[House Report 105-132]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report
1st Session 105-132
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 1119
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
June 16, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
105th Congress HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report
1st Session 105-132
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 1119
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
June 16, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-401 WASHINGTON : 1997
_______________________________________________________________________
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
One Hundred Fifth Congress
FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina, Chairman
BOB STUMP, Arizona RONALD V. DELLUMS, California
DUNCAN HUNTER, California IKE SKELTON, Missouri
JOHN R. KASICH, Ohio NORMAN SISISKY, Virginia
HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah Carolina
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado OWEN PICKETT, Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey LANE EVANS, Illinois
STEVE BUYER, Indiana GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JAMES TALENT, Missouri ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama JANE HARMAN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania
HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
RON LEWIS, Kentucky ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas TOM ALLEN, Maine
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia JIM TURNER, Texas
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee F. ALLEN BOYD, Jr., Florida
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
Carolina JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
SONNY BONO, California CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
JIM RYUN, Kansas
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey
BOB RILEY, Alabama
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
Andrew K. Ellis, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Explanation of the Committee Amendment........................... 1
Purpose.......................................................... 1
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill............................. 2
Summary Table of Authorizations................................ 2
Rationale for the Committee Bill................................. 10
Readiness...................................................... 13
Quality of Life................................................ 14
Modernization and Innovation................................... 15
Defense Reform................................................. 16
Conclusion..................................................... 17
Hearings......................................................... 18
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION.................. 19
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 19
OVERVIEW....................................................... 19
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 22
Overview................................................... 22
Items of Special Interest.................................. 25
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 27
Overview................................................... 27
Items of Special Interest.................................. 30
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.................... 31
Overview................................................... 31
Items of Special Interest.................................. 34
Ammunition Procurement, Army................................. 36
Overview................................................... 36
Items of Special Interest.................................. 40
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 41
Overview................................................... 41
Items of Special Interest.................................. 50
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 57
Overview................................................... 57
Items of Special Interest.................................. 61
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 66
Overview................................................... 66
Items of Special Interest.................................. 70
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps.................... 71
Overview................................................... 71
Items of Special Interest.................................. 74
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 74
Overview................................................... 74
Items of Special Interest.................................. 77
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 81
Overview................................................... 81
Items of Special Interest.................................. 91
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 95
Overview................................................... 95
Items of Special Interest.................................. 100
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 101
Overview................................................... 101
Items of Special Interest.................................. 106
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................ 110
Overview................................................... 110
Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 113
Overview................................................... 113
Items of Special Interest.................................. 116
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 117
Overview................................................... 117
Items of Special Interest.................................. 123
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 124
Overview................................................... 124
Items of Special Interest.................................. 129
National Guard and Reserve Equipment......................... 130
Overview................................................... 130
Items of Special Interest.................................. 134
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense........... 134
Overview................................................... 134
Items of Special Interest.................................. 136
Defense Export Loan Guarantees............................... 137
Overview................................................... 137
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 139
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 139
Sections 101-108--Authorization of Appropriations.......... 139
Section 121--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the
Seawolf Submarine Program................................ 139
Section 122--Report on Annual Budget Submission Regarding
the Reserve Components................................... 139
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 140
OVERVIEW....................................................... 140
Army RDT&E-.................................................. 142
Overview................................................... 142
Items Of Special Interest.................................. 151
Navy RDT&E................................................... 164
Overview................................................... 164
Items Of Special Interest.................................. 174
Air Force RDT&E.............................................. 202
Overview................................................... 202
Items Of Special Interest.................................. 211
Defense Agencies RDT&E....................................... 216
Overview................................................... 216
Items Of Special Interest.................................. 225
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 255
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 255
Section 201--Authorization Of Appropriations............... 255
Section 202--Amount For Basic And Applied Research......... 255
Section 203--Dual Use Technology Programs.................. 255
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 255
Section 211--Manufacturing Technology Program.............. 255
Section 212--Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program...................................... 256
Section 213--Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles............. 256
Section 214--Revisions to Membership of and Appointment
Authority for National Ocean Research Leadership Council. 257
Section 215--Maintenance and Repair of Real Property at Air
Force Installations...................................... 257
Section 216--Expansion of Eligibility for the Defense
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research... 257
Section 217--Limitation on the Use of Funds for Adaptation
of Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures
(IDECM) Program to F/A-18E/F Aircraft and AV-8B Aircraft. 257
Section 218--Bioassay Testing of Veterans.................. 257
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Programs............... 258
Section 231--Budgetary Treatment of Amount Requested for
Procurement for Ballistic Missile Defense Programs....... 258
Section 232--Cooperative Ballistic Missile Defense Programs 258
Section 233--Deployment Dates for Core Theater Missile
Defense Programs......................................... 258
Section 234--Annual Report on Threat Posed to the United
States by Weapons of Mass Destruction, Ballistic
Missiles, and Cruise Missiles............................ 260
Section 235--Director of Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO)...................................... 260
Section 236--Tactical High Energy Laser Program (THEL)..... 261
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 262
OVERVIEW....................................................... 262
Funding Priorities........................................... 262
Readiness.................................................... 263
Reform....................................................... 264
Funding Overview............................................. 264
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 292
Budget Request Reductions.................................... 292
Administration and Support Accounts........................ 292
Bulk Fuel.................................................. 292
Advisory and Assistance Services........................... 293
Defense Support Services Reform.............................. 293
Overview................................................... 293
Contracting Out Firefighter and Security Activities at
Military Installations................................... 294
Criminal Investigations and Board on Audits................ 294
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service Improvements... 295
Defense Supply and Logistics Management.................... 295
Definition of Mission Essential Support Services........... 296
Extensively Studied Functions.............................. 297
Multi-Service Contracting of Base Operations Functions..... 297
Oversight of Outsourced Functions.......................... 298
Procurement and Electronic Commerce Technical Assistance
Program.................................................. 298
United States Transportation Command....................... 299
Environmental Issues......................................... 300
Air Force Plant #3, Tulsa, Oklahoma........................ 300
Compliance Funding......................................... 300
Environmental Cleanup at the Washington Navy Yard.......... 301
Exploring Options to Reduce Environmental Cleanup Costs.... 302
Performance Based Contracting.............................. 302
Intelligence Matters......................................... 303
Budget Justification Materials............................. 303
Command and Control, Communications, Computers and
Intelligence Integrated Architecture Plan................ 304
Defense Space Reconnaissance Program (DSRP)................ 304
Foreign Instrumentation Intelligence....................... 305
Imagery and Geospatial System Production................... 305
Intelligence System Interoperability....................... 306
Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar................... 307
Joint Planning and Program Review.......................... 307
National Imagery and Mapping Agency Civilian Personnel..... 307
National Imagery and Mapping Agency Mission Support........ 308
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)..................... 309
Tactical Information Program............................... 309
Tactical Support........................................... 309
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues....................... 310
Deferred Payment Programs of Military Exchanges............ 310
MWR Reimbursement from Closure of Foreign Military
Installations............................................ 310
Pentagon Concessions Committee Activities.................. 311
Report on Black Marketing of Beer in Korea................. 312
Report on Tobacco Sales at Commissaries.................... 312
Uniform Health Benefit Program for Nonappropriated Fund
Employees................................................ 313
Defense Commissary Agency Produce Purchasing............... 313
Other Issues................................................. 314
Army After Next............................................ 314
Army Aviation Training..................................... 315
Army Civilian Personnel Management......................... 315
Army Depot Maintenance Funding............................. 316
Automatic Document Conversion Technology................... 316
Budget Justification Materials............................. 316
Computer Crimes and Information Technology Security........ 317
Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores........ 317
Department of Defense Next Generation Weather Radar-Doppler 318
Emergency Communications Services for Members of the Armed
Forces and Their Families................................ 318
Flying Hour Shortfalls..................................... 319
Impending Change in Air Force Supply Management Activity
Group.................................................... 320
Logistics Augmentation Programs............................ 320
Military Affiliate Radio System............................ 321
Mobility Infrastructure Enhancement........................ 322
Non-BRAC Caretaker Costs................................... 322
Repair and Maintenance Projects............................ 322
Renovation of Building for Defense Accounting Service
Center................................................... 323
Shatter Resistant Window Film.............................. 323
Travel Reengineering....................................... 323
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 324
Subtitle A--Authorization Of Appropriations.................. 324
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding............. 324
Section 302--Working Capital Funds......................... 324
Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home.................. 324
Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund......................................... 325
Section 305--Refurbishment and Installation of Air Search
Radar.................................................... 325
Section 306--Refurbishment of M1A1 Tanks................... 325
Section 307--Procurement and Electronic Commerce Technical
Assistance Program....................................... 325
Section 308--Availability of Funds for Separation Pay for
Defense Acquisition Personnel............................ 325
Subtitle B--Military Readiness Issues........................ 325
Overview................................................... 325
Section 311--Expansion of Scope of Quarterly Readiness
Reports.................................................. 328
Section 312--Limitation on Reallocation of Funds Within
Operation and Maintenance Appropriations................. 329
Section 313--Operation of Prepositioned Fleet, National
Training Center, Fort Irwin, California.................. 329
Section 314--Prohibition of Implementation of Tiered
Readiness System......................................... 329
Section 315--Reports on Transfers From High Priority
Readiness Appropriations................................. 330
Section 316--Report on Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Exercise Program and Partnership for Peace Program....... 331
Section 317--Quarterly Reports on Execution of Operation
and Maintenance Appropriations........................... 331
Subtitle C--Civilian Personnel............................... 331
Section 321--Pay Practices When Overseas Teachers Transfer
To General Schedule Positions............................ 331
Section 322--Use of Approved Fire-Safe Accommodations by
Government Employees on Official Business................ 332
Subtitle D--Depot-Level Activities........................... 332
Section 331--Extension of Authority for Aviation Depots and
Naval Shipyards to Engage in Defense Related Production
and Services............................................. 332
Section 332--Exclusion of Certain Large Maintenance and
Repair Projects from Percentage Limitation on Contracting
for Depot-Level Maintenance.............................. 332
Section 333--Restrictions on Contracts for Performance of
Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair at Certain Facilities. 332
Section 334--Core Logistics Functions of Department of
Defense.................................................. 333
Section 335--Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence 333
Section 336--Personnel Reductions, Army Depots
Participating in Army Workload and Performance System.... 334
Subtitle E--Environmental Provisions......................... 334
Section 341--Revision of Membership Terms for Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program Scientific
Advisory Board........................................... 334
Section 342--Amendments to Authority to Enter into
Agreements with Other Agencies in Support of
Environmental Technology Certification................... 334
Section 343--Authorization to Pay Negotiated Settlement for
Environmental Cleanup at Former Department of Defense
Sites in Canada.......................................... 334
Section 344--Modifications of Authority to Store and
Dispose of Nondefense Toxic and Hazardous Materials...... 335
Section 345--Revision of Report Requirement for Navy
Program to Monitor Ecological Effects of Organotin....... 335
Section 346--Partnerships for Investment in Innovative
Environmental Technologies............................... 335
Section 347--Pilot Program to Test Alternative Technology
for Eliminating Solid and Liquid Waste Emissions During
Ship Operations.......................................... 336
Subtitle F--Commissaries And Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities.......................................... 336
Section 361--Reorganization of Laws Regarding Commissaries,
Exchanges, and other Morale, Welfare, and Recreation
Activities............................................... 336
Section 362--Merchandise and Pricing Requirements for
Commissary Stores........................................ 336
Section 363--Limitation on Noncompetitive Procurement of
Brand-Name Commercial Items for Resale in Commissary
Stores................................................... 337
Section 364--Transfer of Jurisdiction over Exchange,
Commissary, and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Activities
to Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).............. 337
Section 365--Public and Private Partnerships to Benefit
Morale, Welfare and Recreation Activities................ 337
Section 366--Treatment of Certain Amounts Received by
Defense Commissary Agency................................ 338
Section 367--Authorized Use of Appropriated Funds for
Relocation of Navy Exchange Service Command.............. 338
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 338
Section 371--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies That
Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees................. 338
Section 372--Continuation of Operation Mongoose............ 339
Section 373--Inclusion of Air Force Depot Maintenance as
Operation and Maintenance Budget Activity Group.......... 339
Section 374--Programs to Commemorate 50th Anniversary of
Marshall Plan and Korean Conflict........................ 339
Section 375--Prohibition on Use of Special Operations
Command Budget for Base Operation Support................ 340
Section 376--Continuation and Extension of Demonstration
Program to Identify Overpayments Made to Vendors......... 340
Section 377--Applicability of Federal Printing Requirements
to Defense Automated Printing Service.................... 340
Section 378--Base Operations Support for Military
Installations on Guam.................................... 341
MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW...................................... 341
TITLE IV--MILTARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS....................... 346
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 346
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 346
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 346
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 347
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 347
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 348
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual
Status).................................................. 348
Section 414--Increase in Number of Members in Certain
Grades Authorized to Serve on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves............................................. 349
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 349
Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military
Personnel................................................ 349
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 350
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 350
Family Life Assistance Programs............................ 350
Increased Support for Military Recruiting.................. 350
Investigation of the Deaths of Military Personnel by Self-
inflicted Causes......................................... 350
Joint Recruiting Information Support System................ 351
Military Identification Cards.............................. 352
Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) Consolidations..... 352
Retention of Military Leave for Federal Civilian Employees
Who Perform Reserve Duty................................. 352
Sexual Misconduct in the Armed Services.................... 353
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 354
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 354
Section 501--Limitation on Number of General and Flag
Officers Who May Serve in Positions Outside Their Own
Service.................................................. 354
Section 502--Exclusion of Certain Retired Officers from
Limitation on Period of Recall to Active Duty............ 355
Section 503--Clarification of Officers Eligible for
Consideration by Selection Boards........................ 355
Section 504--Authority to Defer Mandatory Retirement for
Age of Officers Serving As Chaplains..................... 355
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters........................ 355
Section 511--Individual Ready Reserve Activation Authority. 355
Section 512--Termination of Mobilization Income Insurance
Program.................................................. 356
Section 513--Correction of Inequities in Medical and Dental
Care and Death and Disability Benefits for Reserve
Members Who Incur or Aggravate an Illness in the Line of
Duty..................................................... 357
Section 514--Time-in-Grade Requirements for Reserve
Commissioned Officers Retired During the Drawdown Period. 357
Section 515--Authority to Permit Non-Unit Assigned Officers
to be Considered by Vacancy Promotion Board to General
Officer Grades........................................... 357
Section 516--Grade Requirement for Officers Eligible to
Serve on Involuntary Separation Boards................... 357
Section 517--Limitation on Use of Air Force Reserve AGR
Personnel for Air Force Base Security Functions.......... 357
Subtitle C--Military Technicians............................. 358
Section 521--Authority to Retain on the Reserve Active-
Status List Until Age 60 Military Technicians in the
Grade of Brigadier General............................... 358
Section 522--Military Technicians (Dual Status)............ 358
Section 523--Non-Dual Status Military Technicians.......... 359
Subtitle D--Measures to Improve Recruit Quality and Reduce... 359
Recruit Attrition............................................ 359
Section 531--Reform of Military Recruiting Systems......... 359
Section 532--Improvements in Medical Prescreening of
Applicants for Military Service.......................... 360
Section 533--Improvements in Physical Fitness of Recruits.. 360
Subtitle E--Military Education and Training.................. 360
Section 541--Independent Panel to Review Military Basic
Training................................................. 360
Section 542--Reform of Army Drill Sergeant Selection and
Training Process......................................... 361
Section 543--Requirement for Candidates for Admission to
United States Naval Academy to Take Oath of Allegiance... 362
Section 544--Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred for
Instruction at Service Academies of Persons from Foreign
Countries................................................ 362
Section 545--United States Naval Postgraduate School....... 363
Section 546--Air Force Academy Cadet Foreign Exchange
Program.................................................. 363
Section 547--Training in Human Relations Matters for Army
Drill Sergeant Trainees.................................. 364
Section 548--Study of Feasibility of Gender-Segregated
Basic Training........................................... 364
Subtitle F--Military Decorations and Awards.................. 364
Section 551--Study of New Decorations for Injury or Death
in Line of Duty.......................................... 364
Section 552--Purple Heart to be Awarded Only to Members of
the Armed Forces......................................... 365
Section 553--Eligibility for Armed Forces Expeditionary
Medal for Participation in Operation Joint Endeavor or
Operation Joint Guard.................................... 365
Section 554--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of
Certain Decorations to Specified Persons................. 365
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 365
Section 561--Suspension of Temporary Early Retirement
Authority................................................ 365
Section 562--Treatment of Educational Accomplishments of
National Guard ChalleNGe Program Participants............ 365
Section 563--Authority for Personnel to Participate in
Management of Certain Non-Federal Entities............... 366
Section 564--Crew Requirements of WC-130J Aircraft......... 366
Section 565 and Section 566--Civil-Military Programs....... 366
Section 567--Continuation of Support to Senior Military
Colleges................................................. 367
Section 568--Restoration of Missing Persons Authorities
Applicable to Department of Defense as in Effect Before
Enactment of National Defense Authorization Act For
Fiscal Year 1997......................................... 367
Section 569--Establishment of Sentence of Confinement for
Life Without Eligibility for Parole...................... 368
Section 570--Limitation on Appeal of Denial of Parole for
Offenders Serving Life Sentence.......................... 368
Section 571--Establishment of Public Affairs Branch in the
Army..................................................... 368
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 369
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 369
Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program
(AFHPSP)................................................. 369
Communication of Retirement Benefits to New Accessions..... 369
Study of Certain Compensation Issues....................... 370
Tax Deferred Savings Plan.................................. 370
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 371
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 371
Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 1998.... 371
Section 602--Annual Adjustment of Basic Pay and Protection
of Member's Total Compensation While Performing Certain
Duty..................................................... 371
Section 603--Use of Food Cost Information to Determine
Basic Allowance for Subsistence.......................... 372
Section 604--Consolidation of Basic Allowance for Quarters,
Variable Housing Allowance, and Overseas Housing
Allowances............................................... 372
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 373
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonuses and
Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces............... 373
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonuses and
Special Pay Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates,
Registered Nurses, and Nurse Anesthetists................ 373
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Payment of Other Bonuses and Special Pays................ 373
Section 614--Increase in Minimum Monthly Rate of Hazardous
Duty Incentive Pay for Certain Members................... 374
Section 615--Availability of Multiyear Retention Bonus for
Dental Officers.......................................... 374
Section 616--Increase in Variable and Additional Special
Pays for Certain Dental Officers......................... 374
Section 617--Special Pay for Duty at Designated Hardship
Duty Locations........................................... 374
Section 618--Selected Reserve Reenlistment Bonus........... 375
Section 619--Selected Reserve Enlistment Bonus for Former
Enlisted Members......................................... 375
Section 620--Special Pay or Bonuses for Enlisted Members
Extending Tours of Duty Overseas......................... 375
Section 621--Increase in Amount of Family Separation
Allowance................................................ 375
Section 622--Change in Requirements for Ready Reserve
Muster Duty Allowance.................................... 375
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 375
Section 631--Travel and Transportation Allowances for
Dependents of Member Sentenced by Court-Martial.......... 375
Section 632--Dislocation Allowance......................... 376
Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related
Matters.................................................... 376
Section 641--Time in Which Certain Changes in Beneficiary
Under Survivor Benefit Plan May Be Made.................. 376
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 376
Section 651--Definition of Sea Duty for Purposes of Career
Sea Pay.................................................. 376
Section 652--Loan Repayment Program for Commissioned
Officers in Certain Health Professions................... 376
Section 653--Conformance of NOAA Commissioned Officers
Separation Pay to Separation Pay for Members of Other
Uniformed Services....................................... 376
Section 654--Reimbursement of Public Health Service
Officers for Adoption Expenses........................... 376
Section 655--Payment of Back Quarters and Subsistence
Allowances to World War II Veterans Who Served as
Guerrilla Fighters in the Philippines.................... 377
Section 656--Space Available Travel for Members of Selected
Reserve.................................................. 377
Section 657--Study on Military Personnel At, Near, or Below
the Poverty Line......................................... 377
Section 658--Implementation of Department of Defense
Supplemental Food Program for Military Personnel Outside
the United States........................................ 377
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 378
OVERVIEW..................................................... 378
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST.................................... 379
CHAMPUS as a Second-Payer to Other Health Insurance...... 379
Pacific Medical Network.................................. 379
TRICARE Program.......................................... 379
Vietnam Repatriated Prisoner of War Program.............. 380
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS....................................... 381
Subtitle A--Health Care Services........................... 381
Section 701--Expansion of Retiree Dental Insurance Plan
to Include Surviving Spouse and Child Dependents of
Certain Deceased Members............................... 381
Section 702--Provision of Prosthetic Devices to Covered
Beneficiaries.......................................... 381
Subtitle B--TRICARE Program................................ 381
Section 711--Addition of Definition of TRICARE Program to
Title 10............................................... 381
Section 712--Plan for Expansion of Managed Care Option of
TRICARE Program........................................ 381
Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities........ 382
Section 721--Implementation of Designated Provider
Agreements for Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities. 382
Section 722--Limitation on Total Payments................ 382
Section 723--Continued Acquisition of Reduced-Cost Drugs. 382
Subtitle D--Other Changes to Existing Laws Regarding Health
Care Management.......................................... 382
Section 731--Waiver or Reduction of Copayments Under
Overseas Dental Program................................ 382
Section 732--Premium Collection Requirements for Medical
and Dental Insurance Programs.......................... 382
Section 733--Consistency Between CHAMPUS and Medicare in
Payment Rates for Service.............................. 383
Section 734--Use of Personal Services Contracts for
Provision of Health Care Services and Legal Protection
for Providers.......................................... 383
Section 735--Portability of State Licenses for Department
of Defense Health Care Professionals................... 384
Section 736--Standard Form and Requirements Regarding
Claims for Payment for Services........................ 384
Section 737--Medical Personnel Conscience Clause......... 384
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................. 384
Section 741--Continued Admission of Civilians as Students
in Physician Assistant Training Program of Army Medical
Department............................................. 384
Section 742--Emergency Health Care in Connection with
Overseas Activities of On-Site Inspection Agency of the
Department of Defense.................................. 385
Section 743--Comptroller General Study of Adequacy and
Effect of Maximum Allowable Charges for Physicians
under CHAMPUS.......................................... 385
Section 744--Comptroller General Study of Department of
Defense Pharmacy Programs.............................. 385
Section 745--Comptroller General Study of Navy Graduate
Medical Education Program.............................. 385
Section 746--Study of Expansion of Pharmaceuticals by
Mail Program to Include Additional Medicare-Eligible
Covered Beneficiaries.................................. 386
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS-............................................... 387
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 387
Cost Accounting Standards Board............................ 387
Management Responsibility for Acquisition Policy........... 387
Training and Education of the Acquisition Workforce........ 388
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 389
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy............................... 389
Section 801--Case-by-Case Waivers of Domestic Source
Limitations.............................................. 389
Section 802--Expansion of Authority to Enter Into Contracts
Crossing Fiscal Years to All Severable Services Contracts
Not Exceeding a Year..................................... 390
Section 803--Clarification of Vestiture of Title Under
Contracts................................................ 390
Section 804--Exclusion of Disaster Relief, Humanitarian,
and Peacekeeping Operations from Restrictions on Use of
Undefinitized Contract Actions........................... 390
Section 805--Limitation and Report on Payment of
Restructuring Costs under Defense Contracts.............. 390
Section 806--Authority Relating to Purchase of Certain
Vehicles................................................. 390
Section 807--Multiyear Procurement Contracts............... 390
Section 808--Domestic Source Limitation Amendments......... 391
Section 809--Repeal of Expiration of Domestic Source
Limitation for Certain Naval Vessel Propellers........... 391
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 391
Section 821--Repeal of Certain Acquisition Reports and
Requirements............................................. 391
Section 822--Extension of Authority for use of Test and
Evaluation Installations by Commercial Entities.......... 391
Section 823--Requirement to Develop and Maintain List of
Firms Not Eligible for Defense Contracts................. 391
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 392
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST.................................... 392
Armed Services Patent Advisory Board....................... 392
Defense Acquisition Workforce.............................. 392
Defense Boards and Commissions............................. 393
Defense Reorganization..................................... 394
Management Headquarters and Headquarters Support Personnel. 394
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS....................................... 395
Section 901--Limitation on Operation and Support Funds for
the Office of the Secretary of Defense................... 395
Section 902--Components of National Defense University..... 396
Section 903--Authorization for the Marine Corps University
to Employ Civilian Professors............................ 396
Section 904--Center for the Study of Chinese Military
Affairs.................................................. 396
Section 905--White House Communications Agency............. 397
Section 906--Revision to Required Frequency for Provision
of Policy Guidance for Contingency Plans................. 397
Section 907--Termination of the Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office.................................... 397
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 399
Counterdrug Activities....................................... 399
Overview................................................... 399
Items of Special Interest.................................. 399
C-26 aircraft photo reconnaissance upgrade............... 399
Gulf states counterdrug initiative....................... 399
Mapping, charting and geodesy............................ 400
Mexican, Caribbean and South American initiative......... 400
Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems......................... 402
Optionally piloted air vehicle........................... 403
Southwest border fence project........................... 403
Tracker aircraft......................................... 403
Other Matters................................................ 404
Implementation of Whistleblower Protections................ 404
Intelligence Shortcomings During Persian Gulf War.......... 404
Resolution of Commercial Disputes in Saudi Arabia.......... 405
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 405
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 405
Section 1001--Transfer Authority........................... 405
Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex............ 405
Section 1003--Authority for Obligation of Unauthorized
Fiscal Year 1997 Defense Appropriations.................. 406
Section 1004--Authorization of Supplemental Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 1997..................................... 406
Section 1005--Increase in Fiscal Year 1996 Transfer
Authority................................................ 406
Section 1006--Fisher House Trust Fund...................... 406
Section 1007--Flexibility in Financing Closure of Certain
Outstanding Contracts for Which a Small Final Payment is
Due...................................................... 406
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 406
Section 1021--Relationship of Certain Laws to Disposal of
Vessels for Export from the Naval Vessel Register and the
National Defense Reserve Fleet........................... 406
Section 1022--Authority to Enter into a Long-Term Charter
for a Vessel in Support of the Surveillance Towed Array
Sensor (SURTASS) Program................................. 407
Section 1023--Transfer of Two Specified Obsolete Tugboats
of the Army.............................................. 407
Section 1024--Naming of a DDG-51 Class Destroyer the U.S.S.
Thomas F. Connolly....................................... 407
Section 1025--Congressional Review Period with Respect to
Transfer of the Ex-U.S.S. Midway (CV-41)................. 407
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 408
Section 1031--Prohibition on Use of National Guard for
Civil-Military Activities Under State Drug Interdiction
and Counterdrug Activities Plan.......................... 408
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Report Requirements and Repeals.... 409
Section 1041--Repeal of Miscellaneous Obsolete Reports
Required by Prior Defense Authorization Acts............. 409
Section 1042--Repeal of Annual Report Requirement Relating
to Training of Special Operations Forces with Friendly
Foreign Forces........................................... 409
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 409
Section 1051--Authority for Special Agents of the Defense
Criminal Investigative Service to Execute Warrants and
Make Arrests............................................. 409
Section 1052--Study of Investigative Practices of Military
Criminal Investigative Organizations Relating to Sex
Crimes................................................... 409
Section 1053--Technical and Clerical Amendments............ 410
Section 1054--Display of POW/MIA Flag...................... 410
Section 1055--Certification Required Before Observance of
Moratorium on Use by Armed Forces of Antipersonnel
Landmines................................................ 410
Section 1056--Protection of Safety-Related Information
Voluntarily Provided by Air Carriers..................... 410
Section 1057--National Guard ChalleNGe Program to Create
Opportunities for Civilian Youth......................... 411
Section 1058--Lease of Non-Excess Personal Property of the
Military Departments..................................... 412
Section 1059--Commendation of Members of the Armed Forces
and Government Civilian Personnel who Served During the
Cold War................................................. 412
TITLE XI--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER
SOVIET UNION................................................... 413
OVERVIEW....................................................... 413
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 413
Arms Elimination Projects in Russia........................ 413
Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine....................... 414
Auditing of CTR Assistance................................. 414
Chemical Weapons Destruction............................... 415
Fissile Material Storage Facility.......................... 417
Nuclear Reactor Core Conversion............................ 418
Nuclear Weapons Storage Security In Russia................. 419
Other Support Programs..................................... 419
Program Overhead........................................... 420
Prohibition of Specified Activities........................ 420
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 420
Section 1101--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs................................................. 420
Section 1102--Fiscal Year 1998 Funding Allocations......... 420
Section 1103--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified
Purposes................................................. 420
Section 1104--Prohibition on Use of Funds Until Specified
Reports are Submitted.................................... 420
Section 1105--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission
of Certification......................................... 420
Section 1106--Use of Funds for Chemical Weapons Destruction
Facility................................................. 421
Section 1107--Limitation on Use of Funds for Storage
Facility for Russian Fissile Material.................... 421
Section 1108--Limitation on Use of Funds for Weapons
Storage Security......................................... 421
Section 1109--Report to Congress on Issues Regarding
Payment of Taxes or Duties on Assistance Provided to
Russia Under Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs....... 421
Section 1110--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for a
Specified Period......................................... 421
Section 1111--Availability of Funds........................ 421
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS..................... 422
OVERVIEW....................................................... 422
African Center for Security Studies........................ 422
Arms Control Implementation................................ 422
Defense Logistics Cooperation with the People's Republic of
China.................................................... 424
The Khobar Towers Bombing and Force Protection in Southwest
Asia..................................................... 424
Strategic Force Reductions................................. 426
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 427
Section 1201--Reports to Congress relating to United States
forces in Bosnia......................................... 427
Section 1202--One-year Extension of Counterproliferation
Authorities.............................................. 429
Section 1203--Report on Future Military Capabilities and
Strategy of the People's Republic of China............... 429
Section 1204--Temporary Use of General Purpose Vehicles and
Nonlethal Military Equipment under Acquisition and Cross
Servicing Agreements..................................... 429
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 431
PURPOSE........................................................ 431
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW................................. 431
TITLE XXI--ARMY.................................................. 452
SUMMARY........................................................ 452
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 452
Improvements of Military Family Housing.................... 452
Planning and Design........................................ 452
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 452
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 452
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 452
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 453
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 453
Section 2105--Correction In Authorized Uses of Funds, Fort
Irwin, California........................................ 453
TITLE XXII--NAVY................................................. 454
SUMMARY........................................................ 454
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 454
Co-Composting Facility, Naval Education & Training Center,
Newport, Rhode Island.................................... 454
Improvements to Military Family Housing.................... 454
Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance Facilities, Blount
Island, Jacksonville, Florida............................ 454
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 455
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 455
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 455
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 455
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 455
Section 2205--Authorization of Military Construction
Project at Naval Air Station, Pascagoula, Mississippi,
for which Funds have been Appropriated................... 455
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE........................................... 456
SUMMARY........................................................ 456
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 456
Disposal of Real Property, Hancock Field, Syracuse, New
York..................................................... 456
Improvements to Military Family Housing.................... 456
Inter-Departmental Land Transfer, Bellows Air Force
Station, Hawaii.......................................... 456
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 457
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 457
Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 457
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 457
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 457
Section 2305--Authorization of Military Construction
Project at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, for which
Funds Have Been Appropriated............................. 457
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES..................................... 458
SUMMARY........................................................ 458
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 458
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 458
Section 2402--Military Housing Planning and Design......... 458
Section 2403--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 458
Section 2404--Energy Conservation Projects................. 458
Section 2405--Authorization Of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies................................................. 458
Section 2406--Correction in Authorized Use of Funds,
McClellan Air Force Base, California..................... 458
Section 2407--Modification of Authority to carry out Fiscal
Year 1995 Projects....................................... 459
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE..... 460
SUMMARY........................................................ 460
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 460
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 460
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 460
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 461
SUMMARY........................................................ 461
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTERESTS..................................... 461
Budget Process to Support the Validation of Military
Construction Requirements for the Army National Guard.... 461
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 462
Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 462
Section 2602--Authorization of Military Construction
Projects for Which Funds Have Been Appropriated.......... 462
Section 2603--Army Reserve Construction Project, Salt Lake
City, Utah............................................... 462
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS.......... 463
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 463
Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required to be Specified by Law.......................... 463
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain
Fiscal Year 1995 Projects................................ 463
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 1994 Projects....................................... 463
Section 2704--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 1993 Projects....................................... 463
Section 2705--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 1992 Projects....................................... 463
Section 2706--Extension of Availability of Funds for
Construction of Over-the-Horizon Radar in Puerto Rico.... 464
Section 2707--Effective Date............................... 464
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS................................. 465
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 465
Force Protection for Overseas Facilities from Chemical and
Biological Weapons....................................... 465
Military Construction in the Republic of Korea and
Burdensharing Support for United States Forces Korea..... 465
Withdrawals of Public Lands for Military Purposes.......... 466
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 466
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 466
Section 2801--Use of Mobility Enhancement Funds for
Unspecified Minor Construction........................... 466
Section 2802--Limitation on the Use of Operation and
Maintenance Funds for Facility........................... 466
Section 2803--Leasing of Military Family Housing, United
States Southern Command, Miami, Florida.................. 467
Section 2804--Use of Financial Incentives Provided as Part
of Energy Savings and Water Conservation Activities...... 467
Section 2805--Congressional Notification Requirements
Regarding Use of Department of Defense Housing Funds for
Investments in Nongovernmental Entities.................. 467
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 467
Section 2811--Increase in Ceiling for Minor Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 467
Section 2812--Administrative Expenses for Certain Real
Property Transactions.................................... 467
Section 2813--Disposition of the Proceeds from the Sale of
Air Force Plant 78, Brigham City, Utah................... 467
Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment............. 468
Section 2821--Consideration of Military Installations as
Sites for New Federal Facilities......................... 468
Section 2822--Prohibition against Conveyance of Property at
Military Installations to State-Owned Shipping Companies. 468
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances Generally....................... 468
Part I--Army Conveyances................................... 468
Section 2831--Land Conveyance, James T. Roker Army Reserve
Center, Durant, Oklahoma................................. 468
Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia.... 468
Section 2833--Expansion of Land Conveyance, Indiana Army
Ammunition Plant, Charlestown, Indiana................... 468
Section 2834--Modification of Land Conveyance, Lompoc,
California............................................... 469
Section 2835--Modification of Land Conveyance, Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, Colorado............................... 469
Section 2836--Correction of Land Conveyance Authority, Army
Reserve Center, Anderson, South Carolina................. 469
Section 2837--Land Conveyance, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.. 469
Section 2838--Land Conveyance, Gibson Army Reserve Center,
Chicago, Illinois........................................ 469
Section 2839--Land Conveyance, Fort Dix, New Jersey........ 469
Part II--Navy Conveyances.................................. 470
Section 2851--Correction of Lease Authority, Naval Air
Station, Meridian, Mississippi........................... 470
Part III--Air Force Conveyances............................ 470
Section 2861--Land Transfer, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. 470
Section 2862--Study of Land Exchange Options, Shaw Air
Force Base, South Carolina............................... 470
Section 2863--Land Conveyance, March Air Force Base,
California............................................... 470
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 470
Section 2881--Repeal of Requirement to Operate Naval
Academy Dairy Farm....................................... 470
Section 2882--Long-Term Lease of Property, Naples, Italy... 471
Section 2883--Designation of Military Family Housing at
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, in Honor of Frank Tejeda,
a Former Member of the House of Representatives.......... 471
TITLE XXIX--SIKES ACT IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS..................... 472
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 472
Section 2902--Definition of Sikes Act for Purposes of
Amendments............................................... 472
Section 2903--Codification of Short Title of Act........... 472
Section 2904--Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans. 472
Section 2905--Review for Preparation of Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plans................................ 472
Section 2906--Annual Reviews and Reports................... 472
Section 2907--Transfer of Wildlife Conservation Fees from
Closed Military Installations............................ 472
Section 2908--Federal Enforcement of Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plans and Enforcement of Other Laws.. 473
Section 2909--Natural Resource Management Services......... 473
Section 2910--Definitions.................................. 473
Section 2911--Cooperative Agreements....................... 473
Section 2912--Repeal of Superseded Provision............... 473
Section 2913--Clerical Amendments.......................... 473
Section 2914--Authorizations of Appropriations............. 473
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 475
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 475
PURPOSE........................................................ 475
OVERVIEW....................................................... 475
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 488
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative and Control of
Supercomputer Technology................................. 488
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory............................... 488
Defense Asset Acquisition.................................. 489
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management..... 489
Enhanced Surveillance Program at the Production Plants..... 491
Inertial Confinement Fusion................................ 491
Infrastructure and Manufacturing Improvements at Weapons
Production Sites......................................... 492
Initiatives For Proliferation Prevention................... 492
Laboratory Review of Missile Defenses...................... 493
Management and Organization of DOE's Nuclear Weapons
Program.................................................. 493
Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program...... 494
Naval Reactors............................................. 494
Nuclear Energy............................................. 495
Operation of F and H canyons............................... 495
Privatization.............................................. 495
Program Direction for Defense Programs..................... 498
Recurring General Provision Relating to Availability of
Funds.................................................... 498
Stockpile Life Extension Program at Y-12 Plant............. 499
Technology Transfer........................................ 499
Transfer of Funds Associated with Security at Rocky Flats
Site and the Fernald Site................................ 499
Tritium Production......................................... 499
Worker and Community Transition............................ 500
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 501
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorization.......... 501
Section 3101--Weapons Activities........................... 501
Section 3102--Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management............................................... 501
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 501
Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal............... 501
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions..................... 501
Section 3121--Reprogramming................................ 501
Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects............. 502
Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects.............. 502
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority...................... 502
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction
Design................................................... 502
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and
Construction Activities.................................. 502
Section 3127--Funds Available for all National Security
Programs of the Department of Energy..................... 503
Section 3128--Authority Relating to Transfer of Defense
Environmental Management Funds........................... 503
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 503
Section 3131--Ballistic Missile Defense National Laboratory
Program.................................................. 503
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 503
Section 3141--Plan for Stewardship, Management, and
Certification of Warheads in the Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile................................................ 503
Section 3142--Repeal of Obsolete Reporting Requirement..... 503
Section 3143--Revisions to Defense Nuclear Facilities
Workforce Restructuring Plan Requirements................ 503
Section 3144--Extension of Authority for Appointment of
Certain Scientific, Engineering, and Technical Personnel. 504
Section 3145--Report on Proposed Contract for Hanford Tank
Waste Vitrification Project.............................. 504
Section 3146--Limitation on Conduct of Subcritical Nuclear
Weapons Tests............................................ 504
Section 3147--Limitation on Use of Certain Funds Until
Future Use Plans are Submitted........................... 505
Section 3148--Plan for External Oversight of National
Laboratories............................................. 505
Section 3149--University-Based Research Center............. 505
Section 3150--Stockpile Stewardship Program................ 505
Section 3151--Reports on Advanced Supercomputer Sales to
Certain Foreign Nations.................................. 505
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
AUTHORIZATION.................................................. 507
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 507
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 507
Section 3202--Plan for Transfer of Functions of Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to Nuclear Regulatory
Commission............................................... 507
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE......................... 508
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 508
Section 3301--Authorized Uses of Stockpile Funds........... 508
Section 3302--Disposal of Beryllium Copper Master Alloy
From National Defense Stockpile.......................... 508
Section 3303--Disposal of Titanium Sponge in National
Defense Stockpile........................................ 508
Section 3304--Conditions on Transfer of Stockpiled Platinum
Reserves for Treasury Use................................ 508
Section 3305--Restrictions on Disposal of Certain Manganese
Ferro.................................................... 508
Section 3306--Required Procedures for Disposal of Strategic
and Critical Materials................................... 509
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................ 510
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 510
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 510
Section 3402--Price Requirement on Sale of Certain
Petroleum During Fiscal Year 1998........................ 510
Section 3403--Termination of Assignment of Navy Officers to
Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves......... 510
TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION.............................. 511
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 511
Subtitle A--Authorization Of Expenditures From Revolving Fund 511
Subtitle B--Facilitation Of Panama Canal Transition.......... 511
Section 3511--Short Title; References...................... 511
Section 3512--Definitions Relating to Canal Transition..... 511
Part I--Transition Matters Relating to Commission Officers
and Employees............................................ 511
Section 3521--Authority for the Administrator of the
Commission to Accept Appointment as Administrator of the
New Panama Canal Authority............................... 511
Section 3522--Post-Canal Transfer Personnel Authorities.... 512
Section 3523--Enhanced Authority of Commission to Establish
Compensation of Commission Officers and Employees........ 512
Section 3524--Travel, Transportation and Subsistence
Expenses for Commission Personnel No Longer Subject to
Federal Travel Regulations............................... 513
Section 3525--Enhanced Recruitment and Retention
Authorities.............................................. 513
Section 3526--Transition Separation Incentive Payments..... 513
Section 3527--Labor-Management Relations................... 513
Section 3528--Availability of Panama Canal Revolving Fund
for Severance Pay for Certain Employees Separated by the
Panama Canal Authority after Canal Transfer Date......... 514
Part II--Transition Matters Relating to Operation and
Administration of Canal.................................. 514
Section 3541--Establishment of Procurement System and Board
of Contract Appeals...................................... 514
Section 3542--Transactions with the Panama Canal Authority. 515
Section 3543--Time Limitations for Filing of Claims for
Damages.................................................. 515
Section 3544--Tolls for Small Vessels...................... 515
Section 3545--Date of Actuarial Evaluation of FECA
Liability................................................ 515
Section 3546--Notaries public.............................. 516
Section 3547--Commercial Services.......................... 516
Section 3548--Transfer from President to Commission of
Certain Regulatory Functions Relating to Employment
Classification Appeals................................... 516
Section 3548--Enhanced Printing Authority.................. 516
Section 3549--Technical and Conforming Amendments.......... 516
TITLE XXXVI--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION............................. 516
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 516
Section 3601--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal
Year 1998................................................ 516
Section 3602--Repeal of Obsolete Annual Report Requirement
Concerning Relative Cost of Shipbuilding in the Various
Coastal Districts of the United States................... 517
Section 3603--Provisions Relating to Maritime Security
Fleet Program............................................ 517
Section 3604--Authority to Utilize Replacement Vessels and
Capacity................................................. 517
Section 3605--Authority to Convey National Defense Reserve
Vessel................................................... 518
Departmental Data................................................ 519
Department of Defense Authorization Request.................... 519
Military Construction Authorization Request.................... 519
Committee Position............................................... 520
Communications From Other Committees............................. 520
Fiscal Data...................................................... 528
Congressional Budget Office Estimate........................... 528
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...................... 528
Authorization of Appropriations.............................. 529
Committee Cost Estimate........................................ 537
Inflation-Impact Statement..................................... 537
Oversight Findings............................................... 537
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 538
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 538
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 538
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 546
Additional and dissenting Views.................................. 768
Dissenting views of Ronald V. Dellums.......................... 768
Additional views of John Spratt................................ 770
Additional views of James Hansen, Tillie Fowler and Solomon
Ortiz........................................................ 773
Additional views of James M. Talent............................ 777
Additional views of Patrick J. Kennedy......................... 779
Additional Views of Van Hilleary, Stephen Buyer, Tillie Fowler,
Roscoe Bartlett, Buck McKeon, Joe Scarborough, Lindsey
Graham, and Jim Ryun......................................... 781
105th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 105-132
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
_______
June 16, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Spence, from the Committee on National Security, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1119]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on National Security, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 1119) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 1988 and 1999 for military activities of the Department
of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause of
the bill and inserts a new test which appears in italic type in
the reported bill.
