year 1997 of the government-industry MEDEA Ocean Panel.
          $2.5 million for the establishment and support of 
        education and training programs in support of military 
        and civilian oceanography education with at-sea 
        training and experience on Navy and university 
        oceanographic survey and research ships. Participation 
        in such programs shall be determined using a merit-
        based selection process.

                           ADDITIONAL MATTERS

                                  Army


Basic research programs

    The committee notes the efforts of the Secretary of Defense 
to maintain level funding for the basic research programs in 
the Department of Defense and the services. The committee also 
notes the increases in the administration budget for similar 
activities conducted by the civilian agencies. The committee 
supports robust funding for this important component of the 
Department of Defense science and technology program but is 
concerned that reductions in the applied research and advanced 
technology development programs may have the effect of causing 
an imbalance in the defense technology base programs. 
Therefore, the committee recommends the following reductions in 
the basic research accounts without prejudice to fund 
shortfalls in applied research and advanced technology 
development programs:
          PE 61102A -$15.0 million
          PE 61153N -$10.0 million
          PE 61102F -$ 8.0 million
          PE 61103D -$10.0 million.

High modulus polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber

    Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber is a critical 
composite material used in the Theater High-Altitude Area 
Defense (THAAD) missile component. In order to complete a 
multi-year program to develop at least two domestic sources for 
this material, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 
million in PE 62105A to complete this effort in fiscal year 
1997. 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.

Hardened materials

    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in the 
Army's Materials Technology program (PE 62105A) for the 
continued development of hardened materials to be used on high 
performance missile systems. This technology has the potential 
to reduce significantly the weight and cost of missiles and to 
allow for the development of advanced integrated missile 
structures. The committee directs that all applicable 
competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts or 
other agreements under this program, and that cost sharing 
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where 
appropriate.

Liquid propellant technology

    Until March 1996, the Army had pursued liquid propellant 
(LP) gun technology as the only technology approach for the 
Crusader program. At that time, the Army shifted its efforts to 
solid propellant technology. Congress recognized that the LP 
gun had strong potential as a ``leap ahead'' technology which 
Secretary Perry testified is crucial to the Department's 
modernization efforts, but also recognized that LP technology 
was a higher risk approach and, therefore, insisted on the 
backup solid propellant program. Now, Congress agrees with the 
Army that LP technology should be a backup to solid propellant 
because of the potential for this leap ahead technology if 
further work can resolve outstanding technical issues outlined 
by the Army Science Board review of the liquid propellant 
technology program. The committee recommends an increase of 
$20.0 million in PE 62624A for a program to address material 
compatibility, ignition, and ballistic control issues, and to 
provide operational models validated by actual testing of the 
liquid propellant gun.

Military engineering technology

    Funding for cold regions research has declined 
significantly in the past four years as a result of reductions 
in the overall Army research and development program. In light 
of the current needs of the Army for research into construction 
and civil engineering to support recent and unplanned 
operations in cold climates and winter conditions in Bosnia and 
elsewhere, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million 
to accelerate activities in applied research in project AT42 of 
the Army's military engineering technology program (PE 62784A).

Wave net technology

    The committee continues to support 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 may be 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 PE 63006A for continued development and testing of 
wave net technology for possible application to the Army's 
digitization initiatives.

Nautilus/Tactical High Energy Laser Program

    The committee continues to support the joint Army-Israeli 
Ministry of Defense Nautilus testing program to assess the 
potential of high energy lasers to meet tactical threats. The 
highlight of the test series was the intercept in February of 
an operational short range rocket. This success has paved the 
way for a Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) Rapid Acquisition 
Demonstrator Program. The Army has identified this program as a 
potential shortfall in the fiscal year 1997 budget request. The 
committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $50.0 million 
to a new program element to support the Nautilus/Tactical High 
Energy Laser Program and the associated design verification 
testing. The committee understands that the government of 
Israel is prepared to devote significant resources to this 
effort and the committee urges the administration to seek a 
rapid conclusion of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) on the THEL 
program with Israel. The committee fully expects that 
additional funding to implement such an MOA will be included in 
future Army budget requests.

Missile and rocket advanced technology

    The budget request included $90.0 million to develop 
missile technologies. The committee is encouraged by 
developments associated with the extended range (ER) Multiple 
Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and looks forward to the program 
beginning engineering and manufacturing development in fiscal 
year 1998. The committee recommends an additional $10.0 million 
in fiscal year 1997 in PE 603313A to support completion of a 
thorough risk reduction program for guidance package 
integration and believes that this will ensure that Army 
artillery deficiencies will be addressed with production of the 
new ER rocket system.

Land mine detection technologies

    The committee supports the budget request for $15.2 million 
to continue vital research in land mine detection technologies. 
The recent deployment to Bosnia highlighted the need for a 
system or systems that will detect and classify land mines 
quickly, accurately, and effectively.
    Although various DOD agencies have spent considerable 
resources to develop and demonstrate vehicular detection 
systems, no single system or technology has been found adequate 
for mission requirements. The DOD effort has been diffused by 
allowing several agencies and the services to conduct 
essentially independent research and development without 
coordinating, cooperating, or sharing results with other 
agencies.
    The decisions to form the Army Countermine Task Force and 
the Bosnia Technology Integration Cell are positive steps to 
move the focus of effort toward practical applications. Task 
force efforts have shown that the most promising systems are 
those which integrate multiple detection technologies 
simultaneously. These systems also have the capability to mark 
mine locations accurately in real time, electronically archive 
data, and transmit the data to remote sites.
    The committee recommends an increase of $12.1 million in PE 
603606A to accelerate the demonstration and deployment of a 
prototype vehicular mounted mine detection system (VMMD) that 
incorporates the capabilities described above. Funds should be 
used to deploy systems incorporating proven or otherwise 
demonstrated state-of-the-art technologies.
    The committee also recommends an increase of $4.0 million 
in PE 603606A to continue development of navigation aids and 
improvements to permit detection systems to operate at convoy 
speeds and display data in real time.

Battle Integration Center

    The committee is aware of the importance of the missile 
defense Battle Integration Center (BIC) in accomplishing the 
integration of the Army's theater missile defense program. The 
BIC has been a critical participant in numerous exercises and 
experiments in fiscal year 1996 and has supported combat 
material developers with a synthetic battlefield environment. 
The committee recommends an increase of $27.0 million in PE 
63308A to continue this important capability.

Next tank research and development

    The committee notes the Army's plan to upgrade 998 M1 tanks 
to the M1A2 configuration. Under the current schedule, the Army 
will complete this program in fiscal year 2002. These upgrades, 
when added to new production and earlier systems, will result 
in a total inventory of 1,079 M1A2 tanks.
    The Army has been struggling with a decision on the 
modernization of tank forces beyond fielding tank number 1,079. 
The committee understands that the Army's approach to 
modernizing armored systems, particularly as it relates to 
tanks, has been evolving since the restructuring of the armored 
systems modernization (ASM) program several years ago. Now it 
appears that the approach has evolved to one of doing very 
little to prepare for the end of the current program.
    The committee believes that there are many questions 
surrounding what the program for tank number 1,080 should be, 
or whether there should be any tank number 1,080 at all. The 
committee notes that the Army has been pursuing a number of 
developmental efforts that could contribute to upgrading the 
armored force and could be candidate systems for tank number 
1,080. However, unless the Army conducts the proper planning 
and investigations now, it could be faced with a range of 
unpalatable choices, including suboptimization or inefficient 
catch up programs.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $12.0 
million to establish a new program element to: conduct a 
requirements analysis to establish a basis for deciding what 
system or mix of systems supports the best operational concept 
for defeating the evolving threat; develop conceptual 
approaches for integrating emerging technologies into a set of 
improvements that could be fielded in a new tank or in an 
upgraded main battle tank program; develop a set of 
requirements for the concepts selected by this analysis; and 
begin virtual prototyping activities that could lead to 
fielding a revolutionary main battle tank system within 20 
years.

Night vision systems advanced development

    The committee encourages the increased attention being 
placed on this critical area. The budget request for fiscal 
year 1997 included $2.8 million to continue work toward 
developing critical night vision devices that will ensure the 
Army ``owns the night.'' The committee recommends an increase 
of $2.0 million in PE 603774A for research and $15.0 million 
for engineering, for a total of $19.8 million.

Combat service support control system (CSSC)

    The budget request included $13.1 million to develop the 
combat service support node of the Army tactical command and 
control system (ATCCS). The committee understands that the 
development effort for the link to brigade and below weapon 
system platforms has not been funded and this is a critical, 
although unresourced, requirement for the Task Force XXI 
experiment. The committee recommends an increase of $3.3 
million in PE 603805A to develop this critical link to ensure 
commanders have a near real-time link to logistical, medical, 
and personnel information.

Comanche helicopter

    The budget request included $288.6 million for continued 
research and development work associated with the RAH-66 
Comanche helicopter. The committee actively supports the 
Comanche program and was encouraged to note the successful 
completion of the first flight. The committee continues to be 
concerned about the funding profile for the Comanche system as 
it is currently based on minimum funding levels that, while 
executable, create both near-and long-term inefficiencies. 
Related to the Comanche program milestones is concern about the 
age of the current scout and attack helicopter fleet, the 
associated high operation and maintenance costs, and decreasing 
overall system effectiveness. Clearly, the Army needs to pursue 
Comanche aggressively and make every effort to accelerate the 
initial operating capability date for this program. The 
committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in PE 
604223A to maintain a funding level consistent with that of 
fiscal year 1996 and to posture the program for early 
deployment options.

Javelin medium anti-tank weapon

    The budget request included $1.6 million to continue 
developmental work for the Javelin missile system. The 
committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 604611A 
to further develop the alternate main charge warhead, start 
baseline integration tests, and evaluate the missile design to 
optimize warhead performance.

Heavy assault bridge

    The budget request included $35.4 million to conduct 
developmental work necessary to support engineer requirements 
for the heavy assault bridge. The committee is encouraged by 
efforts to develop and field this item, and notes that 
additional early design work would reduce per unit costs by 
approximately $250,000 and further reduce operation and 
maintenance costs by five to ten percent. The committee 
believes that further work should be done to assess new 
bridging materials to make future bridges stronger and lighter. 
The committee directs the Army to evaluate potential new 
bridging materials and technologies and report to the 
congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 1997, 
on the findings of this evaluation and make recommendations on 
how new materials might be incorporated in future bridging 
systems. The committee supports Army efforts to reduce program 
costs and recommends an increase of $12.3 million in PE 604649A 
to design heavy assault bridge-unique line replaceable units 
and software integration requirements.

Air defense command, control, & intelligence (C2I)

    The budget request included $20.5 million to begin fielding 
a new air defense tactical operations center for air defense 
artillery brigade headquarters. This new C2I center would 
provide current software and communications equipment and begin 
retiring the AN/TSQ-73 that utilizes 1960's technology.
    Air and missile defense continues to be a major concern 
both to this committee and to the Department of Defense and it 
is imperative that new C2I systems be developed to support 
fielding of new air and missile defense systems.
    The committee notes the successful development and use of a 
state-of-the-art Force Projection Tactical Operation Center 
(FPTOC) that effectively integrates theater missile defense 
activities and provides a deploying theater level (contingency) 
commander with a vital tool to protect a deployed force. 
Successful use of the FPTOC in exercises such as Roving Sands, 
Bright Star, and Internal Look has proven the utility of this 
new missile defense command, control and intelligence concept 
at both theater and joint task force levels.
    The committee believes that the Army, as the developer of 
this element, has underfunded this promising concept and should 
review service priorities and provide a baseline level of 
funding to maintain and further develop the capabilities of 
this system. Force protection is a battlefield imperative that 
must be a focal point while making key resourcing decisions. 
The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $46.0 
million for PE 604741 to field the new brigade tactical 
operations center to each of the five air defense brigades and 
replace the aging AN/TSQ-73 system. The committee also 
recommends an increase of $15.8 million to develop a second 
FPTOC system, providing the ability to support two separate 
deployments at the same time and to provide for necessary 
technical enhancements to both systems.

Brilliant Anti-armor Technology (BAT) submunition

    The budget request included $180.4 million to continue 
equipment materiel development of the BAT system. The committee 
is concerned that recent funding decrements to this program 
from within the Department of Defense, coupled with initial 
technical problems, have put the program in the position of 
delaying initiation of the Army Tactical Missile System 
(ATACMS) Block II flight test program. In light of recent 
successful tests for the BAT submunition, it is imperative that 
the schedule be maintained and costly delays to both the BAT 
program as well as the Block II missile program be avoided. The 
committee recommends an increase of $9.8 million in PE 604768A 
to complete scheduled engineering and manufacturing development 
activities on time.

Longbow development/night vision systems

    The committee is concerned about the current state-of-the-
art night vision system currently fielded on the Apache 
helicopter system in light of developing technologies that 
would greatly enhance the warfighting abilities of this 
aircraft and crew. The committee believes it important for the 
Army to develop and field the second generation forward 
looking, Infrared capability for all Apache systems. Benefits 
of the new technology include increased situational awareness, 
improved pilot cues for decision making, and reduced cockpit 
workload, reduced stress and fatigue. The committee believes 
the Army should begin work immediately to develop this 
capability and recommends the following increases for the 
program elements: $2.0 million for PE 603774A NV Sys Adv Dev; 
$5.0 million for PE 604710A Apache A Kit EMD; $5.0 million for 
PE 604816A Apache B Kit EMD.

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 $2.9 
million request for HELSTF (PE 65605A), which would be 
insufficient to support Army plans to restructure the facility. 
This facility supports the Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser 
(MIRACL) program and test programs such as Nautilus, Tactical 
High Energy Laser (THEL) and the Air Force Airborne Laser. The 
committee reiterates the view that it does not make sense to 
shut down the MIRACL when prior legislative constraints on 
testing the laser against objects in space have finally been 
lifted. The committee also notes that the Air Force Science 
Board's New World Vistas study has recently recommended a 
ground-based directed energy approach to space control. The 
committee recommends an increase of $21.7 million for the 
continued operation and upgrade of the facility.

Combat vehicle improvement program

    The budget request included $197.8 million to support 
development efforts for a wide variety of combat vehicle 
systems. The committee supports these efforts and notes the 
progress made in developing the High Performance Crew Station 
Information System for the M1 Abrams tank. The committee 
recommends an increase of $10.0 million to accelerate important 
work on display technology and place this capability in the 
hands of the warfighter as soon as possible.

Improved cargo helicopter

    The Army's heavy lift CH-47D Chinook helicopter fleet will 
begin to reach the end of its programmed life around the turn 
of the century. It is clear to the committee that a renewed 
effort is necessary to develop a more comprehensive improvement 
of the Chinook helicopter to support operations until a 
replacement system is fielded in the year 2020. The committee 
recognizes that the original Chinook helicopters will soon be 
40 years old and believes that a remanufacturing program must 
be started soon. This will ensure an Improved Cargo Helicopter 
(ICH) is fielded in time to preclude degradation in heavy lift 
capabilities as operation and maintenance costs will otherwise 
become a heavy burden on constrained resources. The committee, 
therefore, recommends an increase of $22.7 million to support 
technology demonstrations and risk reduction efforts for 
programmatic development of the ICH program.

Force XXI digitization

    The committee continues to support Army efforts to digitize 
the future battlefield and awaits the results of the brigade 
task force experiment early next year. The committee 
understands that additional funding is required to support 
further development of message/information protocols and to 
complete procurement of applique equipment. The committee 
recommends an increase of $24.0 million to ensure a successful 
evaluation of Force XXI technologies.

Air defense alerting device (ADAD)

    The committee notes progress made to evaluate the Air 
Defense Alerting Device (ADAD) on potential applications to 
support passive target acquisition support for forward deployed 
forces. Testing activities at both Fort Greely, Alaska and Fort 
Bliss, Texas will assess the value added and utility of the 
ADAD system to air defense teams, characterize performance of 
the sensor in different environments, and determine the 
capabilities of the device against the target set of concern to 
the Army. The committee supports the robust test schedule and 
expects the Army to report the results in fiscal year 1997.

Missile/air defense product improvement program

    The committee recommended an additional $35.0 million to 
the fiscal year 1996 budget request to address the cruise 
missile threat and develop alternatives based on potential 
modifications to PAC-1 Patriot missiles. The committee 
recognizes that the cruise missile threat is growing and 
requires the immediate attention of developmental efforts to 
ensure that Army forces are protected. The committee recommends 
an increase of $40.0 million in PE 23801A for fiscal year 1997 
to complete this analysis and provide the results to the Army 
for consideration.
    The committee also supports Army efforts to evaluate the 
Starstreak missile alongside the Stinger missile as potential 
candidates for the air-to-air missile system required for the 
Apache helicopter. Noted is the outstanding funding requirement 
for $15.0 million in PE 23801A to support completion of the 
Army effort to conduct a robust test of both missiles, along 
with a corresponding cost-effectiveness analysis addressing the 
full integration of each system on the Apache helicopter.
    The committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $40.0 
million to support Patriot cruise missile seeker development 
and an additional $15.0 million to complete evaluation of the 
Starstreak missile.

Other missile product improvement programs

    The committee supports Department of Defense efforts to 
ensure that missiles are insensitive to bullet and fragment 
impacts and endorses efforts to promote crew survivability. The 
committee understands that developmental work is necessary to 
provide an insensitive rocket motor for the laser Hellfire 
missile. Also, there is an outstanding funding requirement for 
$4.5 million to complete this effort.
    The committee also notes that additional work is required 
to complete an effort that began last year to certify and test 
the Hydra-70 missile for use on the Apache attack helicopter. 
This key effort will determine the best solution for the 
missile requirement established for these attack aircraft.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million to 
develop and qualify an insensitive rocket motor as well as to 
support minor software improvements for the Hellfire missile 
and an additional $9.0 million to complete the evaluation of 
the Hydra-70 missile, for a total increase of $13.5 million.

Force XXI initiatives

    The Army has made great progress in developing its vision 
for the 21st century. The committee supports the Army's effort 
to establish a viable process by which this vision can evolve 
over time as technology changes.
    Recent testimony and demonstrations by the Army clearly 
establish the success of the work that has been accomplished in 
only a few short years. The committee strongly supports the 
Army effort to establish a mechanism by which new technologies 
can be acquired, tested, and evaluated for future applications 
through the Force XXI Initiatives process. The current 
acquisition system is slow, and while acquisition reform 
initiatives are underway, this process cannot keep pace with 
the rate of change associated with new technologies.
    The committee, therefore, recommends $100.0 million for a 
new program element, to be established by the Army, to support 
the Force XXI Initiatives process that will allow the Army to 
conduct a timely evaluation of new equipment and technology. 
The Army is expected to subject programs with promising 
preliminary results to normal reviews and evaluations required 
by law, prior to transitioning into production any program 
tested with these funds. The committee directs the Army to 
report quarterly on the obligation of funds provided for the 
Force XXI Initiatives program, and more frequently if there are 
significant successes or failures in this experimentation 
program. The committee expects the Army to budget for necessary 
resources in future year activities.

                                  Navy


Continuous wave superconducting radio frequency free electron laser

    The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE 
62111N for the continuation of the continuous wave 
superconducting radio frequency free electron laser program 
within the Office of the Secretary of the Navy. The committee 
understands that there will be significant cost sharing between 
the Commonwealth of Virginia and the private sector in this 
effort. The committee encourages the Department of Energy to 
build on the Navy project to meet the needs of material 
scientists in universities and industry.

Power electronic building blocks

    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 
62121N to continue the development of the power electronics 
building block technology for the rapid switching and control 
of high power electrical systems. The committee urges that the 
increase be used for development of virtual prototyping tools 
that can be used to visualize and evaluate the performance of 
new reconfigurable ship electric power systems that can survive 
battle damage and component failures. 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 applicable.

Materials, electronics and computer technology

    The committee is aware of the Navy's efforts to address 
materials development in support of aviation platform 
affordability, supportability, and mission performance. A 
primary concern that should be addressed by the recently 
established materials competency center is the qualification of 
new materials, new processes, and second sources. The committee 
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62234N to address 
new materials processes such as resin transfer molding and the 
establishment of second sources for carbon fibers and prepreg 
systems. The committee directs that all applicable competitive 
procedures be used in the award of any contracts or other 
agreements under the program and that cost sharing requirements 
for non-federal participants be utilized where appropriate.

Undersea weapons technology

    The committee is concerned that recent budget trends have 
slowed research activities devoted to countering emerging 
undersea threats from quiet submarines and modern torpedoes 
increasingly available in the world market. The committee 
recommends an increase of $6.0 million in the Navy's Undersea 
Weapons Technology program (PE 62633N) for the acceleration of 
technology leading to the development of a quick reaction anti-
submarine/anti-torpedo weapon for close-range engagements and 
for the protection of surface ships and submarines from torpedo 
attack. 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.

Navy affordability initiative

    The committee commends the Navy for undertaking tangible 
efforts to address affordability concerns in its science and 
technology program. To accelerate this initiative further as 
part of a broader affordability thrust, the committee 
recommends an increase of $10.0 million in the Navy Air Systems 
and Weapons Technology program (PE 63217N) to support 
affordability technologies prioritized under the Navy's new 
affordability criteria. The committee expects that any 
necessary follow-on funding for the initiatives undertaken with 
the increase provided by the committee will be included in the 
Navy budget request for fiscal year 1998.

Project M

    The budget request contained no funding for Project M, a 
technology program for the active control of machinery 
platforms.
    In fiscal year 1996, Congress authorized and appropriated 
$7.0 million in PE 63569E to continue the transfer of Project M 
technology from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
to the Navy. The program has been focused on the demonstration 
of active control of machinery raft structural dynamics and 
magnetic levitation using rafts that represent future submarine 
engine room structures. The research has been significant 
because it has showed that large scale implementation of active 
control for complex structures is possible. Additional funding 
in fiscal year 1997 would permit realistic testing of high 
fidelity quarter scale physical models that will provide 
quantitative performance data and other critical information 
that can be used to define the scope of applications for this 
technology in future submarine or surface ship designs. There 
is also potential for the expanded use of this technology in a 
broad spectrum of other military, space, and commercial 
applications where quieting of systems and subsystems is 
important.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million above 
the budget request in PE 63508N for the continued development 
of Project M. The committee also directs that the Secretary of 
the Navy submit a report, no later than March 1, 1997, that 
provides a detailed assessment of:
          (1) the current status of the Project M program;
          (2) the Secretary's plans for continued development 
        of the Project M technology;
          (3) future milestones for the maturing of the 
        technology;
          (4) the Navy's plan for incorporating Project M 
        technology into the design of its next generation of 
        nuclear attack submarine; and
          (5) funding included in the future years defense 
        program to satisfy this plan.

Environmentally compliant torpedo fuel

    The budget request contained $2.8 million for project R2267 
in PE 63747N. This project develops and demonstrates advanced 
undersea weapons component prototypes for insertion into 
current undersea weapons to upgrade their capabilities. At 
present, the project is focused on the development of a 
simulation based design and an iterative build-test-build 
process. Specific efforts for fiscal year 1997 would address an 
environmentally compliant fuel alternative to the OTTO fuel 
currently used in undersea weapons, advanced broadband homing 
system techniques, and algorithms to make U.S. undersea weapons 
countermeasure resistant. Additional funding in fiscal year 
1997 could accelerate the environmentally compliant fuel 
alternative by up to two years.
    To accelerate the environmentally compliant fuel 
alternative by up to two years, the committee recommends an 
increase of $5.0 million above the budget request in PE 63747N.

Integrated combat weapons system

    The budget request contained no funding for an initiative 
to resolve operational shortcomings and unnecessarily high 
maintenance costs associated with the current version of the 
integrated combat weapons system (ICWS) that is installed on 
Navy mine countermeasures (MCM) ships.
    The committee has learned that the Navy has included 
funding in its future years defense program in fiscal year 1998 
to upgrade the ICWS to a Block I configuration, making maximum 
use of commercial off-the-shelf technology. This upgrade will 
improve the reliability and maintainability of the ICWS and 
help to address one of the Navy's most critical operational 
shortcomings, its MCM capability, in a cost-effective manner.
    The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million above 
the budget request in PE 63502N to accelerate the ICWS Block I 
program from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 1997.

Research for advanced submarine technology

    As directed in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 1996, the Secretary of Defense submitted a report 
to Congress on March 26, 1966 on the subject of nuclear attack 
submarine procurement and submarine technology. The report 
indicates that, historically, submarine technology development, 
maturation, and transition have been performed on a cyclical 
basis. A technology cycle has begun as a complement to the 
requirement to design a new class of submarine. Funding for 
technology development has then been dramatically increased to 
mature new technologies for inclusion in the new class design. 
However, as this surge of funding has occurred, a promising 
technology that could not mature in time for inclusion in the 
new design was set aside and given little or no funding 
support. Once a firm set of new technologies for the new design 
has been determined, funding for advanced submarine technology 
has fallen precipitously to subsistence levels and generally 
remained there during serial submarine production.
     This cyclical approach was generally successful when there 
was continuity or overlap of multiple submarine class designs 
or design upgrades, following each other in a steady 
progression. Blocks of technology were generally available when 
the time for a new design arrived. However, a logical 
consequence of the decrease in the number of new classes being 
designed and in the submarine building rate during the past few 
years has been that some promising and potentially leap-ahead 
technologies have lain fallow for years; acknowledged, but not 
pursued.
    The Secretary's report concludes that the transition from 
the high production rate of submarines that occurred during the 
Cold War to the currently projected low production rate, 
coupled with an exponential increase in the rate of technology 
turnover, necessitates a different approach to submarine 
technology development and transition. The report recommends 
changing from an approach that is cyclical in nature to an 
active, steady state approach.
    An independent submarine technology assessment panel, 
convened by the Secretary of the Navy to assist the Secretary 
of Defense in preparing his report, reviewed all promising 
submarine technologies, including foreign technology. The 
recommendations of this panel contributed greatly to the final 
form of the Secretary of Defense's report. In particular, the 
panel highlighted the discontinuous nature and low risk bias of 
submarine technology development that has occurred in the past 
because of its spiky focus on class designs. The panel pointed 
out that the subsistence level of core funding available 
between the new acquisition platform spikes has generally been 
insufficient to allow revolutionary options to be pursued. The 
panel's report also observes that:
          (1) the flow of information between members of the 
        technical community and within the requirements and 
        acquisition communities of the Department of the Navy 
        is at best inconsistent and sometimes nonexistent;
          (2) shipyards are more involved in design activities 
        than in the past, but are not involved, as the 
        aerospace industry is, in all aspects of technology 
        planning and development, which inhibits early 
        consideration of the intricacies of submarine 
        construction in the integration of technology; and
          (3) funding and organizational constraints have led 
        to a limited and inconsistent use of world class test 
        facilities and risk reduction activities to evaluate 
        potential technologies and develop them for inclusion 
        in future submarine modifications or new designs.
    The submarine technology assessment panel made several 
recommendations that are also included in the Secretary of 
Defense's report:
          (1) proceed with the New Attack Submarine but commit 
        to continuous evolution;
          (2) define a single product manager for all attack 
        submarines, who is responsible for acquisition, life 
        cycle support and technology maturation/insertion;
          (3) establish a significant, stable, and continuing 
        R&D program, under the single product manager, that 
        supports and matures major advances, reflects 
        technology base opportunities, and responds to future 
        missions;
          (4) address the maturation of technologies associated 
        with hydrodynamics, alternative sail designs, advanced 
        arrays, electric drive, external weapons, and active 
        controls and mounts; and
          (5) ensure that the technology base community 
        understands the performance need identified by the 
        product manager, involves the shipyards as performers 
        of technology development, performs utility analysis 
        before pursuing evolutionary improvements, and has the 
        courage to pursue potentially revolutionary 
        technologies.
    The committee believes that the Secretary's report makes a 
very good case for changing the way the Department of the Navy 
organizes itself to pursue advanced submarine technology and 
funds that effort. However, preliminary discussions with the 
Department have revealed little enthusiasm on the Department's 
part for change. The committee understands that resistance to 
change is not unusual in a large bureaucracy. Recent experience 
with the time it took, at least three years, for the Department 
to come to grips with the need to reduce its infrastructure to 
accommodate the reality of declining budgets is a case in 
point. Consequently, the committee has concluded that it will 
be necessary to encourage the Department to focus on 
implementation of the recommendations included in the Secretary 
of Defense's report to derive any lasting benefit from it. 
Because the committee senses a desire by other elements in 
Congress to take a more directive approach towards this 
organizational issue, the committee strongly recommends that 
the Secretary of the Navy and other senior leaders in the 
Department take it up as a matter of priority.
    Based on the findings of the Secretary of Defense's report 
and the Department of the Navy's independent submarine 
technology assessment panel, the committee has concluded that a 
different approach to funding for advanced submarine technology 
research is warranted. Accordingly, the committee recommends an 
increase of $100.0 million above the budget request for the 
pursuit of advanced submarine technology at a moderate level of 
investment, $60.0 million for PE 63561N, and $40.0 million for 
PE 63504N. The Navy is directed to use these funds to carry out 
the high priority development efforts identified in the 
Secretary of Defense's report to Congress, emphasizing advanced 
hydrodynamic and hydroacoustic research, using advanced 
modeling that is validated, when appropriate, by the use of 
large scale models before insertion into the final design.
    The committee emphasizes that this recommended funding 
increase is for the purpose of developing advanced technologies 
that can be incrementally incorporated into the design of the 
next generation of nuclear attack submarine, now commonly 
referred to as the New SSN or New Attack Submarine, as they 
mature. Older designs, such as the SSN-688 class or Seawolf 
class, may ultimately benefit from such research, but the 
committee would strongly object to any effort on the part of 
the Navy to use this recommended increase to resolve funding 
shortfalls in existing programs or to pursue new ones whose 
sole purpose is to improve the combat systems or sensors of 
these older designs.
    To provide an opportunity for continuing interaction with 
the Navy on advanced submarine technology, the committee also 
directs that the Secretary of the Navy deliver to the 
congressional defense committees as early as possible, but no 
later than February 15, 1997, a plan that addresses in detail:
          (1) the immediate organizational changes that he has 
        put in place to provide for a robust and continuing 
        submarine technology program, including a far more 
        effective and equitable involvement of industry and the 
        shipyards that are involved in submarine design or 
        construction;
          (2) additional organizational changes he contemplates 
        for the future, and his timeline for implementing them; 
        and
          (3) how funds authorized in fiscal year 1997 will be 
        expended, what specific funding profile is required to 
        pursue his plan at a moderate level of investment in 
        the future, and what promising technologies will be 
        pursued with such future funding.

Submarine towed array processing software

    The Navy has informed the committee of preliminary 
technical analysis that indicates that significant gains in 
towed array performance are possible through improved signal 
processing. While this research is being sponsored as a 
submarine technology initiative, its objective, developing 
algorithms and associated software that could be hosted on any 
open architecture system, could benefit a broad spectrum of 
related antisubmarine warfare (ASW) programs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 
63504N to improve the overall performance of both sonar and 
combat control systems by the improvement of their ASW acoustic 
processing.

Aircraft carrier research and development

    The Navy's future years defense program currently plans to 
request authorization for an aircraft carrier, CVN-77, in 
fiscal year 2002. The Navy has described CVN-77 as a 
transitional carrier that would be nuclear powered but would 
incorporate design improvements that could lead to a more 
revolutionary design for the carrier-after-next, CV(X). CV(X) 
would follow CVN-77 by about four years.
    The design service life of aircraft carriers will permit 
these two ships to remain active until well into the second 
half of the next century. The Navy has testified to its strong 
desire to incorporate evolutionary technologies into CVN-77 and 
far more dramatic advances into CV(X). Incorporating such 
improvements into the baseline design would eliminate the need 
for expensive future modifications. However, the budget request 
includes only $6.0 million to pursue these technologies.
    While the committee has not yet reviewed the development 
program for aircraft carrier technology in the same detail as 
its evaluation of the Navy's submarine technology program, 
discussed elsewhere in this report, it would appear that the 
Navy has not allocated sufficient resources to mature promising 
technologies in sufficient time for their incorporation into 
the design of either CVN-77 or CV(X). It would further appear 
that the same organizational problems that have inhibited the 
development of submarine technology are also present for this 
program.
    To ensure that promising technologies, such as an advance 
aircraft launch system, advanced armor concepts, integrated 
topside design, advanced computing plant architecture, internal 
and external command and control architecture, and modeling and 
simulation tool development, are pursued in sufficient time for 
inclusion in the base design of CVN-77, if possible, and CV(X), 
the committee recommends an increase of $52.0 million above the 
budget request in PE 63512N.

Navy surface combatant

    The Navy is developing a new generation of surface 
combatant (SC-21) that would enter procurement after the turn 
of the century as a replacement for the DDG-51 class destroyer. 
However, the competition for scarce resources associated with 
preparation of the budget request has reduced funding for the 
SC-21 program to subsistence levels. Additional funding in 
fiscal year 1997 would permit the Navy to provide focus for the 
SC-21 program and accomplish a number of important objectives 
that would lead to its orderly development, such as:
          (1) accelerate reduced manning engineering analysis 
        with industry and fleet input;
          (2) conduct ship mission and task functional 
        analysis;
          (3) accelerate critical technology transition by 
        industry;
          (4) facilitate early industry participation in Navy 
        led integrated process teams; and
          (5) provide earlier automated documentation to 
        support program requirements and acquisition reform.
    The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 
63564N to increase funding for the SC-21 program to a level 
that could provide for an orderly development and transition to 
procurement after the turn of the century.

Intercooled recuperated gas turbine engine

    The budget request contained $34.1 million in PE 63573N for 
continued development of the intercooled recuperated (ICR) gas 
turbine engine.
    In order to improve production efficiencies and support the 
testing program, the committee has supported a plan to develop 
a test facility for the ICR engine at the Navy's land-based 
test site. This facility would be used to conduct the second 
500 hour engine test for the ICR engine. Such testing would 
reduce program risk and allow an earlier start of production 
testing to support a planned decision in January 1997 on when 
to introduce the ICR engine into new construction DDG-51 class 
destroyers. No funding for this initiative was included in the 
budget request.
    Additionally, no funding has been included in the budget 
request for at-sea testing of the ICR engine. At-sea testing of 
the LM-2500 gas turbine, currently in widespread use as a main 
propulsion gas turbine, provided valuable lessons learned when 
gas turbine technology was first introduced into the fleet over 
twenty years ago. It is to be expected that similar benefits 
would be derived from similar testing of the ICR engine.
    The committee recommends an increase of $19.0 million to 
the budget request in PE 63573N for the ICR engine. Of this 
amount:
          (1) $12.5 million would be to establish an ICR test 
        facility at the Navy's existing land-based test site; 
        and
          (2) $6.5 million would be for at-sea testing of the 
        ICR engine.

Advanced amphibious assault vehicle

    The committee supports the accelerated development of the 
advanced amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV) as one of the Marine 
Corps'' highest priority programs. The AAAV will be critical to 
future ship-to-shore operations from the stand-off distances 
envisioned by the Department of the Navy's doctrine for 
operational maneuver from the sea. It will greatly enhance the 
maneuver capabilities of deploying Marines by providing them 
with much greater flexibility as to the time and place of an 
amphibious assault and for subsequent maneuver ashore.
    The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 
63611M to procure an additional prototype for testing and 
evaluation, to accelerate testing activities now scheduled for 
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and to preserve the option to enter 
production a year earlier than currently planned.

Lightweight 155MM howitzer program

    The committee notes the joint effort of the Marine Corps 
and the Army to develop a lightweight 155mm howitzer for light 
forces. The committee has been supportive of ongoing 
developments for current and future self-propelled howitzer 
systems and desires that these technologies also be applied to 
the lightweight howitzer.
    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63635M to incorporate new technologies into the Marine Corps 
lightweight 155mm howitzer and its associated training devices.

``Smart Base'' technology demonstration

    The committee agrees with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff's program assessment concerning the Multi-Technology 
Automated Reader Card (MARC), providing total visibility during 
war or contingency operations, as well as providing 
efficiencies in peacetime services and training. The committee 
believes that the use of leading edge commercial technologies 
like the MARC or ``smart card'' to reduce infrastructure costs 
is beneficial to the nation, and enables better use of the 
limited resources to support national security. Full 
exploitation of state-of-the-art technology would provide 
significant benefits and efficiencies associated with 
installation overhead management costs. A ``Smart Base'' 
technology demonstration would capitalize on such technologies 
and allow information exchange with federal agencies, and state 
and local governments, as well as with the commercial sector.
    The committee believes a ``Smart Base'' technology 
demonstration should be conducted simultaneously at an 
industrial site to determine usefulness with regard to ship 
operations and maintenance, and at an operational base to 
provide base business applications including security, travel, 
education, medical, personnel, finance and food services. This 
technology demonstration should be integrated into the civilian 
sector where appropriate. Site selection shall be limited to 
one industrial activity and one operational activity. Each 
selection should use merit-based competitive procedures and be 
predicated on size and scope to confine the demonstration to a 
manageable and measurable model.
    In executing the program, the committee instructs the 
Department of the Navy to minimize costs by seeking cost 
sharing partnerships with other federal agencies, and state and 
local governments, as well as commercial activities. The 
committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to the Navy's 
Environmental Quality and Logistics program (PE 63712N) for 
this ``Smart Base'' technology demonstration.

Cooperative engagement capability

    The budget request contained $164.5 million in PE 63755N 
and $9.9 million in PE 24152N for continued development of the 
Navy's cooperative engagement capability (CEC).
    CEC is designed to enhance the warfighting capabilities of 
ships and aircraft by combining the data derived from various 
sensors into a single common representation that is available 
with the same positional accuracy to all participating ships. 
The Navy reports that a challenging cruise missile defense 
exercise, which relied heavily on CEC position information, was 
held earlier this year in Hawaii. The exercise involved over-
the-horizon detection, tracking, and engagement of a variety of 
difficult targets. The Navy currently projects that initial 
operational capability of the system will be achieved by 
September 1996. During testimony at this year's defense posture 
hearing, the Secretary of Defense singled out CEC as a program 
of high priority that he chose to accelerate because of its 
great potential for linking units from more than one service 
together and greatly increasing their warfighting ability.
    Despite relatively robust funding for CEC in this year's 
budget request, it contains no funding to pursue joint service 
integration efforts that were begun last year. Successful 
consummation of these efforts, in consonance with the Navy's 
baseline program, could greatly leverage the capability of the 
services to conduct joint operations and provide ballistic 
missile defense. Another area not addressed by the budget 
request, an issue raised in committee hearings this year, is 
reported interference between CEC and other data links 
currently in use in the fleet.
    The committee recommends an increase of $63.0 million above 
the budget request for CEC in PE 63755N to permit continued 
pursuit of a number of promising efforts, including CEC 
integration with AWACS and national sensors, and to accelerate 
development of an airborne capability for the system. Of this 
amount, $8.0 million would be available to address the issue of 
CEC interference with other fleet data links, particularly the 
link installed on the SH-60B. The committee also directs that 
the Secretary of the Navy prepare a detailed report, for 
submission no later than March 15, 1997, on issues that 
surfaced during committee hearings this year:
          (1) progress made in resolving the issue of spectrum 
        interference as a result of the reallocation under 
        title VI of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 of 
        the spectrum in which CEC operates; and
          (2) steps that the Secretary has taken to address and 
        resolve harmful interference between CEC and other 
        fleet weapons systems and data links.

Naval surface fire support

    The budget request included $42.2 million for gun weapons 
system technology. Of this amount, $20.2 million is for the 
continued development of a 5-inch extended range guided 
munition (ERGM) round. The Navy is developing this round to 
address a gap in its ability to provide accurate naval surface 
fire support (NSFS) during an amphibious assault at the ranges 
dictated by current requirements. Of the $20.2 million, no 
funds have been budgeted for risk mitigation in the development 
of a GPS/INS guidance unit for the projectile, the component 
judged to have the greatest technical risk.
    The committee has learned that a modest increment of 
additional funding for risk mitigation in fiscal year 1997 
could have very high leverage in successfully completing 
development of the GPS/INS guidance unit on schedule. 
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 
million above the budget request in PE 63795N for risk 
mitigation in development of the 5-inch ERGM. Consistent with 
direction provided in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1996, the committee also recommends an increase 
of $0.4 million above the budget request to support the 
retention of two Iowa class battleships on the naval register 
in an inactive status until the Navy is able to replace their 
potential NSFS capability.

Strike missile evaluation

    As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Navy is pursuing 
the development of an arsenal ship as a means of providing 
flexible response and early massive firepower in the event of a 
crisis. To fully realize the capabilities that the Navy 
envisions for the arsenal ship, the Navy must pursue parallel 
development of a long range strike missile that is capable of 
hard target penetration. There are at least two potential 
candidates for this mission, a sea-based variant of the Army's 
ATACMs missile and a Standard strike missile variant. The Navy 
has previously conducted an at-sea test of the ATACMs missile 
variant but not of the Standard missile variant.
    There are additional uses that the Navy might be able to 
make of older variants of the Standard missile if they could be 
proven satisfactory for those purposes. Examples include use as 
a ballistic missile defense target and as a supersonic sea 
skimming missile. If it proves feasible to use its existing 
inventory of older Standard missiles in such roles with only 
limited modifications, the Navy could make very cost effective 
use of this inventory and take advantage of a logistics support 
infrastructure that is already in place.
    The Navy has informed the committee that additional funding 
in fiscal year 1997 could be used to conduct a complete 
Standard missile variant demonstration. This demonstration 
would not only test a variant for the joint land attack 
mission, but also as a theater ballistic missile target and a 
supersonic sea skimming missile variant.
    The committee recommends an increase of $24.0 million above 
the budget request in PE 63795N to evaluate the potential of 
the Standard missile to satisfy multiple mission requirements, 
including a specially configured long range strike variant that 
could be employed by the arsenal ship, when developed, or other 
Navy surface combatants equipped with a vertical launch 
capability.

Light airborne multi-purpose system helicopter program

     The Navy has embarked on a program to convert its existing 
fleet of light airborne multi-purpose system (LAMPS) 
helicopters from the SH-60B configuration to the SH-60R 
configuration. It is planned that other Navy H-60 series 
helicopters, such as the HH-60, a search and rescue variant, 
and the SH-60F, an ASW variant with a dipping sonar, will also 
eventually be converted to the SH-60R configuration. However, 
the Navy's helicopter master plan, under which these 
conversions are included, has been in a constant state of flux 
for at least the past two years and, in the committee's 
opinion, has lacked the focus needed to properly compete for 
resources as the defense budget, particularly the acquisition 
portion, has declined in recent years.
    The committee has learned that the LAMPS SH-60B to SH-60R 
development program is seriously short of resources. Since 
fiscal year 1995, it has gone through requirements 
restructuring, contractual rebaselining, efforts at cost 
reduction through acquisition reform initiatives, contractor 
investment, and an increasing contractor inventory of accrued 
cost that has not been paid. While the Navy and contractor team 
has maintained technical progress towards the planned fiscal 
year 2001 initial operational capability (IOC) date, the 
funding level contained in the fiscal year 1997 budget request 
would be insufficient to sustain this effort. Since the program 
was originally structured to permit conversion to the SH-60R 
configuration to occur during scheduled depot maintenance or 
service life extension overhauls, the delay in program 
development that would result from the fiscal year 1997 budget 
request would likely also cause a substantial increase in 
conversion costs and might render the program unaffordable.
     The committee recommends an increase of $6.8 million in PE 
64212N to restore funds that were removed from the SH-60R 
development program during preparation of the fiscal year 1997 
budget request. This additional funding will support a critical 
design review in fiscal year 1997 and maintain the program's 
progress toward a fiscal year 2001 IOC. The committee also 
recommends an increase of $10.0 million for the procurement of 
additional SH-60B upgrade kits to replace funds that were 
removed from the program to pay for F-14 digital flight control 
improvements.

Joint maritime command information system/Navy tactical command system-
        afloat

    The budget request included $43.7 million for development 
and procurement associated with the Navy tactical command 
system afloat (NTCS-A) and the joint maritime command 
information system (JMCIS).
    NTCS-A is the primary command, control, and intelligence 
(C2I) system in the fleet. It is installed in over 240 ships 
and is fielded on a series of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) 
based tactical computers. It also forms the architectural basis 
for the Joint Chiefs of Staff's global command and control 
system (GCCS). NTCS-A provides a common standard in order to 
integrate individual subsystems into a common operating 
environment, the JMCIS. New, user-specific software 
applications for individual weapons and communications systems 
must be developed with an interface that is compliant with 
NTCS-A. The Navy has also embarked on a major effort to ensure 
that legacy systems that are not presently compliant with NTCS-
A are adapted to it as quickly as possible. While the Navy 
considers this effort of great importance to its ability to 
realize the full fighting potential of its fleet units, 
competing demands for resources in a constrained budget 
environment have slowed the development of NTCS-A/JMCIS.
    The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million above 
the budget request to field the following additional 
capabilities for JMCIS/NTCS-A:
          (1) development of integrated two-way Link 16 
        processing capability in JMCIS software;
          (2) incorporation of the Air Force's contingency 
        theater automated planning system (CTAPS) into JMCIS;
          (3) upgrading to permit data exchange between the 
        joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS) 
        and the Navy's afloat planning system (APS);
          (4) fielding of the afloat automated sanitization 
        system, commonly known as Radiant Mercury; and
          (5) development of the tools and architecture to 
        allow users to selectively request, filter, and process 
        supporting databases without being overwhelmed by 
        unneeded data.
    Of the amount recommended, $19.5 million would be for 
research and development in PE 64231N and $3.5 million would be 
for procurement.

Smart Ship initiative

    The budget request included no funding for the Navy's Smart 
Ship initiative. This initiative, developed too late for 
inclusion in the budget request, will be managed at fleet level 
and is designed to demonstrate that crew workload for a surface 
combatant ship can be reduced via technology and changes to 
existing policies and procedures. The lessons derived from it 
are expected to have a direct, cost saving impact on the 
designs for future ships, such as the arsenal ship and the 
Navy's next generation of surface combatant, the SC-21. It may 
also produce modification proposals that could be cost 
effectively incorporated into existing fleet units to lower 
operating and support costs.
    The committee has concluded that Smart Ship has 
considerable potential for reducing the operating costs of the 
Navy's fleet units with no loss in operational effectiveness. 
If Smart Ship's objectives are realized, it could also assist 
the Navy in making more future resources available for 
recapitalization.
    The committee recommends an increase of $31.3 million above 
the budget request to accelerate the Smart Ship initiative. Of 
this amount, $21.9 million would be for PE 64307N. The balance 
of $9.4 million would be added to the Navy's operating account.

Arsenal Ship

    The Navy budget request contained $25.0 million for 
development of an arsenal ship.
    During the past year, the Department of the Navy has 
developed a new concept for an arsenal ship. Key elements of 
the concept include:
          (1) providing approximately 500 vertical launch 
        system (VLS) cells, with the capability to launch Navy 
        and joint weapons to support the land campaign;
          (2) integrating the combat system with cooperative 
        engagement capability to provide for off-board control 
        of weapons;
          (3) incorporating the flexibility to include ship 
        design features for survivability and self defense at a 
        later date;
          (4) minimizing ownership costs; and
          (5) limiting crew size to no more than 50.
    The arsenal ship concept could satisfy the basic joint 
naval requirements to provide the theater commander with: (1) 
massive firepower, (2) long-range strike, and (3) flexible 
targeting of that firepower. The arsenal ship program may also 
support theater air defense by providing hundreds of VLS cells 
for air defense missiles.
    The Navy has testified that it will emphasize simplicity of 
design for the arsenal ship. In an innovative approach to 
exploring the arsenal ship concept, the Navy has signed a 
memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for conducting a joint 
development program. The objective of the MOA is to:
          (1) produce an operational demonstrator that could be 
        converted to a fleet asset at a future date;
          (2) incorporate cost as an independent variable;
          (3) share the cost of the first demonstrator between 
        the Navy and DARPA;
          (4) spend no more than $520.0 million on the first 
        demonstrator;
          (5) use exclusively off-the-shelf systems; and
          (6) create a joint arsenal ship advanced technology 
        demonstrator office to manage the effort.
    The committee explored this arsenal ship concept for the 
first time at a hearing on March 12, 1996. Based on its initial 
review, the committee believes that the concept shows promise 
for providing both flexible response and early massive 
firepower in the event of a crisis.
    The committee understands that the program is in the 
earliest of conceptual stages. However, there are a number of 
questions that must be addressed concerning integration of the 
arsenal ship with other existing and developmental weapons 
systems, and concerning other possible missions that have 
evolved since the memorandum of agreement was signed. Relevant 
matters for resolution as development proceeds include:
          (1) how will the arsenal ship system and its 
        operational employment concept satisfy the basic 
        objectives of providing accurate, long-range strike and 
        flexible targeting?
          (2) does the Navy have, or is it planning to develop, 
        the right kinds of weapons systems that would provide 
        an effective anti-armor capability at ranges consistent 
        with long range strike?
          (3) has the Navy identified what modifications to 
        existing vertical launchers may be necessary to 
        accommodate the Army tactical missile system (ATACMS)?
          (4) how will the Navy integrate the arsenal ship into 
        existing or planned surveillance and targeting systems, 
        such as JSTARs, to tap into sensor-to-shooter links 
        that provide accurate real-time targeting for long-
        range weapons?
          (5) to what extent might the arsenal ship system be 
        able to provide a shore fire support capability, a 
        potential additional mission that is not mentioned in 
        the developmental objectives of the MOA?
          (6) what self-defense systems might be necessary to 
        meet the operational objectives set for the ship? and
          (7) what is the view of the Joint Requirements 
        Oversight Council (JROC) regarding the need for 
        additional sea-based, long-range, precision surface 
        fire support in the form of an arsenal ship?
    Based on its initial evaluation, the committee supports the 
Navy's concept for an arsenal ship. However, the committee 
believes that the questions listed above are all valid and must 
be addressed as part of the development program. The arsenal 
ship concept should be developed as a weapons system, not just 
as a ship.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $147.0 
million in PE 64310N to accelerate development of the arsenal 
ship weapons system and to accelerate finding answers to the 
questions that would allow the Navy to develop a system, not 
just a ship. The committee expects the Navy to address this 
matter in the preparation of its fiscal year 1998 budget and be 
prepared to discuss its various developmental and resource 
implications before the request is submitted.

AQS-20 airborne minehunting sonar

    The Navy has been developing a new airborne minehunting 
sonar, the AQS-20. Because of funding constraints, the Navy has 
been forced to reduce previously planned funding for the 
program in this year's budget request. This reduction will 
delay production of the system by one or perhaps two years.
    As the committee learned during hearings this year, there 
are still many mine countermeasures (MCM) requirements that 
remain unmet. Funding emphasis for MCM that occurred in the 
wake of Operation Desert Storm has returned to historical 
subsistence level norms. Yet, effective MCM capabilities that 
extend from deep water to the landing beach, and across it, 
remain essential elements of a successful amphibious assault. 
The AQS-20 minehunting sonar system, which will be towed by an 
MH-53E helicopter, has been designed to double the coverage 
rate of the existing AQS-14 and have a much better ability to 
detect bottom mines. When combined with improvements in 
position accuracy available from GPS, the AQS-20 has the 
potential to make airborne mine countermeasures an extremely 
effective MCM system.
    The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million above 
the budget request in PE 64373N to procure additional test 
articles in preparation for operational testing of the AQS-20 
sonar.

Airborne mine detection systems

    In testimony on its mine warfare programs this year, the 
Navy emphasized a long-term objective of providing an organic 
mine countermeasures (MCM) capability to the active fleet that 
will permit it to respond immediately to mine threats until 
specialized MCM units can arrive on the scene. However, 
progress in fielding specific systems to satisfy this objective 
remains slow. The committee is particularly concerned with the 
Navy's lack of progress in developing an organic capability, 
within its aircraft carrier battle groups (CVBGs) and 
amphibious ready groups (ARGs), to conduct minehunting by use 
of an airborne laser mine detection system (ALMDS). The ALMDS 
program is developing a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) 
sensor for use by fleet aircraft to detect and classify shallow 
water moored and floating contact mines.
    The committee is aware of existing systems that could be 
candidates for a solution to the ALMDS requirement, 
specifically Magic Lantern and ATD-111. Although a limited 
contingency capability composed of three Magic Lantern systems 
that are resident in the Navy Reserve SH-2G helicopters 
currently exists, the committee believes that such a capability 
should also be resident in its active CVBGs and ARGs.
    Accordingly, the Committee directs the Navy to conduct a 
competitive evaluation field test, during fiscal year 1997, of 
the two candidate technologies represented by Magic Lantern and 
ATD-111, for the purpose of identifying a single system that 
can be procured and integrated into active duty Navy fleet 
aircraft to provide them with an organic MCM capability. This 
assessment should include a quantitative determination of each 
system's performance with respect to detection and 
classification of moored and floating mines, area coverage, 
false alarm rates, potential for multi-mission capability, 
system availability, and capability for integration and 
carriage aboard the SH-60 series active fleet helicopters. The 
committee further directs that this competitive evaluation be 
conducted as soon as practicable, but no later than July 1, 
1997. The Secretary of the Navy shall report results to the 
congressional defense committees no later than August 1, 1997.
    To support this competitive evaluation for an ALMDS system, 
the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 
64373N to prepare these two systems for the competition, to 
conduct the competitive assessment, and to prepare the required 
report. Of this amount:
          (1) $3.0 million would be available to prepare ATD-
        111 for the competition;
          (2) $5.0 million would be available to prepare Magic 
        Lantern for the competition; and
          (3) $2.0 million would be available to organize and 
        conduct the competition, analyze data, and prepare the 
        required report.
    Upon completion of this assessment, the Navy shall develop 
a plan to procure a sufficient number of the winning systems to 
provide the active Navy forces with a satisfactory contingency 
ALMDS capability. To begin this procurement, the committee 
recommends an increase of $25.0 million above the budget 
request. The Secretary of the Navy is directed to submit this 
plan to the congressional defense committees in conjunction 
with the fiscal year 1998 budget request and to include funding 
in the fiscal year 1998 budget request to continue execution of 
the plan.

Multi-purpose processor

    In designing its next generation of nuclear attack 
submarine (New SSN) the Navy has shifted its emphasis from the 
design of a combat system to the design of a fully open 
architecture command, control, communications and intelligence 
(C3I) system based on commercial electronics. This approach 
will integrate the functions of the combat system, previously 
based on closed architecture, proprietary designs, with those 
of other sensors and communications equipment that formerly 
stood apart. The Navy's approach will permit the system to 
evolve more easily and rapidly incorporate new technology as it 
develops.
    The committee has been informed that, as part of its effort 
to establish an open architecture C3I design for the New SSN, 
the Navy has developed a multi-purpose processor (MPP) based on 
commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technology through a small 
business innovative research program (SBIR). The Navy has also 
informed the committee that the technology provided by the MPP 
permits investments in complex software to be easily 
transported to other programs. Inherent in the MPP's design is 
a capability to rapidly introduce COTS technology to other 
fleet systems that contain military specification equipment 
that performs a comparable function. MPP removes the 
requirement for highly specialized or proprietary processors 
and replaces them with a processor that is adaptable across a 
wide range of applications with relatively low risk. As an 
example, the Navy has chosen to use the MPP as an integral part 
of an effort to insert COTS technology into acoustic processing 
on its SSN-688 class submarines.
    The committee recommends an increase of $15.2 million in PE 
64558N to mature MPP transportable software technology for use 
in research and development programs, and to improve the 
performance of Navy towed and hull mounted arrays.

Seawolf shock test

    The first Seawolf submarine, SSN-21, is in the final stages 
of construction and is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in 
late fiscal year 1996. The budget request contains $2.5 million 
for shock testing of Seawolf components and an additional $43.2 
million for shock testing of SSN-21.
    The committee has learned that the Navy has come to the 
conclusion that additional testing of Seawolf components, 
particularly for the very complex weapons delivery system, 
would establish very useful benchmark data for predicting the 
ability of these components to resist battle damage.
    The committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million in PE 
64561N to provide for shock testing of Seawolf components not 
covered by the budget request as follows:
          (1) $20.0 million for shock testing of the Seawolf 
        weapons delivery system and other important components;
          (2) $4.0 million for modeling and analysis to allow 
        components to be analyzed for shock test hardness; and
          (3) $2.0 million to complete the shock testing and 
        qualification of Seawolf components that are tested 
        using methods other than submersible test vehicles.

Infrared search and track

    The budget request included $3.9 million for the continued 
development of the infrared search and track (IRST) weapons 
system.
    IRST is a program designed to develop a passive shipboard 
infrared sensor that continuously scans the horizon and 
automatically detects and tracks sea-skimming anti-ship cruise 
missiles. It has potential to be a valuable complement to 
various active radars that experience difficulty maintaining a 
solid track on sea-skimming targets. Subsistence level funding, 
at the level implied by the budget request, would force the 
IRST program to pursue a two phase approach that would produce 
a substantial delay in completing development of the system.
    To eliminate a substantial portion of the delays in the 
IRST program that the budget request would produce, the 
committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million above the 
budget request in PE 64755N.

Evolved seasparrow missile

    The budget request contains $39.5 million for continued 
development of the evolved seasparrow missile (ESSM).
    The ESSM is being developed to incorporate missile 
kinematic and ordnance improvements to the RIM-7P missile to 
provide ships with the capability to counter modern supersonic 
maneuvering anti-ship cruise missiles. The committee has 
learned that additional funding within the baseline program 
could help to ensure earlier fleet introduction for both Aegis 
and non-Aegis ships, thus avoiding the need for separate and 
expensive product improvement and backfit programs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million above 
the budget request in PE 64755N to:
          (1) modify the safe and arming device of the RIM-7P 
        to ensure safe separation from the firing ship;
          (2) additional simulation capability that will better 
        reflect the improved missile design and the 
        environmental conditions that the missile will 
        encounter within its flight envelope; and
          (3) an S-band link to support the missile's 
        employment by Aegis ships.

Quick reaction combat capability

    The budget request included $29.5 million for continued 
development of the quick reaction combat capability (QRCC) for 
ship self defense.
    The recent introduction of the ship self-defense system 
(SSDS) and the advanced combat direction system (ACDS) Block 1, 
when combined with the capability that the cooperative 
engagement capability (CEC) will provide when its development 
is complete, give great promise for equipping the fleet with a 
much better capability to defend itself against advanced cruise 
missiles. The Navy is concurrently developing the QRCC to fully 
integrate the employment of these systems.
    The committee has been informed that additional funding for 
QRCC in fiscal year 1997 will provide engineering analysis 
needed to unify SSDS, ACDS, and CEC into a lower cost equipment 
set and accelerate its fleet introduction. Long-term savings in 
equipment procurement and maintenance costs and reduced shore-
based infrastructure appear likely as a consequence.
    The committee recommends an increase of $17.0 million above 
the budget request in PE 64755N to:
          (1) accelerate engineering of the LHD amphibious 
        assault ship self-defense system;
          (2) integrate ACDS with CEC; and
          (3) improve tracking equipment at the Navy's Wallops 
        Island engineering test site and aboard its self-
        defense test ship.

Fixed distributed system-1

    The budget request contained no funding for improving the 
capabilities of the Navy's fixed distributed system-1 (FDS-1), 
a modern surveillance system that can detect even the most 
modern threat submarines. The committee has learned that 
additional enhancements in this system could significantly 
improve its surveillance coverage.
    The committee recommends an increase of $202.0 million 
above the budget request in PE 64784N to complete enhancements 
to FDS-1.

RDT&E science and technology management

    The committee recommends a transfer of $2.5 million from PE 
63217N to PE 65861N to support continuing efforts in the Office 
of Naval Research to integrate the Navy's science and 
technology programs.

Sea Dragon initiative

    As noted elsewhere in the report, the committee supports 
the various efforts of the services to develop emerging 
operational concepts made possible by new technologies and the 
requirement to perform a broader spectrum of operations in the 
post-Cold War era. Responses by the Marine Corps Commandant to 
questions during a hearing before the Acquisition and 
Technology Subcommittee suggest that current efforts in the 
Marine Corps to develop new operational concepts are not being 
adequately funded in the budget request. As part of a broader 
effort to support the development of advanced operational 
capabilities by the services, the committee recommends an 
increase of $40.0 million in the Marine Corps Program-wide 
Support program (PE 65873M) for technology supporting 
experiments in the first advanced warfighting experiment, known 
as Hunter Warrior, being conducted by the Commandant's 
Warfighting Laboratory. This increase is also intended to 
support technology enhancements for follow-on limited objective 
experiments in fiscal year 1997. The committee intends to base 
future support of the Marine Corps Sea Dragon process on the 
demonstrated ability of the Marine Corps to adequately budget 
for the rapid fielding of new technologies supported by the 
results of the Sea Dragon experiments.

Nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine security

    The budget request included $14.0 million for the Navy's 
nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) security 
program. The purpose of this funding is to develop all relevant 
technologies, on a continuing basis, to ensure the long-term 
survivability of the present fleet ballistic missile submarine 
force.
    There are a number of promising technologies that would not 
be addressed at the level of funding in the budget request. The 
committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 11224N 
to explore several promising technologies such as forward 
scatter barrier, low frequency active sonar, radar detection, 
and light detection and ranging (LIDAR) buoy detection.

Joint tactical combat training system

    The Navy and the Air Force are developing the joint 
tactical combat training system (JTCTS) to provide proficiency 
training, tactics development, and readiness assessment for 
Navy fleet and Air Force operational units. The system will 
provide realistic training environments for joint air and sea-
based forces. The system is also tied to a Department of 
Defense modeling and simulation initiative that is being 
pursued to reduce the cost of training department-wide.
    The committee has learned that funding for the JTCTS in the 
budget request is unbalanced with respect to its development 
timeline and milestone dates. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 64735F and $9.0 
million in PE 24571N to restore balance to the JTCTS 
development effort.

CINCs' technology initiative

    The committee continues to support efforts by the services 
and defense agencies to transition rapidly selected 
technologies from the defense research and development 
establishment into the hands of the services for use in 
military operations. The committee recommends an increase of 
$10.0 million in the Navy Science Assistance program (PE 
25658N) for the continuation of the Commander in Chiefs' 
technology initiative established by Congress last year. The 
committee expects that funding in future years for this 
initiative will be included in the Navy budget request.

Medium tactical vehicle remanufacturing

    The committee continues to support the medium tactical 
vehicle remanufacturing (MTVR) program needed to enhance aging 
cargo trucks to meet Marine Corps mobility requirements. The 
current program supports two contractors through the 
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. The 
committee understands that, if a third contractor could remain 
in the competition for the MTVR through the completion of EMD, 
significant savings could result when the program enters its 
procurement phase.
    The committee recommends an additional $3.0 million in PE 
26624M to retain a third contractor during the EMD phase of the 
MTVR program.

GEOSAT follow-on

    The Navy has been conducting a research and development 
effort for a space-borne sensor to determine wind speed and 
direction. The Navy has budgeted funds for a wind speed and 
direction sensor that was intended to take advantage of the 
opportunity to launch on the Defense Meteorological Satellite 
Program (DMSP) Block VI spacecraft in the fiscal year 2000-2004 
time frame. Now that DMSP Block VI has been merged with the 
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 
System (NPOESS), the committee recommends that the Navy meet 
its requirements for both radar altimetry and wind data by 
building a second GEOSAT Follow-On (GFO-2) that would also 
include a new wind sensor payload in fiscal years 2001-2002. 
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 
35160N to begin this effort.

Manufacturing technology (MANTECH)

    The committee is disappointed at the continued underfunding 
of the manufacturing technology programs of the services and 
the Department of Defense. This underfunding persists despite 
recent policies and congressional approaches that should have 
resulted in greater support for these programs in the budget 
request for fiscal year 1997. The Department of Defense has 
announced a policy of making the affordability of future 
systems a key priority in the programming for research and 
development efforts. In the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1996 and the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, there was virtually no 
directed funding in the increases provided for these programs 
by Congress, allowing the Department of Defense and the 
services greater flexibility in funding priority requirements 
under this program.
    There is a growing consensus that affordability of current 
and future platforms and subsystems will be an essential factor 
if the United States is to deploy sufficient quantities of the 
most technologically-advanced weapons systems in the 21st 
century. The committee commends the Navy for its aggressive 
attempt to tie the activities of its manufacturing centers of 
excellence with the needs of the systems program managers. As 
part of a broader thrust to address current and future 
affordability concerns, the committee recommends the following 
general increases in the services manufacturing technology 
programs:
          $30.0 million in PE 78011N
          $20.0 million in PE 78011F
    The committee expects that managers of manufacturing 
technology programs will pursue aggressively the requirement in 
section 2525 of title 10, United States Code, regarding 
costsharing on 25 percent of such programs. The committee urges 
that the process for establishing cost sharing in such programs 
be the subject of formal rule-making procedures in the 
Department of Defense.
    The committee notes that whereas there has been 
considerable focus on four of five MANTECH thrust areas 
(composites, metals, electronics, and advanced industrial 
practices), there has been less focus on the fifth thrust area, 
manufacturing and engineering systems (M&ES). This lack of 
focus exists despite the fact that improvements in the M&ES 
area could significantly reduce manufacturing costs and cycle 
times.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review 
the current and planned MANTECH programs in the services and 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense to determine whether 
there is an identifiable shortfall in the M&ES component of the 
MANTECH program. The committee directs the Secretary to 
consider different approaches for addressing any perceived 
program shortfalls, including the establishment, on a 
competitive cost shared basis, of a Manufacturing Systems 
Center of Excellence. The committee directs the Secretary to 
provide by November 1, 1996 a report to the defense 
congressional committees on the findings of the review and on 
any plan to address the program shortfalls identified in the 
review.

Acquisition center of excellence

    As noted elsewhere in this report, recent approaches to 
acquisition streamlining have revealed the importance of 
continuous reform if the services are to achieve the capability 
of deploying new technology broadly and in an affordable 
manner. Congress has enacted two major pieces of acquisition 
reform legislation since 1994, but a prerequisite for success 
is the ability of the services and the Department of Defense to 
change the traditional procurement culture internally. In order 
to support efforts by the services to reform the acquisition 
culture, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million 
for the establishment of an acquisition center of excellence in 
the Navy. The committee expects that the Navy will provide 
follow-on funding for this effort in fiscal year 1998 and 
beyond as part of the budget requested for each fiscal year. 
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit to 
the congressional defense committees, no later than June 15, 
1997, a report on progress made toward establishing the center 
as well as toward the development of performance measures for 
judging the effectiveness of the center in acting as an agent 
of reform of the acquisition process in the Navy and elsewhere 
in the Department of Defense.

                               Air Force


Carbon/carbon nosetips

    The committee is aware of current efforts by the Air Force 
to develop carbon/carbon thermal protection materials for 
reentry vehicles, as well as aircraft, spacecraft, and missile 
applications. The committee recommends that of the amounts 
requested for the Air Force Materials program (PE 62102F), $1.5 
million be used for reentry vehicles material development. 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.

Ejection seat development

    The committee has taken a strong interest in improving the 
capability of ejection seats in our military aircraft. The 
committee noted in its report on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (S. Rest. 103-282) that 
new technologies, including some deriving from the ballistic 
missile defense programs, could have promise for automatically 
varying the explosive forces acting on ejecting pilots. Such 
technologies show promise for reducing the incidence of 
serious, career-ending injuries.
    The Air Force submitted a report that indicates that 
designers could use new seat propulsion technology in 
controlling:
          (1) acceleration forces for both large and small 
        aircrew, limiting these forces to non-injurious levels; 
        and
          (2) seat instability generated by having to eject in 
        situations other than slower, level flight.
    The report further identified a three phased approach to 
improving survivability of our aircrews. The first phase would 
consist of making changes to improve aircraft accommodations 
and to make modest increases in ejection seat safety. The 
second phase would involve making more extensive changes to 
reduce ejection risk more substantially. The third phase would 
seek to expand greatly the safe ejection envelope at high and 
low speeds, and in situations when the aircraft is at adverse 
attitudes or operating in out-of-control flight.
    The Air Force budget request included $18.0 million in PE 
060231F for crew systems and personnel protection technology. 
The Navy budget request included $11.1 million in PE 060426N 
for aircrew systems development. The committee is disappointed 
that the Air Force and the Navy have not taken a more forceful 
approach in implementing the phased approach identified in the 
Air Force report. The committee, therefore, recommends an 
additional $10.0 million for accelerating the program phases 
for ejection seat upgrades as identified in the Air Force 
report, with the additional funds evenly divided between the 
two service programs.

Thermally stable jet fuels

    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 
62203F for the acceleration of a program to develop thermally 
stable jet fuels using chemicals derived from coal.

High frequency active auroral research program

    The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for 
the high frequency active auroral research program, $7.5 
million in PE 62601F and $7.5 million in PE 63160D.

Airborne laser program

    The budget request included $56.8 million in PE 63319F for 
the Airborne Laser (ABL) program. Although the committee agrees 
to authorize the full budget request for ABL, it has serious 
reservations and concerns related to this program. The Air 
Force currently plans to spend $682.6 million in the future 
years defense program (fiscal years 1997-2001) on an ABL 
demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) program. The committee 
does not believe that the Air Force has adequately demonstrated 
the feasibility of the necessary technology to justify 
beginning such a significant investment. The committee is also 
not convinced that the ABL concept of operations will allow the 
system to be cost and operationally effective. Under any 
serious threat scenario, the ABL aircraft will be required to 
stand off approximately 90 kilometers from the forward edge of 
the battle area. Yet the ABL will have a range well below 500 
kilometers (in most cases against most threats probably less 
than 300 kilometers). This means that the ABL will have very 
little capability against short-range missiles and longer-range 
missiles launched from significant distances behind the forward 
edge of the battle area. Moreover, the 747-400F aircraft that 
the Air Force plans to use as the ABL platform will be an 
extremely vulnerable and lucrative target for enemy air defense 
systems.
    The committee notes that the Air Force is planning to 
acquire a 747-400F aircraft as the ABL test platform through 
multi-year incremental funding. The committee views this 
acquisition as inconsistent with the Department of Defense's 
policy on incremental funding. The committee will not support 
incremental funding of a 747-400F aircraft while the Department 
opposes incremental funding of other major platforms, such as 
ships.
    Notwithstanding the reservations expressed above, the 
committee does support a robust technology development and risk 
reduction effort for ABL. The committee strongly supports the 
development of directed energy systems for ballistic and cruise 
missile defense applications. Nonetheless, the committee 
remains skeptical about making a commitment to a significant 
ABL Dem/Val program at this time. This skepticism has been 
heightened by the fact that the Department of Defense's recent 
BMD Program Update Review recommended significant reductions in 
other key theater missile defense programs. The committee does 
not understand how the administration can justify a $2.0 
billion reduction in the Theater High Altitude Area Defense 
system, for which we have a critical near-term requirement, and 
at the same time dedicate approximately $700.0 million for a 
system that may not work or make operational sense.

National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System

    The National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental 
Satellite System (NPOESS) is a joint weather satellite 
development program involving the Department of Defense, the 
Department of Commerce, and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. The budget request included $34.0 million for 
NPOESS. Since the development program has recently been 
stretched-out by three years, the committee recommends a 
reduction of $15.0 million to PE 63434F.

Joint Advanced Strike Technology Program

    Last year the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) 
Program Office rebaselined its development profile, deferring 
$137.0 million of fiscal year 1996 funding. The committee notes 
that the deferred funds are included in the budget request of 
$544.3 million, and the committee further notes the program is 
now structured to produce the Joint Strike Fighter.
    The committee is persuaded that the benefits of engine 
competition will outweigh any near-term investment. 
Accordingly, the committee directs that remaining competition 
funds be rebaselined to guarantee integration into the 
preferred weapons system concept at the earliest practical 
point.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $13.0 
million to the $15.0 million in the budget request for the 
alternate engine to accelerate the profile leading to a 
demonstrator engine, and integration of the competitive engine 
in the selected weapons systems concepts.

Hardened and deeply buried target technology demonstration

    The committee understands that the Air Force Air Combat 
Command and the U.S. Strategic Command have submitted mission 
need statements for capabilities to defeat hardened and deeply 
buried targets, and that these were validated by the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and approved by the Defense Acquisition Board 
for acquisition phase 0 efforts. The committee also understands 
that the Air Force Space Command has submitted an advanced 
technology concept demonstration proposal to develop a 
capability to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets. The 
committee endorses this effort and recommends an increase of 
$19.1 million in PE 63851F.

B-1B bomber virtual umbilical device

    The committee supports the bomber virtual umbilical device 
(BVUD) program, which will provide B-1 bombers with an 
effective interim capability to deliver precision guided 
munitions. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 
million in PE 64226F for 600 BVUD tail kits for 500 pound bombs 
and the outfitting of two additional B-1 bombers with BVUD 
global positioning system equipment.

B-1B upgrades

    The committee recommended significant increases in B-1B 
enhancements last year in response to the Heavy Bomber Study 
that recommended investment in precision guided munitions. The 
B-1B is undergoing a Conventional Munitions Upgrade Program 
(CMUP) to ready the aircraft for Precision Guided Munitions 
(PGM) now in development. The committee understands that an 
earlier start to the Electronics Countermeasures (ECM) portion 
of the CMUP could reduce risk to the schedule as well as speed 
up operational capability by nearly two years while reducing 
work required in later years.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million for the Defensive System Upgrade Program (PE 604226F), 
an element of the ECM upgrades, to provide for an accelerated 
start for the initiative while maintaining the overall 
program's balance between development and PGM availability.

Variable Stability In-Flight Simulator Test Aircraft (VISTA)

    Because of limited resources, the budget request did not 
include funds for the VISTA project in fiscal year 1997, thus 
canceling an ongoing project to add thrust vectoring capability 
to this unique F-16D aircraft. Acknowledging the importance of 
manned flight experiments with variable stability aircraft, the 
committee recommends an additional $1.4 million to complete and 
test Phase I of this technologically advanced program.

Milstar automated communication management system

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

Global Positioning System

    The committee supports the Global Positioning System (GPS) 
and the Air Force's acquisition strategy for the Block IIF 
satellite. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 
$7.1 million in PE 64480F to sustain the development and 
support a production rate of three Block IIF satellites per 
year, which will be required to maintain a full 24-satellite 
constellation.
    Section 279 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
1996 (Public Law 104-106) established a requirement for the 
Department of Defense to prepare and present to Congress a plan 
for dealing with GPS jamming and denial. The committee remains 
strongly interested in quickly resolving GPS vulnerabilities 
related to use in battlefield jamming environments, and the 
growing potential for GPS exploitation by adversaries. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million in PE 35164F to accelerate activities necessary to 
ensure effective use of high-precision GPS signals by United 
States forces, and the means to deny access to those signals by 
hostile forces.

Minuteman third stage upgrade

    Air Force studies have identified the need to include 
Minuteman stage 3 flight control systems in the Propulsion 
Replacement Program (PRP). Flight control systems could be 
evaluated in planned PRP altitude chamber tests. Flight testing 
could be accomplished in conjunction with planned Rocket System 
Launch Program flights. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
increase of $10.3 million in PE 64851F to develop and build 
seven flight test stage 3 flight control systems.

Minuteman safety enhanced reentry vehicle

    The Minuteman guidance replacement program (GRP) currently 
preserves the option of incorporating the Mark-21 safety 
enhanced reentry vehicle on Minuteman III if Peacekeeper 
intercontinental ballistic missiles are retired. But no 
hardware or software prototyping has been accomplished to date 
for this purpose as part of the GRP. There are several reasons 
why this work should be performed now rather than in the 
future. Integrating this effort with current design and 
development work in GRP will save money and provide greater 
confidence in the system. Existing contracts could be used to 
perform all necessary tasks. This would preclude the cost and 
risk of reopening the guidance set after the GRP is concluded 
to make these changes. Given these factors, the committee 
recommends an increase of $13.7 million in PE 64851F to perform 
hardware and software prototyping and testing associated with 
incorporation of the Mark-21 reentry vehicle on the Minuteman 
III system.

Rocket System Launch Program

    Systems to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets share 
many of the same technical challenges faced by kinetic energy 
boost-phase missile defense systems. Both require technologies 
for high speed in-atmosphere vehicles, precise guidance, plasma 
attenuation, and advanced vehicle antennas and materials. 
Several programs address these technologies in coordinated 
efforts but lack experimental flight testing capabilities. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.1 
million in PE 65860F to fund two atmospheric interceptor 
technology, plasma attenuation, and materials demonstration 
flights coordinated by the Air Force Ballistic Missile 
Technology Program and flown by the Rocket System Launch 
Program.

Data links

    Last year, the committee applauded the Air Force's decision 
to equip its air superiority fighters (F-15Cs) with the data 
link called ``Link-16.'' Nevertheless, the committee does not 
believe that the budget invests heavily enough in proliferating 
this important capability to other parts of the Air Force. The 
committee believes that 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 accelerate 
its plan to install Link-16 on F-16, F-15E, and RC-135 
aircraft, complete installation in the modular air operation 
centers, and expand Link-16 capability to the B-1 fleet. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $65.9 million 
for the Air Force as follows:

                                              DATA LINK INITIATIVE                                              
                                              [Dollars in millions]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Request  Recommended   Change                 Ref              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procurement...................................     114.2        124.4      10.2                                 
                                               ---------------------------------                                
    DARP......................................      66.2         74.2      +8.0  APAF line 59                   
        RC-135 Rivet Joint Mods...............  ........  ...........      +8.0  ...............................
    Theater battle management.................      48.0         50.2      +2.2  OPAF line 56                   
                                               =================================                                
Research and Development......................     506.2        561.9      55.7  ...............................
                                               ---------------------------------                                
    B-1.......................................     220.9        233.9     +13.0  RDAF line 63                   
    F-16......................................     142.2        155.9     +13.7  RDAF line 131                  
    F-15E.....................................     143.1        172.1     +29.0  RDAF line 132                  
                                                                      ==========                                
      Total increase..........................  ........  ...........     +65.9  ...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theater Battle Management Core Systems (TBMCS)

    The committee is aware of an Air Force requirement to 
continue an initiative begun last year to provide an automated, 
integrated system to plan and execute air campaigns, known as 
the TBMCS. The system provides the Joint Force Air Component 
Commander (JFACC) the ability to generate air tasking orders 
with more capability and precision than are now available. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million to PE 207438F to support a 1998 completion date of 
version 1.0 of the TBMCS.

Blade repair program

    The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 
78026F to extend the current modeling under the Air Force Blade 
Repair Program to the Propulsion Directorate at the Oklahoma 
Air Logistics Center. The committee directs that all applicable 
competitive procedures be used in the award of any contracts or 
other agreements under the program and that cost sharing 
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where 
appropriate.

                              Defense-Wide


Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research 
        (DEPSCoR)

    The committee recommends continuation of the DEPSCoR 
program to strengthen infrastructure, enhance research, and 
develop human resources to assist the universities in the 
states designated under the National Science Foundation EPSCoR 
program to become more competitive for federal research and 
training grants. The committee recommends that, of the funds 
requested in PE 61003D, $20.0 million shall be used for these 
purposes.
    The committee notes the progress made by the Department of 
Defense to better coordinate its activities under the DEPSCoR 
program with the National Science Foundation, the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy, and the state-based EPSCoR 
committees. Coordination with the state-based EPSCoR committees 
is an essential element for the ultimate success of this 
program. The committee urges the Department of Defense to give 
significant weight to the recommendations of the state 
committees and to the likely impact an award under the DEPSCoR 
program will have on the overall EPSCoR program of 
participating states.

Small low-cost interceptor device

    The small low-cost interceptor device (SLID) program began 
in 1992 for a point defense, self-protection system mounted on 
combat vehicles and helicopters. The committee notes the 
potential of this program for a limited area defense against 
artillery and mortars. The committee recommends an increase of 
$3.0 million in PE 62702E for the manufacture and testing of 10 
additional projectiles for the limited area defense capability.

Hard carbon-based coatings

    The committee is aware of recent developments in new, very 
hard carbon-based coatings that have potential applications for 
sensors operating in harsh environments and other opto-
electronic applications. The committee recommends an increase 
of $3.0 million in PE 62712E for the development of Pulsed 
Laser Deposition to create carbon-based coatings for critical 
applications. The committee directs that all applicable 
competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts or 
other agreements under this program and that cost-sharing 
requirements for non-federal participants be utilized where 
appropriate.

High temperature superconductivity

    The committee continues to support efforts to advance high 
temperature superconductivity (HTS) technology, including wire 
technologies affordable for applications in weapon systems. In 
order to support continuation of these efforts within the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the 
committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 62712E. 
The committee urges DARPA to take aggressive action under its 
HTS program to support efforts by the services to develop this 
technology for near-term applications and notes the potential 
of HTS wire technologies for a variety of military 
applications. 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.

Diamond substrates

    The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has 
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 increase of $4.0 million to PE 62712E 
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. The committee believes that investments in fiscal 
year 1997 should bring diamond substrate production to such a 
low cost, as industry begins adopting the new technology for 
commercial purposes, that further Department of Defense 
investments should no longer be needed.

Joint Department of Defense-Department of Energy munitions

    The budget request included $16.2 million for the joint 
Departments of Defense and Energy (DOD and DOE) munitions 
technology development program. The committee recommends a $5.0 
million increase to the budget request for projects approved by 
the joint technology advisory committee. This program leverages 
DOE-supported work at the three DOE weapons laboratories, such 
as increasing DOE investment in stockpile management related 
technologies.

Cruise missile defense funding

    Section 274 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directs the Secretary of 
Defense to strengthen and coordinate the Department's cruise 
missile defense programs and activities. Public Law 104-106 
also provides significant increases in funding for this effort.
    For fiscal year 1997, the committee recommends a 
continuation of this effort and a net increase of $170.0 
million for this purpose. None of these funds may be obligated, 
however, until the committee receives the implementation plan 
specified in section 274 (Public Law 104-106). For fiscal year 
1997, the committee recommends four programmatic initiatives.
    First, to enhance the ability of United States forces to 
detect rapidly the launch of cruise missiles across the breadth 
and width of the battlefield, the committee recommends an 
increase in funding to transition surveillance technology 
developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
(DARPA) to aerostats and the Airborne Warning Command and 
Control System (AWACS). To begin a program to modify four-to-
five AWACS aircraft by fiscal year 2000, the committee 
recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE 63226E and $30.0 
million in PE 27417F. Since Aerostats are not as far along in 
the development cycle and require that DARPA's technologies 
undergo more significant modifications to be hosted on them, 
the committee recommends a measured risk reduction effort prior 
to a development program.
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense is 
considering upgrades to the E-2C aircraft in a manner similar 
to AWACS to support the Navy. Given the challenge associated 
with accommodating such a sensor on the E-2C, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress a report 
on the technical, engineering, operational, and programmatic 
issues associated with this effort. The report should include 
an analysis of alternative solutions based on the same criteria 
used to evaluate the E-2C. The report should recommend a 
solution that has an acceptable degree of risk in terms of 
cost, schedule, and performance. The report should be provided 
to Congress not later than March 1, 1997.
    The committee also urges DARPA, in collaboration with the 
Air Force, to evaluate innovative airborne sensor platforms 
that could offer significant gains in power-aperture at 
airplane altitudes and speeds, including flying-wing designs.
    The second initiative supported by the committee would 
ensure that we have adequate fire control and identification 
once cruise missiles are detected. The committee believes that 
improvements to the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar 
System (JSTARS) are promising. These improvements will allow 
JSTARS to identify and track cruise missiles with sufficient 
accuracy to vector air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, 
among other capabilities. The committee recommends an increase 
of $40.0 million for this effort ($20.0 million in PE 63226E 
and $20.0 million in PE 64770F). This effort should produce 
four to five upgraded aircraft by fiscal year 2003. The 
additional funds should be equally divided between efforts to 
insert DARPA's sensor technology and efforts to add synthetic 
aperture radar technology for imaging and geolocation.
    The third initiative supported by the committee would 
ensure that our inventory of air-to-air and surface-to-air 
missiles are capable of intercepting cruise missiles. The 
committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million ($10.0 in PE 
63746N, $10.0 million in PE 63009A, and $10.0 million in PE 
27163F) to address this issue. The committee also recommends an 
increase of $40.0 million in PE 23801A to complete the 
development of the Patriot anti-cruise missile program, which 
was started in fiscal year 1996.

Large millimeter wave telescope

    As the committee noted last year, 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 
capabilities for acquisition and recognition of targets in 
space, as well as demonstrate the feasibility of long range 
directed energy devices. The committee recommends an increase 
of $3.0 million for the continuation of the LMT program in the 
Advanced Space Technology Project within the Defense Advanced 
Research Project Agency's Experimental Evaluation of Major 
Technologies program (PE 63226E). The committee directs that 
cost sharing requirements for non-federal participants be 
utilized under the program where appropriate.

Crown Royal

    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 
63226E for the continuation of the Crown Royal program.

Thermophotovoltaics

    The thermophotovoltaics program (TPV) is a collaborative 
program between the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 
(DARPA) 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 increase of $10.0 million in PE 63226E to 
continue the program in fiscal year 1997. 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.

Generic logistics R&D technology demonstrations

    The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 
63712S to accelerate the current government-industry metal 
casting program conducted by the Defense Logistics Agency. The 
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be 
used in the award of any contract or other agreement under the 
program and that cost-sharing requirements for non-federal 
participants be utilized where appropriate.

Rapid acquisition of manufactured parts (RAMP)

    The committee continues to support efforts to develop and 
deploy technologies under the RAMP program. The committee 
recommends an increase of $10.0 million to the CALS initiative 
program (PE 63736D) to continue the research and development 
portion of the RAMP program in fiscal year 1997. The committee 
expects that funds required in future years to continue 
research and development under this program will be included in 
future budget requests submitted by the administration. The 
committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be 
used in the award of contracts or other agreements under the 
program and that cost-sharing requirements for non-federal 
participants be utilized where appropriate.

Integrated weapons system database

    The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 
63736D for the Integrated Weapons System Database for 
continuation of the Integrated Data Environment (IDE) program, 
a subset of the Continuous Acquisition and Life-cycle Support 
Activities (CALS).

High performance computing modernization

    The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 
63755D to sustain the operations of supercomputing centers 
which were purchased with DOD funds and which can play an 
integral role in helping the Department meet its supercomputing 
capability and capacity requirements. The Air Force Phillips 
Laboratory and Air Force Space Command rely on one such center 
to provide image processing and simulation capabilities. 
Another such center provides key support to the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization and the Navy.

Defense dual-use applications program

    The committee has for many years supported the concept of 
leveraging the nation's commercial research and development 
investments (now approaching $100 billion per year) to meet the 
military services' needs for dual-use technologies. The 
committee notes that retired General Al Gray, former Commandant 
of the Marine Corps, recently headed a study of the Pentagon's 
dual-use research efforts. His panel concluded that dual-use 
research has great potential to provide military users with 
needed warfighting capabilities more rapidly and at lower cost. 
But the panel also concluded that additional steps needed to be 
taken to embed the dual-use approach into the military 
services' core science and technology base programs. To achieve 
this, they recommended that the Secretary of Defense issue a 
policy directive that would codify dual-use strategy in defense 
acquisition, establish policy oversight through a senior dual-
use board, and establish a joint dual-use implementation 
office. Whatever the approach used by the Secretary of Defense, 
the committee agrees with the Gray Panel that the fundamental 
problem the Pentagon faces is to instill the dual-use approach 
as the normal business approach within the services' research 
programs. The committee hopes that the panel's recommendations 
will be given serious consideration by the Secretary and that 
those recommendations or a similar approach will be adopted.
    However, the committee is concerned that the substantial 
request for a new dual-use applications program (PE 63805E) 
will, in fact, serve as a disincentive for the services to fund 
such research internally. At a time when the 6.2 and 6.3 
accounts of the services are funded in the budget request for 
fiscal year 1997 significantly below the level needed to 
support validated requirements, the natural tendency in the 
services is to regard dual-use research as Defense Advanced 
Projects Agency's (DARPA) responsibility. The committee is 
willing to support the program at a $100.0 million level, a 
decrease of $150.0 million from the request, as a transition 
step toward instilling these efforts in the services' science 
and technology bases. To facilitate that transition, the 
committee expects the program will be carried out through a 
management process that will involve the services to a much 
greater degree in the selection and execution of projects than 
was the case in the early stages of the Technology Reinvestment 
Project. To facilitate the transition further, the committee 
has elsewhere attempted to resolve problems that have impeded 
greater use by the services of flexible cooperative agreements 
and other transactions in pursuing dual-use research projects 
with commercial firms. The Gray panel strongly supported 
expanded use of these authorities to broaden the Pentagon's 
research base.

Non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare

    The Department of Defense (DOD) is pursuing a number of 
projects that attempt to develop better submarine detection. 
Most research has historically focused on acoustics. The DOD 
has been exploring various other means of submarine detection. 
These efforts are consolidated under non-acoustic antisubmarine 
warfare (NAASW) programs. The committee has had a continuing 
interest in these NAASW programs. The budget request included 
$24.0 million in PE 63714D for supporting the DOD NAASW 
program.
    The committee's review of the budget request indicates that 
the DOD has delayed important work that would lead to further 
development of scattering theories and improved understanding 
of microwave radiometry. The committee understands that this 
has been the result of various general reductions to the 
research and development accounts and funding shifts to meet 
other emergent requirements. The committee believes that the 
NAASW efforts funded in this program merit higher priority than 
the DOD has apparently accorded them in executing the fiscal 
year 1996 budget and developing the fiscal year 1997 budget 
request.
    The committee is also not impressed with the response of 
the DOD to direction given in the statement of managers to 
accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) to conduct a comparative 
evaluation of a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system, 
ATD-111, against other comparable approaches. The DOD intends 
to test the ATD-111 system this fiscal year. However, the DOD 
would then conduct testing on another LIDAR system, April 
Showers, in fiscal year 1998, after having spent two more years 
developing that system. The DOD proposes to then compare those 
two sets of test results. The committee finds this proposal 
unacceptable. The DOD has failed to make a persuasive case that 
we should test one system now, spend a significant amount to 
develop a competitor, and then compare ATD-111 testing results 
before additional development on April Showers has occurred 
with April Showers testing results after such work.
    Therefore, the committee directs that:
          (1) a competitive evaluation be conducted in fiscal 
        year 1997 between ATD-111 and the April Showers sensor; 
        and
          (2) the results of the evaluation be provided to the 
        congressional defense committees no later than 
        September 30, 1997.
    To fund this competitive evaluation, and to continue the 
work on scattering theory, microwave radiometry, and on the 
joint U.S.-UK radar ocean imaging investigations, the committee 
recommends an additional $10.0 million in PE 63714D for the DOD 
NAASW program. The committee further directs that, of the 
amounts authorized and appropriated in PE 65104D for technical 
studies, support, and analysis for fiscal year 1997, not more 
than $5.0 million may be obligated or expended until the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology certifies 
to the congressional defense committees that he intends to 
comply with the committee's direction with respect to a 
competitive evaluation between ATD-111 and April Showers.

Fuel cells

    For several years 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 serious concerns 
remain that the programs have expanded and lengthened beyond 
their original scope. The committee also continues to be 
concerned that these programs do not have substantial cost 
sharing provisions despite their obvious dual-use nature. The 
committee is awaiting the report from the Department of Defense 
and the Department of Energy on these programs required on page 
174 of Senate Report 104-112, and will consider further support 
of fuel cell programs based on the information contained in the 
report. The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in 
PE 63226E for the completion of the 2 MW carbonate-based fuel 
cell program and an increase of $8.0 million in PE 63851D to 
complete the development of the climate change fuel cell.

Commercial technology insertion program

    The committee recommends a decrease in the funding request 
of $24.0 million for the Commercial Technology Insertion 
Program (PE 63752D) without prejudice to fund higher priority 
programs. The committee believes that a level of $24.8 million 
is more appropriate for such a new start program. The committee 
believes that greater use of commercial technology by the 
military services in the future is essential if future systems 
are to be affordable and incorporate the latest technologies. 
The committee commends the Department for embarking on this 
program but is concerned that the program focuses only on 
adaptation of selected commercial technologies for specific 
applications without addressing the systemic barriers that 
exist in the defense R&D community between the military users 
and the commercial technology developers. Rather than trying to 
address certain specific opportunities for the insertion of 
commercial technologies, the program should have as its primary 
goal developing a process to ensure that commercial 
technologies are routinely incorporated into defense systems 
and that such applications are funded through the normal 
acquisition programming and budgeting processes. The committee 
urges the Department of Defense to reorient the program in this 
manner and to incorporate a plan to ``sunset'' the effort as 
the current systemic problems are successfully addressed.

Ballistic missile defense funding and programmatic guidance

    The fiscal year 1997 budget request for the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) was $2.8 billion, including 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), 
procurement, and military construction. The committee notes 
with concern that the budget request is over $200.0 million 
less than the administration's own recommendation of one year 
ago, and approximately $700.0 million less than the level 
authorized for fiscal year 1996. This continuing trend of 
sharply cutting funding for ballistic missile defense (BMD) 
programs has now jeopardized critical theater missile defense 
(TMD) programs, just as national missile defense (NMD) and 
advanced technology programs were previously undermined by the 
administration's BMD funding cuts. The committee finds these 
actions at odds with the administration's own stated position 
that TMD is a high priority.
    The committee is also concerned by the administration's 
apparent willingness to disregard legal requirements to 
accelerate several TMD programs. Section 234 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106) establishes clear objectives for development and 
deployment of a core TMD program--consisting of 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 Department of Defense's budget request and BMD 
program satisfy only one of the seven key milestones mandated 
by section 234, even though these milestones were derived 
directly from the Department's own fiscal year 1996 proposal 
and information provided to the committee by the Department of 
Defense.
    In order to satisfy the requirements established in section 
234 (Public Law 104-106), to the maximum extent possible, and 
to correct other deficiencies in the budget request regarding 
BMD programs, the committee recommends a total BMDO 
authorization of $3.6 billion, an increase of $855.9 million. 
As a point of comparison, the committee notes that the 
administration's Bottom-Up Review of September 1993 recommended 
a BMDO budget of $3.4 billion for fiscal year 1997, 
approximately $600.0 million more than the administration has 
requested.
    The committee's recommended funding allocations for BMDO in 
fiscal year 1997 are summarized in the following table. 
Additional programmatic and funding guidance are also provided 
below.

                         BMDO FUNDING ALLOCATION                        
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Program               Request     Change     Recommendation 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support Technology............       226.3      +150.0             376.3
THAAD.........................       481.8      +140.0             621.8
Hawk*.........................        19.4                          19.4
TMD-BM/C3*....................        19.3                          19.3
Navy Lower Tier**.............       310.7                         310.7
Navy Upper Tier...............        58.2      +246.0             304.2
Corps SAM.....................        56.2       -10.8              45.4
BPI...........................                   +24.3              24.3
NMD...........................       508.4      +300.0             808.4
Joint TMD***..................       521.5        +6.4             527.9
PAC-3**.......................       596.9                         596.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BMDO Total................     2,798.7      +855.9           3,654.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Procurement only.                                                      
**Procurement and RDT&E.                                                
***RDT&E and Military Construction.                                     

Support technology

    The budget request for BMDO's support technology programs 
(PE 62173C/63173C) was $226.3 million. The committee notes that 
the Director of BMDO has testified repeatedly in recent years 
regarding the shortfall in BMDO's advanced technology 
investment. The committee supports the Director's desire to 
increase the level of investment in advanced BMD technology 
and, therefore, recommends a net increase of $150.0 million for 
support technology.
    The committee supports BMDO's efforts in the area of wide 
bandgap electronics that are funded in the Innovative Science 
and Technology program (project 1651). The committee recommends 
an increase of $10.0 million in PE 62173C to facilitate a wide 
bandgap electronics program specifically targeting gallium 
nitride and silicon carbide as the major semiconductor 
technologies to be developed. The program should be affiliated 
with an academic institution involving a research and 
development facility for material growth, material 
characterization (including material surface behavior), and 
wide bandgap semiconductor device development.
    In testimony before the committee this year, the Director 
of BMDO specified several basic technology projects that 
require additional funding. Based on BMDO's stated priorities, 
the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in PE 
63173C for advanced radar transmit/receive modules, advanced 
interceptor satellite communications, and advanced image 
processing.
    Although the committee recommended the termination of 
BMDO's kinetic boost-phase intercept (BPI) program in fiscal 
year 1996, the committee continues to strongly support BMDO's 
development of the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) 
program. The AIT program is designed to develop advanced kill 
vehicle technologies for future hypersonic hit-to-kill 
interceptors, and for applications as potential product 
improvements to a wide range of TMD programs, including THAAD, 
Navy Upper Tier, Patriot PAC-3, and Corps SAM. The budget 
request includes only $7.4 million for the AIT program as part 
of the Applied Interceptor Materials and Systems Technology 
program (project 1270). This level of funding is inadequate to 
support any significant degree of progress. Therefore, the 
committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million in PE 63173C 
to support the AIT program.
    The committee continues to support development of the 
Space-Based Laser (SBL) program. SBL offers the potential for a 
high leverage system to deal with ballistic missiles of 
virtually all ranges. The SBL appears to be by far the most 
effective boost-phase intercept system being developed by the 
Department of Defense. In testimony before the committee on 
March 25, 1996, the Director of BMDO characterized SBL as ``the 
next real quantum jump'' in active BMD development. Given the 
importance of this program and its high potential payoff, the 
committee is disappointed that the budget request contained 
only $30.0 million for SBL. The committee recommends an 
increase of $70.0 million in PE 63173C to continue the SBL 
effort. The committee believes that the Air Force should begin 
to take a much more active role in developing the SBL program. 
Specifically, the committee believes that the Air Force Space 
and Missile Systems Center should play a key role in designing 
a demonstrator spacecraft and providing detailed cost estimates 
for completion of such a demonstration program.

Theater high altitude area defense system

    The budget request included $481.8 million to complete 
THAAD demonstration and validation (Dem/Val) and to begin 
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD). The committee 
continues to support the development, production, and fielding 
of THAAD as a matter of highest priority. To reflect the 
priority attached to the THAAD program by Congress, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
mandated in section 234 that the system achieve a first unit 
equipped (FUE) not later than fiscal year 2000.
    Despite this clear congressional direction, the Department 
of Defense has proposed a restructuring of the THAAD program as 
part of its BMD Program Update Review that is inconsistent with 
the law and congressional intent. There are two important 
aspects of this proposed restructuring. First, the Department 
proposed streamlining the planned EMD phase for THAAD by 
proceeding with production of the so-called user operational 
evaluation system (UOES) configuration. Subsequent improvements 
to enhance overall THAAD system robustness would be pursued in 
the future as warranted by threat developments. The committee 
supports this particular recommendation, which is consistent 
with the programmatic guidance it provided to the Department 
last year. Aside from yielding significant savings by 
simplifying the EMD phase of the program, this action could 
also be used to facilitate earlier fielding of the THAAD 
system.
    The committee strongly disagrees with the second element of 
the Department's proposed restructuring of the THAAD program. 
This involves delaying the initiation of low-rate initial 
production (LRIP), and hence achievement of the FUE until 
fiscal year 2004, at the earliest. This proposal to delay LRIP 
reflects the administration's budgetary priorities, not 
military or technical considerations. The committee rejects 
this prioritization. If adopted, the administration's 
recommendation would mean that THAAD would be fielded 12 or 
more years after the program was initiated on a virtual 
``crash'' basis to address the inadequacies in U.S. TMD 
capabilities that were illustrated during Operation Desert 
Storm. Furthermore, after fielding the UOES system in fiscal 
year 1998, there would be a four year delay before beginning 
LRIP, which would almost certainly lead to a shutdown of the 
production facility. This not only stretches the development 
phase of a system that would otherwise be ready for production, 
but shutting down the production facility is untenable from an 
industrial base perspective. For these reasons, the committee 
believes that the proposed delay is unacceptable.
    The committee remains committed to fielding the THAAD 
system as quickly as technically feasible. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to structure the 
THAAD program to begin LRIP in fiscal year 1999 and to adjust 
the future years defense program accordingly. The committee 
recommends an increase of $75.0 million in PE 63861C and an 
increase of $65.0 million in PE 64861C, an overall increase of 
$140.0 million for the THAAD program.
    The committee also attaches importance to the UOES system, 
which will be delivered to the United States Army in fiscal 
year 1998. This system will provide valuable opportunities for 
training and testing. Most importantly, it will provide some 
limited operational capability in the event of a crisis. The 
committee questions the adequacy of a UOES capability based on 
40 interceptor missiles. This would provide for just one load-
out of missiles for each of the four THAAD UOES launchers. Once 
these missiles are used for testing purposes, or launched 
during a crisis, no reloads would be available. In this regard, 
the committee notes that 36 Patriot missiles were expended on 
the first day of combat during Operation Desert Storm. 
Accordingly, the committee believes that a total of 80 missiles 
is more appropriate, and directs the Secretary of Defense to 
include funding to acquire these additional 40 UOES missiles in 
the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
    The administration's proposed program for THAAD does not 
include funding for a second EMD radar until very late in the 
program. The committee believes that there are many compelling 
reasons to fund this radar earlier. Specifically, a second EMD 
radar would reduce overall THAAD system development and 
production risk. The first EMD radar will be used primarily for 
flight testing at the Kwajalein test range. A second radar 
would be able to support operational ground testing, and could 
serve as a back-up asset in the event of unforeseen problems 
during the test program or to support testing activities at two 
locations (e.g., White Sands missile test range and Kwajalein). 
Procuring this second EMD radar beginning with long-lead 
funding in fiscal year 1997 would avoid disruption to the 
production line and hence would be more cost effective. 
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 
proceed with acquisition of a second EMD radar in fiscal year 
1997 and provides $65.0 million in long-lead funding for this 
purpose.
    The committee has been concerned by the operational 
limitations of testing the THAAD system at the White Sands 
range. Numerous delays have already been imposed on the program 
due to these limitations. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to transition to flight testing at the 
Kwajalein range at the earliest practical opportunity. The 
committee is also concerned about the fact that the EMD request 
for proposal (RFP) has still not been finally issued. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to issue the EMD RFP 
as soon as possible.

Navy upper tier (theater wide)

    The budget request included $58.2 million for continued 
development of the Navy Upper Tier (Theater Wide) TMD system. 
This is a significant reduction from the $200.4 million 
authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1996, and reflects 
the low priority that the administration attaches to this 
program. The committee does not support the Department's 
recommendation to delay the development and deployment of the 
Navy Upper Tier system and strenuously objects to the 
Department's disregard of requirements set forth in the law.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
mandates that the Navy Upper Tier system become the fourth 
``core'' TMD system and establishes accelerated milestones for 
this program. Specifically, a UOES capability was to be 
achieved in fiscal year 1999 and a FUE by fiscal year 2001. 
Under the administration's proposed program, these milestones 
would be delayed well into the next century. There is no 
technical reason why a Navy Upper Tier capability cannot be 
fielded on a much more aggressive schedule than proposed by the 
administration.
    The committee continues to support the Navy Upper Tier 
system as a matter of priority. Sea-based upper tier TMD 
capability provides an important complement to ground-based 
systems, and each has unique attributes. Sea-based upper tier 
systems can provide initial protection to facilitate the 
insertion of ground forces, including ground-based TMD systems, 
which in turn provide the firepower needed for sustained 
operations. A sea-based upper tier system would also offer the 
possibility of defending large areas where it may not be 
possible to insert ground-based TMD assets. Deployed together, 
ground-based and sea-based TMD can provide very robust 
protection through multiple engagement opportunities. The 
committee believes that both systems are essential.
    The Statement of Managers (H. Rest. 104-450) accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
required the Director of BMDO to provide a report to the 
congressional defense committees by March 1, 1996, detailing 
the Department's plan for Navy Upper Tier, including options to 
reduce risk. Although the Department recently recommended that 
several kill vehicle options be considered, the budget request 
does not support an aggressive effort to identify and develop 
the most effective options for the Navy Upper Tier mission. 
Accordingly, the committee recommends a net increase in PE 
63868C of $246.0 million to support an accelerated Navy Upper 
Tier effort and to thoroughly evaluate the Lightweight 
Exoatmospheric Projectile (LEAP) and a modified version of the 
THAAD kill vehicles.
    For the modified THAAD kill vehicle, the committee directs 
BMDO to begin funding the key modifications required to support 
the Navy Upper Tier mission, including a solid divert and 
attitude control system and AEGIS weapon system/vertical launch 
system integration activities. The committee recommends the use 
of $50.0 million to support this effort in fiscal year 1997 
from the overall amount authorized for the Navy Upper Tier 
program.
    The committee believes that the Navy, in conjunction with 
BMDO, should assess the potential that development of a new 
second stage motor for the Standard Missile could have for a 
range of missile defense and other applications. The committee 
believes that a new second stage motor could provide improved 
performance for sea-based BMD and could also support enhanced 
deep and fast strike missile options for the Naval Surface Fire 
Support mission. A new second stage could simplify integration 
issues associated with kill vehicle options for Navy Upper Tier 
and other BMD missions, thereby reducing the cost and 
complexity of the kill vehicle development program. In 
addition, such a new second stage could support future growth 
options for sea-based BMD. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends the use of $25.0 million of the funds authorized for 
Navy Upper Tier to initiate this second stage motor development 
effort.

Corps Sam/medium extended air defense system

    The budget request included $56.2 million for the Corps 
surface-to-air missile (SAM)/Medium Extended Air Defense System 
(MEADS) program. Because of remaining concerns about the long-
term viability and cost of this program, especially in light of 
the questionable European commitment to the program, the 
committee recommends two actions. First, the committee 
recommends a reduction of $10.8 million in PE 63869C. The 
committee notes that the General Accounting Office has reviewed 
the Corps SAM budget request and concluded that such a 
reduction is in order. Second, the committee directs that none 
of the funds authorized for Corps SAM/MEADS for fiscal year 
1997 be obligated until: (1) the MEADS Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) is signed by all parties; (2) the Secretary 
of Defense certifies to Congress that, pursuant to the MOU, the 
U.S. share of the costs for the MEADS program will not exceed 
50 percent; and (3) the Secretary submits to the congressional 
defense committees the report on options associated with the 
use of existing systems, technologies, and program management 
mechanisms to satisfy the Corps SAM requirement specified in 
the Statement of Managers accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996.