The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment
to the text of the bill.
EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 1119. The remainder
of the report discusses the bill, as amended.
PURPOSE
The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1998 for procurement and for research, development, test
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1998 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 1998: (a) the
personnel strength for each active duty component of the
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the
Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed
forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the
active and reserve components of the military departments; (4)
Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel
actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for military construction
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1998 for the Department of Energy National Security
Programs; (7) Modify provisions related to the National Defense
Stockpile; (8) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998
for the operation of the Panama Canal Commission; and (9)
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for the Maritime
Administration.
RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATIONS
Importantly, the bill does not generally provide budget
authority. The bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent
appropriation acts provide budget authority. The bill addresses
the following categories in the Department of Defense budget:
procurement; research, development, test and evaluation;
operation and maintenance; working capital funds, military
personnel; and military construction and family housing. The
bill also addresses Department of Energy National Security
Programs and the Maritime Administration.
Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide
authorization of specific dollar amounts for personnel.
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL
The President requested budget authority of $265.6 billion
for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 1998.
Of this amount, the President requested $251.0 billion for the
Department of Defense (including $8.4 billion for military
construction and family housing) and $13.6 billion for
Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
The committee recommends an overall level of $268.2 billion
in budget authority. This amount is an increase of
approximately $2.6 billion from the amount requested for the
national defense budget function by the President. The
committee's recommendation is consistent with the amounts
established in the budget resolution for fiscal year 1998 for
the national security budget function.
SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS
The following table provides a summary of the amounts
requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the
bill (in the column labeled ``Budget Authority Implication of
Committee Recommendation'') and the committee's estimate of how
the committee's recommendations relate to the budget totals for
the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the
budget authority implications of committee action, the table
reflects the numbers contained in the President's budget for
proposals not in the committee's legislative jurisdiction.
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998, reflects the committee's continued efforts to
manage the risks that continued force downsizing and budget
reductions pose for U.S. national security interests in an
uncertain world. The committee and the Congress have helped
bring a measure of stability to the U.S. defense program over
the past two years, moving to restore some balance between the
need to maintain sufficiently large and capable forces today
and the need to modernize and introduce innovative new
technologies and concepts that will provide a basis for
continued American military superiority in future.
The committee believes that the fundamental dilemma facing
the Department of Defense remains constant: how to maintain a
viable all-volunteer force in an environment where the number,
scope and duration of military missions, especially
peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, continue to grow while
military forces and defense budgets continue to decline.
Although the Department's recent Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) recognized these realities, the long-standing gap between
strategy and resources will persist and, in fact, is likely to
widen. The National Defense Panel (NDP), an independent body
selected by the Administration and Congress to assess the QDR,
summarized the problem when it concluded that the QDR exposed a
``risk in defense resources.'' In particular, the NDP concluded
that the QDR's plan to improve modernization funding was based
upon ``tenuous'' assumptions which ``collec tively . . .
represent a budget risk which could potentially undermine the
entire Defense Strategy.''
The QDR acknowledges that a sound national military
strategy is based upon protecting the ability of U.S. military
forces to respond to today's challenges while also preparing
for the challenges of an uncertain future. This strategy
requires three principle tasks of the Department of Defense.
First, U.S. military forces must help to maintain the security
and stability among powerful nations that is by and large the
result of the American-led victory in the Cold War. Second,
U.S. forces must protect today's security and stability from
lesser threats, be they smaller nations, ethnic conflicts,
terrorism or myriad other sources. Finally, U.S. forces must
begin to prepare now for the possibility of future great-power
conflicts that may be fought with military forces quite
different from today's.
This first task of maintaining current security and
stability has been articulated in a clear set of standards that
account for the size and structure of today's U.S. military
forces. These standards include the need to maintain
approximately 100,000 troops both in Europe and in East Asia,
and sufficient forces available to deploy, fight and rapidly
win two nearly simultaneous major wars. The committee continues
to support these standards. The troop levels in Europe and Asia
represent an enduring commitment by the United States to these
vital regions, while the capability to fight two wars
simultaneously ensures that the United States will be able to
respond to crises without compromising the ability to maintain
stability elsewhere. With the continued imminent threats in
Korea and the Persian Gulf, this two-war capability must remain
a basic building block of U.S. military forces.
At the same time, the dominance of U.S. conventional
military forces and the continued strength of our nuclear
deterrent is compelling adversaries to be more innovative and
aggressive. Countering more diffuse and less traditional
threats accounts for the second principle task of U.S. armed
forces. Terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, tribal and ethnicconflicts, the potential for
``information warfare'' and other asymmetric threats are placing new
burdens upon the U.S. military. In the past year, the terrorist bombing
of the Khobar Towers complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia has highlighted
the need for improved force protection measures for U.S. units deployed
abroad. The proliferation of ballistic missile technology and weapons
of mass destruction also has accelerated in the past year, and the
committee continues to believe that efforts to develop and deploy
effective defenses against such threats must remain a national
priority.
The QDR also has acknowledged, under the rubric of
``smaller-scale contingencies,'' that U.S. military forces will
be engaged in a growing number of peacekeeping and humanitarian
missions. Because the Administration regularly has deployed the
U.S. military on such missions, the QDR concluded that these
lesser contingencies will represent a significant element of
U.S. military operations over the next decade. The QDR also
recognized the strains that multiple peacekeeping and
humanitarian deployments place on U.S. troops, their families,
military equipment and training for combat. However, based upon
its continued attention to the growing readiness problems that
U.S. forces confront, the committee is skeptical that the
Department can maintain the current level of operational and
personnel tempo without sacrificing critical military
capabilities. Units and troops absorbed in repeated
peacekeeping operations are unable to train effectively, for
the high-intensity combat missions necessary to execute the
national military strategy.
The committee has long been concerned that the third
principle task of the U.S. armed forces--preparing today for
the eventuality of future great-power conflicts--has been
undervalued by the administration. By contrast, the committee
considers the maintenance of peace and stability among the
world's most powerful nations to be America's unique
contribution to global security, and of critical importance to
the nation's ability to protect its interests around the world.
However, today's security is the historical exception rather
than the rule. As historian Donald Kagan testified before the
committee, ``War has been a persistent part of human experience
since before the birth of civilization. In 1968, Will and Ariel
Durant calculated that there had been only 268 years free of
war in the previous 3,421.'' There is every reason to believe
that the current epoch should be viewed not as a ``post-war''
period, but instead as an interwar period. With history as a
teacher, it is only prudent to assume that a large power or
coalition of powers eventually will contest a vital U.S.
national security interest.
While the committee cannot predict with certainty who this
challenger will be or exactly when the challenge will arise, it
is possible to identify what our enduring national interests
are, for they have remained constant. Even in the post-Cold War
era and absent a global competitor like the Soviet Union, the
United States retains its traditional interests in protecting
the American homeland and its people; preventing a hostile
power or coalition of hostile powers from dominating Europe,
East Asia and the energy-producing regions of the world; and
protecting the international order of nation-states. These
abiding interests preceded, and have survived, the Cold War.
The most serious and sustained threats to these enduring
interests can only come from other powers capable of fielding
substantial conventional military forces or nuclear weapons.
While the QDR represents an improvement over the
Administration's 1993 Bottom-Up Review, the QDR presents an
overly optimistic view of the possibility of future challenges
to America's core security interests. The committee believes
that a sound national military strategy must account not only
for the likelihood of threats but also for the gravity of any
threat to these core security interests.
In the past year, the committee has focused on the
challenges posed by China--an emerging power--and Russia--a
once and perhaps future power--to United States global
interests. While neither nation is currently an enemy of the
United States, they do represent the nations most likely and
able to accumulate military power sufficient to challenge U.S.
vital national security interests. The QDR's projection that
neither China nor Russia is likely to emerge as a regional
great power until beyond 2015 is questionable.
The committee remains supportive of efforts to bolster the
democratic process in Russia. The collapse of the Soviet Union
has created an opportunity to more closely tie Russia to the
world's democracies. However, the committee believes that
Russia's future will be shaped less by U.S. policies than by
whether Russia decides to remain an independent power pursuing
its own strategic goals, driven by its own history and
character, or decides to form working partnerships with the
United States and its allies. The current Russian experiment in
quasi-democracy is struggling against a centuries-long
tradition of autocracy, and the United States must remain
guarded in assessing prospects for the experiment's success.
Moreover, history has demonstrated that the transition to
democracy often proves a tumultuous and violent process. A vast
but collapsed empire, governed by a weak central authority and
armed with an arsenal of nuclear weaponry under questionable
control, Russia must provide cause for great caution. Even if
Russia succeeds in becoming more fully democratic, it still may
establish security goals that conflict with those of the United
States.
China is an emerging power and poses an inverse problem.
The Administration believes that the nature of Chinese power is
not yet determined, and that China's external relations can be
shaped through engagement to allow it to make a positive
contribution to regional stability and to act as a responsible
member of the international community. The committee takes a
guarded view, more consistent with the Department of Defense
report prepared pursuant to the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1997. The report concluded that China's
goal is to become one of the world's great powers, that China
will be securely established as the leading political power in
East Asia early in the coming century and that China will
``build its military power to the point where it can engage and
defeat any potential enemy within the region with its
conventional forces and can deter any global threat to China's
national security.'' Whether or not an emerging China becomes
an enemy of the United States and its allies remains to be
seen, but China's stated strategic goals would appear to
challenge America's current position as a powerful presence for
peace and stability in East Asia.
The committee believes that the process of managing
strategic risk must be shaped first and foremost by the risks
of renewed great-power rivalries. The surest way to optimize
the chances of an American strategic partnership with either
Russia or China is for the United States to continue to be the
world's most powerful force for peace and stability. However,
the committee also recognizes that the assumption that either
Russia or China will acquiesce in American global leadership is
a dangerous premise upon which to base U.S. security strategy
for the coming century.
The making of strategy has always been a process of
managing risk. In a post-Cold War environment of shrinking
military forces and constrained defense budgets, the imperative
to maintain strategic priorities grows while the margin for
error gets smaller. The QDR strategy is consistent with the
committee's view of the role America should play in the post-
Cold Warworld, and the committee is hopeful that the review
might provide a more stable foundation for maintaining the armed forces
necessary for the nation to meet these future challenges. However, the
continued decline in defense spending means that the committee's two-
year-old effort to begin revitalizing U.S. military forces will take
longer and will involve higher risk to the nation.
The projected real decline in future defense budgets,
assumed in the QDR and ratified in the recent budget agreement,
adds to strategic risk. Neither the Administration's fiscal
year 1998 defense budget request nor the defense plan
established in the QDR adequately address budgetary shortfalls
that exacerbate the strategic risks inherent in a dangerous
world. The QDR has not allayed the committee's skepticism
regarding the Administration's commitment to establishing a
defense program that balances the pillars of a sound defense
program: the maintenance of sufficient combat forces in a state
of readiness necessary to execute the national military
strategy, the guarantee of a decent quality of military life
and an adequate program of equipment modernization to ensure
for the future the advantages U.S. military force enjoy today.
If the defense program is to be truly brought into balance, and
the harmony between current readiness, quality of life, and
modernization restored, more dramatic actions are demanded.
READINESS
The committee reaffirms its commitment to maintaining a
high state of military readiness. In past years, the committee
has added significant funds to restore pay raises, increase the
level of combat training, improve the level of equipment
maintenance and undertake many other initiatives to compel the
Administration to address readiness problems. However, the
readiness of U.S. armed forces, particularly for the high-
intensity combat missions central to the nation's military
strategy, has continued to erode. It is apparent that the high
pace of military operations, due in large part to the burdens
of repeated deployments for peacekeeping and humanitarian
missions, and declining budgets are taking a heavy toll on U.S.
military forces. Four trends are salient. First, soldiers,
sailors, airmen and Marines are working harder and longer to
execute their peacetime missions due to an inherent tension
between personnel and resources shortages and the increased
pace of operations. Military personnel and their families are
paying an increasingly higher human price from being repeatedly
asked to ``do more with less.'' Second, the quantity and
quality of combat training is being compromised, especially for
the most demanding mission--to fight and win tomorrow's high-
intensity wars. Third, the quality of military life continues
to erode to the point where a growing number of talented and
dedicated military personnel and their families are questioning
the desirability of a life in uniform. And fourth, military
equipment is aging prematurely due to extended use and reduced
maintenance. Budget cuts and the increased operational tempo
have started to affect the reliability and availability of
existing fleets of equipment. In sum, these trends depict a
significant, systemic readiness problem that will continue to
undermine the preparedness of U.S. military forces.
The committee bill represents an effort to manage the risk
associated with a deepening readiness problem by protecting
funding for high-intensity combat training and maintenance of
equipment and infrastructure. In addition, the committee
believes that the Administration's personnel budget request
will not be able to provide the forces needed to execute the
national military strategy and to support current operational
tempo while providing a decent quality of military life. Nor
does the committee accept the QDR's end-strength
recommendations, which are likely to exacerbate the personnel
readiness problems outlined above. To more prudently manage the
risk associated with the problems inherent in the
Administration's budget request, the committee has maintained
the end-strength floors established in 1996 and continues to
protect what it believes to be prudent active-duty force
levels. The committee also has continued its commitment to
readiness by adding funds for depot maintenance, real property
maintenance and mobility enhancements needed to maintain a
power-projection force capable of rapid reaction to world
crises.
QUALITY OF LIFE
In past, the committee has considered the quality of
military life to be an essential component of a balanced
defense program, and has strengthened military housing
programs, programs to reduce out-of-pocket costs for military
personnel and their families, and has funded full pay raises,
whether requested by the Administration or not. Nonetheless,
many troops and their families have grown increasingly
dissatisfied with the quality of military life. Much of this
dissatisfaction stems from the stress of extended time away
from home resulting from almost continuous peacekeeping and
other humanitarian missions.
Quality of life is inherently difficult to quantify. It is
a complex construct, reflected in a delicate mix of variables
such as balancing family life and military service, decent
housing, adequate pay and benefits, reliable and affordable
health care and many other factors. Providing a decent quality
of military life is essential to recruit, retain and maintain
the professional, all-volunteer force upon which U.S. military
strategy relies. Since the 1970s, when the draft was
terminated, the compact between the nation and the men and
women who serve it in uniform has rested upon the proposition
that soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and their families
will be provided with a standard of living that approximates
that of middle-class America.
However, there is a widespread belief among service
personnel and their families that the quality of their lives is
eroding. As a consequence, many in the military are beginning
to question whether the rewards of military life are worth the
mounting hardships. Perhaps the leading cause of
dissatisfaction is increased family separations. Given that 65
percent of the force, officer and enlisted, is married, the
choice between professional requirements and personal needs is
becoming more complicated. One Navy spouse summarized the
problem when she told the committee, ``In such a high
[operations tempo] environment, the best marriages, the ones
that survive, are those in which people learn to live apart.''
The services' attempts to balance quality of life with
other factors reveal just how difficult a management problem
this is. For example, the commander of the Army's III Corps at
Fort Hood, Texas, has demanded that important training time and
resources be diverted to create opportunities for soldiers to
attend to basic and essential activities of family life, such
as parent-teacher conferences. This is a poignant and
disturbing example of the dilemmas facing military families.
Since the committee began reporting on the growing readiness
problem, the Department of Defense has begun to recognize the
problem, and has introduced a number of measures to better
manage the strains of high operational and personnel tempos.
The committee notes these small belated steps with
satisfaction, but believes that more aggressive actions will be
necessary.
MODERNIZATION AND INNOVATION
A third critical component of a balanced defense program is
ensuring that U.S. military personnel are equipped with modern
technology. There is widespread general consensus that the
``procurement holiday'' of the past five years must come to an
end. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have identified a goal of $60
billion per year in procurement spending as the approximate
funding level needed to recapitalize the U.S. armed forces--a
figure reconfirmed by the QDR. The committee continues to
support this objective, but continues to doubt the
Administration's commitment.
In the context of trying to manage risk in an environment
of constrained resources, the committee believes it is
necessary to set modernization priorities that reflect
strategic priorities. Systems that promise only marginal
improvement over those currently in the field should, and
eventually will, give way to those systems that demonstrate
more cost-effective and strategically relevant capabilities.
There is no better example than tactical aircraft programs,
where plans far exceed projected budgets and the half-measures
recommended in the QDR do not address the problem.
The committee was pleased to see, in several instances,
that the QDR did make important strides toward aligning
modernization priorities with strategic need. For example, the
QDR's recognition that the Administration's own ``three-plus-
three'' national missile defense program was substantially
underfunded confirms the committee's approach to this important
program over the past several years. The committee stands by
its belief that continued global proliferation of ballistic
missile technology makes the deployment of an effective
national missile defense system of the highest priority.
However, the committee continues to question the
Administration's commitment to either national or theater
missile defenses. Despite claims advanced in the fiscal year
1998 defense budget request that theater defense programs were
being accelerated, funding for these programs was cut by more
than $400 million from current spending levels.
DEFENSE REFORM
Serious readiness, quality of life and modernization
problems and shortfalls add increased urgency to the
committee's continuing efforts to reform the Department of
Defense establishment to create a smaller, smarter and
streamlined bureaucracy. In an environment where combat forces
continue to be reduced while they are deploy more often, the
committee believes that it is untenable to continue devoting 60
percent of the defense budget to support and infrastructure. If
the goal to reestablish a defense program balanced among the
need to maintain ready forces and to ensure a decent quality of
military life today while modernizing U.S. military forces for
tomorrow is to become a reality, the Administration must become
a more active partner in pursuing meaningful defense reform.
Defense reform is no longer just about being more
efficient. Rather, it is about survival in an environment where
failure to achieve real defense reform will result in degraded
combat capability for lack of adequate resources. The committee
initiated a number of reforms during the 104th Congress in the
areas of acquisition policy, infrastructure and support
services, and defense structure and organization. All were
intended to increase overall efficiency within the Department
while, at the same time, encouraging the shift of resources
from the Department's support ``tail'' to the services' combat
``tooth'' in an effort to preserve the military's warfighting
effectiveness.
The committee acknowledges Secretary Cohen's promise to
pursue defense reform through the establishment of the Task
Force on Defense Reform, but the committee notes that the
results of that new review will not be known until late in the
year. While additional reviews may be warranted, it is the
committee's view that in the aftermath of the 1995 Commission
on Roles and Mission, the 1996 Defense Science Board Task Force
on Outsourcing and Privatization, and the 1997 QDR, the time
for aggressive action is now.
To accelerate the process of reform, the committee reported
H.R. 1778, the Defense Reform Act of 1997, to the House of
Representatives. This bill pursues meaningful reform in three
basic areas: streamlining the defense bureaucracy, improving
defense business practices and adding a measure of common sense
to the environmental regulations governing the Department's
operations. Chief among the bureaucratic reforms are
initiatives to reduce headquarters staffs by 25 percent and the
defense acquisition workforce by more than 40 percent.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, these reforms
will save $15 billion over the next five years and an
additional $5 billion each year thereafter without taking into
account the additional potential savings resulting from the
mandated increases in competition of defense support services.
Finally, the environmental reforms will not merely help to
control the rapidly escalating cost--now $12 billion per year--
of defense environmental clean-up efforts, they will ensure
that these funds actually are spent on restoration work itself,
rather than to satisfy excessive and redundant regulatory
requirements. The committee recognizes the need for
environmental restoration of former military and defense
installations, but believes that taxpayer dollars should be
devoted to the needed cleanup work, not on paperwork.
CONCLUSION
Secretary of Defense Cohen has admitted that the defense
posture outlined in the Quadrennial Defense Review will allow
U.S. forces to execute the national military strategy, but at
increased risk. He also quantified the budgetary risk--the
amount of defense spending required to close the strategy-
resource gap--at approximately $15 billion per year. While the
committee believes that the annual shortfall is greater than
$15 billion, what was most striking about the Secretary's
estimate was the relatively small size of the budget shortfall
in comparison to the tremendous strategic risk associated with
not addressing it. At $15 billion, the estimate represents
approximately one-tenth of 1 percent of the federal budget. Yet
the military, strategic and political risks associated with not
fixing this shortfall are monumental. For the military, the
budget shortfall translates into declining readiness,
diminished quality of military life and postponed modernization
problems described above. The continued erosion of military
capability will threaten the nation's capabilities to protect
and promote its interests around the world and will inevitably
lead to the loss of American international influence. In the
committee's view, the risks of inaction or failure far outweigh
the cost of addressing shortfalls in the defense budget--
whether $15 billion per year, or more.
Although the QDR was completed too late to shape the
Administration's fiscal year 1998 defense budget request or to
factor significantly in the committee's deliberations, H.R.
1119 reflects the committee's mounting sense of urgency to
restore a proper balance among readiness, quality of military
life and modernization and to push the Department of Defense in
the directionof meaningful reform. The nation cannot afford
status quo defense budgets. The way forward is uncertain and involves
great risks. The committee would prefer to be raising and maintaining
military forces capable of an unquestioned response to challenges
anywhere in the world, rather than managing budgetary, military and
strategic risk with no margin for error. In this context, H.R. 1119
reflects the committee's effort to address serious shortfalls while
managing risk in a resource-constrained environment.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 results from extensive
hearings that began on February 12, 1997 and that were
completed on May 22, 1997. The full committee conducted 11
sessions. In addition, a total of 54 sessions were conducted by
five different subcommittees and two panels of the committee on
various titles of the bill.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
OVERVIEW
The last few years have seen a vigorous debate concerning
the adequacy of the Clinton Administration budgets for defense
modernization. Administration officials argue that a
``holiday'' in weapons procurement was justified due to the
many new weapons purchased in the 1980s and to not having to
replace older weapons retired as a result of the drawdown in
the size of the force. The 104th Congress reasoned otherwise:
namely, that the disproportionate cuts in the equipment
modernization accounts jeopardized the technological edge that
was so brilliantly demonstrated in the Persian Gulf War.
Consequently, Congress added $11 billion to these accounts in
the fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997 National Defense
Authorization Acts (Public Laws 104-106 and 104-201)--a 15
percent increase over the budget request for each of those two
years--despite the Administration's opposition to doing so. In
taking these actions, the 104th Congress sought the expert
advice of the military service chiefs on how best to apply the
additional funds to the most urgent unfunded modernization
priorities. Regrettably, no sooner had these acts had been
signed into law than the Administration proposed to use the
added modernization funds to pay for the operations and
readiness shortages contained in their budgets.
This same pattern continues with the fiscal year 1998
budget request. Attainment of even modest modernization
increases has again been deferred until ``next year.'' Despite
obvious and compelling evidence of procurement shortfalls and
despite the fact that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
concluded that, beginning with fiscal year 1998, the Department
required $60 billion annually to keep the force modernized, the
fiscal year 1998 budget request of $42.6 billion represents a
cut of $1.5 billion from the budget enacted for fiscal year
1997 and is $2.9 billion below the spending levels forecast in
the President's budget for fiscal year 1998 just last year.
Furthermore, the budget request marks the fourth consecutive
year that the Administration has reduced the fiscal year 1998
procurement figure--by a cumulative total of $14.5 billion--
relative to its earlier projections.
The committee notes that the recently-released Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) acknowledges that the planned ``rebound''
in procurement ``has been repeatedly postponed in recent
budgets as increases previously projected for the procurement
accounts have been eroded by unexpected demands for additional
funding in operational activities.'' The committee is dismayed
by the fact that the
Department believes this shift in resources from modernization
to operations will continue and that procurement funding,
instead of growing to $60 billion per year, could be expected
to stall in the range of $45-$50 billion. The committee further
notes that this belief is reinforced by the independent
National Defense Panel's critique of the QDR, which found the
QDR modernization plan risky due to tenuous assumptions of
further base closures and savings from acquisition and other
infrastructure reforms.
Notwithstanding the Administration's lack of resolve to
deal proactively with the continuing modernization problem, the
committee--for the third year in a row--has added funds
significantly in excess of the procurement budget request.
Moreover, in formulating its proposed addition of $3.8 billion,
the committee has also once again been responsive to meeting
the unfunded priorities submitted by the various military
service chiefs of staff. However, because the committee
believes that the QDR has not made the correct decisions
regarding tactical aircraft and the B-2, it has taken different
positions on these two issues. Furthermore, the committee
disagrees with the Department's assessment of the Arsenal Ship
demonstrator's utility and its proposed teaming arrangement for
construction of the New Attack Submarine. These topics are
discussed at length in the report.
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,162.5 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,535.3 million for fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)
The budget request contained $900,000 for project
management support and fielding of ASE systems, however, no
funding was included for upgrades to the Aircraft Survivability
Equipment Trainer IV (ASET IV).
The ASET IV is a ground-based, mobile aviation threat
emitter simulation and training system, which teaches aircrews
to recognize surface-to-air-missile (SAM) and anti-aircraft
artillery threats in order to employ the correct aircraft
threat avoidance tactics. ASET IV systems are currently fielded
at major training centers throughout the United States and
Germany and require that an aircraft have a fully operational
ASE suite of sensors on board for training. The committee
understands that in its present configuration, however, the
ASET IV cannot locate, identify, or track aircraft at night nor
can it simulate the most current infrared (IR) SAM threats,
thereby limiting aircrews to daylight training against older IR
SAM threats, which is not representative of the Army's ``train
as you fight concept.''
The committee is aware of upgrades to the ASET IV system
that would enable nighttime training through the incorporation
of a night vision camera and provide an up-to-date IR SAM
threat emitter simulation capability. Based on the Army's
requirement for forces to train in realistic threat
environments, the committee recommends an increase of $14.8
million for upgrading eight ASET IV systems with IR SAM threat
simulators and night vision cameras.
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) modifications
The budget request contained $4.6 million for ASE
modifications, of which $2.2 million was to complete the
installation of AN/AVR-2A Laser Detecting Sets (LDS) on the AH-
64 Apache. However, no funding was requested for procurement of
additional LDSs for other types of aircraft despite the fact
that only 413 of the required 2,063 systems have been fielded
by the Army.
The LDS detects, identifies, and characterizes threats from
laser-targeted weapons 360-degrees-around and plus-or-minus 45
degrees above-and-below an aircraft. It is the only device
procured by the Army that provides warning to helicopter crews
when they have been illuminated by a laser-targeted weapon. As
a result of the increasing proliferation of laser technology,
the committee believes the Army should fulfill its requirement
for these unique detection systems as soon as possible and,
therefore, recommends an increase of $15.0 million for
continued procurement of LDS for installation on UH-60
Blackhawks, MH-60K Blackhawks, and MH-47E Chinooks.
C-12 cargo aircraft modifications
The budget request contained $600,000 for avionics and
cockpit upgrades to C-12 cargo aircraft.
The C-12 is based throughout the world and is one of the
Army's primary passenger-carrying aircraft. The C-12 is
expected to remain active in service for at least the next 20
years and will be one of four types of aircraft that will
remain in the Army's fixed wing utility aircraft fleet after a
major consolidation of the inventory is completed.
Based on the need for passenger-carrying military aircraft
to have the latest technology for safe flight operations and
noting that the majority of the Army's C-12 aircraft were
purchased in the 1970s and 1980s with avionics and navigation
equipment that was state-of-the-art at that time but obsolete
today, the committee believes these upgrades should be
accelerated. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$6.0 million for avionics and cockpit upgrades for 34 C-12
cargo aircraft.
Longbow training devices
The budget request contained $474.8 million for the Longbow
modification program, of which $81.6 million was for Longbow
training devices. The requested funding will procure two types
of pilot trainers, the Longbow Crew Trainer and the Longbow
Collective Training System, and several types of maintenance
trainers.
The Army has deemed these devices critical for training,
since the Apache Longbow will be a primary weapon system in
almost all Army operations and deployments. The committee
recommended an increase of $53.0 million in fiscal year 1997 to
accelerate procurement of these devices to support pilot and
maintenance training when the Army's first Apache Longbow
battalions are fielded. Since $28.5 million of this amount was
not appropriated in fiscal year 1997, the committee recommends
an increase of $28.5 million in fiscal year 1998 for this
purpose.
OH-58D kiowa warrior modifications
The budget request contained $38.8 million for Kiowa
Warrior modifications.
The committee notes that the current inventory of Kiowa
Warriors is still below the requirement of 507, yet, the Army
has not requested funds for the procurement of additional
aircraft. While there are sufficient aircraft to meet the
active Army division, regiment, and battalion component
requirements, an insufficient amount exists for active
component target acquisition and reconnaissance platoons, as
well as for Force XXI needs and Army National Guard units.
Therefore, the committee recommends $175.0 million to fund an
additional 21 aircraft.
Training devices
The budget request did not contain funding for training
devices.
Currently, the Korean-based Eight Army (EUSA) UH-60
Blackhawk, CH-47 Chinook, and AH-64 Apache flight simulators
visually depict generic terrain that does not duplicate any
real-world location. The committee is concerned that EUSA
helicopter pilots do not have the correct visual databases,
state-of-the-art image generators and associated computers to
simulate the Korean terrain. Further, the committee believes
that having the capability to practice flying over Korean-
simulated terrain in a simulator would greatly reduce the
possibility of inadvertent flights over politically sensitive
and potentially hostile areas. The committee is aware of an
EUSA requirement for improved flight simulators, including
geographic-specific databases and state-of-the-art image
generators, and recommends an increase of $18.6 million for
these hardware and software upgrades.
UH-60 blackhawk
The budget request contained $183.2 million for 18 UH-60L
Blackhawks but did not contain funding to modify Blackhawks to
the UH-60Q enhanced medical evacuation variant.
Noting that the total Blackhawk requirement for the Army
National Guard's (ARNG) aging utility helicopter fleet is in
excess of 400 aircraft, the committee recommends an increase of
$90.0 million to procure an additional 12 Blackhawks for the
ARNG. The committee further recommends an increase of $6.0
million for modification kits to configure three of these
aircraft as UH-60Q enhanced medical evacuation models in
acknowledgment of the fact that this modification is also a
priority modernization requirement of the ARNG.
Missile Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,178.2 million for Missile
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,176.5 million for fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Army tactical missile system (ATACMS)
The budget request contained $97.8 million for the
procurement of 153 Block IA ATACMS missiles to be acquired
using a multiyear procurement contract. The committee notes,
however, that the Army has changed its plans for initiating a
multiyear procurement contract as a result of deficiencies in
operational testing performed on the missile prior to its
entering into full-rate production.
As a result of the multiyear procurement cancellation, the
committee understands that only 100 missiles will be procured
in fiscal year 1998. Therefore, the committee recommends a
corresponding reduction of $10.8 million.
Avenger modifications
The budget request did not contain funding for
modifications to Avenger fire units, which constitute the rear
component of the Army's Forward Area Air Defense System (FAADS)
and are the first element of FAADS that has been fielded.
The committee notes that the Avenger's current
configuration limits its capability to rapidly lock on and
track newly emerging threats to ground forces, such as cruise
missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, both of which are under
development by many countries around the world. The slew-to-cue
upgrade gives the Avenger an automatic and much more rapid
target identification, tracking and processing capability in
response to these types of targets and provides an over 50
percent increase in kill capability as a result of the greater
speed of operation.
Since the committee believes it is vitally important to
enhance the capability of the Army's only FAADS fielded assets,
it recommends an increase of $13.3 million for 125 slew-to-cue
upgrade kits.
Improved target acquisition system/tube-launched, optically-tracked,
wire-guided (ITAS/TOW) missile modifications
The budget request contained $62.8 million for ITAS/TOW
modifications, of which no funding was included for the Missile
Ordnance Inhibit Circuit (MOIC) modification.
The MOIC modification provides for installation of a
circuit on TOW training missiles to prevent flyback in the
event of a missile malfunction. This critical safety
enhancement is fundamental for troops to be able to train with
live-fire missiles. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $7.0 million for the procurement and installation
of the MOIC on both the basic and improved versions of the TOW
missile.
Stinger modifications
The budget request contained $12.4 million for modification
upgrades to 751 Stinger Block I missiles.
This electronics, software and guidance upgrade extends the
service life of Block I missiles and increases the
effectiveness of the Stinger against low-flying fixed and
rotary wing targets. Consequently, consistent with actions
taken by the committee in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the
committee recommends an increase of $9.3 million for an
additional 549 Block I upgrades to continue to maintain an
economic production rate of this missile.