United States-Israel Boost Phase Intercept Program

    In the Statement of Managers accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 1996, the conferees 
endorsed a cooperative program between the United States and 
Israel to develop a kinetic energy boost-phase intercept 
program based on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The 
committee maintains its strong support for this concept. The 
budget request included $9.3 million in the Joint TMD program 
element (PE 63872C) to continue this effort. The committee 
recommends that these funds be transferred to the BPI program 
element (PE 63870C) and that this amount be increased by $15.0 
million for a total authorization of $24.3 million.
    The committee believes that the first step of this U.S.-
Israel BPI program should be a joint technology risk mitigation 
effort, aimed at reducing technological uncertainties and 
developing, to the extent possible, a common set of user 
requirements. If this proves successful, it can be followed by 
an advanced technology demonstration to validate the technical 
feasibility of the concept and the major system elements. This 
would enable the United States and Israel to evaluate the 
potential for a joint acquisition program or one in which both 
countries continue to collaborate on separate but mutually 
reinforcing efforts.

National Missile Defense

    The budget request included $508.4 million for National 
Missile Defense (NMD) to support the administration's so-called 
deployment readiness program known as ``3+3''. Based on 
information received from the Department of Defense, the 
committee does not believe that the administration's proposed 
budget and program plan for NMD are adequate even to meet the 
stated purpose of its ``deployment readiness'' program. As 
acknowledged by the Director of BMDO in congressional 
testimony, the planned test program for the exoatmospheric kill 
vehicle (EKV) is inadequate to support a deployment decision 
within the framework of the ``3+3'' program. The 
administration's proposed NMD program consists of just five EKV 
flights: two in fiscal year 1997; two in fiscal year 1998; and 
one in fiscal year 1999. Under this plan, an NMD deployment 
decision supposedly could be made at the end of fiscal year 
1999; however, such a decision would be based on a single 
integrated interceptor test. Furthermore, the test booster 
would not represent an operational configuration.
    To support a lower risk and more robust NMD program, the 
committee believes that additional EKV flight tests are 
required. Specifically, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to restructure the EKV program to support two flight 
tests in fiscal year 1997, three in fiscal year 1998, and four 
in fiscal year 1999. This requires the acquisition of 
additional kill vehicle and test booster hardware. 
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary to upgrade 
the Payload Launch Vehicle (PLV) system to provide a more 
representative velocity regime and test environment for NMD 
system tests. To accomplish these objectives, and to ensure 
that other aspects of the NMD program are able to support an 
initial operational capability (IOC) in fiscal year 2003 (which 
the administration's proposal supposedly protects), the 
committee recommends an increase of $300.0 million in PE 
63871C. The committee recommends the use of $50.0 million to 
begin upgrading the PLV and whatever funds are necessary to 
support the EKV flight profile specified above.

Joint theater missile defense

    The budget request included $521.5 million in BMDO's Joint 
TMD program element (formerly known as Other TMD). The 
committee recommends a net increase of $6.4 million in PE 
63872C, including the following adjustments: (1) a transfer of 
$9.3 million to the BPI program element for the U.S.-Israel 
Joint BPI program; (2) an increase of $3.7 million for the 
Arrow Deployability Project (ADP), for a total authorization of 
$35.0 million to fully fund the U.S. share of the program 
envisioned in the recently completed Memorandum of Agreement 
between the United States and Israel; (3) an increase of $7.0 
million for the Army's Advanced Research Center (ARC), for a 
total authorization of $15.0 million; and (4) an increase of 
$5.0 million for BMDO to ensure that the Navy's Cooperative 
Engagement Capability is compatible with all of BMDO's core TMD 
programs.

Data review and analysis monitoring aid

    The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for 
Defense Support Activities (PE 605798S) specifically for 
continuation of the Data Review and Analysis Monitoring Aid 
(DRAMA) program, which is designed to reduce duplication in the 
supply system.

Advanced SEAL delivery system

    The committee has learned that additional development 
funding in fiscal year 1997 could provide a significant 
improvement in the acoustic characteristics of the advanced 
SEAL delivery system (ASDS) before procurement begins.
    The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million above 
the budget request in PE 116404BB to provide quieter pumps and 
motors for the base design of the ASDS.

M4A1 Carbine INOD, special operations command

    The Special Operations Command is developing the integrated 
night/day observation/fire device (INOD) for the M4A1 carbine. 
The INOD will enable special forces to use a single rifle sight 
for both night and day operations. Such a capability would be 
particularly useful for special forces, who must currently 
carry two sights and frequently cannot boresight and zero a 
sight during operations without compromising their position.
    The committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million in PE 
1160404BB to accelerate completion of engineering analysis and 
initiate engineering design for the INOD for the M4A1 carbine.

AC-130 aircraft enhancements, special operations command

    The committee recommends an increase of $5.8 million in PE 
1160404BB for enhancements to the AC-130 aircraft. These 
enhancements would upgrade AC-130 lethality and the accuracy of 
weapons systems for use in special operations.

                         OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Battle group airborne anti-submarine warfare

    The committee has become concerned with the Navy's slow 
progress in planning for and funding organic battle group 
airborne anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems suitable for 
countering the existing and projected littoral ASW threat. The 
committee recognizes the Navy's difficulty in modernizing 
existing systems within budgetary constraints. However, 
programs that provide a solid conceptual plan, supported by 
adequate resources, should be in place to meet the evolving 
littoral ASW threat.
    The committee believes that the Navy's overall plan for 
modernizing its H-60 series helicopters has not met these 
criteria. The broad concept, to convert existing H-60 variants 
into a multi-mission SH-60R helicopter and introduce it by 
fiscal year 2001 as a complement to introduction of DDG-51 
Flight IIA destroyers into the fleet, appears sound. However, 
the mix of aircraft to be converted and the funding programmed 
to implement this concept have remained in an almost continuous 
state of flux for the past two years. For example, in reviewing 
the Navy's integrated helicopter plan for fiscal year 1997, the 
committee has noted a change in the Navy's previous decision to 
convert aircraft carrier based SH-60F ASW helicopters to HH-60H 
combat/utility helicopters. Instead the new plan would convert 
these SH-60F helicopters to the SH-60R configuration. Some 
would be converted in the near-term to fill surface combatant 
requirements, but the balance of the SH-60Fs would not undergo 
conversion until after fiscal year 2006.
    Last year, the Navy's fiscal year 1996 helicopter plan 
would not have converted some 60 SH-60Fs to the SH-60R 
configuration. The statement of managers accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
directed the Secretary of the Navy to evaluate the cost 
effectiveness of a modernization program for the dipping sonars 
installed on these helicopters. Since the fiscal year 1997 plan 
now calls for conversion of these 60 helicopters to the SH-60R 
configuration, implying eventual installation of the airborne 
low frequency dipping sonar (ALFS), a different set of 
assumptions applies, and different questions have emerged.
    Although the 60 SH-60F helicopters are now to be converted 
to the SH-60R, most of these conversions will not occur for at 
least 10 to 15 years. The committee remains concerned about 
whether the dipping sonars presently installed on these carrier 
based SH-60F helicopters are now, or will remain, suitable for 
the littoral ASW operations envisioned by the Navy's strategic 
concept ``Forward * * * From the Sea'' during this 15 year 
period.
    To help resolve its uncertainty, the committee directs the 
Secretary of the Navy to develop a plan, containing decision 
options, that would ensure that its carrier based SH-60F 
helicopters not scheduled for conversion to the SH-60R in the 
near-term, which will be the helicopters that will remain 
responsible for inner-zone battle group ASW, are equipped with 
a dipping sonar, including possible modifications to the 
presently installed sonar, that is suitable, and will remain 
suitable, for littoral ASW operations. The Secretary is 
directed to submit this plan no later than March 1, 1997.

FFG-7 modernization

    The Navy now plans to retain more of its FFG-7s in active 
and reserve status than had been previously planned. Heavy 
operational demands have caused the Navy to reverse an earlier 
decision to retire most of the FFG-7 class of ships. While the 
Navy has not made a final decision on the total number that 
will be retained, it is likely that the Navy will retain a 
portion of them in active service until at least 2010.
    The committee appreciates the Navy's rationale in retaining 
these FFG-7s in service. However, it would now appear prudent 
to evaluate the ability of these ships to deal with evolving 
threats during their remaining service life. Factors for 
consideration include:
          (1) the FFG-7 class has several different 
        configurations, some have an updated anti-air warfare 
        (AAW) system, while others have a more capable anti-
        submarine warfare (ASW) weapons system;
          (2) the FFG-7 class was originally developed as a 
        design-to-cost, open ocean, anti-submarine escort, and 
        was not optimized for near land operations or 
        countering advanced sea-skimming cruise missiles; and
          (3) several groups have approached the committee 
        during its review of the fiscal year 1997 budget 
        request, asserting that relatively inexpensive off-the-
        shelf upgrades are available that will provide the FFG-
        7 class with the capabilities needed to counter modern 
        threats.
    The committee wants the Navy to clarify its intentions for 
modernizing the FFG-7 class. Therefore, the committee directs 
the Secretary of the Navy to prepare a report on options for 
modernizing the FFG-7 class and submit that report with the 
fiscal year 1998 budget request. The report should include, but 
need not be limited to, answers to the following questions:
          (1) what are the threats that will likely be 
        encountered in operational situations where the FFG-7s 
        might be employed?
          (2) what priority does the Navy place on modernizing 
        the FFG-7 class to deal with these threats?
          (3) what are the alternatives for buying off-the-
        shelf upgrade packages that could defeat these threats?
          (4) would buying off-the-shelf upgrade packages be 
        cost effective relative to potential developmental 
        programs? and
          (5) what would be a reasonable funding and 
        installation program to procure and install either off-
        the-shelf packages or upgrade packages deriving from a 
        development program?

Integrated ship control systems

    During its review of the fiscal year 1997 budget request, 
the committee has determined that the Navy is pursuing a number 
of initiatives that are designed to provide automated and 
integrated control of ship systems for bridge, engineering, and 
damage control systems. Examples include following:
          (1) the standard monitoring and control system (SMCS) 
        that is part of the advanced surface machinery program;
          (2) the engineering control system equipment (ECSE) 
        upgrade program for DD-963, DDG-993, and CG-47 class 
        ships that is being pursued by the PMS-400 division of 
        the Naval Sea Systems Command;
          (3) the Navy initiative called ``Smart Ship,'' a 
        program to help reduce crew size that includes using a 
        variant of a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) integrated 
        ship control system; and
          (4) programs to develop integrated ship control 
        systems for new ship classes, such as the LPD-17 class 
        and the next generation of surface combatant, the SC-
        21, that appear to have similar objectives as the other 
        independent programs.
    It would appear, based on information provided by the Navy, 
that there are areas where these programs aim to achieve 
different objectives. However, it would also appear that there 
are areas of overlap that the Navy should reconcile. The 
committee believes that the Navy should be trying to field 
shipboard configurations that have as much commonality as is 
reasonable. The questions that the Navy needs to analyze is how 
much commonality is achievable and cost effective. For example, 
the committee was informed by representatives of the Director 
of Space and Electronic Warfare (N6) of the Chief of Naval 
Operations staff that the N6 organization is developing a 
common configuration for local area networks (LANs) to be 
installed on existing and future Navy ships. These LANs will 
provide the backbone for an open architecture integration of 
combat, logistics, personnel, communications, bridge, and 
engineering control systems. Yet, similar briefings on 
individual programs such as SMCS, Smart Ship, and SC-21 
indicate that these programs may be pursuing independent LAN 
development efforts that may not be consistent with the N6 
program.
    Of additional note, the committee has received various 
contractor proposals that offer COTS systems to meet some of 
the Navy's requirements for an automated ship control system. 
These proposals would preempt the ongoing Navy ship control 
programs. The committee is convinced that neither:
          (1) the Navy's approach on several fronts is the best 
        approach;
          (2) the other COTS proposals would be able to satisfy 
        the full range of Navy requirements; nor
          (3) any of these alternatives presents the more cost 
        effective alternative.
    Committee efforts to resolve these concerns during its 
consideration of the budget request have not produced a 
satisfactory answer.
    It may be that the rapid progress of commercial technology 
has outstripped the ability of the Navy's acquisition system to 
develop and field comparable ship control systems. However, the 
committee needs to have more information before it can adopt a 
course of action.
    Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the 
Navy to evaluate the various integrated ship control systems 
currently under development by the Navy and those available as 
COTS alternatives. He should report his findings and 
recommendations for both new construction and backfit programs 
by February 15, 1997. The report should provide decision 
options based on life cycle cost estimates, and should address 
questions such as:
          (1) how best to address the reported obsolescence and 
        high maintenance costs of existing ship control 
        systems;
          (2) how well could COTS systems address the full 
        range of Navy requirements;
          (3) what lessons may be learned from planned 
        employment of a COTS system as part of the Navy's Smart 
        Ship initiative;
          (4) how does the Navy plan to incorporate a common 
        open architecture backbone into its ships for use by 
        integrated ship control and other systems;
          (5) what is the extent to which different approaches 
        on subsets of existing ships may be more cost effective 
        than a universal backfit approach;
          (6) what is the requirement and cost and schedule 
        impact associated with an apparent need to adopt a new 
        architecture for the SMCS program because its existing 
        developmental architecture has already become 
        obsolescent;
          (7) what are the benefits of pursuing a functional 
        standard, rather than a hardware standard, to provide 
        for common ship control configurations; and
          (8) to what extent do any of the alternatives rely on 
        a proprietary design that would limit the Navy's 
        ability to take advantage of the rapid pace of 
        technological advance and competitive nature inherent 
        in the commercial market?

CV-22

    The committee is aware of an agreement between the 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and 
Acquisition (RDA) and the U.S. Special Operations Command 
(USSOCOM) Acquisition Executive of the structure, schedule and 
content of the engineering and manufacturing development of the 
Special Operations Forces variant of the V-22, known as the CV-
22. The agreement supports USSOCOM mission requirements within 
the $550.0 million (then year) cap established by the Navy and 
is predicated upon the remanufacture of an MV-22 aircraft for 
CV-22 test and evaluation, rather the purchase of a new V-22. 
The configuration represents compliance with all key 
performance parameters and most of the threshold requirements 
defined in the joint operational requirements document (JORD).
    The committee further understands that an additional $10.0 
million will be provided by the Navy to ensure the program 
meets its initial operating capability (IOC) on time with 
agreed-on capabilities.
    The use of a remanufactured MV-22 flight test article 
represents an innovative, cost-effective solution to the 
problem of living within the program's resources. It also 
represents a challenge for the program office to complete the 
CV-22 program with the agreed-on capabilities on or before the 
required IOC. Accordingly, the committee expects the joint 
program office to release aircraft number nine back to the 
contractor for remanufacture by August 1, 1999. Should 
additional testing for the MV-22 program be necessary, the 
committee directs the program manager to develop and implement 
the necessary options to complete MV-22 testing without the use 
of aircraft number nine after August 1, 1999.

Parametric airborne dipping sonar

    The committee is disappointed with the Navy's delay in 
carrying out research and development on the parametric 
airborne dipping sonar for which $4.5 million was authorized 
and appropriated for fiscal year 1996. As the committee noted 
in its report last year, this technology has potential for 
improving weapon systems performance in applications such as 
dipping sonars installed in helicopters. The committee directs 
the Navy to execute the program in accordance with 
congressional direction in fiscal year 1996.

National automotive center

    The committee commends the Army for its efforts, through 
the National Automotive Center, to extend the life of its 
wheeled vehicle fleet through the adaptation of commercially 
developed automotive technologies. As a result of this 
initiative, the Army is modernizing its wheeled vehicles at a 
modest cost.
    It is the committee's desire that all services have the 
benefit of the technologies identified and adapted to military 
vehicles by the National Automotive Center. Therefore, the 
Secretary of Defense shall designate the Army's National 
Automotive Center as the Department's executive agent for 
commercial automotive technology collaboration. The committee 
further directs that the Director, National Automotive Center 
shall report directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
for Research, Development and Acquisition. A charter 
incorporating these guidelines shall be submitted to the 
congressional defense committees by October 1, 1996, and be 
executed by the Secretary of Defense or his designated agent by 
November 1, 1996.
    The committee commends the National Automotive Center for 
its efforts to identify commercial technologies to apply to 
military vehicles, and to reduce the cost of developing, 
producing and operating military vehicle systems. By requiring 
cost sharing and collaborating with industry, the Center is 
able to leverage the substantial investment and expertise of 
commercial industry and academia.
    The committee is aware of a proposal to expand this work to 
develop advanced engine technologies (particularly four-stroke 
direct injection diesel engines) and to create a framework for 
collaborative vehicle design and development with industry. 
Such efforts could lead to improved design on a cost shared 
basis. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to review 
the available funding for this effort and to consider a 
reprogramming request for additional funds if he deems it 
appropriate.

National Solar Observatory

    The National Solar Observatory (NSO), formerly known as the 
Sacramento Peak Observatory, is internationally recognized as 
the world's best site for studying the sun. NSO scientists 
carry out frontier research in solar physics. On a practical 
level, however, its scientists work to understand and predict 
the occurrences and effects of solar flares and other bursts of 
radiation. Understanding solar activity is increasingly vital 
for global communications, military surveillance, and 
navigation.
    The Air Force supports NSO operations through its Science 
and Technology program in the amount of $650,000 that is 
transferred to the National Science Foundation, which operates 
the NSO. The committee supports the continuation of this annual 
contribution for the support of the National Solar Observatory.

United States-Japan management training

    The committee has been impressed by the degree to which the 
United States-Japan management training program has achieved 
its primary objective of preparing young American scientists, 
engineers and managers for positions in American industry and 
government from which they can exploit their knowledge of 
Japanese research and development institutions. This program, 
initiated by the committee in 1991, is run by the Air Force 
Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). In fiscal year 1996, 
AFOSR was only able to fund the program at $2.0 million from 
its own resources after several years in which the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) had provided AFOSR 
$10.0 million per year for the program. The committee believes 
that a larger investment in this program may be warranted. The 
Secretary of the Air Force, at her discretion, may apply funds 
in PE 61102F, or the Secretary of Defense, at his discretion, 
may apply funds in PE 61103D, to continue the program at a 
total level of up to $10.0 million. The committee notes that 
cost sharing from non-federal sources is a statutory selection 
criterion in the program and that historically the program has 
leveraged significant non-federal funding. The committee 
directs AFSOR to ensure that cost sharing from non-federal 
sources should match AFOSR funds to the maximum extent 
practicable in future grant awards.

Totally integrated munitions enterprise (TIME)

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense, in 
cooperation with the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore 
and Los Alamos National Defense Laboratories, is preparing to 
initiate the Totally Integrated Munitions Enterprise (TIME) 
project in support of U.S. conventional munitions production. 
The committee believes the TIME project could reduce the time 
required to develop, manufacture, and procure advanced 
munitions systems while improving their overall cost 
effectiveness. The program has the potential to reduce overhead 
and infrastructure costs in the management of U.S. munitions 
production.

Strategic deterrent development capability

    The committee recognizes the Department of Defense's 
progress in identifying and establishing programs to protect 
the key sectors of the strategic deterrent force industrial 
base. The Department has funded programs to preserve critical 
strategic deterrent development activities in the areas of 
reentry vehicles and precision long-range inertial guidance 
systems. The committee strongly supports this process, 
especially with regard to technology applications and 
components that may be required to maintain and replace 
existing strategic forces. In several of these areas no other 
commercial or governmental market exists.
    The committee is concerned, however, that certain critical 
technologies, materials, or processes may still be excluded 
from this process. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a plan to Congress, not later 
than March 15, 1997, for the preservation of all elements 
necessary for development of the next generation of strategic 
deterrent forces. The plan should include technology 
applications and selective component development, as well as 
the practice of the systems engineering and integration 
disciplines required to develop and to maintain a responsive 
strategic deterrent system development capability.

Post-boost propulsion for strategic delivery systems

    The Air Force is beginning the third year of research and 
development investment in its Minuteman post-boost system. This 
investment is necessary to ensure the continuing readiness and 
effectiveness of United States strategic ballistic missile 
forces. Both the Air Force and the Navy rely on the same down-
sized corporate pool of specialists who have unique 
capabilities and qualifications derived from twenty-five years 
of direct experience with the data and tests to assure 
reliability and affordability. Under present and foreseeable 
circumstances, the committee endorses retention of a 
consolidated corporate pool and recommends that the Department 
of Defense continue to support the post-boost system 
infrastructure at budgeted or increased levels.

Chemical-biological defense program

    The committee recommends authorization of the budget 
request of $505.6 million for the Department of Defense 
chemical-biological defense program for research and 
development ($296.8 million) and procurement ($208.2 million).
    The committee is disturbed with the findings in a March 
1996 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report on chemical and 
biological defense, and wishes to express its general and 
growing unhappiness with the Department's management and 
oversight of the chemical-biological defense program. According 
to the President's 1996 National Security Strategy, a key part 
of United States strategy is to stem the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction and to develop effective 
capabilities to deal with these threats. U.S. national security 
strategy requires that U.S. military forces be prepared to 
respond, in the United States as well as abroad, to the danger 
posed by weapons of mass destruction.
    Since 1990, the Congress has expressed concern about the 
conduct of the chemical and biological defense program and the 
readiness of the U.S. military forces to operate in a 
chemically or biologically contaminated environment. In 1993, 
concerned that the overall defense budget was declining and 
wanting to ensure that requirements for an effective chemical 
and biological defense program not be ignored, the Congress 
took steps to strengthen the chemical and biological defense 
program. To meet the potential threat of the proliferation of 
chemical and biological agents, the Congress directed the 
Secretary of Defense to fund the chemical and biological 
defense program in a DOD budget account. This DOD chemical and 
biological defense program was to be assigned to a single 
office in the Office of the Secretary, and reflect a 
coordinated and integrated chemical and biological defense 
program for the military departments, with the Army as the 
executive agent.
    Despite the increased attention since the Gulf War by the 
Department and the Congress to the potential threat of the use 
of chemical or biological agents against U.S. military forces, 
the committee is disturbed with the findings of a March 1996 
Government Accounting Office (GAO) report on DOD's chemical and 
biological defense program.
    The GAO report notes improvement in the readiness of U.S. 
military forces to operate in a chemical or biological 
environment. However, the report also identifies continued 
deficiencies in the areas of: chemical-biological defense 
training; inadequacy of the biological vaccine stockpile; 
development and implementation of a DOD immunization policy; 
and adequacy of training and equipment for medical personnel.
    In testimony before the Congress on the fiscal year 1997 
budget request, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commanders in Chief of our 
regional commands highlighted the chemical and biological 
threat as a priority. However, despite the high priority and 
emphasis placed on combating this threat, the committee is 
disturbed with the GAO findings that chemical and biological 
training and preparedness have been assigned a lower priority 
by the Commanders in Chief. Additionally, the committee is 
disturbed that DOD has been unable to make a decision with 
regard to the development and implementation of a DOD 
immunization policy. As a result of lessons learned from the 
Gulf War, it is essential that a decision be made on the 
vaccines to be stockpiled and on an immunization policy. In the 
event of a crisis, it is imperative that forces deployed to a 
high threat area receive the necessary medical protection to 
protect them against biological agents. In that same regard, it 
is essential that medical personnel assigned to deploy with the 
forces have the necessary training and equipment to treat 
casualties in a chemically or biologically contaminated area.
    For the past three years, the Congress has increased 
funding for the chemical and biological defense program above 
the President's request. For example, in fiscal year 1996, the 
Congress authorized a $24.0 million increase to augment and 
accelerate research and development in medical and non-medical 
chemical and biological defense, and an increase in the 
military service operations and maintenance accounts of $50.0 
million for chemical defense training and chemical medical 
defense training.
    The committee directs the Deputy Secretary of Defense to 
review and report back prior to the conclusion of the House and 
Senate conference on the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization 
bill on steps the Department has taken to correct the 
deficiencies highlighted by the GAO report, and on the use of 
the increased funding provided to the Department in the fiscal 
year 1996 for the chemical and biological defense program and 
on the use of the operations and maintenance funds for 
increased chemical defenses training, as well as the use of 
these funds for the procurement of chemical-biological defense 
equipment.

Biological and medical defense technologies

    As noted elsewhere in the report, the committee recommends 
that the Department continue to place increased research and 
development efforts in the area of biological detection. Those 
efforts should include working with the national laboratories, 
universities and, where appropriate, industry. Additionally, 
the committee believes that the Department needs to increase 
research and development in the area of biological medical 
technologies. Detection of biological agents and physical 
protection of our military forces are essential. These two 
elements should not be relied upon as a sole means of defense. 
A third element which is essential in the defense of our 
military services against biological agents are vaccines, 
toxoids, antitoxins and antibodies. It is critical that our 
biological defense include medical technologies. The committee 
believes that increased emphasis is necessary in the area of 
prophylaxis and specific therapies to protect against potential 
biological pathogens which would be used offensively against 
our military forces.
    In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1996 the committee highlighted concerns about the progress in 
bio-technology that could lead to the development of new 
biological warfare agents and requested the Department to 
report to Congress by March 1, 1996 (which was extended by 45 
days) on the national security threats posed by these new 
advances in bio-technology and genetic engineering. To date, 
the committee has not received this report. The committee 
directs the Department to submit the report expeditiously so 
that consideration may be given to its findings during the 
conference on the defense authorization bill between the House 
and Senate.
    Additionally, the committee intends to review possible 
benefits of increasing the chemical-biological defense program 
for the conduct of research and development on human monoclonal 
antibodies as medical defenses against biological agents. The 
committee recommends that the Department report to the 
committee on the utility and possible benefits of this medical 
technology program in reducing the threat of the use of 
biological agent. This report should include input by the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

    The committee directs the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency (DARPA) to consult and coordinate their 
chemical and biological research and development programs more 
closely with the Department's executive agent for the chemical-
biological defense program. In addition to leveraging existing 
technologies, it is important that the capabilities of all 
contributing agencies be utilized to their fullest extent.
                  TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

    The President's budget request included $88,859.7 million 
for operation and maintenance of the armed forces and component 
agencies of the Department of Defense in fiscal year 1997.
    The committee recommends authorization of $89,025.8 million 
for the operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts for fiscal 
year 1997, an increase of $166.1 million from the President's 
budget request. The recommended amount authorized for the O&M 
accounts includes, to the extent provided in an appropriations 
act, transfer of $150.0 million from the National Defense 
Stockpile Transaction Fund.
    The committee recommends authorization of $2,215.9 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; and
          --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 and unnecessary O&M expenditures for low 
priority or non-defense programs 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 upon a careful 
balance of funding between both current and future readiness.
    This year the full committee received testimony on 
readiness issues from the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the service secretaries and the 
service chiefs, and the unified commanders-in-chief. The 
Subcommittee on Readiness received testimony on readiness 
issues from the four service chiefs, the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Reserve Affairs, the chiefs of the reserve 
components, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and other senior 
military representatives.
    The primary readiness concern expressed by these witnesses 
was the inadequate funding that was provided by the President's 
budget request in the long-term readiness or modernization 
accounts. Although current readiness is not robust, future 
readiness is in far more serious jeopardy.
    The committee believes future readiness deficiencies must 
be addressed now or our armed forces will be ill-equipped for 
the potential military conflicts of the next century. However, 
current readiness must also be maintained in order to ensure 
that the myriad of contingency operations in which today's 
military forces are engaged are performed with minimum 
casualties and without exposure to unnecessary risk.
    The committee approves of the Department's decision to 
budget for the known costs of ongoing operations for the first 
time this year. This will help to ensure that necessary 
training will not be canceled due to a lack of funds available 
in the fourth quarter because of the unbudgeted costs of these 
operations.
    The committee recommends a reduction in O&M funding for 
low-priority and non-defense programs and that funds made 
available from these reductions be authorized for higher-
priority readiness programs. This planning consideration 
required the committee to make some difficult decisions; 
however, the continuing decline in defense budgets have made 
such decisions necessary.


              SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

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 operations 
and maintenance accounts.

Section 305. Civil Air Patrol.

    The committee is concerned that an inordinant amount of the 
funds provided by the Department of Defense to the Civil Air 
Patrol is used for administration and overhead expenses instead 
of the important search and rescue missions for which it is 
intended. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision which 
would require that at least 25 percent of the funds provided to 
the Civil Air Patrol Corporation shall be available only for 
the costs of search and rescue missions.

Section 306. SR-71 contingency reconnaissance force.

    The committee is pleased that the Department of Defense has 
been able to reactivate the SR-71 aircraft for substantially 
less than the original estimate. The Deputy Secretary of 
Defense has informed Congress that the Department will modify 
the SR-71 aircraft in fiscal year 1996 as directed by Congress. 
However, since the Department views the SR-71 as an 
intelligence program, the Department interpreted language in 
the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 as 
prohibiting expenditures from within operation and maintenance 
accounts to operate the aircraft. Therefore, the committee has 
included a provision that clarifies the intent of the Defense 
authorization committees, the committees of jurisdiction, with 
regard to operating and supporting this important capability.

    SUBTITLE B--PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS

Section 311. Funding for second and third maritime propositioning ships 
        out of National Defense Sealift Fund.

    The budget request contained no funding for enhancement of 
the Marine Corps maritime prepositioning force (MPF).
    The Marine Corps MPF consists of three squadrons of forward 
deployed maritime prepositioned ships (MPS). Each of these 
squadrons carries sufficient equipment, supplies, and 
sustainment for a brigade-sized force of 17,300 Marine Corps 
and Navy personnel. The MPF enhancement (MPF(E)) program, begun 
as the result of a committee recommendation in fiscal year 
1995, will provide one additional ship for each MPS squadron. 
This additional ship will allow each squadron to carry extra 
materiel, including an expeditionary airfield, a fleet 
hospital, a Navy mobile construction battalion equipment set, 
Marine Corps command element equipment, and additional 
sustainment supplies. Having this extra equipment will provide 
our warfighting commanders with much greater flexibility when 
they choose to employ Marine Corps units.
    Congress had previously appropriated $110.0 million for 
acquisition of the first MPF(E) ship. Last year, the committee 
expressed concern about the slow progress the Navy had made in 
procuring this ship. The Navy has now developed an acquisition 
strategy that would cause the winning bidder of a current 
solicitation to acquire the ship, manage the contract for its 
conversion, and operate and maintain the ship for five years. 
Contract award for acquisition of the first ship is now 
scheduled to occur in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1996.
    As originally conceived by the committee, the MPF(E) 
program was intended to satisfy very specific Marine Corps 
threshold requirements at an affordable price. Prior to making 
its recommendation to Congress in fiscal year 1995, the 
committee discussed its concept thoroughly with the Marine 
Corps to ensure that it would meet Marine Corps needs. The 
MPF(E) program that was incorporated into the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 was the result of those 
discussions.
    In fiscal year 1996, the committee expressed its continuing 
support for the program by recommending authorization of an 
additional $110.0 million for the purchase and conversion of a 
second ship. However, while the statement of managers that 
accompanied the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) expressed the House and Senate 
Conferee's strong support for the purchase and conversion of an 
additional ship for the MPF(E) program, a ship was not 
authorized because sufficient funds were not available.
    This year, based on proposals that new construction might 
be a better option for the MPF(E) program, the committee 
reviewed its original decision to recommend purchase and 
conversion of an existing ship, vice new construction. As 
previously discussed, the Navy is well along with contract 
award for the first ship and, in briefings to the committee 
this year, expressed confidence that it would be able to 
acquire the ship for the appropriated amount.
    The committee also asked about the historical costs of the 
original MPS ships, which were acquired in the mid-1980s. The 
Navy reported that, although some of these ships were converted 
and some were built new, the end cost of the conversions and 
the new construction ships was roughly the same. The cost of 
these original MPS ships in today's dollars would likely exceed 
$200.0 million, and perhaps be closer to $250.0 million.
    When the committee pointed out the apparent disparity 
between the $110.0 million appropriated for the first MPF(E) 
ship and the end-cost of the original MPS ships in fiscal year 
1997 dollars, the Navy provided amplifying information that 
showed that the conversions done for the MPS ships in the mid-
1980s had been far more extensive than the work that would be 
required to satisfy the threshold requirements of the MPF(E) 
program. In particular, the mid-1980s MPS conversions involved 
cutting the converted ships in half and inserting another hull 
section, a ``plug,'' to give them greater capacity for cargo 
and fuel than is necessary for the MPF(E) ships. The complexity 
of the original MPS conversions, roughly comparable to the work 
being done on the five large, medium-speed roll-on/roll-off 
(LMSR) ships that are now under conversion to carry Army 
prepositioned equipment, added considerably to their conversion 
cost. The Navy then contrasted the scope of the conversions for 
the mid-1980s MPS ships with the much more limited work that 
will be needed for the MPF(E) ships to satisfy their threshold 
military requirements. Specifically, none of the proposals 
currently under consideration for the MPF(E) program involves 
insertion of a new hull section.
    The committee also investigated assertions that the life 
cycle cost of a new construction ship might be lower than the 
purchase and conversion program sponsored by the committee. A 
lower life cycle cost might well imply greater cost 
effectiveness for a new construction ship.
    The likely new construction candidate for the MPF(E) 
program would be a variant of the Army LMSR's that are 
currently under construction at two shipyards. The committee 
made a determination about the probability of lower life cycle 
costs for new construction ships based on the following 
information:
          (1) when queried by the committee, the Navy reported 
        that the average estimated cost at completion for the 
        17 LMSR's currently under contract will exceed $300.0 
        million per ship;
          (2) Navy representatives indicated that the design of 
        the Army LMSR's would have to be altered because the 
        MPF(E) ships need a different relative allocation of 
        container capacity versus vehicle space;
          (3) the Army LMSR's are in series production, so it 
        is highly unlikely, considering the non-recurring 
        design effort that would be needed for an MPF(E) 
        variant, that a small buy of three MPF(E) ships could 
        achieve an average unit cost any less than that for the 
        Army's LMSR's, even if they were built at the same 
        yards that are building the LMSR's;
          (4) given the approximately three-to-one differential 
        in acquisition cost derived from Navy cost estimates, 
        there does not appear to be a reasonable set of 
        assumptions that would cause the committee to conclude 
        that the life cycle costs of a new construction variant 
        for the MPF(E) program would be lower than those 
        associated with the purchase and conversion program 
        already in progress; and
          (5) disruption of the Army's LMSR program, to satisfy 
        near-term requirements for the MPF(E) program, would 
        inevitably delay the Army's LMSR program even more. 
        Such delays would increase the cost of the ships now 
        under construction.
    As with most military programs, the MPF(E) ships have a 
threshold requirement that they must satisfy and an objective 
requirement that would be desirable. The Navy appears 
confident, based on proposals that had been submitted by 
several potential contractors, that its plans for conversion of 
the first MPF(E) ship can be completed within the $110.0 
million originally appropriated. The committee interviewed 
Marine Corps and Navy leaders to determine whether the 
threshold requirements that this ship must meet or exceed are 
adequate to the mission requirements for the ship. The 
committee also discussed the current state of the strategic 
sealift program with the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. 
Transportation Command. The responses of these senior leaders 
were as follows:
          (1) they consider the Marine Corps requirement for 
        the capability that the MPF(E) program will provide is 
        urgent;
          (2) the program of purchase and conversion currently 
        being pursued by the Navy will meet the Marine Corps 
        threshold requirements for MPF(E);
          (3) they continue to support the program for purchase 
        and conversion that the committee has sponsored for the 
        past two years;
          (4) they have no desire to wait until MPF(E) program 
        ships could be added at the end of the Army's LMSR 
        program;
          (5) they have no desire to disrupt the Army's ongoing 
        LMSR procurement program by having MPF(E) ships 
        inserted into the middle of the program; and
          (6) the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Transportation 
        Command has informed the committee that:
                  (a) the Army's LMSR program is already two 
                years behind schedule;
                  (b) this delay perpetuates a serious 
                shortfall in strategic sealift until at least 
                fiscal year 2001; and
                  (c)further disruption of the program would 
                have a serious impact on the nation's ability 
                to provide sufficient surge sealift to meet the 
                demands of two nearly simultaneous major 
                regional conflicts.
    As a result of its re-examination of the MPF(E) program, in 
conjunction with its review of the fiscal year 1997 budget 
request, the committee makes the following recommendations:
          (1) continued strong support for the purchase and 
        conversion of existing ships that can meet the Marine 
        Corps' threshold requirements for the MPF(E) program;
          (2) the need to field an adequate MPF(E) capability, 
        one that satisfies the program's threshold requirement, 
        at the earliest possible date;
          (3) support for the consideration of new construction 
        ships as an option for satisfying the MPF(E) 
        requirement, provided they are cost competitive, do not 
        delay the Army's strategic sealift program, and do not 
        delay the MPF(E) program; and
          (4) a provision that would authorize the purchase and 
        conversion, or construction if competitive based on 
        price and timeliness, of two additional ships for the 
        MPF(E) program, and an increase of $240.0 million above 
        the budget request in the National Defense Sealift Fund 
        to acquire them and to include an allowance for 
        inflation that has occurred since fiscal year 1995.
    Based on the assertions and arguments presented to date, 
the committee has no reason to conclude that a new construction 
option for MPF(E) will be cost effective compared to the 
ongoing program of purchase and conversion, when evaluated 
against the threshold requirements identified by the Marine 
Corps. However, the committee remains open to additional facts.
    The acquisition of two ships additional MPF(E) ships would 
satisfy the force structure requirements of the program. If the 
committee's recommendation prevails, the Navy would be able to 
negotiate favorable contract options that would permit the Navy 
to procure and convert the two additional ships less 
expensively by avoiding the cost of a second stand-alone 
competition.

Section 312. National Defense Sealift Fund.

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
certain amendments to section 2218 of title 10, United States 
Code. Section 2218 deals with the national defense sealift fund 
(NDSF). A thorough discussion of the rationale for this 
provision may be found elsewhere in this report in the section 
dealing with the national defense reserve fleet.

Section 313. Nonlethal weapons capabilities.

    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to the 
operations and maintenance accounts for the military services, 
$3.0 million for the Marine Corps and $2.0 million for the 
Army, to fulfill immediate procurement needs for nonlethal 
technologies.

Section 314. Restriction on Coast Guard funding.

    The committee notes that funds provided to federal agencies 
from the 054 budget account are supposed to be used for 
national security activities. This year the administration 
requested $119.0 million in this account to support the 
operations of the Coast Guard. The committee is concerned that 
these are not national security operations and that this is a 
direct subsidy to the Department of Transportation using funds 
that are intended for the Department of Defense; a violation of 
the Senate rule on fire walls between the Defense budget and 
the budgets of civilian agencies. Therefore, the committee 
recommends a provision which will prevent the payment of funds 
to the Coast Guard out of funds authorized to be appropriated 
in the 054 budget account. This reduction was used to fund an 
increase in the Department of Defense's drug interdiction and 
counter narcotics activities account in order to fund important 
counter narcotics initiatives.

                   SUBTITLE C--DEPOT-LEVEL ACTIVITIES

                        Sections 321 through 330

Department of Defense depot maintenance and repair services

    The Department of Defense (DOD) annually expends 
approximately $13.0 billion for the maintenance and repair of 
military equipment. This includes the repair, rebuilding, and 
major overhaul of weapons systems, parts, assemblies, and 
subassemblies. It also includes limited manufacture of parts, 
technical support, modifications, testing, and reclamation as 
well as software maintenance. Current law (10 U.S.C. 2466) 
requires that each military service perform at least 60 percent 
of its annual depot maintenance in depots owned and operated by 
the Department of Defense. A separate provision of current law 
(10 U.S.C. 2469) requires a competition before the Department 
moves any work with an annual value in excess of $3.0 million 
from one public depot to another, or to a private contractor.
    The administration has requested that these provisions be 
repealed in order to provide the Department of Defense with 
greater flexibility to manage its depot maintenance workload in 
a more efficient manner. Some individuals have pointed to 
section 2466 of title 10, United States Code, commonly referred 
to as the 60/40 rule, as a particularly restrictive and 
arbitrary law which significantly restricts the Department's 
ability to manage its operations efficiently. However, others 
argue that this provision is necessary in order to ensure that 
the Department of Defense retains the capability to effectively 
maintain and repair vital weapons systems.
    Section 311 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 directed the Secretary of Defense to provide 
the Congress with a report outlining the depot policy which the 
Department would use, absent the restrictions referenced above, 
in managing its depot maintenance activities. Congress 
indicated that if the policy were acceptable, it would repeal 
sections 2466 and 2469.
    On April 4, 1996, the Department issued the required depot 
policy report. This report did not recommend any specific 
legislative proposals to implement the new depot maintenance 
policies. However, subsequent to the issue of the report the 
administration did propose legislation that would grant DOD 
blanket authority to contract out ``commercial and industrial 
type supplies and services'' including, but not limited to, 
depot maintenance, ``notwithstanding any provision of title 10, 
United States Code, or any statute authorizing appropriations 
for, or making appropriations for, the Department of Defense.''
    On April 17, 1996, the Subcommittee on Readiness held a 
hearing on the Department's proposed depot policy with Deputy 
Secretary of Defense John White, General Henry Viccellio, 
Commander of the Air Force Materiel Command, and witnesses from 
the General Accounting Office.
    Based on its review of the DOD depot policy report, the DOD 
legislative proposal, and the testimony presented by the 
Department at this hearing, the Committee concluded, with great 
disappointment, that the Department did not meet the 
requirements that the Congress laid out in last year's National 
Defense Authorization Act.
    The committee believes the Department's proposed depot 
policy was not well thought out in general and was not 
responsive to Congressional guidance on several important 
issues, such as the requirement to provide for full and open 
competition for all non-core workloads. Furthermore, the 
committee found the Department's request for a blanket waiver 
of all existing statutes unacceptable. While the committee 
believes that the Department needs to be given greater 
flexibility to manage its maintenance operations, the committee 
determined that it could not support the administration's 
proposed policy.
    Therefore, the committee does not approve the 
Administration's proposed policy regarding the management of 
DOD depot maintenance. However, the committee recommends a 
number of provisions relating to DOD depot maintenance that are 
intended to enhance flexibility and ensure the preservation of 
military readiness.

Department of Defense Performance of Core Logistics Functions

    The failure of the Department of Defense to clearly 
identify what workloads and capabilities it believes should be 
retained in public depots was one of the chief shortcomings of 
the DOD depot policy report. The committee recommends a 
provision that would strengthen the requirements of section 
2464 of title 10, United States Code, and reaffirm the policy 
outlined in section 311(d)(2) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 that requires DOD to 
perform core depot maintenance workloads in maintenance depots 
owned and operated by the Department of Defense.

Increase in Percentage Limitation on Contractor Performance of Depot-
        Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
current 60/40 rule regarding the public/private allocation of 
depot maintenance to 50/50, contingent upon the Department of 
Defense providing to the congressional defense committees a 
report outlining the Department's strategic plan for depot-
level maintenance and repair. This report, mandated by section 
325, would require, among other things, the Department to 
identify those depot-level maintenance and repair activities 
and workloads that are necessary to be performed within 
Department of Defense maintenance depots in order to maintain 
its core capabilities. It would also require the Department to 
provide the Congress an analysis of the cost savings that can 
be achieved through the outsourcing of depot maintenance work. 
The committee notes that although saving money was the major 
reason the Department of Defense cited for greater outsourcing, 
DOD provided no credible analysis of the savings that would 
result from the increased outsourcing of depot maintenance work 
that it proposed.
    The report would also require DOD to report on ways in 
which the public depots that remain after the conclusion of the 
BRAC process could be run more efficiently. The committee was 
disappointed that the Department's policy report did not 
emphasize maximizing or improving the productivity of the 
organic facilities and workforces that the Department manages. 
With respect to the management of depot personnel, the 
committee is concerned by reports that the Department continues 
to manage its depots by personnel levels rather than by 
workloads in violation of the requirements of sections 2466 and 
129 of title 10, United States Code.

Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workload Defined

    The committee recommends a provision that would codify the 
current definition of depot maintenance as prescribed by DOD 
Directive 4151.18. This section would also clarify the intent 
of the Congress that any services that are essentially the same 
as those DOD currently includes in its calculations for 
purposes of section 2466, including the depot maintenance 
portions of interim contractor support and contractor logistics 
support, are to be included in the calculations required to 
determine compliance with section 2466.
    This provision would not require funds spent by organic 
depots to purchase parts and supplies from private contractors 
to be counted as private sector depot maintenance funds for the 
purposes of section 2466. Furthermore, the amendment is not 
intended to reclassify any ship modernization activities or 
post-shakedown repairs on new naval vessels, currently funded 
in the shipbuilding and conversion account, as depot 
maintenance if those activities are not currently included in 
the calculations required by section 2466.
    The committee also recommends a provision, section 323, 
that would amend section 2466 of title 10, United States Code, 
by requiring the Secretary of Defense to provide an annual 
report to the Congress identifying the percentage of depot 
maintenance funds that were expended in the previous fiscal 
year in public depots and for private entities, and would also 
provide for a review of the DOD report by the General 
Accounting Office.

Annual Report on Competitive Procedures

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2469 of title 10, United States Code by requiring the 
Secretary of Defense to annually report to the Committee on 
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on National 
Security of the House of Representatives those procedures that 
will be used for competing workload between public and private 
sector suppliers of depot maintenance.
    The committee strongly endorses the principle of 
competition and is disappointed that the Department has refused 
to conduct public-private competitions for the past two years. 
If the Department wishes to take advantage of the increased 
flexibility to outsource depot maintenance work that would be 
provided by the revisions the committee is recommending to 
section 2466, it will have to reinstate public-private 
competitions.
    The committee will carefully monitor the procedures the 
Department uses to conduct future competitions, including the 
reports required by this section, to determine whether or not 
additional legislation is required.

Annual risk assessments regarding private performance of depot-level 
        maintenance work

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff to be involved in the decision making 
process regarding what depot maintenance work could be provided 
by private sector entities with minimal risk to military 
readiness. The provision would require that the Service Chiefs 
prepare for the Secretary of Defense a risk assessment of that 
depot maintenance workload that can be provided by the private 
sector, and that workload which should be maintained in public 
depots. The Secretary of Defense would then either concur with 
this report and forward it to the Congress or submit an 
alternative report together with his reasons for disagreeing 
with the report of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through fiscal year 1997 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 
services to bid on defense-related production and services.

Limitation on use of funds for F-18 aircraft depot maintenance

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to provide to the congressional defense 
committees a report outlining the results of a competition 
between all Department of Defense aviation depots to perform 
depot maintenance on F-18 aircraft. The Department would be 
restricted in obligating more than $5.0 million for this 
workload until 30 days after submission of this report. The 
committee is concerned with the problems identified by the 
General Accounting Office with respect to the previous 
competition for this work.

Depot maintenance and repair at facilities closed by BRAC

    The committee is concerned that the administration is 
pursuing a policy of privatizing depot maintenance workload at 
locations that were closed by the 1995 BRAC process without any 
demonstration that this decision would provide any advantages 
to the Department of Defense or to the American taxpayer. 
Despite repeated committee requests, the Department has failed 
to provide the analysis which supports this decision.
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the implementation of the administration's privatization-in-
place initiative, or any other outsourcing of the workloads 
currently performed at Kelly and McClellan AFBs, until the 
conclusion of a public-private competition for those workloads.
    The Department would be required to provide to the Congress 
a detailed cost comparison with respect to any such 
competitions as well as an analysis which demonstrates that the 
option selected would result in the best value to the American 
taxpayer. The committee will closely scrutinize the results of 
these competitions and expects a rigorous justification of any 
competition where the lowest bid was not selected.
    The administration should not construe this section as a 
statement by the committee that current law, including section 
2469, title 10 United States Code, does not already require 
competition with respect to privatization of these workloads.

New Weapons Systems

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
has recently changed longstanding policies regarding the need 
to maintain a core logistics capability and has recently 
established a preference for performing the maintenance of all 
new weapons systems in the private sector. Section 3.3.7 of DOD 
Regulation 5000.2 establishes a policy within DOD of maximizing 
the use of private sector maintenance for new weapons systems 
and states that waivers will be required to provide maintenance 
for new weapons systems in organic depots. This new policy is 
inconsistent with current law, inconsistent with the direction 
provided in section 311(d)(9) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, and might be 
inconsistent with our national security interests.
    The committee reemphasizes the direction stated in last 
year's conference report that DOD must maintain a core 
capability to maintain essential weapons systems in organic 
facilities and that this policy applies equally to current and 
new weapons systems.
    Since the new Department of Defense Regulation 5000.2 is 
inconsistent with congressional guidance with respect to the 
maintenance of new weapons systems, the committee expects the 
Department to issue revised regulations consistent with the 
policy contained in this section and with the requirements of 
Chapter 146 of title 10, United States Code.

Capacity Utilization

    The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 
has not provided the Congress with adequate information 
concerning the capacity utilization of the Department's organic 
depot maintenance facilities. The committee expects the 
Department to make every effort to achieve efficient 
utilization of its organic depots. Inefficient utilization of 
these facilities is unwise and unfair to the taxpayers. The 
committee reminds the Department that section 2466 of title 10, 
United States Code, provides the Department with the latitude 
to utilize the organic depots in an efficient manner and the 
committee expects the Department to exercise this discretion in 
a manner that minimizes the overall cost of the Department's 
depot maintenance program.
    The committee notes that much of the current excess 
capacity at public depots could be leased to private companies 
for the purpose of carrying out commercial activities. 
Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to make 
use of the authority provided by section 2471 of title 10, 
United States Code, to reduce the amount of excess capacity at 
public depots.

                  SUBTITLE D--ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS

Section 341. Establishment of separate environmental restoration 
        transfer accounts for each military department.

    In a memorandum dated May 3, 1995, the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense announced a proposal to devolve the Defense 
Environmental Restoration Account (DERA), a single transfer 
account administered by the Department of Defense, to four 
separate transfer accounts administered by each of the military 
departments. The execution of the Deputy Secretary of Defense's 
proposal would require modification of the DERA statutory 
framework.
    The Statement of Managers accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 requested a report on 
the subject of devolution of DERA based on concerns regarding 
congressional oversight. The Department has since responded to 
the reporting requirement and submitted a legislative proposal 
that would devolve DERA to the military departments. 
Information contained in the report has addressed the 
committee's concerns. As a result, the committee recommends a 
provision that devolves DERA.

Section 342. Defense contractors covered by requirement for reports on 
        contractor reimbursement costs for response actions.

    Section 2706 of title 10, United States Code, requires the 
Department of Defense to submit an annual report to Congress 
that describes the reimbursement of environmental response 
action costs, and the amount and status of pending requests for 
reimbursement for the top 100 defense contractors. The 
administration has proposed that the law be amended to limit 
data collection to the top 20 defense contractors.
    The Department of Defense maintains that the current 
reporting requirement is burdensome to the Department and to 
contractors, diverting limited resources for data collection 
with minimal benefit to the procurement process. The committee 
supports the proposed modification. The new provision would 
capture most contractor reimbursements for environmental 
response action costs, and eliminate the unnecessarily 
burdensome aspects of the reporting requirement.

Section 343. Repeal of redundant notification and consultation 
        requirements regarding remedial investigations and feasibility 
        studies at certain installations to be closed under the base 
        closure laws.

    Section 334 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 establishes deadlines for the 
completion of draft final remedial investigations and 
feasibility studies (RI/FS) at certain Department of Defense 
installations selected for closure that are on the National 
Priorities List (See Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
seq.)). Section 334 provides the Secretary of Defense with the 
discretion to extend deadlines by six months, after 
consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and if 
certain conditions exist. The extension takes effect 30 days 
after congressional notification. Section 334 was intended to 
address concerns related to delays of environmental cleanup 
actions at closing installations.
    Delays in the completion of a draft final RI/FS may be 
attributable to a number of unpredictable factors that are 
inherent to environmental cleanup: newly discovered areas or 
sites requiring cleanup action; technical engineering 
difficulties; and inadequate funding. While section 334 
provides a framework for documenting the reasons for delay, it 
does not prevent the unanticipated events that slow the cleanup 
process. The administration has proposed legislation that would 
repeal section 334.
    The committee supports the administration's proposed 
provision. The periodic notification and formal consultation 
requirements divert project management resources away from site 
cleanup goals and priorities. Elimination of the provision 
would reduce red tape and serve to accelerate the cleanup and 
transfer of closing bases.

Section 344. Payment of certain stipulated civil penalties.

Federal Facility Agreements

    The Department of Defense (DOD) has entered into Federal 
Facility Agreements (FFAs) with environmental regulators for 
installations that are on or proposed for inclusion on the 
National Priorities List. FFAs are typically three party 
agreements that involve a DOD installation, the State, and the 
regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 
FFAs establish schedules and milestones for the completion of 
actions related to environmental cleanup of DOD installations. 
The agreements are intended to establish a working relationship 
between DOD and the regulators to facilitate site cleanup. The 
FFAs allow for dispute resolution and the use of stipulated 
penalties in the event of missed deadlines. However, stipulated 
penalties are not available if a delay is the result of an 
unforeseen disruptive or force majeure event.
    Payment of stipulated penalties is contingent upon 
authorization and appropriation. Subsequent to authorization 
and appropriation, stipulated penalties are paid out of the 
Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA), resulting in 
the diversion of scarce dollars from actual cleanup. The result 
is that these funds are transferred from one agency 
appropriation to another, distorting the cleanup priorities 
established by Congress in the authorization and appropriation 
process.
    The committee is concerned that there may be an increased 
emphasis on stipulated penalties. The committee expects that 
the parties to FFAs will focus on the evolving partnership 
aspect of their relationship and work out their differences in 
a manner that avoids assessment of penalties or the need for 
supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) performed in 
satisfaction of an assessment. If that is not possible, 
negotiated settlements of stipulated penalties should be 
resolved at a level commensurate with formal dispute resolution 
to ensure these issues are handled in a consistent and reasoned 
manner. Moreover, when a penalty or SEP is part of a negotiated 
settlement, the Department must request specific authorization 
and appropriation of funds for the payment. Finally, the 
military departments must be mindful of the statutory 
limitations associated with the use of DERA funds (10 U.S.C. 
2703).

Request and Authorization

    Payment of the following requested fines and penalties is 
authorized, consistent with the legislative funding direction, 
as follows: Fort Riley, Kansas, $34,000 penalty; Loring AFB, 
Maine, $50,000 penalty; F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming, $10,000 
penalty; Massachusetts Military Reservation, Massachusetts, 
$55,000 penalty, $500,000 for a groundwater modeling SEP; and 
the Naval Education and Training Center, Newport, Rhode Island, 
$30,000 penalty.

Section 345. Authority to withhold listing of Federal facilities on 
        National Priorities List.

    Current law does not specifically provide the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) with the discretion to defer placement 
of a federal facility site on the National Priorities List 
(NPL) when a site meets the criteria set forth in the hazardous 
ranking system. Section 120(d) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) 
of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(d)) requires NPL listing of federal 
facilities, when determined appropriate, if a preliminary 
assessment demonstrates that the site meets the eligibility 
standards contained in section 105 of CERCLA. The EPA has 
narrowly construed these provisions of law to mean that a 
federal facility site must be listed on the NPL if a 
preliminary assessment indicates that the site meets the 
hazardous ranking system threshold. In relation to private 
sites, the EPA has been willing to use a more flexible approach 
that considers extenuating factors, such as cleanup actions 
completed pursuant to other State or Federal authorities.
    Many of the federal facilities that are susceptible to NPL 
listing have ongoing cleanup actions that are subject to State 
authority. NPL listing of a State controlled federal facility 
cleanup triggers an additional regulatory regime that conforms 
cleanup activities to federal requirements, resulting in 
duplication and reorientation of cleanup efforts. The disparate 
treatment of federal facilities causes unnecessary delays and 
increases the overall cost to complete cleanup. The 
administration submitted a legislative proposal to address this 
issue.
    The committee recommends a provision that would give EPA 
the specific authority to withhold NPL listing if the federal 
facility cleanup action is already subject to a legitimate 
Federal or State regulatory scheme. It is expected that the EPA 
would not impose NPL listing unless it is demonstrated that the 
continued use of existing oversight authority is an impediment 
to cleanup.
    The provision would not affect those facilities already on 
the NPL. It is intended to apply to facilities that have not 
yet been ranked.

Section 346. Authority to transfer contaminated Federal property before 
        completion of required remedial actions.

    Section 120(h)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (42 
U.S.C. 9620) requires the completion of the construction and 
installation of an approved remedial design, and a 
demonstration that the remedy is operating properly and 
successfully prior to the transfer of contaminated federal 
property. It may take several years to successfully construct, 
install, and demonstrate the operation of a remedial action.
    The current law serves to delay transfer of Department of 
Defense (DOD) installations designated for closure, further 
exacerbating problems associated with economic reuse. Moreover, 
transfers of federal facilities are treated differently from 
those in the private sector, where contaminated property is 
transferred subject to a purchase agreement that identifies the 
remedial liabilities of the parties. The administration has 
submitted a legislative proposal that would eliminate the 
disparate treatment of public sector transfers of contaminated 
property.
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 120(h)(3)(B) to allow the United States to enter into 
agreements that would ensure appropriate remedial actions are 
undertaken subsequent to the transfer of federal property. The 
agreement would be similar to the purchase agreements used in 
the private sector, with the additional element of regulatory 
participation.
    The new provision would facilitate early transfer of 
property at closing DOD installations. The rapid turnover of 
such property would enhance the potential for economic 
redevelopment.

Section 347. Clarification of meaning of uncontaminated property for 
        purposes of transfer by the United States.

    Section 120(h)(4)(A) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 (42 
U.S.C. 9620(h)) excludes from clean parcel determinations 
property where hazardous materials were stored, regardless of 
whether a release occurred. Without any apparent relationship 
to human health and the environment, the provision has 
effectively hampered the Department of Defense's ability to 
transfer uncontaminated property.
    The administration has submitted a legislative proposal 
that would enable the Department to facilitate the expeditious 
transfer of clean parcels on closing installations, 
facilitating economic reuse. The committee recommends a 
provision that is consistent with the administration proposal.

Section 348. Shipboard solid waste control.

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1994, section 1003, amended the Act to Prevent Pollution from 
Ships (APPS) (33 U.S.C. 1901, et. seq.) by requiring the Navy 
to submit a plan to Congress by November 1996 that addresses 
compliance with the prohibition against discharging solid waste 
(paper, cardboard, metal, and glass) in ``special areas'' (the 
Baltic Seas, the North Sea, Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, the 
Persian Gulf, and the Antarctic Ocean). The APPS, as amended, 
implements Annex V of the International Convention for the 
Prevention of Pollution on Ships (MARPOL).
    The amended APPS specifically requires the Navy to: (1) 
Install plastics processors aboard U.S. Navy surface ships by 
December 31, 1998; (2) comply with the prohibition on plastics 
discharges for submarines by December 31, 2008; (3) comply with 
the prohibition on discharges of other solid waste (except food 
waste) in special areas from surface ships by December 31, 
2000; and (4) comply with the prohibition on discharges of 
other solid waste (except food waste) in special areas from 
submarines by December 31, 2008. The APPS provides that the 
Navy plan must specifically identify the extent to which full 
compliance is not technologically feasible.
    The Navy is in the process of completing a draft special 
area plan, which will undergo public review and comment. 
Following submission of the Navy's special area plan to 
Congress, it is expected that the Secretary of the Navy will 
issue the directives necessary to implement the plan. These 
directives will address hardware installation requirements and 
shipboard solid waste management practices.
    Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et. seq.), the Navy is expected to 
release a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) in May 
1996, and a record of decision (ROD) in November 1996. The Navy 
has identified the use of paper/cardboard pulpers and metal/
glass shredders as the preferred alternative for special area 
shipboard solid waste management.
    The Navy has analyzed technologies and management practices 
for special area compliance. According to the Navy, full 
compliance with APPS could be achieved, as follows: 
installation of incinerators, at a fleet-wide cost of about 
$1.2 billion; or garbage compaction and retrograde for shore 
disposal, at a fleet-wide cost of about $1.1 billion.
    The Navy has informed the committee that incinerator 
installation would significantly degrade operations through 
displacement of existing ship systems and addition of 
significant weight. Garbage compaction and retrograde would 
severely degrade operational capability through displacement of 
existing ship systems for processing and storage rooms, 
increased dependence on garbage collection ships, and further 
burden garbage reception facilities domestically and overseas.
    The Navy has determined that full compliance with APPS 
through the use of other possible technologies, such as plasma 
arc pyrolysis and supercritical water oxidation, is not 
possible because such technologies have not yet been 
sufficiently developed for shipboard application. The Navy will 
continue to review these technologies for future applications.
    According to the Navy, full compliance with MARPOL could be 
achieved through the use of pulpers and shredders in special 
areas, at a fleet-wide cost of about $300.0 million. 
Installation of pulpers and shredders would actually enhance 
operational capability by enabling shipboard discharge of 
pulped garbage during heavy weather and flight operations. At 
present, discharges of unprocessed garbage are currently 
prohibited for safety reasons during heavy weather and flight 
operations. The Navy's use of pulpers and shredders worldwide, 
regardless of area designation, would minimize shipboard waste 
washup on beaches. Moreover, studies commissioned by the Navy 
indicate that pulper and shredder discharges would have no 
adverse environmental impacts.
    The administration has requested legislation that would 
amend section 1902 of the APPS to allow for the use 
of pulpers and shredders to dispose of non-plastic and non-
floating solid waste within MARPOL Annex V special use areas. 
The adoption of the pulper and shredder technology would ensure 
environmental protection, shipboard quality of life, 
operational capability, and affordability. Although the pulper 
and shredder approach is entirely consistent with the 
obligations of the United States under international law, such 
discharges are not permitted under the APPS.
    The Navy must be prepared to carry out duties assigned by 
the President to protect the nation's interests around the 
world. Most of the designated special areas include locations 
of great strategic and economic interest. Navy missions in such 
areas often require that ships remain at sea for prolonged 
periods of time. Thus, the special area compliance plan must 
consider impacts on mission effectiveness and operational 
flexibility. The special area compliance plan must be 
compatible with warship design. Navy ships are designed to 
maximize mission performance, especially combat missions. Ships 
are self-contained units with severe limits on space, weight, 
and power requirements for onboard equipment.
    In the committee's judgment, the administration's 
legislative proposal would preserve operational capability, 
shipboard quality of life, and the environment. The committee 
recommends a provision that would incorporate the 
administration's request.

Section 349. Cooperative agreements for the management of cultural 
        resources on military installations.

    The Sikes Act (Public Law 99-561) authorizes the Secretary 
of Defense to plan, develop, maintain, and coordinate wildlife 
conservation and rehabilitation efforts on Department of 
Defense (DOD) installations through the use of cooperative 
agreements. Cooperative agreements are an essential instrument 
used to enter into partnerships with other Federal, State, and 
local governments, or other entities to share personnel and 
fiscal resources for the mutual benefit of all participating 
parties.
    In the absence of specific statutory authority, the 
military departments have been reluctant to enter into such 
cooperative agreements for the management of cultural 
resources. The administration has submitted a legislative 
proposal that would resolve such concerns and would serve to 
enhance cultural resource stewardship on DOD lands. The 
committee recommends a provision that is consistent with the 
administration position. The proposal has no budgetary impact 
for the DOD.

Section 350. Report on withdrawal of public lands at El Centro Naval 
        Air Facility, California.

    The Navy requested a withdrawal of public lands at El 
Centro Naval Air Facility, California. The issue is addressed 
in the administration's legislative proposal. The committee has 
not had sufficient time to review the withdrawal request. The 
committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress to address 
that concern.

Section 351. Use of hunting and fishing permit fees collected at closed 
        military reservations.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 670(a) of title 16, United States Code, commonly known 
as the ``Sikes Act'', to authorize the transfer of fees 
collected on a closing military installation for hunting and 
fishing permits. The provision would allow the transfer of 
those fees collected at a closing installation to another open 
installation for the conservation purposes expressed in the 
Act.

                       SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS

Section 361. Firefighting and security-guard functions at facilities 
        leased by the Government.

    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 
current prohibition on contracting for firefighting and 
security-guard services. This provision would amend the current 
authority by making it clear that the Department of Defense may 
contract with non-federal employees for these services if they 
are to be carried out at a private facility at which a federal 
government activity is located pursuant to a lease of the 
facility to the Government.
    The committee understands that the flexibility of the 
Department to efficiently manage small operations which are not 
collocated with other DOD operations is constrained by current 
law. This law forces the DOD to maintain excess and unnecessary 
in-house federal providers at locations where these services 
are already available through private or other public 
providers. Therefore, the committee has determined that in 
those situations where the Department has an operation located 
in a commercial facility, the Department can rely on private or 
local government providers of firefighting and security 
services.

Section 362. Authorized use of recruiting funds.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the expenditure of appropriated funds during a five year period 
to provide refreshments at recruiting functions for members of 
the Delayed Entry Program, other prospects, and community 
leaders. The provision requires an annual report on the amounts 
used for this purpose and an evaluation of the effectiveness of 
the program.

Section 363. Noncompetitive procurement of brand-name commercial items 
        for resale in commissary stores.

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the use of noncompetitive procedures to procure brand-name 
commercial items for resale in commissary stores unless the 
commercial item is available for sale outside commissary stores 
under the same brand-name.

Section 364. Administration of midshipmen's store and other Naval 
        Academy support activities as nonappropriated fund 
        instrumentalities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the conversion of all midshipmen trust fund operations that 
support the Naval Academy and the Brigade of Midshipmen to 
nonappropriated fund status. The activities include: the 
Midshipmen's Store; the Naval Academy Dairy Farm; the 
Midshipmen Barber, Cobbler, and Tailor Shops; and the Naval 
Academy Laundry. The recommended provision will give the Naval 
Academy support activities the same status as those of the 
other service academies.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy and the 
Superintendent of the Naval Academy to ensure the equitable and 
humanitarian treatment of the employees of these activities and 
any benefits which may have accrued to them as the activities 
are converted to nonappropriated fund instrumentalities.

Section 365. Assistance to committees involved in inauguration of the 
        President.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2543 of title 10, United States Code, to allow the 
Secretary of Defense to provide safety, security, and 
ceremonial assistance to the presidential inaugural committee. 
The Secretary would also be authorized to provide other 
assistance deemed appropriate but only if done on a 
reimbursable basis.
    The committee expects that assistance provided by the 
Secretary of Defense to the presidential inaugural committee 
will be done only if such assistance is not readily available 
from commercial sources at a reasonable price. Furthermore, the 
committee expects that such assistance which is provided will 
not replace or duplicate support readily available from other 
government agencies.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee 
on National Security of the House of Representatives a report 
outlining those guidelines which the Secretary issues for 
support of inaugural activities. This report should be 
submitted no later than March 31 of the year preceding each 
Presidential inauguration.

Section 366. Department of Defense support for sporting events.

    The committee is concerned with the increasing level of 
support which the Department of Defense has provided to 
civilian sporting events on a non-reimbursable basis. It is 
estimated that the Department will expend $50.0 million for 
support to the 1996 Summer Olympics and Paralympics.
    While the committee understands the valuable security 
assistance that the Department can provide to state and local 
governments during special events which are expected to 
overwhelm the capabilities of these entities, the committee is 
concerned with the increasing share of a declining defense 
budget which these events absorb. Therefore, the committee 
recommends a provision which would direct the Secretary of 
Defense to provide assistance for security and safety to 
civilian sporting events only after entering into an agreement 
with the entity responsible for organizing the event. This 
agreement should provide for reimbursement of costs incurred by 
the Department of Defense for such assistance. The 
reimbursement to be provided by the responsible entity shall 
include expenses incurred by the Department of Defense for 
support provided to local government organizations for event 
related essential security and safety services. However, the 
responsible entity shall not be required to pay any 
reimbursement to the Department of Defense in excess of the 
surplus funds available after all other event related expenses 
have been paid. The requirement for a reimbursement would not 
apply to the Special Olympics, Paralympics, or events for which 
funds have already been appropriated.

Section 367. Renovation of building for Defense Finance and Accounting 
        Service Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana.

    With the closure of Fort Benjamin Harrison, the Department 
transferred the Indianapolis Center of the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service, located in Building 1, to the General 
Services Administration. GSA intended to undertake a complete 
renovation of the building and move other government activities 
in the Indianapolis area into Building 1. Funding constraints 
have prevented GSA from programming the necessary resources.
    On their current schedule, GSA will be unable to provide 
renovation funding for Building 1 until 1999, which effectively 
defers the start of renovation until the next century. Working 
with GSA, the Department has developed a concept for an 
accelerated renovation program utilizing DOD funds, which would 
be rebated by GSA through subsequent rent reductions. The 
committee supports this concept and has included a provision 
that would authorize DOD to transfer operating funds to GSA for 
purposes of renovating Building 1. The committee recommends an 
authorization of $9.0 million in fiscal year 1997 to initiate 
the design phase of the renovation project.

                                  Army

Army strategic mobility

    The committee notes that strategic mobility is increasingly 
important to U.S. military forces. The committee is concerned 
that, although prepositioning is one of the top priorities of 
the U.S. Army, insufficient funds are provided by the 1997 
budget for the transload of the prepositioned stocks from the 
interim Roll-On/Roll-Off (RO/RO) ships to the Large Medium 
Speed Roll-On/Roll-Off Ships (LMSR), deployment infrastructure 
repairs/upgrades, and deployment training.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $27.0 
million to complete the transload of prepositioned stocks from 
six RO/ROs to four LMSRs.

Ammunition management

    The committee is concerned that current budget constraints 
have forced the Army to reduce funding for the processing, 
issuing, and receiving of ammunition. The fiscal year 1997 
budget provides only 53 percent of the requirement for these 
activities. The committee is concerned that the Army will be 
forced to shift funds from other accounts in order to fully 
fund the remaining requirements.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 
million for the management of ammunition in order to provide 
sufficient funds for this program and ensure the protection of 
other high priority programs. The additional funding will allow 
the Army to fund some of its remaining high priority projects.

End Item Materiel Management Program

    The committee is concerned that System Technical Support 
(STS) for all post-production major weapons systems is funded 
at 70 percent of critical requirements in fiscal year 1997. STS 
is the post-production sustainment phase of the integrated 
logistics support life-cycle of a weapon system. STS 
encompasses the engineering and design involved in 
configuration management; engineering change proposals; 
technical data packages which constitute a system's 
specification database; technical manuals; modification work 
orders; depot maintenance work requests; production 
improvements; testing; stockpile reliability; and logistics 
assistance and contractor field service representatives to the 
field soldier.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 
million to fund requirements including: (1) Apache, contracts 
for design and modernizations, fatigue testing; (2) Kiowa, 
Force XXI planned improvements for Embedded Global Positioning 
Integration, Improved Computer Processing Units, and Improved 
Data Modem Standard Improvements ground to air communications; 
and (3) Abrams, testing of nuclear hardening components, 
software updates for test sets, live fire, and engine fire.

Power Projection C4I

    The Power Projection C4 Infrastructure (PPC4I) is an 
initiative to upgrade the telecommunications infrastructure at 
Army installations to ensure it supports power projection and 
other operations. This initiative will synchronize the upgrades 
of existing infrastructure components to reduce the cost and 
disruption at military installations, and to prepare for the 
arrival of software programs whose data transmissions require 
enhanced communications capability.
    The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for 
this important effort.

                                  Navy

Intermediate maintenance

    The committee is concerned with the level of intermediate 
maintenance that is unfunded in the fiscal year 1997 budget 
request. This maintenance is normally accomplished by Navy 
Intermediate Maintenance Activities (IMAs). IMAs perform those 
maintenance, repair, overhaul, installation, quality assurance, 
calibration, testing, and related functions on hull, 
mechanical, electrical, and combat equipment systems which are 
beyond the capability or capacity of ship personnel. The fiscal 
year 1997 budget funds only 85.7 percent of the requirement for 
ship and submarine maintenance.
    The committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million to 
the Navy operation and maintenance accounts in order to ensure 
that required maintenance can be performed.

Ship depot maintenance

    The committee is concerned with the continuing backlog in 
ship depot maintenance. The committee is aware that budget 
constraints in the fiscal year 1997 budget request have forced 
the Navy to delay the maintenance of two CG-47 class cruisers. 
The committee is concerned that the cost of this maintenance 
could increase if current problems go uncorrected for another 
year.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $52.0 
million for ship depot maintenance in order to provide funding 
to the two CG-47 class cruiser overhauls now in backlog.

Active and reserve component P-3 squadrons

    The services of P-3 squadrons have historically been 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 composed of 13 active and 9 
reserve squadrons (13/9). The budget request reflected the 
Navy's resource-constrained plans to reduce MPA force structure 
to 20 squadrons composed of 12 active and 8 reserve (12/8).
    The committee believes MPA make an invaluable contribution 
to surveillance, antisurface, and antisubmarine warfare 
missions. The committee also recognizes that MPA are ideally 
suited to a variety of littoral warfare missions.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $45.3 
million above the budget request to sustain the MPA force 
structure at 13/9 in fiscal year 1997.

                              Marine Corps

Personnel support equipment

    The committee recommends an increase of $35.7 million in 
the operation and maintenance accounts for the Marine Corps and 
Marine Corps Reserve to purchase items of individual combat 
clothing and equipment. This will help provide Marines in the 
field with the clothing and equipment they need to survive and 
sustain themselves during combat operations.

Corrosion prevention and control

    The naval environment in which the Marine Corps operates 
creates special problems in maintaining military equipment. 
Recently, the First Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) identified 
over 8,500 principal end items requiring maintenance because of 
the effects of corrosion. The current Marine Corps' funding 
level is based on the assumption that the fleet can conduct 
sufficient maintenance on all of its equipment. However, the 
reality is that this is not being accomplished because of 
OPTEMPO, personnel, equipment and vehicle non-availability and 
other additional resource requirements levied against the MEFs 
for contingency operations.
    Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million for the Corrosion Prevention and Control program 
managed by the Marine Corps Systems Command.

Ammunition rework

    The ammunition rework line or maintenance program provides 
for hands-on maintenance and refurbishment of conventional 
ground ammunition stocks. This program provides for significant 
cost avoidance in new procurement by restoring items to a 
serviceable condition code for training and war reserve use. 
The average return on investment is approximately 22 to 1. In 
addition, maintenance lead times are usually far shorter than 
procurement.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to 
provide technical support for the renovation of designated 
items and restoration for full service use, ensuring continued 
safety and reliability of the ammunition stockpile.

Joint task force headquarters deployable communications support

    The committee is concerned with the inadequate 
communications bandwidth necessary to support the Joint Task 
Force Headquarters while deployed to a theater of operation. 
Current military satellite communications (SATCOM) assets are 
not able to provide the data rates required by the new Marine 
Air-Ground Task Force C4I System.
    The committee understands that there is a contract 
available to purchase a commercial SATCOM system capable of 
providing the necessary bandwidth; however, there is 
insufficient funding for training and connectivity expenses. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 
to support training and connectivity expenses for the 
Commandant's Planning Guidance initiative for JTF Headquarters.

Commandant's warfighting laboratory

    In October, 1995, the Commandant's Warfighting Laboratory 
was established at the Marine Corps Combat Development Command 
at Quantico, Virginia, and charged with implementing the ``Sea 
Dragon'' experimental process to develop enhanced operational 
concepts, tactics, techniques, procedures and doctrine. 
Unfortunately, funding was not provided in the President's 
budget request for fiscal year 1997 because that request was 
crafted prior to the creation of this center. Therefore, the 
committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million to provide for 
travel, per diem, equipment maintenance, and other associated 
costs for Phase I and Phase II experiments of the Combat 
Development Command during fiscal year 1997.

                               Air Force

AWACS Extend Sentry

    Extend Sentry is an aggressive sustainment approach to take 
the E-3 AWACS program into the 21st century by decreasing 
aborts and addressing reliability, maintainability and 
availability issues. The committee recommends an increase of 
$7.1 million in operations and maintenance funding in order to 
accelerate the Extend Sentry program in fiscal year 1997. This 
funding will enable the Air Force to replace highly corrosive 
magnesium parts and mid-spar supports, and to inspect and 
repair antenna pedestals and perform other important tasks.

Air Force depot maintenance

    In fiscal year 1997, the backlog in Air Force depot 
maintenance will increase from approximately $248.0 million to 
$268.0 million. The committee is concerned with the continuing 
growth in the backlog of Air Force depot maintenance. 
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $41.2 
million to Air Force depot maintenance to help reverse this 
trend.

                              Defense-Wide

Homeless support initiative

    The budget request includes $3.5 million for the Homeless 
Support Initiative. The committee notes that section 2546 of 
title 10, United States Code, allows the 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 
modernization programs, such as the Armored Gun System, have 
been canceled because of a lack of funds. Therefore, the 
committee believes that providing $3.5 million 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. Therefore, the committee 
recommends a reduction of $3.5 million.

Federal Energy Management Program

    The budget request included $116.8 million for the Federal 
Energy Management Program. This represents a growth of $86.8 
million from the fiscal year 1996 level of spending for this 
program. While the committee believes in the importance of 
conserving energy at the nation's military facilities, it does 
not believe that energy conservation activities needs to be 
directed from a central organization when base commanders are 
in the best position to identify the most important needs of 
each facility. The committee notes that the Department of 
Defense has transferred responsibility for this program to the 
military services without providing the services with 
additional operations and maintenance funding.
    Therefore, the committee authorizes $20.0 million for the 
Federal Energy Management Program and transfers the remaining 
funds to the services real property maintenance accounts.

Office of the Secretary of Defense

    The committee is concerned that funding for the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense is absorbing too large a portion of 
the Defense budget. This imbalance in the ``tooth-to-tail'' 
ratio is resulting in a military establishment that has a 
decreasing warfighting capability relative to its increasing 
bureaucracy. The committee notes that the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 directed that the Office 
of the Secretary be reduced by 25 percent over a five year 
period, or 5 percent a year. However, once again, as the total 
defense budget has declined by 6 percent from its 1996 level of 
spending, the budget for this office has increased.
    The committee has reduced the authorization for the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense by $20.4 million or 6 percent from 
its fiscal year 1996 authorization.

Civilian personnel levels

    The committee notes that the Department of Defense civilian 
personnel drawdown continues faster than expected. During the 
past several years, civilian personnel levels in the Department 
of Defense have been reduced faster than anticipated when the 
budgets for each succeeding fiscal year were drafted. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that this drawdown means 
lower-than-budgeted civilian personnel levels, resulting in 
savings of approximately $430.0 million during fiscal year 
1997. The committee has made the appropriate adjustments in the 
fiscal year 1997 budget to reflect these savings.

Real property maintenance

    The committee is concerned with the continuing growth in 
the backlog of real property maintenance (RPM) throughout the 
Department of Defense. If this necessary maintenance continues 
to go unfunded, the Department will be faced with even larger 
costs to repair damages caused by inclement weather and other 
environmental conditions. Therefore, the committee authorizes 
increases to the services operations and maintenance accounts 
for real property maintenance, in the following amounts:

                                                              (Millions)
Army.............................................................. $32.5
Navy..............................................................  36.1
Air Force.........................................................  33.9
Marine Corps......................................................  15.0
Army Reserve......................................................  10.0
Air Force Reserve.................................................   5.0
Army National Guard...............................................  10.0

    In relation to the total amount of increases, $96.8 million 
is the result of a transfer of funds from the Federal Energy 
Management Program. In using these funds, the military services 
are encouraged to give special consideration to maintenance 
projects which will reduce the consumption of energy.
    In addition, the committee is concerned about reports that 
Guard and Reserve forces must often draw on RPM funds in order 
to pay for unfunded contingency operations. The Secretary of 
Defense is encouraged to prevent these practices from 
decreasing the amount of RPM funds available for important 
maintenance projects.

Operation and maintenance, Special Operations Command

    The committee recommends an increase of $15.3 million to 
the operation and maintenance account of the Special Operations 
Command in order to fund the following: flying hours program 
($3.4 million); depot-level repairables, parts and supplies 
($2.0 million); aircrew training system ($3.4 million); SCAMPI 
communications support ($2.5 million); steaming hour program 
for patrol coastal craft ($2.0 million); and counter-
proliferation equipment ($2.0 million).

                        Other Items of Interest

United States Army marksmanship units

    The committee understands that the Department of the Army 
has the unique opportunity to purchase an electronic target 
system for half of its value. This system electronically scores 
each shot fired at a specific target. It provides immediate 
scoring feedback to shooters. If the Army were to acquire this 
system for use at U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit (USAMU) ranges, 
it would be a major enhancement to the competitive shooting 
program of the Total Army. Furthermore, acquisition of this 
system would save the Army over $175,000 of annual travel 
expenses.
    The committee believes that this system would enhance the 
Army's marksmanship program. The committee urges the Secretary 
of the Army to consider using available funds to purchase this 
system.

Quality of Life and the Military Traffic Management Command's Re-
        engineering Personal Property Initiative Pilot Program

    The committee is concerned about the quality of service 
provided by some moving and storage companies when moving the 
personal property of military families undergoing Permanent 
Change of Station (PCS) moves. The committee has become 
increasingly concerned by the number of instances in which 
household goods are damaged by movers and by those who provide 
storage services for in-transit household goods.
    The day-to-day requirements of military service are 
sufficiently taxing on service members and their families that 
they should not have to worry about damage to their personal 
property. Change of station moves, though necessary, are 
inherently disruptive to family life. To tolerate, and pay for, 
a system that provides a level of service to military families 
that would be unacceptable to civilian families is incompatible 
with the emphasis placed on improving the military Quality of 
Life by the Secretary of Defense and the Congress. Service 
members and their families who comply with PCS orders should 
have confidence that their household goods will arrive in the 
correct location, on time, and in the conditions in which they 
were when the move originated. The committee does not believe 
that such is now the case.
    At the same time, however, the committee is concerned that 
the Military Traffic Management Command's Re-engineering 
Personal Property Initiative Pilot Program will not adequately 
address the concerns of the small moving companies which make 
up much of this industry. The committee understands that the 
Department needs to proceed with this initiative; however, the 
committee believes that it is important to address the concerns 
of the small businesses which will be providing moving services 
to military personnel.
    Regarding the quality of service provided to military 
personnel, the committee directs the Department of Defense to 
conduct, or include as part of any ongoing review, an analysis 
of the following:
          (1) damage rates for military moves vis-a-vis 
        industry norms and the extent to which claims for lost 
        or damaged household goods reflect differences among 
        moving and/or storage companies based on geography, 
        company size, distance of moves, or other identifiable 
        categories;
          (2) the methods used by the Department of Defense to 
        ensure moving and/or storage companies exercise 
        sufficient care and genuine concern for the property 
        entrusted to them;
          (3) the processes used to reimburse service members 
        for lost or missing household goods in terms of equity, 
        timeliness, and administrative burden; and
          (4) the responsibility of moving and/or storage 
        companies for payment for lost or damaged household 
        goods, including a comparison of Department of 
        Defense's procedures to industry norms and any 
        recommended changes in the procedures of the Department 
        of Defense.
    These matters are to be included in a report to the 
congressional defense committees by April 1, 1997. The report 
should include recommendations for enhancing the quality of 
moving and storage service, including changes in contractor 
liability, monetary sanctions for unacceptable performance, and 
improved systems to monitor contractor performance.
    Regarding the effect of the Military Traffic Management 
Command's Re-engineering Personal Property Initiative Pilot 
Program on small moving companies, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to establish a working group of military 
and industry representatives to develop an alternative pilot 
program and submit the program to the congressional defense 
committees by July 15, 1996 for review. The committee notes 
that the Department of Defense does not intend to implement its 
current pilot program until August 1996. The committee urges 
the Department to maintain its planned implementation schedule 
which will allow the working group of military and industry 
representatives to provide the Congress with any alternative 
plans that they develop.
    The committee further directs that the working group shall 
review any pilot program as it proceeds and recommend solutions 
to problems that might emerge. Further, the committee directs 
the General Accounting Office to review the pilot program and 
any alternative approaches that industry or others may provide, 
and report to the congressional defense committees the results 
of its analysis by March 31, 1998. The committee directs the 
Department to refrain from expansion of the pilot program until 
30 days after the submission of the General Accounting Office 
report.

Aquifer study at Fallon Naval Air Station

    The recent drought conditions in and around Fallon Naval 
Air Station have fractured the aquifer which is the primary 
source of water for that area. This has caused a drop in water 
levels and has resulted in increased concentration of heavy 
metals such as arsenic in the water. The committee encourages 
the Navy to undertake a study of this situation, in partnership 
with the relevant state and local governmental entities, to 
examine the severity of this problem and to recommend 
alternative courses of action.

Exclusion of uncontaminated parcels from the national priorities list

    Sections 120(d) and 120(h)(4) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Recovery Act (CERCLA) 
of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620) do not specifically distinguish 
between contaminated and uncontaminated parcels identified at 
Federal facilities on the National Priorities List (NPL) for 
purposes of determining whether listing of the entire facility 
is appropriate. The current law has been implemented by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a manner that 
effectively results in a fence-to-fence listing of a federal 
facility on the NPL without any consideration of the 
uncontaminated parcels identified within its boundaries. The 
impact of that interpretation has been to discourage transfer 
of clean parcels at facilities designated for closure.
    The committee is very concerned about the manner in which 
sections 120(d) and 120(h)(4) have been implemented by the EPA. 
There should be no need for a statutory solution. The committee 
expects the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, 
and the EPA to work together to resolve this issue in a manner 
that will allow uncontaminated parcels to be excluded from NPL 
listing of federal facilities. That exclusion will facilitate 
the transfer of uncontaminated portions of closing 
installations by avoiding the stigma of NPL listing.

Kaho'olawe cleanup

    The Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 1994 directed the conveyance of approximately 28,000 acres 
encompassing Kaho'olawe Island and surrounding waters to the 
State of Hawaii. The provision authorized to be appropriated up 
to $400.0 million, available until obligated, for a trust fund 
that was established to facilitate the environmental 
remediation of unexploded ordinance on the island. Based on 
that provision, the State of Hawaii is entitled to 11 percent 
of any trust fund appropriations.
    In fiscal year 1994, $60.0 million was appropriated to the 
Navy for initiation of evaluation and remediation activities at 
Kaho'olawe Island. Since the enactment of the original 
legislation, $75.0 million of unauthorized and unrequested 
funds have been appropriated to the trust fund: fiscal year 
1995, $50.0 million, the State's 11 percent share ($5.5 
million); fiscal year 1996, $25.0 million, the State's 11 
percent share ($2.7 million). About $27.0 million of the money 
in the Kaho'olawe trust fund has been obligated and about $14.0 
million of the money appropriated directly to the Navy has been 
obligated, resulting in a total of $93.4 million remaining 
unobligated funds. The Navy proposes to expend $10.8 million in 
the remaining months of fiscal year 1996 and to expend $39.0 
million in fiscal year 1997. The Department of Defense's fiscal 
year 1997 budget request includes an additional $10.0 million 
for the Kaho'olawe trust fund.
    The committee is concerned about the unobligated and 
unexpended balances related to the Kaho'olawe cleanup. As a 
result, the committee has declined to authorize the fiscal year 
1997 request for additional cleanup funds.

Proposed reduction of the current permissible exposure level for 
        manganese

    The committee directs the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
open a dialogue with the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) and to participate fully in any proposed 
rulemaking to reduce the current permissible exposure limits 
(PEL) for manganese, per the procedures promulgated in the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. During the 
rulemaking process, the DOD shall provide to OSHA any existing 
manganese studies available within the military departments, 
describe current worker exposure and protective measures 
employed, and work with OSHA to avoid unnecessary costs or 
mandates. The committee further directs the DOD to open a 
dialogue with industry representatives of the Ferroalloys 
Association Manganese Subcommittee to ascertain how industry 
can help to determine the cost of compliance for DOD, should a 
lower PEL be adopted.
    Although the PEL for manganese has not changed, the 
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has 
recommended a reduction of the threshold limit value for all 
forms of airborne manganese. The Ferroalloys Association has 
indicated that the lowering of the standard for manganese 
exposure will impose additional regulatory burdens on producers 
and users of manganese materials, ultimately resulting in a 
significant cost to taxpayers.
    DOD is one of the world's largest recipients of manganese 
products. The committee understands that the impact of 
inadequately protecting DOD workers from the health hazards 
associated with airborne manganese could result in illness to 
workers and a significant cost to the taxpayers. The committee 
also understands that the cost of compliance with a stricter 
standard could have additional budgetary implications of a 
similar magnitude. Based on these concerns, the committee has 
determined that it is appropriate for the DOD and OSHA to 
engage in a dialogue.

Defense Commissary Agency designation as a Performance Based 
        Organization

    The committee is aware that the Defense Commissary Agency 
(DeCA) was nominated by the Department of Defense and accepted 
by the Administration to be converted to a Performance Based 
Organization. The committee was not advised of this action 
until the decision was made. The information available to the 
committee relating to the detailed impacts and effects on DeCA 
and the commissary benefit is very limited.
    The committee strongly supports the commissary benefit and 
will continue to take the actions necessary to ensure the 
benefit is maintained. To the extent that DeCA's conversion to 
a Performance Based Organization will increase the 
effectiveness of the agency and will reduce the level of 
appropriated fund support without degrading the benefit, the 
committee would support the initiative. Should conversion to a 
Performance Based Organization begin to erode the benefit, 
reduce services, increase the commissaries vulnerability to 
pressures to privatize commissaries, consolidate the 
commissaries with the exchanges, or change stockage lists so as 
to directly compete with the exchange systems, the committee 
expects the Department to seek the concurrence of the oversight 
committees.
    The committee expects that the Department of Defense and 
DeCA will maintain a continuously open line of communication as 
the initiative evolves from concept to reality. The committee 
believes that certain legislative authorities will be necessary 
to fully implement such a Performance Based Organization. Any 
request for legislative changes from the Department of Defense 
will be carefully considered.

Electronic warfare squadrons

    As the Navy reviews its overseas basing of forces, it 
appears that there are opportunities to reduce costs and 
maintain operational effectiveness by moving an electronic 
warfare (VQ) squadron, currently based in Rota, Spain, to Naval 
Air Station Brunswick. The committee requests that the Navy 
review this proposal and provide a report to the congressional 
defense committees by March 1, 1997 on the feasibility and cost 
effectiveness of such action.

                            Revolving Funds

Reliability, Maintainability and Sustainability Program (RM&S)

    The committee is concerned with the viability of the 
Reliability, Maintainability and Sustainability Program (RM&S) 
and the centralization of this program above the service level.
    Sufficient information has not been provided to 
demonstrate: the ability of the Defense Business Operating Fund 
(DBOF) to track operating and support costs for an individual 
weapon system adequately; benefits that would be generated from 
this program; or reduced costs of operating a selected system. 
The committee feels a decentralized RM&S program at the service 
level would be more beneficial. Therefore, the committee has 
redistributed the increases to the Defense Logistics Agency for 
this program to the services operation and maintenance 
accounts, in the amount of $20.0 million to each service, and 
expects to be kept apprised of the progress made in the 
development of this new program.

Advance billing in Defense Business Operating Fund

    The committee has been assured in the past that the 
Department of Defense would use advance billing practices only 
in extreme situations to maintain the solvency of the fund. The 
committee has previously been notified that the practice of 
advance billing and the backlog of advance billing orders would 
be discontinued not later than fiscal year 1995. Subsequently, 
the date for the elimination of the backlog orders has been 
adjusted to fiscal year 1996 and now fiscal year 1997.
    The committee is specifically concerned about the Navy's 
resolve to eliminate advance billing, and is disturbed to find 
the Navy's failure to eliminate the advance billing backlog of 
orders. The committee notes that the practice is being used to 
compensate for poor rate management. The committee considers 
this a serious readiness distractor, and will eliminate this 
option in the future, if advance billing continues 
unconstrained.

National defense features

    The budget request contained no funding in the national 
defense sealift fund (NDSF) for the national defense features 
(NDF) program.
    Last year, Congress provided $50.0 million to initiate an 
NDF program. In response to this initiative, the Navy, the 
Maritime Administration, and the Society of Naval Architects 
and Marine Engineers hosted a commercial ship for military use 
conference in March 1996. This conference generated broad 
industry response and comment that the Navy can use when it 
soon begins a bid solicitation process that could lead to a 
contract award by the end of 1996. While exact details of the 
program must still be worked out, the contract award process is 
specifically designed to resolve them. It would appear clear 
that the nation's maritime industry is very interested in an 
NDF program that will install defense features on vessels that 
would be built in and documented under the laws of the United 
States. Such a program would have the potential to revive 
construction of commercial ships in the nation's largest 
shipyards, which have become almost wholly dependent on Navy 
production, and provide an active ready reserve force, 
available in time of national emergency, in a cost-effective 
manner.
    Section 132 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 stipulated that, of the amounts appropriated 
in the NDSF for fiscal year 1996, $50.0 million would be 
available for use by the Director of the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for advanced submarine 
technology. When queried about his intentions for the use of 
these funds, at a hearing held by the committee's subcommittee 
for acquisition and technology this year, the Director of DARPA 
clearly indicated that he had no real enthusiasm for pursuing 
an advanced submarine technology initiative at this time.
    Based on progress to date in the establishment of a 
definitive NDF program and the Director of DARPA's lack of 
interest in pursuing a submarine technology program with the 
$50.0 million appropriated in the NDSF in fiscal year 1996, the 
committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 132 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. 
The committee's recommendation for advanced submarine 
technology, discussed elsewhere in this report, would fund the 
Navy's advanced submarine technology program at a robust level 
through the use of fiscal year 1997 funds. Consequently, the 
committee directs that the $50.0 million that would become 
available in the NDSF, if the committee's recommended provision 
is adopted, be used for additional funding of the NDF program. 
The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to 
establish a separate line item in the NDSF budget request for 
the NDF program. The committee views the NDF program as a 
matter of special interest and directs that the Secretary not 
transfer any funds out of the NDF line item without prior 
notification to the congressional defense committees.

National defense reserve fleet

    The budget request contained $90.0 million in the national 
defense sealift fund (NDSF) for the procurement and 
modification of additional ships for the ready reserve force 
(RRF) component of the national defense reserve fleet (NDRF). 
In testimony and briefings before the committee, the nation's 
commanders-in-chief have consistently reiterated that they 
consider robust surge sealift an essential element of their 
ability to adequately respond to a major regional conflict. 
They have stated that:
          (1) a fiscal year 1996 Joint Staff exercise, Nimble 
        Dancer, revealed that the margin of safety in 
        distributing planned sealift in response to two nearly 
        simultaneous major regional conflicts, the planning 
        assumption for the Department of Defense's Bottom-Up 
        Review, will be razor thin at best;
          (2) today we have only about 65 percent of the 10.0 
        million square feet of surge sealift in hand;
          (3) the large medium speed roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) 
        acquisition program, under which the Navy intends to 
        acquire 19 new or converted strategic sealift ships, 
        has been funded by Congress but has experienced delays 
        and is now about two years behind initial completion 
        estimates;
          (4) prohibitions imposed by Congress in the National 
        Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 will 
        prevent the Department of Defense from buying five 
        existing roll-on/roll-off (RO/RO) ships, totaling about 
        750,000 square feet, from the world market for about 
        one-third the cost of providing an equivalent 
        capability through new construction;
          (5) when the life cycle costs of acquiring, 
        operating, and maintaining the 750,000 square feet 
        capacity represented by the five RO/ROs that the 
        Department wants to buy are compared to those for an 
        equivalent new construction capacity, the advantage 
        remains with the five RO/RO option by a factor of about 
        two to one;
          (6) if congressional limitations were lifted, the 
        Department could cost effectively acquire these five 
        ships in approximately one year, partially resolving 
        what the commanders-in-chief consider a serious 
        shortfall in surge sealift;
          (7) no alternative program, including the national 
        defense features (NDF) program that this committee has 
        supported in the past and continues to support, is 
        apparent that could acquire 750,000 square feet of 
        surge sealift capacity in a manner that is comparable 
        in either cost effectiveness or timeliness; and
          (8) the NDF program appears to be an attractive 
        program for stimulating domestic construction of 
        sustaining sealift in a cost effective manner.
    As a consequence of the information provided by the 
commanders-in-chief, the committee makes the following 
recommendations:
          (1) a provision that would lift the current 
        congressionally imposed restriction on the cost 
        effective procurement of five RO/ROs from the world 
        market for introduction into the RRF component of the 
        NDRF; and
          (2) an increase of $60.0 million above the budget 
        request of $90.0 million in the NDSF for the 
        acquisition and modification of two additional RO/ROs 
        for the RRF.
    The committee's recommended provision would only authorize 
acquisition of the five RO/RO ships needed to satisfy the 
procurement objectives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's Mobility 
Requirements Study. Beyond these five ships, the existing 
limitation on procurement of ships from the world market would 
remain intact as a matter for future consideration, when the 
time to recapitalize the NDRF arrives. The committee also 
directs that none of the this total NDSF authorization of 
$150.0 million may be obligated or expended until 30 days after 
the Secretary of Defense has certified in writing to the 
congressional defense committees that funds authorized 
elsewhere in this report for the NDF program have been made 
available for expenditure for the NDF program.

Maritime training ship

    The budget request for the national defense sealift fund 
(NDSF) contained no funding for the repair and refurbishment of 
the United States Naval Ship (U.S.N.S.) Tanner prior to her 
redesignation as a maritime training ship.
    The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in the 
NDSF to complete necessary repair and refurbishment of U.S.N.S. 
Tanner prior to its redesignation as a maritime training ship.
              TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

                       SUBTITLE A--ACTIVE FORCES

    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 recommended end strength ceilings 
for the active and reserve forces, including active component 
support for the reserves. Additionally, the committee adjusted 
the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) grade 
tables and began a process to address the appropriate numbers 
of general and flag officers.
Section 401. End strengths for active forces.
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
active duty end strengths for fiscal year 1997 as shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal Year               
                              ------------------------------------------
                                    1996         1997          1997     
                               authorization    request   recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army:                                                                   
    Total....................       495,000      495,000       495,000  
    Officer..................        81,300   ..........        80,300  
Navy:                                                                   
    Total....................       428,340      406,900       407,318  
    Officer..................         5,870   ..........        56,165  
Marine Corps:                                                           
    Total....................       174,000      174,000       174,000  
    Officer..................        17,978   ..........        17,978  
Air Force:                                                              
    Total....................       388,200      381,100       381,222  
    Officer..................        75,928   ..........        74,445  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The active component authorization for the Navy includes an 
increase of 418, 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 
$18.6 million and the Operation and Maintenance, Navy, 
appropriation by $13.1 million above the budget request in 
Fiscal Year 1997 to accommodate this increase.
    The active duty Air Force authorization includes an 
increase of 122 enlisted personnel to permit the Air Force to 
retain 28 B-52 aircraft in the force. The committee recommends 
the Military Personnel, Air Force, appropriation be increased 
by $4.4 million above the request in Fiscal Year 1997 to 
accommodate this increase.

Section 402. Temporary flexibility relating to permanent end strength 
        levels.

    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the flexibility afforded the military services to manage their 
active duty end strengths from 0.5 percent to 5.0 percent. The 
committee has found that the one-half percent flexibility is 
insufficient to prevent the services from taking short-term 
management actions that may adversely affect service members, 
solely to meet the assigned end strengths at the end of the 
fiscal year.

Section 403. Authorized strengths for commissioned officers in grades 
        O-4, O-5, and O-6.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permanently 
increase the grade ceilings of active duty Army, Air Force and 
Marine Corps majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels, and 
active duty Navy lieutenant commanders, commanders and captains 
relative to the total number of commissioned officers on active 
duty. The recommended provision supersedes the necessity for 
the temporary grade increases authorized during the past 
several years.
    The committee notes that this change to the grade ceilings 
is intended to assist the services meet the increased field 
grade requirements resulting from the continued implementation 
of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. 
Additionally, the committee believes that the increased grade 
ceilings should permit all services to cease or greatly reduce 
the practice of frocking to circumvent the statutory grade 
ceilings. In that light, the committee recognizes that the 
increased grade ceilings will reduce--at least in the near 
term--promotion flow points. The committee hopes that the 
services will take this opportunity to realign the number of 
officers selected for promotion in a particular year with the 
number of officers that can be expected to be promoted--not 
frocked--during that year and, thereby, reduce the length of 
time officers spend on promotion lists before appointment.
    The committee also notes that, historically, many 
speciality corps officers in the military services, such as the 
Nurse Corps, may not have had sufficient field grade 
authorizations to meet requirements in those specialities. The 
committee expects that the military services having speciality 
corps will allocate the permanent grade relief provided in this 
provision among line and speciality corps in an equitable, 
requirement-based manner. The committee believes that a result 
of such an allocation will be more consistent promotion 
opportunities among line and speciality corps officers.

Section 404. Extension of requirement for recommendations regarding 
        appointments to joint 4-star officer positions.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
exemption of combatant commanders (CINCs), the Deputy 
Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. European Command (DCINCEUR), and 
the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Forces, Korea from the ceiling for 
grades above major general or rear admiral for three years from 
September 30, 1997 to September 30, 2000. The test directed by 
the Senate Report 103-282 to break the traditional patterns for 
filling CINC positions will continue during the period of the 
recommended extension.

Section 405. Increase in authorized number of general officers on 
        active duty in the Marine Corps.

    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the number of active duty general officers in the Marine Corps 
by 12, from 68 to 80. This increase is intended to permit the 
Marine Corps to have greater representation at the general 
officer level on the Department of the Navy/Secretariat staff 
and in the joint arena. As a general rule, the committee is 
reluctant to act on independent service requests of this 
nature, preferring to receive comprehensive proposals that 
address the needs of all services. The committee's action in 
this instance is based on compelling justification provided by 
the Marine Corps and on the inability of the Department of 
Defense to provide a more comprehensive recommendation in a 
timely manner. The committee does not believe that the Marine 
Corps should be disadvantaged by this delay.
    The committee is aware that the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense is developing a comprehensive proposal to address 
general and flag authorizations in the Army, Navy, Air Force 
and the joint arena. The committee staff has been briefed on a 
portion of this proposal. The committee encourages the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense to complete this action in time for 
it to be considered prior to mark-up of the National Defense 
Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1998. The committee expects 
that during development of any comprehensive general and flag 
officer proposal the Secretary of Defense would include an 
assessment of the appropriate grade for the Chief of the Nurse 
Corps in the Army and the Air Force and, if appropriate, a 
recommendation for legislation to provide for appointment of 
officers holding these positions to that grade.

                       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 1997 as 
shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal Year               
                              ------------------------------------------
                                    1996         1997          1997     
                               Authorization    Request   Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of                                              
 the United States...........       373,000      366,758       366,758  
The Army Reserve.............       230,000      214,925       214,925  
The Naval Reserve............        98,894       95,941        96,304  
The Marine Corps Reserve.....        42,274       42,000        42,000  
The Air National Guard of the                                           
 United States...............       112,707      108,018       108,594  
The Air Force Reserve........        73,969       73,281        73,281  
The Coast Guard Reserve......         8,000        8,000         8,000  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The recommended increase in the Naval Reserve end strength 
reflects the committee's belief that one reserve component P-3 
squadron be retained in the force. The increase of 363 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 $6.6 million and the 
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve, appropriation by $7.1 
million to accommodate this increase.
    The committee recommends an increase in the Air National 
Guard end strength of 576 and 249 in full-time support 
strength. These increases will permit the Air National Guard to 
have the manpower necessary to maintain the number of general 
purpose fighter aircraft at 15 in each unit. The committee 
recommends increasing the Reserve Personnel, Air National 
Guard, appropriation by $8.5 million and Operations and 
Maintenance, Air National Guard, by $38.0 million to 
accommodate this increase.
    The committee recommends increasing the Reserve Personnel, 
Air Force Reserve, appropriation by $2.6 million to support a 
recommended increase in the full-time support strength of the 
Air Force Reserve by 30.

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

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Fiscal Year               
                              ------------------------------------------
                                    1996         1997          1997     
                               Authorization    Request   Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of                                              
 the United States...........        23,390       22,798        22,798  
The Army Reserve.............        11,575       11,475        11,475  
The Naval Reserve............        17,587       16,506        16,603  
The Marine Corps Reserve.....         2,559        2,559         2,559  
The Air National Guard of the                                           
 United States...............        10,066       10,129        10,378  
The Air Force Reserve........           628          625           655  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The committee recommends an increase of 97 in full-time 
support strength for the Naval Reserve to support retention of 
one reserve P-3 squadron.
    The committee recommends an increase of 249 in full-time 
support strength that would permit the Air National Guard to 
maintain the number of general purpose fighter aircraft at 15 
in each unit.
    The committee recommends an increase of 30 in the full-time 
support strength of the Air Force Reserve to assist the Air 
Force Reserve in maintaining readiness while continuing to 
assist in reducing the OPTEMPO of the active Air Force.

              SUBTITLE C--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 421. Authorization of appropriations for military personnel.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$69,878,600,000 to be appropriated to the Department of Defense 
for military personnel.
    This authorization reflects an increase of $95,600,000 
above the budget request. The increase results from the 
following recommendations:

Maintain one active P-3 Squadron.................................. +18.6
Maintain one reserve P-3 Squadron.................................  +6.6
Increase to Military Personnel, Army to fund special duty 
    assignment pay for Army Special Operations Forces.............  +6.4
Maintain force structure to support 28 B-52s......................  +4.4
Increase BAQ (3.0% to 4.0%)....................................... +37.0
Authorized dentist special duty assignment pay....................  +7.6
Increased Full Time Support for AF Reserve........................  +3.0
Increased Air National Guard end strength and Full Time Support 
    required to maintain 15 PAA aircraft per squadron............. +12.0

    The committee has fully funded each of the provisions in 
which the committee's recommendation was different from the 
budget request. The committee included several pay and 
compensation provisions requested by the administration. The 
committee discovered that the budget request funded these 
provisions using an unworkable budget process. In order not to 
under fund the military personnel accounts, the committee 
recommends an undistributed reduction to the permanent change 
of station account of $24.1 million. If the Department of 
Defense finds sufficient resources to fund the pay and 
compensation provisions, the committee would consider a 
reprogramming request to restore the permanent change of 
station account to the requested level.
                   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 authorized the military services to 
reenlist military personnel with at least 10 years of service 
for an indefinite period and limited the number of retired 
officers that may be recalled to active duty in peacetime. In 
other policy initiatives, the committee addressed issues 
pertaining to the reserve components, Reserve Officers Training 
Corps and Service Academies.