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,065.7 million for
procurement of Army weapons and tracked combat vehicles for
fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,519.5 million for fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Bradley fighting vehicle system series modifications
The budget request contained $61.2 million for
modifications to the Bradley fighting vehicle, of which $34.6
million is for upgrading Bradley ``A2'' version vehicles to the
Operation Desert Storm (ODS) variant.
The Bradley ODS variant incorporates changes that improve
the vehicle's lethality, survivability, and mobility, as well
as the situational awareness of its crew. Modifications include
installation of a laser range finder, Global Positioning System
navigation capability, a combat identification system, a
driver's thermal viewer and a missile countermeasure device.
When the Army completes all of its planned modifications to
the Bradley, the active fleet will include a mix of the most
advanced ``A3'' variant, along with ``A2'' and ODS versions.
The Army National Guard (ARNG), however, will be left with
unmodified, first-generation ``A0'' vehicles, which, because of
major survivability deficiencies, were not used in ODS and will
not be taken into future combat.
Because the ARNG comprises an increasing percentage of the
total force warfighting assets as a result of active component
force reductions, the committee recommends an increase of
$120.0 million for modifying 120 Bradley ``A0'' vehicles to the
ODS variant for the ARNG.
M109A6 paladin/M992A2 field artillery ammunition support vehicle
(FAASV)
The budget request did not contain funding to procure
M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzers or M992A2 FAASVs for
the Army National Guard (ARNG).
Although ARNG units comprise the majority of the Army's
field artillery force, the committee notes that the ARNG does
not have a full complement of the most recently upgraded
versions of either the M109A6 Paladin or the M992A2 FAASV.
Since ARNG artillery battalions will have a greatly enhanced
role in the future, yet only 16 of the 48 ARNG battalions are
scheduled to receive the fully-digitized Paladin system, the
committee recommends an increase of $111.0 million for 72
Paladins and a corresponding $81.1 million increase for 72
FAASVs to upgrade four additional ARNG artillery battalions.
M113 carrier modifications
The budget request contained $20.2 million for modifying 66
M113 carriers to the ``A3'' configuration. The M113A3 upgrade
program, forecast to add an additional 20 years of service life
to the vehicle, includes depot overhaul and rebuild of the
vehicle along with the installation of a new engine,
transmission, external fuel tanks, driver controls, and spall
liners. The committee recommends an increase of $53.0 million
for M113 modifications, as discussed below.
The committee notes that the budget request falls far short
of the required amount, as it has in previous years, for the
planned upgrade of 250 vehicles per year andrecommends an
increase of $24.6 million, which, when combined with the budget
request, will provide for approximately this number. Also, the
committee is concerned that the M113 may not provide sufficient armor
protection for its crew and that the majority of the M113 fleet cannot
operate at night. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$20.0 million for reactive armor tiles to enhance the vehicle's
survivability and an increase of $8.4 million to accelerate equipping
the M113A3 with night vision driver viewers.
M240B medium machine gun
The budget request did not contain funding for the M240B
medium machine gun. The M240B is intended to replace the M60
series machine gun in light infantry, mechanized infantry, and
combat engineer units. Although the Army has a total
procurement objective of over 11,000 M240B machine guns, the
service has only procured 1,200 of these weapons to date.
The committee notes that the Army has failed to fund this
requirement for a second straight year and that funding to
fulfill the Army's objective falls far short of the 11,000
weapons objective through the future years defense program.
Moreover, the Army has not entered into a multiyear procurement
as the committee strongly encouraged in the committee report on
H.R. 3230 (H Rept. 104-563)
To ensure that the requirements for small arms are
fulfilled, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million for 2,100 M240B medium machine guns and strongly urges
the Secretary of the Army to include funding in the fiscal year
1999 budget request for this weapon.
M88A2 improved recovery vehicle
The budget request contained $28.6 million for modifying 12
existing ``A1'' variant vehicles to the more capable ``A2''
version.
The A2 upgrade enables the vehicle to safely perform
battlefield recovery of the 70-ton M1 Abrams tank and other
vehicles weighing 60 tons or more. It consists of structural
improvements to the vehicle chassis, an increased-horsepower
engine, additional armor, an improved winch, and the addition
of a hydraulic-assisted braking system. Although 24 vehicles
per year is the minimum sustaining production rate, the budget
request is sufficient to fund only 12 vehicles.
The committee believes that this upgrade program is vital
to the Army's future mobility and, consistent with its actions
for the past two fiscal years, recommends an increase of $27.8
million for 12 additional vehicles.
M9 armored combat earthmover (ACE)
The budget request did not contain funding for the M9 ACE.
The M9 ACE provides infantry, tank and artillery units with
survivable fighting positions and creates anti-tank ditches as
obstacles against enemy maneuver units. The committee believes
the vehicle's high speed and heavy digging capabilities are
essential to the success of any ground combat unit's maneuver
effectiveness.
Consistent with its recommendation for fiscal year 1997 to
fund an additional 54 M9 ACE vehicles, the committee recommends
an increase of $52.4 million to fund the remaining 54 M9 ACEs
necessary to complete the active Army's requirement for 108
vehicles.
Ammunition Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $890.9 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,093.8 million for fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Ammunition
The budget request contained $694.2 million for procurement
of ammunition. The committee recommends $915.1 million, an
increase of $212.9 million for the following types of
ammunition:
[In millions of dollars]
Small/Medium Cal Ammunition:
CTG 5.56mm Blank M200 Linked.................................. 2.4
CTG 7.62mm ball M80 linked.................................... 6.0
CTG 50 caliber ball M33 w/M9 linked........................... 0.1
CTG 50 caliber 4 ball/1 Tracer................................ 0.1
Mortar Ammunition:
CTG Mortar 120mm HE M934 w/mo Fuze............................ 9.0
CTG Mortar 120mm Illum M930................................... 3.0
Tank Ammunition:
CTG Tank 120mm TPCSDS-T M865.................................. 12.8
CTG Tank 120mm TP-T M831/M831A................................ 9.8
Artillery Ammunition:
CTG Arty 105mm DPICM M915..................................... 10.0
CTG Arty 105mm HERA M927...................................... 20.0
PROJ Arty 155mm HE M795....................................... 50.0
Artillery Fuzes:
M767A1 Electronic Artillery Fuze.............................. 20.0
Mines:
M87 Volcano................................................... 12.0
Rockets:
Bunker Defeating Munition..................................... 10.0
Rocket, Hydra-70 MPSM Practice................................ 37.2
Demolition Munitions, All Types:
SLAM.......................................................... 10.0
Other Ammunition:
Antitank Simulator M27........................................ 0.5
Armament retooling and manufacturing support (ARMS) initiative
The budget request contained $5.0 million for the ARMS
initiative.
The committee is aware that several refinements could be
made to the ARMS Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-484), which
provides for the reutilization of excess capacity of
government-owned, contractor-operated ammunition facilities of
the Department of the Army for commercial purposes. While the
committee is supportive of innovative ways to reduce the impact
of defense downsizing on communities, it believes that a
thoroughreview of the benefits of these proposed refinements is
required before considering permanent changes to existing authorities.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by
March 31, 1998, that evaluates the following issues: (1)
establishment of a special account for the accumulation of
revenues generated from ARMS activities and the benefits of
allowing the Secretary of the Army to retain those revenues for
ARMS industrial base projects; (2) authorization for the
Secretary to offer an ARMS participant who had made
nonseverable property improvements to a facility to have the
first right of refusal in acquiring title to the improved
property at a fair market or negotiated value in the event that
the Army decided to dispose of the property or facility as
surplus; (3) authorization for the Secretary to enter into
sole-source contracts with a facility-use contractor for long-
term periods; (4) authorization for the Secretary to be able to
accept a combination of funds, property, services or other
consideration in lieu of rental payments for the use of
property accountable under an ARMS facility-use contract; and
(5) authorization for the Army Industrial Operations Command to
make an ammunition facility available for ARMS initiatives,
even in cases where the facility was considered ``excess,''
thus providing an alternative to the current requirement to
transfer an ``excess'' facility to the Army Corps of Engineers
for environmental remediation and property management
determinations.
Conventional ammunition demilitarization
The budget request contained $106.1 million for
conventional ammunition demilitarization.
The committee strongly supports demilitarization of older
ammunition but notes that the request represents a 10 percent
increase over the amount requested in prior years and that is
forecast for fiscal year 1999 in the future years defense
program. The committee recommends $96.1 million, a $10.0
million reduction, which the committee believes would create
neither a near-term safety hazard nor prevent the execution of
a balanced and safe ammunition demilitarization program.
Other Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $2,455.0 million for Other
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends
authorization of $2,640.3 million for fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless other
specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on
affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Area common user system (ACUS) modifications
The budget request contained $82.4 million for
implementation and engineering support of the ACUS modification
program to update current legacy information systems and
transition them to the Warfighter Information Network (WIN),
which will support the Army's Force XXI digitization efforts.
However, no funding was included for procurement of Tactical
Personal Communications Services (PCS).
As part of the Army's future wireless command post,
Tactical PCS will replace wire-based communications with
cellular communications. The committee is supportive of the
Army's WIN communications upgrades and is aware of demonstrated
cellular technologies that could meet preliminary Army Tactical
PCS requirements. Based on the Army's plan to field a fully
digitized division by fiscal year 2001 and its related mobile
communications requirements, the committee recommends an
increase of $10.0 million for the procurement of currently
available Tactical PCS technologies for evaluation by Force XXI
experimental forces.
Army data distribution system (ADDS)
The budget request contained $57.2 million for the ADDS, of
which $37.0 was for procurement of 304 Enhanced Position
Location Reporting System (EPLRS) radios.
As the digital ``backbone'' of the Army's Force XXI
battlefield digitization efforts, EPLRS provides field
commanders position information on their forces, in addition to
supporting the majority of their data communication
requirements. The Army's procurement objective for EPLRS is
5,015 units, however, it has only procured 1,776 units to date.
The committee understands the unique position location
information that this system contributes to a combat unit's
situational awareness, and, therefore, recommends an increase
of $37.4 million for the procurement of 1,092 additional EPLRS
radios.
All source analysis system (ASAS)
The budget request contained $7.8 million for procurement
of six ASAS-Extended unit sets to replace selected ASAS Common
Hardware Software (CHS)-I workstations with CHS-II workstations
and enhanced software.
The ASAS is a ground-based, mobile, intelligence
information processing and fusion system designed to provide
automated intelligence support to combat commanders. The system
interfaces with selected national, joint, and theater-level
intelligence assets to provide commanders at echelons above
corps down through battalion level a common, comprehensive
picture of an opposing force's capabilities and potential
actions.
The committee anticipates that the Army will become
increasingly reliant upon timely and accurate all source
intelligence data provided by ASAS for the rapid targeting and
employment of precision weapons and, therefore, recommends an
increase of $9.0 million for the procurement of additional
ASAS-Extended unit sets and enhanced software.
Automated data processing equipment
The budget request contained $125.1 million for the Army's
sustaining base automation systems, of which no funding was
included for Sustaining Base Information Services (SBIS).
As the Army modernizes its warfighting forces for the
twenty-first century, it must also leverage state-of-the-art
automation technology to plan, organize, train, equip, deploy,
sustain, and redeploy these forces. The committee notes that
continental United States (CONUS)-based combat service support
for forces forward-deployed throughout the world will likely
expand in the future to include logistics, personnel, finance,
transportation, medical, and other sustaining base functions.
However, the committee understands that the overall base
automation infrastructure is currently overburdened, is
reaching technological obsolescence, and may not be able to
provide the level of combat service support expected of it by
Army leaders. Consequently, the committee recommends an
increase of $13.0 million to procure additional SBIS hardware
for application fielding to additional CONUS bases and urges
the Secretary of the Army to fully fund SBIS requirements in
future budget requests.
Close combat tactical trainer (CCTT)
The budget request contained $93.0 million for continued
low rate initial production of the CCTT system, to include 122
modules for fixed sites and seven mobile modules.
The CCTT is a networked system of manned simulators for the
Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, and M113A3 carrier and will train
both active and reserve component crews of armored and
mechanized infantry combat units. The committee is aware of the
cost savings that can be achieved through simulation training
and is encouraged with the progress made to date. However, the
committee notes that a delay in the Initial Operational Test
and Evaluation of the CCTT from April 1997 to the second
quarter of fiscal year 1998 has occurred due to software
reliability difficulties. Accordingly, the committee recommends
a reduction of $11.5 million.
Common hardware software (CHS)
The budget request did not contain funding for the
procurement of CHS, which provides the standardized hardware
and software for the information systems that will support the
Army's first fully digitized division.
The committee understands that the Army's contract for CHS-
I will expire prior to the end of fiscal year 1997. The
committee believes it would be imprudent to terminate the
existing CHS-I contract until a thorough analysis of the
results of the recently concluded Advanced Warfighting
Experiment, which evaluated its ``digital battlefield''
modernization efforts, has been completed. Allowing the CHS-I
contract to expire prior to the complete evaluation of CHS-I,
CHS-II and other battlefield digitization hardware could
potentially delay fielding of critically-needed command,
control and communications capabilities. Therefore, the
committee directs the Army to extend the expiring CHS-I
contract for one year, a period commensurate with minimizing
fielding interruptions and with attaining the final
certification of CHS-II.
Communications satellite radios
The budget request did not contain funding for procurement
of satellite communications radios for counterintelligence (CI)
units in Korea.
The committee is aware that communications shortfalls exist
to fully support CI units deployed throughout the Korean
peninsula and that a recent study identified a requirement to
provide satellite communications connectivity for these units.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million
for this purpose.
Depot maintenance of other end items
The budget request contained $24.8 million for depot
maintenance of other end items.
The committee is puzzled by the first-time request for
these funds, as many of the projects included in the budget
justification material appear to be associated with research,
development, test and evaluation of existing systems rather
than related to depot maintenance activities. Therefore, the
committee recommends a reduction of $24.8 million.
Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)
The budget request contained $9.1 million for procurement
of Palletized Load System (PLS) cargo beds and handling
devices.
The FHTV includes the PLS along with companion trailers and
flatracks, three variants of Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical
Trucks, and the Heavy Equipment Transporter System (HETS). The
committee has recommended increases in funding for this class
of vehicles in previous fiscal years because it recognized the
increased role that they play in the Army's expanding mission
areas and the multiple requirements they have fulfilled during
operations in Bosnia. However, the committee notes that the
Army National Guard still has a shortfall of approximately 500
HETS. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $45.0
million for 96 of these vehicles in order to equip an Army
National Guard HETS company.
Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)
The budget request contained $209.4 million for 1,506 FMTV
vehicles. The FMTV program provides for replacement for
approximately 50 percent of the two-and-halfton and 100 percent
of the five-ton trucks in the Army's inventory, all of which are
reaching the end of their useful service lives.
While the committee strongly supports the Army's
requirement for medium trucks, it notes that there is a large
increase in the funds requested for engineering change orders.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million
and believes the funds remaining for engineering change orders
are adequate for a program at this level of maturity.
Handheld computer terminal units
The budget request contained $13.1 million for three
Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control (FAAD C2) computer
and software systems and $2.4 million for 20 Forward Entry
Devices (FED). No funding was included for the XM-30 Mortar
Ballistic Computer (MBC). The committee recommends a total
increase of $33.2 million for these programs, as discussed
below.
The automated, deployable FAAD C2 system provides accurate
and timely targeting information for the employment of FAAD
weapon systems. The committee notes that although full-rate
production of the FAAD C2 system was approved by the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council in June 1995, funding requests
for this critical air defense system have continued to decrease
since fiscal year 1996. The committee, therefore, recommends an
increase of $10.0 million for accelerated fielding of the FAAD
C2 system to five divisions.
The FED, a ruggedized, lightweight, high resolution,
handheld computer, is an integral part of the Advanced Field
Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) and is used by Forward
Observers (FO), Fire Support Teams (FIST) and Field Artillery
Battery Commanders to control and synchronize fire support
assets within the AFATDS. The committee understands that
currently-fielded systems require upgrading in order to provide
artillery forces with a much faster computer processing
capability. The committee is concerned that FOs, FISTs, and
Battery Commanders have the processing capability to rapidly
coordinate artillery fire and counterfire support missions,
and, also notes that these devices are high on the Army Chief
of Staff's fiscal year 1998 unfunded priority list. Therefore,
the committee recommends an increase of $16.3 million to
procure upgraded FEDs for these purposes.
The XM-30 MBC will replace the obsolete M23 MBC and provide
accurate, rapid ballistic trajectory calculations for all
cartridge and fuze combinations of 60mm, 81mm, 107mm and 120mm
mortars as well as automated digital communications with other
fire support devices via the AFATDS. The M23 MBC is
incompatible with FEDs and is no longer supportable in the
field due to the lack of unique repair parts and components.
Based upon the enhanced response times, improved accuracy and
commonality with AFATDS and FEDs, the committee recommends an
increase of $6.9 million for the XM-30 MBC.
High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)
The budget request contained $66.2 million to procure 774
HMMWVs, of which $28.8 million was for 250 Up-Armored HMMWVs.
In response to increased peacekeeping mission requirements,
the Army developed the Up-Armored HMMWV variant to provide
increased ballistic and blast protection primarily for the
military police. This variant has proven to be a valuable asset
and is responsible for saving the lives of soldiers whose
vehicles were struck by mine blasts in Bosnia. Since the
committee anticipates that the Up-Armored HMMWV will play a
continuing role in more frequent deployments to areas of unrest
around the world, it recommends an increase of $38.7 million
for an additional 360 of these HMMWV variants.
Logtech
The budget request contained $3.4 million for automatic
identification technology (AIT), which consists of various
radio frequency (RF), bar code scanning and data carrier
devices. AIT devices, as components of automated logistics
systems, contribute to expedited receiving, storage,
distribution, and inventory management of new and reparable
items.
The committee is aware of an AIT that employs an RF tagging
device to identify items and track their location for supply
and logistics purposes. The committee understands that the
device is currently used to track supplies being shipped from
several inventory control points in the continental United
States to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as to forces deployed
in Bosnia. The committee further understands that the device is
used to automate manufacturing process controls for jet engine
repairs and inventory tracking of ground support equipment at
various military depots. The committee is impressed with the
promising results achieved to date with the RF tagging device
and believes that substantial savings can be achieved from
further implementation of the device into automated inventory
and repair processes. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $11.7 million for this purpose.
M915/M916 line haul tractor trailer truck
The budget request contained $36.1 million to initiate the
procurement of 293 commercially available vehicles.
While the committee is well aware of the requirements for
this cargo handling vehicle and commends the Army for procuring
a commercial truck, it believes there should be a more moderate
initial rate of procurement. For this reason, the committee
recommends a reduction of $18.0 million.
Modifications to in-service equipment
The budget request contained $1.2 million for modifications
to Firefinder radars, including the AN/TPQ-36 Mortar Locating
Radar.
This radar is the primary target acquisition and
counterfire system for Army field artillery forces. It is
capable of rapidly locating multiple indirect fire weapons,
such asmortars and rocket launchers, simultaneously and
transmitting target data in near-real-time. However, the committee
understands that currently-fielded radars generate false target
location errors and believes there is a critical need to eliminate
these errors. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.5
million for modification kits to correct the AN/TPQ-36 Mortar Locating
Radar false target location errors. The committee also recommends an
increase of $1.5 million for spares and logistics support.
Night vision devices
The budget request contained $85.3 million for procurement
of night vision devices, of which $24.3 million was for the
procurement of AN/PVS-7 night vision goggles. However, no
funding was included for the procurement of 25mm generation
three image intensifier tubes for upgrading the Aviator's Night
Vision Imaging System (ANVIS). The committee recommends a total
increase of $30.8 million for night vision devices as discussed
below and elsewhere in this report.
The AN/PVS-7 night vision goggle is a head- or helmet-
mounted, third-generation, image intensifying, device used by
soldiers for nighttime operations. The Army procurement
objective for this device is 281,000 however, at the end of
fiscal year 1997, only 166,180 units will have been procured.
The committee is aware of the enhanced operational
capability that night vision devices provide combat forces and
believes that these devices will play an increasingly important
role in future Army deployments. Accordingly, the Army Chief of
Staff has designated these devices as one of the Army's highest
unfunded priorities for fiscal year 1998. The committee
understands that an increase in funding would allow for
procurement of an additional 6,239 devices, enabling the Army
to fulfill force requirements earlier than planned. Therefore,
the committee recommends an increase of $17.0 million to
procure AN/PVS-7 night vision goggles for this purpose.
The ANVIS upgrade, also included in the Army Chief of
Staff's top unfunded fiscal year 1998 priorities, will provide
aviators with a significantly enhanced night flying capability
and contribute immeasurably to their safety of flight. The
ANVIS collects critical flight information, such as, altitude
and course heading from aircraft sensors and converts this
information onto a visual imaging heads-up display. The upgrade
will provide new image intensifier tubes that generate higher
resolution images at lower light levels, which the committee
understands will increase pilot reaction time to avoid
obstacles by 40 percent. Because of the critical safety
improvements that will result from this upgrade, the committee
recommends an increase of $5.4 million for ANVIS 25mm
generation three image intensifier tubes.
Nonsystem training devices
The budget request contained $49.7 million for nonsystem
training devices, of which no funding was included for
firefighter trainers. This training device is a computer-
controlled, natural-gas-fueled system, which is currently
providing safe, realistic, and environmentally-friendly
training for firefighters at airports and training academies
throughout the country.
The committee understands that Army firefighter training
sites have been or will be closed in the future because most
are not in compliance with environmental regulations. Because
of the site closures, the Army has established a program to
provide regional firefighter training and has awarded a
contract to procure 28 firefighter trainers over a five-year
period for this purpose. However, it has procured only four of
these trainers to date. The committee believes these trainers
provide a safe, unique and fundamental fire prevention and
teaching capability for Army firefighters and, therefore,
recommends an increase of $4.0 million to procure four
additional firefighter trainers.
Reserve component automation system (RCAS)
The budget request contained $114.3 million for continued
procurement and fielding of the RCAS. The RCAS provides the
Army the capability to more effectively administer, manage, and
deploy the Army National Guard and Reserve forces.
While the committee is a strong supporter of the National
Guard and Reserve forces, it is concerned with the significant
increase in funding requested for this program, an increase of
50 percent over the combined amounts contained in the budget
requests for the previous two years. The committee believes
that such a large increase is not warranted and, therefore,
recommends a reduction of $24.0 million.
Sentinel
The budget request contained $41.0 million for 12 Sentinel
systems.
The Sentinel system consists of a trailer-mounted radar and
an identification-friend-or-foe device, along with Forward Area
Air Defense stCommand, Control and Intelligence interfaces. The
system plays an integral role in the digital battlefield by
automatically detecting, identifying, and reporting cruise
missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and rotary and fixed
wing aircraft targets and rapidly transmitting data on these
targets to air defense units.
The committee believes that the Sentinel system will play
increasingly critical air defense and force protection roles,
especially with the proliferation of UAVs and cruise missiles
throughout the world. These small targets require early
detection in order to provide maximum reaction times for
engagement at ranges well beyond the forward line of troops.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.3
million for 14 additional Sentinel systems.
Shortstop
The budget request did not contain funding for procurement
of the Shortstop Electronic Protection System (SEPS).
The SEPS is a commercial electronics radio frequency
countermeasure system that protects personnel and high value
assets from artillery and mortar rounds and rockets by
detonating their proximity fuzes well before they impact in the
target area. The committee understands that initial Army
testing of 5000 artillery rounds fired at the SEPSresulted in a
100 percent pre-detonation success rate, while follow-on tests with
both artillery and rockets were also highly successful.
The initial SEPS units were developed as a quick reaction
capability system and deployed during Operation Desert Storm.
More recently the SEPS has been deployed to Bosnia. The
committee is aware of an urgent need statement for 62 systems
for the Eighth Army in Korea. Funding for procurement of 20
units for Korea was appropriated in fiscal year 1997; however,
the Army failed to request funding for SEPS in the fiscal year
1998 budget request. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $9.0 million for the procurement of 42 additional
SEPS to ensure that deployed forces have adequate protection
from artillery, mortar and rocket attacks.
Single channel anti-jam manportable (SCAMP) terminals
The budget request contained $4.3 million for fielding of
SCAMP terminals. No funds were requested to procure new
terminals even though the Army has procured less than half of
its requirement for 660 terminals.
These satellite communications terminals provide extended-
range, anti-jam voice and data command and control (C2)
communications capability worldwide as part of the extremely
high frequency Milstar satellite communications program.
Based on the critical requirement for joint C2
communications and to ensure that the Army can be fully
integrated into the joint C2 network provided by the Milstar
communications network, the committee recommends an increase of
$12.3 million for SCAMP terminals and encourages the Secretary
of Army to exercise the existing firm fixed price contract
option for these terminals in fiscal year 1998.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $6,086.0 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends
authorization of $6,173.0 million for fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Aircraft spares and repair parts
The budget request contained $740.2 million for aircraft
spares and repair parts.
The committee recommends an additional $62.0 million to
procure 11 improved F402-408A engines for the TAV-8B Harrier
trainer aircraft. The committee notes that the Commandant of
the Marine Corps identified a requirement for 22 of these
engines among his highest unfunded aviation procurement
priorities. In making this recommendation, the committee
understands that these engines will enhance the safety margin
of flight training operations and increase AV-8B pilot training
production by twenty percent. The committee encourages the Navy
to include the remaining 11 F402-408A engines in its fiscal
year 1999 budget request in order to re-engine all 22 TAV-8B
trainer aircraft.
AN/ALR-67E(V)2 radar warning receiver upgrade
The budget request contained $32.9 million for common
electronic countermeasures modifications but did not include
any funding to upgrade the AN/ALR-67E(V)2 radar warning
receiver (RWR).
The AN/ALR-67E(V)2 RWR is the common RWR installed on all
Navy and Marine Corps front-line strike and fighter aircraft.
The committee understands that low cost upgrades to the AN/ALR-
67E(V)2 RWR are now available that would provide significantly
greater survivability through better signal analysis, longer
detection ranges, and improved situation awareness. The
committee further understands that these upgrades would
significantly lower the RWR's life cycle costs through
maintainability improvements to the operating system software.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million to provide these upgrades to the AN/ALR-67E(V)2.
AN/ALQ-165 airborne self-protection jammer (ASPJ)
The budget request contained $32.9 million for common
electronic countermeasures equipment, but did not include
funding to procure the AN/ALQ-165 ASPJ for the F-14D or the F/
A-18C/D aircraft.
The self-protection system installed on the F/A-18C/D,
except those configured with the ASPJ for contingency
operations, has no capability against pulse doppler or
continuous wave radars that currently are the most widely
deployed air-to-air and air-to-surface radar threats to
tactical aircraft. The committee is aware that the Navy can
only equip approximately 72 aircraft with the ASPJ, although it
has a requirement for employment of this system on over 500 F-
14Ds and F/A-18C/Ds. The committee understands that in order to
meet its current deployment requirements in the Bosnia and
Persian Gulf theaters, the Navy must remove the ASPJs from
aircraft returning from these areas and install them on
aircraft beginning deployment. Furthermore, as a result of this
shortfall, ASPJs are not available to support training or other
potential combatrequirements. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $75.0 million for production of 50 AN/ALQ-165
ASPJs.
AN/AWW-13 guided weapon control monitor set
The budget request did not contain funding to procure AN/
AWW-13 guided weapon control monitor sets.
The AN/AWW-13 provides the data link capability for the F/
A-18 series aircraft to employ the precision-guided Walleye and
Stand-off Land Attack Missiles (SLAM). The committee
understands that the Navy requires 218 AN/AWW-13s, but only
plans to procure 200 of these systems through calendar year
1997, when production of the AN/AWW-13 is scheduled for
termination. To meet the Navy's requirement and retain AN/AWW-
13 production capability for future F/A-18s or other aircraft
that employ Walleye or SLAM, the committee recommends an
increase of $9.0 million to procure the remaining 18 systems.
AV-8B
The budget request contained $277.6 million to procure 11
remanufactured AV-8B aircraft, and $19.4 million for advance
procurement of 12 remanufactured aircraft in fiscal year 1999.
The committee continues to support the upgraded AV-8B's
enhanced mission-capability and safety-related improvements and
notes that, for fiscal year 1997, it authorized the procurement
of two more additional aircraft than were appropriated. Since
the Commandant of the Marine Corps identified an additional AV-
8B as his highest unfunded aviation procurement priority for
fiscal year 1998, the committee recommends an additional $33.0
million to procure this aircraft.
Contract aerial refueling services
The budget request did not contain funding for contract
aerial refueling services.
The committee understands that commercial aerial refueling
may be less expensive than the cost-per-flight-hour of the
current Air Force tankers and believes this concept warrants
further evaluation. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase of $6.0 million to modify three aircraft for this
purpose.
E-2C
The budget request contained $236.5 million to procure
three E-2C aircraft, and $23.6 million for advance procurement
of four aircraft in fiscal year 1999.
Fleet aviation continues to require modern, robust,
carrier-based airborne early warning (AEW) command and control
aircraft. Except for fiscal year 1998, the Department plans to
procure four new AEW aircraft per year throughout the future
years defense program. The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), in
order to maintain a steady production rate of four aircraft per
year, identified an additional E-2C as one of his top two
unfunded procurement priorities in fiscal year 1998.
The committee supports the CNO's request and recommends an
additional $68.0 million to procure one additional E-2C
aircraft. This increase will result in a more efficient
production flow, provide aircraft to the fleet sooner, and save
$13.2 million.
EA-6B modifications
The budget request contained $86.8 million for EA-6B
modifications but did not include funding to replace wing
center sections (WCS) or for the turbine engine blade
containment system (TEBS).
The first 65 EA-6B aircraft were manufactured with an
aluminum alloy WCS that is susceptible to stress corrosion
cracking. Thirty nine of these aircraft are still in service,
20 of which Congress provided WCS replacement funding in fiscal
years 1995 and 1997. Consistent with its prior actions, the
committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million to replace
the WCSs of 10 additional EA-6Bs. The committee urges the
Secretary of the Navy to provide funds to complete the WCS
modifications in his fiscal year 1999 budget request.
Based on historical data analysis of the EA-6B's engine,
the Navy determined that the EA-6B will experience between
three and five aircraft losses due to catastrophic failure of
turbine engine blades before the EA-6B reaches its retirement.
In fiscal year 1997, the Congress provided $5.0 million to
address this problem, but the committee has since learned that
the cost to outfit the entire fleet has risen to $60.0 million.
Since the EA-6B is no longer in production and the total cost
to modify all EA-6Bs with the TEBS is less than the value of
one aircraft, the committee recommends an increase of $18.0
million to continue this modification.
F/A-18
The budget request contained $2,101.1 million for
procurement of 20 F/A-18E/F aircraft, four fewer than the
number for which advance procurement funds were requested in
fiscal year 1997, and $90.5 million for advanced procurement of
30 aircraft in fiscal year 1999.
Based on the recently-released recommendations of the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Navy's current
procurement objective for the F/A-18E/F is 548 to 785 aircraft,
at a maximum production rate of 48 aircraft per year, which has
been decreased from the fiscal year 1998 budget request
procurement plan of 1,000 aircraft at a maximum production rate
of 60 aircraft per year. The committee understands that the
Navy plans to determine its actual procurement objective based
on the initial operational capability date of the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF).
The committee is sensitive to the Navy's requirement to
modernize its tactical aircraft fleet. Unfortunately, the Navy
failed in its attempts to replace the A-6 and F-14 fleets first
with the A-12 and then with the A/F-X, both of which were
terminated. Consequently, the F/A-18E/F program emerged--more
by default than by design--as the Navy's choice to replace the
A-6 in the all-weather attack mission, replace the F-14 in
thefleet air defense and tactical reconnaissance missions, and to
supplement existing F/A-18C/Ds. The F/A-18E/F improves range and
payload capabilities compared to the F/A-18C/D, but it will not be
nearly as survivable as either the A-12 or the A/F-X would have been.
Accordingly, the committee strongly supports the Navy's participation
in the JSF program to meet its longer-term force structure and
modernization requirements and believes that the JSF will be more cost
and operationally effective than any previous Naval aircraft when it
enters service with the fleet. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $20.0 million in PE63800N to accelerate development of the
Naval variant of the JSF, as explained elsewhere in this report.
The committee notes that the budget request proposal to
reduce the quantity of F/A-18E/Fs procured in fiscal years 1998
and 1999 by 10 from the 60 proposed in the fiscal year 1997
acquisition plan, together with the QDR recommendation to
reduce both the total procurement objective and the maximum
production rate of this aircraft, suggests that future
aircraft, shipbuilding, and other weapons procurement demands
on the Navy's budget are necessitating consideration of
alternative F/A-18E/F production rates. Accordingly, the
committee recommends $1,348.9 million for continued F/A-18E/F
production, a reduction of $752.2 million. The committee
believes that until the review of the QDR by the independent
National Defense Panel is completed in December 1997 and
assessed by the Congress, the F/A-18E/F program should proceed
at a slower pace.
H-1 series modifications
The budget request contained $18.5 million for
modifications to the H-1 series helicopter, of which $18.3
million was planned for communications and navigation block
upgrades. The budget request also contained $80.7 million in
research and development funding for future H-1 upgrades.
Subsequent to the Department's submission of the budget
request, the Navy determined a need to restructure its
communications and navigation block upgrades and research and
development plans for the H-1 series helicopters. The
restructured program, which requires transferring funds from
the aircraft procurement account to the research and
development account, would improve commonality between the UH-
1N and AH-1W helicopters through a new plan to design common
cockpit architecture and to procure common parts and software.
The committee supports this initiative and recommends $12.7
million for H-1 communications and navigation block upgrades, a
reduction of $5.6 million, and a corresponding increase in PE
0604245N for research and development of H-1 series upgrades.
Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)
The budget request did not contain funding for LESPA.
The committee continues to support this initiative, begun
in fiscal year 1997, to replace old parachutes in the P-3 and
EP-3 aircraft with the LESPA. Due to its longer repack cycle
and extended service life, the committee understands that the
Navy will realize substantial life cycle cost savings by
procuring LESPA compared to continued use of existing
parachutes. Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional
$11.0 million to procure LESPA for P-3 and EP-3 aircraft fleets
as follows: $10.8 million for the P-3 and $200 thousand for the
EP-3.
Oil debris detection system (ODDS)
The budget request contained $164.9 million for the
modification of P-3 aircraft, $49.1 million for the
modification of E-2 aircraft, and $19.2 million for the
modification of C-2 aircraft. The budget request did not
contain funding for the procurement and installation of ODDS in
the T-56 engine, which is common to the P-3, E-2 and C-2
fleets.
The ODDS is an on-board detection system that alerts
aircrews to the presence of metal chips in engines and
propeller gear boxes, allowing flights to be terminated prior
to catastrophic failure of critical components. It also permits
the clearing of smaller particles that routinely accumulate in
engine oil and cause false impending engine failure alarms,
resulting in unnecessary termination of aircraft missions and
costly engine diagnostics. Since the ODDS, which has been
successfully integrated into many other Department of Defense
aircraft, both reduces aircraft maintenance costs and enhances
aircrew safety, the committee recommends an increase of $1.6
million to incorporate this system on the P-3, E-2 and C-2
fleets as follows: $1.4 million for the P-3 and $100 thousand
each for the E-2 and C-2 fleets.
P-3 series modifications
The budget request contained $164.9 million for P-3 series
modifications, $74.7 million of which is for four anti-surface
warfare improvement program (AIP) kits, and $41.3 million of
which is for 11 sustained readiness program (SRP) kits.
The AIP improves the P-3's capabilities in communications,
survivability and over-the-horizon targeting through the
installation of commercial-off-the-shelf components. The
committee understands that the Commanders-in-Chief (CINCs) of
the Atlantic and Pacific theaters require 68 AIP-configured P-3
aircraft by fiscal year 2001, but the future years defense
program only provides for 44 aircraft by this time. In the last
year alone, these aircraft have played major roles in joint
naval operations in Bosnia, Liberia, Central Africa, the
Formosa Strait and the Strait of Hormuz by providing littoral
and overland surveillance. Consequently, in order to meet CINC
requirements and achieve a more efficient production rate, the
committee recommends an increase of $56.6 million for an
additional eight AIP kits.
The SRP extends the service life of the P-3C by replacing
and refurbishing airframe components. The committee understands
that material conditions of the fleet aircraft are
deteriorating faster than originally forecast, requiring
frequent major airframe repairs in advance of the nominal 30-
year expected operational service life. If left unchecked,
aircraft could be rendered unserviceable due to corrosion or
cracking of major structural components. Accordingly, the
committee recommends an increase of $35.1 million to procure 17
additional shipsets of SRP kits.
T-45 training system
The budget request contained $244.0 million to procure 12
T-45C aircraft and associated ground-based training equipment,
and $6.2 million for advance procurement of 12 T-45C aircraft
in fiscal year 1999.
The committee is aware that the T-45A Goshawks delivered
thus far are performing extremely well and have exceeded
expectations in almost every performance measure. The last T-
45A is planned for delivery in February 1998 and a
significantly upgraded T-45C, with a digital cockpit, will
begin deliveries in October 1997. Student training in the
digitally instrumented T-45C will begin in mid-summer 1998.
The committee is concerned that the aging TA-4J and T-2C
aircraft, now scheduled for retirement in fiscal years 1998 and
2003 respectively, are increasingly expensive to operate due to
an increased instructor requirement, more frequent parts
replacement cycle, and more aircraft flight time required to
train students to the desired standard. Lead time for spares is
excessive and results in an increased period of time that the
aircraft are unavailable for training. Moreover, the T-2 fleet
has been grounded on numerous occasions due to flight control
problems and other maintenance issues related to an aging
aircraft. Taken together, these factors could cause the fiscal
year 1998 pilot training rate to fall short of the Navy's
yearly quota by approximately 100 naval aviators.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0
million to procure six additional T-45C aircraft. The committee
understands that by continuing to procure the T-45C at the rate
of 18 aircraft per year, the Navy would complete its T-45
aircraft procurement program three years earlier and save
$210.0 million in aircraft procurement costs compared to the
future years defense program, as well as $262.2 million in T-2
flight hour cost avoidance.