                  SUBTITLE A--OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY

Section 501. Extension of authority for temporary promotions for 
        certain Navy lieutenants with critical skills.
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority for the Navy to promote temporarily, lieutenants 
without Senate confirmation, in certain positions from 
September 30, 1996 until September 30, 1997.
Section 502. Exception to baccalaureate degree requirement for 
        appointment in the Naval Reserve in grades above O-2.
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
members of the Naval Reserve participating in the Seaman to 
Admiral program an exception to the requirement for reserve 
officers to hold a baccalaureate degree in order to be promoted 
above the grade of lieutenant (junior grade).
Section 503. Time for award of degrees by unaccredited educational 
        institutions for graduates to be considered educationally 
        qualified for appointment as reserve officers in grade O-3.
    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the number of years that the Department of Defense could 
recognize a baccalaureate degree awarded by qualifying 
educational institution from three years to eight years. This 
change will enable reserve officers with degrees from 
unaccredited institutions to remain in the reserves for the 
entire period of time that he or she remains eligible for 
promotion to grade O-3.
Section 504. Chief Warrant Officer promotions.
    The committee recommends a provision that would permit 
below the zone selection for promotion to Chief Warrant 
Officer, W-3, and would reduce the time-in-grade requirement 
for warrant officer promotion from three years to two years.
Section 505. Frequency of periodic report on promotion rates of 
        officers currently or formerly serving in joint duty 
        assignments.
    The committee recommends a provision that would change the 
requirement that the Secretary of Defense report to Congress 
every six months on the promotion rates of officers currently 
or formerly serving in joint duty assignments. Normally, 
promotion boards are convened only once each year. The 
recommended provision would change the reporting requirement 
from every six months to every twelve months.

           SUBTITLE B--MATTERS RELATING TO RESERVE COMPONENTS

Section 511. Clarification of definition of active status.
    The committee recommends a provision that would expand the 
definition of the term ``active status'' in section 101(d)(4) 
of title 10, United States Code, to include both officers and 
enlisted members of the reserve components and make the 
definition consistent with other references in title 10, United 
States Code.

Section 512. Amendments to Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act 
        provisions.

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
several amendments to the Reserve Officer Personnel Management 
Act.
    The first amendment would eliminate the three year time-in-
grade requirement to retire in the highest grade for Adjutants 
General and Assistant Adjutants General when they are required 
to vacate the position before serving three years. The 
provision would provide discretionary authority to a service 
secretary to credit time served in a position that requires a 
higher grade for which the incumbent has been selected for 
promotion, but has not yet been appointed.
    The second amendment would make a technical correction to 
permit the services not to retain reserve officers found not 
qualified for promotion to first lieutenant or lieutenant 
(junior grade).
    The third amendment would make a technical amendment to 
ensure that Adjutants General of both the Army and Air Force 
are treated similarly.

Section 513. Repeal of requirement for physical examinations of members 
        of National Guard called into federal service.

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the 
requirement that each member of the National Guard receive a 
physical examination when called into and again when mustered 
out of federal service. In view of other statutory and 
regulatory requirements for periodic medical examinations, the 
existing requirement is unnecessary.

Section 514. Authority for a Reserve on active duty to waive retirement 
        sanctuary.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit a 
reservist serving on active duty for less than 180 days to 
waive the applicability of the retirement sanctuary. The 
purpose of the waiver is to permit a reservist who, by virtue 
of his or her years of service, may qualify for the retirement 
sanctuary to serve on active duty for a period of less than 180 
days, if he or she waives the retirement sanctuary.

Section 515. Retirement of Reserves disabled by injury or disease 
        incurred or aggravated during overnight stay between inactive 
        duty training periods.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
disability retirement for a member of the selected reserves who 
becomes disabled due to injury or disease which was incurred 
during the period between successive drill periods. Previous 
legislation provided similar authority for a disability that 
occurs during travel to and from reserve drills. The 
recommended provision covers the only remaining period in which 
a reservist might suffer a disabling injury or disease while 
attending inactive-duty training.

Section 516. Reserve credit for participation in the Health Professions 
        Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
service secretaries to award service credit toward non-regular 
retirement for certain members of the reserve forces who 
participated in the Health Professions Scholarship Program or 
the Financial Assistance Program and who completed the course 
of study, completed the active duty obligation, and are in a 
speciality designated by the secretary as critically needed in 
wartime.

Section 517. Report on guard and reserve force structure.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to study and report on the current and 
projected force structure of the National Guard and other 
reserve components not later than March 1, 1997. The committee 
received testimony that the reserve components may be retaining 
force structure in excess to war fighting requirements.
    The committee expects the report to include information at 
the unit level and their planned role in a conflict situation. 
Specifically, if the study finds force structure in excess to 
the war fighting requirement, all units of the type that is 
excess to the needs must be identified, including any 
recommendations to eliminate the excess structure.

                 SUBTITLE C--OFFICER EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Section 521. Increased age limit on appointment as a cadet or 
        midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps and 
        the service academies.

    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the maximum age for entrance into the service academies from 22 
to 23, and for commissioning of those who participate in a 
Reserve Officers' Training Corps scholarship program from 25 to 
27.

Section 522. Demonstration project for instruction and support of Army 
        ROTC units by members of the Army Reserve and National Guard.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of the Army to conduct a demonstration program in 
order to assess the feasibility and advisability of providing 
instruction and support to units of the Reserve Officers 
Training Corps using members of the Army Reserve, including the 
Individual Ready Reserve, and the Army National Guard. The 
committee recognizes that the reserve components may be able to 
provide innovative and non-traditional support to the ROTC 
program, such as the one attempted at the Community College of 
Southern Nevada. This demonstration project would provide the 
framework on which such a program can be developed and 
evaluated.

                       SUBTITLE D--OTHER MATTERS

Section 531. Retirement at grade to which selected for promotion when a 
        physical disability is found at any physical examination.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit 
disability retirements for service members at the grade to 
which they would have been promoted had it not been for an 
intervening physical disability.

Section 532. Limitations on recall of retired members to active duty.

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
number of retired officers who may be recalled to active duty. 
The recommended provision would: limit the number of officers 
who may be recalled to active duty to 25 per service at any one 
time; prohibit the recall of officers who retired as a result 
of an early retirement board or who retired after being 
notified that he or she was to be considered by an early 
retirement board; and limit the tenure of a recall to 12 
months. Chaplains, health care professionals and officers 
assigned to the American Battle Monuments Commission are 
excepted from these limits.
    The committee believes that the statute was intended to 
permit the services to fill billets for chaplains, health care 
professionals, and those assigned to the American Battle 
Monuments Commission with qualified retired officers. The 
authority was not intended to retain officers who were selected 
for early retirement or who retired to avoid such a selection. 
The committee believes that the authority provided under 
section 688 of title 10, United States Code, was being used for 
purposes other that those intended by the original legislation. 
The recommended changes are intended to more strictly define 
the authority to recall retired officers during peacetime.

Section 533. Disability coverage for officers granted excess leave for 
        educational purposes.

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
disability coverage for officers who are on excess leave while 
participating in a educational program. Currently, the only 
officers affected by the recommended provision would be Marine 
Corps officers who are granted excess leave to participate in 
an educational program leading to designation as a judge 
advocate.

Section 534. Uniform policy regarding retention of members who are 
        permanently nonworldwide assignable.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations and directives 
establishing uniform policies and procedures regarding the 
retention of members of the armed forces who are permanently 
nonworldwide assignable for medical reasons. The committee 
intends that all categories of medical reasons that result in a 
service member being classified as nondeployable be treated 
identically with regard to retention on active duty without 
regard to service or military department.

Section 535. Authority to extend period for enlistment in regular 
        component under the delayed entry program.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
extension in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) for meritorious 
cases as determined by the secretary of the military department 
to accommodate extraordinary circumstances when a delay beyond 
the 365-day limit is in the best interests of the military 
department concerned.
    The secretaries of the military departments are directed to 
provide to the Congress a report on December 1, 1998, and 1999 
that describes the exceptions authorized during the previous 
fiscal year.

Section 536. Career service reenlistments for members with at least 10 
        years of service.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the secretaries of the military departments, on a discretionary 
basis, to accept reenlistments for an indefinite period from 
enlisted members with at least 10 years of service. The 
committee recognizes that some services may want to retain the 
current fixed-term enlistment system. Specifically, the 
committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to permit the Navy 
and the Marine Corps to pursue either policy independent of the 
other service's choice.

Section 537. Revisions to missing persons authorities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
certain provisions in the Missing Persons Act in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. The recommended 
provision would: remove Department of Defense civilian 
employees and contractor personnel from the coverage; increase 
the time limit for the first line commander to submit a missing 
persons report from 48 hours to 10 days; remove the requirement 
that the theater commander participate in the missing persons 
report; repeal the requirement that a counsel be appointed for 
the missing person; amend the conditions under which subsequent 
reviews are conducted to give the service secretary total 
discretion to determine when a subsequent review will be 
conducted; remove the criminal penalties for wrongful 
withholding of information; reduce the information required to 
be submitted for a board to make a recommendation of death; 
repeal the right of judicial review; and repeal the mandatory 
review of Korean War and special interest cases.
    The committee retained the pre-enactment review of cold war 
and Indochina missing in action cases. The committee intends 
that this apply only to those unaccounted for military 
personnel whose original status was prisoner of war or missing 
in action and not those cases classified as killed-in-action/
body-not-recovered (KIA/BNR).

Section 538. Inapplicability of Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act 
        of 1940 to the period of limitations for filing claims for 
        corrections of military records.

    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 
period of limitations for the filing of a request for relief 
before the Boards for Correction of Military Records. Under 
section 1552 of title 10, United States Code, a request must be 
filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error 
or injustice. The Boards have the authority to waive the three 
year period ``in the interest of justice.''
    A recent court decision, Detweiler v. Pena, 38 F.3d 591 
(D.C. Cir. 1994), held that the three year statute of 
limitations does not apply to persons within military service 
as a result of section 205 of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil 
Relief Act of 1940, which contains a general waiver of periods 
of limitation for persons in military service with respect to 
civil proceedings.
    The provision recommended by the committee would make it 
clear that the three year statute of limitations for correction 
board requests is not waived by the Soldiers' and Sailors' 
Civil Relief Act. Nothing in this provision would affect the 
discretion of the Correction Boards to waive the three year 
period ``in the interest of justice,'' and the Boards could 
consider any effect an individual's military service may have 
had on his or her ability to file a claim within the three year 
period. In order to provide an appropriate period of transition 
for the filing of requests to the correction boards by persons 
currently in military service, the provision would not take 
effect until three years after the date of enactment.

Section 539. Medal of honor for certain African-American soldiers who 
        served in World War II.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the President to award the Medal of Honor to the seven African-
American soldiers who served in the United States Army during 
World War II and whom the Army recommended be awarded the Medal 
of Honor after a congressionally mandated review of their 
records.

      SUBTITLE E--COMMISSIONED CORPS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

Section 561. Applicability to Public Health Service of prohibition on 
        crediting cadet or midshipmen service at the service academies.

    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify 
that commissioned officers of the Public Health Service, like 
members of the armed forces, do not receive length-of-service 
credit for service as a student at a service military academy.

Section 562. Exception to grade limitations for Public Health Service 
        officers assigned to the Department of Defense.

    The committee recommends a provision that would exclude 
Public Health Service officers assigned to the Department of 
Defense from Public Health Service end strength limits. The 
recommended provision would ensure that the Public Health 
Service is not penalized for assigning Public Health Service 
Officers to duty within the Department of Defense.

 SUBTITLE F--DEFENSE ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT, DIVERSIFICATION, CONVERSION, 
                           AND STABILIZATION

Section 571. Authority to expand law enforcement placement program to 
        include firefighters.

    The committee recommends a provision that amends section 
1152, title 10, United States Code, to include federal 
firefighters in the legislation that permits the Secretary of 
Defense to establish a program to assist eligible members and 
former members of the armed forces and eligible civilian 
employees of the Department of Defense to obtain employment in 
public safety jobs.

Section 572. Troops-to-teachers program improvements. (Also refer to 
        Section 1122)

    The committee recommends a provision that would revise the 
Troops-to-Teachers program to permit service members retiring 
under the temporary early retirement authority to participate 
and to reduce the teaching obligation, incentive grant, and 
local education authority reimbursement periods from five years 
to two years.

                SUBTITLE G--ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME

    The committee reaffirms its support for the Armed Forces 
Retirement Home (AFRH) as an expression of national commitment 
to veterans whose service and sacrifices have secured our 
freedom.
    The committee is concerned, however, about the soundness of 
the funding mechanism for operation of the AFRH. The AFRH has 
been compelled to operate since fiscal year 1993 with a 
negative cash flow in order to meet financial obligations, and 
the AFRH Trust Fund will become insolvent unless changes are 
made to the funding mechanism.
    In accordance with instructions contained in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, the AFRH Board 
commissioned a comprehensive study to examine this matter and 
develop alternative solutions. The Armed Forces Retirement Home 
Strategic Study, conducted by the firm of Coopers & Lybrand 
L.L.P., indicates that the AFRH cannot become financially 
viable under the current funding scheme and still meet 
requirements. The committee agrees with the Board that the AFRH 
should accommodate a minimum total of 2300 residents in order 
to meet responsibilities to eligible veterans, based on 
actuarial projections.
    The committee notes the achievement of significant 
efficiencies and numerous improvements in the management and 
operation of the AFRH. However, unless steps are taken to 
rectify the funding situation, admissions to the AFRH may be 
slowed and restricted over subsequent years. Services may be 
reduced and in some cases eliminated. Additional staff 
reductions also may be necessary.
    Although such measures may achieve short-term fiscal goals, 
they will not resolve shortcomings in the funding scheme, nor 
will they yield adequate resources to meet the needs of 
veterans for whom the homes are intended. The committee prefers 
that admissions not be slowed and recommends a series of 
provisions to meet both present and long-term responsibilities.

Section 582. Acceptance of uncompensated services.

    The committee recommends a provision that would enable the 
Chairman of the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) Board, or 
the directors of the individual homes, to accept uncompensated 
or gratuitous services from volunteers under procedures similar 
to those currently in place in the Department of Defense.

Section 583. Disposal of real property.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the disposal of a 49 acre parcel of real property at the Armed 
Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) in accordance with title 24, 
United States Code.
    The committee directs the AFRH Board to consult with the 
General Services Administration (GSA) prior to offering the 
parcel for sale, in order for GSA to screen the property for 
possible use by other federal agencies.
    The committee strongly recommends that the GSA administer 
the disposal.
    In the event a federal agency expresses the need to acquire 
the parcel, the Board and GSA should effect the transfer with 
the express requirement that the fair market value amount of 
the property, less appropriate transaction costs, is 
transferred from the acquiring agency to the AFRH Trust Fund.
    The treatment of proceeds is consistent with section 
416(d)(2) of title 24, United States Code.

Section 584. Matters concerning personnel.

    The committee recommends a provision that would enable 
members of the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) Board and 
local boards to be reappointed under certain conditions.
    The provision also would permit a change in the method by 
which certain AFRH employees are compensated. Salaries for all 
AFRH employees are currently paid from the AFRH Trust Fund. 
Some employees who are also military retirees receive little or 
none of their retired pay as a result of dual compensation 
restrictions (5 U.S.C. 5532).
    The recommended provision pertains to AFRH employees who 
are not able to collect some or all of their retired pay as a 
result of dual compensation restrictions. In such cases, at the 
discretion of the AFRH Board, those employees would be paid 
their full retired pay from the military retired pay account. 
However, their compensation from the AFRH Trust Fund would be 
decreased by the amount of retired pay that otherwise would 
have not been paid under dual compensation restrictions. The 
amount they receive from retired pay and their AFRH salary 
would be the same total as prior to the enactment of the 
recommended provision, although the amounts from the two 
sources would be different.
    Benefits, contributions, and deductions would be based on 
the individual employee's AFRH salary--which may be different 
from the amount paid from the trust fund--for Civil Service 
retirement and other purposes.
    The committee expects the AFRH Board to continue to set 
levels of compensation strictly on the basis of job 
requirements and industry standards. The provision would direct 
the AFRH Board to note in its annual report to Congress 
whenever this authority is exercised, and explain how each 
affected employee's AFRH salary is comparable to prevailing 
rates for similar employees in the retirement home industry.

Section 585. Fees for residents.

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the military 
departments and the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) Board, 
to report to the congressional defense committees on aspects of 
the AFRH resident fees structure and the monthly assessment on 
active duty service members (as established in section 371 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995) no 
later than March 3, 1997.
    The report should address: how much income is expected for 
each incremental resident fee increase; the conditions under 
which various sources of income and disability payments should 
be included in determining fees; the degree of flexibility 
desired to adjust fees; the categories of monthly income that 
should be considered in calculating fees; what authorities are 
needed to set fees in exceptional circumstances; fairness and 
equitable treatment of residents; the advisability of 
exercising current authority to increase the monthly assessment 
on active duty service members; alternative financing options 
to avoid the need to increase the assessment; other matters 
deemed appropriate by the Secretary, the military departments 
and the AFRH Board.
    The committee expects that the views of the senior enlisted 
advisor in each service will be solicited, considered, and 
included in the report.
    The provision would delay the implementation of the fee 
structure established in the section cited above for one year, 
pending the outcome of the report and in anticipation of 
hearings into this matter that the committee intends to conduct 
in fiscal year 1997.

Section 586. Authorization and appropriations.

    The committee recommends $57.3 million to be appropriated 
from the Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) Trust Fund for 
operation of the AFRH in fiscal year 1997.

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Legislative fellows from the Department of Defense

    The committee continues to note the increase in the number 
of legislative fellows and detailees from the military services 
working in the legislative branch. While the programs under 
which these service members are assigned to the Congress may 
have merit, the committee is concerned that they might not be 
managed effectively, if at all, in the Department of Defense. 
Military personnel participating in a formal fellowship program 
can gain valuable insights into the workings of the federal 
government, experience which can be beneficial to their 
services after they return to their services. Fellows can also 
provide expert advice and counsel to members of Congress, on 
the military matters with which they are familiar, during their 
fellowship.
    When the committee requested information from the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense concerning where military personnel 
are working within the legislative branch, the Department was 
unable to provide that information and referred the committee 
to the individual services. The military services were able to 
provide information concerning those military personnel 
participating in formal legislative fellowship programs, but 
were not able to provide reliable information concerning 
military personnel detailed or ``on loan'' to individual 
congressional offices. The committee questions whether the 
Department of Defense knows how many military personnel are 
working in the legislative branch at any point in time. 
Additionally, the committee questions whether there is 
appropriate management of these personnel to ensure their 
experience is properly used when they return to duty within the 
Department of Defense.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to perform a 
critical review of how the legislative fellowship programs are 
managed and controlled within the Department of Defense. The 
review should address the criteria and circumstances under 
which individuals are detailed and ``loaned.'' The Secretary 
shall report to the congressional defense committees not later 
than May 1, 1997. As a minimum, this report should:
          (1) Identify and describe those programs under which 
        military personnel work, under any circumstances, for 
        congressional offices, committees and agencies;
          (2) Identify the authority for and purpose of those 
        programs and the extent to which the current practices 
        fulfill these objectives;
          (3) Assess the participation by each service in these 
        programs both in terms of the number of officers 
        assigned or detailed each year and in terms of the 
        types of positions to which they are assigned or 
        detailed;
          (4) Evaluate the appropriateness of the grades of the 
        officers assigned or detailed to these programs in view 
        of the objectives of the different programs;
          (5) Evaluate the extent to which the assignment 
        pattern of officers assigned or detailed to these 
        programs justifies these programs at a time when the 
        services are experiencing shortages of field grade 
        officers.
    The committee did not examine the civilian personnel 
component of the legislative fellowship program. However, the 
same tenets apply and should be a part of the Secretary's 
review.

Relocation assistance programs

    The committee recognizes that over one-third of the active 
force relocates each year and that, in many cases, service 
members and their families are making their very first move. 
The support available to service members and their families 
during relocation is an important component of any quality of 
life program. With that in mind, the Committee continues to 
support efforts within the Department of Defense to enhance 
Family Service Center programs and services intended to meet 
the various needs of military members and their families 
involved in permanent change of stations moves. The committee 
encourages the Department to continue to seek new, innovative, 
cost-effective methods of meeting these needs.

Review of opportunities for ordering individual reserves to active duty 
        with their consent

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
directed the Secretary of Defense to review the opportunities 
for members of the reserve components to serve during peacetime 
in positions normally filled by active duty personnel, to 
identify and remove any impediments to increasing those 
opportunities, and to report to the committees of jurisdiction 
on this matter.
    The committee is unaware of any action or progress in this 
area and directs the Secretary of Defense to advise the 
committee not later than 30 days after enactment concerning: 
(1) the status of that review; (2) the status of actions to 
remove any impediments to increasing opportunities for 
reservists; and (3) specific examples of instances in which the 
opportunities for reservists to serve have been increased.

Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund

    The Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 provided that 
all costs for operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home 
(AFRH), to include the salaries of staff and capital 
improvements, would be paid from a single trust fund. The fund 
was intended to be part of a self-sustaining mechanism that 
would maintain the solvency of the fund by relying on income 
from several principal sources: interest from the trust fund 
balance; a monthly assessment of 50 cents from certain active 
duty service members; and fines and forfeitures resulting from 
courts-martial and other disciplinary actions.
    However, the funding stream envisioned by Congress was 
based on assumptions about the size of the active duty force. 
Force reductions have resulted in a significant decrease in 
income derived from assessments, since the force is smaller. A 
further decrease in revenue occurred as a result of fewer fines 
and forfeitures due to the high quality of the force.
    In order to pay the operating costs of the AFRH, the corpus 
of the trust fund has been decreasing since fiscal year 1993. 
The total amount of this decrease through the end of fiscal 
year 1997 is approximately $33.7 million. The decrease of the 
corpus has further reduced the amount of trust fund income 
derived from interest.
    Improvements to assisted living and long-term care 
facilities at the Naval Home, and a building renovation at the 
Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, are urgently needed in fiscal year 
1997. The cost of these improvements is $42.5 million.
    All analysis suggests the funding mechanism must be revised 
in order to attain solvency. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the military 
departments and the AFRH Board, to report to the congressional 
defense committees not later than March 3, 1997, on 
alternatives to the current funding mechanism to enable the 
AFRH to maintain its traditional population of 2300 residents.
          TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

    The committee addressed a number of pay, allowances and 
other compensation issues. One of the committee's priorities 
this year was to continue to improve the quality of life for 
military personnel, their families, and retired service members 
and their families. The committee recommended a number of 
provisions that will significantly improve the quality of life 
and living conditions, and provide equitable compensation for 
military personnel to protect against inflation. The committee 
directed the Secretary of Defense to develop procedures that 
would permit retired military personnel to establish allotments 
from their retired pay account in order to facilitate paying 
TRICARE enrollment fees and dental insurance premiums. 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 1997.
    The committee recommends a provision that would waive 
Section 1009 of title 37, United States Code, and increase the 
rates of basic pay and the basic allowance for subsistence for 
members of the uniformed services by 3.0 percent. Additionally, 
the provision would increase the rate of the basic allowance 
for quarters for members of the uniformed services by 4.0 
percent. These increases would be effective January 1, 1997.
Section 602. Rate of cadet and midshipman pay.
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal a 
provision in title 37, United States Code, that would link the 
rate of cadet and midshipman pay to changes in the section in 
which military pay is determined. Cadet and midshipman pay is 
established at a specified rate in another section of title 37, 
United States Code. The repealed provision was inconsistent and 
unnecessary.
Section 603. Pay of senior noncommissioned officers while hospitalized.
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the senior enlisted member of an armed force to continue to 
receive the basic pay authorized for that position for no more 
than 180 days while no longer in that position and hospitalized 
prior to retirement.
Section 604. Basic allowance for quarters for members assigned to sea 
        duty.
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
several changes concerning the payment of basic allowance for 
quarters and variable housing allowance for service members 
assigned to sea duty. The recommended provision would authorize 
a single service member continuous basic allowance for quarters 
and variable housing allowance if he or she executes a 
permanent change of station move to a deployed unit on sea 
duty.
    The recommended provision would also authorize the senior 
member of a joint military couple to continue to receive basic 
allowance for quarters and variable housing allowance when both 
are serving onboard ships at sea at the same time.
    The recommended provision would authorize quarters ashore 
or payment of the basic allowance for quarters to single E-5 
members assigned to sea duty.
Section 605. Uniform applicability of discretion to deny an election 
        not to occupy government quarters.
    The committee recommends a provision that would make a 
technical change clarifying the authority of a secretary of a 
military department to deny certain service members the ability 
to elect not to occupy government quarters. As a result of a 
change in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1996, members in the grade of E-6 were granted authority 
to elect to live off-base. Previously, the secretary of a 
military department had the authority to deny a service member 
in the grade of E-7 or higher the election to reside off-base 
on the basis of an adverse effect on a training mission, 
military discipline, or military readiness. The recommended 
change extends the authority to deny an election to live off-
base to service members in the grade of E-6.
    The committee does not intend that this authority be used 
to circumvent the discretion of single members in the grade of 
E-6 and above who have been assigned to inadequate quarters to 
elect to live off-base and receive the basic allowance for 
quarters and the variable housing allowance.

Section 606. Family separation allowance for members separated by 
        military orders from spouses who are members.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
payment of the family separation allowance to the senior of two 
service members who are married to each other and who would 
normally reside with each other but are separated by military 
orders.

Section 607. Waiver of time limitations for claim for pay and 
        allowances.

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Comptroller General authority, upon the request of a service 
secretary, to waive the time limits in the case of a claim for 
pay and allowances up to a maximum of $25,000, subject to the 
availability of appropriations.

           SUBTITLE B--BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

Section 611. Extension of certain bonuses for reserve forces.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority to pay the special pay for critically short wartime 
health specialists in the selected reserves, selected reserve 
reenlistment bonus, selected reserve enlistment bonus, special 
pay for enlisted members of the selected reserve assigned to 
certain high priority units, selected reserve affiliation 
bonus, ready reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus, and the 
prior service enlistment bonus until September 30, 1998.

Section 612. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay for nurse 
        officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority to pay certain bonuses and special pay for nurse 
officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists 
until September 30, 1998.

Section 613. Extension of authority relating to payment of other 
        bonuses and special pays.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus, 
reenlistment bonus for active members, enlistment bonus for 
critical skills, special pay for nuclear qualified officers 
extending period of active service, nuclear career accession 
bonus, nuclear career annual incentive bonus, and repayment of 
education loans for certain health professionals who serve in 
the selected reserve until September 30, 1998.

Section 614. Increased special pay for dental officers of the armed 
        forces.

    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the special pay, additional special pay, and board certified 
pay for certain dental officers of the armed forces. The 
committee understands that recruiting of dental officers has 
become increasingly difficult and retention is declining as 
private sector pay outpaces military pay. The recommended 
increases should be targeted toward dental officers with less 
than 10 years of service.

Section 615. Retention special pay for Public Health Service 
        optometrists.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
retention special pay for optometrists in regular and reserve 
components of the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health 
Service (PHS) in the same manner as optometrists in the armed 
forces. The recommended provision standardizes the retention 
special pay for optometrists in the uniformed services and will 
assist the Public Health Service in recruiting optometrists. 
The committee understands that PHS optometrists are especially 
critical to support the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of 
Prisons and will cost less than contracting with civilian 
optometrists.

Section 616. Special pay for nonphysician health care providers in the 
        Public Health Service.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
special pay for nonphysician health care providers in the 
Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service in the same 
manner authorized for nonphysician health care providers in the 
armed forces. The recommended provision would provide equity 
between physician and nonphysician health care providers within 
the Public Health Service and among health care providers in 
each of the uniformed services.

Section 617. Foreign language proficiency pay for Public Health Service 
        and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officers.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
foreign language proficiency pay now authorized for members of 
the armed services to any member of the uniformed services 
whose duties require such language proficiency. The Public 
Health Service (PHS), for example, has requirements for PHS 
officials to work in Africa and Asia as part of the Center for 
Disease Control and to be proficient in the local language.

            SUBTITLE C--TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES

Section 621. Round trip travel allowances for shipping motor vehicles 
        at government expense.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
travel allowances for travel to and from a port while 
transporting motor vehicles at government expense in 
conjunction with a permanent change of station move between the 
continental United States and overseas locations.

Section 622. Option to store instead of transport a privately-owned 
        vehicle at the expense of the United States.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
government-funded storage, in lieu of transportation, of one 
vehicle when a service member is ordered to make a permanent 
change of station move to a location that precludes entry or 
requires extensive modification to the vehicle prior to entry 
of the vehicle.

Section 623. Deferral of travel with travel and transportation 
        allowances in connection with leave between consecutive 
        overseas tours.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the service secretaries to defer the travel and transportation 
allowances that accrue in conjunction with service members 
being ordered to consecutive overseas tours, when participation 
in a contingency mission precludes completion of the travel 
within one year. Under normal conditions a service member 
ordered to consecutive overseas tours is authorized to be 
reimbursed for the cost of round-trip travel from the overseas 
base to his or her home. This benefit must be used within one 
year. When service members participate in critical operational 
missions, such as Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia, the one 
year period could expire and the service member would lose the 
benefit. The recommended provision would permit the service 
secretaries to defer the travel for one additional year.

Section 624. Funding for transportation of household effects of Public 
        Health Service officers.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization to be reimbursed for ``do-it-yourself'' moves 
currently authorized for members of the armed forces to the 
Public Health Service.

    SUBTITLE D--RETIRED PAY, SURVIVOR BENEFITS, AND RELATED MATTERS

Section 631. Effective date for military retiree cost-of-living 
        adjustment for Fiscal Year 1998.

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
the date of the military retirement cost-of-living adjustment 
in Fiscal Year 1998 as January 1, 1998.

Section 632. Allotment of retired or retainer pay.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to establish procedures to allow military 
retirees a maximum of six retiree pay allotments.

Section 633. Cost-of-living increases in SBP contributions to be 
        effective concurrently with payment of related retired pay 
        cost-of-living increases.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that annual cost-of-living increases to Survivor Benefit Plan 
premiums be effective on the date on which the retired pay 
cost-of-living increase is effective.

Section 634. 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 635. Adjusted annual income limitation applicable to 
        eligibility for income supplement for certain widows of members 
        of the uniformed services.

    The committee recommends a provision that would adjust the 
maximum level of annual income at which eligibility for minimum 
income widows payments end. This adjustment is necessary to 
resolve the current situation in which the widow must be 
eligible for a nonservice connected death pension from the 
Department of Veterans' Affairs to receive the minimum income 
widow payment from the Department of Defense and, once she 
receives the combined payments, becomes ineligible by virtue of 
exceeding the maximum allowable annual income. Once the 
payments cease, the widow becomes eligible for the combined 
payments again. The recommended adjustment would eliminate the 
``yo-yo'' effect required under current law.

                       SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS

Section 641. Reimbursement for adoption expenses incurred in adoptions 
        through private placements.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authority to reimburse adoption expenses to those service 
members who adopt through private agencies if the adoption is 
supervised by the court.

Section--642. Waiver of recoupment of amounts withheld for tax purposes 
        from certain separation pay received by involuntarily separated 
        members and former members of the armed forces.

    The committee recommends a provision that would waive the 
recoupment of the amount of separation pays paid to 
involuntarily separated members which was withheld for tax 
purposes if the separation pay is later recouped. The most 
common example of this situation is when a member is 
involuntarily separated, paid separation pay, and is later 
determined to be eligible for tax-exempt disability 
compensation. Prior to receiving disability compensation, the 
individual must repay the separation pay. Without this waiver, 
the member would be forced to pay taxes on the separation pay 
with tax-exempt disability compensation.

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Foreign Language Proficiency Pay Qualification

    The committee has been advised that some service members 
attempt to circumvent the qualification procedures established 
to determine who may receive foreign language proficiency pay 
and the amount of that pay. In order to qualify for foreign 
language proficiency pay, a service member, in a speciality and 
duty assignment requiring language proficiency, must be 
certified by the service secretary as being proficient in the 
language. This certification is normally granted following 
successful completion of a test. In addition, the monthly 
amount may be determined according to how well the service 
member does on the test.
    It has come to the committee's attention that some service 
members are taking the certification tests multiple times at 
different testing sites in an attempt to qualify and/or to 
artificially raise their scores to qualify for higher monthly 
pays. The committee believes that, as a minimum, this behavior 
is outside the spirit of the Foreign Language Proficiency Pay 
authority.
    The integrity of any service member who attempts such 
activities is compromised. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the secretaries of 
the military services, to review the policies and procedures 
relating to certification for foreign language proficiency pay 
to ensure that the integrity of the process has not been 
compromised and to confirm that those certified to receive 
foreign language proficiency pay really merit such pay. The 
Secretary of Defense is directed to report the results of the 
review and any recommended corrective action to the Congress 
not later than February 1, 1997.

Special Duty Assignment Pay, Army Special Operations personnel

    The committee recommends an increase of $6.4 million in the 
Military Personnel, Army appropriation in order to fund Special 
Duty Assignment Pay (SDAP) for Army Special Operations Forces.
    It is the intent of the committee that this increase, 
funded from within the Special Operations Command operation and 
maintenance account at the Commander-in-Chief, Special 
Operations Command's request, be used to pay Army Special 
Forces and Ranger personnel Special Duty Assignment Pay. Army 
Special Operations Forces are the only component of Special 
Operations Command who do not receive SDAP. The committee 
understands that the Army has programmed funds to support SDAP 
for Special Operations Forces in fiscal year 1998 and beyond.
                   TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

    The committee addressed a number of health care issues. One 
of the committee's priorities this year was to continue 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 included several initiatives to improve 
the Department's ability to implement managed care. The 
committee was not able to include a provision that 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 commitment to 
enhancing quality of life and concern for the welfare of 
military personnel and their families.
Section 701. Implementation of requirement for Selected Reserve dental 
        insurance plan.
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
implementation date of the selected reserve dental insurance 
program from October 1, 1996 into fiscal year 1997. The 
provision would also stipulate a full and open competition for 
the award of the contract or contracts.
    The committee expects this program to be implemented as 
early as possible in 1997.

Section 702. Dental insurance plan for military retirees and certain 
        dependents.

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
dental insurance plan for military retirees and certain 
dependents. The program, which would be available to eligible 
beneficiaries not later than October 1, 1997, would require a 
plan similar to the active duty dependant dental insurance plan 
with voluntary enrollment and premiums paid by the member. 
Under the recommended provision, determination of the 
eligibility of a contractor would be within the purview of the 
government.
    The committee has included a separate provision providing 
for allotments from military retirement accounts to pay 
premiums under this program.

Section 703. Uniform Composite Health Care System software.

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to field a standardized version of the 
Composite Health Care System (CHCS) to be utilized by both 
managed care support contractors and military treatment 
facilities. This uniform interface should include industry 
standard methods for the bi-directional exchange of enrollment, 
provider, and other health insurance information and should be 
fully tested prior to implementation.
    The recommended provision would also direct the department 
to amend existing TRICARE managed care support contracts to 
require TRICARE contractors to use government furnished CHCS 
software for Military Treatment Facility (MTF) provider 
appointments and to record TRICARE MTF enrollment through 
direct use of the CHCS software, or through the uniform, bi-
directional interface between the contractor and the MTF 
systems.
    Contractors would have the option to maintain a centralized 
enrollment function, including eligibility determination, and 
use CHCS to manage the MTF population for which the MTFs are 
responsible.
    The committee does not view this to constitute a cardinal 
change to existing contracts.

Section 704. Clarification of applicability of CHAMPUS payment rules to 
        private CHAMPUS providers for care provided to enrollees in 
        health care plans of uniformed services treatment facilities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify 
that CHAMPUS payment rules apply to military beneficiaries 
enrolled in the USTF program, including dependents of active 
duty personnel and retirees, and that they apply even in 
situations when the health care is provided within the 
catchment area of the facility.

Section 705. Enhancement of third party collection and secondary payer 
        authorities under CHAMPUS.

    The committee recommends a provision that would refine the 
Third Party Collection Program under which military medical 
facilities collect from third party payers for health care 
services provided to beneficiaries who have additional coverage 
by a third-party plan or the CHAMPUS Double Coverage Program.

Section 706. Codification of authority to credit CHAMPUS collections to 
        program accounts.

    The committee recommends a provision that would make 
permanent the authority that allows the Civilian Health and 
Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) to credit 
refunds and similar collections to the current year 
appropriation available for that program.

Section 707. Comptroller General review of health care activities of 
        the Department of Defense relating to Persian Gulf Illnesses.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Comptroller General to conduct several reviews related to 
Persian Gulf Illnesses. The Comptroller General would review: 
the effectiveness of research and clinical programs of the 
Department of Defense which relate to illnesses which might be 
attributable to service in the Persian Gulf War; the Department 
of Defense policies relating to the use of drugs that are 
experimental or not approved by the Federal Drug 
Administration; and the administration of military medical 
records to assess the extent to which those records reflect 
pre-deployment medical processing, immunization records, 
informed consent releases, sick call and clinic visits during 
deployment, and other relevant medical information.
    The committee acknowledges the good work of the Department 
of Defense in pursing the causes and cures for the Persian Gulf 
Syndrome. The Department of Defense has initiated a number of 
scientific research efforts, some in conjunction with the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. Additionally, the Department of 
Defense has initiated several outreach programs to identify 
victims and suspected victims of these diseases. The committee 
believes that every effort must be made to ensure full and fair 
consideration of the needs of our veterans and to prevent any 
future occurrences of this type of undiagnosed illness. The 
committee notes that the Department of Defense did take 
proactive steps which resulted from lessons learned during 
Operation Desert Storm prior to the deployment to Operation 
Joint Endeavor in Bosnia.

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Examination of alternative financing methods of managed care support 
        contracts

    The committee understands that the Department has developed 
alternative financing methods for managed care support 
contracts that will be incorporated into the TRICARE contracts 
for regions 1, 2, and 5. The committee believes that these 
revised financing methods may have significant merit and urges 
the Department to carefully evaluate the implementation of the 
project.
    The committee recommends the formation of a working group 
consisting of representatives from the Department of Defense 
and the managed care industry to scrutinize all aspects of the 
proposed revisions, including the bid price adjustment methods, 
resource sharing, and incentive and risk shifting prior to the 
implementation of the program in regions 1, 2, and 5. The 
working group would also monitor and assist the actual 
implementation of the program in those regions.
    Should the alternative financing methods prove to be 
effective in regions 1, 2, and 5, the committee would encourage 
the Secretary to make a recommendation to have the alternative 
financing methods applied to the remaining TRICARE regions 
through a contract modification process.

Portability and reciprocity for TRICARE Prime enrollees across regions

    The committee encourages the implementation of several 
administrative policies that would further the seamlessness of 
the TRICARE program throughout the continental United States 
and enhance the convenience of the program for its 
beneficiaries.
    The committee supports the portability of enrollment 
amongst TRICARE regions. This would enable an enrolled 
beneficiary who changes his or her place of residence to 
transfer enrollment from one region to another. The current 
policy is cumbersome and requires the beneficiary to disenroll 
from one region to subsequently enroll in another.
    The committee also supports reciprocity of services amongst 
regions to ensure that a beneficiary enrolled in the TRICARE 
system has accessibility to care in any TRICARE region. This 
would accommodate beneficiary families that have covered family 
members residing in more than one TRICARE region.
    The committee believes that these initiatives advance the 
intended continuity, uniformity, and accessibility of the 
TRICARE program.

Continuation of support for telemedicine initiatives

    The committee understands that the Department of Defense is 
encouraged by their test of the transportable computer-based 
patient record, a part of PACMEDNET, during OPERATION JOINT 
ENDEAVOR. PACMEDNET is in the second phase of a three phase 
demonstration project. The committee urges the Department to 
designate $5.0 million from the Defense Health Program account 
to finance completion of the project.
    The committee believes the integration and application of 
network information technology systems throughout military 
medicine is crucial to the maintenance of medical readiness. 
However, the committee also believes that the integration and 
application of such technology should not be addressed in a 
piecemeal, service-specific or contractor-led manner. The 
development of, contracting for, or purchase of sophisticated, 
expensive information technology should respond to valid 
requirements and a comprehensive, coordinated plan that 
maximizes interoperability and cost-effectiveness without 
unnecessary redundancy and without degrading readiness.

Study of the extension of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program 
        (FEHBP) option to military retirees

    The committee directs the Department of Defense to conduct 
a study of the cost and feasibility of extending the option of 
enrollment in FEHBP to military retirees over age 65 and report 
to the Congress not later than March 1, 1997. The study should 
include the impact on cost, access, and utilization rates of 
other health care options under the health care system of the 
uniformed services, and a determination of the number of 
retirees that would exercise this option if it were available. 
The study should also include a recommendation as to whether 
such a proposal should be adopted.

Center for Prisoners of War Studies

    The committee recommends an increase of $2.7 million in the 
Defense Health Program appropriation to support establishment 
of a Center for Prisoners of War Studies under the auspices of 
the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. This 
center would continue the efforts of the Navy's Prisoner of War 
program in the Naval Aerospace and Operational Medicine 
Institute, Pensacola Naval Station, Florida which has become 
the repository for historical and longitudinal studies of 
prisoners of war.

Dental readiness

    The committee recognizes the importance of individual 
dental readiness in the overall combat readiness equation. The 
committee is, therefore, concerned about the capability of the 
military departments to fill requirements for dentists over the 
next several years. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Surgeons General to review the adequacy of accession and 
retention programs for dentists and to report their views on 
this matter to the Committee on Armed Services not later than 
April 1, 1997. These reports should, at a minimum, address: (1) 
requirements; (2) accession and retention projections; (3) the 
causes of any projected shortages; and 4) recommendations for 
reducing and eventually eliminating shortages in dentists.
  TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED 
                                MATTERS

Section 801. Procurement technical assistance programs.
    The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million to 
continue the procurement technical assistance center program in 
fiscal year 1997. The committee believes that the Department of 
Defense should continue to administer this program. The 
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to continue to utilize 
the infrastructure of the centers to implement acquisition 
streamlining initiatives in the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act of 1994 such as electronic commerce.
Section 802. Extension of pilot mentor-protege program.
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
period in which mentor firms under the Mentor-Protege program 
may incur costs for furnishing developmental assistance under 
the program until September 30, 1999. The provision would also 
extend the period during which new agreements can be entered 
into until September 30, 1998.
Section 803. Modification of authority to carry out certain prototype 
        projects.
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
until September 30, 2001 the authority in section 845 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 for the 
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to enter into 
prototyping projects using the other transactions authority in 
section 2371 of title 10, United States Code. The provision 
would also extend such authority to the military services and 
other defense agencies.
Section 804. Revisions to the program for the assessment of the 
        national defense technology and industrial base.
    The committee recommends a provision that would 
substantially amend the requirements in chapter 148 of title 10 
of the United States Code for analysis, assessment and planning 
concerning the national technology and industrial base. The 
committee has expressed its concern over the last several years 
with the inability of the Department of Defense to fulfill the 
requirements in current law with regard to technology and 
industrial base assessment and planning. The committee commends 
recent efforts by defense officials to establish procedures and 
policies to ensure that technology and industrial base 
considerations are given appropriate consideration in the 
programming and budgeting process in the Department of Defense. 
The amendments recommended by the committee would adjust the 
requirements in law to the capabilities that are being 
developed in the Department of Defense to ensure that Congress 
receives timely and meaningful information on the impact of 
budget decisions on the national technology and industrial 
base. The committee expects that the Department of Defense will 
comply fully and promptly with the requirements of the law.
    The provision would clarify that the Secretary of Defense 
has responsibility for preparing periodic and selected 
assessments of the capability of the national technology and 
industrial base to attain the national security objectives 
outlined in section 2501(a) of title 10, United States Code. 
The provision would also establish a requirement that the 
Secretary prepare and submit to Congress an annual report 
describing the assessment and analyses used to identify and 
address concerns about national technology and industrial base 
capabilities as well as each program in the annual budget 
request designed to sustain such capabilities.
Section 805. Procurements to be made from small arms industrial base 
        firms.
    The committee is concerned about the viability of the small 
arms industrial base and notes the findings of a 1994 Army 
Science Board review of this issue. These findings recommended 
that procurements of small arms parts, supplies, and services 
be made only from manufacturers which were listed in the study 
to support preservation of this critical industrial base. The 
committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Secretary of Defense with the authority to limit future 
contracts for such items to those firms listed in the study 
report.
Section 806. Exception to prohibition on procurement of foreign goods.
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2534 of title 10, United States Code, by providing 
additional authority for the Secretary of Defense to waive 
limitations on the procurement of goods other than United 
States goods. The amendment would authorize the Secretary to 
waive a limitation in a case where he determines that the 
application of the limitation would impede the reciprocal 
procurement of defense items under a memorandum of 
understanding entered into under section 2531 of title 10, 
United States Code.
Section 807. Treatment of Department of Defense cable television 
        franchise agreements.
    Section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) directed the United 
States Court of Federal Claims to render an advisory opinion to 
Congress as to whether it is within the power of the executive 
branch to treat cable franchise agreements as contracts under 
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and, if so, whether 
the executive branch is required by law to treat these 
agreements as contracts under the FAR. Pending receipt of the 
advisory opinion from the Court of Federal Claims, the 
committee recommends a provision similar to that included in S. 
1026 (S. Rept. 104-112), with a new subsection that would limit 
applicability to the Court of Federal Claims decision. It is 
the intention of the committee that this provision serve solely 
as a means to allow for later congressional action subsequent 
to issuance of an advisory opinion by the Court and is not 
intended to influence the advisory opinion of the Court on this 
matter.
Section 808. Remedies for reprisals against contractor employee 
        whistleblowers.
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
remedies in current law available to a contractor employee who 
is wrongfully terminated because he reported wrongdoing. Under 
current law, the employee must be reinstated in order to 
receive back pay and other compensation. The amendment would 
also allow for the payment of back pay and other compensation 
in the event that the employee is not reinstated.

Section 809. Implementation of information technology management 
        reform.

    The committee continues to support the various management 
initiatives that the Department of Defense (DOD) has been 
attempting to implement over the past few years. These 
initiatives include those required by law such as the Chief 
Financial Officers Act and the Government Performance and 
Results Act, as well as internal DOD initiatives such as the 
Defense Business Operating Fund (DBOF), Corporate Information 
Management (CIM), and the Defense Performance Review. All of 
the initiatives, when successfully implemented, have the 
potential to provide better direct support to the warfighter 
while using less resources.
    Last year, the Department's Inspector General noted in a 
review of these various Defense Management Improvement Programs 
that these programs duplicated one another and were diluting 
management focus and resources at all organizational levels. 
The Inspector General recommended that DOD establish an 
integrating framework for these various initiatives.
    The committee has shown its support for improving 
management controls and establishing performance measures by 
requiring in section 381 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 1995 that DOD report for three years on 
DOD's progress in doing so. It was the committee's intention 
that these changes would enable DOD to implement more 
successfully not only CIM, but improve the overall framework in 
managing the resources provided by the Congress to DOD. Last 
year the committee provided additional guidance in the 
Information Technology Management Reform Act of Fiscal Year 
1996 (ITMRA).
    The committee is encouraged that DOD has utilized the 
expertise of both the National Academy of Public Administration 
and the General Accounting Office in preparing these reports. 
However, the fact remains that DOD has yet to commit to the 
definite performance measures and management controls it 
intends to implement.
    Therefore, the committee encourages the Department's 
leadership to establish an integrated management framework that 
weaves the many management initiatives with the established 
Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS). The 
committee also encourages the Department to establish a 
strategic information resources management plan based on the 
Secretary's strategy for using the Department's core and 
supporting processes to support the Department's overall 
strategic goals.
    In order to measure the progress toward achieving these 
goals, the committee recommends a provision to require the 
Department to report to Congress on the establishment of the 
integrated management framework and provide to the committee 
the Department's overall strategic information resources 
management plan (including any service and agency subsets). The 
committee also directs that, as part of this report, the 
Department identify any directives and policies issued and/or 
actions taken to implement the reforms required by ITMRA, 
including National Security Systems under Subtitle E, sections 
5141 and 5142, of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996.

Software management best practices

    The committee supports the use of benchmarking DOD 
processes as required in section 5123(4) of ITMRA and 
encourages the development of best practices for software 
acquisition for all information technology in DOD. The 
committee is encouraged by the progress made in the Software 
Management Initiative, the Software Acquisition Best Practices 
Initiative, the report by the Defense Science Board on 
``Acquiring Defense Software Commercially'' and the work of the 
DOD Software Managers Network.
    The committee is concerned, however, by the lack of 
progress in implementing best practices in software acquisition 
and encourages the Secretary to prepare an implementation plan 
by January 1, 1997 of software acquisition best practices for 
information technology programs including those defined as 
national security systems under section 5141 and 5142 of ITMRA. 
In preparing this plan, the Secretary shall consider using 
modular acquisition methods as defined in section 5201 and 5202 
of ITMRA and the pilot authority granted in Section 5312 of 
ITMRA.

Year 2000 software conversion

    The committee, concerned by reports that the federal 
government may be underestimating the potential problem of 
converting date fields in software code and embedded systems to 
accommodate operation in the year 2000 directs the Department 
to assess the risk to DOD systems and to report to Congress on 
the resources necessary to complete conversion by the year 
2000. The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure that after September 30, 1996 all information technology 
as defined by ITMRA purchased by the Department will operate in 
2000 without technical modifications.

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Procurement goals for small business concerns owned by women

    The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public 
Law 103-355) established a government-wide goal for 
participation of small business concerns owned and controlled 
by women at not less than five percent of the total value of 
all prime contract and subcontract awards for each fiscal year. 
The Department of Defense has fallen significantly short of the 
goal with fiscal year 1995 awards to small businesses owned and 
controlled by women at only two percent of the total value of 
all contracts and subcontracts.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a 
report by March 31, 1997 describing the current and past 
efforts of the Department to achieve the five percent goal and 
describing the detailed plan of initiatives the Department 
intends to pursue to achieve such goal.

Economy Act transfer regulatory implementation

    The Department of Defense (DOD) has implemented significant 
policy changes to place effective controls on Economy Act 
purchases, as required by section 844 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1994 and section 1074 of the 
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. These policy 
changes should help to eliminate the abuse of contract ``off-
loading'', which has been used to avoid competition 
requirements, improperly obligate expiring funds, and avoid 
oversight and audit requirements. The greatest dollar value of 
Economy Act transfers takes place between the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Energy.
    In cases where the Economy Act order will require 
contracting by the agency receiving the order (the servicing 
agency), the Federal Acquisition Regulation now requires a 
determination that the order would be appropriate because: (1) 
the purchase is appropriately made under a contract previously 
entered into by the servicing agency to meet its own similar 
requirements; (2) the servicing agency has special expertise 
that makes it better qualified to enter into or administer the 
contract; or (3) the servicing agency is specifically 
authorized by law or regulation to purchase such goods or 
services on behalf of other agencies.
    Some confusion has arisen as to how work that is to be 
performed by (and not merely passed through) the Department of 
Energy's national laboratories should be treated under this 
provision. It is the view of the committee that work to be 
performed by a national laboratory should be subject to the 
determination requirement described above only if the order is 
likely or expected to require subcontracting by the national 
laboratory. Regardless of whether the order will require 
subcontracting, however, the committee expects the DOD to 
comply with provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
which limit the national laboratories to performing work that 
is within the laboratories' mission and cannot be effectively 
provided by the private sector.

Research projects: transactions other than contracts and grants

    The committee is encouraged by the findings of a March 1996 
General Accounting Office (GAO) report, ``DOD Research: 
Acquiring Research by Nontraditional Means.'' The report 
concluded that cooperative agreements and other transactions 
carried out under the authority of section 2371 of title 10, 
United States Code, have provided the Department of Defense 
(DOD) a tool to leverage the private sector's technological 
know-how and financial investment and have attracted firms that 
traditionally did not perform research for DOD to carry out 
such research. In light of the significant declines projected 
in defense research spending and the continued rapid growth of 
private sector research investments, the committee believes 
that it will become even more important for DOD to leverage 
commercial research investments and attract commercial firms to 
working on service requirements.
    However, the report also points out that DARPA has been the 
primary user of this innovative transaction authority thus far 
and that there has been some confusion on the use of this 
authority among the services. Since DOD is preparing new 
guidance on this matter, the committee would like to clarify 
several points. First, the committee intended in creating 
``other transactions authority'' to maximize flexibility on 
intellectual property negotiations with private sector 
entities. In particular, the committee did not intend that such 
transactions be subject to the provisions of Public Law 96-517, 
as amended. The GAO report specifically supports the 
committee's position and points out that this additional 
flexibility has been important in attracting commercial firms 
to carry out cost-shared research with the Pentagon. Second, 
the committee intended that the sunk cost of prior research 
efforts not count as cost-share on the part of the private 
sector firms. Only the additional resources provided by the 
private sector needed to carry out the specific project should 
be counted. Finally, in the committee's hearings, DOD officials 
testified that the reluctance of the services to use other 
transactions authority derived in part from the requirement 
that standard contract, grant or cooperative agreements first 
be found not feasible or appropriate for carrying out any given 
project. The committee did not intend that this requirement 
unduly restrict use of the other transactions instrument. DARPA 
has properly interpreted Congress' intent that if the goal of a 
research project is to leverage the capabilities of firms that 
will not accept a standard grant, contract or cooperative 
agreement to conduct defense research, then it is not feasible 
or appropriate to use such instruments and the use of ``other 
transactions authority'' is warranted. The committee intended 
that program managers in DARPA and the services be given the 
discretion to make these judgments within a framework provided 
by overall defense guidance. The committee urges that these 
issues be clarified by the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
as soon as possible so that the services can gain the benefits 
which the GAO report demonstrates DARPA has received from use 
of other transaction authorities.
      TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

    The committee notes that, as the Executive Branch downsizes 
and seeks ways to re-engineer, the Department of Defense 
continues to lead the efforts. The Department of Defense has 
implemented drastic reductions in terms of both military and 
civilian personnel. While some Executive Branch agencies remain 
essentially status quo, the Department of Defense may have 
reduced too much, too quickly, causing readiness to be degraded 
and potentially increasing costs. The committee included 
several provisions consistent with the administration's 
request.

                      SUBTITLE A--GENERAL MATTERS

Section 901. Repeal of reorganization of Office of Secretary of 
        Defense.
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
sections 901 and 903 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1996 which directed the reorganization of the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Section 902. Codification of requirements relating to continued 
        operation of the Uniformed Services University of the Health 
        Sciences.
    The committee recommends a provision that would codify in 
title 10, United States Code, those portions of the National 
Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996 that 
prohibit the closure of the Uniformed Services University of 
the Health Sciences (USUHS).
    The National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 
1995 and 1996 provide in the most straightforward terms 
possible that it is the will of the Congress that USUHS not be 
closed. Despite this unambiguous position on the part of the 
Congress, the Committee continues to receive incontrovertible 
evidence that the administration has every intention of closing 
USUHS. Further, the committee is concerned that the 
administration and the Department of Defense fail to understand 
the deleterious effects their ill-advised actions have on the 
current and prospective students and faculty of this national 
institution.
    Given the numerous critical issues facing the 
administration and the Department of Defense, the committee is 
disappointed in the amount of time and resources that have been 
and are being spent attempting to close this university in 
blatant disregard for the will of the Congress. The Secretary 
of Defense is directed to report to the congressional defense 
committees in writing each time he, or any official in the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, becomes aware of a 
initiative or action that would in any way suggest that USUHS 
would be closed. Such reports shall be in writing and submitted 
within 30 calendar days of the Secretary or other official 
becoming aware of an initiative or action requiring such a 
report.

Section 903. Codification of requirement for United States Army Reserve 
        Command.

    The committee recommends a provision that would codify the 
requirement for the United States Army Reserve Command. The 
recommended provision would establish that the chain of command 
for the United States Army Reserve Command shall be prescribed 
by the Secretary of the Army.

Section 904. Transfer of authority to control transportation systems in 
        time of war.

    The committee recommends a provision that would transfer 
the control of transportation systems during time of war from 
the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force to the Secretary of 
Defense. This provision was requested by the Department of 
Defense to centralize a function that was previously assigned 
to the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force.

Section 905. Executive oversight of defense human intelligence 
        personnel.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 193 of title 10, United States Code, to provide that 
the Secretary of Defense shall exercise oversight of the 
clandestine activities of Department of Defense human 
intelligence personnel, and that such responsibility may only 
be delegated to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Section 906. Coordination of defense intelligence programs and 
        activities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 
section 203 of title 10, United States Code, to designate the 
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency as the Director of 
Military Intelligence (DMI) and would provide that the DMI 
manages the General Defense Intelligence Program and chairs the 
Military Intelligence Board (MIB). The provision would also 
designate the members of the MIB and provide that the MIB shall 
be the principal forum for the coordination of the intelligence 
programs and activities of the Department of Defense.

Section 907. Redesignation of Office of Naval Records and History Fund 
        and correction of related references.

    The committee recommends a provision that would update the 
statutory references to the name of the Navy's central 
historical activity. The Navy has changed the name of this 
activity from the Naval Records and History Fund to the Naval 
Historical Center Fund.

            SUBTITLE B--NATIONAL IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY

                        Sections 911 through 934

National Imagery and Mapping Agency

    The Executive Branch has recommended the establishment of a 
new Combat Support Agency within the Department of Defense 
called the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) to 
provide a single agency focus for imagery and geospacial 
information within the United States Government. The committee 
strongly supports this initiative and recommends a provision 
that would establish this new organization.
    NIMA would: (1) be the focal point for the growing and 
diverse number and types of customers of imagery and geospacial 
information; (2) ensure visibility and accountability for 
imagery and geospacial resources; (3) harness, leverage, and 
focus rapid technological developments to serve imagery, 
imagery intelligence, and geospacial information customers; and 
(4) solicit and advocate customer needs for this growing and 
diverse customer pool. The term ``imagery,'' as defined and 
used in this Act, includes products produced from space-based 
national intelligence reconnaissance systems, in accordance 
with Executive Order 12951 and any successor or superseding 
Orders.
    Although NIMA would carry out its mission responsibilities 
under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of 
Defense, with the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, it would have a vital ``national'' mission to serve the 
imagery and geospacial information needs of consumers outside 
the Department of Defense. It would carry out its 
responsibilities to national intelligence customers in 
accordance with the policies and priorities of the Director of 
Central Intelligence (DCI). The Central Intelligence Agency 
(CIA) would have clear, affirmative authorization to provide 
administrative and contracting services to the NIMA to insure 
accomplishment of the national mission of the NIMA or the 
performance of intelligence community activities of common 
concern, notwithstanding provisions of law that would otherwise 
limit such an authorization. The CIA also would be permitted to 
provide security police services for NIMA facilities, 
notwithstanding any limitations on jurisdiction of such 
personnel contained in section 15 of the Central Intelligence 
Agency Act of 1949.
    NIMA would be established by bringing together various 
agencies and organizations already in existence within the 
Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community. 
Specifically, NIMA would be made up of: the Defense Mapping 
Agency; the Central Imagery Office; other elements of the 
Department of Defense identified in the classified annex to 
this Act; the National Photographic Interpretation Center of 
the CIA; and other elements of the CIA identified in the 
classified annex to this Act.
    NIMA would be responsible for imagery requirements 
management, exploitation, dissemination, and archiving. It 
would define and recommend policies on imagery and geospacial 
information, and coordinate requirements for an end-to-end 
architecture, integrated into the National and Defense 
Information Infrastructure, to satisfy customer needs and to 
ensure appropriate interoperability.
    NIMA would not be responsible for developing, procuring, or 
operating imagery collection systems, which are 
responsibilities currently held by the National Reconnaissance 
Office, the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, and the 
intelligence elements of the military services. Nor would NIMA 
include or replace current organizations for tactical military 
exploitation and use of imagery products. In effect, NIMA would 
provide a coherent and uniform linkage between these two ends 
of the imagery spectrum.
    NIMA would not replace or diminish the current 
responsibilities of federal civilian agencies for mapping, 
charting, and geodesy, or change their existing 
responsibilities for disaster or emergency response or civil 
imagery archives. Rather, NIMA would facilitate their access to 
critical national security information, when appropriate, and 
promote technology exchange through established interagency 
mechanisms, such as the Civil Applications Committee. The 
ability of all members of the intelligence community to obtain 
both imagery intelligence support regarding matters of common 
concern and support necessary for individual agency 
requirements would be maintained and expanded, as appropriate.
    The committee believes that the legislative charter for 
NIMA contained in this Act strikes an appropriate balance 
between the needs of ``national'' intelligence and combat 
support. As a Combat Support Agency, NIMA must be under the 
clear authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of 
Defense. But the charter also provides for a clear and 
prominent role for the DCI to task imagery systems and exploit 
imagery products in support of the national mission. The 
committee notes that the Director of Central Intelligence 
strongly supports establishment of NIMA as a Combat Support 
Agency in Title 10, United States Code. The DCI has testified 
that his peacetime imagery tasking authorities are protected 
under this arrangement and that he does not believe that 
support to national customers will be in any way jeopardized. 
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, establishment of NIMA 
will not derogate from the existing authorities of the 
Secretary of Defense or the DCI.
    The committee also notes that the Commission on the Roles 
and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community 
strongly endorsed the establishment of NIMA as a combat support 
agency within the Department of Defense. The committee shares 
the Commission's conclusion that NIMA will significantly 
improve imagery support to both military operations and 
planning, as well as to national consumers of intelligence.
    The committee notes that limited collective bargaining 
would be permitted in NIMA. Collective bargaining units that 
were recognized by the Defense Mapping Agency at the time its 
employees and positions were transferred to NIMA would continue 
to represent the same categories of employees in the NIMA, 
although expansion of those units or the creation of new 
bargaining units in NIMA would be prohibited. Positions 
determined at any time to be engaged in intelligence, 
counterintelligence, investigative, or security work directly 
affecting national security would be excluded, at the 
discretion of the NIMA Director. Permitting continuation of 
limited collective bargaining in NIMA would not be intended to 
be a precedent affecting current or future employees or 
agencies of the Intelligence Community. It would be a one-time 
solution to a unique situation. The same would be true for the 
granting of statutory adverse action due process rights, 
including the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection 
Board, to NIMA employees.
                      TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     SUBTITLE A--FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1003. Authorization of prior emergency supplemental 
        appropriations for fiscal year 1996.
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the emergency supplemental appropriations enacted in the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1996. The supplemental 
appropriations provided funding for fiscal year 1996 expenses 
related to military operations in Bosnia.

Section 1004. Use of funds transferred to the Coast Guard.

    The committee is concerned with the lack of oversight of 
the funds which are appropriated to the Department of Defense 
for transfer to the Coast Guard for its activities in support 
of national security. The committee believes that these funds 
should be used for the national security functions of the Coast 
Guard, including its support of the DOD counter-narcotics 
program. Therefore, the committee includes a provision 
requiring the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
Transportation to jointly certify to the Congress that the 
funds transferred from the Department of Defense to the Coast 
Guard will be used for the national security functions of the 
Coast Guard.

Section 1005. Use of military-to-military contacts funds for 
        professional military education and training.

    The committee recognizes the value that the military-to-
military contacts program has provided in the development of 
close ties between the military forces of the United States and 
those of other nations. These ties serve to ensure greater 
stability in an unpredictable world.
    The committee recommends a provision to expand the current 
military-to-military contacts program to increase the 
participation of civilian and military personnel of foreign 
countries in training programs of the U.S. military.

Section 1006. Payment of certain expenses relating to humanitarian and 
        civic assistance.

    The committee strongly supports the humanitarian demining 
program of the Department of Defense. The committee recognizes 
the valuable contribution that this program has made to United 
States military personnel and civilians of other nations.
    The committee includes a provision to amend section 401 of 
title 10, United States Code, in order to allow funds 
appropriated to the overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic 
assistance program to be used to pay for the travel, 
transportation, and subsistence expenses of Department of 
Defense personnel providing humanitarian demining assistance. 
The provision would also allow for the purchase of supplies, 
services, and equipment to be used in providing such 
assistance.

Section 1007. Prohibition on expenditure of Department of Defense funds 
        by officials outside the department.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2215 of title 10, United States Code, to provide that 
funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for 
intelligence activities may not be obligated or expended by an 
officer or employee of the United States who is not an officer 
or employee of the Department of Defense. The provision would 
also provide that an officer or employee of the Department of 
Defense may not delegate the authority to obligate or expend 
funds appropriated for the Department of Defense for 
intelligence activities to an officer or employee of the United 
States who is not an officer or employee of the Department of 
Defense.

Section 1008. Prohibition on use of funds for Office of Naval 
        Intelligence representation or related activities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the use of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or 
otherwise made available for the Navy for fiscal year 1997 for 
use by the Office of Naval Intelligence for official 
representation or related activities.

Section 1009. Reimbursement of Department of Defense for costs of 
        disaster assistance provided outside the United States.

    The committee is concerned with the current practice of 
using funds appropriated to the Department of Defense to 
provide disaster assistance to foreign nations. The committee 
believes that funds appropriated to the Agency for 
International Development would be more appropriate for 
providing such assistance.
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of Congress that whenever the President directs the 
Secretary of Defense to provide disaster assistance outside the 
United States, the President should also direct the 
Administrator of the Agency for International Development to 
reimburse the Department of Defense for the cost of the 
assistance provided. The committee further reduces the amount 
of money authorized to the Department of Defense for 
humanitarian and disaster assistance by $31.5 million. This 
would still provide the Department with $49.0 million for these 
activities.

Section 1010. Fisher House Trust Fund for the Navy.

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
trust fund on the books of the Treasury for Fisher Houses in 
the Navy. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1996 established trust funds for the Fisher Houses in the 
Army and the Air Force. The Navy was inadvertently omitted. The 
recommended provision resolves that omission.

Section 1011. Designation and liability of disbursing and certifying 
        officials for the Coast Guard.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization for the designation and appointment of disbursing 
and certifying officials within the Department of Defense to 
the Secretary of Transportation for the Coast Guard. The 
Department of Defense was authorized to designate and appoint 
disbursing and certifying officials in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. The recommended 
provision would include the Coast Guard in these financial 
management authorities.

Section 1012. Authority to suspend or terminate collection actions 
        against deceased members of the Coast Guard.

    The committee recommends a provision that would rescind the 
requirement to initiate and pursue collection actions against 
the estates of members of the Coast Guard who die while on 
active duty and are indebted to the government. The Secretary 
of Transportation would have discretionary authority to suspend 
or terminate collection when the Secretary determines that 
collection action would be inappropriate. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 rescinded this 
requirement for members of the armed forces providing the 
discretion to the Secretary of Defense. The recommended 
provision gives the Secretary of Transportation the same 
authority relative to the Coast Guard.

Section 1013. Check cashing and exchange transactions with credit 
        unions outside the United States.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Department of Defense disbursing officials to cash checks for 
U.S. Federal Credit Unions operating at the invitation of the 
Department of Defense in foreign countries where contractor-
operated military banking facilities are not available. The 
recommended provision would allow the government to provide 
cash to the federal credit unions so that the credit unions can 
provide retail financial services to U.S. military and civilian 
personnel and their families who are authorized to use the 
facilities.

                SUBTITLE B--NAVAL VESSELS AND SHIPYARDS

Section 1021. Authority to transfer naval vessels.

    The committee recommends a provision that would transfer 
six Knox class frigates, one Oliver Hazard Perry class guided 
missile frigate, one Newport class tank landing ship, and two 
Stalwart class ocean surveillance ships to various countries. 
All transfers would be on a sale or lease basis with the 
exception of the transfer of one of the two Stalwart class 
ships to Portugal on a grant basis under section 2321j of title 
22, United States Code. The Chief of Naval operations has 
certified that these naval vessels are not essential to the 
defense of the United States. Any expense incurred by the 
United States in connection with these transfers would be 
charged to the recipient. The provision would also direct the 
Secretary of the Navy to require, to the maximum extent 
possible, that repairs or refurbishment associated with making 
these vessels ready for transfer be performed at shipyards 
located in the United States.

Section 1022. Transfer of certain obsolete tugboats of the Navy.

    The committee recommends a provision that would transfer 
six obsolete tugboats from the Navy to an instrumentality of 
the State of Wisconsin, the Northeast Wisconsin Railroad 
Transportation Commission. The transfer would be at no expense 
to the Navy. The provision would also direct the Secretary of 
the Navy to require, as a condition of transfer, that use of 
the vessels by the Commission not commence until the terms of 
any necessary environmental compliance letter have been met.

Section 1023. Repeal of requirement for continuous applicability of 
        contracts for phased maintenance of AE class ships.

    The Committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 1016 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996.

Section 1024. Contract options for LMSR vessels.

    The Navy has negotiated contracts or contract options with 
two shipyards for the construction of 12 new large medium speed 
roll-on/roll-off (LMSR) ships to address a requirement for 1.0 
million square feet of strategic sealift capacity. This 
requirement, which initially emerged as a recommendation of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff's Mobility Requirements Study (MRS), was 
subsequently reaffirmed by an update of the MRS that was 
performed after completion of the Bottom-Up Review.
    Section 1013 of The National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 expressed the sense of Congress that the 
Secretary of the Navy should conduct a limited competition 
between the two shipyards involved in the construction of new 
LMSRs and negotiate contract options for the remaining two 
ships not yet under contract. The provision also stipulated 
that these two options should be available to the Secretary for 
exercise during 1995, 1996, or 1997.
    The committee has learned through testimony and briefings 
associated with the fiscal year 1997 budget request that there 
has been schedule delays and cost growth in the new 
construction LMSR program, and that the Department of the Navy 
is involved in internal discussions of how best to address 
these issues in preparing its fiscal year 1998 budget request.
    To some degree, schedule disruption in the new construction 
program has been induced by delays of up to two years in a 
complementary program for the conversion of five commercial 
ships to LMSR configuration. This conversion program is 
currently in progress at two shipyards, one of which is also 
building new LMSRs. Information gathered by the committee 
indicates that the full cost and schedule impact of delays in 
the conversion program also remains unclear and will not be 
available until submission of the fiscal year 1998 budget 
request.
    One of the two shipyards may be disadvantaged by a limited 
competition now. The disadvantaged shipyard would be the 
shipyard that is currently working on both conversions and new 
construction LSMRs, both programs having encountered schedule 
delays and cost growth. Until the Navy decides what to do about 
the cost growth in both the conversion and new construction 
LMSR programs, it is not clear that further contract awards now 
make sense.
    Given these uncertainties, the committee has concluded that 
it would be imprudent to leave intact directive language that 
might cause the Secretary of the Navy to make contract option 
awards in fiscal year 1997 before the full extent of known and 
potential schedule delays and cost growth can be evaluated. 
Consequently, the committee recommends a provision that would 
amend section 1013 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1996 to prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from 
negotiating and awarding these contract options before fiscal 
year 1998.

                  SUBTITLE C--COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

                           Sections 1031-1033

Drug interdiction and counterdrug activities

    The budget request for drug interdiction and other 
counterdrug activities of the Department of Defense totals 
$814.1 million. This includes the $642.7 million drug 
interdiction account, $32.1 in the National Foreign 
Intelligence Program for the National Drug Intelligence Center 
and Throttle Car, and $139.5 million in the military services' 
operating budgets for counterdrug operations. This compares 
with a total of $810.9 million for these activities during 
fiscal year 1996, including $679.4 million for the drug 
interdiction account and $131.5 million in the services'' 
operating budgets.
    The committee is concerned with the continued support of 
the National Drug Intelligence Center through funds 
appropriated to the Department of Defense. The committee notes 
that the National Drug Intelligence Center is an activity 
operated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and principally 
staffed by the DOJ, but totally financed by DOD, including the 
salaries and travel of DOJ employees. The committee notes that 
a recent letter to the Congress from the Deputy Attorney 
General stated that ``NDIC shall remain under the direction and 
control of the Attorney General, which it must as a law 
enforcement agency.''
    Therefore, the committee recommends a provision which would 
prohibit further DOD funding of NDIC. If the Attorney General 
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 is further concerned with the recent decision 
by the administration to transfer this program from the drug 
interdiction account to accounts normally under the control of 
the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The National 
Security Act of 1947 prohibits the Director of Central 
Intelligence from having any control over domestic law 
enforcement operations such as NDIC. The committee is concerned 
that funding NDIC in this manner may lead to an inappropriate 
relationship between the foreign intelligence community and 
domestic law enforcement. Therefore, the committee includes a 
provision directing the General Accounting Office and other 
investigatory agencies to review the operation of NDIC to 
ensure that there are no inappropriate activities taking place.

Funding adjustments

    The committee recommends an increase of $119.0 million for 
the counterdrug initiatives of the Office of National Control 
Policy. This increase would provide $15.0 million for the 
refurbishment and installation of an TPS-70 radar, $98.0 
million for the retrofitting of two P-3B AEW aircraft to be 
used in counter narcotics activities, and $6.0 million for the 
purchase of non-intrusive inspection systems. The increase in 
funding for these items would be offset by a reduction in the 
DOD budget request of $119.0 million for the Coast Guard. The 
budget request has not been justified by an explanation as to 
how these funds will be used by the Coast Guard in support of 
America's national security.
    These increases will support important counter narcotics 
activities. The retrofitting of the P-3B aircraft will provide 
the U.S. Customs Service with two additional detection and 
monitoring aircraft by installing airborne radars on excess 
Navy P-3 aircraft. This initiative will provide increased 
pressure against the narcotrafficker air bridge in the source 
countries. Since these aircraft will assume much of the 
tracking responsibility, this initiative will also reduce the 
OPTEMPO, operating costs, and personnel stress that is placed 
on high-demand USAF E-3 AWACS.
    The installation of the TPS-70 radar will assist the 
Department, and those cooperative governments of the source 
nations, in efforts to further reduce the amount of drugs that 
smugglers are moving using aircraft.
    The committee has long supported the Department's prototype 
development plan for non-intrusive inspection of cargo 
containers for contraband drugs. This effort reached partial 
fruition last year with a decision by the U.S. Customs Service 
to deploy 12 fixed-site backscatter x-ray systems along the 
southwest border for the detection of contraband drugs in empty 
or lightly loaded trucks and cargo containers. As stated above, 
the committee recommends an additional $6.0 million for the 
purchase of these devices in fiscal year 1997.
    Unfortunately, the high energy x-ray system that was 
developed by DOD and fully tested at Tacoma, Washington for 
inspection of loaded cargo containers was not economically 
feasible for use by Customs. The Committee understands that the 
Pulsed Fast Neutron Activation (PFNA) system, a prototype of 
which has been successfully tested by DOD, has also been 
determined by Customs to be economically infeasible for the 
counter-drug mission because of the expense required to deploy 
such a system at every major seaport. This year, $6.5 million 
has been made available under the Technical Support Working 
Group (TSWG) program to further develop the PFNA system for 
explosives detection. However, despite the potential multi-
mission use of the PFNA system, its relatively high cost as a 
fixed-site system may still cause it to be economically 
infeasible. Accordingly, the committee recommends the addition 
of $9.0 million to make the PFNA prototype system relocatable 
for potential use at high-threat seaports for the detection of 
contraband drugs and explosives. The committee urges the 
Secretary of Defense, through normal reprogramming procedures, 
to provide any additional funds necessary for this effort.
    The committee recognizes that a substantial quantity of the 
narcotics entering the United States from South America 
continues to come across the southwest border. Some reports put 
this quantity as high as 70 percent. The committee urges the 
Department to increase its efforts in stemming the flow of 
narcotics across this border and recommends a provision, 
section 1031, that would grant the Secretary of Defense the 
authority to provide additional support for counter-drug 
activities of the Government of Mexico. In addition, the 
committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in fiscal year 
1997 to be used for this purpose. The committee directs the 
Secretary of Defense to notify the Committees on Armed Services 
and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees on 
National Security and International Relations of the House of 
Representatives each time the Department provides such 
assistance pursuant to the provision. Further, the committee 
recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the purchase of 
signal intelligence equipment to be used for communications 
intercept activities along the southwest border.
    The committee is aware that the Department's request is 
insufficient to provide full funding of Operation Laser Strike 
in fiscal year 1997. Laser Strike will build on the success of 
Operation Green Clover and involves a sustained level of U.S. 
detection, monitoring and tracking resources, as well as 
assessments and training, to support expanded interdiction and 
law enforcement efforts by nations of the source region. The 
committee supports this important operation and recommends an 
increase of $8.0 million in order to provide full funding.
     The committee is also aware that drug traffickers are 
making greater use of the vast river network in the Andean 
region to transport processed cocaine and pre-cursor materials. 
Currently, the governments in the source nations are ill-
equipped and ill-trained to interdict drug trafficking on their 
rivers and waterways. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
increase of $2.0 million for assistance to the governments of 
the source nations in their efforts to stem the flow of 
narcotics moving on these rivers.
    The committee has learned that the number of OH-58D 
helicopters in the Army National Guard will be reduced 
dramatically under the Army's Aviation Restructure Initiative. 
These helicopters, with their forward looking infrared radar 
(FLIR), are particularly useful in the National Guard's 
detection of illicit marijuana fields. The committee has been 
advised that the Department of Defense's Office of Drug 
Enforcement Policy and Support is reviewing this situation with 
a view towards the retention of additional OH-58D helicopters, 
as appropriate, within existing funding resources. The 
committee strongly supports this initiative and directs that 
Office, in coordination with the Department of the Army and the 
National Guard Bureau, to ensure the allocation of additional 
helicopters to those states that have historically used these 
assets for the detection and destruction of illicit marijuana 
fields.

Drug Interdiction & Counterdrug Activities, Operations and Maintenance 
                                  \1\

                                                               Thousands
Fiscal Year 1997 Drug and Counterdrug Request.................  $814,100
    Source Nation Support.....................................   154,000
    Detection and Monitoring..................................   232,100
    Disruption of Drug Mafia Organizations....................    57,100
    Law Enforcement Agency....................................   255,000
    Demand Reduction..........................................    84,000
    National Drug Intelligence Center and Throttle Car........    32,100
Reductions:
    National Drug Intelligence Center (NFIP)..................    29,000
    Throttle Car (NFIP).......................................     3,100
Increases:
    Throttle Car..............................................     3,100
    Pulsed Fast Neutron Activation............................     9,000
    Support for Military Counterdrug Units of Mexico..........     8,000
    Laser Strike..............................................     8,000
    Riverine Operations in South America......................     2,000
    Signal Intelligence Equipment for Southwest Border........     2,000
    Refurbish and Install TPS-70 Radar........................    15,000
    P-3B AEW Retrofit (2 a/c).................................    98,000
    Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems..........................     6,000
    Recommendation............................................   933,100

\1\ May not add due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           SUBTITLE D--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Section 1041. Agreements for exchange of defense personnel between the 
        United States and foreign countries.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to enter into agreements with the 
governments of allies of the United States and other friendly 
countries for the exchange of military and civilian personnel 
of the Department of Defense and military and civilian 
personnel of the defense ministries of foreign governments in 
order to promote greater understanding, standardization, and 
interoperability. The benefit to each government must be 
substantially equal and each government must pay the travel, 
per diem, and training costs for their own personnel. No oath 
of allegiance to the host country may be taken and no exchange 
personnel may hold an official capacity in the host country.
    The committee intends that this authority be implemented 
specifically as written. This authority is not to be used as a 
mechanism to require the Department of Defense to fund visits 
and training of military and civilian personnel from certain 
countries without reciprocal exchanges that provide 
substantially equivalent benefits to the United States.
    The Secretary of Defense is directed to report to the 
Congress annually, not later than March 1 each year, the costs 
of this program to the United States, which appropriation 
funded those costs, and the agencies and positions that are 
involved in the exchange program, both within the United States 
and in the foreign countries.

Section 1042. Authority for reciprocal exchange of personnel between 
        the United States and foreign countries for flight training.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the exchange of students on a one-for-one basis each fiscal 
year between U.S. flight training schools and comparable flight 
training schools of foreign countries. These exchanges are 
currently being accomplished through the Foreign Military Sales 
program which is cumbersome and not responsive to fluctuating 
currency exchange rates.

Section 1043. Extension of counterproliferation authorities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1505 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484) to extend the authority 
of the Department of Defense to provide support to the United 
Nations Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) through the end of fiscal 
year 1998. The provision would also revise funding restrictions 
in a manner consistent with the original legislation. Such 
authority is especially important given ongoing concerns over 
Iraq's continued possession of weapons of mass destruction and 
missile delivery systems. The Department of Defense, including 
its executive agent for matters regarding UNSCOM, the On-Site 
Inspection Agency (OSIA), requires the authority to continue 
much of its current activities in support of UNSCOM.

            SUBTITLE E--MISCELLANEOUS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Section 1051. Annual report on emerging operational concepts.

    Elsewhere in the report, the committee has expressed a 
concern about the fact that the activity to explore operational 
concepts made possible by recent technologies and the end of 
the Cold War is not sufficiently focused at a level above the 
individual military services. The committee believes that such 
an approach is necessary to ensure an adequate consideration of 
joint operational concepts and the coordination of each of the 
service processes into a coherent and affordable defense 
program in the 21st century. In order to foster a greater 
degree of coordination among the services on these issues, the 
committee recommends a provision requiring the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff in his role as Chairman of the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council to provide an annual report to 
the Congress describing the processes for defining emerging 
operational concepts in each of the services and the manner in 
which services' processes are coordinated in matters of 
doctrine, operational concepts, organization and acquisition 
strategy.

Section 1052. Annual joint warfighting science and technology plan.

    The committee supports current efforts in the Department of 
Defense to implement a process to ensure that DOD science and 
technology programs adequately support future warfighting 
requirements. For that reason, the committee recommends a 
provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to submit 
to the congressional defense committees the annual Joint 
Warfighting Science and Technology plan so that it may be 
considered in the congressional review of the President's 
defense budget request. The provision would also require that 
additional information of interest to Congress be submitted in 
conjunction with the plan.

Section 1053. Report on military readiness requirements of the Armed 
        Forces.

    In the 1970s the United States allowed its military to 
become hollow by failing to dedicate adequate resources to the 
day-to-day operational requirements of our armed forces. This 
crisis was reversed by increasing funding for operations and 
maintenance, ammunition, spare parts, and other accounts 
directly related to near-term readiness.
    During its hearings on the fiscal year 1997 defense budget 
request, the committee has heard repeated testimony from the 
service chiefs and service secretaries that the future 
readiness of our armed forces is jeopardized by a shortfall in 
modernization funding. Because of our failure to adequately 
fund the investment accounts, our forces today face a future 
armed with rapidly aging equipment which will be difficult and 
expensive to maintain and operate.
    Finding the funds to develop weapons systems for the force 
structure of the next century means that we must look for 
efficiencies in the armed forces of today. There are many 
approaches to streamlining defense operations and activities 
that could result in cost savings and which should be done to 
ensure the best value to the American taxpayer. Another 
approach which would save scarce defense resources and make 
available needed funding for critical modernization programs 
would be to reevaluate the readiness requirements of our 
military forces.
    Although, to a limited extent, the military services 
currently maintain forces at varying readiness levels, a 
comprehensive, force-wide review must be performed to ensure 
the future overall readiness of our forces. The committee 
recommends a provision that would direct the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff to perform such an assessment.
    This provision would establish a requirement for a one-time 
report from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the 
military readiness requirements of all U.S. armed forces, 
including active and reserve components as well as support 
units, using a tiered readiness system. The provision would 
also direct the service chiefs and the Commander-in-Chief of 
the U.S. Special Operations Command to prepare the report for 
the Chairman. The report which they prepare should assign each 
force unit, described by type rather than unit name, to one of 
three tiers of combat readiness which are defined in the 
provision. The provision establishes parameters for the 
assessment. The provision would also direct the Chairman to 
provide a listing of all forces that are not assigned to one of 
the three readiness tiers. After the service chiefs provide the 
Chairman with this report, the Chairman shall provide the 
report to the congressional defense committees together with 
his comments. The report is required to be submitted by January 
31, 1997.

                       SUBTITLE F--OTHER MATTERS

Section 1061. Uniform Code of Military Justice amendments.

    The committee recommends a provision that would make a 
technical amendment to existing legislation requiring 
forfeitures by persons sentenced to confinement by a special 
court-martial to conform the provision to the maximum 
punishment that may be adjudged by a special court-martial.
    The committee also recommends a provision, requested by the 
Department of Defense and the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Armed Forces, concerning the appointment of certain 
employees of the court. This change to Article 143 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 943(c)) would allow 
the Court to make appointments to non-attorney positions 
established in a judge's chambers in the same manner as they 
currently make attorney position appointments. The change will 
affect a total of between 10 to 20 individuals for the entire 
court.

Section 1062. Limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic 
        nuclear delivery systems.

    Section 1404 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) prohibits the use of 
funds during fiscal year 1996 for the retirement of B-52H 
bombers, Trident ballistic missile submarines, Minuteman III 
intercontinental ballistic missiles, or Peacekeeper 
intercontinental ballistic missiles, or preparing to retire or 
dismantle such systems. The Statement of Managers accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
emphasized the need not to begin reducing strategic delivery 
systems until the future of the START II Treaty became clearer. 
It also emphasized the need to maintain 94 B-52H bomber 
aircraft in the active inventory (partly in an attrition 
reserve status) until all issues related to conventional bomber 
requirements had been thoroughly studied and resolved.
    The committee recommends a similar provision for fiscal 
year 1997 and notes that the budget request does not include 
funds to support the 28 B-52H aircraft that the Air Force was 
planning to retire. Therefore, the committee recommends a net 
increase of $58.8 million to retain these aircraft in attrition 
reserve status, including $11.5 million in Air Force aircraft 
procurement funds, $42.9 million in Air Force operation and 
maintenance funds, and $4.4 million in Air Force military 
personnel funds. In making this recommendation, the committee 
does not intend to alter the Air Force's ongoing effort to 
consolidate B-52 squadrons. The committee also does not intend 
to preclude long-range pre-planning, design, or evaluation 
efforts to allow the Navy and the Air Force to be ready to 
execute various retirement and dismantlement options in an 
efficient manner.
    The committee does not intend to preclude the 
implementation of the START II Treaty should it enter into 
force during fiscal year 1997. Therefore, the committee 
recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of 
Defense to waive the funding restrictions on retiring or 
dismantling strategic nuclear delivery systems, other than for 
B-52H bombers, to the extent necessary to implement the START 
II Treaty.

Section 1063. Correction of references to Department of Defense 
        organizations.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
reference to North American Air Defense Command in title 10, 
United States Code, to conform to the new name as the North 
American Aerospace Defense Command. The provision also would 
change all references to ``Anniston Army Depot'' each place it 
appears in the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice 
and Firearms Safety Act to ``Defense Distribution Depot, 
Anniston''.

Section 1064. Authority of certain members of the Armed Forces to 
        perform notarial or consular acts.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
all judge advocates of the armed forces, adjutants, assistant 
adjutants, personnel adjutants, and other members of the armed 
forces designated by regulations of the armed forces to have 
the same notary public authority without regard to whether they 
are on active duty or performing inactive duty for training. 
Under current law, reserve component personnel do not have the 
general powers of a notary public unless they are on active 
duty.

Section 1065. Training of members of the uniformed services at non-
        Government facilities.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military personnel to use the same procedures for acquiring 
commercial training courses as civilian personnel.

Section 1066. Third-party liability to United States for tortious 
        infliction of injury or disease on members of the uniformed 
        services.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section one of the Medical Care Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 2651) 
to enable the United States to recover the costs of 
compensation provided to members of the armed forces by the 
United States when they are unable to perform their regular 
military duties due to circumstances in which a third party has 
tort liability. The recommended provision would be an extension 
of current law which allows the United States recovery of costs 
incurred by the United States for the medical treatment of a 
beneficiary. Any amounts recovered would be credited to the 
appropriation supporting the command to which the injured 
member was assigned. The provision would permit recovery 
without a finding of tort liability in no-fault states.

Section 1067. Display of State flags at installations and facilities of 
        the Department of Defense.

    Recent confusion concerning the display of state flags at 
official military functions indicates that there is a lack of 
uniformity among the services as to the proper method of 
handling official state and territorial flags. The exclusion of 
certain flags from a full display of official state flags for 
any reason tends to indicate that the Department of Defense has 
varying degrees of respect for different states.
    The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 
the adoption or enforcement of any rule that discriminates 
against the display of any official state or United States' 
Territory flag at an official ceremony at Department of Defense 
installations at which the flags of the other states are being 
displayed.

Section 1068. George C Marshall European Center for Strategic Security 
        Studies.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the George C. Marshall Center for Strategic Security to accept 
contributions from foreign governments, foundations, charitable 
organizations, and individuals in foreign countries. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
authorized the center to receive contributions from the Federal 
Republic of Germany.

Section 1069. Authority to award to civilian participants in the 
        defense of Pearl Harbor the congressional medal previously 
        authorized only for military participants in the defense of 
        Pearl Harbor.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend to 
civilians who participated in the defense of Pearl Harbor 
eligibility for award of a bronze medal to commemorate the 
services of those persons to the United States.

Section 1070. Michael O'Callaghan Federal Hospital, Las Vegas, Nevada.

    The committee recommends a provision that would designate 
the Nellis Federal Hospital in Las Vegas, Nevada, as the 
Michael O'Callaghan Federal Hospital.

Section 1071. Naming of building at the Uniformed Services University 
        of the Health Sciences.

    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense name Building 
A at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 
the David Packard Building. Mr. David Packard was a former 
Deputy Secretary of Defense and was instrumental in 
establishing the Uniformed Services University. Following Mr. 
Packard's service in the Department of Defense, he agreed to 
serve as the Chairman of the Uniformed Services University of 
the Health Sciences Board of Regents. In this capacity he 
provided the initial vision and leadership which enabled the 
School of Medicine and other affiliated academic programs to 
achieve national and international standing.

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Support for the Young Marines Program

    The committee understands that the portion of the 
Conference Report accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 addressing sections 571 
through 574 of that Act have been erroneously interpreted to 
preclude the Secretary of Defense using discretionary funds to 
support, on an interim basis, programs such as the Young 
Marines and the Seaborne Conservation Corps. To the contrary, 
the Secretary of Defense may use discretionary funds to support 
these program on an interim basis while these programs develop 
non-Department of Defense funding sources.

Support services at the Port of Haifa

    Section 1336 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 directed the Secretary of the Navy to submit a 
report on the availability of port services for the Navy in the 
eastern Mediterranean Sea region, with particular emphasis on 
the services required by the Navy when calling at the Port of 
Haifa, Israel. Section 1336 also expressed the sense of 
Congress that the Navy should ensure that suitable services are 
preserved as commercial activities increase and compete for 
pier space and other support. Additionally, in the Senate 
report accompanying S. 1026 (S. Rest. 104-112), the committee 
directed the Navy to begin prompt discussions with Port of 
Haifa officials and others to develop detailed plans for 
support service upgrades.
    The Navy has responded to the committee's direction with a 
one-page letter. This letter indicates that the services 
available at Haifa are ``adequate'' and expresses the view that 
``. . . improvements being undertaken by the port authority 
will enhance Haifa's ability to meet the needs of the U.S. 
Navy.''
    The committee finds the Navy's response inadequate. In 
briefings following the committee's action on S. 1026, Navy 
officials indicated that a survey of U.S. naval commanders had 
identified upgrades that would be desirable to improve the 
services the Navy receives at the Port of Haifa. Moreover, as 
the committee indicated in its report, there is reason to be 
concerned that expansion of commercial activities at the port, 
rather than improving its ability to support the needs of the 
Navy, could interfere with such support. Loss of such support 
would be of particular concern if the peace process succeeds 
and the port's commercial activities expand significantly, a 
prospect more likely with the recent success of the peace 
process.
    The committee directs the Navy to immediately submit its 
findings on desirable upgrades in services at the Port of 
Haifa, along with cost estimates for those potential upgrades. 
The committee also directs that none of the funds authorized in 
fiscal year 1997 in PE 64310N for development of the arsenal 
ship be expended or obligated until the Secretary of the Navy 
has formally transmitted this information to the committee.

U.S.-Asian military-to-military dialogue

    The United States has significant political, economic, and 
security interests in Asia that are growing as a result of 
rapid economic growth in Asia. The stability provided by U.S. 
security alliances and other military relationships with Asian 
countries has promoted Asian economic development to the mutual 
benefit of the United States and Asia. Preserving stability in 
Asia remains a major objective of U.S. policy.
    The People's Republic of China (PRC) continues to grow 
economically and to modernize its military forces. Efforts by 
the PRC to enhance its naval and air capabilities, combined 
with recent PRC military activities, have raised questions 
regarding their military and foreign policy objectives. The 
growth of PRC military power is the subject of major interest, 
and potentially of concern, for the other nations of Asia and 
for the United States.
    In light of these developments, continued dialogue on 
security matters between the United States and Asian countries, 
including the People's Republic of China, is critical to 
promoting stability in the region and protecting and promoting 
U.S. interests and the interests of our Asian allies. The 
committee therefore encourages the Department of Defense to 
engage PRC defense officials, at all levels, in exchanges and 
other forms of dialogue.

Implementation of arms control agreements

    The budget request included $282.3 million in the 
procurement, operation and maintenance, and research and 
development accounts for the Department of Defense and the 
Military Services for implementation of arms control 
agreements. The budget request for this account is based on 
anticipated dates of implementation of the various arms control 
treaties. The committee recommends authorization of the 
requested amount. Due to possible changes in the assumptions on 
the dates of entry into force of the arms control treaties, it 
is the intention of the committee to review the budget request 
during the conference between the House and Senate, as there is 
a potential for reduced funding requirements, resulting in 
cost-savings for the program.
    The Congress included a provision in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) 
that limits the expenditure of defense funds for the 
reimbursement for arms control implementation inspection costs 
borne by the inspected party to a treaty or agreement. In order 
to continue its oversight of the use of these funds, the 
committee requests that the Department continue to provide a 
report on the use of defense funds to reimburse our treaty 
partners for inspected party reimbursement costs.
    The committee has been informed by the Department of 
Defense that the On Site Inspection Agency (OSIA) has been 
directed by the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to 
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) 
for purposes of implementing Annex 1-B of the General Framework 
for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina Agreement (also known as 
the Dayton Agreement). As the committee understands it, OSIA 
will participate in the planning and conduct of confidence 
building and arms control measures to reduce the risk of 
conflict in the Balkans. Specifically, OSIA's role will be to 
train international inspectors, who will monitor and verify 
compliance with the confidence building and arms control 
measures, as well as participate in the conduct of these 
inspections.
    The committee understands that there could be further 
refinement of OSIA's role in the implementation of Annex 1-B of 
the Dayton Accord. The committee is concerned about the 
assignment of this mission to OSIA and the potential impact on 
the ability of OSIA to conduct monitoring and verification 
inspections required by other arms control treaties to which 
the United States is a party. The committee requests that the 
Department keep the committee informed on the status of this 
new mission, and any impact this mission may have on the 
ability of OSIA to conduct its other arms control inspection 
responsibilities.
           TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

         SUBTITLE A--PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, PAY AND, ALLOWANCES

Section 1101. Scope of requirement for conversion of military positions 
        to civilian positions.
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal as 
much of section 1032 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1996 that would require the Secretary of 
Defense to convert 7,000 military positions to civilian 
positions during Fiscal Year 1997. The committee has not 
received the implementation plan required by section 1032 and 
believes, based on correspondence from the Department of 
Defense and meetings with representatives from the General 
Accounting Office, that conversions of military positions to 
civilian positions beyond the 3,000 converted during Fiscal 
Year 1996 may not be in the best interests of the Department of 
Defense.

Section 1102. Retention of civilian employee positions at military 
        training bases transferred to National Guard.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 
Secretary of Defense to retain civilian positions which support 
active and reserve training at an installation after that 
installation has been transferred to the National Guard.

Section 1103. Clarification of limitation on furnishing clothing or 
        paying a uniform allowance to enlisted National Guard 
        technicians.

    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 
circumstances under which uniforms could be furnished to 
enlisted National Guard technicians.

Section 1104. Travel expenses and health care for civilian employees of 
        the Department of Defense abroad.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense, under certain circumstances, to pay 
civilian personnel serving overseas allowances and benefits 
comparable to those paid to members of other government 
agencies that routinely assign personnel overseas.

Section 1105. Travel, transportation, and relocation allowances for 
        certain former nonappropriated fund employees.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
nonappropriated fund employee who moves in conjunction with 
being hired as an appropriated fund employee to receive the 
same travel, transportation, and relocation expenses authorized 
for appropriated fund employees.

Section 1106. Employment and salary practices applicable to Department 
        of Defense overseas teachers.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 
Secretary of Defense to reclassify General Schedule 
professional educator positions as ``overseas teachers'' 
compensable under the Overseas Teacher Pay and Personnel Act.

Section 1107. Employment and compensation of civilian faculty members 
        at certain Department of Defense schools.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies and the English 
Language Center of the Defense Language Institute to employ and 
compensate the civilian faculty, including the Director and 
Deputy Director of the Asia-Pacific Center, in the same manner 
as the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies 
and other Department of Defense education facilities.

Section 1108. Reimbursement of Department of Defense domestic dependent 
        school board members for certain expenses.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Department of Defense domestic dependent school board members 
to be reimbursed for travel and transportation expenses, 
program fees, and activity fees that the Secretary of Defense 
determines reasonable and necessary in the performance of their 
duties.

Section 1109. Extension of authority for civilian employees of 
        Department of Defense to participate voluntarily in reductions 
        in force.

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
until September 30, 2001, the authority to 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 1110. Compensatory time off for overtime work performed by 
        wage-board employees.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
agency heads to grant compensatory time off in lieu of overtime 
pay under certain circumstances.

Section 1111. Liquidation of restored annual leave that remains unused 
        upon transfer of employee from installation being closed or 
        realigned.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
under certain circumstances, automatic liquidation of annual 
leave restored under section 6304(d) of title 5, United States 
Code.

Section 1112. Waiver of requirement for repayment of voluntary 
        separation incentive pay by former Department of Defense 
        employees reemployed by the Government without pay.

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow 
civilian employees who accept separation pay under section 5597 
of title 10, United States Code, to return to government 
service as advisors without compensation, prior to the 
expiration of a five-year period following separation and not 
be required to repay the separation pay.

Section 1113. Federal holiday observance rules for Department of 
        Defense employees.

    The committee recommends a provision that would change the 
required designation of holidays for employees on compressed 
work schedules when a holiday falls on the employees' day off.

Section 1114. Revision of certain travel management authorities.

    The committee recommends three provisions that would: 1) 
repeal a reporting requirement; 2) eliminate the requirement 
for agency heads to certify official long-distance telephone 
calls made during official travel; and 3) repeal the 
prohibition on paying lodging expenses to Department of Defense 
(DOD) civilian employees who do not use adequate government 
quarters when they are available.
    The committee believes that these provisions will assist 
the DOD in its ongoing efforts to simplify the travel 
management system and, in doing so, improve efficiency and 
reduce costs associated with official travel.
    The committee notes, however, that the success or failure 
of the DOD travel management initiatives will not depend on the 
relaxation of the many detailed rules and regulations that have 
governed travel management over the years. Rather, the success 
or failure will be a direct reflection of the seriousness and 
discipline with which executives and supervisors at every level 
approach their individual responsibilities in overseeing their 
own official travel and that of their subordinates.

 SUBTITLE B--DEFENSE ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT, DIVERSIFICATION, CONVERSION, 
                           AND STABILIZATION

Section 1121. Pilot programs for defense employees converted to 
        contractor employees due to privatization at closed military 
        installations.

    The committee recommends a provision that would permit 
certain federal workers who accept employment with a contractor 
in conjunction with a privatization initiative, referred to as 
``transferred'' employees, to continue to accrue years of 
federal service for the purpose of determining eligibility for 
federal retirement but not for determining the amount of the 
employees retirement benefit. The amount of a ``transferred'' 
employee's retirement benefit would be indexed for annual 
federal pay raises beginning on the date that actual federal 
service ends.
    The committee believes that the migration of skilled, 
experienced federal workers from federal service to the private 
sector is important to the success of privatization 
initiatives. A large number of federal employees who expected 
to migrate to the private sector participate in the Civil 
Service Retirement System (CSRS), which does not allow an 
employee to move between federal and private sector employment 
without a reduction of benefits. The most experienced 
employees--and, therefore, the employees most valuable to 
private sector employers who are involved in a privatization 
initiative--tend to be covered by CSRS because they joined 
federal service prior to 1984. These are the same employees 
that have the most to lose under current rules if they 
terminate their federal employment before they become eligible 
to receive an immediate retirement annuity. It is very possible 
that a significant number of CSRS employees will choose to 
relocate in order to remain in federal service, rather than 
hire on with a private contractor and suffer the diminishment 
of federal retirement benefits. If this occurs, this could 
jeopardize the overall success of the privatization initiative.
    The recommended provision would:
          (1) authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish 
        pilot programs in conjunction with certain 
        privatization initiatives;
          (2) define a transferred employee as a CSRS employee 
        whose function was privatized and who accepts 
        employment with the private contractor performing that 
        function within 60 days of separation from federal 
        service, and remains with that contractor until first 
        eligible for a retirement benefit;
          (3) permit a ``transferred'' employee to receive a 
        federal retirement annuity when the employee first 
        becomes eligible for early retirement (as opposed to 
        waiting until age 62);
          (4) permit the ``transferred'' employee to leave 
        federal service and continue to accrue years of federal 
        service for the purpose of becoming eligible to receive 
        a retirement annuity;
          (5) not permit years after leaving federal service to 
        count in determining the actual amount of the federal 
        retirement benefit;
          (6) require the amount of pay upon which a retirement 
        annuity would be based as of the date the 
        ``transferred'' employee leaves federal service to be 
        increased by normal pay raises each year as if the 
        ``transferred'' employee were still in federal service 
        until first eligible to receive a retirement benefit;
          (7) require the military department concerned to be 
        liable for any increase in the unfunded liability of 
        the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund that 
        results from indexing the pay of a ``transferred'' 
        employee or from allowing a ``transferred'' employee to 
        receive retirement benefits prior to age 62;
          (8) require the Comptroller General of the United 
        States to conduct a study of each pilot program.

Section 1122. Troops-to-teachers program improvements applied to 
        civilian personnel. (Refer to Section 572)

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Flexible, compressed and alternative schedules

    The committee is concerned about the extent to which the 
use in the Department of Defense of flexible, compressed and 
alternative schedules authorized under sections 6122 and 6127, 
respectively, of title 5, United States Code, may fail to 
recognize the fundamental purposes of those authorizations and 
the extent to which the unconstrained use of these authorities, 
despite being convenient for employees, may actually disrupt a 
department or agency in carrying out its functions. The 
committee notes that there are many situations in which the 
productivity and efficiency of an office or agency may be 
increased through the use of these authorities. The committee 
notes, however, that using flexible, compressed and alternative 
schedules in management headquarters offices may actually 
degrade the productivity and efficiency of those offices.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to review the use of flexible, compressed and alternative 
schedules in the military departments and in the defense 
agencies and report the results of that review to the Committee 
on Armed Services of the Senate by May 1, 1997. As a minimum, 
this report should address:
          (1) the extent to which flexible, compressed and 
        alternative schedules are used in the Department of 
        Defense;
          (2) the extent to which the use of flexible, 
        compressed and alternative schedules actually 
        contributes to the ability of the military departments 
        and defense agencies to accomplish assigned missions;
          (3) the extent to which the use of flexible, 
        compressed and/or alternative schedules have been 
        extended to members of the uniformed services, and the 
        rationale for such extension; and
          (4) the extent to which employees and supervisors 
        understand that flexible, compressed and alternative 
        schedules are not an inherent employee right but rather 
        a management tool to assist the military departments 
        and defense agencies accomplish their assigned 
        missions.
    The committee expects that as a result of the review, and 
if appropriate, the Secretary of Defense would promulgate 
regulations and policies that would enhance the management of 
these authorities, including prohibiting managers and members 
of the Senior Executive Service from participating in flexible, 
compressed or alternative schedules, except under extraordinary 
circumstances.