V-22
The budget request contained $472.0 million to procure five
V-22 aircraft and $69.7 million for advance procurement of
seven aircraft in fiscal year 1999.
The committee has been a strong supporter of accelerated V-
22 procurement and endorses the recently-released Quadrennial
Defense Review's (QDR) recommendation to achieve a long-term
production rate of 30 aircraft per year by 2004. However, the
committee notes that despite the fact that in fiscal year 1997
Congress appropriated advance procurement funding for 12
aircraft in fiscal year 1998, the Department has requested only
five. Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the
recommendations of the QDR, and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps' unfunded priorities for fiscal year 1998, the committee
recommends an increase of $189.3 million to procure two
additional aircraft.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $1,136.3 million for Weapons
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,214.7 million for fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Close-in weapon system (CIWS) surface mode upgrade
The budget request contained $10.0 million for CIWS but did
not include funding to procure surface mode upgrade kits for
this system.
The CIWS is a fully autonomous, radar-directed gun system
designed for anti-ship missile defense. While the existing
system is effective against its designed threat, the Navy's new
focus on littoral operations requires an ability to defend
against small, fast surface craft for which most Navy ships
have a limited defense. To address this deficiency, the
committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to procure
CIWS upgrade kits for both surface combatants and other ships
equipped with this system.
Hellfire II missiles
The budget request did not contain funding for the Hellfire
II missile.
The Hellfire II missile is an anti-armor and anti-ship
weapon used by the Marine Corps on the AH-1W and by the Navy on
the SH-60B. Neither the Navy nor the Marine Corps have procured
Hellfire II missiles since fiscal year 1994. The committee has
been informed that because of this situation, the Navy's and
the Marine Corps' inventories of Hellfire II missiles is 25
percent below requirements. To address this shortfall, the
committee recommends $37.5 million to procure 700 Hellfire
missiles.
Joint stand off weapon (JSOW)
The budget request contained $58.7 million for 113 JSOW
missiles for the Navy. No funds were requested to procure JSOW
missiles for the Air Force until fiscal year 1999.
The committee continues to support accelerated procurement
of precision guided munitions and integration of these weapons
into aircraft and mission planning subsystems. Also, the
committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations included
additional JSOW procurement in the top one-third of his fiscal
year 1998 unfunded priorities.
The committee added funding in fiscal year 1997 to
accelerate the integration of precision guided weapons on the
B-2 bomber and understands that some of this funding will be
used to complete JSOW integration in late 1998. The committee
urges the Air Force to accelerate updating the B-2's mission
support system in order to employ JSOW at the earliest possible
date.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for
the Navy to procure 37 additional missiles and an increase of
$29.0 million for the Air Force to initiate procurement of 100
missiles. The committee understands that these increases will
reduce the fiscal year 1998 JSOW unit cost by 24 percent. The
committee expects the Air Force to accelerate JSOW capability
on the B-2 with these weapons.
Standard Missile (SM)-2 Block IIIB medium range (MR) modification kits
The budget request contained $35.6 million for 80 SM-2
Block IIIB MR modification kits.
The SM is the Navy's primary surface-to-air weapon against
hostile aircraft and anti-ship cruise missiles. The latest MR
version to enter production, SM-2 Block IIIB, retains the full
performance of earlier models and adds improvements against
electronic countermeasures. However, the current SM inventory
is dominated by older versions that are less capable against
modern anti-ship weapons and ineffective against some newer
threat missiles.
Even though the Navy plans to supplement its new missile
production by upgrading older missiles to the Block IIIB
configuration, its projected Block IIIB inventories at the turn
of the century will still fall significantly short of the
quantity required to meet deployment inventories. Accordingly,
the committee recommends an increase of $33.0 million to
procure an additional 80 SM-2 Block IIIB MR modification kits.
This action will allow the Navy to field more of the latest-
version missiles and reduce the need to ``cross deck'' the
missiles between deploying and returning ships.
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request contained $336.8 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps in fiscal year 1998. The
committee recommends authorization of $470.4 million for fiscal
year 1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Marine corps ammunition
The budget request contained $99.0 million for procurement
of ammunition. The committee recommends $227.0 million, an
increase of $128.0 million for the following types of
ammunition:
[In millions of dollars]
CTG 5.56mm training rounds........................................ 3.0
CTG 7.62mm training rounds........................................ 6.0
Rocket Motor, 5 inch.............................................. 1.5
Charge, demolition linear HE...................................... 10.0
CTG 40mm practice grenade linked M918............................. 10.6
CTG Tank 120mm M830A1 (HEAT)...................................... 33.4
CTG Tank 120mm TPCSDS-T M865...................................... 5.2
Fuze, ET, XM762................................................... 7.0
CTG 25mm TPDS-T, linked........................................... 1.1
Signal Smoke, illumination........................................ 3.4
Charge, demolition assembly M183.................................. 43.3
Fuze, ET, M767.................................................... 3.5
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $7,438.2 million for
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy in fiscal year 1998. The
committee recommends authorization of $7,655.0 million for
fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Fast patrol craft
The budget request did not contain funding for a fast
patrol craft.
The Navy and Marine Corps emphasis on the employment of
expeditionary forces, coupled with the enormous investment
required for construction of major combatant ships, combine to
make the procurement of an inexpensive, multi-mission fast
patrol craft a highly desirable objective. The committee
direction for such a craft, contained in its report on H.R.
1530 (H. Rept. 104-131), was clear--a high-speed vessel capable
of carrying multiple anti-surface ship missiles, as well as
command, control, and intelligence assets. The committee
continues to believe that a fleet of such small multi-mission
craft would be a national asset and, consequently, recommends
an increase of $20.0 million, to be combined with the $9.5
million authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1996, to
construct this platform. The committee directs the Secretary of
the Navy to release these funds to the Office of Naval Research
only for the purpose of contracting for the fast patrol craft.
Landing craft air cushion (LCAC) service life extension program (SLEP)
The budget request did not contain funding for LCAC SLEP.
Congress provided $3.0 million in fiscal year 1997 for
advance procurement of components needed to initiate an LCAC
SLEP, based on its understanding that the Navy was prepared to
fully fund this program in fiscal year 1998. The committee
understands that these funds will not be released until fiscal
year 1999 because the Navy now intends to begin the LCAC SLEP
in fiscal year 2000. However, the committee also understands
that the Navy's strategy to begin this SLEP in fiscal year 2000
is currently under review in order to address the realities of
more extensive corrosion and greater obsolescence of electronic
equipment in the LCAC fleet than earlier realized.
The LCAC is the only surface platform that can provide
high-speed, heavy lift from over-the-horizon. Without a SLEP,
the first LCACs will begin retiring in 2004; with a SLEP, ten
years of useful life will be added to the LCAC fleet. Since no
funding is programmed for a replacement craft, allowing the
LCACs to deteriorate without a SLEP would result in a severe
degradation in the Navy's ability to perform amphibious warfare
and operational maneuver from the sea. Accordingly, the
committee recommends $17.3 million to begin the LCAC SLEP in
fiscal year 1998.
LPD-18
The budget request did not contain funding for the LPD-18.
LPD-18 is the second ship of 12 in the LPD-17 class of new
amphibious ships with which the Navy plans to replace 41
obsolete amphibious vessels. The LPD-17 class will not only
provide the Navy and Marine Corps with advanced-technology
command systems and extensively improved ship self-defense
capabilities but also reduce by 60 percent the crew
requirements of the four existing classes of ships it will
replace. Thecommittee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations
considers the procurement of the LPD-18 to be among his top unfunded
procurement priorities for fiscal year 1998 and recommends $185.0
million for the advance procurement of this ship.
New attack submarine (NAS)
The budget request contained $2,314.9 million for
procurement of the first NAS and $284.9 million for advance
procurement of the second and third NASs in fiscal years 1999
and 2001 respectively.
In presenting its budget request for fiscal year 1996 two
years ago, the Navy was poised to proceed with its plan to
begin producing a 30-ship class of NASs at a single shipyard,
the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics. Congress
rejected the Navy's plan, directing that the NAS would not be a
serially-produced new class of nuclear attack submarines and
further directing that Newport News Shipbuilding would
participate in the future construction of such submarines.
Congress was concerned over having the NAS design serially
produced at a single shipyard since it could have led to
production of a scaled-down, less capable, version of the NAS
predecessor, the Seawolf, while precluding the consideration of
technological innovation available through the other nuclear-
capable shipyard. Moreover, because Congress was concerned with
the prospects of an unaffordable nuclear attack submarine, it
reasoned that competition between Electric Boat and Newport
News was viewed as important to controlling costs.
The results of Congress' efforts were enacted into law in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106). Section 131 of that Act replaced the
Navy's plan with one that set forth a series of four
submarines, beginning construction in each of fiscal years 1998
through 2001, which use the NAS as a baseline design and
successively incorporate new technologies. The first and third
of these submarines were to be built at Electric Boat; the
second and fourth were to be built at Newport News. The
Congressional plan stated that the best designs from each
shipyard would form the basis for serial production of the
first of a new class of next-generation submarines beginning in
2003 (amended to 2002 by the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201)). Although the Navy's
original plan also projected commencing construction of four
NASs between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2003, the Navy,
nevertheless, maintained that the Congressional plan was
unaffordable.
Notwithstanding the previously signed Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with Electric Boat and Newport News to
facilitate the competition requirements of Section 131, the
Navy's budget request for fiscal year 1998 is premised upon
having the two shipyards team to produce not only the first
four NASs, beginning construction in fiscal years 1998, 1999,
2001 and 2002 respectively, but all NASs thereafter. This
teaming arrangement, in conjunction with authorization to
initiate a proposed multiyear procurement contract for the
first four submarines, would, according to the Navy, save
$600.0 million ``over the current plan.''
The committee notes several inconsistencies between
provisions contained in the formal Team Agreement and
representations made to the committee in other documents: (1)
The Team Agreement states that, ``The Government, acting
through the Department of the Navy (``Government'') planned to
construct four NAS submarines, the first and third of which
were to be built by Electric Boat, and the second and fourth of
which were to be built by Newport News, in accordance with the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.'' The
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and
Acquisition), in a formal witness statement submitted to the
committee earlier this year stated, ``The plan the Secretary of
Defense submitted to the Congress in March of last year, for
fiscal year 1997, included funding for two of the four
submarines and concluded that it would be very difficult to
accelerate funding for the program in the context of other
modernization priorities.'' (2) The Team Agreement states that,
``Both Electric Boat and Newport News have been encouraged by
the Government to enter into a team arrangement for NAS
submarines, and the parties anticipate alterations to existing
law to accommodate the team arrangement contemplated by this
Agreement.'' In the same formal statement noted above, the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy stated that, ``In December
1996, Electric Boat and Newport News proposed to construct New
Attack Submarines as a team, rather than as competitors.'' The
committee is puzzled by such apparent contradictions and
believes they call into question the forthrightness with which
the Navy is dealing with the Congress.
Additionally, the committee notes that the Navy has
proposed legislation that would waive section 2306b (a) of
Title 10, United States Code, which enumerates those
determinations that an agency head must make as being in the
best interests of the government in order to enter into a
multiyear procurement contract, and would repeal the provisions
of the National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years
1996 and 1997, which codified the Congressional plan for next-
generation nuclear attack submarines. Based on the Navy's
request for a waiver of section 2306b (a), the committee can
only infer that authorizing a multiyear procurement in the case
of the NAS may not be in the best interests of the government.
Accordingly, the committee does not recommend approval of this
waiver. Moreover, the committee believes that the current NAS
design is the best the Navy is willing to do rather than the
best the Navy is capable of doing and, therefore, declines to
repeal the Congressional plan for production of the next-
generation submarine, as enacted into law.
The committee is pleased that the Navy has followed the
committee's direction to increase funding for advanced
submarine technologies and notes that the fiscal year 1998
request adds approximately $60.0 million to the amount
requested in fiscal year 1997 for this purpose. However, the
committee is not convinced that the Navy is committed to
maturing these advanced technologies and inserting them into
the NAS, especially into any of the first four submarines.
Although the Navy asserts there are many technology insertion
``opportunities'' on these four submarines, the committee does
not yet see evidence of a funding commitment to incorporate
more than a very few of them as they mature. Because of this
apparent shortcoming, the committee recommends a provision
(sec. 121) that would prohibit the obligation of more than 50
percent of the funds authorized and appropriated for fiscal
year 1998 for the Seawolf (SSN-23) until the Secretary of
Defense certifies that he will fully fund in the future years
defense program accompanying the fiscal year 1999 budget
request 50 percent of the procurement resources estimated to be
required for incorporation into each of the first four NASs
thetechnology ``opportunities'' available for those vessels, as briefed
to the committee by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research,
Development, and Acquisition).
The committee is aware that the initial sea trials of the
Seawolf produced some very unexpected and positive results.
Those results testify to the potential of contemporary
hydrodynamic design to both improve the performance and enhance
the affordability of the NAS. Unfortunately, the Seawolf's
hydrodynamic design is not reflected in the NAS, and the
committee believes that the results of these sea trials
demonstrate that the Congressional plan not to freeze the NAS
design has merit.
Based on the Seawolf initial sea trials, the committee
believes that the current NAS power plant might be capable of
providing performance levels beyond those demonstrated by the
Seawolf, if alternative hydrodynamic technologies are
exploited. If such is the case, then: (1) an even smaller power
plant might be used on an NAS-displacement platform to produce
planned-for NAS performance levels while simultaneously
yielding more space for additional weapons storage; or (2) a
smaller power plant might be used to provide Seawolf
performance levels on a less-than-NAS-displacement platform. In
recognition of the fact that hydrodynamic shaping and advanced
control surfaces cannot be ``inserted'' once a submarine is
built, the committee further believes the Navy should pursue a
parallel, large-scale demonstrator that is not limited by form
(hull and appendages) or by a single hull design to evaluate
the potential to achieve higher levels of performance with
either the NAS or smaller power plants. The committee is aware
of the encouraging hydrodynamic and acoustic potential
identified by a recent Electric Boat evaluation of
incorporating a double hull around a contemporary submarine and
believes this potential reinforces the benefits of constructing
such a demonstrator.
For this purpose, the committee recommends an additional
$103.0 million in research and development funds and directs
the Secretary of the Navy to issue a competitive solicitation
for the demonstrator to the shipyards not currently involved in
the design or future construction of the NAS. Furthermore, the
committee directs the Secretary to transfer funds in the future
years defense program accompanying the fiscal year 1998 budget
for the Arsenal Ship demonstrator, which the committee
recommends terminating in Title II of this report, to the
submarine large-scale demonstrator.
Nuclear aircraft carrier refueling overhauls
The budget request contained $1,615.0 million for the
refueling overhaul of the Nimitz nuclear aircraft carrier and
$92.9 million in advance procurement for overhaul of a second
carrier in fiscal year 2001.
The committee understands that the Navy will not install
the close-in weapons system on the Nimitz, as previously
planned and budgeted. Therefore, the committee recommends
$1,608.4 million, a corresponding reduction of $6.6 million.
Other Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $2,825.5 million for Other
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends
authorization of $3,073.4 million for fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Airborne mine countermeasures
The budget request contained $20.2 million for airborne
mine countermeasures, but did not include funding for Magic
Lantern.
The committee is aware of the successful Naval Reserve
operational assessment of the Magic Lantern airborne mine
detection system. The committee understands the system
demonstrated the ability to automatically detect and classify
contact mines from the surface to below the keel depth of any
U.S. warship with an unprecedented probability of detection.
The committee supports the Navy's decision to designate the
Naval Reserve as the existing operational command for the laser
airborne mine warfare mission. The committee is concerned,
however, that if the capability exists only in the one East
Coast Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System (LAMPS) squadron, as
is presently the case, the Navy will not be optimizing the use
of these very limited assets. The committee believes that, with
minor modifications, existing Magic Lantern assets could be
used to establish a capability in the West Coast LAMPS squadron
comparable to that in its East Coast counterpart. A Magic
Lantern capability in the West Coast squadron would provide for
more flexible training and, more importantly, enhance the
ability of the Reserves to draw qualified and trained personnel
from both squadrons to support contingencies for extended
periods.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.5
million for: (1) equipping the West Coast squadron with two
Magic Lantern systems; (2) procuring spares and support
equipment for the West Coast Magic Lantern systems; (3)
provisioning eight Reserve LAMPS aircraft with Magic Lantern
engineering change proposals, including miniaturized airborne
Global Positioning System receivers; and (4) converting the
Magic Lantern adaptation system to the Magic Lantern deployment
contingency configuration.
AN/BPS-16 submarine navigation radar
The budget request did not contain funding for the AN/BPS-
16 submarine navigation radar.
Consistent with its initiative over the last two years to
upgrade the navigation radar on the Los Angeles-class submarine
fleet, the committee recommends $9.0 million to initiate the
backfit of the AN/BPS-16 radar on the TRIDENT submarine fleet.
The AN/BPS-16 navigation radar redresses a severe safety and
readiness problem associated with the high failure rate of the
older BPS-15 radar. The routine failure of the older system
forces the fleet to rely on a small, pleasure boat style
commercial radar that does not meet standards for larger
vessels. Installation of the AN/BPS-16 will provide TRIDENT
submarines with significantly improved capability for safe
operations while navigating into and out of ports and
performing tactical surface operations at sea in adverse
weather conditions.
AN/SPS-73(V) surface search radar
The budget request contained $1.7 million to procure 10 AN/
SPS-73(V) surface search radars.
The AN/SPS-73(V) surface search radar is the radar
navigation system selected to replace the less-reliable AN/SPS-
55, AN/SPS-64(V), AN/SPS-67(V)1 and LN-66 radars, many of which
are over 30 years old. The AN/SPS-73(V) will replace these
different radars with one system, reducing logistics management
costs and saving approximately $42,000 per ship per year in
maintenance costs. Although the Navy's procurement objective is
550 systems, it has budgeted for only 44 systems in the future
years defense program. To accelerate the introduction of this
cost-effective system and enhance the navigation safety of the
Navy's surface ships, the committee recommends an increase of
$13.0 million for production and installation of approximately
55 more systems.
Computer aided submode training (CAST) lesson authoring system (CLASS)
The budget request contained $26.8 million for AEGIS
support equipment, but did not include any funding for CLASS to
be expanded to ships or systems other than AN/UYQ-70-equipped
AEGIS destroyers.
CLASS is a commercial-off-the-shelf training system that
operates with the Navy's existing CAST system, but adds multi-
media capabilities such as video, audio, three-dimensional
graphics, animation and interactive simulations. The committee
understands that the CLASS is fully funded beginning in fiscal
year 1999 for installation on AN/UYQ-70-equipped AEGIS
destroyers, but the Navy does not plan to backfit this system
on other AEGIS-equipped platforms or to expand it to other
systems. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of
$8.0 million for the purpose of backfitting CLASS on AEGIS
cruisers and destroyers and to expand this technology to other
systems such as cooperative engagement capability, joint
maritime command information system, and global command and
control system.
Cooperative engagement capability (CEC)
The budget request did not contain funding for CEC.
The CEC significantly improves anti-air warfare (AAW)
capability by integrating all battle group component AAW sensor
information into a single, real-time depiction that allows one
platform to target and engage a hostile air threat with
information from another. CEC distributes sensor data from any
ship or aircraft in the battle group to all others through a
real-time, line-of-sight, high-data-rate distribution network.
The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has
identified CEC as one of the top three fiscal year 1998
unfunded procurement priorities. Therefore, the committee
recommends $114.8 million to restore the Navy's CEC fielding
plan by procuring and installing CEC shipsets for two aircraft
carrier battle groups.
DD-963 combat control upgrade
The budget request contained $14.3 million for Navy
tactical data systems, but did not include funding to upgrade
DD-963 combat control systems with AN/UYQ-70 workstations and
associated peripherals.
The Spruance-class surface combatants operate with combat
control and display systems, designed thirty years ago, that
are obsolete, unreliable and expensive to maintain. Due to the
obsolescence of these computer and display systems, the Navy
must often ``cannibalize'' ships in non-deployed and overhaul
status for spare parts. Moreover, the lack of modern
technology, combined with the low reliability and frequent
maintenance of these systems, require increased shipboard
manning to keep these systems combat-ready. Accordingly, the
committee recommends $10.0 million to upgrade the computers,
consoles and associated equipment of two Spruance-class surface
ships with AN/UYQ-70 workstations and associated peripherals.
Integrated navigation, information, and ship control system
The budget request did not contain funding for the
integrated navigation, information, and ship control system.
Congress authorized and appropriated $24.0 million in
fiscal year 1997 for the procurement and installation of
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) integrated navigation,
information, and ship control systems for backfit on CG-47
class cruisers. However, the committee understands that the
Navy currently intends to use these funds to conduct a
competition for the development of a machinery control system,
notwithstanding the fact that the $24.0 million was provided
for the procurement and installation of a suite of non-
developmental ``smart ship'' systems like those installed on
the U.S.S. Yorktown. The committee strongly opposes the Navy's
intentions and directs the Secretary of the Navy to procure
COTS systems--not develop new ones--for installation on CG-47
class cruisers.
Mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES)
The budget request contained $4.9 million for weapons range
support, but did not include funding to procure MRES systems.
The MRES is a ground-based threat simulator system that
provides in-flight electronic threat training to aircrews. The
Navy currently operates outdated electronic combat simulator
systems at two fixed sites on the east coast of the United
States. The MRES system would provide both updated threat
simulation and allow this training to be conducted at other
locations. Therefore, to improve the quality and availability
of electronic combat training, the committee recommends an
increase of $9.5 million to procure two MRES systems for the
Atlantic test range component of the Naval Air Warfare Center.
Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
The budget request contained $14.1 million for fire
fighting equipment, but did not include funding to procure
oxygen breathing apparatus used for shipboard firefighting.
The committee notes that the Navy is attempting to replace
antiquated oxygen-breathing apparatus used for shipboard
firefighting with a more user-friendly and efficient system.
The committee understands that in fiscal year 1996, the Navy
successfully completed testing of a non-developmental,
commercial off-the-shelf SCBA in the fleet and, as a result,
recently directed that SCBAs be procured and installed on all
Navy ships. Given the improved performance of these systems and
their contribution to shipboard survivability, the committee
recommends an additional $23.0 million to begin outfitting the
fleet with SCBAs.
Sonobuoys
The budget request contained $54.8 million for the
procurement of AN/SSQ-36, AN/SSQ-53E, AN/SSQ-62E and Signal
Underwater Sound (SUS) sonobuoys. The budget request did not
contain any funding for the AN/SSQ-57 or the AN/SSQ-110
sonobuoys.
The Navy formerly maintained the equivalent of a five-year
stockpile of sonobuoys based on peacetime consumption rates.
However, today's inventory has been reduced to only one and
one-half to two times the annual peacetime consumption rate and
the committee understands that the level of funding contained
in the budget request will not allow the Navy to meet inventory
requirements for the execution of even one major regional
conflict. Furthermore, the committee notes that the Chief of
Naval Operations identified additional sonobuoy procurement
among the top ten unfunded procurement priorities for fiscal
year 1998. To address this inventory shortage, the committee
recommends an increase of $45.8 million. The committee expects
this increase to be distributed as follows: $1.5 million to
restore and stabilize the inventory of AN/SSQ-36s at required
levels; $23.7 million to meet AN/SSQ-53 inventory shortfalls;
$4.5 million to retrofit the current inventory of AN/SSQ-57
sonobuoys to meet changing threat acoustic signatures; $8.6
million to restore and stabilize the inventory of SSQ-62s; $5.0
million to continue to upgrade the existing inventories of the
AN/SSQ-110 with shallow-water capabilities and safety
enhancements; and $2.5 million to restore and stabilize the
inventory of the SUS sonobuoy.
Surface ship sonar windows and domes
The budget request did not contain funding for surface ship
sonar windows and domes.
In fiscal year 1996, Congress authorized and appropriated
funds to ensure that essential support services and ongoing
product improvement initiatives would continue for surface ship
sonar windows and domes. However, the committee understands
that the Department of the Navy has reprogrammed these funds
for other purposes and has jeopardized the completion of a
Navy-initiated product improvement. This product improvement
employs a structural acoustic glass-reinforced plastic-and-
rubber sandwich material system which, in tests thus far,
demonstrates superior performance, lower life-cycle costs, and
reduced manufacturing and procurement costs over the current
rubber-only system. Accordingly, the committee recommends $6.0
million to complete the ongoing product improvement initiative
for the structural acoustic sandwich material system for
surface ship sonar domes.
Surface ship torpedo defense (SSTD)
The budget request contained $344 thousand for SSTD but did
not include funding for the procurement of countermeasure
systems or acoustic devices.
The SSTD system, which consists of the AN/SLQ-25A towed
torpedo countermeasure, the AN/SLQ-25B torpedo countermeasure
set, and the launched expendable acoustic device, enhances ship
survivability against both advanced acoustic and non-acoustic
homing torpedoes. The committee understands that the current
program funds equipment for only 53 surface combatants, leaving
over 200, including aircraft carriers, unprotected. Since the
worldwide torpedo threat continues to proliferate, the
committee recommends an increase of $12.6 million to add this
capability to additional surface combatants and urges the
Secretary of the Navy to adequately fund this program in future
budget requests.
TB-23 towed array
The budget request contained $78.0 million for submarine
acoustics, of which approximately $8.0 million is for the
refurbishment and upgrade of 20 TB-23 towed arrays.
The TB-23 is one of four towed arrays employed by
submarines to passively detect other ships, thereby enhancing
their ability to determine ship activity in an area of
operations. The committee understands that the TB-29, the
newest towed array of the four, is currently undergoing a
program restructure due to the high cost of the first 10
systems and, as a result, approximately 55 TB-23s will require
refurbishment to fully outfit the Navy's attack and ballistic
missile submarine fleets. Fifteen of these 55 systems will be
refurbished with funds provided in fiscal year 1997, in
addition to the 20 in the fiscal year 1998 budget request.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0
million to refurbish and upgrade the remaining 20 TB-23s in
order to restore the towed array inventory to needed readiness
levels.
WSN-7 ring laser gyro (RLG)
The budget request contained $31.6 million for navigation
equipment, including $12.3 million for the procurement of nine
WSN-7 RLGs. The WSN-7 has been selected as the common RLG for
all surface and submarine fleets.
The committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million for
procurement and installation of 18 additional WSN-7 RLGs. This
increase would allow the Navy to significantly accelerate the
replacement of high-maintenance-cost WSN-1, WSN-2, WSN-3, and
WSN-5 ship navigation systems in the surface and submarine
fleets with theWSN-7 RLG ship navigator. According to fleet
commanders, this accelerated procurement would maximize cost savings
and improve fleet performance.
Procurement, Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request contained $374.3 million for
Procurement, Marine Corps in fiscal year 1998. The committee
recommends authorization of $442.8 million for fiscal year
1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Communications and electronics infrastructure support
The budget request contained $41.8 million for
Communications and Electronics Infrastructure Support, of which
$17.5 million was included for upgrades to base
telecommunications infrastructure.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps has designated
communications upgrades for Marine bases as the number one
unfunded priority for fiscal year 1998. These upgrades will
vastly improve the telecommunications infrastructure at Marine
Corps Air Stations (MCAS) Beaufort and Cherry Point, at Marine
Corps Base (MCB) Quantico and Marine Corps Air Ground Combat
Center (MCAGCC) Twenty Nine Palms with state-of-the-art fiber
optic voice and data technology and ensure they are fully
compatible with the digital Defense Messaging System.
Additionally, the leased telephone system at MCAS Beaufort,
which is presently at saturation level, will be replaced with a
government-owned Integrated Services Digital Network-capable
system. To support the Marine Corps' growing demands for
modeling and simulation, telemedicine, optical disk imagery
transmission and video teleconferencing, the committee
recommends an increase of $42.6 million to be allocated as
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
MCAS Beaufort..................................................... 5.4
MCAS Cherry Point................................................. 19.4
MCB Quantico...................................................... 8.8
MCAGCC Twenty Nine Palms.......................................... 9.0
Javelin
The budget request contained $42.1 million for procurement
of 194 Javelin antitank missiles and 140 command launch units.
The Javelin, which is jointly procured with the Army, is a
man-portable, fire-and-forget, antitank weapon capable of
defeating all known and projected armor threats. The committee
believes that this improved warfighting capability is necessary
for early entry Marine forces to achieve dominance on the
battlefield and, therefore, recommends an increase of $17.0
million for procurement of 186 additional missiles.
Marine enhancement program
The budget request did not contain funding for a Marine
enhancement program.
The committee recommends $10.0 million to be expended at
the discretion of the Commandant of the Marine Corps for
purposes of procuring emerging advanced technology equipment
that would increase the warfighting effectiveness of the force
or equipment that would eliminate identified deficiencies of
currently-fielded items. Thecommittee directs the Commandant to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than
March 31, 1998, that details the expenditure of these funds
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $5,817.8 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1998. The committee
recommends authorization of $6,770.9 million for fiscal year
1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
B-1 modifications
The budget request contained $114.2 million for B-1
modifications, but did not include funding to procure a digital
data link for this aircraft.
The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff's
fiscal year 1998 unfunded priority list included as the fifth
highest priority a request for funding to provide a limited
capability and to develop tactics and concepts for employment
of a digital data link on the B-1 fleet. Such a data link
allows the fighter and bomber fleets--the ``shooters''--to
receive real-time, secure, and jam-resistant targeting
information from aircraft such as the Airborne Warning and
Control System or the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack
Radar System--the ``sensors.'' This linked information improves
an aircrew's situational awareness, operational coordination
among shooter aircraft, and in-flight re-targeting of emerging
higher priority targets. It also contributes to the positive
identification of both airborne and ground forces, thereby
contributing to the elimination of friendly fire. The committee
endorses the requirement to include the B-1 on the Department's
primary data link and recommends $24.0 million to install a
stand-alone Joint Tactical Information Distribution System
terminal and display on up to six B-1 aircraft for this
purpose.
B-2
The budget request contained $174.1 million for the B-2
bomber. These funds are requested for costs associated with
additional software investment, technical orders, interim
contractor support, aircrew training devices, peculiar support
equipment, program management administration, and non-recurring
costs for curtailment of the B-2 production line.
Having held two hearings on the B-2 since the committee
concluded its fiscal year 1997 authorization deliberations, the
committee is convinced of the need to continue production of
this bomber. No less than seven former secretaries of defense
have recommended doing so, as have numerous other former senior
leaders of the Air Force and the Congress. Likewise, current
Air Force leaders privately acknowledge that they would welcome
more B-2s in the bomber inventory, except that they are
``unaffordable.'' The committee rejects this ``unaffordable''
assertion and strongly believes the United States can afford
additional B-2s.
Twenty-one B-2s does not constitute an adequate force level
to deal with the many likely contingencies and crises over the
next 30-40 years, and no other military systems in existence or
on the drawing boards can adequately substitute for the
capabilities the B-2 offers. As noted in testimony presented to
the committee by the former air component commander in the
Persian Gulf war, the B-2 is the only weapon system in the U.S.
inventory free of range, survivability, and lethality
limitations, and, as such, could well be the nation's only
practical option for quickly projecting truly decisive power in
future regional crises.
On April 1, 1997, the B-2 reached its initial operational
capability milestone. According to a statement issued by the
commander of the Air Force's Air Combat Command, ``This is a
significant milestone in ensuring the future of national
defense. The combination of low observability, large payload
capacity, bombing accuracy, and long range gives America a
unique, unprecedented military capability. This combination
allows the B-2 to penetrate sophisticated defenses and threaten
an enemy's war-making capability. It gives the United States
the capability to project power to any part of the globe within
a matter of hours and deliver combat power with precision in
support of warfighting commands.'' The committee agrees that
the B-2's combination of range, payload, precision weapons
delivery, and stealth make it uniquely capable of independently
responding quickly and decisively from secure U.S. bases to
future contingencies anywhere in the world--and thus justify
its continued production. Accordingly, the committee recommends
an additional $331.2 million for the B-2. This amount
represents an increase of $353.0 million to initiate the
eventual procurement of an additional nine B-2s coupled with a
decrease of $21.8 million, which was requested for production
curtailment costs. Of the $353.0 million added, $281.0 million
is for reestablishment of those elements of the production line
that have been previously laid away and $52.0 million is for
advance procurement.
C-130J
The budget request contained $49.9 million for one C-130J
aircraft. No funds were requested for advance procurement of C-
130Js and no funds were requested for the Marine Corps tankers.
The committee recommends an increase of $522.6 million for
nine additional aircraft. Three of these are to be configured
as tankers for the Marine Corps and six are for Air National
Guard units, including one EC-130J variant.
F-16 digital terrain system (DTS)
The budget request did not contain funding for the F-16
DTS. The DTS provides ground collision avoidance information to
pilots, thereby contributing to safer aircraft operations at
night and in low visibility.
The committee understands that the DTS, which is currently
in production to upgrade the F-16s owned by Norway, Denmark,
the Netherlands, Belgium, and Taiwan has completed flight
certification and been declared fully certified for use on Air
Force F-16s. The committee further understands that the Air
Force plans to purchase DTSs to equip its active, Guard, and
Reserve F-16 fleets beginning in fiscal year 1999 and is in the
process of modifying the F-16's operational flight program to
accommodate the DTS integration. In order to initiate
procurement of the F-16 DTS in fiscal year 1998, the committee
recommends an additional $20.0 million.
Global air traffic management (GATM)
The budget request contained $20.6 million for the GATM
upgrades.
The committee is aware that the world is experiencing a
tremendous growth in air traffic that has necessitated a
significant change in the manner by which both commercial and
military aircraft will be controlled and managed in the future.
To handle this expected increase, a new management system,
approved by the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO), is being designed to reduce the distance required
between transiting aircraft and to allow pilots more freedom in
selecting their routes and altitudes.
Implementation of this new system, however, requires new or
upgraded equipment for communications, global navigation,
flight management, and collision avoidance. The committee
understands the Air Force has already undertaken steps to
ensure that future aircraft will include this equipment.
However, the problem lies with upgrading aircraft currently in
the fleet, especially airlift and tanker aircraft. Since the
specific ICAO requirements have only recently been published,
the Air Force was unable to include funding in the fiscal year
1998 budget request for much of the equipment it needs to begin
modifying existing aircraft to meet these requirements. In
fact, the Air Force Chief of Staff has advised the committee
that GATM equipment is the second highest priority for
additional funding. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
additional $67.7 million to procure GATM equipment.
H-1 modifications
The budget request contained $2.8 million for UH-1
modifications, but none of these funds were for inclusion of an
oil debris detection system (ODDS) as part of an upgrade to the
aircraft's engine diagnostic system.
As noted elsewhere in this report, the ODDS modification,
which has been incorporated on all Army UH-1s, alerts aircrews
of debris in engine and propeller gear boxes, thereby allowing
flights to be terminated prior to a catastrophic engine
failure. It also clears particles that routinely accumulate in
engine oil and cause false impending engine failure alarms,
resulting in unnecessary termination of aircraft missions as
well as unnecessary and costly engine diagnostics.
Consequently, the ODDS not only enhances aircrew safety and but
also reduces operating and support costs. The committee is
impressed by the results of the ODDS installation on Army UH-1s
and recommends an increase of $800,000 for the installation of
this system on the Air Force UH-1 fleet.
Joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS)
The budget request contained $65.4 million for JPATS,
including 18 T-6A aircraft and associated ground-based training
equipment.
The JPATS, consisting of both the T-6A aircraft and a
ground-based training system, will be used by both the Air
Force and the Navy for primary pilot training. The T-6A will
replace both the Air Force's T-37B and the Navy's T-34C fleets,
providing safer, more economical and more effective training
for future student pilots.
The Air Force began procurement of the T-6A in fiscal year
1995, and the Navy plans to begin procurement in fiscal year
2000. The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff
included the acquisition of additional T-6As in his list of
unfunded priorities for fiscal year 1998. Accordingly, the
committee recommends an increase of$12.2 million for four
additional aircraft. The committee understands that this action will
reduce the fiscal year 1998 unit cost by $100,000 per aircraft and
contribute to the accelerated reduction of Air Force primary pilot
training direct operating costs, since the T-6A is approximately 30
percent less expensive to operate than the T-37B.
Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
The budget request contained $116.5 million for 15 Predator
UAVs.
The Predator was acquired as an advanced concept technology
demonstration (ACTD) program in response to an urgent
requirement identified by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in
1993 and is the first ACTD to make the transition to a
production program. The committee is aware of the success of
the Predator in a number of continental United States
exercises, as well as two operational deployments to Bosnia,
and supports the full number of systems validated by the JCS.
However, the committee notes that the request does not include
funds needed for attrition aircraft or for spares and,
therefore, recommends $30.0 million for these purposes.
RC-135
The budget request did not contain funding for re-engining
RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft.
The committee notes that $145.0 million was authorized to
re-engine six RC-135 aircraft in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-106).
The committee remains convinced the RC-135 will continue to be
the workhorse of the manned special reconnaissance fleet well
into the 21st century and is disappointed that, despite
previous assurances to the contrary, continuation of this
effort remains unfunded in the fiscal year 1998 budget.
Nevertheless, the committee is persuaded by the General
Accounting Office's analysis of the re-engining program, which
concluded that the Department can expect to realize savings of
over $1.5 billion with new engines compared to operating and
maintaining the current TF-33 engines on these aircraft.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $52.0
million to re-engine two RC-135 aircraft.
Senior Year Electro-Optical System (SYERS)
The budget request contained $141.5 million for continued
procurement of spares and repair parts for the U-2 aircraft and
sensors. Because the U-2 SYERS imagery satisfies a large
percentage of theater commanders' imagery requirements, the
committee is committed to ensuring the availability of this
aircraft and the viability of its sensors. The committee
understands that the request does not adequately fund either
upgrades to existing components of or required additional spare
parts for SYERS. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million for these purposes.
Congress initiated and sustained for several years an
upgrade to the SYERS imaging sensor which among other things
would allow it to be carried in the ``Q-bay'' of the U-2, such
that a radar sensor and the SYERS electro-optical sensor could
be flown simultaneously. This initiative appeared to Congress
to be well worth the small investment in SYERS, since in
wartime this dual capability could free another U-2 aircraft to
fly other missions.
The committee has now learned that the aircraft fuselage
may have to be modified in order to carry SYERS in the Q-bay.
Specifically, a ``canoe'' would have to be added to allow the
camera to image beyond 45 degrees. In view of this fact, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a
report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees
by March 15, 1998, on the need and the costs to design and
procure the number of ``canoes'' necessary to allow SYERS and a
radar sensor to flown simultaneously.
Theater Airborne Warning System (TAWS)
The budget request contained $67.1 million for defense
airborne reconnaissance program modifications, but did not
contain funding for TAWS, a medium-wave infrared (MWIR) sensor
system capable of detecting and calculating the launch points
of tactical ballistic missiles. TAWS is currently deployed on
the Cobra Ball RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft.
In the statement of the managers accompanying the
conference report on H.R. 3230 (H. Rept. 104-724), the
conferees urged the Air Force to proceed with a program to
install TAWS on the Rivet Joint RC-135 aircraft, which is
available in greater numbers than the Cobra Ball. Such a
program would provide an option for early deployment of TAWS in
support of improved theater ballistic missile defenses.
However, the Department has opted instead to install this
capability on the Airborne Laser (ABL).
The committee understands that the ABL is not scheduled to
reach initial operational capability until 2003. The long
intervening period during which TAWS would remain only on the
very few Cobra Ball aircraft would not meet the near-term need
for a theater ballistic missile analysis and warning
capability. Furthermore, the Air Force plans to acquire no more
than seven ABL aircraft, a force structure too small to assure
that TAWS would be available when and where needed.
The committee believes this important mission is best
satisfied by a reconnaissance aircraft. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to migrate
the MWIR TAWS technology from the Cobra Ball RC-135 to the
Rivet Joint RC-135 to enhance near-term deployment flexibility.
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $404.0 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1998. The committee
recommends authorization of $437.0 million for fiscal year
1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $2,557.7 million for Missile
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal Year 1998. The committee
recommends authorization of $2,389.2 million for fiscal year
1998.
The Committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
AGM-65 maverick modifications
The budget request did not contain funding for AGM-65
modifications.
The committee understands that 12,000 early-generation
models of this anti-tank weapon are approaching 20 years
service life and require upgrading to further extend their
longevity, particularly since the Maverick has been identified
as a weapon to be employed by the Joint Strike Fighter. To
alleviate this problem, the Air Force has completed the
development of a reliability and maintainability upgrade to
these missiles, but the committee further understands that
funds to begin production of the upgrade are not anticipated
until fiscal year 1999 or later. The committee is aware that
the gap between the completion of testing and the beginning of
production could significantly increase the cost of the
upgrade, as well as unacceptably delay its fielding. Therefore,
the committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million to
eliminate any such gap with low-rate production and to ensure a
smooth transition to full-rate production, which the committee
assumes will occur in fiscal year 1999.
AGM-130
The budget request contained $1.5 million for AGM-130
management administration and contractor support, but did not
include funding to procure additional AGM-130 missiles.
The AGM-130 is a precision-guided air-to-surface missile
employed on the F-15E aircraft to strike targets from outside
point defense ranges and is the F-15E's only 2,000-pound class
weapon with this capability. The committee is aware that both
the Department's Heavy Bomber Force Study and a separate study
conducted by the Defense Science Board recommended that the Air
Force retain 1,000 AGM-130 missiles in its inventory. In view
of this fact, and to address the unfunded requirement
identified by the Air Force Chief of Staff, the committee
recommended an increase of $95.0 million in fiscal year 1997
for an additional 250 missiles. Recognizing that the
requirement for the AGM-130 still exceeds the number of
missiles funded in prior years by over 200, the committee
recommends an increase of $41.0 million for an additional 100
missiles.
Medium launch vehicle (MLV)
The budget request contained $165.8 million for the MLV
program.
The Air Force has identified $14.8 million in excess prior
year funds in this program resulting from lower-than-expected
cost growth and launch failure recovery activities that are no
longer required. Of this total, $5.0 million was recommended
for rescission in H.R. 1469, the Fiscal Year 1997 Supplemental
Appropriations Act. The committee notes that the remaining
balance of these excess funds are available to meet fiscal year
1998 MLV requirements and, consequently, recommends $156.0
million, a $9.8 million reduction.
Titan space boosters
The budget request contained $555.3 million for Titan IV
boosters and related equipment and launch support activities.
The Air Force has identified $204.0 million in excess prior
year funds in the Titan program. Of this total, $122.0 million
was recommended for rescission in H.R. 1469, the Fiscal Year
1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. The committee
notes that the remaining balance of these excess funds are
available to meet fiscal year 1998 Titan IV requirements.
Consequently, the committee recommends $473.3 million, a
decrease of $82.0 million.
Other Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $6,561.3 million for Other
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 1998. The committee
recommends authorization of $6,574.1 million for fiscal year
1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Air Force satellite control network (AFSCN)
The budget request contained $32.2 million for the AFSCN.
The committee understands that $9.0 million was authorized
and appropriated in fiscal year 1997 for an AFSCN hardware
purchase to support a classified program. The committee has
been informed, however, that the Air Force canceled this
hardware purchase because of a delay in the classified program
and a resulting shift in plans to support it. The committee
notes that the funds for this purchase are now available to
meet fiscal year 1998 AFSCN requirements and recommends $23.2
million, a reduction of $9.0 million.
Automated surface observation system (ASOS)
The budget request contained $18.0 million for weather
observation/forecast equipment but did not include funding for
ASOS. ASOS is the only federally-sanctioned automated weather
observation system and is being procured by the Federal
Aviation Administration, the National Weather Service, and all
of the military services.
The committee understands that the Navy and Marine Corps
have funded their planned systems but that there are unfunded
requirements for a stand-alone ASOS at both Air Force and Army
air combat training ranges. The committee believes that
accurate and timely weather information is a matter of pilot
safety and recommends an increase of $4.0 million to purchase
20 ASOSs for these ranges. The committee further recommends
that the Air Force, as executive agent for this system,
identify the total remaining requirements for both services and
fund these requirements in the future years defense program.
Joint situational awareness system (JSAS)
The budget request did not contain funding for the JSAS.
The committee is aware of the significant progress made by
the Air Force in providing theater-wide situational awareness
to joint task force commanders through the JSAS. The JSAS has
proven to be a highly-effective, low-cost, real-time, user-
friendly intelligence fusion system and represents a building
block for greatly expanded capabilities. The committee believes
the Air Force should pursue integrating the JSAS into the
Global Command and Control System and recommends an additional
$6.3 million for this purpose.
Radio equipment
The budget request contained $12.8 million to procure new
and upgrade existing Air Force radio equipment, including $12.2
million to replace and upgrade high frequency (HF) radio
communications systems with commercial-off-the-shelf equipment
at 14 locations worldwide, a program known as Scope Command.
The committee is pleased with the progress of the Scope
Command program and notes that there is an opportunity to
capitalize on this investment with the forthcoming
implementation of the Global Air Traffic Management (GATM)
system, discussed elsewhere in this report. The committee
understands that GATM implementation will place renewed
emphasis on HF communications to satisfy requirements for
maintaining beyond-line-of-sight contact with aircraft, and,
therefore, recommends an increase of $6.5 million to cost-
effectively augment the ongoing Scope Command equipment upgrade
to meet these requirements.
Tactical signals intelligence support
The budget request contained $4.1 million for tactical
signals intelligence support.
The committee fully supports the Department of Defense's
efforts to coordinate intelligence data broadcasts to the
warfighters and recommends an increase of $5.0 million to
accelerate the procurement of hardware and software to fully
implement the Integrated Broadcast Service technical/
operational architecture.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request contained $1,695.1 million for
Procurement, Defense-Wide in fiscal year 1998. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,837.0 million for fiscal year
1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
All-torso body armor
The committee notes that the extraordinary effectiveness of
modern all-torso body armor was demonstrated during Operation
Provide Hope in Somalia when a group of 98 all-torso body
armor-equipped Army Rangers surrounded by a much larger number
of Somali militiamen took extremely heavy fire for many hours,
involving direct hits on 78 to 80 percent of its personnel, and
yet withdrew as a thoroughly combat-capable unit. The committee
understands that some Rangers took as many as three hits on
their all-torso body armor yet remained combat-effective,
although essentially all of these hits were subsequently judged
to likely have been fatal or disabling had the armor not been
worn. It is unlikely that few, if any, Rangers in this
firefight would have survived, if a large fraction of them had
not remained combat-capable due to the effectiveness of their
body armor.
Subsequent Army studies and analyses indicate that more
than 50 percent of all life-threatening wounds sustained in
combat such as this firefight would be prevented by the use of
such armor. Not unimportantly, these analyses indicate that the
costs of procuring and employing such modern high-technology
body armor are a small fraction of combat-related medical costs
which would be avoided by use of this armor. Moreover, morale
gains by infantrymen due to the combat effectiveness of body
armor may also be expected to be a significant force-
multiplier.
For the above reasons, the committee recommends an increase
of $30.0 million to procure state-of-the-art all-torso body
armor of the quality to stop most shrapnel and small arms fire
for Army, Marine Corps, and special forces infantrymen.
Automated document conversion system (ADCS)
The budget request did not contain funding for the ADCS.
The committee notes that for the past five years the
Department has conducted extensive testing of an ADCS and
concluded that significant cost savings can be achieved by, for
example, converting hard copy complex engineering drawings to
an electronic format. These tests have also proven the
flexibility of this system for converting electrical system
schematics and contour maps as well. The committee understands
that the latest document conversion test disclosed that the
average savings of ADCS compared to computer-aided redrawing is
50 percent and compared to hand-drawn work is 70 percent.
Consequently, as it has for each of the past two fiscal years,
the committee strongly supports the ADCS program and recommends
$30.0 million for continued purchase of ADCS software.
Information systems security
The budget request contained $19.6 million for information
systems security.
As a result of its hearing on information warfare, where
for the first time all of the Department of Defense's corporate
information officers were present in one forum, thecommittee
was pleased to learn that the global threat of information warfare is
an issue which the Department has taken extremely seriously. However,
the committee is concerned that the number of attempted intrusions into
the Department's unclassified networks has been occurring with
increasing frequency. While the Department is meeting the challenge
with a well-organized system to protect against would-be intruders,
detect those who attempt to intrude, and react to those that do
intrude, the committee is convinced that much more needs to be done,
especially at the worldwide locations of the theater Commanders-in-
Chief (CINCs). Although the committee recognizes that there are plans
to fully secure the CINCs' information links, it believes that these
plans require expediting. Consequently, the committee recommends an
increase of $50.0 million to implement network intrusion devices,
firewalls, multi-level security assurance guards and other equipment in
order to ensure the secure operation of these links as soon as it is
possible to do so.
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Overview
The budget request did not contain funding for National
Guard and Reserve Equipment for fiscal year 1998. The committee
recommends authorization of $700.4 million for fiscal year
1998.
Items of Special Interest
AC-130 gunship
The committee has reviewed the Department of Defense's AC-
130 gunship requirements study and believes the operational
shortfalls identified are valid. The committee requests the
Department provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by March 31, 1998 on the potential cost
effectiveness of using the Air National Guard to meet this
shortfall.
Army force wide digitization
The committee notes that the recently-concluded Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) findings included unqualified support for
the Army's Force XXI digitization efforts and that the digital
attack or armed scout helicopters will perform an important
``quarterback'' function in that battlefield scenario. The
committee concurs with this analysis. Indeed, the committee
recommends a total of $715.3 million for both AH-64 Longbow
Apache digital attack and OH-58D Kiowa Warrior armed scout
helicopters elsewhere in this report.
Nevertheless, the committee is concerned that plans to
replace AH-1 Cobras in the Army National Guard (ARNG) may not
be adequately synchronized with Army-wide digitization plans.
This may be due to the fact that the Army Aviation Plan has not
been updated since the completion of the QDR.
Accordingly, the committee expects the Secretary of the
Army and the Director of ARNG Bureau to review and align AH-1
Cobra replacement plans for the ARNG consistent with the QDR
findings as they apply to the Army's digitized battlefield. The
committee also expects the fiscal year 1999 budget request to
reflect the results of this review as appropriate.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
Overview
The budget request contained $620.7 million for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense for fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends authorization of $610.7 million for
fiscal year 1998.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Chemical agents and munitions destruction
The budget request contained $620.7 million for the defense
chemical agents and munitions destruction program, including
$472.2 million for operations and maintenance, $66.3 million
for research and development, and $82.2 million for
procurement.
Section 152 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), directed the Secretary
of Defense to conduct an assessment of the chemical stockpile
disposal program and to consider measures that could be taken
to reduce program costs, while continuing to ensure maximum
protection of the public and the environment. The results of
the assessment were to be reported to the Congress with the
submission of the fiscal year 1998 budget request. Section 142
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(Public Law 104-201) further required that the Secretary of
Defense conduct an assessment of alternative demilitarization
technologies (other than incineration) that could be used for
destruction of the chemical stockpile and report the results of
this assessment to the Congress by December 31, 1997. Section
8065 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (Public Law 104-208) directed that the Under
Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) conduct a
pilot program to identify and demonstrate not less than two
alternatives to the baseline incineration process and appoint a
program manager for these activities who would report directly
to him.
Based upon the results of a hearing which addressed all of
the aforementioned concerns, the committee affirms its
previously-held views that the risks of continued storage of
the chemical weapons stockpile exceed those associated with
demilitarization operations. Therefore, the committee believes
that the demilitarization program should proceed expeditiously
with the current baseline incineration program until such time
as the evaluation of alternative technologies for destruction
of the stockpile is concluded. The committee also notes that
continued delays in the program will lead to further cost
increases.
However, the committee also agrees with the Department's
decision to further develop chemical neutralization
technologies for destruction of agents at the bulk-only
chemical storage sites and with its plan for assessing the
feasibility of alternative technologies for potential use at
other chemical stockpile storage sites. The committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to report to the Congress by December
31, 1997, the status of that assessment and its potential
impact on the costs and schedule for completion of destruction
operations at the Pueblo and Lexington-Blue Grass storage
sites.
Of the $63.3 million requested for research and development
activities, $40.8 million is for the non-stockpile chemical
materiel project. The committee notes that the project is to be
completed in the third quarter of fiscal year 2002, and
believes that this represents too aggressive a schedule in view
of the overall uncertainties surrounding the project. The
committee expects that more time will be needed for the Army to
prove that the proposed disposal systems will safely and
effectively destroy all non-stockpile materiel and will be
accepted by the affected states and communities. Accordingly,
thecommittee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million for non-
stockpile chemical materiel research and development.
Defense Export Loan Guarantees
Overview
The budget request contained $1.2 million for Defense
Export Loan Guarantees, Defense for fiscal year 1998. The
committee recommends authorization of $1.2 million for fiscal
year 1998.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sections 101-108--Authorization of Appropriations
These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year
1998 funding levels for all procurement accounts.
Section 121--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for the Seawolf
Submarine Program
This section would prohibit the obligation of more than 50
percent of the funds authorized and appropriated for the
Seawolf Submarine until the Secretary of the Navy certifies
that he would fully fund in the future years defense program
accompanying the fiscal year 1999 budget request 50 percent of
the resources estimated to be required for incorporation into
each of the first four New Attack Submarines of the technology
``opportunities'' available for those vessels, such
``opportunities'' being those presented to the committee in
testimony by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research,
Development, and Acquisition).
Section 122--Report on Annual Budget Submission Regarding the Reserve
Components
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit an annual report to Congress that describes the measures
taken within the Department to ensure that the reserve
components are appropriately funded and lists the major weapons
and items of equipment provided for these components. The
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to display
in all future years defense program updates the amounts
programmed for the procurement of equipment for the reserve
components.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $35,934.5 million for
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E),
representing a $658.9 million decrease from the amount
authorized for fiscal year 1997.
The committee recommends authorization of $37,273.7
million, an increase of $1,339.2 million from the fiscal year
1998 request.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1998
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major issues
are discussed following the table.
Army RDT&E
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 1998 contained $4,510.8
million for Army RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization
of $4,752.9 million, a increase of $242.1 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1998 Army
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Army request are discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced field artillery tactical data system
The budget request contained $39.0 million for the advanced
field artillery tactical data system (AFATDS). The committee
supports this vital fire control automation to digitally
integrate command and control of artillery fire support and
understands that additional funding is needed to complete
software development and prevent delay in fielding this system.
The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE
23726A.
All source analysis system
The budget request contained $24.0 million for engineering
development of the all source analysis system (ASAS). The
committee notes that the ASAS is a critical Army tactical
intelligence fusion effort essential to the success of the
Army's Force XXI digitization initiative, and recommends an
additional $3.5 million in PE 64321A to support the software
upgrade program for ASAS.
Armament enhancement initiative
The budget request contained $40.3 million in PE 63639A for
the armament enhancement initiative (AEI). The committee
understands that the tank extended range munition-kinetic
energy (TERM-KE) offers the potential of significantly improved
offensive capability for the M-1 tank main armament system. The
committee recommends $60.3 million for AEI, an increase of
$20.0 million, to accelerate development of the TERM-KE.
Army tactical missile system
The budget request contained $1.3 million in PE 23802A for
other missile product improvement programs. While the Army
tactical missile system (ATACMS) is identified as a high
priority modernization program for precision strike capability,
no funds were included in the request for missile improvements.
However, due to recent program restructuring, additional
funding is required to complete the ATACMS block upgrade
program. The committee supports the ATACMS program and
recommends $3.2 million for ATACMS product improvement.
Aviation advanced technology
The budget request contained $7.1 million in PE 63801A for
aviation advanced technology. The committee understands that
the Army is exploring retinal display technology, a new
development which revolutionizes the manner in which aircraft
cockpit displays can be presented to military aircraft crews.
Specifically, retinal display technology uses the human retina
as the focal plane for images beamed into the eye, creating a
high fidelity, full color image directly on the human visual
system. Utilization of this technology would enable major
improvements in aircraft cockpit design. The committee
recommends $12.1 million, an increaseof $5.0 million for
further development and integration of retinal display technology into
the Army's aircrew integrated common helmet.
Aviation advanced technology development
The budget request contained $6.6 million for aircraft
demonstration engines in PE 63003A. The committee is informed
of the potential benefits of scramjet technology for future
advanced missiles and recommends an increase of $8.0 million to
develop this capability.
Ballistics technology
The budget request contained $33.3 million for ballistics
technology in PE 62618A. The committee understands that liquid
propellant technology offers a significant increase in
capability for future artillery systems, and that additional
funding is needed to support completion of the liquid
propellant armament technology maturation program. The
committee is also aware that the Army has placed a high
priority on development of electric armament technology for the
future tank and supports efforts to resolve fundamental issues
including power generation and switching.
The committee recommends $38.3 million for PE 62618A, an
increase of $5.0 million for liquid propellant armament
technology.
Battlefield Combat Identification System (BCIS)
The budget request contained $14.8 million for combat
identification development. The committee continues to support
the development of a battlefield combat identification system
as a means of preventing friendly fire casualties. Recent
advanced warfighting experiments have demonstrated the benefits
of and requirement for better battlefield situation awareness.
The committee supports the budget request of $14.8 million
and urges the Secretary of the Army to maintain the high
priority placed on development and procurement of a battlefield
combat identification system and to ensure requested BCIS
funding is used only to support that initiative.
CH-47 improved cargo helicopter
The budget request contained $2.6 million for aircraft
modifications/product improvement programs in PE 23744A. The
Chinook CH-47 helicopter is the Army's only heavy lift cargo
helicopter. The committee notes that there is no program in the
Army modernization plan for a new replacement helicopter and,
therefore, strongly recommends that the Army continue the
improved cargo helicopter (ICH) program which will provide
essential upgrades and extend the Chinook service life by
twenty years. The proposed modifications are projected to
reduce Chinook operating and sustainment costs by more than 22
percent. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million
for the CH-47 ICH program.
Comanche
The budget request contained $282.0 million in PE 64223A
for continued development of the Comanche helicopter.
The committee notes that Comanche development began in 1982
with the first planned initial operational capability (IOC)
scheduled for 1994. The Department's most recent selected
acquisition report (SAR) indicates that the planned date to
begin engineering manufacturing development has been delayed to
the end of fiscal year 2001, with the soonest possible IOC
being December, 2007. While Comanche is reported to be one of
the Army's highest priority programs, it is currently
identified by the Army Chief of Staff as under-funded, calling
into question the actual importance of Comanche to Army
modernization.
Results of recent warfighting experiments at the national
training center strongly support the requirement for a modern
armed reconnaissance helicopter in the digital battlefield. The
committee supports the planned testing and engine development
including production of a second Comanche prototype which will
allow a robust demonstration and validation program and
therefore recommends $322.0 million, an increase of $40.0
million to accelerate the second prototype Comanche.
Combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology
The budget request contained $32.7 million for combat
vehicle and automotive advanced technology. The committee is
impressed by the advances reflected in the composite armored
vehicle advanced technology demonstration and recommends an
increase of $3.0 million in PE 63005A, including $2.0 million
for the composite experience base program to strengthen
materials initiatives, and $1.0 million to support the electric
drive for survivability initiative.
Combat vehicle and automotive technology
The budget request contained $33.1 million in PE 62601A for
combat vehicle and automotive technology. The committee
understands that a number of combat vehicles are now carrying
additional equipment weight which requires engines of greater
horsepower density to maintain or improve combat performance.
The high output diesel engine (HODE) would offer the potential
of significant increases in horsepower for combat vehicles. The
committee recommends an additional $1.0 million to support HODE
testing by the Army's National Automotive Center (NAC).
The budget request also contained $12.4 million for
advanced automotive technology within PE 62601A. The committee
notes that the program funding for fiscal year 1998 was
projected last year to be $8.4 million, but was increased by
$4.0 million to fund the advanced automotive technology
necessary to support the National Automotive Center's
Technology Demonstration III. The committee also recommends an
additional $3.0 million to continue testing of commercial
technologies critical to new vehicle development and vehicle
upgrades, in the NAC's Technology Demonstration III program.
The committee understands that new alternatives to common
vehicle propulsion technology are being developed by the public
and private sector that offer significant benefits to the
military, such as reduced pollution, lower operating cost, and
noise reduction. The committee supports a unified effort to be
administered by the NAC to assess and develop promising
alternative vehicle propulsion technologies such as natural
gas, fuel cell power plant,electric drive, and other propulsion
innovations and improvements, and recommends an increase of $7.0
million for a joint effort using academic, industry and government
resources to develop alternative propulsion.
The committee recommends $44.1 million for combat vehicle
and automotive technology in PE 62601A, an increase of $11.0
million.
Combat vehicle improvement programs
The budget request contained $136.5 million for ground
combat vehicles horizontal technology integration within PE
23735A. Field emission flat panel display technology is of
increasing importance as the Army incorporates digitization
technology into its fleet of vehicles. The committee strongly
supports development of this important technology and
recommends an additional $2.0 million to integrate these
displays into the Abrams tank. The committee also recommends an
increase of $8.0 million to continue development of the AN/VVR-
1 Laser Warning Receiver.
The committee is aware of the successful development of
Linebacker slew-to-cue technology and recommends an additional
$10.1 million to complete development and integration of this
capability into the Bradley vehicle. The committee recommends
$156.6 million for combat vehicle improvement programs, an
increase of $20.1 million.
Countermine technology development and demonstration program
The budget request contained $8.7 million in PE 62712A,
$10.6 million in PE 63606A, and $15.1 million in PE 63619A for
countermine technology.
The committee is pleased with the increased emphasis that
the Department has placed on the countermine program and with
the Department's response to direction from the committee
contained in the committee report on H.R. 3230 (H. Rept. 104-
563). The committee notes the Department's March 1997 report
``Unexploded Ordnance Clearance: A Coordinated Approach to
Requirements and Technology Development,'' and the Department's
progress in establishing a requirements-driven research and
development program for unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance
technology that is designed to coordinate and leverage
technology advances in the areas of countermine, explosive
ordnance disposal, humanitarian demining, active range
clearance, and UXO environmental remediation. The Department's
report addresses a total of $174.6 million contained with in
the budget request for technology development to support UXO
clearance, including $141.7 million for development of
countermine technology, $7.5 million for explosive ordnance
disposal, $17.7 million for humanitarian demining, $1.0 million
for active range clearance, and $4.3 million for environmental
UXO remediation. This represents an increase of $44.1 million
above that provided for the countermine program in fiscal year
1997.
The committee is encouraged by measures the Department is
taking to ensure focused oversight of operational requirements
and coordination of the development of countermine and other
UXO clearance technology and also notes the creation of the UXO
Center of Excellence, a joint service activity which will
coordinate technology activities in the five UXO clearance
mission areas and provide a clearing house for UXO technology
and information with industry, academia, other government
agencies, and U.S. international partners.
The committee recognizes that there are many areas of
commonality, but also significant differences among the UXO
clearance mission areas. The committee also recognizes that no
single ``Silver Bullet'' technology exists that is likely to
solve the UXO clearance problem and that a UXO clearance
``system of systems'' which makes use of a range of
technologies will be required. The committee strongly urges the
Department to continue a robust countermine and other UXO
clearance research and development program which investigates,
demonstrates, and evaluates emerging technologies and continues
the development and fielding of those that show promise for
improving countermine and other UXO clearance capabilities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of a total of
$11.0 million for the development of countermine technology,
including $3.0 million in PE 62712A, $5.0 million in PE 63606A,
and $3.0 million in PE 63619A. The committee directs that the
Secretary of Defense provide to the Congressional defense
committees an updated report on the development and fielding of
UXO clearance technology with the submission of the Fiscal Year
2000 budget request.
Electromechanics and hypervelocity physics
The budget request contained $45.6 million in PE 61104A for
Army university and industry research centers. The committee
recommends an increase of $1.9 million in the program for basic
research in electromechanics and hypervelocity physics.
Electronics and electronics devices
The budget request contained $20.2 million for electronics
and electronic devices, of which $2.2 million was for battery/
individual power technologies within PE 62705A. Battery
technology is increasingly important as the armed forces shift
to digital technology. Continued innovation is necessary to
provide more affordable power sources which will also be more
portable, reusable and more efficient in order to meet the
increasing power demands of new weapons systems and equipment.
The committee strongly supports development of technologies
such as advanced high-energy battery systems, low cost reusable
and no-lead added alkaline cells and recommends that the
Secretary of the Army continue these efforts.
Up to 50 percent of the backpack weight carried by forward-
deployed Army and special forces troops is comprised of
electrical batteries to power the increasing number of
electronic weapons and communication systems. No lightweight
field battery recharging capability presently exists to enable
the reuse of power sources to minimize the amount of batteries
that must be carried to the field. The resultant additional
weight in batteries thereby limits other essentials for field
operations, such as food, weapons, ammunition and supplies.
The committee is aware of research efforts sponsored by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for the development
of the PEP-100, a standard-combustion fuel-driven, man-portable
thermophotovoltaic generator (TPV). TPV technology has
demonstrated that it can provide up to 110 watts of power, and,
if proven feasible, may supply a 12-man, 12-day patrol with a
portable, quiet, low thermal signature electrical power
generator.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for
further development and testing of a TPV generator to provide
soldiers and special forces with a much-needed field battery
recharging capability. The committee also recommends an
additional $3.0 million for development of improved
manufacturing technology.
The committee recommends $28.2 million, an increase of $8.0
million.
Environmental quality technology
The budget request contained $17.5 million for
environmental quality technology within PE 62720A. The
committee notes that no funding is specifically identified to
continue the development of computer models to remediate
training areas, or to continue support of the Radford
Environmental Development and Management Program (REDMAP). The
committee strongly supports these initiatives to enhance
environmental quality and directs the Secretary of the Army to
ensure that these efforts are adequately supported within the
funding authorized for environmental quality technology
research.
The committee also supports continuation of the joint
effort of the U.S. Army Environmental Center and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to demonstrate the efficacy and cost
effectiveness of agriculturally based bioremediation to restore
contaminated military and civilian sites in geographically
isolated Pacific island ecosystems. In particular, the
committee supports demonstration of phytoremediation,
composting, wetlands, and other agriculturally based
technologies to restore lands and related resources and
recommends that an increase of $4.0 million to continue the
existing Bioremediation Education Science and Technology
program.
Additionally, the committee recommends an increase of $4.9
million for the continued development of a computer-based land
management model to reduce time and costs for training area
recovery.
Family of heavy tactical vehicles
The budget request contained no funding for engineering and
manufacturing development for the family of heavy tactical
vehicles (HTV). The committee understands that safety systems
are being developed to protect HTV crew members from accidents
involving impacts and rollovers. The committee recommends $1.3
million to develop enhanced safety products for HTVs.
Force XXI architecture
The budget request contained $11.1 million for command,
control, and communications systems engineering development in
PE 64805A. The committee is aware of the Army emphasis on
digitization for Force XXI and the high priority of its
architecture development. The committee supports acceleration
of the Army's highest priority unfunded requirement, and
recommends an increase of $5.0 million.
Healthcare information protection demonstration
The budget request contained $9.6 million in PE 33140A for
the Army's information systems security program.
The committee understands that the use of advanced
information and communication technology, which provides the
ability to transfer patient information and medical histories
among military and civilian health care providers, raises
significant issues relative to the need to maintain the
security and privacy of healthcare data for military personnel
who may receive treatment in civilian and military healthcare
facilities. The committee believes there is a need to establish
an integrated and focused program for the development and
demonstration of healthcare information security systems which
would address these issues. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.5 million in PE 33140A to initiate a
demonstration program for military healthcare information
protection that would be consistent with national healthcare
and information protection initiatives. The committee directs
the Secretary of the Army to report to the Congressional
defense committees the program development plan, plan for
evaluation of the demonstration, and funding requirements for
the program with the submission of the fiscal year 1999 Defense
budget request.
Human factors engineering technology
The budget request contained $14.3 million for human
factors engineering technology. The committee understands that
the Army is exploring the potential of emergency medical team
coordination (MedTeams) to provide enhanced battlefield medical
support and recommends an increase of $5.1 million in PE 62716A
for development of the MedTeams capability.
Information systems technology, information superiority, and
information security
The budget request contained approximately $10.3 billion
for Department of Defense information systems and information
technology, including $544.4 million for information systems
and information technology research, development, test, and
evaluation. Of that amount, $306.0 million was for information
security research, development, test, and evaluation.
The committee views with great interest the development of
information systems technology and the increasing use of, and
dependence on information systems in the Department of Defense
and in the nation as a whole. Rapidly advancing information-
based technologies and an increasingly competitive global
environment have thrust information into center stage in
society, government, and warfare. Increasingly, complex
information systems are being integrated into traditional
military operational disciplines such as mobility, logistics,
command, control, communications, and intelligence, and
increased emphasis is being placed on the use of the commercial
information infrastructure.
The committee believes that the application of information
and information technology in our military forces, combined
with the supporting infrastructure in the Department of
Defense, and our national life will offer greatly increased
capabilities, but also will require that the Administration
begin to treat information technology as a strategic resource
vital to our national security. Inherent in these new
capabilities, information technology also creates potentially
serious vulnerabilities that could be exploited by an
adversary, as the military and other elements of national power
become increasingly dependent upon information systems and
information capabilities. The vulnerability of information
infrastructures to attack and the linkage between information
systems and the traditional critical infrastructures (such as
the electrical power system) have increased the scope and
potential of the information warfare threat.
The promise of information technology as a key ``enabler''
to achieve superiority on future battlefields, the
vulnerabilities that information technology brings, and how
theDepartment of Defense plans to protect against these vulnerabilities
provided the focus for a committee hearing in March 1997. The committee
also heard testimony on the findings and recommendations of the 1996
Defense Science Board Task Force on Information Warfare-Defense. The
task force report cited a robust information infrastructure as critical
to the future effectiveness of U.S. military forces and the need for
extraordinary action to deal with the present and emerging challenges
of defending against possible information warfare attacks on the United
States.
The committee commends the efforts taken to develop and
institutionalize the use of common information architectures
within the Department of Defense, to improve policies and
management practices, and to create a Department-wide
environment that promotes interoperability and integration
among the military services and defense agencies. The committee
notes the efforts that are underway to protect and assure the
integrity of the Defense and national information
infrastructures. The committee also notes that the budget
request for the information systems security program in PE
33140G includes an increase of $56.6 million above the fiscal
year 1997 funding level.
The committee supports the maintenance of a robust
information systems security research and development program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following increases
to the budget request:
(1) $2.0 million in PE 63006A for tactical internet
command and control protection;
(2) $6.7 million in PE 65604A for information
operations/warfare survivability analysis of command,
control, communications, and computers/information
electronic warfare systems;
(3) $1.6 million in PE 33150A for development and
application of information protection measures for the
Army's component of the global command and control
systems for the U.S. European Command; and
(4) $2.7 million in PE 33140F for the Air Force
information protection program.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to
the Congressional defense committees with the submission of the
fiscal year 1999 budget, an assessment of the progress in the
Department's information systems security program that
addresses the current status of the program, specific actions
being taken on the recommendations of the 1996 Defense Science
Board Task Force on Information Warfare-Defense, and additional
actions that should be taken to assure the increased security
and integrity of the Defense information infrastructure. The
report shall also address measures necessary to assure the
integrity of those elements of the national information
infrastructure and critical national infrastructure on which
the Defense information infrastructure depends, and
identification of any additional resources and legislative
authority which may be required.
Integrated family of test equipment
The budget request contained $2.6 million in PE 64746A for
automatic test equipment. The committee understands that
additional funding is required to continue development and
upgrading of the integrated family of test equipment (IFTE),
including completion of the electro-optics test facility and
software upgrades for the portable on-system repair tool. The
committee recommends an increase of $2.3 million to continue
the IFTE program.
Joint service small arms program
The budget request contained $4.8 million for the joint
service small arms program within PE 63607A. The objective of
this program is to demonstrate key technologies leading to more
effective small arms weapons and munitions for all services,
including such technology as the objective individual combat
weapon (OICW). The committee supports this initiative and
recommends an increase of $5.5 million to expedite development
of the OICW. The committee notes the relevance of the Advanced
Lightweight Anti-armor Weapon System (ALAWS) warhead technology
to the Objective Crew Served Weapons System. The Defense
Science Board 1996 Summer Study Task Force on Tactics and
Technology for the 21st Century stated that there is a need for
man-portable weapons to be capable of engaging a range of
targets, from adversary soldiers to adversary armor.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $1.5
million for continued warhead development.
The committee recommends $11.8 million for the joint
service small arms program, an increase of $7.0 million.
Life support for trauma and transport
The budget request contained $18.4 million in PE 62712E for
military medical and trauma care technologies, $8.8 million in
PE 62787A for combat casualty care technology, and $6.8 million
in PE 63807A for medical systems advanced development.
The Army's budget justification included $3.3 million for
continued evaluation and refinement of sensors, surgical and
evacuation technology, including the life support for trauma
and transport (LSTAT) Pod and the advanced surgical suite for
trauma casualties (ASTEC). Developed under a Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency project, the LSTAT pod is a single-
patient, intensive care and life support capability that would
be used to maintain life support and stabilization of
battlefield casualties during their evacuation from the front
line for higher echelon medical treatment. Four of these units
are expected to complete air-worthiness testing and achieve
Food and Drug Administration approval during fiscal year 1997.
The Army is leading the joint service test program. The
committee believes that the LSTAT pod represents a major
advance in battlefield medical care and strongly supports an
expedited development and evaluation process which would lead
to early achievement of an initial operating capability and
accelerated fielding of the system for battlefield use by all
the services. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase
of $1.0 million in PE 62787A and $5.0 million in PE 63807A to
accelerate the development program and the joint developmental
and operational test of the LSTAT. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to report to the Congressional defense
committees the plan for completing the joint service test
program and plans for fielding the LSTAT and other advanced
battlefield life support and evacuation systems with the
submission of the fiscal year 1999 Defense budget request.
Logistics advanced technology
The budget request contained $35.5 million for logistics
advanced technology. The committee is aware of the increasing
importance of suppression of infrared (IR) signature on
thebattlefield. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in
PE 63001A for further development of IR suppression fabrics for combat
uniforms.
Missile/air defense product improvement
The budget request contained $17.4 million for missile/air
defense product improvement within PE 23801A. The Patriot
system, which provided vital air defense during Operation
Desert Storm, is being upgraded through enhanced communications
and other system improvements to respond to the evolving air
and cruise missile threat. The committee is also aware of
efforts to develop block II modifications to the Stinger
Missile to provide enhanced performance. The committee supports
continuation of these initiatives and recommends $34.1 million,
an increase of $10.0 million for Patriot PAC-3 missile upgrades
and an increase of $6.7 million for Stinger block II
modifications. The Secretary of the Army may use existing PAC-3
missiles from inventory to support development of a cruise
missile defense capability.
Missile and rocket advanced technology
The budget request contained $117.1 million for missile and
rocket advanced technology in PE 63313A.
The missile and rocket technology program included $1.0
million for future missile technology. The committee is aware
of potential cost and performance benefits for future missiles
from the use of composite materials and structures and
recommends an increase of $6.0 million for this program.
The budget request included $57.7 million for the enhanced
fiber optic guided missile (EFOG-M) program. Development of
this technology has been plagued since its inception by
technical problems and changing priorities. To date, only
aircraft mounted captive carry testing of the sensor has been
performed, and only surrogate missiles are planned during the
remainder of the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator
(ACTD) before committing to procure 300 user operational
evaluation missiles. The Army has continued to develop EFOG-M,
which requires operator control from launch until impact, even
though it now states requirements for smart, fire and forget
weapons based on modern technology. The committee recommends no
funds for EFOG-M and directs the Secretary of the Army to
restructure the ACTD program to require flight testing of
prototype weapons before any missile production is approved.