Authority to conduct civilian personnel demonstration projects

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
made permanent the authority of the Secretary of the Navy to 
continue personnel demonstration projects at the Naval Air 
Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, California, and 
the Naval Command, Control, and Ocean Center, San Diego, 
California, and at successor organizations resulting from the 
reorganization of Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division or 
the Naval Command, Control, and Ocean Center.
    Additionally, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995 provided expanded authority for the Secretary 
of Defense to conduct personnel demonstration projects at 
Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories and expressed 
the conferees concern about what appeared to be a lack of real 
progress in this area. The conferees directed the Department of 
Defense to report to the Senate Armed Services Committee and 
the House National Security Committee not later than February 
1, 1996, the extent to which these expanded authorities had 
been used in each of the military departments.
    Despite assurances to the contrary from senior officials in 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the committee believes 
that cumbersome processes and frameworks that mask bureaucratic 
inertia, together with artificial constraints and unnecessary 
coordination requirements, have delayed the evaluation and 
approval of individual projects proposed by the military 
departments to an unacceptable degree.
    Additionally, the committee is concerned that the 
establishment of a complex approval bureaucracy and a 
reluctance on the part of key executives to think beyond past 
and current practices has tended to support excessively 
conservative approaches that lead to a least common denominator 
solution in lieu of the bold, innovative thinking and 
initiatives necessary to really reinvent the government. 
Therefore, committee urges to Secretary of Defense to authorize 
direct liaison between each of the military departments and the 
Office of Personnel Management in order to facilitate timely 
approval and implementation of the type of demonstration 
projects envisioned by the underlying legislative authority and 
the Administration's National Performance Review and 
Reinventing Government initiative.
      TITLE XII--FEDERAL CHARTER FOR THE FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION

                       Sections 1201 through 1216

    The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 
federal charter for the Fleet Reserve Association. The federal 
charter is an honorary recognition that does not convey any 
special status or authority.
            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 
1997. The administration's budget request is reflected in S. 
1673, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, 
as introduced by request. This division, as recommended by the 
committee, totals $9.8 billion in authorization for 
appropriations for fiscal year 1997.
    This authorization provides funding for construction and 
military family housing operations for the military services, 
the reserve components, the defense agencies, and the NATO 
Security Investment program. It also provides authorization for 
the base closure account that funds activities associated with 
the 1991, 1993, and 1995 base closure rounds.
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 1997. For 
fiscal year 1997, the Department of Defense requested 
authorization of appropriations of $5.3 billion for military 
construction, and $3.9 billion for family housing construction 
and support. The committee recommends $5.9 billion for military 
construction, and $4.0 billion for family housing construction 
and support for fiscal year 1997. These amounts include a 
$700.0 million increase above the administration's request. The 
increase is a reflection of the committee's concern about the 
effects of the administration's construction program funding 
request for fiscal year 1997, which is $1.56 billion below the 
fiscal year 1996 request.
    The committee reaffirms its support of the military 
services' efforts to modernize, renovate, and improve aging 
defense facilities and focuses its funding priorities on 
improving quality of life and readiness-related projects for 
the active and reserve components. Of the $700.0 million added 
to the construction program, more than $289.0 million will fund 
unaccompanied personnel quarters, child development centers, 
dining facilities, and military family housing.
    The committee members are hopeful that the increased 
attention to and funding for unaccompanied military personnel 
quarters will enable the military services to expedite the 
replacement and modernization of these antiquated facilities, 
many of which are more than 40 years old and need to be 
refurbished and brought up to modern standards.
    The following table identifies the committee's 
recommendations for fiscal year 1997 military construction and 
family housing construction projects.


Base closure and realignment accounts
    The committee recommends authorization of $2.5 billion in 
fiscal year 1997 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 1997 that it plans to fund from these accounts.


   TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
                                PROGRAM

Section 2503. Redesignation of North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
        Infrastructure program.
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2806 of title 10, United States Code, by redesignating 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Infrastructure program 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
program. The provision would establish in law the name change 
implemented by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization when it 
revamped the infrastructure program in 1993.
                    TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

 SUBTITLE A--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING 
                                CHANGES

Section 2801. Increase in certain thresholds for unspecified minor 
        construction projects.
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
sections 2805 and 18233 (a) of title 10, United States Code, to 
increase the operations and maintenance minor construction 
limit from $300,000 to $500,000 for the active and reserve 
components. The provision would further amend section 18233 (a) 
to increase the reserve component minor military construction 
limit from $400,000 to $1.5 million.

Section 2802. Clarification of authority to improve military family 
        housing.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2825(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify 
that the term ``improvement'' does not include day-to-day 
maintenance and repair work accomplished concurrently with a 
family housing unit improvement project. The provision would 
also amend section 2825(b)(2) to specify that any improvement 
accomplished beyond the 5-foot line from a housing unit in 
conjunction with a family housing improvement project would not 
count as part of the per unit cost limitation of $50,000 or 
$60,000 in the case of housing for persons who are handicapped.

Section 2803. Authority to grant easements for rights-of-way.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2668(a) of title 10, United States Code, by including 
poles, lines, structures, and facilities used for transmission 
or distribution of electrical power and communication signals 
in the authority for which the Secretary may grant easements on 
military installations. The provision would also make section 
2668(a) the only easement authority for the military 
departments.

            SUBTITLE B--DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT

Section 2811. Restoration of authority under 1988 base closure law to 
        transfer property and facilities to other entities in the 
        Department of Defense.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 204(b)(2) of the Defense Authorization Amendments and 
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988 as amended, to restore 
inadvertently eliminated provisions that provided the 
Department of Defense the authority for inter-Service transfers 
of real and personal property at closing and realigning bases.

Section 2812. Disposition of proceeds from disposal of commissary 
        stores and nonappropriated fund instrumentalities at 
        installations being closed or realigned.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act 
of 1988, as amended, and the Defense Base Closure and 
Realignment Act of 1990 to authorize the deposit of proceeds 
from any transfer or conveyance of a facility built with 
commissary store funds or nonappropriated funds as a result of 
base closure activity be deposited in an established fund. The 
proceeds from facilities built with commissary store funds 
would be deposited in a Treasury account named Surcharge 
Collections, Sales of Commissary Stores, Defense. The proceeds 
from nonappropriated fund construction would be deposited in 
the appropriate military department nonappropriated fund 
account.

Section 2813. Agreements for services at installations after closure.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 204(b)(8)(A) of the Defense Authorization Amendments 
and Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988 and section 2905 
(b)(8)(A) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 
1990 to increase the authority of the service secretary to 
contract for services, such as fire fighting or security 
guards, for facilities not yet transferred or otherwise 
disposed of at installations closed under the applicable 
closure law.

                      SUBTITLE C--LAND CONVEYANCES

Section 2821. Transfer of lands, Arlington National Cemetery, 
        Arlington, Virginia.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the Secretary of 
the Army a parcel of real property in section 29 of the 
National Park System known as the Arlington Cemetery Interment 
Zone and all those lands in the area of section 29 known as the 
Robert E. Lee Memorial Preservation Zone except those lands in 
the Preservation Zone that the Secretary of the Interior 
determines must be retained because of historical significance. 
The conveyance would be carried out in accordance with the 
Interagency Agreement dated February 22, 1995.
    The provision would further authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior to convey to the Secretary of the Army a parcel of 
real property and improvements containing 2.43 acres. It would 
also authorize the Secretary of the Army to transfer to the 
Secretary of the Interior a parcel of real property and 
improvements containing 0.17 acre.

Section 2822. Land transfer, Potomac Annex, District of Columbia.

    The United States Institute of Peace was established by 
Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1985. In 1992, Congress authorized the Institute, a 
federal institution, to raise private funds to finance the 
construction of a permanent headquarters. The Institute has 
identified a three acre parcel of real property, currently 
administered by the Department of the Navy as a parking lot, as 
the site for the headquarters building.
    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of the Navy to transfer approximately three acres of 
real property located at the Potomac Annex in the District of 
Columbia to the administrative jurisdiction of the United 
States Institute of Peace. The committee understands that with 
administrative jurisdiction, the Institute would maintain 
custody of and accountability for the parcel of real property. 
The Institute plans to construct with privately-raised funds, 
operate, and maintain a permanent headquarters facility on the 
parcel. As a condition of the transfer, the Institute shall 
agree to make available to the Navy permanent parking space at 
the headquarters building and interim parking during 
construction of the headquarters building.

Section 2823. Land conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Montpelier, 
        Vermont.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, the 
Army Reserve Center, Montpelier, consisting of approximately 
4.3 acres and improvements, to the City of Montpelier, Vermont. 
The provision would require the City to lease, at no rental 
charge, to the Civil Air Patrol the space that the Civil Air 
Patrol leases from the Army at the time of enactment of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997. The 
conveyance would be contingent on a determination of no other 
agency interest in the property.

Section 2824. Land conveyance, former Naval Reserve Facility, Lewes, 
        Delaware.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to convey, without consideration, to 
the State of Delaware a parcel of real property, consisting of 
approximately 16.8 acres and improvements, at the former Naval 
Reserve Facility, Lewes, Delaware. The provision would require 
the State to use the property, in perpetuity, solely as a 
public park or recreational area. The property would revert to 
the United States if, at any time, the Secretary of Interior 
determines that the property is not being used in accordance 
with the conditions of conveyance. The conveyance would be 
contingent on a determination of no other federal agency 
interest in the property.

Section 2825. Land conveyance, Radar Bomb Scoring Site, Belle Fourche, 
        South Dakota.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Air Force to convey, without 
consideration, to the Belle Fourche School District, Belle 
Fourche, South Dakota, approximately 37 acres of land and 
improvements that constitute the support complex and housing 
facilities for Detachment 21 of the 554th Range Squadron, an 
Air Force radar scoring site. The conveyance may not include 
any portion of the radar bomb scoring site located in the State 
of Wyoming. The provision would require that the property be 
used for education, economic development, or housing purposes. 
The conveyance would be contingent on a determination of no 
other federal agency interest in the property.

Section 2826. Conveyance of primate research complex, Holloman Air 
        Force Base, New Mexico.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Air Force to convey, on a competitive 
basis and at no cost to the Air Force, the primate research 
complex and the colony of Air Force owned chimpanzees located 
at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. The authorized 
conveyance would not include the real property on which the 
research complex is sited. The Secretary, in cooperation with 
the Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of 
Health, would be required to develop standards of care and use 
of the primate research complex and of the chimpanzees, to be 
used in solicitation of bids. The conditions of conveyance 
would require that the recipient use the chimpanzees for 
scientific research, medical research, or retire and provide 
adequate care for the chimpanzees.

Section 2827. Demonstration project for installation and operation of 
        electric power distribution system at Youngstown Air Reserve 
        Station, Ohio.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Air Force to establish a demonstration 
project at the Youngstown Air Force Reserve Station, Ohio, to 
assess the feasibility and advisability of using a private 
entity to install, operate, and maintain electrical power 
distribution systems at military installations. To carry out 
the demonstration project, the Secretary shall enter into an 
agreement with a local electric utility or private company. The 
agreement may provide that the utility or company shall own the 
power distribution system installed under the agreement. The 
provision would stipulate that the rates charged for providing 
and distributing electric power at the Youngstown Air Reserve 
Station may not include the costs, including the amortization 
of any cost, incurred by the utility or company in installing 
the system. To pay the costs of the United States under the 
agreement, the Secretary may use funds authorized to be 
appropriated by section 2601 (3)(B) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 for the purpose of 
rebuilding the electrical power distribution system at 
Youngstown Air Reserve Station. The Secretary would not be 
authorized to enter into an agreement or obligate funds to 
support an agreement until 21 days after the Secretary submits 
a report to the congressional defense committees.

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Improvements to military family housing units, Army

    The committee directs that, within authorized amounts for 
construction improvements of military family housing and 
facilities, the Secretary of the Army execute the following 
projects:

AK:
    Fort Richardson, Family Housing Revitalization......      $7,800,000
    Fort Wainwright, Family Housing Revitalization......      $8,600,000
KY: Fort Campbell, Family Housing Revitalization........      $9,600,000

Planning and design, Army

    The committee directs that $1.5 million of the amount 
authorized for appropriations for Army planning and design be 
directed toward:

HI: Pohakuloa Training Site, Road Improvement...........      $1,500,000

Report on the Fort Lawton Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center, Seattle, 
        Washington

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 
(PL 103-337) authorized $10.4 million for the construction of a 
Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center at Fort Lawton, Seattle, 
Washington. The committee is aware that due to realignment of 
Navy Reserve force structure, the construction of a Joint Armed 
Forces Reserve Center at Fort Lawton may no longer be an 
appropriate solution to resolve the basing problem in the 
Seattle area. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 
and the Secretary of the Army to provide to the congressional 
defense committees a report on the basing needs for the Navy 
Reserve and Army Reserve units that would have utilized the 
Joint Armed Forces Reserve Center. The report should include a 
recommendation on the most appropriate reallocation of the 
$10.4 million authorized and appropriated for the construction 
of the joint facility.

Improvements to military family housing units, Navy

    The committee directs that, within authorized amounts for 
construction improvements of military family housing and 
facilities, the Secretary of the Navy execute the following 
project:

SC: MCAS Beaufort, Family Housing Revitalization........      $5,900,000

Planning and design, Navy

    The committee directs that $500,000 of the amount 
authorized for appropriations for Navy planning and design be 
directed toward:

NV: Fallon NAS, Gymnasium/Fitness Center................        $500,000

Improvements to military family housing units, Air Force

    The committee directs that, within authorized amounts for 
construction improvements of military family housing and 
facilities, the Secretary of the Air Force execute the 
following project:

OH: Wright-Patterson AFB, Family Housing Revitalization.      $6,000,000

Planning and design, Air Force Family Housing Construction

    The committee directs that $150,000 of the amount 
authorized for appropriations for the Air Force family housing 
planning and design account be directed toward:

NV: Nellis AFB, Family Housing Revitalization...........        $150,000

Availability of funds for credit to Defense Military Unaccompanied 
        Housing Improvement Fund.

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
to be appropriated $5.0 million to be credited to the 
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing 
Improvement Fund. The funds shall be used to implement the 
authorities to improve unaccompanied housing provided to the 
Secretary of Defense in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1996. The committee is disappointed that the 
Department did not provide funds for this critical quality of 
life program that was included in the Act at the Department of 
Defense's urging.

Naval Air Station Sigonella

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
authorized funding to expand the Department of Defense 
controlled elementary/high school at Naval Air Station 
Sigonella, Italy.
    The committee has been informed that during the final 
design phase of the project, a requirement for additional space 
was determined. This exceeded the requirement expressed in the 
DD Form 1391 that was published in the House of Representatives 
Military Construction Appropriation Hearing for 1994 (Part 2, 
page 545). The revision is necessary to accommodate an increase 
in the number of students.
    The committee is also aware that the project, as redesigned 
with the increased square footage and greater number of 
classrooms, can be constructed without an increase to the 
currently appropriated funding amount of $7,595,000.
    The committee endorses construction of the larger school 
within the currently authorized and appropriated funding 
amount.

Report on the implementation of the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act

    The committee supports the intent of the Hawaiian Home 
Lands Recovery Act (title II of Public Law 104-42; 109 Stat.59) 
to return excess federal lands, that may have been wrongfully 
diverted during territorial times, to the native Hawaiians. The 
committee is concerned that the Act may have adverse impacts on 
the readiness of the armed forces stationed in the Pacific 
region. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit, not later than March 1, 1997, a report to 
the congressional defense committees addressing the following: 
the impact of the Act on the readiness of the armed forces 
stationed on Hawaii; the potential acreage and value of land 
available to be transferred under the provisions of the Act; 
the impact of any transfer on the quality of life of the 
service personnel stationed on Hawaii; and, any legislative 
changes that may be appropriate to reverse any adverse impact.

Planning and design, Guard and Reserve forces facilities

    The committee directs that, of the amount authorized for 
appropriations for the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Naval 
Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air National Guard and Air Force 
Reserve construction and land acquisition projects, not more 
than the amount indicated for each respective project be 
directed toward the design of:

                           Army National Guard

MI: Lansing, Consolidated Support Maintenance Shop......      $1,332,000
MT: Billings, Armed Forces Reserve Center...............       1,108,000
NE: Camp Ashland, Flood Control.........................         665,000
OR:
    Ontario, Armory.....................................         226,000
    The Dallas, Armory..................................         210,000
SC:
    Eastover, Multipurpose Simulation Center, Leesburg 
      Training Site.....................................         224,000
    Eastover, Infrastructure Upgrade, Leesburg Training 
      Site..............................................         280,000
WY: Camp Guernsey, Vehicle Maintenance Facilities.......         935,000

                              Army Reserve

PA: Oakdale, Army Reserve Center, Organizational 
    Maintenance Shop, Area Maintenance Support Activity.       2,300,000

                          Marine Corps Reserve

PA:.....................................................
    Johnstown, Training Center..........................         590,000
    Johnstown, Type 1 Maintenance Hangar................         690,000
 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; other defense 
activities; and defense nuclear waste disposal.
    The fiscal year 1997 budget request for the Department of 
Energy atomic energy defense activities totaled $10.9 billion. 
Of the total amount requested, $3.7 billion was for weapons 
activities, $5.4 billion was for defense environmental 
restoration and waste management activities, $1.5 billion was 
for other defense activities, and $200.0 million was for 
defense nuclear waste disposal.
    The committee continues to be concerned with the 
Department's unwillingness or inability to heed congressional 
guidance to present a budget for atomic energy defense 
activities which reflects total requirements for these crucial 
nuclear weapons related national security and defense nuclear 
waste cleanup programs. The committee notes that the 
President's outyear funding level for the atomic energy defense 
activities account (the 053 account) drops to $8.2 billion in 
fiscal year 2000, a projected $2.7 billion reduction to the 
fiscal year 1997 request. The Department's out-year reductions 
are not compatible with the following projected needs and 
requirements: (1) weapons activities, without the capability to 
do underground testing and manufacture new weapons, will 
require an average of $4.0 billion per year over the next ten 
years to find a means of maintaining nuclear weapons safety and 
reliability; and (2) the environmental restoration and waste 
management program is headed toward a near-term budget crisis 
wherein projected requirements will far exceed budgetary 
resources, yet the fiscal year 1997 budget request is below the 
fiscal year 1996 appropriation level.
    To maintain the viability of our nuclear weapons complex 
and ensure environmental compliance, the committee recommends 
an increase of $450.0 million above the budget request, 
totaling $11.5 billion, including $3.9 billion for weapons 
activities, $5.6 billion for defense environmental restoration 
and waste management, $1.6 billion for other defense 
activities, and $200.0 million for defense nuclear waste 
disposal.
    The following table summarizes the request and the 
committee recommendations:


         SUBTITLE A--NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 3101. Weapons activities.
    The committee recommends authorizations of $3.9 billion for 
weapons activities, an increase of $239.0 million above the 
Department of Energy request, for the following activities: 
$1.6 billion for stockpile stewardship activities; $2.0 billion 
for stockpile management activities; and $323.0 million for 
program direction. The committee directs that the $11.0 million 
reduction in program direction only impact foreign and domestic 
travel, and support service contracts.
Stockpile stewardship programs
    The committee continues to be concerned that the Department 
is placing an undue reliance on the long-term, unproven 
science-based stockpile stewardship program at the expense of 
modernizing the more traditional, hands-on production 
engineering and surveillance approaches needed to maintain 
stockpile safety and reliability over the next ten to fifteen 
years. In relation to science-based stockpile stewardship 
program, the Department continues to stress the policy inherent 
to the program without providing adequate funds. The committee 
directs the Department to seek a reasonable balance between the 
two approaches to ensure that the United States can maintain 
the safety and reliability of its nuclear stockpile in the 
near-term, mid-term, and long-term, at START I and START II 
levels.
    The committee authorizes an additional $60.0 million for 
stockpile stewardship: $20.0 million for an enhanced 
surveillance program at the National Laboratories to assess the 
reliability and safety of the stockpile, including chemistry 
and materials work, and modeling and simulation; $20.0 million 
for subcritical experiments to support weapons safety and 
reliability; $10.0 million for an advanced manufacturing 
program to develop and evaluate technologies and processes to 
meet present and future stockpile needs; and $10.0 million for 
technology transfer to support existing cooperative research 
and development agreements.

Stockpile management programs

    The committee believes that the United States must maintain 
viable weapons manufacturing capabilities and capacities to 
rebuild aging weapons and to retain the ability to reconstitute 
its nuclear forces, if necessary. In this regard, the committee 
is concerned that the underlying rationale for the Department's 
Draft Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement may result in a decision that 
would negatively impact production capabilities and capacities 
by downsizing the production plants (Y-12 Plant, Pantex Plant, 
Kansas City Plant, and Savannah River Site) and strip those 
facilities of unique skills and expertise.
    The committee authorizes an additional $190.0 million for 
stockpile management: $45.0 million for the four weapons 
production plants; $50.0 million to begin a long-term 
modernization program at the four production plants; $60.0 
million for tritium production; $5.0 million for a surety 
program to improve waste minimization efforts in the new 
stockpile management modernization program; $5.0 million for a 
production plant fellowship program; $6.0 million for tritium 
recycling plant upgrades; $1.0 million for the Commission on 
Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons Expertise; $3.0 
million for planning and construction of a tritium extraction 
facility; and $15.0 million for the enhanced surveillance 
program to assess the reliability and safety of the stockpile, 
including chemistry and materials work, and modeling and 
simulating activities associated with the four production 
plants.

Section 3102. Environmental restoration and waste management.

    This section authorizes $5.6 billion for Defense 
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (the 
Department's Defense Environmental Management Program). That 
authorization is $198.0 million above the Department's fiscal 
year 1997 request. The amount authorized is for the following 
activities: $1.8 billion for Environmental Restoration; $1.6 
billion for Waste Management; $329.0 million for Technology 
Development; $52.0 million for the Environmental Science 
Program; $995.0 million for Nuclear Material and Facility 
Stabilization; $363.0 million for Site Operations; $26.0 
million for Policy and Management; $185.0 million for 
privatization; and $436.0 million for Program Direction. The 
committee recommends approval of the Department's request for a 
reduction of $150.4 million for prior year balances and $8.0 
million offset for the Savannah River Site Pension Refund.

Environmental Restoration

    The committee authorizes a $15.0 million increase to the 
President's budget request for high priority removal and 
remedial actions at the Savannah River Site. The committee also 
authorizes a $15.0 million reduction to the President's budget 
request for the headquarters account and that the funds be 
redirected to high priority removal and remedial actions at the 
Department of Energy cleanup sites.

Waste Management

    The committee authorizes an increase of $65.0 million to 
the budget request for this account. The committee authorizes 
that $15.0 million of the increase be used to accelerate 
Defense Waste Processing Facility operations and associated 
high-level waste treatment; that $43.0 million of the increase 
be used for analysis, retrieval and treatment of transuranic 
waste; and that $7.0 million of the increase be provided to the 
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant to prepare to receive waste 
shipments.

Technology Development

    The committee authorizes an increase of $25.0 million to 
the budget request: $20.0 million for plutonium and other 
materials stabilization research and development, and $5.0 
million for canyon decontamination and dismantlement research 
and development.

Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization

    The committee authorizes an increase of $91.0 million to 
the budget request: $43.0 million for nuclear material 
stabilization operations at the F- and H-Canyon facilities; 
$15.0 million for the National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program; 
$18.0 million to accelerate facility decontamination and 
stabilization activities at the Savannah River Site; and $15.0 
million for spent nuclear fuels movements and minimization of 
spent fuel vulnerabilities associated with activities at the 
Power Burst facility.

Site Operations

    The committee authorizes that $34.0 million be restored to 
this account to partially address the reductions reflected in 
the budget request for site operations at the Savannah River 
Site.

Policy and Management

    The committee authorizes a $22.0 million reduction to this 
account.

Program Direction

    The committee authorizes a $10.0 million reduction to the 
budget request for this account. The committee directs that the 
reduction in program direction only impact foreign and domestic 
travel, and support service contracts.

Environmental Management Budget Requests

    The committee notes that last year's budget request had 
forecast a growing cleanup gap between program requirements and 
budget projections. The committee authorizes the Department to 
develop budget requests that meet program requirements.

Section 3103. Other defense activities.

Nonproliferation and verification research and development

    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to 
the budget request for fiscal year 1996 for the 
nonproliferation, verification research and development 
program, for a total of $204.9 million. In the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Congress provided $3.0 
million for the development of a forensic analytic capability 
to detect and track shipments of nuclear weapons and nuclear 
weapons materials. Additionally, the Congress directed the 
Department to broaden the involvement in this area throughout 
the entire laboratory complex, to include production sites such 
as Savannah River, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 
Argonne National Laboratory, and where appropriate, industry.
    The committee understands that $1.3 million in fiscal year 
1996 funds have been spent by the Department on research and 
development efforts at Oak Ridge, Sandia, Livermore and Pacific 
Northwest National laboratories. The committee also understands 
that $5.6 million in fiscal year 1996 funds have been expended 
to support radiation detection technologies to inhibit nuclear 
smuggling. The committee recommends a $10.0 million increase to 
the President's budget request to accelerate the Department's 
forensic analytical program, authorized by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, and for capabilities to 
address the prevention, detection, interception and attribution 
of international nuclear smuggling events. In order to leverage 
existing capabilities, the committee urges the Department and 
the laboratory complex to coordinate closely with defense 
agencies, such as the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency 
(DARPA), in the conduct of this program.

Arms Control and nonproliferation

    The President's budget request included $181.2 million for 
the arms control and nonproliferation program. The committee 
recommends a $35.0 million increase to the budget request for 
the Industrial Partnership Program (IPP). The committee is 
supportive of the cost share partnerships with U.S. industry. 
The IPP was established in 1993 to stabilize the technology 
base in scientific and engineering institutes associated with 
weapons of mass destruction in the newly independent states 
(NIS) of the former Soviet Union, in order to prevent and 
reduce the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
    While the Congress authorized funds for this program in 
fiscal year 1996, no funds were appropriated. There were no 
funds allocated to this program in fiscal year 1995 and funds 
authorized in fiscal year 1994 have now been fully obligated. 
Therefore, the committee believes it is necessary to increase 
the budget request for this program.
    The budget request for fiscal year 1997 included $5.0 
million to complete implementation of North Korean Agreed 
Framework. The committee recommends that $7.9 million be made 
available from funds authorized for the arms control and 
nonproliferation program to complete the canning of spent fuel 
rods in North Korea, pursuant to the Agreed Framework, and to 
initiate post-canning technical activities.

International Nuclear Safety

    The budget request includes $66.2 million for the 
International Nuclear Safety and Chernobyl Initiative. The 
committee recommends a reduction of $51.0 million to the budget 
request. Funds for this program have previously been included 
in the Department's budget request for nuclear energy program. 
It is the committee's belief that budget responsibility should 
be returned to the Department's program for nuclear energy. 
Alternatively, it may be more appropriate to seek funds for 
this program through the foreign assistance bill. Recognizing 
that the safety of the aging Soviet-designed nuclear power 
plants is questionable, it would seem that improving the safety 
of these plants is also in the interest of the international 
community. The committee directs the Department to report to 
the committee on the financial contribution to this initiative 
by the international community.

Intelligence

    The committee recommends authorization of $35.2 million for 
the intelligence program, a $6.0 million increase to the budget 
request for fiscal year 1996, to create a full-time 
counterintelligence team at each of the national laboratories.
    The committee authorizes $1.6 billion for other defense 
activities, reflecting increases and decreases related to the 
fiscal year 1997 DOE request. The programs authorized are:

Verification and control technology.....................    $456,348,000
Nuclear safeguards and security.........................      47,208,000
Security investigations.................................      22,000,000
Emergency management....................................      16,794,000
Program direction.......................................      90,622,000
Environment, safety, and health.........................      53,094,000
Program direction (environment, safety and health)......      10,706,000
Worker and community transition assistance..............      62,659,000
Program direction (worker transition)...................       4,341,000
Fissile materials.......................................      93,796,000
International nuclear safety............................      15,200,000
Nuclear security........................................       6,000,000
Naval reactors..........................................     681,932,000

Section 3104. Defense nuclear waste disposal.

    The committee recommends authorization of the budget 
request of $200.0 million as the fiscal year 1997 defense 
contribution to the defense nuclear waste fund.

   SUBTITLE C--PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS

Section 3131. Tritium production.

    The committee notes that the Department has established a 
tritium production program in response to congressional 
concerns about the lack of progress in this area. The committee 
considers this program critical to maintaining the nation's 
nuclear deterrent capability. The committee continues to be 
concerned with the Department's lack of progress, its inability 
to develop a technically sound data base sufficient for a 
decision in fiscal year 1998, and its continuing underestimates 
of funding requirements. For example, in fiscal year 1996 the 
Department determined that it needed to spend $75.0 million for 
the tritium production program, as opposed to the $50.0 million 
originally requested by the Department. For fiscal year 1997, 
the Department notified the committee within one month of the 
release of the President's budget that $157.0 million was 
needed for the tritium production program, as opposed to the 
$100.0 million originally requested by the Department.
    The Committee believes that the tritium production program 
must be accelerated to meet the requirements of the Nuclear 
Weapons Stockpile Memorandum, which identified a new tritium 
production date of 2005. On this basis, the committee agrees to 
provide an increase of $60.0 million to the budget request for 
a total fiscal year 1997 program of $160.0 million. The 
committee directs the Department to accelerate its phased 
approach to the tritium production needs of the United States, 
including proceeding in parallel with site preparation for a 
new tritium production accelerator. The committee recognizes 
the need to enhance the ongoing accelerator research and 
development program at the Los Alamos National Laboratory 
(LANL), in conjunction with Savannah River Site (SRS) 
personnel, and to expedite the demonstration of accelerator 
technology. The committee supports these joint LANL/SRS 
efforts, and directs the Department to provide the 
congressional defense committees with a report on the planning 
and design of the accelerator that shall be proposed for 
construction at the Savannah River Site. The committee also 
directs the continued test and development of tritium targets 
for the light water reactor program option by the Idaho 
National Engineering Laboratory, and the initiation of planning 
for construction of a tritium extraction facility.

Section 3132. Modernization and consolidation of tritium recycling 
        facilities.

    Based on the tritium requirements identified in the Nuclear 
Weapons Stockpile Memorandum, it is essential that the existing 
tritium recycling facilities at the Savannah River Site be 
upgraded to ensure future use and efficient operation of this 
critical defense function on a cost effective basis. The 
committee directs a $6.0 million increase of the funds 
authorized in fiscal year 1997 for weapons activities in order 
to upgrade the tritium recycling facilities.

Section 3133. Modification of requirements for manufacturing 
        infrastructure for refabrication and certification of nuclear 
        weapons stockpile.

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to initiate a program 
to modernize the four nuclear weapons production plants. Citing 
other priorities, DOE did not comply with congressional 
direction. The committee believes that this initiative is not 
only prudent but essential to maintaining nuclear weapons core 
competence to repair and refabricate weapons at a START I or 
START II stockpile level.
    The committee finds that the ``technology capability 
alone'' approach to the nuclear weapons infrastructure 
reconstitution requirement of the Nuclear Posture Review is 
insufficient to meet national security requirements. The 
committee directs the Department to pursue this modernization 
approach within the stockpile management program to assist in 
assuring near-term confidence in the nuclear stockpile.

Section 3134. Limitation on use of funds for certain research and 
        development purposes.

    Section 3141 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1996 limited the obligation of fiscal year 1996 
Atomic Energy Defense funds for the Department of Energy (DOE) 
laboratory-directed research and development (LDRD) program and 
the DOE technology transfer programs, unless such activities 
supported the national security missions of the Department. It 
was concluded that the laboratories needed to focus LDRD 
program resources on the priorities within the nuclear weapons 
program.
    The committee maintains that the scientific and engineering 
challenges embodied in the emerging stockpile stewardship and 
stockpile management programs are sufficient to sustain the 
preeminence of the laboratories in the areas of science and 
engineering. The committee recommends a provision that would 
extend the fiscal year 1996 limitation to fiscal year 1997.

Section 3135. Accelerated schedule for isolating high-level nuclear 
        waste at the Defense Waste Processing Facility, Savannah River 
        Site.

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
contained a provision that directed the Secretary of Energy to 
accelerate certain high priority Environmental Management (EM) 
program activities. The committee notes that in recent 
testimony the Department has emphasized actual cleanup, as 
opposed to studies, and stressed the need to accelerate actual 
cleanup to reduce long-term costs. Consistent with that focus, 
the committee urges Department of Energy to accelerate the 
isolation of high level nuclear waste, to the extent that 
technology is available.
    The committee authorizes an additional $15.0 million for 
the Department to maximize the canister production rate of the 
Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), Savannah River Site 
(SRS), and to accelerate the removal of the high-level 
radioactive waste from the tanks at SRS. The Department shall 
not restrict DWPF production capability and capacity because of 
limited funds within the overall EM budget. The committee 
regards the safe, expeditious removal of high-level radioactive 
wastes from the SRS tanks as one of the highest priorities of 
the EM program.

Section 3136. Processing of high-level nuclear waste and spent nuclear 
        fuel rods.

    The committee understands that a strategic goal of the 
Environmental Management (EM) program is to eliminate and 
manage urgent risks in the EM system. The committee believes 
that the Department of Energy (DOE) created an urgent risk 
situation with consolidation of the storage of DOE spent 
nuclear fuel rods at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 
(INEL) (stainless steel clad) and at the Savannah River Site 
(SRS) (aluminum clad).
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 
required the initiation of a specific program for the 
disposition of spent nuclear fuel rods. The committee continues 
to be concerned with the inadequate funding level reflected in 
the fiscal year 1997 budget request and with the under 
utilization of the Department's resources.
    The committee authorizes an additional $43.0 million for 
the material processing canyons and an additional $15.0 million 
for the DOE National Spent Fuel Program to support program 
planning, fuel characterization, transportation planning, waste 
acceptance criteria development and technology development as 
necessary to assure a path forward for permanent disposition of 
DOE-controlled spent fuel. In addition, the committee directs 
the Department to utilize fully all relevant facilities and to 
accelerate, where possible, activities necessary to stabilize, 
store, and dispose of materials included in the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) recommendation on site spent 
fuel rods, foreign fuel rods, and fuel rods being sent to the 
DOE fuel rod consolidation sites.

Section 3137. Fellowship program for development of skills critical to 
        Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex.

    In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1996, the Department of Energy (DOE) was directed to initiate a 
university fellowship program for recruiting the next 
generation of engineers and technical experts for the 
modernized nuclear weapons repair and refabrication plants. The 
DOE was directed to fund the program through authorized 
appropriations within the Stockpile Management Program. The DOE 
has not complied with this congressional direction.
    In the absence of such a program, the progressing ``brain 
drain,'' identified in testimony before this committee, could 
undermine efforts to repair and rebuild the necessary number of 
aging nuclear weapons in the stockpile. Testimony has suggested 
that the Russian nuclear weapons production expertise is 
sustained by rebuilding thousands of weapons per year. While 
the committee does not propose a massive remanufacturing 
approach, it is expected that DOE will attract, mentor, and 
retain the next generation of nuclear weapons refabrication 
experts. The committee authorizes DOE to use $5.0 million of 
the authorized appropriations for fiscal year 1997 Stockpile 
Management Program to immediately initiate the fellowship 
program.

                       SUBTITLE D--OTHER MATTERS

Section 3151. Requirement for annual five-year budget for the national 
        security programs of the Department of Energy.

    The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to submit an 
annual National Security Five-Year Budget Plan to the 
congressional defense committees. The plan shall be submitted 
no later than the day on which the President's annual budget 
request is submitted to Congress. The format of the budget plan 
shall be based on the structure of the Atomic Energy Defense 
Activities account, as presented in the President's annual 
budget request to Congress. At a minimum, the plan shall have 
the level of detail contained in the Department's National 
Security Five-Year Budget Plan for fiscal years 1996-2000, 
submitted to the congressional defense committees on March 20, 
1995.
    The Office of Management and Budget shall withhold 5 
percent of the Department's annual appropriation for Atomic 
Energy Defense Activities until the Plan is submitted to the 
congressional defense committees. The provision reiterates the 
requirement originally contained in section 3144 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 
1991 (Public Law 101-189). The committee notes that the 
Department did not submit a plan for fiscal years 1997-2001 
with the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request. The 
committee directs the Secretary of Energy to submit the plan 
for fiscal years 1997-2001 as soon as possible, but no later 
than September 30, 1996.

Section 3152. Requirements for Department of Energy weapons activities 
        budgets for fiscal years after fiscal year 1997.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Energy to relate the elements of its nuclear 
weapons program budget submission to the specific requirements 
of the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum and the Nuclear 
Posture Review. In the context of that submission, the 
Secretary of Energy would be required to provide a long-term 
program plan, and a near-term program plan for the 
certification and stewardship of the nuclear stockpile.

Section 3153. Repeal of requirement relating to accounting procedures 
        for Department of Energy funds.

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 3151 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995. In 1994, at the time this provision was 
enacted, the Department of Energy did not have adequate control 
of uncosted and unobligated balances in a number of areas. In 
many instances, the Department could not identify the original 
fiscal year for which uncosted balances were appropriated.
    Prior to the enactment of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, the committee believed 
that a change in accounting procedures was necessary to force 
the Department to track the expenditure of funds and to regain 
control over uncosted and unobligated balances. Subsequent to 
the enactment, the Department succeeded in significantly 
reducing its uncosted and unobligated balances. In addition, 
the Department has initiated a regular reporting methodology 
that allows the committee to track unobligated and uncosted 
funds appropriated for national security activities. The 
committee supports the continued use of such reports.
    Section 3151 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995 has not yet taken effect. The committee has 
learned that implementation of the provision would require 
significant expenditures, and computer hardware and software 
development. The committee does not believe that these 
expenditures would be cost effective. Moreover, the information 
that the provision was intended to elicit is now readily 
available in the reports submitted to the committee. The 
committee believes that these reports are an adequate and cost 
effective substitute for the provision. The provision is no 
longer necessary.

Section 3154. Plans for activities to process nuclear materials and 
        clean up nuclear waste at the Savannah River Site.

    The committee is concerned that future generations may be 
faced with potential safety issues resulting from the 
degradation of spent nuclear fuel rods. The committee has been 
informed that the Department of Energy (DOE) will not fully 
assess the future missions of the Savannah River Site until 
next year. The committee notes that the Department has already 
begun to cut funding, downsize the workforce, and shut down key 
facilities at the site. To ensure that these critical 
capabilities and capacities are not lost in the interim and 
that all safety concerns are addressed in a timely manner, the 
committee directs the Secretary of Energy to continue 
operations and maintain a high state of readiness at the F-
canyon and H-canyon facilities. In addition, the committee 
directs the Secretary of Energy to prepare a near-term plan for 
upgrading and improving the canyons to meet Defense Nuclear 
Safety Board recommendations.
    The committee also notes the absence of a multi-year plan 
to address the return of foreign research reactor spent nuclear 
fuel rods to the Savannah River Site and the consolidation of 
DOE domestic spent nuclear fuel rods at the Savannah River Site 
and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. A clearly 
defined plan and commitment is necessary for their safe storage 
and ultimate disposition in a permanent repository. Without an 
effective program plan in place to deal with these problems, 
the Department will not be able to adequately assess the future 
missions of the Savannah River Site.
    The committee agrees with the Chairman of the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) that both H-canyon and 
F-canyon facilities at the Savannah River Site have an 
important future role. Therefore, the committee directs the 
Secretary of Energy to develop a multi-year program plan to use 
the H-canyon and the F-canyon for treating DOE and foreign 
spent nuclear fuel rods. The plan shall provide options for 
chemical processing, reduction, and isolation of high level 
nuclear waste contained in on-site spent nuclear fuel rods, in 
DOE aluminum clad fuel rods, and foreign spent fuel rods being 
sent to the site under the Department's Fiscal Year 1995 
consolidation decision. The plan shall ensure that no 
additional weapons grade material results as an end product 
from activities carried out under this plan.

Section 3155. Update of report on nuclear test readiness postures.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require an 
update of the Nuclear Test Readiness Posture Report required by 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996. 
That report pertains to the readiness and maintenance of the 
requisite underground testing expertise at the Nevada Test Site 
and at the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories.

Section 3156. Reports on critical difficulties at nuclear weapons 
        laboratories and nuclear weapons production plants.

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
head of any nuclear weapons laboratory or nuclear weapons 
production plant to notify the Assistant Secretary for Defense 
Programs immediately if there is any difficulty associated with 
the nuclear weapons complex that would have a significant 
bearing on the confidence in the safety, surety, or reliability 
of a nuclear weapon within the nuclear stockpile. The Assistant 
Secretary for Defense Programs is directed to notify the 
congressional defense committees immediately of any such 
difficulty. The provision would also require the Nuclear 
Weapons Council to notify Congress in the event that the 
Council becomes aware of any difficulties within the purview of 
the Council.

Section 3157. Extension of applicability of notice-and-wait requirement 
        regarding proposed cooperation agreements.

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Section 3155(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995. The amendment would extend the date by which 
notice is to be made to Congress regarding the release of 
restricted data or formerly restricted data pursuant to a 
cooperative agreement with a foreign country. This provision 
allows the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense 
to release data, as necessary, to further fissile material and 
other weapons material control and accountability programs; to 
support atomic weapons control and accountability; for treaty 
verification; and to assist in establishing a uniform 
international system of classification.

Section 3158. Redesignation of Defense Environmental Restoration and 
        Waste Management Program as Defense Nuclear Waste Management 
        Program.

    The committee is concerned that the true mission of the 
Department of Energy's Defense Environmental Restoration and 
Waste Management Program is not accurately reflected in the 
program's current name. Therefore, the committee directs that 
the Department of Energy redesignate the Defense Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management Program (also known as the 
Environmental Management Program) as the Defense Nuclear Waste 
Management Program.
    Furthermore, the committee directs that the Department of 
Energy prepare a report describing any difficulties or problems 
that may arise as a result of such a name change, including 
estimates of the costs, if any. The committee directs that the 
report be transmitted to the congressional defense committees 
no later than January 31, 1997.

Section 3159. Commission on Maintaining United States Nuclear Weapons 
        Expertise.

    The committee finds that the Department of Energy (DOE) has 
not adequately dealt with the problem associated with 
attracting a new generation of nuclear weapons experts to 
ensure that the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear 
stockpile is maintained indefinitely. On this basis, the 
committee directs that the Department organize a high level 
commission to address this issue.

Section 3160. Sense of Senate regarding reliability and safety of 
        remaining nuclear forces.

    The United States is currently participating in 
multilateral negotiations on a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty 
(CTBT) that would prohibit underground nuclear tests. The 
committee remains concerned with the ability of the Department 
of Defense to maintain confidence in the safety and reliability 
of the strategic nuclear weapons stockpile in the absence of 
such tests. U.S. strategic nuclear forces will be further 
reduced with the entry into force of START II. However, the 
United States will continue to depend on a deterrent nuclear 
force, according to the Nuclear Posture Review. The safety and 
reliability of the United States' remaining deterrent nuclear 
force depends on the following: maintaining weapons production 
capabilities and capacities; adequate funding to ensure that 
the remaining stockpile is maintained in a state of full 
readiness; meeting full fabrication and tritium production 
requirements; capabilities for tritium recycling and pit 
remanufacturing; and a successful science-based stockpile 
stewardship program to replace underground nuclear testing.
    The administration has assured members of the Senate that 
the United States would invoke its right under the supreme 
national interest clause in any future treaty, including the 
CTBT, if our confidence in the safety and reliability of the 
nuclear stockpile significantly erodes and cannot be corrected 
by science-based stockpile stewardship.
    The committee recommends a provision that expresses 
concerns about maintaining confidence in the nuclear stockpile 
and reaffirms our nation's commitment to ensuring the safety, 
security, reliability, and performance of our nuclear forces by 
incorporating a declaration that was part of the START II 
resolution of ratification that was agreed to overwhelmingly by 
the Senate in January 1996.

                        OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Department of Energy work force reduction plans

    Section 3161(e)(2)of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1993 directs the Secretary of Energy to provide 
annual updates of work force restructuring plans that evaluate 
the implementation of the plan during the year preceding the 
report. Section 3161 also directed that the Secretary of 
Energy's preparation of work force restructuring plans be 
guided by the series of objectives that must fulfilled prior to 
imposing work force changes: (1) minimize social and economic 
impacts; (2) provide employee and community notification of 
changes not later than 120 days before effective date; and (3) 
minimize layoffs through retraining, early retirement, 
attrition, and other available options.
    The Department of Energy (DOE) provided the committee with 
a comprehensive work force update through the Report on Work 
Force Restructuring Plans Completed During Fiscal Years 1993 
and 1994, dated February 1996. That update reviews the 
implementation of twelve work force restructuring plans 
covering ten sites. A total of 8,029 contractor employees have 
been separated under these plans, of which 5,791 were permanent 
management and operating employees.
    Based on a review of the overall impacts of the work force 
restructuring plans, it appears that the Department may have 
exceeded some of its projected reductions for fiscal year 1996 
and plans to continue that aggressive approach. Consistent with 
section 3161, the committee appreciates the need to restructure 
the Department's work force, however, it is important that the 
future mission requirements of the entire complex receive 
adequate consideration. It is also essential that the Secretary 
of Energy's actions be guided by the objectives outlined in 
section 3161, particularly the need to minimize the social and 
economic impacts.
    In addition, the committee is concerned that the future 
needs of the Department have not been given adequate 
consideration. The committee is concerned that decisions 
regarding work force restructuring must reflect careful review 
of both the Department's mission and the availability of 
appropriations. The committee is pleased that the Secretary of 
Energy has directed a complex wide review to ensure that work 
force restructuring decisions are appropriately guided by the 
objectives outlined in section 3161 and by the future mission 
requirements of the Department. The committee expects that the 
Secretary of Energy's review will primarily focus on those 
facilities that have had work force reductions that exceeded 
the fiscal year 1996 projections. In addition, the committee 
expects that this review will reflect the current expectation 
that there will be no need, other than that identified in 
existing workforce restructuring announcements, for additional 
involuntary separations in 1996, and that such separations will 
be limited in 1997 to levels that are necessary to ``right 
size'' workforces and achieve Departmental program missions. 
The committee understands that any further reductions would 
take place only after completion of any voluntary separations 
and early retirement programs.

Accelerating radioactive waste cleanup

    The committee commends the Department of Energy's efforts 
to reduce the risks and costs associated with cleanup of 
radioactive wastes at nuclear production facilities that are 
planned for reuse or demolition. The committee also notes the 
contribution that chemical decontamination technology has made 
in accomplishing those goals. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends that the Secretary of Energy consider the use of new 
technologies that accelerate chemical decontamination at 
nuclear production plants.
          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Section 3201. Authorization.
    The committee is concerned that the Final Report of the 
Advisory Committee on External Regulation of Department of 
Energy Nuclear Safety ignores the priorities and paramount 
objective of the Atomic Energy Act and that it does not grasp 
the danger inherent in a weakened strategic deterrent. The 
committee has seen no compelling data or argument to justify 
the recommendation that would subject national security 
programs to a new, independent, external regulatory system. In 
addition, there appear to be two distinct disadvantages to 
external regulation of the Department of Energy national 
security program: (1) it could increase the potential effect of 
intervenors, lawyers, and the members of the judiciary, 
associated with the regulatory process, in imposing burdens 
that would have an adverse effect on the Department's defense 
and national security missions; and (2) it could dramatically 
increase operating costs. Since the creation of the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) in 1988, the board has 
gained the bipartisan support and confidence of the committee. 
The committee is satisfied with the current relationship 
between the board and the Secretary of Energy.
    The committee commends the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
Safety Board for its participation in and completion of a 
Memorandum of Understanding with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), the Colorado Department of Public Health and 
Environment, and the Department of Energy. That memorandum 
should sensibly facilitate the application of the respective 
functions and resources of the board, EPA, and the State of 
Colorado in the fulfillment of the oversight and regulatory 
functions related to the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 
Site Industrial Area. The memorandum is expected to maximize 
the effectiveness of oversight responsibilities and minimize 
duplication of regulatory efforts, resulting in overall 
progress toward the completion of cleanup and decommissioning 
work under the Department of Energy's control.
                TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

Section 3301. Authorized uses of stockpile funds.
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Stockpile Manager to obligate $60.0 million from the 
National Defense Stockpile Transfer Fund during fiscal year 
1997 for the authorized uses of funds under section 9(b)(2) of 
the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act.
    The committee also recommends a provision that would 
authorize the 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.
                 TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

Sec. 3401. Authorization of appropriations.
    The President's budget request included $149.5 million for 
operation of the naval petroleum reserves in fiscal year 1997. 
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$149.5 million for the operation of the naval petroleum 
reserves in fiscal year 1997.
                  TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

    Title XXXV would authorize expenditures from the Panama 
Canal Revolving Fund for the operation, maintenance, 
improvement and administration of the Panama Canal, and would 
also authorize the Panama Canal Commission to expend funds for 
the purchase of vehicles.
                        LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

                      Departmental Recommendations

    By letter dated April 5, 1996, the General Counsel of the 
Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate 
proposed legislation ``To authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 1997 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1997, 
and for other purposes.'' The transmittal letter and proposed 
legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication 
2231 to the Committee on Armed Services on April 17, 1996. 
Executive Communication 2231 is available for review at the 
committee. Senators Thurmond and Nunn introduced this 
legislative proposal as S. 1673, by request, on April 16, 1996. 
The statement made by Senator Thurmond upon introduction of S. 
1673, together with the sectional analysis of the legislation, 
appear in the Congressional Record of April 16, 1996 on pages 
S3387-3401.
    By letter dated April 8, 1996, the General Counsel of the 
Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate 
proposed legislation ``To authorize construction at certain 
military installations for fiscal year 1997, and for other 
military construction authorizations and activities of the 
Department of Defense.'' The transmittal letter and proposed 
legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication 
2330 to the Committee on Armed Services on April 25, 1996. 
Executive Communication 2330 is available for review at the 
committee. Senators Thurmond and Nunn introduced this 
legislative proposal as part of S. 1673, by request, on April 
16, 1996.

                            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 1997.
    In favor: Senators Thurmond, Warner, Cohen, McCain, Lott, 
Coats, Smith, Kempthorne, Hutchison, Inhofe, Santorum, Nunn, 
Exon, Kennedy, Bingaman, Glenn, Byrd, Robb, Lieberman, and 
Bryan.
    Not Voting: Senator Levin
    Vote: 20-0.
    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 1997 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 1997.