The committee recommends authorization of $65.4 million in
PE 63313A, a decrease of $51.7 million.
Missile defense battle integration center
The budget request contained $5.0 million for the battle
integration center (BIC). The Army is building a flexible
distributed interactive simulation-based architecture which can
operate in regimes of training, exercises and military
operations, as well as providing support to advanced concept
development. The committee understands that this effort has
been identified as an Army priority, yet it is insufficiently
funded. The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million
in PE 63308A to continue development of the BIC as an
integrated battlelab with the capability to provide high
fidelity representation of the modern battlefield.
Munitions manufacturing technology
The budget request contained $44.3 million in PE 78045A for
the Army's manufacturing technology program. The current
munitions research, development, and production base, which
emphasizes the use of high volume, single purpose production
lines and was built to fight the Cold War and needs to be
reshaped to meet the requirements of the 21st Century.
Achieving superiority on the 21st century battlefield within
today's austere defense budget will require the development of
munitions that are smart, light-weight, affordable, and capable
of being produced in a reasonable time frame, at a reasonable
cost, and in short production runs.
The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for
munitions manufacturing technology. This increase should be
used to accelerate key munitions manufacturing technologies in
composites, electronics, energetics, power supplies and metal
parts that would reduce the cost of future munitions and permit
both government and commercially owned munitions production
facilities to produce research and development and production
quantities of munitions concurrently, adapt design changes and
product improvements quickly, and make short production runs
feasible and cheaper. The committee encourages the Secretary of
the Army to maintain the increased funding level for munitions
manufacturing technology in the fiscal year 1999 budget
request.
Passive millimeter wave camera
The budget request contained $3.5 million for ground combat
identification technology in PE 62120A. The committee is aware
that the passive millimeter wave camera technology is reaching
maturity, and recommends an increase of $5.0 million.
Persian Gulf illness clinical trials program
The budget request included $74.7 million in PE 62787A for
medical technology.
The committee has been deeply concerned about the health
problems experienced by veterans of the Persian Gulf War. The
committee understands that although there are many ongoing
studies investigating risk factors which may be associated with
these health problems, there have been no studies which examine
health outcomes and the effectiveness of the treatment received
by the veterans. Testimony presented in hearings on Persian
Gulf War illness and the medical literature indicate there are
therapies, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, which have
been effective in treating patients with symptoms similar to
those seen in many Persian Gulf veterans. The committee
recommends an increase of $4.5 million for the establishment of
a program of multi-site cooperative clinical trials by the
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to
assess the effectiveness of protocols for treating veterans of
the Persian Gulf War who suffer from ill-defined or undiagnosed
conditions. Such protocols should include, but not be limited
to, a multi-disciplinary treatment model, of which cognitive
behavioral therapy is a component.
Plasma energy pyrolysis system
The budget request contained no funds for the plasma energy
pyrolysis system (PEPS). The committee is aware that PEPS
offers the potential to render hazardous waste, including
medical and chemical, into an inert glass slag by-product. The
committee recommends an increase of $8.7 million in PE 62720A
to complete development and construction of a mobile PEPS unit
to deal with environmental hazards.
Projectile detection and cueing (PDCue)
The committee continues to support the projectile detection
and cueing (PDCue) program for Army evaluation in PE 62120A.
The committee is aware that the Army Research Laboratory (ARL)
will receive prototypes this fiscal year and plans to
incorporate mobile HMMWV capability and deliver the system for
evaluation under the Military Operations in Urban Terrain
(MOUT) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program. To
accelerate the program the committee recommends an increase of
$2.5 million for PDCue within PE 62120A.
Short-range unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request contained no funding for short-range
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). The Department, based on lack
of progress in the tactical unmanned aerial vehicle program,
which is under close scrutiny for possible cancellation, has
directed the Services to assess other solutions for UAV
requirements. The Army has an unfulfilled, validated
operational requirement for a short-range UAV. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to initiate an Army
acquisition program for the Department, to develop and procure
a short-range UAV to fulfill the existing requirement.
Performance specifications for a short-range UAV are to be as
defined by the validated operational requirement. The UAV is to
be equipped with the objective digital data link that is
compatible with the Army's digital architecture for the future.
The committee notes that historically, requirements changes and
upgrading have been, in great part, the cause of many failed
UAV programs. Therefore, the Department is directed to acquire
a short-range UAV with minimum development to meet the existing
validated operational requirement. Subsequent to IOC, as
appropriate, block changes may be used to implement a pre-
planned product improvement program.
The committee notes that technology improvement since
validation of the operational requirement may allow increased
range beyond 100 kilometers. The committee directs that the
range threshold be 100 kilometers with specified endurance,
while the objective range shall be 200 kilometers.
The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE 63003A to begin
development of a short-range UAV for all services having the
defined requirement. Such development should as much as
practicable, use mature, existing air vehicle technology and
include digitization of systems to be compatible with emerging
digital force architecture.
Telemedicine
The budget request contained $10.7 million for advanced
medical technology within PE 63002A.
The committee endorses the Army's efforts to improve
medical response and treatment of soldiers on the battlefield
but notes, however, that no funds in the budget request were
specifically identified under a separate project for
telemedicine. The committee also recognizes the potential value
of virtual reality emergency medical telemedicine (VREMT)
efforts designed to improve diagnostics and treatment by combat
medics. In addition to improving primary care on the
battlefield, VREMT will also provide an exportable training
capability. The committee recommends $16.5 million in PE
63002A, an increase of $2.3 million for telemedicine technology
and $3.5 million for VREMT.
Weapons and munitions advanced technology
The budget request contained $18.3 million for weapons and
munitions advanced technology in PE 63004A. The committee
supports this initiative which includes demonstration of a
precision guided mortar munition that will be evaluated along
with other new tactics and technologies to provide early entry
forces the capability to defeat armored forces. The committee
is aware of the potential benefits of electro-rheological
fluids recoil for future artillery systems and recommends an
increase of $5.0 million for associated research.
The committee is also aware that plastic cased ammunition
for military use as a service round has been preliminarily
developed for 5.56mm ammunition. The committee is aware that
plastic cased ammunition offers potential cost and weight
savings compared to existing munitions and, therefore,
recommends an increase of $3.0 million for development and
certification of this innovative munitions technology.
The committee recommends $26.3 million for weapons and
munitions advanced technology, an increase of $8.0 million.
Navy RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $7,611.0 million for Navy
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $7,947.0
million, an increase of $336.0 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1998 Navy
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Navy request are discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced anti-radiation guided missile
The budget request contained no funds to continue the
advanced anti-radiation guided missile (AARGM) demonstration
program.
AARGM is a Phase III Small Business Innovative Research
(SBIR) program designed to develop and demonstrate an advanced
dual-mode seeker on an existing high-speed anti-radiation
missile (HARM) airframe. The committee has placed a high
priority on the AARGM program, and believes that the technology
demonstrated to date shows great promise for providing a
significantly increased anti-radiation missile capability. The
committee is concerned, however, that the high level of
concurrency in the schedule for the AARGM development and
demonstration results in increased risk to the program and that
a more sequential development program may be warranted.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $35.0
million in PE 25601N to continue the AARGM program. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct an
independent assessment of the program plan, development and
demonstration schedule, program execution, technical
performance, and program risk, and report the results of the
assessment to the Congressional defense committees by March 31,
1998. The report should also include the Secretary's
recommendations on revisions to the program schedule and the
funding required to complete the program.
Advanced deployable system
The budget request contained $33.0 million in PE 64784N for
continued development of the Advanced Deployable System (ADS),
an element of the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System
program. The request includes funds for the concept evaluation,
program definition, and risk reduction phase of an ADS
prototype and engineering and manufacturing development for
production of the ADS.
To meet the requirement for providing reliable detection of
quieter threat submarines operating in the noisy and shallow
waters of the world's littoral regions, a significantly
improved information processing and data fusion capability is
needed for support of ADS operations. The committee finds the
budget request to be insufficient for development of these
capabilities and inadequate to support the conduct of at-sea
testing to validate performance in challenging littoral
environments. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase
of $10.4 million for continued development and integration of
automated detection and data fusion algorithms, rapid
prototyping of information processing capabilities, and at-sea
testing to validate the expected improvements in ADS
performance.
Advanced ranging source
The budget request contained $16.9 million in PE 64261N for
engineering and manufacturing development of acoustic search
sensors.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to
accelerate the development of alternative shallow water-capable
sound sources in the advanced extended echo ranging (AEER)
program and ensure that unique acoustic technology is available
for the advanced ranging source (ARS) and air deployed low
frequency project (ADLFP) comparative program testing.
Advanced submarine tactical electronic combat system
The budget request contained $311.1 million in PE 64558N to
continue engineering and manufacturing development for the New
Attack Submarine (NSSN), including $95.8 million for NSSN
combat system development.
An integral part of the NSSN combat system is the advanced
submarine tactical electronic combat system (ASTECS) and the
integrated electronic support measures mast (IEM). The IEM
combines communication, radar intercept, and precision
direction finding capabilities in a single, low observable
mast. As the precision sensor for the ASTECS, the IEM allows
the combined system to address the full spectrum of advanced,
complex radar, communication, and navigation systems that may
be deployed by adversaries. Both ASTECS and IEM are planned for
the NSSN, and the IEM for back-fit on SSN-688 and SSN-21 class
submarines. The committee understands that budgetary
constraints have resulted in the deferral of several critical
elements of the IEM and ASTECS program: full implementation of
IEM precision radar band direction finding; specific emitter
identification, interception of frequency-agile and cellular
communications, and international maritime satellite (INMARSAT)
emissions; development of systems software for automatic data
correlation, onboard training, and situational awareness; and
back-fit of IEW. The committee believes these capabilities are
essential and should be reinstated in the NSSN program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $17.0
million in PE 64558N to restore the deferred elements of the
ASTECS/IEM program, including repackaging the non-development
initiative precision radar direction finding receiver and
reducing the production cost of the IEM antenna group.
Anti-submarine warfare systems development
The budget request contained $22.9 million in PE 63254N for
development of anti-submarine warfare systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.8 million to
complete demonstration/validation of sonobuoy geo-positioning
system integration and transducer enhancements for improving
the shallow water anti-submarine warfare effectiveness of the
air deployed low frequency projector.
AN/WLY-1 submarine acoustic intercept receiver
The budget request contained $6.1 million in PE 11226N for
operational systems development of improvements in the
effectiveness and survivability of all classes of U.S.
submarines, including continued development and testing of the
AN/WLY-1 submarine countermeasure detection and control set.
The AN/WLY-1 is the next generation of submarine acoustic
intercept receivers and will significantly enhance a
submarine's ability to respond to threat active sonar and
acoustic homing torpedoes. Scheduled for initial fleet
introduction in 2001, the AN/WLY-1 will be deployed on all new
submarine classes (SSN-21 and NSSN) and will replace the
current AN/WLR-9 acousticintercept receiver on existing SSN-
688I submarines. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million
to accelerate the introduction of the AN/WLY-1 in the fleet and back-
fit on the SSN-688I submarine.
Arctic oceanographic observation program
The budget request contained $48.2 million in PE 62435N for
applied research in oceanographic and atmospheric technologies.
The committee understands that additional funding is
required to support the second year of a four-year, cooperative
science and technology program for the utilization of
underwater acoustic techniques to determine ocean climate and
acoustic characteristics in a large ocean basin. The committee
recommends an increase of $3.0 million and encourages the
Secretary of the Navy to include funds for completion of the
program in the fiscal year 1999 Defense budget request.
Arsenal ship and surface combatant-21 (SC-21)
The budget request contained $103.0 million in PE 64310N
and $47.2 million in PE 63763E for the Arsenal Ship program.
The budget request also included $55.0 million in PE 64567N for
the Navy's next generation surface combatant, SC-21.
The Arsenal Ship is a joint Navy-Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) program to develop and demonstrate a
``proof-of-principle prototype strike warfare ship'' and a new
paradigm for development and construction of Navy ships. The
Arsenal Ship is envisioned as a stealthy, highly survivable,
reduced manpower fire support ship, loaded with as many as 500
vertical launch cells. Up to five additional Arsenal Ships
could be procured beginning in fiscal year 2004 should the
evaluation of the Arsenal Ship demonstrator prove successful.
The cost of the Arsenal Ship demonstration program is
approximately $520 million, and the Congressional Budget
Office's estimate of the cost of a six Arsenal Ship program
totals $3 billion, plus an additional $2 billion for the
weapons load for the six ships. The committee understands that
the Navy envisions the Arsenal Ship as a bridge to the SC-21
and intends to use the Arsenal Ship demonstrator to evaluate
various technologies that might be incorporated in SC-21.
According to recent Navy briefings, the first variant of
SC-21 will be a land attack destroyer, DD-21, a multi-mission
ship with 128 vertical launch cells that places an overwhelming
emphasis on fire support, small crew, reduced signature, and
significantly reduced life cycle cost. Based on the results of
the Navy's SC-21 cost and operational effectiveness analysis,
DD-21 would represent the ``best balance'' of capability
compared to other options considered. The cost for the SC-21 is
estimated to be approximately $750.0 million through fiscal
year 2003, and the Navy indicates that the first potential DD-
21 construction contract award could be in fiscal year 2004.
According to the Navy, development of SC-21 is to capitalize on
the investments made in Arsenal Ship and in the Navy's Smart
Ship programs.
Both the House report (H. Rept. 104-563) and the statement
of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 3230 (H.
Rept. 104-724) agree that Arsenal Ship would be a major defense
acquisition program and would have to satisfy the major
acquisition program management issues, such as operational
requirements validation and cost and operational effectiveness
analysis. Committee hearings on the Navy's budget request for
naval ship construction and research and development raised
issues regarding the Arsenal Ship concept, the development
schedules for the Arsenal Ship and the SC-21 program, and the
ability for the lessons learned in the Arsenal Ship
demonstration to feed into the SC-21 program. These issues have
not been resolved, despite recent announcements that Arsenal
Ship is to be merged into the SC-21 program, and the committee
understands that there has been no change in the Arsenal Ship
program.
The committee believes that differences in ship size and
mission capability between the Arsenal Ship and DD-21, as
conceived, yield two separate development programs. The
committee also believes that the overlapping schedules for the
Arsenal Ship and the SC-21 program do not provide sufficient
opportunity for the experience gained from the Arsenal Ship
demonstrator to provide maximum benefit to design and
construction of the DD-21. The committee further believes that
the Navy's program, as outlined in the fiscal year 1998 budget
request, would lead to two parallel, overlapping, and nearly
simultaneous development programs for future surface
combatants, each of which meets the criteria for a major
defense acquisition program. The committee believes that two
such programs are unaffordable, and that requirements for both
programs have not yet been validated by the Department of
Defense.
The committee therefore recommends no funding for the
Arsenal Ship in PE 64310N and PE 63763E in fiscal year 1998.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition and Technology) and the Secretary of the Navy to
review the acquisition strategy for the SC-21 program and to
determine whether or not a prototyping strategy is appropriate
for the new surface combatant. The results of the review and
plans to incorporate such a strategy in the development of SC-
21 shall be reported to the Congressional defense committees
with the submission of the fiscal year 1999 budget request.
Automatic target recognition/optical correlation
The budget request contained $34.2 million in PE 63609N for
Navy conventional munitions development, $26.2 million in PE
63601F for Air Force conventional weapons technology, and $4.8
million in PE 63232D for automatic target recognition. The
committee is aware progress is being made in the Director,
Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) automatic target
recognition (ATR) program and the development of ATR
technologies for missiles, precision-guided weapons, and target
cueing for surveillance systems. The DDR&E's January 1997
report to the Congressional defense committees on optical
correlation technology describes the progress that has been
made in the potential weaponization of optical correlation
technology for these purposes. The committee also understands
that the Air Force is investigating the use of optical
correlators for missile applications in its Optical Processor
Enhanced Ladar program.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
63609N for the development and demonstration of a miniature
optical correlator for automatic target recognition and
improved aimpoint selection for the Standard Missile, and an
increase of $3.5 million in PE 63601F for the development and
demonstration of a miniature optical correlator for automatic
target recognition and aimpoint selection for the AGM-130. The
committee expects the Air Force and the Navy to capitalize on
current programs for the development of ATR technologyand the
application of optical correlator technology and to coordinate their
activities with the DDR&E's ATR program.
Autonomous underwater vehicle and sonar development
The budget request contained $48.2 million in PE 62435N for
oceanographic and atmospheric technologies, including $17.5
million for applied research in environmental influences on
mine countermeasures systems and littoral oceanography.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to
continue applied research and exploratory development in
technologies for advanced sensors and unmanned underwater
vehicles applicable to mine countermeasures and other littoral
operations.
Battle force tactical trainer
The budget request contained $59.0 million in PE 24571N for
consolidated training systems development, including $2.9
million for continued development of the battle force tactical
training (BFTT) system.
The committee understands that the BFTT system provides
opportunities for fleet personnel to achieve and maintain
combat readiness through coordinated, realistic, stressful,
combat system team training, and permits the ship's combat
system team to train on their own equipment while located at
pier-side. The committee also recognizes that electronic
surveillance systems aboard naval combatants are integral parts
of ship and battle force combat systems and the information
architecture required to conduct naval combat operations
successfully. To take full advantage of the training capability
represented by the BFTT system and permit fleet personnel to
train using all aspects of their operational systems (including
those that generate classified data), the committee believes
that these electronic surveillance systems should interface
with the BFTT system. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million for the integration of ship and battle
force electronic surveillance systems into the BFTT system.
Beach and surf zone obstacle clearance
The budget request contained $41.6 million in PE 63782N for
advanced development and demonstration of technology for
shallow water mine counter-measures.
The committee is aware of initial testing by the Air Force
and the Navy that demonstrates the ability of GPU-5 gunpod,
mounted on an air-cushion landing craft, to breach beach and
surf zone obstacles safely, quickly, and decisively. The
committee believes that the system, when proven by further
testing, offers potential for a relatively low cost, highly
effective obstacle clearance capability that could be fielded
quickly to improve the capability of U.S naval and amphibious
forces operating in the littoral. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $750,000 to complete the additional
testing required to prove the capability.
Carbonate fuel cells
The budget request contained $19.2 million in PE 63513N for
development of shipboard systems non-propulsion machinery
systems, components, and improvements for current and future
surface fleet hull, mechanical, and electrical systems.
The request included funding to continue the program that
was initiated in fiscal year 1997 for design of a full scale
ships service molten carbonate fuel cell power plant and
demonstration of a 500 kilowatt molten carbonate fuel cell. The
molten carbonate fuel cell demonstration program supports the
development of high efficiency, dispersed, and environmentally
friendly power plants for the next generation of surface
combatants (SC-21) and fleet support vessels. To accelerate
system and key component development and demonstration and the
scale-up of the 500 kilowatt demonstrator to a full scale ships
service electric power plant that could be considered for use
on the SC-21 future surface combatant, the committee recommends
an increase of $3.5 million. The committee encourages the
Secretary of the Navy to include the additional funding
required to maintain the accelerated schedule for development
and demonstration of the full scale system in the Navy's budget
request for fiscal year 1999.
Commandant's warfighting laboratory
The budget request contained $34.2 million in PE 63640M for
the Commandant's warfighting laboratory (CWL) advanced
technology demonstration.
The Commandant and the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
identified the CWL as a priority un-funded requirement to
expand experimentation to meet future technologically advanced
warfighting threats. These experiments and demonstrations focus
on developing operational and warfighting concepts to enhance
warfighting capabilities in the next century. Recent advanced
warfighting experiments have, in particular, demonstrated the
importance of information provided from relatively low cost
unmanned aerial vehicles. The committee notes the early results
from the CWL initiative, and recommends an increase of $24.8
million for the CWL, including $5.0 million specifically to
investigate the utility of low-cost close range unmanned aerial
vehicles as defined by the current operational requirement.
Composite engineered materials
The budget request contained $1.7 million in PE 63725N for
advanced development of materials, electronics and computer
technologies.
The committee continues to support the Navy's development
and use of new and improved materials to address the growing
backlog and cost of naval shore facility maintenance and
repair. The committee therefore recommends an increase of $3.0
million to complete the shore facilities materials program in
cost-shared research on carbon fiber-reinforced, recycled
thermoplastic engineered lumber.
Cooperative engagement capability
The budget request contained $139.2 million in PE 63658N
for the cooperative engagement capability (CEC).
As reflected in the House report (H. Rept. 104-563) on H.R.
3230 and the statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on H.R. 3230 (H. Rept. 104-724), the Congresshas
recognized the CEC program as among the highest priority programs in
the Navy and the Department of Defense. In testimony during the defense
posture hearing on the fiscal year 1997 budget request, the Secretary
of Defense singled out the CEC as a program of high priority that he
had chosen to accelerate because of its great potential for linking
units from more than one service together and greatly increasing their
warfighting capability. The Congressional defense committees agreed
with the priority established by the Secretary and recommended
significant increases to the CEC program to accelerate the fielding of
the capability to the fleet and to accelerate and expand joint service
integration efforts.
The committee notes that the Navy's fiscal year 1998 budget
request for the CEC program is significantly less than
projected in the fiscal year 1997 Future Years Defense Plan and
budget justification, and results in a slip of over one year in
the fielding of the capability to fleet units. The committee
does not understand the Navy's failure to provide the funding
required to maintain the accelerated fielding schedule for a
program that has received such a high priority from the
Secretary of Defense and from the Congress. The committee
believes that the Navy has overemphasized programs for new
naval ``platforms'', at the expense of the warfighting weapons
systems that would make existing platforms more effective.
The committee recommends a total increase of $50.0 million
in PE 63658N for the CEC program: $15.0 million to continue the
accelerated development of the low cost common equipment set,
$5.0 million to support transfer of the CEC design and
development agent to industry, $20.0 million to accelerate
integration of the CEC into Navy E-2C and P-3 aircraft, $5.0
million to initiate development of an integrated capability
between CEC and the ship self defense program, and $5.0 million
to accelerate joint service integration and demonstration of
CEC with the Army's Patriot and the Marine Corps' Hawk air
defense missile systems.
Cryogenic electronics technology
The budget request contained $76.7 million in PE 62234N for
advanced development of materials, electronics and computer
technologies, including $9.5 million for advanced
multifunctional radio frequency system support technology, and
$9.2 million in PE 62712E for development of cryogenic
technologies.
The committee understands that cryogenic electronics and
high temperature superconductivity technology may offer the
potential for achieving significant improvements in the ability
of future radar systems to detect and track low-flying targets
in clutter. The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency and the Office of Naval Research are
demonstrating notable performance gains through the use of
cryogenic electronics and high temperature superconductivity
technology in analog and digital electronic components. The
committee is also informed that the application of these
technologies may permit the development of advanced RF
receiver/exciter subsystems that could be common to a wide
range of radar applications and could result in significant
reductions in the cost of future radar systems. Accordingly,
the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62234N to continue the development of superconducting waveform
generator and analog-to-digital converter technology.
CVN-77 research and development
The budget request contained $17.9 million in PE 64567N for
aircraft carrier contract design for the CVN-77.
The Navy has stated that CVN-77 will provide a transition
from the Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carrier to the next-
generation CV(X). As such, CVN-77 is a candidate for
development, evaluation, and incorporation of a range of
advanced technologies and acquisition reform initiatives which,
not only could result in lower life cycle costs, but could also
set the standard by which further improvements in the
application of advanced technologies and acquisition
initiatives to the design and construction of the CV(X) will be
measured. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of
$17.0 million to accelerate the evaluation of maturing advanced
technologies for potential incorporation in the design of CVN-
77.
CV(X) carrier systems development
The budget request contained $90.2 million in PE63512N for
future aircraft carrier research and development.
The committee notes that this request represents an
increase of $84.5 million above the amount appropriated for
fiscal year 1997 and $88.4 million above that projected for
fiscal year 1998 in the fiscal year 1997 Future Years Defense
Plan. The increase is planned for advanced development of a
range of advanced technologies for potential incorporation in
the design and construction of the next-generation CV(X)
aircraft carrier.
The committee notes that the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council approved a mission needs statement (MNS) for a New
Tactical Aviation Sea-Based Platform for the 21st Century, the
CV(X), in March 1996. The committee understands that among the
potential alternatives that may compete with CV(X) in meeting
the operational requirements of the MNS are the Mobile Offshore
Base (MOB) and the Arsenal Ship, as well as land-based
aircraft. The committee further understands that MOB studies in
support of the CV(X) cost and operational effectiveness
analysis have just been initiated. The committee also notes
that the budget request includes funding for an Arsenal Ship
demonstration that could lead to procurement of up to five
Arsenal Ships. The committee is concerned that the issues
raised in the committee report on H.R. 3230 (H. Rept. 104-563)
and the statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on H.R. 3230 (H. Rept. 104-724) relative to the need for
validation of the Arsenal Ship operational requirement and
performance analysis have not yet been addressed by the Navy.
In view of the above, the committee believes that it is
neither fiscally nor technically prudent to increase advanced
carrier systems research and development for the CV(X) to the
degree sought by the Navy. The committee believes that
increased emphasis should be placed on the research and
development program for the CNV-77, and elsewhere in this
report, has recommended an increase to the research and
development program for the CVN-77 aircraft carrier to provide
a transition to the CV(X). The committee recommends that
funding for carrier systems research and development for the
CV(X) be held to the level originally projected for fiscal year
1998 and recommends a decrease of $88.4 million
E-2 eight-blade composite propeller system
The budget request contained $64.9 million in PE 24152N for
operational systems development of preplanned product
improvements in E-2C aircraft and weapon system capabilities,
including $39.4 million for E-2C mission system improvements.
The committee is aware that the Navy is seeking solutions
to operational limitations encountered with the propeller
system used on E-2C and C-2A aircraft. The current propeller
system incorporates technology developed in the 1950's and the
1960's, is difficult and expensive to maintain, is no longer in
production, and is a frequent cause of E-2C aircraft not being
operationally ready. The committee is also aware of proposals
to develop an eight-blade composite propeller for E-2C and C-2A
aircraft that might also be retrofitted to Navy P-3 and C-130
aircraft. The committee understands that the cost of developing
and producing the new propeller system could be recovered in
four to five years as a result of reduced operation and support
costs for the aircraft. Accordingly, the committee recommends
an increase of $10.0 million to initiate a 24 month program for
development and demonstration of an eight-blade composite
propeller system for the E-2C. The committee encourages the
Secretary of the Navy to include the funds for completion of
the development program in the fiscal year 1999 defense budget
request.
Extended range guided munition
The budget request contained $37.8 million in PE 63795N for
land attack systems technology.
The committee strongly supports a naval surface fire
support (NSFS) program which focuses on near term and far term
improvements to naval fire support systems: development and
demonstration of an extended range guided projectile (ERGM)
which would incorporate advanced, low cost, global positioning
system/inertial navigation system (GPS/INS) guidance
technology; improvements in the existing Mk 45 5-inch naval
gun; demonstration of the Army's tactical missile system
(ATACMS) and other missile systems for NSFS applications; and
development and demonstration of technologies to satisfy the
Navy's long term requirements for advanced gun systems. The
committee believes that the Navy must continue to place a high
priority on the program and accelerate the fielding of near
term capabilities to correct the existing shortfall in naval
surface fire support capabilities. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $15.1 million in PE 63795N to
complete the development and commence integration of a fire
control system to support the achievement of initial
operational capability of the advanced 5''/62 caliber gun and
the ERGM in DDG 81, planning and land-based testing of the 5''/
62 gun, and risk reduction and testing of the ERGM projectile
and propellant. Elsewhere in this report, the committee
recommends increases to the NSFS program for a naval ATACMS,
and advanced, miniaturized GPS/INS guidance and control.
F/A-18E/F super hornet
The budget request contained $317.0 million in PE 24136N
for the F/A-18 fleet. The committee understands that $267.5
million of this amount is for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and
that funding for this program has increased $114.2 million over
the amount forecast in the 1997 Future Years Defense Plan
(FYDP).
The committee has expressed great concern, described in
detail elsewhere in this report, over the unaffordable pace of
tactical aviation (TACAIR) modernization being pursued by the
Department. Of the three most costly TACAIR programs in the
Department's request--the Air Force F-22 Raptor, the Navy F/A-
18E/F Super Hornet, and the Joint Strike Fighter--the Super
Hornet was recently approved by the Department to enter
production, even prior to final recommendations by the
Quadrennial Defense Review and National Defense Panel.
The committee is unaware of any justification to support
such a large increase in this year's research and development
request for the Super Hornet over the recently forecast funding
level identified in the 1997 FYDP. Therefore, the committee
recommends $202.8 million for the F/A-18 fleet, a decrease of
$114.2 million for the F/A-18E/F.
F/A-18F Tactical Reconnaissance
The budget request contained no funding for developing the
F-14 Tactical Air Reconnaissance Pod System (TARPS) Completely
Digital (CD) capability.
The committee understands that the Navy plans to replace
the F-14 Tactical Air Reconnaissance Pod System (TARPS) with an
electro-optical podded system for the F/A-18F Super Hornet. The
committee has closely monitored the technical issues and
difficulties experienced by the Marine Corps with the
internally mounted Advanced Tactical Reconnaissance System
(ATARS) for the F/A-18D. These issues, combined with the
expected costs and extent of modifications to the F/A-18F if an
internally mounted sensor were chosen, point to a podded
reconnaissance capability as a more cost-effective and flexible
approach for Navy fighter aircraft.
Therefore, the committee supports the Navy's decision to
develop a non-dedicated podded reconnaissance capability for
the Super Hornet. The committee expects that the Navy will
adhere to this decision and stresses that it will not favor any
future request for development of an internally mounted F/A-18
reconnaissance capability. The committee believes that the Navy
should, to the extent possible, ensure that the TARPS
development be transferable to the F/A-18F pod. To ensure that
the latest technologies are provided to the user, the committee
directs that the development and procurement of the F/A-18F
podded system be awarded competitively.
The committee has followed the TARPS digital imagery (DI)
electro-optical (EO) improvements and is pleased with the
results of this interim, but limited, capability. However, the
committee believes there is a need to move to a production EO
capability with a larger format backplane that provides both
better resolution and a larger target area field-of-view, and
understands that the TARPS CD development would provide such a
capability at significantly less cost than a Navy purchase of
the Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS).
Based on the successful results from the interim DI
efforts, the committee is convinced that CD will provide a cost
effective EO tactical manned reconnaissance capability to
replace the current film-based F-14 pods. Therefore, the
committee recommends $5.0 million in PE 24136N for TARPS CD
non-recurring engineering. The committee directs the Navy to
move to TARPS CD production as expeditiously as possible.
Free electron laser
The budget request contained $32.3 million in PE 62111N for
technologies applicable to surface and aerospace surveillance
and weapons.
The committee has supported the Navy's technology program
for design, fabrication, and activation of a one kilowatt
average power free electron laser that operates in the infrared
spectrum, and the evaluation of the technology for potential
ship self-defense applications. The committee recommends an
increase of $9.0 million to continue the Navy's free electron
laser program. The increase will support the next phase in the
development of superconducting accelerator free electron laser
technology to achieve higher power levels and to evaluate the
utility of a high energy laser weapon for naval applications.
Freeze-dried blood
The budget request contained $18.3 million in PE 63706N for
advanced development and demonstration of medical technology
for care and treatment of Navy and Marine Corps personnel in
operational theaters, including $3.6 million for advanced
technology development related to blood and blood substitutes.
The committee supports the Navy's program for the
development of technologies for freezing red blood cells, the
development of freeze-dried red blood cell units having
extended shelf-life, and the development and clinical trial of
improved frozen and freeze-dried blood platelet products that
have enhanced storage capabilities, and recommends an increase
of $2.5 million to accelerate these efforts.
Ground proximity warning system (GPWS)
The budget request contained $36.3 million in PE 64215N for
standards development, but did not include funding to continue
the integration of GPWS technology into Navy-Marine Corps
helicopter fleets.
Congress provided an increase of $2.0 million for fiscal
year 1997 to continue development of the GPWS in anticipation
of its fielding on Navy and Marine heavy lift helicopters. The
committee notes that the Navy plans to use these funds to
achieve production approval of the GPWS for the H-53 and H-46
series helicopters. To continue this development effort, the
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for
integration of GPWS technology into the remaining Navy-Marine
Corps helicopter fleet and urges the Navy to program the
modification funding needed to complete the fleet-wide
installation of this system.
H-1 series modifications
The budget request contained $18.5 million in Navy
procurement for modifications to the H-1 series helicopter of
which $18.3 million was planned for communications and
navigation block upgrades. The budget request also contained
$80.7 million in PE 64245N for development of future H-1
upgrades.
Subsequent to the submission of the budget request, the
Navy determined a need to restructure its communications and
navigation block upgrades and research and development plans
for the H-1 series helicopters. The restructured program, which
requires transferring funds from the aircraft procurement
account to the research and development account, would improve
commonality between the UH-1N and AH-1W helicopters through a
new plan to design a common cockpit architecture and to procure
common parts and software. The committee supports this
initiative and recommends a reduction of $5.6 million in
procurement for H-1 communications and navigation block
upgrades and an increase of $5.6 million in PE 64245N for
design of a common cockpit architecture.
High frequency surface wave radar
The budget request contained $87.3 million in PE 63792N in
the Navy's advanced technology demonstration (ATD) program.
The ATD program demonstrates high-risk/high-payoff
technologies that could significantly improve the warfighting
capabilities of the fleet and joint forces and provides the
opportunity to identify and move emerging technologies quickly
and efficiently from the laboratory to the fleet. The committee
understands that the high frequency surface wave radar (HFSWR)
has the potential for significantly improving over-the-horizon
detection of cruise missiles and is also applicable to other
over-the-horizon surveillance missions. Fiscal year 1997
funding reductions forced the Navy to place the HFSWR ATD on
hold after conducting two years of a three-year ATD, and no
funds are included in the fiscal year 1998 budget request for
completion of the demonstration. Because of the positive
results achieved in the HFSWR ATD before it was halted and the
potential increase in over-the-horizon surveillance capability
that the technology would bring to the fleet, the committee
recommends an increase of $4.0 million to complete the HFSWR
ATD.
Hull, mechanical, and electrical systems virtual laboratory initiative
The Navy is considering revolutionary changes to its 21st
century naval vessel fleet, such as SC-21 and CVX, that
includes stealth, automation, power electronics building blocks
and electric drive. While these synergistically linked
technologies are ideal candidates for cross-discipline system
evaluation in a synthetic environment, the Navy has no formal
plan or funding for such a capability. The committee recognizes
the success achieved by the other services and industry in the
employment of simulation-based design of innovative
technologies and believes that this capability would contribute
significantly to cost-effectiveness and innovation in the
development of hull, mechanical and electrical ship systems.
The committee believes that a virtual laboratory concept that
includes integrated product and process development capability,
electronically linking government, academic and industrial
partners, is a way to incorporate timely innovation, optimized
system design and control acquisition and total ownership
costs. This concept would provide a virtual test bed for
performance evaluation and interface development as well as
virtual prototyping of systems, components and subassemblies
under simulated conditions. The committee directs the Secretary
of the Navy to provide an assessment to the Congressional
defense committees of such a virtual laboratory for hull,
mechanical and electrical systems and if warranted, an
implementation plan for this concept by June 1, 1998. The
committee encourages the Navy to seek technical input from
industry and other services laboratory programs as part of the
assessment process.
Integrated combat weapon system
The budget request contained $18.3 million in PE 63502N for
surface and shallow water mine countermeasures, including $5.2
million for the Integrated Combat Weapon System (ICWS).
The ICWS is a series of major incremental block upgrades to
current mine countermeasures combat systems to provide MCM- and
MHC-class ships an affordable and fully integrated combat
weapons system. The committee recommends an increase of $10.3
million to accelerate the transition of ICWS to a commercial-
off-the-shelf, open systems architecture with increased
commonality among operator stations, development and
demonstration of improvements in system navigation and command
and control, and early deployment of the ICWS full
implementation system to the fleet.
Integrated ship self defense test site
The budget request contained $132.3 million in PE 64755N
for the ship self defense program and $33.2 million in PE
64759N, Major Test & Evaluation Investment. No funds were
requested in either program element for the ship self defense
set and support equipment required to activate the Navy's
Integrated Ship Self Defense Engineering Center (ISDEC).
In 1991, the Navy received approval to construct a land-
based test facility at Wallops Island to integrate and test the
ship self defense system (SSDS) and its related equipment. The
decision was made after a comprehensive review of available
test sites and their ability to support the engineering
development, in-service engineering, training, testing, and
other initiatives associated with the SSDS. Construction of the
facility was completed in 1995. A December 1996 letter from the
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations advised that ``program
reductions have resulted in delays of two or more years for the
procurement and installation of systems intended for ships and
insufficient funding to operate and maintain the Wallops Island
facility.''
In view of the priority assigned to the cooperative
engagement capability (CEC) and ship self defense programs, the
committee does not understand the inability of the Department
of the Navy to fund the installation of the required SSDS
equipment set and related equipment required to activate the
integrated SSDS test site. Such funding should have been an
integral part of the program plan when approval for
construction of the site was sought and given in 1991. The
Navy's inability to provide the required funding is even more
incomprehensible in view of the fact that the ship self defense
and CEC programs that will use the site have been among the
Navy's highest priority programs. These programs have been
funded at an average funding level of approximately $400.0
million annually since 1990, and have received significant
annual funding increases from Congress. By failing to budget
for the activation and operation of the ISDEC, the Navy has
severely restricted its ability to perform testing and lifetime
engineering support, in-service engineering, and engineering
initiatives related to the CEC and SSDS systems.
Accordingly the committee recommends an increase of $8.6
million in PE 64759N to purchase the SSDS and related equipment
required to activate the integrated land based test site at
Wallops Island. The Secretary of the Navy is also directed to
provide from available funds the $6.0 million that is required
to refurbish and install an AN/SPS-48E air search radar at the
site.
Inter-cooled recuperated engine
The budget request contained $49.7 million in PE 63573N for
the Navy's advanced surface machinery program (ASMP), including
$32.3 million for the inter-cooled recuperated (ICR) gas
turbine engine. The ICR engine program is a cooperative
development program between the United States, the United
Kingdom, and France to develop and demonstrate an advanced fuel
efficient gas turbine engine that would be the prime power
plant for future ship applications.
In the statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on H.R. 3230 (H. Rept. 104-724), the conferees directed
the Secretary of the Navy to review the results of
developmental testing of the ICR engine and to provide a report
of the progress made in resolving the problems previously
encountered during early stages of the ICR engine development
testing. The committee also notes that significant progress has
been made and that the development program is proceeding in
accordance with a two-phased recovery plan. The committee also
understands that testing of the engine has demonstrated the
ability to operate from 1 percent to 110 percent of the design
power range and the ability to achieve a 21 percent annual fuel
savings based on a DDG-51 Class operating profile.
The committee is encouraged by the progress being made and
by the indication that the ICR engine will be an advanced
maritime power plant capable of the significant annual fuel
savings and reduced operating costs that are the objective of
the program, but notes that considerable development and
testing must still be done to realize this goal. The committee
also notes that the United States has borne the majority of the
cost of the ICR engine program. The committee is aware of
ongoing discussions between the Department of the Navy and its
counterparts in the development program partnership regarding
the conduct of land-based engine qualification testing,
proposals for at-sea testing, and the funding required to
support completion of the program. The committee believes that
agreement on these issues will be key to ensuring the
completion of the development program and the provision of an
advanced, fuel-efficient power plant for future U.S. ships.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct
an assessment of the progress in the ICR engine program, future
plans for engine testing and qualification, and the status of
agreements with the United Kingdom, France, and other countries
that are participating in the development program. The results
of the assessment shall be reported to the Congress with the
submission of the fiscal year 1999 defense budget request.
Joint air to surface standoff missile/standoff land attack missile
expanded response
The budget request contained $9.6 million in PE 64312N and
$203.3 million in PE 27325F for the Air Force/Navy Joint Air to
Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) program and $28.9 million in
PE 64603N for the Navy's Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded
Response (SLAM ER) program.
The JASSM program was established in the fiscal year 1996
budget, following cancellation of the Tri-Service Stand-off
Attack Missile (TSSAM), to develop a replacement for that
system at the earliest possible date. In the statement of
managers which accompanied the conference report on S. 1124 (H.
Rept. 104-450), the conferees stressed the urgent need for the
operational capability that would have been provided by the
TSSAM and the expectation that theSecretary of Defense would
establish a joint program in the Air Force and the Navy for development
of a TSSAM replacement that would meet the requirements of both
services.
The committee notes recent proposals by the Navy to replace
the joint program for JASSM with the Navy's SLAM-ER, prior to
completion of the current program definition and risk reduction
phase for JASSM. The committee considers such a proposal to be
premature and not in the best interests of the joint program.
The proposal is, however, one of the program alternatives that
could be considered at the Milestone II review for entry of the
JASSM program into engineering and manufacturing development in
July 1998, if properly based on the technical progress in the
program and risk reduction phase, cost and operational
effectiveness analysis, and other factors that must be taken
into account in that review.
The committee has reviewed the Navy's SLAM-ER program and
considers the development and procurement schedule excessively
concurrent. The committee understands that on the basis of a
single controlled flight test, the Navy has made a low rate
initial production decision that will result in the procurement
of approximately 19 percent of the total planned buy of SLAM-ER
before the completion of development and operational testing.
The committee further notes that flight test of a SLAM-ER with
operational seeker will not be conducted until Development Test
II. The committee believes that this decision is neither
technically nor fiscally prudent. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to review the development and acquisition
program for SLAM-ER and provide to the Congressional defense
committees by December 31, 1997, and provide an assessment
which addresses the concerns expressed by the committee.
Joint standoff weapon system
The budget request contained $71.5 million in PE 64727N for
the joint standoff weapon system (JSOW). JSOW is a modular
design that is being developed in three variants: a submunition
dispenser, an anti-armor submunition dispenser, and a unitary
warhead variant which will incorporate an imaging infrared
seeker, data link and 500 pound blast fragmentation warhead.
The committee understands that the submunition variant has
completed development and initial operational testing with a
success rate of over 96 percent and has been approved for low
rate initial production with initial deliveries to the Navy for
use in the F/A-18 in 1998. Initial procurement of the anti-
armor submunition variant is scheduled for fiscal year 1999,
however, current program funding levels would delay fielding of
the unitary warhead variant until 2002. The committee
recommends an increase of $9.0 million to accelerate the
development and fielding of the unitary warhead variant.
Joint strike fighter
The budget request contained $448.9 million in PE 63800N
for Navy portion of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.
The committee is concerned that, although this request
represents an increase of almost 100 percent in funding for
Navy JSF participation over fiscal year 1997 levels, it is
based on schedule, cost, and quantity objectives that no longer
reflect the Department's plans for Navy tactical aircraft as
outlined in the recently released Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR). The committee understands that the QDR proposes a major
increase in Navy JSF aircraft quantities from the level
anticipated in the 1997 Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) and
supports efforts to accelerate the Navy portion of JSF. The
committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million and directs
the Secretary of Defense to use the increase in funding to
ensure that JSF meets all Navy requirements and to enable this
program to support a significantly increased quantity of Navy
JSF aircraft.
The committee is also concerned that the 1997 FYDP does not
reflect adequate funding within the JSF program to continue
development of the alternative fighter engine (AFE) beyond the
current demonstration/validation phase. The committee continues
to believe that a fully developed and flight tested AFE is
essential to reduce risk to the JSF program and to provide
credible competition necessary for controlling program cost.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report to the Congressional defense committees no
later than February 15, 1998, detailing the level of funding
within the JSF program that is identified to fund full
development and flight test of the AFE.
Joint surveillance and target radar system integration
The budget request contained $5.1 million in PE 64231N for
the Joint Maritime Communications Information System (JMCIS)--
Afloat. No funds were requested to include a capability within
JMCIS to exploit the Joint Surveillance and Target Radar System
(JSTARS) moving target indicator (MTI) data.
The committee believes that there are compelling reasons
for the Navy to acquire the ability to use the JSTARS radar
surveillance system. The Navy currently has no means to detect
and track, and locate moving targets, on a large scale, to
contribute meaningfully to operations ashore. The Navy and
Marine Corps aviation forces, future variants of the Tomahawk
missile, shore fire-support systems, and amphibious forces will
all require highly capable moving target indicator (MTI) radar
support for situation assessment and targeting.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million to perform the tasks necessary to integrate JSTARS data
into Navy and Marine ship and air platforms.
Joint tactical combat training system
The budget request contained $59.0 million in PE 24571N for
consolidated training systems development, including $33.6
million for continued development of the joint tactical combat
training system (JTCTS). The JTCTS is a Navy-led, joint Air
Force/Navy program for the development of fixed, transportable,
and mobile range instrumentation for shore-based tactical air
crew training and for deployable, at-sea naval expeditionary
force training.
The committee notes that the estimated cost of the program
through fiscal year 1999 has grown over 70 percent in the last
year, and that the budget request for fiscal year 1998 is $27.5
million greater than proposed in the fiscal year 1997 Future
Years Defense Plan. The committee understands that the increase
results from inadequate estimates of development costs and
program complexity, failure to clearly define the requirements
of the development contract, and reductions in Air Force
funding below that anticipated by the Navy. These factors have
forced major contract restructure, economic inefficiencies in
hardware and software development, and a significant extension
in the development schedule. The committee believes that the
JTCTSrequirement and program must be reassessed and a new
system and program baseline established to bring the program under
control.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, to conduct an
assessment of the JTCTS requirement and development program
execution and to report the results of the assessment,
revisions to the program baseline, and funding requirements and
schedule for completion of the program to the Congressional
defense committees by December 31, 1997. The committee believes
that until the assessment is completed, no increase to the
program is warranted, and therefore recommends a decrease of
$27.5 million in PE 24571N.
Light airborne multi-purpose system helicopter program
The budget request contained $73.4 million in PE 64212N for
other helicopter development.
The Navy has embarked on a program to convert its existing
fleet of LAMPS helicopters from the SH-60B configuration to the
SH-60R configuration. The block II upgrade will enhance the
anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare capabilities of
the LAMPS MK III in support of the naval battle group in
littoral operations and in regional conflicts. The committee
recommends an increase of $15.0 million to maintain the
schedule for the block II upgrade and support the insertion of
ruggedized, scaleable, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) avionics
technology into SH-60R avionics. The committee understands that
use of COTS avionics technology will yield significant savings
in production costs during the conversion program and reduce
overall system life-cycle costs.
Light strike vehicle
The budget request contained no funds for the light strike
vehicle (LSV). The committee understands that there is an
approved operational requirements document (ORD) for
lightweight, high performance all-terrain vehicles for a number
of critical missions, such as special operations and forward
reconnaissance in conventional operations.
The ORD requires an initial operational capability by
fiscal year 2001. The committee is concerned that while the
Commandant has emphasized the high priority of the V-22 Osprey
to Marine combat capability, the Marine Corps currently has no
viable ground vehicle that can be carried inside the Osprey.
Current vehicles for these missions are reaching the end of
their service life, are easily detected, and have limited
mobility or are not internally transportable in the Osprey.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $5.0 million in PE
26624M to begin the development of the LSV for both the Marine
Corps and Special Operations Forces, and directs the Secretary
of the Navy to report to the Congressional defense committees
by November 30, 1997 the plan to field this critical
warfighting asset.
Lightweight wide aperture array
The budget request contained $61.1 million in PE 63504N
for advanced submarine combat systems, including $10.5 million
to continue the development of advanced flank array technology.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to
accelerate the development and application of fiber optic
technology to low cost, lightweight hull array systems for
current and next generation submarines.
Littoral anti-submarine warfare technology demonstration
The budget request contained $54.8 million in PE 63747N for
undersea warfare advanced technology, including $30.9 million
for shallow water surveillance advanced technology.
The committee has expressed concerns about the potential
threat of advanced diesel submarines operating in the shallower
waters of the world's littoral regions and the challenge posed
to U.S. surveillance and detection capabilities. In fiscal year
1996, Congress provided additional funds for the development
and demonstration of advanced technologies for shallow water
anti-submarine warfare (ASW). These funds were subsequently
used for the development, testing, and calibration of
components of a mobile, high power broadband acoustic
surveillance source that is based upon the adaptation of
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) air-gun technology. The
committee understands that this effort has been successfully
completed and shows promise for filling a significant niche in
the U.S. ASW shallow water surveillance capability. The
committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $5.0 million
for continued development, demonstration, and evaluation of the
technology which, the committee understands, will permit
decisions on proceeding further with the development of COTS
air gun technology as an acoustic surveillance source.
Marine Corps assault vehicles
The budget request contained $60.1 million for the advanced
amphibious assault vehicle (AAAV) in PE 63611M.
The Marine Corps is developing the AAAV to be a high water
speed, amphibious armored personnel carrier replacement for its
current fleet of aging amphibious vehicles. The committee
understands that additional funding is required for fabrication
and testing of a second prototype which is needed to preserve
the current schedule if any significant equipment failures
occur. The committee strongly supports development of the AAAV
and recommends an increase of $10.0 million for a second AAAV
prototype.
Marine Corps communications systems
The budget request contained $38.3 million in PE 26313M for
Marine Corps communications systems.
The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps
has identified critical unfunded requirements for development
of a tactical hand held radio, a tactical remote sensor system,
a Marine common hardware suite, and the tactical electronic
reconnaissance processing and evaluation system. The committee
recommends an additional $5.2 million for these programs.
Marine Corps ground combat/supporting arms system
The budget request contained $12.6 million in PE 26623M for
Marine Corps ground combat/supporting system development.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million to
integrate and test the AN/VVR-1 Laser Warning Receiver into the
M1A1 Abrams tank. The committee also recommends an increase of
$0.7 million as requested by the Commandant for the Marine
enhancement program to support development of better clothing
and other items for the individual Marine.
Marine Corps ground combat/support system
The budget request contained $36.5 million for PE 63635M,
including funding for continued development of the joint Army/
Marine Corps lightweight 155mm howitzer.
The program has completed competitive selection of the
prime contractor, and has entered the engineering and
manufacturing development phase. The committee fully supports
this program effort to field a much needed replacement for the
aging and operationally deficient M198 howitzer and recommends
an increase of $3.6 million.
Marine mammal research program
The budget request contained $366.3 million in PE 61153N
for Navy Defense Research Sciences, including $137.1 million to
support basic research in ocean sciences.
The committee recommends an increase of $500,000 to
continue the Navy's cooperative marine mammal research program.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit to
the Congressional defense committees by March 1, 1998, a report
on the research being conducted in the marine mammal research
program and the technological implications of this research to
Navy sonar requirements.
Medical mobile monitor
The budget request contained $18.3 million in PE 63706N for
advanced development and demonstration of medical technology
for care and treatment of Navy and Marine Corps personnel in
operational theaters. No funds were requested to continue the
program for advanced technology development and evaluation of
the medical mobile monitor.
The committee continues to believe that the Department must
place high priority on the fielding of state-of-the-art, cost
effective, medical care for U.S. forces. The development and
demonstration of miniaturized, lightweight, rugged emergency
medicine and medical information technology tools for use in
forward units should lead to advances in critical medical care
for the military services that could also be adopted by other
Federal and civilian medical organizations that are required to
provide medical care in remote and austere environments. The
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to complete
the program for development and demonstration of mobile medical
monitor prototypes and to demonstrate the ability of the
monitor to interface with existing military communications
systems and medical information systems.
Micro-electromechanical systems guidance and control
The budget request contained $37.8 million in PE 63795N for
land attack systems technology for naval ship-to-shore fire
support.
The committee has strongly supported a naval surface fire
support (NSFS) program which focuses on near and long term
improvements to naval fire support systems. The committee
believes that advanced global positioning system/inertial
navigation system (GPS/INS) guidance and control technology is
essential to the NSFS program and to other precision guided
munitions programs. The success of this program and the
affordability and cost-effectiveness of advanced precision
guided munitions can be significantly enhanced by micro-
electromechanical systems (MEMS) technology used in the
guidance and control unit. MEMS technology has the potential to
significantly reduce the cost of the GPS/INS guidance and
control for the Navy's extended range guided projectile (ERGM),
the Army's low cost competent munition (LCCM), and other
Department programs. The committee is informed of a recent
successful demonstration of a MEMS-based advanced guidance and
control unit for the ERGM in gun-fired tests at Yuma Proving
Ground that demonstrated the promise of MEMS-based GPS/INS
technology. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase
of $5.0 million in PE 63795N to continue the Navy's guidance
and control risk reduction program, accelerate development and
qualification of MEMS-based GPS/INS guidance and control, and
ensure the early availability of the technology for ERGM
program, LCCM, and other guided munitions, rocket and missile
programs. The committee recommends that the Secretary of the
Navy and the Secretary of the Army ensure that the development
of MEMS-based GPS/INS guidance and control is coordinated
closely between the two services.
Mine countermeasures autonomous system technology
The budget request contained $42.7 million in PE 62315N for
mine countermeasures, mining, and special warfare technology.
The committee understands that recent research, operational
simulations, and evaluation of prototype hardware indicates
that application of autonomous robotics surveillance and
tactical oceanography system technologies could yield
significant improvements in shallow water mine countermeasures.
The committee believes that a partnership between academia, the
Navy materiel development community, and the Navy operational
community would be useful in evaluating the utility of such
systems, developing tactics for their use, and then evaluating
the operational results in at-sea tests of the systems and
tactics. To support such a program, the committee recommends an
increase of $3.0 million for research and development in
autonomous system technologies for shallow water mine
countermeasures.
Molecular design material science
The budget request contained $366.3 million in PE 61153N
for Navy defense research sciences. The committee holds
continuing interest in research in the synthesis and creation
ofnew molecular structures at the atomic level and the
potential that this research holds for developing new products for use
in electronics, biomedical science, and many other military
applications. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to
continue the program of basic research in molecular design materials
science that was initiated in fiscal year 1994. The committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy to conduct an assessment of the goals,
objectives, and progress of the program, and future directions and
funding requirements for the program, and to report the results of the
assessment to the Congressional defense committees by March 15, 1998.
National oceanographic partnerships program
The budget request contained $48.2 million in PE 62435N for
applied research in oceanographic and atmospheric technologies,
including $5.0 million to continue the National Oceanographic
Partnership Program.
In the belief that a strong national oceanography program
is essential to the long-term national security of the United
States, and to other areas of U.S. national interest, the
Congress established in section 282 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) the
National Oceanographic Partnerships Program. The objective of
the program is to coordinate and leverage all U.S.
oceanographic efforts in the Navy, industry, and academia, and
to encourage the sharing of resources, intellectual talent, and
facilities in ocean science and education in order to ensure
the superiority of the U.S. oceanography program. To maintain
the momentum of the program and provide a bridge until
additional funds for support of the program can be included in
the budget requests of other participating agencies and
departments, the committee recommends an increase of $16.0
million in PE 62435N and $7.5 million in Navy operations and
maintenance, as reflected in Title III of this report, to
continue to support the development of federal, academic and
industry oceanographic research partnerships under the program.
The committee commends the Secretary of the Navy for his
leadership of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to coordinate
with the secretaries of Commerce, Energy, and Interior, the
Director of the National Science Foundation, the Administrators
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency on funding levels required in
future budget requests for continuation of the NOPP, and to
provide a report to the Congressional defense committees by
February 28, 1998 on the funding for the program in the fiscal
year 1998 budget requests of these agencies and of the
Department of Defense.
National test and training range center initiative
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
has supported development of a capability in the Hampton Roads
region for integration and transcontinental connectivity of
military test and training ranges, which would result in a
national test network architecture to support widely
distributed combat systems integration and testing. The test
center, under development by the Navy, would leverage resources
from several existing government-sponsored high performance
computing and high speed network programs, such as simulation-
based design, synthetic theater of war, the National Science
Foundation's partnership for advanced computing infrastructure,
the high performance computing modernization program, and
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency distributed object
computation test bed. The committee recognizes the potential of
this technology in reducing the high cost of system
acquisition, test, and training, while enhancing quality and
stimulating advances in information technology and electronic
commerce. The committee encourages enhanced support for the
Navy's initiative.
Naval biodynamics laboratory data bank
The budget request contained no funding for the Naval
Biodynamics Laboratory (NBDL).
For nearly thirty years, the NBDL focused on the intensive
test, study, and analysis of the human body's response to the
trauma of crashes, and developed a national data bank of
collective human crash response information based on
approximately 3,500 crash tests using live human subjects. In
1996, the NBDL ceased operations as a result of previous
decisions to close the laboratory, but was not able to
consolidate and safely store its research information in a
consistent, useful data bank format. The committee believes
that the effort spent in amassing the unique human response
data by the NBDL should not be lost. Accordingly, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to develop a plan for
establishing a national crash survival data bank that will
safeguard the integrity of the data gathered by the NBDL and to
submit a report on the plan and the funding required to
establish the data bank with the fiscal year 1999 Defense
budget request.
Navy tactical missile system (NTACMS)
The budget request contained $37.8 million in PE 63795N for
development, demonstration, and validation of land attack
systems technology for naval ship-to-shore fire support.
The committee is aware of preliminary Navy studies
indicating that the U.S. Army tactical missile system (ATACMS),
when suitably marinized for employment by surface ships and
submarines, would enhance the Navy's capability against many
potential surface targets. The committee is further aware that
a Navy version of ATACMS, called NTACMS, meets the requirement
of the Naval Surface Fire Support Mission Need Statement (MNS)
for a responsive and lethal fire support missile system. The
committee is also aware of the successful demonstration in
November 1996 at White Sands Missile Range of the firing of an
ATACMS from a Navy Mark 41 Vertical Launch System launcher. The
proposed NTACMS would adapt the ATACMS Block IA missile with
the M74 submunition for naval use. In addition, the potential
exists in the future to adapt other ATACMS warhead variants
into NATACMS, including the Brilliant Anti-Tank (BAT) anti-
armor submunition and hard target penetrator weapons. The
committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 63795N
for program definition and risk reduction activities to permit
NTACMS to begin accelerated engineering and manufacturing
development in fiscal year 1999.
The committee considers it appropriate that demonstration,
validation, and risk reduction for NTACM and the Land Attack
Standard Missile (LASM) continue through fiscal year 1998. The
committee is aware of competing claims regarding cost and
effectiveness of the two systems that have been made by system
proponents. The committee strongly believes, cautions, and
expects that a through, objective, and independent cost and
operational effectiveness analysis ofcompeting system
alternatives will be required before the Navy proceeds with any
development milestone decision for a land attack missile.
P-3 maritime patrol aircraft modernization program
The budget request contained $3.2 million in PE 64221N to
continue upgrades to the P-3C aircraft system to enhance
surface and surface tracking, classification, and attack
capabilities.
The committee notes the continuing disparity between the
operational requirements of the regional commanders-in-chief
and the Navy's plans for modernization of the P-3C fleet, and
believes that the Navy must increase the priority given to the
P-3C modernization program.
The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million to
continue acceleration of the integration of anti-surface
warfare improvement program (AIP) sensors to reduce operator
workload, modernize the operator-machine interface, provide
additional sensor integration/enhancements, improve/automate
tactical planning aids, and provide for multi-sensor data
correlation and fusion.
Power electronic building blocks and power node control centers
The budget request contained $46.9 million in PE 62121N for
applied research in surface ship and submarine hull,
mechanical, and electrical technology, logistics technology,
and environmental protection for all Navy platforms and shore
facilities. The request included $6.0 million to continue the
development of power electronic building block for the rapid
switching and control of shipboard high power electrical
systems.
The committee believes that this technology should be
accelerated to provide the electric power system options for
future shipboard designs that include electric drive and for
meeting reduced manning goals through automation of ship
systems. The committee also believes that the use of virtual
prototyping for simulation and evaluation of advanced concept
electrical systems should contribute to this effort. The
committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to accelerate
the development and demonstration of power electronic building
blocks, and an increase of $1.5 million to continue the
development of power node control centers for advanced
integrated electrical distribution system fault detection,
switching, reconfiguration, and control of shipboard electrical
systems.
Precision targeting and location system
The budget request contained no funds for global
positioning system (GPS) interference precision targeting and
location.
The committee is aware of the potential vulnerability of
GPS signals to collateral interference and intentional jamming.
In fiscal year 1997, Congress authorized and appropriated $3.5
million in PE 64270N for demonstration of a flyable prototype
of a currently available technology capable of rapid, precision
location of sources of GPS interference in order to assess the
technical feasibility and utility of such a targeting system
incorporated on operational aircraft and unmanned aerial
vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million
in PE 64270N to complete the demonstration.
Project ``M''
The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 63508N for
technologies for submarine and surface ship handling,
machinery, and engineering systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to
continue the Navy's program for transition, development and
demonstration of advanced quieting technology developed under
the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency Project ``M.''
Proton exchange membrane fuel cells
The budget request contained $18.2 million in PE 63712N for
environmental quality and logistics advanced technology.
The committee understands that proton exchange membrane
(PEM) fuel cell technology is rapidly maturing and has been
successfully demonstrated in automotive and portable power
applications. High power conversion efficiency, modularity,
rugged operational characteristics and low environmental impact
should make the PEM fuel cell well-suited for portable and on-
site power generation. The committee believes that
opportunities exist for the development and demonstration of
PEM fuel cell technology for both military and civilian
applications in a cost-shared, cooperative program involving
government and industry that makes use of existing cooperative
research and development agreements. The demonstration would
permit the Department of the Navy and the civilian sector to
gain experience with, and evaluate the power generation
capability of a facility-level power plant that uses PEM fuel
cell technology. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase of $1.8 million to establish a cooperative, cost-
shared demonstration of PEM fuel cell technology.
Remote minehunting system
The budget request contained $18.3 million in PE 63502N for
surface and shallow water mine countermeasures, including $6.9
million for the Remote Minehunting System (RMS) (V)3.
RMS is a remotely operated system for detection and
classification of sea mines that operates from surface
combatant ships and provides the fleet with an organic means of
finding and avoiding mined waters. The RMS prototype was
successfully demonstrated in Exercise Kernel Blitz in March
1995 and subsequently deployed in an overseas exercise in which
the system again demonstrated great success in providing the
force the ability to quickly assess and monitor the extent of
the sea mine threat. The success of the demonstration has
resulted in an accelerated program to deploy RMS to the fleet
and the endorsement by the Chief of Naval Operations and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The committee
understands that an increase in funding would enable completion
of a second engineering development model (EDM) of the RMS,
including the over-the-horizon communication subsystem, and to
support integration of the RMS in DDG-51 Flight IIA new ship
construction and the AN/SQQ-89 undersea combat system.
Development of the second EDM would permit the Navy to meet an
aggressive program schedule and reduce program risk by allowing
concurrent environmental and development testing. The committee
recommends an increase of $7.9 million to accelerate the
integration of the RMS capability on other ships of the fleet.
Safety and survivability enhancements
The budget request contained $263.9 million in PE 65864N,
including $131.8 million for test and evaluation support at the
Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division and $85.7 million for
test and evaluation support at the Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division.
The committee believes that there is a high potential for
the adaptation of commercial off-the-shelf non-developmental
items (COTS NDI) that could improve operational safety and
combat survivability in the Navy's operational commands. To
that end, the committee has previously supported funding for
the procurement, test, and evaluation by the Navy of COTS NDI
that have high potential for contributing to safety of flight,
fire fighting, damage control, emergency preparedness ashore,
survival at sea, and chemical/biological warfare defense. The
committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to continue
ongoing evaluations and expand the program to assess COTS NDI
that are new to the industrial marketplace. The committee
recommends that the Secretary of the Navy consider establishing
a separate program line item for this activity in future budget
requests.
Second source qualification program for carbon fibers
The budget request contained $76.7 million in PE 62234N for
materials, electronics and computer technologies.
The committee continues to monitor the Navy's efforts in
materials applied research and development in support of
aviation platform affordability, supportability, and mission
performance. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million to continue the program established in fiscal year 1997
to address new materials processes such as resin transfer
molding and to establish second source qualification procedures
for carbon fibers for advanced composites used in several naval
aircraft and for prepreg systems.
Shipboard condition-based maintenance and damage assessment
The budget request contained $46.9 million in PE 62121N,
including $8.6 million for logistics and environmental quality
technology.
An objective of the Navy's logistics technology program is
the development of diagnostic technologies that will enable the
implementation of condition-based maintenance, rather than the
traditional philosophy of time-based maintenance. The committee
believes that advanced micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS)
employed in damage-tolerant sensor networks show promise for
meeting the Navy's goals for shipboard condition-based
maintenance and damage assessment. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62121N for the
development of enabling MEMS and damage-tolerant sensor network
technologies in preparation for the initiation of an advanced
technology demonstration in fiscal year 1999.
Ship self defense program
The budget request contained $132.3 million in PE 64755N
for the Navy's ship self defense program, including $14.1
million for development of an infrared mode upgrade to the
Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) and improvements in RAM's
capability against low-elevation targets. No funds were
requested to continue development of the Phalanx close-in
weapon system (CIWS).
As a result of experience gained during tanker escort
operations in the Persian Gulf that was confirmed during
Operation Desert Storm, the Navy established an operational
requirement for an advanced minor caliber gun system to provide
close-in defense for surface ships against small surface craft,
small low-flying aircraft, and helicopters. In May 1993,
following extensive Congressional defense committee reviews,
the Navy determined that adding a surface mode capability to
CIWS would provide the most cost and operationally effective
solution to address the operational requirement. In July 1993,
the Navy announced that the RAM would replace Phalanx on major
surface combatants, although development of the CIWS surface
mode capability (Phalanx Block IB) would continue for use on
other surface combatants and ships equipped with the CIWS.
Currently, 369 CIWS systems are fielded on 222 U.S. Navy ships
and 233 systems are fielded on foreign ships.
The committee understands that the Navy intends to end the
Phalanx Block IB upgrade following the completion of testing
and will not procure the upgrade for the fleet, but does intend
to field a low altitude or surface mode upgrade for the RAM
systems that will be deployed on major surface combatants. Navy
officials cited the need to reallocate fiscal year 1998 funding
to higher priority programs as the reason for the Phalanx Block
IB decision. The committee believes that the Navy's action
would leave the majority of the Navy's ships without the close-
in defense capability that the Navy previously convinced the
Defense authorizing committees was required and that this
decision reflects the Navy's continuing disregard of the
requirements to provide adequate self defense for U.S. fleet
ships, other than major combatants, that have been the focus of
the ship self defense program.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to reassess
the requirement for close-in defense of Navy surface ships and
how the Navy will satisfy the requirements not only for major
surface combatants, but also for other surface ships in the
fleet. A report of the results of the assessment and the Navy's
plan for meeting the requirement shall be submitted to the
Congressional defense committees by February 28, 1998. No
fiscal year 1998 funds may be obligated for the RAM upgrade
program until thirty days after the Secretary's report is
received by the committees.
Submarine anti-submarine warfare defensive weapons
The budget request contained $54.8 million in PE 63747N for
advanced technology.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to
mature the development of hydrodynamics and propulsion
technologies for the 6.25" torpedo vehicle and expand guidance
and control technologies. The additional funds would accelerate
the development and demonstration of technologies applicable to
quick reaction anti-submarine weapons for close-range
engagements and to defensive systems for protecting surface
ships and submarines against torpedo attack.
Submarine combat system multi-purpose processor (MPP)
The budget request contained $42.3 million in PE 64503N for
SSN-688 and TRIDENT modernization, including $33.5 million for
submarine sonar improvement. However, the budget request did
not contain funding for the MPP.
To facilitate rapid improvements in submarine acoustic
data processing, the Navy selected the MPP as the cornerstone
of sonar upgrades for the existing SSN-688, 688I and TRIDENT
submarines. At one-half the cost of legacy systems, the MPP
provides the Navy with vastly improved processing power and the
ability to integrate advanced software to existing hardware
using an open operating system architecture. For fiscal year
1997, the committee recommended an additional $11.0 million and
Congress appropriated $7.0 million for advanced development and
rapid introduction of the MPP into the U.S. submarine fleet. To
continue this cost-effective initiative, the committee
recommends an increase of $15.0 million.
Surface ship torpedo defense system
The budget request contained no funds to continue the
Navy's surface ship torpedo defense (SSTD) program.
In 1995, the Navy informed Congress that the SSTD program
was being restructured to mitigate the risk and cost in
development of an improved torpedo defense capability for Navy
surface ships. The committee is encouraged by the recent
successes in development of the launched expendable acoustic
device (LEAD) and the multi-sensor torpedo recognition and
alertment processor (MSTRAP) and the improvements in SSTD
capability that these systems will provide when deployed to the
fleet. However, the absence of funding for continuation of the
SSTD program in fiscal year 1998 will halt further progress and
will inhibit the ability of the Navy to capitalize on the
results of the joint United States/United Kingdom
demonstration/validation program. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $9.8 million in PE 63506N to continue
the SSTD development program and further enhance detection,
classification, and localization of threat torpedoes and
integrated improved soft kill capabilities that are being
tested in the joint United States/United Kingdom programs.
Surveillance towed array sensor system/low frequency active program
The budget request contained $9.9 million in PE 24311N for
the integrated surveillance system, including research and
development support of the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor
System (SURTASS) and for the integrated undersea surveillance
system (IUSS).
The committee understands that the SURTASS is a proven
mobile, long-range underwater passive acoustic sensor systems
and that the addition of the low frequency active (LFA)
capability provides a significant increase in the capability of
the system to detect quiet submarines operating in both deep
ocean and shallow coastal littoral waters. In the statement of
managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 3230 (H.
Rept. 104-724), the conferees agreed to increased funding for
the SURTASS program which would:
(1) continue development and integration of SURTASS
twin line arrays, reduce the size of transmit arrays,
continue fiber optic array development, expand
frequency processing capabilities, and conduct at-sea
testing of resulting developments;
(2) sustain the low frequency active program and
development of more reliable low frequency active
transmitters; and
(3) adapt SURTASS software algorithms for submarine
sonar systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
24311N to continue the development of fiber optic sensors for
the SURTASS/LFA program.
Visualization architecture technology for aviation test and evaluation
The budget request contained $33.2 million in PE 64759N
for the Navy's Major Test & Evaluation Investment program.
The committee understands that increased funding is
required for the visualization architecture and technology
project to develop and improve data display technologies,
provide enhanced situation awareness, and improve the ability
of developmental and operational test personnel to assess
complex, dynamic air combat testing and operations. The
committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million, and expects
the project to focus initially on improving aviation
development and test capabilities at the Navy's Air Combat
Environment Test and Evaluation Facility.
Air Force RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $14,451.4 million for Air
Force RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of
$14,659.7 million, an increase of $208.4 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1998 Air
Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major
changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the
table and in the classified annex to this report.
Items of Special Interest
ALR-69 radar warning receiver
The budget request contained $25.6 million in PE 63270F for
electronic combat technology. Included in this program are
modernization efforts to improve the survivability of current
technology combat aircraft in high radar threat environments.
The committee notes that while efforts to date have
successfully improved radar warning equipment for aircraft
employed by active forces, the Air Force Reserve, Air National
Guard, and Special Operations Forces aircraft have not received
adequate development support to integrate these same
survivability improvements. The committee recommends an
increase of $14.0 million to accelerate these additional
survivability improvement efforts.
Autonomous free-flight dispenser system
The budget request contained $41.2 million in PE 63605F for
advanced weapons technology.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense's
increased emphasis in developing precision guided munitions
(PGMs) with stand-off capability to enhance strike aircraft
performance and survivability. Although the services are
pursuing several PGM development programs to address specific
requirements, the committee is aware of a previously tested
glide-bomb PGM which, when modified with turbojet powered
capability, could address a significant number of current
precision weapon system requirements. The autonomous free
flight dispenser-turbo (AFDS-T) has been successfully tested on
U.S. strike aircraft in an unpowered configuration and a glide
version is currently in production in Europe for allied
aircraft. The committee believes that the AFDS-T offers both
cost effective PGM capability as well as interoperability with
allied forces and recommends an increase of $15.0 million to
conduct sufficient verification testing to evaluate the
capability of this weapon system and its suitability for U.S.
forces.
Bomber testing
The budget request contained $389.3 million in PE 65807F
for test and evaluation support of Air Force test ranges and
facilities.
The committee is aware of ongoing efforts to improve B-2
bomber testing capability at the Bark Flight Test Facility and
supports the expansion of this facility's capability to conduct
testing of other Air Force bomber aircraft. The committee
recommends an increase of $8.0 million to add test capability
to this existing facility for B-1B, B-52, and other bomber or
strike aircraft.
Conventional ballistic missile
The budget request contained $32.8 million in PE 63851F for
intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) demonstration and
validation activities.
The committee notes that a number of ``rogue'' nations have
constructed hardened, deeply buried facilities. Some of these
facilities represent command and control structures and sites
at which weapons of mass destruction are developed and stored
and are therefore of great military significance. The
destruction of these sites requires a weapon that can penetrate
hardened structures or rock, while maintaining sufficient
structural integrity to detonate. The committee further notes
that the ability of the U.S. military to strike at these
targets effectively without recourse to nuclear weapons is
extremely limited.
The committee believes that a conventionally armed ICBM has
the potential to hold these targets at risk, in the near term,
and at modest cost. This proposed capability is based on a
combination of very high ICBM warhead terminal velocities,
technologies that allow precision delivery, long range,
relative invulnerability to enemy defenses, and the maturity of
current ICBM technology.
Therefore, the committee recommends $49.3 million for ICBM
demonstration and validation activities, an increase of $16.5
million. The additional funding is for the purpose of
establishing a conventional ballistic missile advanced concept
technology demonstration program. The funding is to be used to
modify an existing reentry vehicle, complete flight test plans,
and procure long lead items to support a flight test.
Ejection seats
The budget request contained $7.9 million in PE 63216N for
aviation survivability and $17.2 million in PE 63231F for crew
systems and personnel protection technology.
The committee understands that improvements are needed in
tactical aircraft ejection seat systems to provide adequate
safety for air crews. The committee fully supports enhanced
crew safety, and recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE
63216N and an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63231F for
continued development of improvements in aircrew ejection seats
and evaluation of alternative technologies leading to an
injury-free ejection seat design.
High speed anti-radiation missile
The budget request contained $13.6 million for manned
destructive suppression in PE 27136F.
The committee believes that the high speed anti-radiation
(HARM) missile provides a significant capability for
suppression of enemy air defenses. The committee supports the
HARM development and recommends an increase of $3.0 million to
accelerate development of HARM F-16 interfaces and operational
flight software.
Joint strike fighter
The budget request contained $458.1 million in PE 63800F
for the Air Force portion of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). As
mentioned elsewhere in this report, the committee is extremely
concerned that the current pace of the Department's tactical
aviation programs is both unaffordable and not coordinated with
the emerging Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The committee
notes that this request represents an increase of $27.0 million
over the projected funding for JSF identified in the 1997
Future Years Defense Plan and recommends $431.1 million, a
decrease of $27.0 million.
Minuteman safety enhanced reentry vehicle
The budget request contained $137.9 million in PE 64851F
for efforts to upgrade the Minuteman III intercontinental
ballistic missile (ICBM) guidance and propulsion systems.
The Minuteman guidance replacement program (GRP) is
replacing 1960's vintage electronics with modern supportable
technology. The program is proceeding through engineering and
manufacturing development and the first of the upgraded
guidance systems is expected to be delivered in 1999. The GRP
also preserves the option to incorporate the Mk-21 safety
enhanced reentry vehicle on the Minuteman III ICBM if
Peackeeper ICBMs, which are now equipped with the Mk-21, are
retired.