                        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 VIEWS OF SENATOR WILLIAM S. COHEN ON S. 1673

    The FY97 National Defense Authorization Senate Armed 
Services Committee report includes a provision that changes the 
allocation of maintenance workloads between the public depots 
and the private sector from a 60/40 to a 50/50 split. Like most 
compromises, it will probably not satisfy everyone with an 
interest in this issue. I do not believe that the depot 
maintenance issue should be addressed this year as a result of 
the inability of the Department of Defense (DOD) to articulate 
its depot policy and its failure to adequately answer depot-
related questions Congress requested in last year's National 
Defense Authorization act. It appears that DOD is not 
interested in providing Congress with the data it needs to make 
an informed decision.
    There is a need to reform how the Pentagon operates. 
Finding more efficient ways to support our war-fighters could 
result in billions of dollars in savings that can be 
transferred to support the modernization of our forces. DOD has 
proposed three methods of savings to fund modernization--
procurement reform, base closings, and privatization. I am 
highly skeptical about significant savings accruing from any of 
these. The Congress has given DOD three revolutionary 
procurement reform acts in the last two years which could 
generate savings but I am fearful these may fail to achieve the 
desired effects due to management inertia. Likewise, the 
savings from BRAC may prove illusionary if the Administration 
continues to come up with proposals which are designed not for 
cost savings but to avoid the pain doled out in BRAC to 
politically important communities.
    With regard to privatization, I believe the Pentagon has a 
misplaced sense of priorities. In the private sector, which DOD 
claims to emulate, organizations most frequently contract out 
for building management, fleet management, and information 
technology to better focus on their ``core competencies''. DOD 
has decided to turn this on its head by first outsourcing core 
competencies--for example, maintaining advanced weapon 
systems--while keeping most commercial business processes in-
house.
    If we are truly going to maximize the benefits of the 
commercial marketplace, I believe we should instead focus on 
those areas where the private sector has chosen to outsource, 
such as data processing, accounting, audit, transportation, and 
inventory. But the Pentagon wants to continue to operate its 
own data processing centers, develop its own software for 
financial systems when it can buy them off-the-shelf, like most 
private companies do, and manage its own inventory so the 
taxpayer ends up spending $36 billion more on goods that DOD 
does not need. And yet, the Pentagon wants to move quickly to 
privatize depots that were slated for closure by BRAC and 
further contribute to the excess capacity problem at public 
depots that have served our country so well since 1799.
    On the point of privatizing closing facilities, there also 
seems to be a misunderstanding about the intent of the BRAC and 
the closure of the Air Logistics Centers at Kelly AFB and 
McClellan AFB. First, let there be no misunderstanding about 
the fact that the BRAC decisions were made under the assumption 
that 60 percent of the workload would go to public depots. The 
need to change this ratio to accommodate the Administration's 
plans to shift work to Kelly and McClellan illustrates that 
what we are doing in this bill is a clear circumvention of the 
BRAC process. To change the 60/40 criteria as the Armed Service 
Committee has agreed to will deteriorate critical warfighting 
capabilities, impede investment in the public domain, and most 
likely require further closures beyond what has been 
accomplished in BRAC.
    The BRAC did not recommend or authorize ``privatization-in-
place'' at Kelly or McClellan. Indeed for those facilities 
where the BRAC thought there was a unique capability that could 
lend itself to privatization-in-place (such as those at the 
Naval Air Warfare Center in Indianapolis or the Naval Surface 
Warfare Center in Louisville), a recommendation was made to 
that effect. The BRAC made no such identification or 
recommendation for facilities at the Kelly or McClellan Air 
Logistics Centers. Perhaps, it can be argued that the BRAC made 
a mistake and that it did not adequately recognize the unique 
potential of these two facilities. I would then argue that the 
BRAC did not adequately recognize the unique capabilities of 
Loring AFB in Presque Isle, Maine and I am sure some of my 
colleagues could argue the same for facilities in their states. 
The fact of the matter is that the BRAC made a recommendation 
and the Congress and the Administration accepted that 
recommendation with all of its consequences for national 
security and the economic impact on these communities.
    Because of the implications of any change to 60/40 on 
excess capacity and concerns over DOD's direction on the 
privatization of defense depots, Congress asked the DOD to 
prepare a depot policy report. If Congress agreed with this 
policy, it would repeal the 60/40 rule. DOD ignored their 
deadline and sent up a policy just four weeks ago. The report 
did not meet the requirements that were outlined in last year's 
National Defense Authorization Act and was rejected by the 
Senate Armed Services Committee.
    The Department of Defense's depot policy report was non-
responsive and it was clear from DOD's April 17th testimony 
before the Senate Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee that 
DOD's policy was not well developed or supported. DOD's 
definition of core capability is so general that it is 
virtually meaningless. The report did not address how new 
weapon systems would be introduced in depots, or how public 
depots would be kept cost-efficient. There was a complete lack 
of detailed statistical data supporting the Pentagon's policy 
decisions and no data on past depot maintenance performance in 
which to support privatization decisions. In addition, there 
were neither plans to assure effective competition in a market 
where 76 percent of contracts are now let on a sole-source 
basis, nor a risk assessment on how plans for privatization-in-
place would affect existing excess capacity and overall 
maintenance costs.
    With the move to 50/50, the Senate Armed Services Committee 
is now saying DOD does not have a depot policy and Congress 
does not have the data to adequately develop its own policy, 
but we are going to repeal 60/40 anyway because it meets the 
short-sighted political agenda of the day. By repealing 60/40 
at this time, we are rewarding DOD for not adequately 
responding to a congressionally mandated requirement. DOD's 
policy and the repeal of 60/40 were inextricably linked. To 
reject DOD's policy as the Armed Services committee has done, 
is to reject DOD's call for a repeal of 60/40.
    I do not believe we should give DOD any more flexibility in 
this area until DOD establishes a coherent policy on depot 
maintenance. It was apparent that this position was not 
universally accepted by my colleagues on the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. When a compromise was offered to change the 
mix to 50/50, I reluctantly accepted it as I felt this was the 
best way to continue to maintain our nation's investment in the 
unique capabilities the public depots provide our armed forces 
in war and peace.
    The committee report does provide some direction to require 
DOD to develop a rational depot policy. The final Committee 
agreement again asks DOD to report in detail on the provisions 
where it has failed to adequately respond. The committee 
directs DOD to provide answers to crucial questions needed by 
Congress in order to support an informed decision about 
maintaining a core logistics capability in the public sector. 
Some of the questions include:
          What workloads should be ``core'' in each service?
          What procedures will be used to conduct public-
        private and public-public competitions?
          What is DOD's maintenance plan for new weapon 
        systems?
          What level of organic work is necessary to provide 
        efficient capacity utilization of the public depots 
        that remain?
          How does DOD plan to improve the productivity of the 
        remaining public depots?
          What are the estimated savings that will result from 
        increased privatization?
    This last question is crucial as DOD is proclaiming savings 
from consolidating depots, but then plans to keep more excess 
capacity with its policy of privatization-in-place. While DOD 
risks future modernization on savings supposedly generated by 
privatization of depot maintenance, these savings are unproven. 
DOD's estimated savings of 20-30% from depot privatization rely 
on past studies of the privatization of commercial type 
functions in the government where there is significant 
competition for contacts. This is in stark contrast to the 
marketplace for depot maintenance activities. In fact, the 
General Accounting Office found the Air Force is implementing a 
privatization plan at facilities at the Newark AFB that will 
most likely increase maintenance costs and not save the 
taxpayer any money as promised.
    I would have preferred to delay any decision on depot 
maintenance until we secured all of the facts from DOD. 
However, the Senate Armed Services Committee has agreed to a 
compromise that I fully supported. Given the fact that the 
commitee report allows DOD to shift to 50/50 while not 
obligating DOD to provide an adequate response to Congress, my 
continued support is dependent on the degree to which DOD 
satisfies the Committee's request for information on DOD's 
depot policy between now and the conference with the House of 
Representatives over the Fiscal Year ``97 National Defense 
Authorization bill. I look forward to the Chairman and Ranking 
Member's letter directing DOD to provide this information. The 
Senate Armed Services Committee rejected DOD's proposed policy 
this year and is offering DOD another opportunity to get it 
right. DOD does not plan to meet the 60/40 ceiling for several 
years, so I believe we have the time to ensure that a coherent 
depot maintenance plan that will truly save taxpayer dollars 
and effectively meet wartime surge requirements and readiness 
needs can be properly developed and implemented.
                                                        Bill Cohen.
 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN ON THE COMMITTEE-REPORTED FY 
                1997 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL

    I was pleased to join the overwhelming majority of the 
Committee in ordering reported favorably to the Senate the 
Committee's recommendations for the Fiscal Year 1997 National 
Defense Authorization Act. Overall, I believe this is an 
excellent bill, and I congratulate Chairman Thurmond for 
leading an efficient and productive markup process.
    For the second year in a row, the Republican Congress has 
added money to the Administration's inadequate defense budget 
requests, slowing the too-rapid decline in defense spending 
which threatens to jeopardize the future readiness of our Armed 
Forces. The Committee-reported bill authorizes nearly $13 
billion more than the President's budget request for defense 
programs, with more than $7 billion allocated for procurement 
of additional weapons systems.
    Although I am not completely satisfied with some of the 
Committee's recommendations, the majority of this added funding 
is authorized for high-priority programs of the military 
Services. The bill provides much-needed funding for essential 
tactical aircraft and missiles, improved communications 
systems, theater and national missile defense systems, and 
other high-technology equipment which the Clinton 
Administration failed to fund.
    I am also pleased that the Committee adopted most of the 
recommendations of the Readiness Subcommittee, including:
          --A provision to dispose of unneeded stockpile items 
        which will reduce the deficit by $650 million;
          --A provision to terminate defense spending for a 
        Justice Department-run center to gather intelligence on 
        illegal drug activities; and
          --A provision requiring organizers of civilian 
        sporting events to agree to reimburse the Department of 
        Defense for the cost of providing security and other 
        support services, but only if the event makes a profit; 
        and
          --A provision requiring the military Service Chiefs 
        to provide an analysis of an alternative readiness 
        management system, called tiered readiness, which I 
        proposed in a recent paper.
    I appreciate very much the cooperation of my colleagues in 
formulating a compromise proposal to resolve the difficult 
issue of allocating workload between public and private 
maintenance depots. The provisions adopted by the Committee 
revise the current 60/40 public/private workload allocation to 
a 50/50 formula, pending receipt of core workload data from the 
Department of Defense. The Committee also adopted a requirement 
for competition at Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases in 
advance of implementing any privatization-in-place proposal.
    The Committee also adopted several other amendments dealing 
with policy matters of particular importance to me.
    First, the Committee adopted an amendment to repeal 
provisions of the FY 1996 Defense Authorization Act related to 
missing service personnel. These provisions were identified by 
the military leadership as burdensome and unnecessary.
    The Committee also adopted an amendment to provide the 
Secretary of Defense with the authority to waive counter-
productive ``Buy America'' restrictions which were adopted in 
last year's defense authorization bill. The new waiver may be 
exercised at the Secretary's discretion to allow the Department 
of Defense to purchase items from a firm located in a foreign 
country, if that country has a reciprocal defense procurement 
memorandum of understanding with the U.S. The new waiver will 
once again allow free trade between the U.S. and our allies for 
defense contracts.
    The Committee also adopted a proposal directing the 
Department of Defense to follow a uniform policy with respect 
to military personnel with illnesses that prevent them from 
serving overseas. In my view, it is outrageous that military 
personnel infected with the AIDS virus would be treated any 
differently than others who cannot deploy for health reasons. 
This provision would ensure uniformity in the Department's 
discharge policy for non-deployable personnel. I sincerely hope 
we are able to maintain this position in our conference with 
the House.
    I will work closely with the Chairman and my Committee 
colleagues to ensure that these high-priority programs and 
important policy positions are retained on the Senate floor and 
in conference with the House.
    Finally, I am sorry to note that the practice of pork-
barrel spending is still evident in the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. In past years, defense bills have been filled with 
pork-barrel projects which did little to enhance our military 
capabilities. This year, I am pleased that the practice of 
adding funds for Members' special interests seems to have 
declined significantly. However, there are several programmatic 
recommendations in this bill which, in my view, constitute 
pork-barrel spending.
    First, and most egregious, the Committee added $600 million 
in unrequested military construction projects. The close 
attention focused on military construction pork in the past at 
least forced greater scrutiny of the add-on list this year, 
with the result that the majority of the projects added by the 
Committee were included on the military Services' priority 
lists for increased funding. However, I cannot accept the 
apparent assumption that projects planned for construction in 
the next century are as high a priority as projects planned for 
next year's budget, and I had hoped that the Committee would 
focus on adding money for projects planned for 1998 or 1999.
    Another perennial favorite is the addition of hundreds of 
millions of dollars for unrequested equipment for the National 
Guard and Reserve. This bill includes an additional $759.8 
million in the National Guard and Reserve Equipment account, 
plus as much as $242 million in additional unrequested 
equipment earmarked for the Guard and Reserve in the regular 
Service procurement accounts. Within this amount is $284 
million for 6 unrequested C-130J aircraft for the Guard and 
Reserve--a tactical airlift aircraft that the active Air Force 
has not yet been able to buy. I am well aware of the argument 
that the active military Services do not adequately provide for 
the needs of the Guard and Reserve, but I do not believe the 
Congress, or the individual Adjutants General, can properly 
prioritize their needs. The Senate Armed Services Committee has 
repeatedly urged the Services to include Guard and Reserve 
requirements in their budget requests. I think we should enlist 
the obviously widespread support of our Senate colleagues and 
the state Adjutants General to ensure that the Guard and 
Reserve are included in the budget formulation process, rather 
than continuing to impose our own politicized judgments about 
specific weapons systems and projects on the Guard and Reserve.
    The active Air Force did request funding to procure one C-
130J tactical airlift aircraft. However, the Committee decided 
not to authorize this asset for the active Air Force. Instead, 
the Committee recommended an additional $204.5 million for an 
additional three C-130Js, including funding to modify these 
aircraft to a weather reconnaissance role, and then transferred 
all four aircraft to the WC-130 weather reconnaissance squadron 
in Mississippi. It is inexplicable to me why the Committee 
would choose to divert these aircraft from the active Air 
Force, where they were intended to replace aging C-130E models, 
and instead use them to replace newer C-130H models in a 
weather reconnaissance unit. Further, the Air Force plans to 
eliminate nearly 90 aircraft from its current C-130 fleet to 
conform with the Mobility Requirements Study, yet the Committee 
recommends adding these four aircraft plus an unspecified 
number of C-130s for the Guard and Reserve. Finally, neither 
WC-130 or C-130 aircraft appeared on any of the Service's 
priority lists for added funds. The Committee's rationale for 
adding these aircraft, reflected in the report language, 
appears to be that the weather reconnaissance mission could 
``benefit from near-term modernization''. That argument, in my 
view, could easily apply to the thousands of Service priorities 
which were not included in this bill and which, in my view, 
would contribute much more to our national defense than an 
upgraded weather reconnaissance capability.
    Another questionable add-on in this bill is a $15 million 
increase for the High Frequency Active Auroral Research 
Program, or HAARP. This program has benefited from 
Congressional add-ons since 1990, costing a total of $76 
million in just seven years, with another $115 million required 
before the project can be completed in 2001. Yet it remains 
unclear what military benefit might accrue from the 
construction of a facility to study the aurora borealis. 
Proponents of the program argue that it should be a part of the 
counter-proliferation program of the Department of Defense 
because it will be able to detect underground tunnels and 
structures. However, the Air Force, which manages the program 
for the Department of Defense, noted in April of last year that 
``the research is not sufficiently mature to warrant its 
inclusion in the nonproliferation and counter-proliferation 
program.'' Proponents also argue that the program will have 
application for communications, navigation, and surveillance 
missions. Yet, the Department of Defense did not include this 
$15 million in its budget request for FY 1997, and it was not 
included on their priority lists for additional funds. That 
indicates to me that, in competition with other militarily 
relevant programs, HAARP is not a high priority for the 
military. In my view, the Congress should stop compelling the 
military Services to pursue research programs that do not meet 
their requirements. Spending hundreds of millions of defense 
dollars to study the energy of the aurora borealis is, in my 
view, an unconscionable waste of taxpayer dollars. This program 
should be turned over to a privately funded university, 
research institution, or other organization where it could be 
pursued as a purely scientific endeavor.
    The Committee also included a provision in the bill that 
establishes a cumbersome and expensive new bureaucracy to 
coordinate the Navy's oceanographic research activities. The 
addition of $99.4 million for two new oceanographic ships does 
not trouble me, since these ships were included in the Navy's 
shipbuilding plan. Nor does the addition of $6 million to 
replace worn equipment used by the Navy in its oceanographic 
survey and research activities. In fact, I do not necessarily 
dispute the assertion that Navy oceanographic research is 
underfunded. However, I see no need to establish a multi-tiered 
organization to ensure that the Navy has access to all federal 
and civilian research in oceanography. The bill sets aside $13 
million to fund a new bureaucracy which would, in my view, only 
hinder the efficient and effective expenditure of federal funds 
for militarily relevant oceanographic research. In addition, 
the criteria and processes for appointment to these various new 
entities seem vague, as do the particular responsibilities and 
authorities of these seemingly overlapping organizations. 
Finally, the outyear funding requirements for this new 
bureaucracy are unknown, and I question whether the Navy can 
afford this potential funding drain in the future. I believe 
the Committee would have been better served to increase the 
funding available to the Navy for its oceanography program, 
together with specific legislative authority for the Navy to 
explore private sector efforts which might be of utility to the 
Navy. In this way, the Navy would be spared the burden of a new 
bureaucracy and, at the same time, would be able to benefit 
from privately funded research and other activities.
    Finally, again this year, the Committee included 
legislative language and additional funding for the New Attack 
Submarine program which is designed to ensure that the first 
two, and perhaps four, of these submarines are allocated 
equally between the two competing shipyards. The legislative 
language is essentially the same as that adopted last year, 
which earmarks at least one submarine each for Newport News and 
Electric Boat. The bill includes an additional $701 million for 
advance procurement for the second New Attack Submarine to 
ensure that Newport News receives its fair share of this 
program. I did not support this approach last year because it 
defeats any pretense at competition between the yards, earmarks 
multi-billions of dollars for each of the yards, and is based 
on a faulty assumption that the nation requires two shipyards 
to ensure its nuclear submarine industrial base. I still 
question why the Navy is retiring SSN-688 submarines early in 
order to accommodate the Seawolf and New Attack Submarines in a 
drastically reduced attack submarine fleet, and I do not 
understand why we are buying New Attack Submarines, which are 
less capable than Seawolf submarines, when they cost as much as 
Seawolf submarines (about $2.5 billion each). I think the 
Committee should reconsider accelerating this funding until it 
is necessary and allocate this $701 million to other Navy 
priorities.
    Again, I believe this is, overall, a very good defense 
bill, and I voted in favor of reporting the bill to the Senate. 
However, I fear that the additional $13 billion included in 
this bill may not survive the Congressional budget review 
process this year. In the event that this bill must be reduced 
by $3 or $4 billion, or even more, I hope my colleagues will 
look carefully at these pork-barrel add-ons. We must protect 
the high-priority military programs which contribute to the 
future readiness of our Armed Forces. If this bill must be 
reduced, we should cut out the pork first.
                                                       John McCain.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR BOB SMITH ON PROVISIONS RELATED TO MISSING 
                                PERSONS

    In the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act, 
Congress mandated critical reforms to the procedures and 
policies used by the Department of Defense (DoD) to fully 
account for military men and women who are captured or become 
missing in action in hostile territory. These changes will go a 
long way to address past criticisms that Defense Department 
officials have not always considered pertinent information in 
arriving at status determinations for unaccounted for American 
POWs or MIAs.
    However, in the Fiscal Year 1997 Defense Authorization 
bill, the Committee has repealed several important sections of 
the Missing Persons law at the urging of the Department of 
Defense. I believe many of these proposed revisions to current 
law are unwarranted, and I do not believe the Committee 
received compelling reasons for the proposed changes described 
below.
    First, the Committee adopted a recommendation to repeal the 
provision in last year's Act that requires DoD to appoint 
counsel whose sole purpose is to represent the interests of a 
missing person at status determination hearings. There has been 
criticism in the past, based on 1977 National Security Council 
and Department of Defense memoranda, that government officials 
had, at one time, considered declaring many MIAs as dead in 
order to advance political and foreign policy objectives. 
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that someone might 
question whether the Department of Defense has always held the 
interests of a missing person foremost in mind during status 
reviews. I believe it is appropriate to have DoD-appointed 
counsel at these board hearings who are required by law to 
represent the interests of a missing person.
    Second, the Committee adopted a recommendation to repeal 
the provision in last year's Act concerning penalties for any 
wrongful withholding of information from the files of a missing 
person. Again, there have been instances over the years where 
POW/MIA family members have said that information was withheld 
from them which did not concern national security or privacy 
issues. Even the Final Report of the Senate Select Committee on 
POW/MIA Affairs concluded in 1993 that DoD had not always been 
up front during the last two decades in providing relevant 
information to POW/MIA family members. The Missing Persons law 
passed last year had several exemptions for withholding 
classified information, privacy information, and information 
from the debriefings of former POWs. We need to keep the 
penalties under current law in place so POW/MIA families know 
that DoD will be held accountable if other relevant information 
is knowingly withheld from a missing person's file.
    Third, the Committee adopted a recommendation to repeal the 
right of the primary next of kin of a missing person to seek 
judicial review if there is reason to believe that information 
affecting the status of a missing person has not been 
adequately considered by the Department of Defense. The right 
to judicial review of a status determination contained in 
current law should be preserved. There is no compelling reason 
for Congress to alter this provision. Even veterans appealing 
disability benefits are entitled to such review, and it is hard 
to believe that we would want to apply a lesser standard to a 
decision on whether a missing person is alive or dead.
    Fourth, the Committee adopted a recommendation to repeal a 
provision in current law that makes the new Missing Persons 
legislation applicable to cases of unaccounted for personnel 
from the Korean Conflict. Concern has been expressed that the 
Missing Persons law might force the Department of Defense to 
revisit status determinations made more than forty years ago 
for several thousand missing American personnel from the Korean 
Conflict. I understand the manpower and resource limitations 
which might give rise to this concern.
    However, while I am pleased the Committee has retained 
preenactment applicability in current law for Vietnam-era and 
Cold War cases, I believe we will need to further consider the 
issue of fairness for Korean-era POW/MIA families with the 
following points in mind; First, under current law, cases from 
the Korean Conflict can only be reopened if new information is 
found or received that could change the status of a missing 
person; Second, given the passage of time, it is very unlikely 
that several thousand MIA cases from the Korean Conflict might 
be reopened on the basis of new information that could affect 
the status of a missing person; Third, the Department of 
Defense has lost contact with many of the primary next of kin 
for the 8,170 MIAs from the Korean War, and it is equally 
unlikely that several thousand of these family members would 
now contact the Department of Defense with information that 
would warrant a further review of their loved ones'' cases.
    Nonetheless, there are still efforts underway to obtain 
information on POW/MIAs from the Korean Conflict, and it is 
possible that some of this information could affect the status 
of a missing person. Finally, it is important that the 
definitions and procedures which constitute an accounting for 
missing persons under current law apply equally to personnel 
still missing from the Korean Conflict.

                                                         Bob Smith.
                 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN

    This bill adopts policies that could increase the risk to 
the U.S. by undermining nuclear arms reduction agreements and 
provoking proliferation. It also continues a disturbing trend 
begun in last year's authorization act, providing the Pentagon 
with funding for weapons not requested by the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the President, and at a 
time when there is no sudden increase in the external military 
threat to the U.S.
    After adding $7 billion above the DOD's request for FY 
1996, this bill would add nearly $13 billion more above the 
DOD's request for FY 1997. These additions are on top of the 
$25 billion added to the five-year defense plan in late 1994 
and the $31.5 billion windfall in purchasing power the Pentagon 
captured in early 1996 from lower than expected inflation 
rates, a ``dividend'' that will be spread over six years.
    Of the $12.9 billion this bill adds to the President's 
request, the vast majority goes to procurement of additional 
weapons. Some forty percent of those additional items are not 
even in the Pentagon's five-year defense plan.
    This year, ``wish lists'' of items not approved for the FY 
1997 budget by the JCS and the Secretary of Defense were 
solicited from the service chiefs. Those wish lists totaled 
more than $7 billion this year ($19.5 billion over five years) 
from the Army, $3 billion from the Navy for this year, $2.1 
billion from the Marine Corps for this year, and $2.8 billion 
for this year ($12.8 billion over five years) from the Air 
Force. These figures do not include the ``wish list'' sums for 
equipment for the National Guard and Reserve forces--well over 
$1 billion for the Army Reserve alone.
    While the Committee does place a high value on the personal 
views of the service chiefs, even indicating during the process 
of their confirmation that such views will be solicited, this 
practice of requesting ``wish lists'' for add-ons places at 
risk the very improvements in jointness and coordination among 
the services that the Committee has long championed, and also 
threatens the careful balancing of priorities that the 
Department's regular budget process establishes.
    The Committee added hundreds of millions of dollars for 
items that were not even on the wish lists, let alone in the 
Pentagon's request for FY97.
    For example, the Committee added $120 million to procure an 
additional 15 OH-58D Kiowa Warrior (also known as AHIP) scout 
helicopters that were not even on the Army's $7 billion wish 
list of 314 items. During Operation Desert Storm the Army used 
Apache helicopters as scouts to accompany our Apache attack 
helicopter forces instead of Kiowa scouts because the Kiowa 
cannot even keep up with the Apache. It doesn't have the speed 
or the range to operate with our front-line forces, and we 
should not buy more. The Army is focusing its efforts on 
developing the new Comanche scout helicopter which will be 
significantly more capable than the OH-58D.
    The Committee also added more than $50 million for two 
additional F-16s, above the number on the Air Force ``wish 
list''. The justification for more F-16s is suspect, since it 
was based on a sudden reduction in the service life estimate 
for F-16A/B fighters from 8,000 flying hours to just 4,000. 
Before we take these revised figures at face value, we should 
examine their validity, and consider other options that might 
be cheaper than buying new F-16s to fill the role of attrition 
reserve aircraft. Even so, it is excessive to buy more than the 
Air Force put on its wish list. The Air Force already has more 
than 280 F-16s stored in the desert, with additional useful 
service life remaining. Why buy new attrition reserve aircraft 
now which won't be needed until 2002 at the earliest?
Spending level
    The Pentagon already consumes nearly 40 percent of the 
world's military budget, and we spend nearly as much as all of 
our allies combined. The U.S. spends 100 times as much annually 
as Iraq, the largest spender among nations the Pentagon 
considers potential threats. Even as other federal agencies 
continue to take sharp cuts in high-priority programs that 
directly contribute to the immediate and long-term security of 
Americans, including crime-fighting, education and 
environmental protection, the Committee added billions not 
requested by the Department of Defense, and in many cases not 
even included by the Services on the ``wish lists'' solicited 
by the Committee.
    On top of the fact that this authorization has resorted to 
using ad hoc ``wish lists'' from the Services in order to 
decide where to spend the extra $13 billion, is the fact that 
the DOD financial systems necessary to account for the 
expenditure of this money are broken. We still haven't gotten a 
handle on it.
    The General Accounting Office (GAO), in fact, says that 
``the Department does not yet have adequate financial 
management processes in place to produce the information it 
needs to support its decision.'' ``No military service or other 
major DOD component,'' says GAO, ``has been able to withstand 
the scrutiny of an independent financial statement audit.'
    But the Committee's action would add another $13 billion to 
the pot without any concern for financial mismanagement issues.
    If the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the 
Department of Health and Human Services were the subject of the 
same type of reports on their financial management systems that 
we're getting from the DOD Inspector General and GAO and the 
DOD Comptroller, himself, we would never be adding ``wish 
list'' money to their programs.
    The GAO describes DOD's financial management problems as 
``serious'' and ``pervasive''. GAO in testimony late last year 
listed the key problems as follows:
          --``Serious problems in accounting for billions of 
        dollars in annual disbursements.''
          --``Not identifying and disclosing future government 
        costs.''
          --``Breakdowns in the Department's ability to protect 
        its assets from fraud, waste and abuse.''
          --``Continuing problems in reliably reporting on the 
        cost of its operations.''
    As long as Congress adds money like this, the Department 
will not have adequate incentive to solve these financial 
management problems. No major corporation in the United States 
would approve a subsidiary's budget at a ``wish list'' level if 
the subsidiary suffered from financial management failures like 
the Department of Defense.
     While the Committee is critical of the level of 
procurement spending in the President's defense budget request, 
its answer is simply to add more money, much of which is not 
for the items that the Pentagon wants. This is a poor choice 
for several reasons.
    First, Admiral William Owens, the former Vice Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chairman of the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) testified to the 
Committee at its first hearing this year that while DOD is 
seeking to increase its procurement funds, Congress should not 
add the money on top of the defense budget. Instead, he said 
that the Defense Department needs to create savings from within 
its own programs to provide additional funds for procurement. 
The Secretaries of the Military Departments provided valuable 
testimony in support of that notion. But the Committee did not 
pursue this avenue. Instead, it simply added money to the 
budget request, reducing incentives for the Department to 
operate more efficiently.
    Second, the Committee's addition of nearly $13 billion is 
consistent with last year's congressional budget resolution, 
which added $7 billion in Fiscal Year 1996, and suggested a $13 
billion add this year. But that budget resolution front-loads 
the defense increases in the near-term and short-changes the 
department in the out-years. After the year 2000, the budget 
resolution would provide the Pentagon with less money than 
planned the President's Future Years Defense Plan, and could 
substantially underfund the programs that the Committee says it 
supports.
    In Fiscal Year 2001, the President's budget plan for the 
defense budget would be $2.5 billion above the current budget 
resolution number. And for Fiscal Year 2002, the President's 
defense budget figure is $7.9 billion higher than the budget 
resolution plan. So in those two years alone, the budget 
resolution would be more than $10 billion less than the 
President's defense budget plan.
    The President's budget request and outyear plans provide a 
more stable and sustainable funding profile, while the plan of 
the congressional majority would jeopardize the long-term 
health and stability of defense funding. And the Committee's 
spending priorities are not the same as those of the Pentagon, 
so by funding other items, the Committee is funneling resources 
away from the programs that the Joint Chiefs and the Defense 
Secretary say are most needed.
    The Defense Department is in an unusual position among 
federal agencies by virtue of its budget and the length of its 
future budgeting plans (six year plans are required). When 
inflation rises above the expected level, the Defense 
Department gets an upward inflation ``adjustment''. But when 
inflation is lower than expected, DOD gets a large share of the 
``dividend'' to plow back into additional programs. This year, 
DOD experienced a $45 billion lower inflation estimate. While 
some $15 billion went back to the Treasury, the other $31.5 
billion went to the military to spend over six years. This fact 
was not even taken into account by the Committee in its 
addition of $13 billion.
    While Congress has criticized the military for ``inter-
service rivalry'', this bill's significant funding increases 
for the unfunded projects of the Services actually fuels such 
rivalry by providing items that could not gain approval in the 
jointly-oriented budget review by the Joint Chiefs and the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense. We should not be surprised 
if the services compete with each other for additional funds--a 
result we should not be encouraging.

Missile Defense

    This bill threatens our security arrangements with the 
Russians by unilaterally interpreting the ABM Treaty's 
demarcation between long and short-range missile defense 
systems, and it does so even as the U.S. and Russia are trying 
to negotiate that issue. This decision by a majority of the 
committee will undermine the treaty relationship between the 
U.S. and Russia that permits large reductions in nuclear 
weapons. The majority does so in order to commit to a premature 
and costly deployment of a ``Star Wars'' missile defense 
system. That decision is a mistake.
    By insisting that the Senate must re-ratify the ABM Treaty 
if that treaty is extended to the Soviet successor states of 
Ukraine, Belarus and Khazakhstan, the majority will put at risk 
the deep reductions in former-Soviet nuclear warheads that 
would make the U.S. safer.
    Those three former-Soviet republics agreed to give up their 
nuclear weapons with our encouragement, and did so with the 
expectation that they would be permitted to join the ABM Treaty 
as successor states. If we raise questions now about their 
joining, they will not feel bound to continue their nuclear 
reductions.
    This could unravel the whole structure of ongoing nuclear 
arms reductions and the security improvements to the U.S. that 
have come with the end of the Cold War, which would decrease 
our security dramatically.
    That could well also play into the hands of anti-democratic 
and ultra-nationalist forces in Russia who might want to resume 
aggressive policies against the West.
    On April 8, President Clinton wrote back to Senator 
Thurmond and other Republican leaders about this issue of 
multilateralizing the ABM Treaty, and explained that Congress 
had urged him to do so:

          You indicate in your letter that you oppose our 
        efforts to multilateralize the Treaty to include those 
        former republics of the former Soviet Union that, like 
        Russia, are successors to the Soviet Union and chose to 
        participate in this Treaty. As you know, Congress in 
        1993 adopted legislation urging me ``to pursue 
        immediate discussions with Russia and other successor 
        states of the former Soviet Union'' on clarifying and 
        updating the Treaty. Indeed, the Ballistic Missile 
        Defense Act of 1995, which Congress approved and I 
        signed into law last month, includes provisions on the 
        demarcation issue that apply to any agreement or 
        understanding between the United States and ``any of 
        the independent states of the former Soviet Union.''
          More fundamentally, though, refusing to recognize 
        Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan as coequal successors 
        to the Soviet Union with regard to the ABM Treaty would 
        undermine our own interest in seeing that these 
        countries carry out their obligations as successors to 
        the Soviet Union under other arms control treaties, 
        such as START I and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear 
        Forces Treaty.

    The huge increases in funding for missile defense programs 
in this bill are unsupported by any urgent emerging threat, but 
despite the testimony of the JCS and the Secretary of Defense, 
a majority on the Committee has decided now to fund deployment 
by the year 2003. They are pushing a crash program which is 
likely to crash and harm American security in the process. We 
should reject that plan and pursue a more prudent program, the 
one proposed by the Defense Department and supported by the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    In a letter dated May 1, 1996 to Sen. Nunn, Gen. John 
Shalikashvili--the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--
explained his view of the issue of pursuing an ABM Treaty-
compliant national missile defense system:

          * * * efforts which suggest changes to or withdrawal 
        from the ABM Treaty may jeopardize Russian ratification 
        of START II and, as articulated in the Soviet Statement 
        to the United States of 13 June, 1991, could prompt 
        Russia to withdraw from START I. I am concerned that 
        failure of either START initiative will result in 
        Russian retention of hundreds or even thousands more 
        nuclear weapons thereby increasing both the costs and 
        risks we may face.
          We can reduce the possibility of facing these 
        increased cost and risks by planning an NMD system 
        consistent with the ABM Treaty. The current National 
        Missile Defense Deployment Readiness Program (NDRP), 
        which is consistent with the ABM Treaty, will help 
        provide stability in our strategic relationship with 
        Russia as well as reducing future risks from rogue 
        countries. * * * I have discussed the above position 
        with the Joint Chiefs and the appropriate CINCs, and 
        all are in agreement.

    Our intelligence agencies estimate that there will be no 
new countries that can build missiles that could reach the 
continental United States for 15 years, and the 
Administration's plan is to develop our missile defense 
technology so that we can make a deployment decision in three 
years if needed, and then be able to deploy a system after 
three more years (as early as 2003) if there is a threat that 
warrants deployment. This so-called ``3 plus 3'' plan makes no 
commitment now to deploy, but does commit us to improve 
significantly our missile defense technology and capability so 
we could deploy if and when that makes sense in terms of threat 
and costs.
    Pursuing a crash missile defense program, with plans to 
violate the ABM Treaty, not only would jeopardize START I and 
START II nuclear arms reductions, it could also threaten other 
important arms control and security efforts we have undertaken 
with Russia. For example, the Nunn-Lugar ``Cooperative Threat 
Reduction'' program is helping to secure, store and dismantle 
Russian nuclear warheads so they cannot again threaten any 
nation. And Russia is working with the United States to 
negotiate a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that seeks to ban all 
nuclear weapon tests. This treaty will help prevent the 
development of new nuclear weapons. Russia is also in a 
position to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in the 
foreseeable future. This is important because Russia has the 
world's largest stockpile of chemical weapons and will have to 
eliminate them completely under the CWC.
    Today, no U.S. or Russian nuclear missile is targeted on 
the other's soil. If there were an accidental missile launch, 
which our intelligence community believes to be a remote 
prospect, the missiles would land in the open ocean away from 
each other's countries. Our military is also engaged in a 
program of direct contacts with their Russian counterparts, a 
program that permits our military to demonstrate the qualities 
of civilian control, and to cooperate on such important matters 
as joint peacekeeping missions. These efforts all help improve 
U.S. security--a crash program on missile defense could 
relegate them to the scrap heap.
    The Administration's funding request was premised on that 
plan. The Committee added nearly $900 million to move at a more 
reckless pace, including funding for systems that would 
eventually violate the ABM Treaty. Earlier this year the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council, made up of the Vice Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs and the Vice Chiefs of Staff, wrote to Paul 
Kaminski, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology concerning the funding levels for missile defense. 
They prioritized Theater Missile Defense capability over a 
National Missile Defense capability. They also stated their 
belief that the funding level for NMD should not exceed $500 
million per year, and that TMD funding should not exceed $2.3 
billion per year over the course of the next five years.
    The JROC memorandum stated: ``These funding levels will 
allow us to continue to field critical TMD/NMD systems to meet 
the projected threats and, at the same time, save dollars that 
can be given back to the Services for critical recapitalization 
programs.'' In the view of the JROC, there are more important 
programs in which to invest defense resources.
    The JROC memo concludes: ``We believe the proposed TMD/NMD 
acquisition levels are balanced and proportional and offer 
great potential for achieving an affordable ballistic missile 
defense architecture that meets our joint warfighting needs.'' 
This is a clear indication that our senior military commanders 
believe that the Administration's requested level for missile 
defense is the right level.

Other provisions

    The Committee provided over $700 million for equipment for 
the National Guard and Reserve forces, in addition to amounts 
requested in the President's budget request and on the 
Services' ``wish lists''. This year the Committee moved back in 
the direction toward providing some generic categories of money 
for each of the guard and reserve components, rather than 
specifying each item to be bought based on the requests of 
Committee members, as we did last year. This is a change for 
the better, but I believe we can and should do better still.
    As recently as two years ago, the Committee provided all 
funds for Guard and Reserve equipment in generic categories. 
That outcome was a bipartisan decision of the Committee and 
helped set a precedent with the House authorization committee 
and the appropriations committee which provided the Guard and 
Reserve components with the greatest possible discretion and 
flexibility in their equipment purchases.
    The Department of Defense clearly and explicitly prefers 
that Congress should use the generic category if it adds funds. 
In a letter dated May 3, 1996, Assistant Secretary of Defense 
Deborah Lee stated the Pentagon's view: ``The Department's 
preferred position is that add-ons, if made, be generic with 
regard to Reserve component equipment. This permits the 
Department to focus these funds toward the most pressing 
Reserve component readiness needs based on current 
requirements.''
    With the addition of new missions such as peace-keeping, 
enforcing no-fly zones and humanitarian relief, the Reserve 
components should have the flexibility to procure the equipment 
that will permit them to accomplish their missions.
    Even though the Committee has kept roughly one-third of the 
funding in generic categories, when we get to conference with 
the House it will be difficult to retain any generic funding. 
Instead, the House will likely want its specific items funded, 
which would leave all specified and no generic funding. At a 
minimum, I hope the Senate will insist on keeping at least one-
third of the funding in generic categories through conference, 
and will increase this ratio in the future. Our goal should be 
to go back to the bipartisan approach of using all generic 
categories of funding.

ASAT Program

    The Committee included several provisions related to the 
kinetic energy anti-satellite (ASAT) program. One provision 
directs that the Defense Department's Space Architect shall 
include this ASAT system as part of our space control program. 
This direction is given before the Space Architect completes a 
comprehensive study of the systems needed for the space control 
mission. So the Committee is telling the Department what the 
answer will be--include the kinetic energy ASAT--even if the 
Space Architect determines it is not appropriate to do so. This 
is an unwise and inappropriate approach.
    Two other provisions would withhold funding from certain 
DOD programs until the Secretary of Defense certifies that he 
has obligated the $30 million added by Congress last year and 
also the $75 million added in this bill.
    These provisions are intended to force the Department to 
proceed with a program it does not support and which could 
cause problems for the United States. The United States depends 
more on the use of space than any other nation; this is 
especially true for our military forces. If the U.S. commits to 
this ASAT program it could well serve as the impetus for other 
nations to do likewise, which could put our satellite systems 
at risk. We should not be interested in starting an ASAT 
competition, since we have the most to lose if our satellites 
are destroyed.
    The Committee majority places this ASAT program under the 
Counter Proliferation Support Program. There are more pressing 
proliferation issues that require the attention and resources 
of the Department of Defense than the increase in satellite 
systems of foreign nations. The $75 million added to this ASAT 
program would be better spent on more serious proliferation 
problems, like improving the security of nuclear weapon 
materials in the states of the former Soviet Union, dismantling 
former Soviet nuclear warheads and countering nuclear 
smuggling.
    Senator Bingaman offered a very reasonable substitute 
amendment to the majority's ASAT provisions, but it was 
defeated on a straight party-line vote.

Space based laser

    This bill provides $70 million for continued research and 
development of a space-based laser system that could be used to 
shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles. Deploying such 
a system is strictly prohibited by the ABM Treaty. There is no 
need to build such a system and we could not deploy it without 
violating the ABM Treaty, which would bring on a host of 
serious security problems for the U.S. The Department of 
Defense should explain clearly its view of this space-based 
laser anti-missile system so the Senate is clear on the 
implications of this bill's provisions.

                                                        Carl Levin.
             ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY

    I want to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member for 
leading the fair and open committee process that has yielded 
this bill. The committee's action for the most part supports 
the President's budget request presented to the committee by 
the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff. The President's budget balances near-term goals of 
force readiness and troop quality of life, with long-term needs 
for investment in weapons modernization and research into the 
military technologies of the future. The committee bill, with 
some notable exceptions, does likewise, which is why I voted to 
report it favorably.
    The exceptions to which I refer, however, diverge greatly 
from the goals of the President and, in some cases, I believe 
will harm rather than serve our national security. These 
weaknesses in the bill should be corrected by the full Senate. 
If these improvements are not made, I will find it difficult to 
support the bill on the Senate floor.
    Among these central weaknesses are the bill's provisions 
dealing with the ABM Treaty. Once again, the Majority has 
chosen to include provisions which undermine the ABM Treaty, 
the cornerstone of all strategic arms control between the U.S. 
and Russia. Failure to delete these provisions may doom the 
bill.
    One of these provisions would write into statute technical 
standards demarcating the performance boundary between 
strategic missile defenses and theater missile defenses. 
Writing this dividing line into U.S. law ignores a central 
facet of the ABM Treaty, its ability to adapt to changing 
technical and political realities over time. The treaty 
negotiators purposely left ambiguous the dividing line between 
strategic and theater systems to allow the two sides to adapt 
and revise the standard as missile defense technologies 
developed and advanced. They also provided ample means for the 
signatories to revise standards that need change through 
discussions and clarifications in the Standing Consultative 
Commission, through amendments negotiated at treaty-mandated 5-
year review conferences, or through special negotiating 
sessions. The Clinton Administration is using these features to 
negotiate a demarcation standard with the Russians.
    The President has committed to achieving a standard which 
will allow the Department of Defense to deploy the tactical 
missile defense our military leaders believe are necessary to 
defend U.S. troops in the field. Apparently, this commitment is 
not sufficient for the Majority, which chooses to write a 
demarcation standard into law. To do so would undermine the 
cooperative spirit of the negotiations which will endanger not 
only this treaty, but any future arms control agreements we 
seek to conclude with Russia. The Senate should stick to its 
role of advise and consent to treaties and not try to negotiate 
them through statute.
    The other objectionable provision in the bill dealing with 
the ABM Treaty is the requirement for the President to submit 
the treaty for Senate ratification if additional countries are 
added as parties to the treaty. With this provision, the Senate 
presumes that the addition of new states to the treaty, most 
likely Soviet successor states in addition to Russia, would 
necessarily represent a substantive change to the agreement. 
This is not necessarily the case, since these additional states 
might enter the treaty regime as adjuncts, not as principals 
with full rights to deploy 100 interceptors or to veto other 
amendments to the treaty negotiated between the U.S. and 
Russia.
    When and if this or another Administration agrees to add 
new states to the Treaty, it will determine whether or not a 
substantive change has taken place and submit to the Senate if 
appropriate. If at that time the Senate disagrees with the 
Administration's action, it has many options for expressing and 
enforcing its view. This provision should be removed from the 
bill.
    Finally, although the bill funds the basic military 
priorities in the President's budget, it does so at too high a 
level of overall spending. The committee bill adds $12.9 
billion to the president's request of $255 billion. This huge 
addition in defense spending comes at a time of ongoing fiscal 
austerity. While other domestic discretionary programs are 
being cut to the bone, the committee has chosen to grant the 
Pentagon a 5 percent increase over the level the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff state is necessary to meet our nation's security 
needs.
    Proponents of adding this funding cite testimony this year 
from several service chiefs indicating that although the 
President's budget was sufficient, additional funds could be 
used to strengthen important capabilities. These statements 
have been offered as justification for increasing the 
Department's allotment. I believe that the similar testimony 
would be readily forthcoming from the Administration officials 
responsible for education, job training, health care, student 
loans and child care funding. Nevertheless, the Republican 
majority is cutting their allotments further, not increasing 
them. A budget crisis means that all aspects of government must 
make do with less. This goes for the Defense Department too.
                                                        Ed Kennedy.
                 ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOHN GLENN

    I regret that the Committee again is reporting out a bill 
that is gravely flawed. It suffers from many of the defects 
associated with the bill reported out of the Committee last 
year. I voted to favorably report the bill out of Committee in 
the hope that the bill will be improved when it is considered 
by the Senate.
    The bill includes troublesome language with respect to the 
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, language that has broader 
arms control implications. The bill includes $12.9 billion in 
unrequested funding with unwarranted and huge increases in the 
missile defense accounts, the procurement and research and 
development accounts and the military construction accounts. 
Finally, the bill includes a provision affording special 
retirement benefits to a small class of government workers 
affected by the base closure process. These issues are 
addressed in more detail below.
    The Committee proposes to place in statutory form a 
unilateral U.S. interpretation of the demarcation line between 
theater and strategic missiles for purposes of implementing the 
ABM Treaty. While I agree that this Treaty must adapt to 
technological change, the treaty has a formal bilateral 
procedure for amendments which the Senate, having voted to 
ratify the treaty, should respect. I do not believe that 
unilateral national legislation is the way to go about altering 
an interpretation of a key arms control agreement. If enacted, 
the proposal could open up a Pandora's box of new Russian 
unilateral interpretations not just of this treaty but of 
virtually any Russian arms control, disarmament, or 
nonproliferation convention.
    Second, I see no compelling rationale to support the 
Majority's proposed $885 million increase in the missile 
defense budget over the level requested by the Administration. 
I believe the Administration's budget reflects a proper ranking 
of our missile defense priorities--it focuses on (a) reducing 
the strategic nuclear threat by continued progress on strategic 
arms reductions and assistance in removing the Russian 
strategic threat at its source, (b) developing defenses (fully 
allowed by the ABM Treaty) against current threats from theater 
missiles, and (c) preserving the technological capability to 
deploy a national missile defense system in the event a new 
missile threat should arise in the years ahead.
    Third, the bill contains language requiring the re-
ratification of the ABM Treaty if it is expanded to include 
additional countries formerly in the Soviet Union. It is my 
understanding that any such change of the treaty would not 
incur any new obligations for the United States, nor would it 
authorize new members to develop or deploy ABM systems. 
Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan have obligations under START I 
and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty--we should 
similarly treat these states as coequal successors to the 
Soviet Union with respect to the ABM Treaty.
    Fourth, I am uneasy with provisions in this bill dealing 
with the development of antisatellite (ASAT) weapons and the 
space-based laser. I believe that the Committee is pushing 
these systems along far faster than their technology justifies. 
I further believe that their deployment would have arms control 
implications that have not been fully considered by the 
Committee.
    With respect to the $12.9 billion in unrequested funding, 
the Committee added about $8 billion in the procurement 
accounts and about $4 billion in the research and development 
accounts. For the most part, these additions are based on the 
Services'' so-called ``wish lists''--lists of programs the 
Services would like to see funded if additional funding were 
made available. I agree with some of the spending decisions, 
but I cannot support the magnitude of this increase, especially 
when we are spending billions of dollars on programs we do not 
need now and some we may not need ever.
    The additions in procurement include $750 million for the 
DDG-51 destroyer program, $701 million for the New Attack 
Submarine program, $351 million for the V-22 program, $249 
million for the C-17 program, $240 million for the E8-B 
program, $234 million for the F/A-18 C/D program, $204 million 
for the C-130J program, $183 million for the Apache Longbow 
program, $158.4 million for the Kiowa Warrior program, $147 
million for the MLRS program and $107 million for the F-16 
program. In the case of the Kiowa Warrior and 2 of the 
additional F-16s, these additions were not requested on the 
Services'' wish lists, which means that the Services would not 
have funded these programs even if tens of billions of dollars 
were added to the budget request.
    The additions in research and development include the $885 
million for missile defense programs to which I already 
alluded, $100 million plus-ups for the Comanche program and 
Army Force XXI, $305 million for the National Defense Sealift 
Fund, $147 million for the Arsenal Ship and $116 for Advanced 
Submarine Technology.
    The Committee also added $600 million in unrequested 
military construction projects, an annual temptation that 
members cannot seem to resist, even though there is no 
compelling reason to move these projects forward. I think it is 
particularly damning that at least $200 million of these 
projects not only did not make the initial cut of the budget 
request but also did not make the second cut of the Services'' 
wish lists. We are authorizing an additional $600 million in 
military construction projects just so members can say that 
they have brought home the bacon. That is exactly what they are 
doing and in this case we are going whole hog.
    Another rite of spring, the addition of hundreds of 
millions of dollars in Guard and Reserve equipment warrants 
mention. Some progress has been made in avoiding the earmarking 
problem we had last year. Only about $485 million of the $760 
million in funding is earmarked. Unfortunately, no real 
progress has been made in eliciting a realistic budget request 
from the Defense Department for Guard and Reserve equipment. 
This failure invites earmarking funds for programs in members'' 
districts and as a consequence, the funding decisions that 
become law only bear relation to the Guard and Reserves'' 
requirements by happenstance. We should not be spending the 
taxpayers'' money in this way.
    I am concerned about the criteria the Committee used in 
allocating an additional $200 million for DOE's Environmental 
Restoration and Waste Management program. I could support, and, 
in fact, have long advocated increased funding for this 
program. However, rather than accept the recommendations 
provided by the Department of Energy which listed projects 
that, if given increased funding in the near term, could save 
substantial dollars in the out-years, the Committee chose to 
factor in additional criteria concerning site employment. I 
have grave concerns that the credibility of the entire DOE 
cleanup operation will be underminded if it is treated merely 
as a ``jobs'' program. A number of factors should be assessed 
when deciding to increase funding for cleanup projects such as: 
reducing the risk to the public, workers and the environment; 
lessening the long term ``mortgage'' costs of the program; 
mandates from federal and state laws; and stakeholder input. I 
do not believe that the effect on a given site's employment 
should be among these factors.
    I disagree with the Committee's report langauge concerning 
the external regulation of the Department of Energy. I believe 
Secretary O'Leary's Advisory Committee on External Regulation 
established credible reasons for moving to external regulation, 
and I believe that this goal can be accomplished without 
significant increased costs to the taxpayer and without any 
detrimental impact on our nation's security. In my view, the 
Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board will continue to play a 
key role in ensuring the safe operation of the defense nuclear 
facilities.
    Finally, I would like to mention the Committee's action in 
adopting a special retirement provision for federal employees 
who happen to work at military bases where the work will be 
privatized as part of base closure. The Committee on Armed 
Services voted 11 to 9 to add nongermane legislation to the 
bill that appropriately is in the jurisdiction of the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee. This amendment, offered by 
Senator Coats, was marketed as a ``pilot program.'' It is aims 
to make privatization more likely to succeed by giving 
employees an incentive to stay at the base when a private 
employer takes over the workload. This amendment also was 
recently introduced as a bill, S. 1686, which is pending before 
the Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil Service of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee.
    Under the terms of the amendment, federal civilian 
employees at two DoD bases, one in Indianapolis and one in 
Louisville, would enjoy Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) 
benefits that no other federal employee enjoys today. (I 
believe the authors of the amendment intended, but it is not 
clear whether, the amendment applies to a third base in Newark, 
Ohio.)
    CSRS benefits are based on a formula that includes years of 
service and the average of the highest three years of salary. 
Under the amendment, the employees (of two bases), after their 
jobs are privatized, would continue to accrue ``years of 
service credit'' for CSRS benefits until they actually retired. 
In addition, their current ``high-three'' years of salary would 
be indexed to general increases in federal salaries. These 
benefits are independent of the employees' subsequent 
retirement benefits following privatization.
    Under current law, the affected employees would be eligible 
for a CSRS pension at age 62 with the high 3 years of salary 
based on a 1996 salary. Under the bill, these employees could 
retire at an earlier age and their high 3 years of salary would 
be in current dollar terms.
    Newark Air Force Base in Ohio is privatizing in the same 
way that the bases in Louisville and Indianapolis are scheduled 
to proceed, although it is not clear from the legislation 
whether Newark would be included in the pilot program. The 
privatization has been working because employees want to remain 
employed in the Newark area. Based upon Newark's experience, it 
is my view that the amendment, offered by Senator Coats, 
proposes a solution to a problem that does not really exist. 
Regrettably, given the nature of the proposed solution, I 
believe that this legislation will create a host of problems. 
Problems of equity and fairness that will fall straight into 
the lap of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, the Committee 
with jurisdiction over federal employment benefits.
    We are in the process of downsizing the federal government. 
I note that through the efforts of the Armed Services and 
Governmental Affairs Committees, we have 200,000 fewer federal 
employees than when the Clinton Administration began. Many 
federal jobs are being privatized in place. Numerous federal 
jobs are also being eliminated. One Ohio constituent recently 
wrote to me and explained that his job was being eliminated in 
July. He said that if we could provide him with four additional 
months of service credit, he could apply and be eligible for 
early retirement under the Civil Service Retirement System. I 
cannot explain to this constituent why he should not be 
eligible for an additional four months of credit if we are 
providing years of service credit to other employees who are 
not even losing their jobs. They have the opportunity to 
continue working. They will be eligible to accrue private 
employer pension benefits.
    Perhaps, the Congress should consider retirement 
inducements for employees affected by privatization and 
downsizing. However, if this needs to be done, it should be 
done in a studied fashion. Changing a system of universal 
retirement benefits--where everyone previously had participated 
under the same benefit rules--should be the subject of hearings 
in a bright light, where we understand exactly what equity 
problems are created as well as the long-term cost of providing 
such retirement credits.
                                                        John Glenn.
              ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR JOSEPH LIEBERMAN

    I congratulate the Chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Thurmond, and the Ranking Member, Senator 
Nunn, for their leadership in guiding the committee through 
mark up of the Fiscal Year 1997 Defense Authorization Bill in 
an efficient and effective manner. This year's bill reflects 
the priorities of the committee to provide for the current 
readiness and quality of life of our men and women in uniform 
while looking ahead to the challenges of the new century which 
is about to unfold and providing for future readiness in the 
form of modernization and research and development.
    Many of us on the committee continue to be concerned that 
neither Congress nor the Executive Branch has given adequate 
thought to what the security challenges of the future will be 
and how we must size, equip and shape our forces to meet those 
challenges. The committee has heard testimony on the dramatic 
progress which is taking place today in key areas of 
technology. While individual military Services have reported to 
the committee on their efforts to exploit these dramatic 
changes--most notably the Marine Corps with its Sea Dragon 
program and the Army with Force XXI--it is not evident that the 
Department of Defense has adequately addressed the way changes 
in technology and changes in the security challenges we will 
face in the years ahead must be adapted through changes in US 
military force structure, modernization programs, training, 
doctrine and operations. Such changes are, in my view, 
essential if the United States is to maintain armed forces 
which can defend and advance our national interests with the 
range of threats which will confront us.
    In the weeks prior to marking up this defense bill, a 
bipartisan group from the Armed Services Committee crafted a 
provision to the bill requiring the Department of Defense to 
study and report on these very important issues. Although the 
measure had been developed by Senators Coats, Robb, McCain and 
I with the support of others, we withheld the provision from 
the bill so that all members of the committee could become 
better informed of its contents and give it their strong 
support. It is our intention to offer this provision as an 
amendment to the bill, with additional cosponsors from the 
committee, when it is considered by the full Senate.
    We are on the verge of a new century. The decisions we make 
today and in the next few years about defense programs will 
have a profound impact on our ability to perform vital national 
security functions during that century. The Congress has a 
responsibility to make sure the Department of Defense is 
thinking and acting in a far-sighted and innovative way to 
exploit our national advantages and minimize our 
vulnerabilities. The Congress also requires the benefit of the 
Department's experience, expertise and analytical capabilities 
so that we will make the most informed judgments possible on 
these critical issues. Thus, I have joined with colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to craft this important provision to 
the Defense Authorization Bill.
                                                     Joe Lieberman.

                                