The committee notes that the Mk-21 is the most modern,
safest, and logistically supportable reentry vehicle in the Air
Force inventory. It further notes that the Air Force is
planning to replace the older Mk-12A reentry vehicle with the
Mk-21 on 150 Minuteman III ICBMs. However, the actual design
and development efforts for the hardware and software needed
for the incorporation of the Mk-21 remain to be accomplished.
Initial engineering tests will be accomplished with additional
funding authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The
committee believes that a continuation of this effort will
reduce the risk of a potentially costly redesign and refit of
the new guidance systems. To promote the timely completion of
Mk-21 integration efforts, the committee recommends $152.9
million for PE 64851F, an increase of $15.0 million.
Pollution prevention
The budget request contained $5.9 million for pollution
prevention in PE 65854F.
The committee is aware of an automated monitoring network
demonstration for in-ground, real-time monitoring of aquifers
that allows the user to accurately determine if the
contaminated area is stable or requires costly remediation.
This smart monitoring system is designed to completely replace
expensive, time consuming and potentially dangerous collection
and transporting of soil and groundwater samples for analysis.
The Air Force requires additional funding to further evaluate
the system by continuing to monitor current wells and to expand
the demonstration to monitor for contaminants in the aquifer
throughout the base. The committee supports improvements in
environmental monitoring on military installations and
recommends an increase of $5.0 million for this program.
Protein-based ultra-high density memory
The budget request contained $86.1 million in PE 62702F for
command, control, and communications research.
The committee understands that Air Force exploratory
development in bioelectronics research has produced promising
results that offer an alternative approach to data storage.
Work to date has demonstrated that protein memory technology is
feasible and potentially capable ofenabling significant
increases in memory storage capacity. The committee recommends an
increase of $3.0 million to continue protein-based memory research.
Range improvement program
The budget request contained $47.3 million for major test
and evaluation investment in PE 64759F.
The committee understands that the test range at Eglin Air
Force Base is a national asset that provides important test and
evaluation capabilities for the Department of Defense. It is
also aware that the range needs improved instrumentation and
other modernization to meet 21st century requirements. The
committee supports improved test and evaluation and recommends
an increase of $14.8 million for range modernization.
Rocket propulsion research
The budget request contained $48.1 million for rocket
propulsion technology in the integrated high payoff rocket
propulsion technology (IHPRPT) initiative programs.
The IHPRPT represents the Department of Defense's principal
technology effort to dramatically improve the performance of
rocket systems and is leveraged through coordination and
cooperation with industry and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. The committee believes that the
Department's strong leadership and commitment to this effort is
essential to achieving this leverage, and is concerned that the
requested level of funding may be insufficient to sustain
critical research in materials and propellants. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to PE 62601F,
$1.5 million be added to PE 63302F, and an increase of $1.0
million to each for PE 62111N and PE 63217N for IHPRPT
programs.
Rocket system launch program
The budget request contained $8.0 million in PE 65860F for
the rocket system launch program (RSLP). The RSLP provides
research, development, test, and evaluation support to the
Department of Defense and other government agencies using
excess ballistic missile assets.
The committee continues to support the atmospheric
interceptor technology (AIT) program, a primary technology base
program within the Ballistic Missile Defense Office for
advanced hit-to-kill interceptor technologies. Flight tests are
needed in fiscal year 1998 for the AIT program to move ahead,
but funding for these tests was not included in the AIT or RSLP
budget requests. The committee understands that these flight
tests may use experimental Advanced Solid Axial Stages
boosters, the testing of which will help the RSLP program
better meet future requirements. The committee recommends $33.0
million for RSLP, an increase of $25.0 million, to support AIT
flight tests in fiscal year 1998.
Solar thermionics orbital transfer vehicle
The budget request contained $40.8 million for advanced
spacecraft technology in PE 63401F.
The committee is aware that space power and thermal
management technology is important to the goal of making future
space-based systems more affordable. The committee also
understands that the Air Force has initiated an orbital
transfer vehicle program that will use thermionics technology
to provide both electrical power and propulsion. The committee
supports use of technological innovation to reduce the cost of
space systems and recommends an increase of $20.0 million to
support the orbital transfer vehicle program.
Space and Missile Rocket Propulsion
The budget request contained $16.2 million within PE 63302F
for Space and Missile Rocket Propulsion.
The committee remains concerned that the nation's space
launch system is too unreliable and expensive and believes that
exploration of potentially revolutionary launch technologies is
fully justified. Improving the efficiency and responsiveness of
U.S. launch capabilities is important to a wide range of
military activities and to reducing infrastructure costs.
The Scorpius space launch technology demonstration program
embodies one promising approach to robust, inexpensive,
scalable launch capabilities. It has been funded through seven
small business innovative research awards by BMDO and Phillips
Laboratory. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million for continuation of the Scorpius program and that the
funding for the Scorpius program be transferred from BMDO (PE
63173C) to the Air Force (PE 63302F).
The committee believes that military single-stage-to-orbit
(SSTO) vehicles could also be important to future defense
missions and could provide assured and very flexible access to
space. The committee notes that the budget request contained no
funding for the military spaceplane, however, the Air Force has
expressed support for this program and indicates that it will
be funded in fiscal year 1999. The committee recommends an
increase of $15.0 million in PE 63302F to continue this
program.
Titan space launch vehicles
The budget request contained $82.4 million in PE 35144F for
research and development on Titan IVB boosters and related
equipment.
The Titan IVB uses upgraded strap-on solid rocket motors
(SRMUs) to enable the Titan booster to meet increasing
performance requirements. The Air Force determined that the
SRMU needed to be requalified for use on the Titan IVB, if the
program were to continue beyond 37 launches. The process of
making this determination resulted in a significant lag in the
obligation and expenditure of funding that was authorized in
fiscal year 1996. Therefore, the committee recommends $67.4
million, a reduction of $15.0 million to reflect this delay.
Trusted rubix
The budget request contained $5.3 million for the
information systems security program in PE 33140F.
The committee is aware that the advent of the information
age has caused a greater reliance on computer-based systems
and, accordingly supports the Department's efforts to improve
computer security and to protect the defense information
infrastructure from attack. The committee recommends an
increase of $2.3 million for continued development of the
Trusted Rubix multi-level security program.
Defense Agencies RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $9,361.2 million for Defense
Agencies RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of
$9,914.1 million, an increase of $552.8 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 1998
Defense Agencies RDT&E program are identified in the table
below. Major changes to the Defense Agencies request are
discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Active structural control
The budget request contained $82.6 million in PE 63764E for
land warfare technology, including $29.0 million for technology
for early entry forces.
The committee understands that the helicopter active noise
and vibration control (HANVC) program is demonstrating in a
helicopter rotor control system the active structural control
technology that was developed in the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency advanced submarine technology program. The
technology has the potential for significantly reducing the
radiated noise and vibration produced by helicopters. The
reduction in radiated noise and vibration could increase the
survivability of helicopters on the battlefield and could also
significantly reduce maintenance costs as well as crew and
passenger discomfort. The committee recommends an increase of
$6.6 million in PE 63764E for the HANVC program.
Advanced concept technology demonstrations
The budget request contained $121.1 million in PE 63750D
for Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTD). The
committee is concerned that this represents more than a hundred
percent increase for the fiscal year 1997 appropriation of
$58.5 million. Although the Department has stated that ACTDs
are used to apply mature technologies to meet urgent military
requirements, the committee has found that ACTDs often use
technology that is not mature and fail to address a validated
urgent military requirement. Therefore, the committee questions
the requirement for the requested funding increase and
recommends $91.1 million, a decrease of $30.0 million in PE
63750D.
Advanced lithography program
The budget request contained $32.0 million in PE 63739E for
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) advanced
lithography program.
The committee notes the critical role played by lithography
in the development of advanced microchip technology and the
role of the microchip as the engine of the information
technology revolution that is the foundation of modern
warfighting. The DARPA advanced lithography program was
established in response to Section 216 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) as
a goal-oriented program to ensure the development of
lithographic processes that would lead to superior performance
electronics systems for the Department of Defense. The goal of
the DARPA program to provide early research in high risk, high
payoff technologies for the pattern transfer of highly complex
patterns at sub 0.1 micron resolution, and focuses on the areas
of maskless writing, new imaging materials, metrology, and
exploitation of recent developments such as proximal probes and
quantum structures. DARPA investments are used to demonstrate
proofs of concept, with planned early transition to the
services and industry for development of the prototype stage;
and the DARPA strategy puts responsibility for research and
development investments within five or six years of production
in the hands of industry. The committee understands that DARPA
is working with industry and the Navy to transition the DARPA
program in x-ray lithography. To facilitate this transfer and
ensure a smooth transition of the technology development
program to industry and the Navy, the committee recommends an
increase of $15.0 million. The committee also recommends an
increase of $6.0 million for the support of ongoing long term
nanofabrication and extreme ultraviolet lithography research
aimed at the fabrication of nanoelectric structures.
Advanced submarine technology program
The budget request contained $69.1 million in PE 63763E for
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency marine technology
program. No funds were included for joint U.S./Russian
submarine research and development.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to
enable the Director of DARPA to establish a U.S.-Russian
cooperative program for research and development relevant to
nuclear submarines. This initiative will capitalize on the
trust and confidence created under DARPA-sponsored initiatives
with the Russian submarine design bureaus and institutes of the
Russian Academies of Science. The cooperative program should
apply to technology in the areas of nuclear submarine
architecture, ship automation and damage control, submarine
hydrodynamics and hydroacoustics. The technical direction and
scope of these initiatives will be coordinated with the
Department of the Navy.
Airborne information transmission
The budget request contained $10.8 million in PE 35206D to
continue testing and evaluation of the airborne information
transmission (ABIT) system.
The committee believes that all major airborne
reconnaissance systems should have the ability to communicate
and cooperatively operate sensor systems using wide-bandwidth,
high data rate communications. Such a capability would allow
real-time database sharing, cooperative target location, a long
haul ``reach back'' capability to national processing
facilities, and use/control of collection systems from platform
to platform. The committee supports the Department's Common
Data Link (CDL) and ABIT efforts to pursue these capabilities.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a study on the costs, requirements, and benefits of
adding wide-bandwidth data links on all major airborne
reconnaissance/surveillance aircraft. The study should also
provide costs for developing and installing this capability on
the various aircraft. The results of this study shall be
provided to the Congressional defense and intelligence
committees by October 1, 1998.
The committee notes the ongoing Air Force efforts to
integrate ABIT capabilities on the RC-135 reconnaissance
aircraft, and believes this effort should be the basis for all
future manned reconnaissance interoperability efforts,
including an ABIT capability on the joint surveillance target
attack radar system aircraft. The committee recommends an
increase of $3.0 million for the Air Force to lead this effort.
Airborne overhead integrated task force (AOITF)
The Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community
have formed an integrated task force to investigate the costs
and benefits of correlating airborne and overhead
signalsintelligence data for improved target location capabilities. The
task force has concluded the first phase of its work, unquestionably
showing results that would provide high payoff for tactical forces at
modest costs. Due to the timing of the task force's study, the
administration could not address its findings and funding
recommendations in the budget request.
Based on the potential importance of this initiative for
dominant battlefield awareness in several primary mission
areas, the committee recommends an increase of $7.2 million in
the PE 35206D, within Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program
for continuing AOITF investigations and developments.
Additionally, the committee recommends an additional $2.3
million in PE 31359A, within the General Defense Intelligence
Program for required software improvements to the Joint
Collection Management Tool program. Other actions are detailed
in the classified annex to this report.
The committee applauds the work of the task force and the
decision to sustain it and ultimately transform it into a joint
office to oversee implementation. The committee also fully
endorses the task force's plan to examine the costs and
benefits of cooperative processing in other, closely related
areas.
Airborne reconnaissance advanced development
The budget request contained $4.5 million in PE 35206D for
continued refinement of the joint airborne reconnaissance
architecture standards. Included in this amount was funding for
verifying compliance and interoperability of new upgrades and
developments. The committee recommends $1.5 million for this
effort, a decrease of $3.0 million.
The budget request for PE 35206D also contained $3.0
million for initiating development of the heavy fuel engine
(HFE) for the tactical UAV. Department of Defense documentation
duplicates justification for requesting an HFE within PE
35204D. Additionally, the committee is aware that previous
authorizations and appropriations for this effort have not been
fully obligated or expended. Therefore, the committee
recommends a decrease of $3.0 million in this program element.
Airborne reconnaissance advanced development
The budget request contained $9.6 million in PE 35206D for
studies and advanced designs leading to possible future
integration of the joint signals intelligence (SIGINT) avionics
family (JSAF) collection systems on the Global Hawk unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV). It also contained $6.6 million for
beginning development of systems to incorporate the JSAF prime
mission equipment. The committee understands that this funding
will not build systems, but only provide the necessary studies
and initial design efforts to do so.
The committee understands the Global Hawk is an advanced
concept technology demonstration (ACTD) designed to validate
the military utility of a high altitude, long endurance, wide
area coverage UAV. There is no stated goal for a SIGINT
demonstration in the ACTD, and as stated by Department
witnesses, there is no Joint Requirements Oversight Council
approval for such requirement. Additionally, since the military
utility demonstration phase of this ACTD is scheduled to be
completed in fiscal year 2000, there has been no determination
that this air vehicle will be continued beyond the ACTD.
Although the committee does not believe this vehicle will
ever totally replace existing SIGINT systems, it does believe
there may be a future utility for a focused Global Hawk SIGINT
mission. However, the committee is not willing to authorize the
expenditure of such large sums for studying such a future
mission when the air vehicle has not yet flown, or proven its
military utility and suitability for its primary imagery role.
The committee is particularly sensitive to this issue when the
Department is apparently willing to deny funding to upgrade
critical operational SIGINT collection systems in order to fund
demonstration systems. Accordingly, the Congress for fiscal
year 1997 denied $10.0 million funding request in the Global
Hawk program element for SIGINT development. The committee,
however, has recently learned that the Department has an
additional $4.0 million in fiscal year 1997 funds in the
Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program's advanced technology
funding line for this same purpose.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $16.2
million in this program element for the purpose of advanced
design for a SIGINT capability on Global Hawk. The committee
will be willing to address this issue as a product improvement
to an imagery-capable and militarily suitable air vehicle that
has been demonstrated, proven, and approved for acquisition.
The committee believes the fiscal year 1997 funds are
sufficient to study not implement development of a future
SIGINT application and agrees the funds should be expended for
that purpose.
Ballistic missile defense
The budget request contained $2,589.1 million for research,
development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), procurement, and
military construction of ballistic missile defense (BMD)
systems within the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO). The committee recommends changes to the request as
summarized below:
[In millions of dollars]
Support technologies(PE63173C)................................ $25.0
Navy Theater Wide (PE63868C).................................. 150.0
Navy Area Theater (PE64867C).................................. 22.0
THAAD (PE64861C).............................................. 45.0
National Missile Defense (PE63871C)........................... 474.0
Cooperative Programs (PE63XXXC)............................... 123.1
Joint Theater Missile Defense (PE63872C)...................... (18.7)
UAV BPI (PE63870C)............................................ (12.9)
Theater Missile Defense procurement........................... 384.6
A detailed explanation of the recommended changes are
provided below.
Cooperative programs
The budget request did not contain a separate program
element (PE) for cooperative ballistic missile defense (BMD)
programs. The committee continues to support cooperative
ballistic missile defense programs with U.S. allies.
The budget request for cooperative BMD programs with Israel
contained $38.7 million for the Arrow Continuation Experiments/
Arrow Deployability project (ACES/ADP) in PE 63872C, and $12.9
million for the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Boost Phase Intercept
(UAV BPI) program in PE 63870C. The Israeli commitment to
cooperative BMD development remains strong. The committee notes
the accomplishments achieved to date by the U.S.-Israeli ACES/
ADP project and recommends $48.7 million for the program, an
increase of $10.0 million. The committee believes that
additional funding will support efforts to deploy an Israeli
ballistic missile defense capability while also providing
valuable technological benefits to on-going U.S. TMD programs.
The budget request contained $16.5 million within PE 63308A
for the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) program. The
committee is aware that the threat from tactical rockets and
missiles is growing, as such systems proliferate world-wide.
The U.S. and Israel are cooperating in an effort to respond to
this threat by developing a high energy laser that can destroy
tactical missiles in flight.
The committee recommends a legislative provision (sec. 236)
that would transfer the THEL program from the Secretary of the
Army to the director of BMDO, and would authorize a total of
$38.2 million for the THEL program. The committee directs the
transfer of $16.5 million from PE 63308A to PE 63XXXC, a new
program element that would consolidate cooperative ballistic
missile defense programs under BMDO management. The committee
also recommends an increase of $15.0 million to ensure
completion of the first phase of the program to design, build,
integrate and test the THEL advanced concept technology
demonstrator and to begin developmental testing to validate
THEL capabilities. The committee further directs the director
of BMDO to provide the remaining $6.7 million required for the
THEL program from BMDO administrative accounts.
The budget request did not contain funding for two
cooperative projects with Russia, the Russian-American
Observation Satellite (RAMOS) and the Active Plasma Experiment
(APEX). The committee recommends $30.0 million for the RAMOS
and APEX projects. Recent events indicate some Russian interest
in exploring the possibility of greater cooperation in this
area. For example, at the recent Helsinki summit, Presidents
Clinton and Yeltsin declared that they are prepared to explore
integrated cooperative defense efforts in the area of early
warning support for TMD activities, technology cooperation in
areas related to TMD, and expansion of the ongoing program of
cooperation in TMD exercises.
The committee notes that expanded cooperation with Russia
in the area of ballistic missile defense must be carefully
considered and implemented only in a manner that does not
jeopardize U.S. technological advantages or the development and
deployment of U.S. BMD systems. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian
cooperative projects--identifying the costs and benefits
associated with each project--and to submit this plan to the
Congressional defense committees no later than February 1,
1998.
The committee believes that the effective management of
cooperative BMD programs requires their consolidation in a
separate program element. Therefore, the committee recommends a
legislative provision (Sec. 232) that would establish the
``Cooperative Ballistic Missile Program'' as a separate program
element within BMDO to support technical and analytical
cooperative missile defense efforts between the U.S. and other
nations.
The committee recommends $123.1 million to support the
cooperative programs in the new PE63XXXC. This amount includes
the transfers of $38.7 million from PE 63872C, $12.9 million
from PE 63870C, $16.5 million from PE 63308A, and an increase
of $55.0 million over the amounts requested.
Joint theater missile defense
The budget request contained $542.6 million for the Joint
Theater Missile Defense (JTMD) in PE 63872C.
The Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) provides an
essential test range capability for Navy and other TMD
programs. PMRF enhancements are needed to ensure that the range
can support the full scope of TMD testing required in the
future. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million
for the purpose of upgrading the PMRF.
The committee also directs the transfer of $38.7 million
from PE 63872C to the new cooperative BMD PE 63XXXC to support
the Israeli-U.S. effort to develop the Arrow ballistic missile
defense system (project 2259). The details of this transfer are
discussed elsewhere in this report.
The committee recommends $523.9 million for the JTMD
program.
Medium extended air defense system (MEADS)
The budget request contained $47.9 million in PE 63869C for
the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).
The Administration has identified the MEADS as a high
priority Theater Missile Defense (TMD) initiative and as an
important international cooperative development effort. While
the committee supports MEADS, it does so with some reluctance
since the Administration currently has no funding in fiscal
year 1998 or the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) to continue
MEADS development beyond the current project definition-
validation phase. The Administration's apparent lack of long-
term commitment to MEADS threatens both program stability and
perceptions of U.S. reliability as a partner in current and
future international cooperative programs. The committee's
support for MEADS is dependent on the Administration's
willingness to fund its continued development and the Secretary
of Defense is urged to provide adequate funding for this
development in the FYDP and to designate strongly MEADS as a
core TMD program.
Multilateralization of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
The committee notes the Administration's decision to seek
to expand beyond Russia the number of states party to the 1972
U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty to include
three former republics of the Soviet Union.
The committee is concerned with the Administration's
contention that multilateralizing the ABM Treaty is not a
substantive change to the treaty's terms and, therefore,
Congressional approval is not required. In a report to Congress
in November 1996, the Administration asserted that ``the
resolution of succession questions has long been regarded as a
function of the Executive Branch'' and that the notion of
Congressional approval of any succession agreement ``would cast
doubt on well-established principles of treaty succession.''
The committee believes that the issue of whether or not
multilateralization involves substantive changes to ABM Treaty
has less to do with the question of which states are
appropriate successors than with the rights accorded those
states under the agreement reached. For example, the treaty
allows the parties to deploy up to 100 ABM interceptors.
However, the administration has stated that Russia will be
granted exclusive rights to deploy the full complement of 100
interceptors on its side. In other words, although the former
Soviet states of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan might become
parties to the treaty, they would not be allowed to deploy ABM
interceptors on their national territory. In the committee's
view, this represents a modification to the rights of the
states party to the ABM Treaty, and, therefore a substantive
change to the treaty.
Furthermore, the committee believes that the addition of
multiple coequal parties to the ABM Treaty would substantively
change the process by which treaty revisions to might be
negotiated. Four parties, each of equal legal standing but with
varying rights accorded under the treaty, would presumably have
to agree unanimously to amend the treaty if the U.S. pursues
such amendments. Such a process is substantively different than
negotiating with one equal party.
Deployment of an effective national missile defense capable
of defending all fifty states, even against a limited ballistic
missile threat, will likely require amendment of the treaty.
With five parties where there were once only two, the treaty
amendment process would be rendered much more difficult, and
perhaps impossible. Thus, even while the Administration
purports to be committed to an NMD deployment option, it
simultaneously supports a change to the ABM Treaty that could
render any such deployment option, short of abrogating the
treaty, implausible.
The committee believes that multilateralization represents
a substantive change to the ABM Treaty, and, as such, that the
Administration is required to submit any such proposal to
Congress for appropriate review and approval.
National missile defense
The budget request contained $504.1 million for National
Missile Defense (NMD) in PE 63871C, $324.7 million less than
appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The Secretary of Defense
recently informed the committee that NMD funding in the Future
Years Defense Plan (FYDP) is inadequate to support the program
and identified a fiscal year 1998 shortfall of $474.0 million,
part of a total shortfall of at least $2.3 billion over the
FYDP.
The committee has consistently believed that proposed NMD
budgets were inadequate to support the Administration's ``three
plus three'' deployment readiness program. As early as 1994,
the committee was informed by the BMDO that annual NMD funding
of $600 million was required for a viable technology readiness
program. BMDO reported then that annual funding in the range of
only $450 million ``could seriously damage our NMD readiness
strategy and would likely permit projected third world threats
to the homeland to materialize prior to any viable NMD
deployment capability.'' In 1995, BMDO informed the committee
that a ``three plus three'' deployment readiness program would
require annual development funding of $800 million to $850
million. However, the Administration's annual funding requests
have consistently fallen hundreds of millions of dollars short
of the levels needed for a viable program. Even after the
Administration provides additional outyear funding for NMD, the
program schedule will be challenging and the committee is
concerned that several factors may undermine the viability of
even the Administration's option to deploy an NMD by 2003.
First, the previous Under Secretary for Acquisition and
Technology testified to the committee that no long lead
procurement funding for NMD had been budgeted anywhere in the
FYDP because no deployment decision had been made. The
committee remains concerned that unless appropriate funds for
long lead procurement, military construction, and deployment
planning are programmed in fiscal year 1999, the option to
deploy an NMD by 2003 will be unavailable. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Director of BMDO to provide a report to
the Congressional defense committees by February 1, 1998,
detailing long lead procurement, military construction, and
deployment planning, and any other acquisition activity that
must be funded prior to a decision to deploy an NMD in order to
ensure that deployment by 2003 could be achieved; the cost of
these activities; and how BMDO intends to preserve a 2003
deployment option if these activities are not funded in the
fiscal year 1999 budget request.
Second, the committee is concerned with persistent NMD
program organizational difficulties, particularly the delays in
establishing the NMD joint program office and awarding the lead
system integrator contracts. The committee urges the Secretary
to ensure that all management and contract difficulties are
identified and addressed in an expedited manner in an effort to
provide some long overdue stability to the program.
Third, the committee notes that inadequate investments in
test assets has increased technical and schedule risk for BMD
programs, including NMD. A recent test failure, due to human
error in the launch sequence of a NMD test vehicle, resulted in
delays to the program because another booster and additional
test targets were not available. The committee finds this kind
of delay unacceptable for such a high priority program.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Director of BMDO to
report to the Congressional defense committees by February 1,
1998, on the specific steps that are being taken, and those
that should be taken but are not, to mitigate schedule risks
and the potential for single point failures resulting from
inadequate test assets.
Finally, the committee notes that NMD battle management/
command, control, and communications (BM/C3) funding has
declined dramatically in each of the last two fiscal years.
Effective BM/C3 is of central importance to the success of all
ballistic missile defense efforts. While the committee is
encouraged that reuse of theater missile defense BM/C3 software
is being emphasized by BMDO as a means of speeding development
and reducing risk and cost, NMD software development remains a
significant challenge. The committee believes that BM/C3
development and risk reduction efforts deserve priority
attention and urges DOD to establish reuse of TMD BM/C3 as a
significant evaluation criterion in future NMD system contract
awards, consistent with system requirements.
The committee believes that deployment of a national
missile defense remains a national priority and recommends
$978.1 million, an increase of $474.0 million.
Navy area theater ballistic missile defense
The budget request contained $267.8 million in PE 64867C
for Navy Area Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (TBMD). The
committee notes the program's recent missile intercept testing
successes and supports Department efforts to accelerate this
program. As with all current TMD programs, the committee
believes that the Navy Area TBMD test program could be more
effectively accelerated if sufficient threat representative
missile targets and test component spares were available.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $289.8 million, an
increase of $22.0 million to provide additional test support.
Navy theater-wide missile defense
The budget request contained $194.9 million in PE 63868C
for the Navy theater-wide missile defense system. The unfunded
requirements list from the Chief of Naval Operations and
communications from other offices in the Navy indicate that the
theater-wide program is inadequately funded to support an
accelerated development test plan. Moreover, there is a growing
concern that the Department still has not thoroughly assessed
the feasibility of accelerating the currently planned Navy
theater-wide missile defense deployment date of fiscal year
2008. Noting numerous Administration statements attaching high
priority to TMD programs, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to report to the Congressional defense committees no
later than February 15, 1998, on the cost and technical
feasibility of options for a more robust Navy theater-wide
flight test program, the earliest technically feasible
deployment date, and costs associated with such a deployment
date. The committee recommends an increase of $344.9 million,
an increase of $150.0 million, to support a more robust program
schedule.
Support technologies
The budget request contained a total of $147.6 million in
PE 63173C for BMD support technologies.
The Atmoshperic Interceptor Technology (AIT) program is an
ongoing effort that addresses technological challenges common
to several BMD programs, including THAAD, the Navy theater-wide
program, and the national missile defense effort by examining
advanced hit-to-kill warhead technologies. The budget request
included only $4.9 million for AIT, a reduction from $43.0
million appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The committee
supports AIT and recommends an increase of $25.0 million to
continue more robust AIT development.
The committee is concerned by a funding reduction of over
$100.0 million for BMD support technologies from the fiscal
year 1997 level. Reductions of this magnitude slow the
development of critical and innovative technologies and are
inconsistent with the Administration's assertion that the
budget request supports an acceleration of theater missile
defense programs. They also undermine the comprehensive
technology effort needed to stay ahead of the evolving
ballistic missile threat.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to provide
adequate funding for BMD support technologies and recommends
$172.6 million, an increase of $25.0 million.
Theater high altitude air defense
The budget request contained $556.1 million for
demonstration/validation and engineering and manufacturing
development for the Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD)
system.
The committee supports the THAAD program, believes it will
provide U.S. military forces with critically needed protection
against ballistic missile attack, and restates its support of
THAAD as a core TMD system. Although the THAAD program has met
numerous test objectives to date, the committee is concerned by
recent test failures and supports the Department's prompt and
comprehensive program reviews. However, the committee is
disturbed by indications that the Department nonetheless plans
to reduce prior year and fiscal year 1998 THAAD funding in
order to use the funds for other purposes. Although
identification of the causes of test failures is necessary
before further testing, the committee believes that both the
Administration's currently planned fielding date of 2006 may be
indicative of a program constrained by funding and insufficient
test opportunities.
Independent reviews of THAAD have reaffirmed the program's
planned design, operational requirement, and the successful
completion of 28 of the 30 THAAD program objectives to date. In
addition to the on-going review of THAAD, the committee
believes that the test program will benefit from additional
funding to provide reserve interceptor, missile, and target
assets, as well as other back-up resources. A more robust test
program will help to lower the risk of delays and lost
opportunities resulting for unexpected anomalies and single-
point failures.
The committee recommends $601.1 million, an increase of
$45.0 million in PE 64861C, to provide funds necessary for
additional THAAD testing and to further mitigate risk in the
flight test program. The committee strongly urges the
Department not to reduce funding for THAAD in order to address
shortfalls elsewhere in the FYDP and to use any prior or fiscal
year 1998 THAAD funds deemed unavailable for obligation for
their original purpose for further risk reduction in the test
program.
Theater missile defense demarcation
The committee notes that the presidents of the United
States and Russia, at the recent Helsinki summit, signed a
joint statement concerning the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile
(ABM) Treaty and the relationship of TMD systems to that
treaty. The joint statement outlined the agreement reached last
year between both sides at the Standing Consultative Commission
(SCC) regarding lower-velocity TMD systems, which Russia
refused to sign, and established parameters to be used as the
basis for further negotiations on higher-velocity TMD systems.
The committee is concerned with several elements of the
joint Helsinki statement. First, it establishes limitations on
TMD systems in the context of the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty,
which prohibits a defense of U.S. national territory against
strategic ballistic missiles, was never intended to apply to
theater missile defense systems.
Second, the Administration asserts that it has sought to
negotiate an agreement with Russia that would ``clarify'' the
distinction between permitted and prohibited missile defense
capabilities. The agreement fails to achieve this
clarification.
The committee continues to accept the ``demonstrated
standard'' identified in section 325 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106),
which makes no reference to interceptor speeds. Specifically,
this provision established the principle that TMD interceptors
could not be tested against a ballistic missile traveling
farther than 3,500 kilometers or with a velocity greater than
five kilometers per second. Interceptors tested against
ballistic targets exceeding these parameters would be
considered ABM-capable. This ``demonstrated standard'' was the
only criterion supported by Congress for judging whether TMD
interceptors were captured by the ABM Treaty.
The U.S.-Russian Helsinki agreement would establish the
``demonstrated standard'' as the sole measure of treaty
compliance for lower-velocity TMD systems, those with speeds of
three kilometers a second or less. However, no agreement was
reached on higher-velocity TMDsystems. While the Administration
has issued public assurances that no U.S. TMD systems now under
development will be restricted by the Helsinki agreement, it has also
committed to negotiate with Russia on the higher-velocity systems. The
Russian perspective on these impending negotiations is that limits on
interceptor speed must be introduced, the U.S. cannot unilaterally
declare its higher-velocity TMD programs to be in compliance with the
ABM Treaty, and that compliance can only be established through
negotiation
Far from clarifying the distinction between permitted and
prohibited systems, the Administration has apparently accepted
an artificial distinction between lower- and higher-velocity
TMD and has agreed to negotiations that may limit the
performance of U.S. TMD systems. The committee opposes
restrictions on higher velocity U.S. TMD systems, as well as
negotiations that would compel any degradation of the
capabilities embodied in U.S. TMD systems, present or future.
Third, the agreement reached in Helsinki went beyond even
the Administration's stated objective of clarifying ambiguities
in the ABM Treaty. For instance, the joint statement notes that
TMD deployments should be limited in ``number and geographic
scope.'' Such a restriction could impose for the first time
unacceptable restraints on where and how TMD systems might be
deployed.
Fourth, the joint statement notes U.S.-Russian agreement
that no TMD deployment will be directed against the other
party. This prohibition could deny new NATO members an
important defensive benefit under Article V of the North
Atlantic Treaty. Under such a restriction, Russia may object to
U.S. TMD systems deployed in Western Europe or Asia intended to
protect U.S. forces and allies. Such a restriction is likely to
make it more difficult to build an allied consensus on the need
for TMD.
Finally, the language of the joint statement committing the
sides to ``exchange detailed information annually on TMD plans
and programs'' has the potential to provide Russia with
sensitive information regarding U.S. TMD programs, as well as
an opportunity to challenge U.S. TMD programs early in their
development. Such exchanges must be carefully thought through
and implemented only to the extent that they do not undermine
U.S. national security objectives.
The committee notes the Administration has stated that the
Helsinki agreement on theater missile defense demarcation
represents a substantive change to the ABM Treaty and its
intention to submit the agreement to the Senate for its advice
and consent. The committee believes that a full and thorough
debate over the implications of the TMD demarcation agreement
for U.S. security is long overdue.
Theater missile defense of U.S. territories
The committee supports highly effective theater missile
defenses for the territories of the United States and urges the
Secretary of Defense to take all appropriate steps to ensure
that U.S. ballistic missile defense planning continues to be
responsive to evolving threats to these territories.
Chemical-biological defense program
The budget request included a total of $530.9 million for
the chemical-biological defense (CBD) program of the Department
of Defense, including $320.8 million in research, development,
test, and evaluation and $210.0 million in procurement.
The committee has been advised of problems in manufacture
and qualification of new production M-40 protective masks and
is concerned about the impacts of these problems on the ability
to meet acquisition objectives for the mask. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to review the M-40 mask
procurement program and provide a report to the Congressional
defense committees by October 30, 1997, which addresses the
results of that review and the actions to be taken to correct
any problems discovered.
The committee notes that the Counter Proliferation Review
Committee's May 1997 Report states the Defense Advance Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) biological warfare defense program will
no longer be incorporated into the CBD program management and
oversight structure. The Committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to ensure that the DARPA biological warfare defense
program is coordinated and integrated under the program
management and oversight of the Department's CBD program.
The committee understands that the Department's policies on
anthrax vaccination of U.S. forces and support for Other than
U.S. Forces are awaiting final approval, and that these
decisions will impact total funding, vaccine production, and
storage requirements. The committee also notes the impending
award of a prime systems contract to develop new biological
defense vaccines, pursue vaccine licensing, and produce
stockpile vaccines to meet the Department's requirements.
To address funding shortfalls in the budget request for the
CBD program, the committee recommends an increase of $1.6
million in PE 63384BP for vaccine advanced development, an
increase of $858,000 in PE 64384BP for vaccine development and
an increase of $5.0 million in PE63884 to support on-going
development efforts in detectors, decontamination equipment,
and protective equipment for the Chemical-Biological Quick
Reaction Force and its components.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to address
the above issues as specific areas of interest in the next
annual report to Congress on the NBC defense program.
Central test and evaluation investment plan
The budget request contained $131.4 million for the central
test and evaluation investment plan (CTEIP) in PE 64940D.
The committee notes the reduction in funding for CTEIP and
supports Department initiatives to streamline and consolidate
development test operations. However, the committee understands
that additional funds are required to begin the preliminary
design phase for the heavy vehicle test facility. An increase
of $10.0 million will accelerate the development, by a full
year, of this capability offering significant cost and schedule
benefits for future heavy vehicle development programs.
The committee is also concerned that anechoic research
efforts of both the Air Force and Navy are insufficiently
funded in the budget request. The committee recommends $142.9
million, an increase of $1.5 million for CTEIP for the heavy
vehicle test facility and an increase of $10.0 million to
adequately support both service anechoic research programs.
Commercial technology insertion programs
The budget request contained $47.9 million in PE 63752D for
insertion of commercial technology in military systems.
The committee supports programs designed to reduce life
cycle costs as well as enhance system reliability,
maintainability and capability. However, the committee views
this type of activity as integral to specific systems
acquisition programs and not as a separate activity. The
committee recommends no funds for PE 63752D and directs the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that these initiatives are
incorporated within the Department's dual use applications
program.
Conventional munitions demilitarization technology
The budget request contained $12.3 million in PE 63104D to
continue the program for development and demonstration of
environmentally compliant technologies for the disposal and
demilitarization of conventional munitions, explosives, and
rockets.
The committee is pleased that the Department of Defense has
developed a joint explosives demilitarization program in
accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) and the direction
contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201), using an integrated management
structure that follows the model of the large rocket motor
demilitarization program. The committee notes that the Joint
Demilitarization Program Report to the Congress, dated February
1997, reflects a six-year investment plan that is based on
requirements from the Joint Ordnance Commander's Group and
includes a range of competitively selected resource recovery
and demilitarization technologies. The committee understands
that the joint explosives demilitarization program would
balance technology maturation with disposal needs that address
the highest priority demilitarization requirements. The
committee believes that the program should lead to the fielding
of safe, efficient, and environmentally acceptable technologies
for disposal and demilitarization of the nation's stockpile of
obsolete munitions, explosives, and rockets. To maintain the
program at the funding level established in the enabling
legislation, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million, which should permit the acceleration of promising
technologies and the evaluation of additional alternative
technologies.
Counter-proliferation analysis and planning system
The budget request contained $58.3 million in PE 63160D for
advanced development of counter-proliferation support
technologies.
The committee has been made aware of the counter-
proliferation analysis and planning system (CAPS) and is
supportive of its demonstrated performance as a counter-
proliferation analysis and planning tool for the intelligence
community and regional commanders-in-chief. The committee
recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63160D to
accelerate the development of CAPS mission planning tools and
develop the system architecture for mission-specific data bases
and mission support.
DarkStar
The investigation of last year's crash of the first
DarkStar unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and the experience of
trying to field the Predator after its successful demonstration
have revealed that reliability is an important issue for these
advanced concept technology demonstrations (ACTDs). In
principle, an ACTD is to demonstrate technology and should not
expend much resources ensuring that the demonstrated system is
ready for serial production. However, in practice, the
Department of Defense has demonstrated a proclivity to move
directly into production with ACTD configurations immediately
after successful demonstrations. Taking production issues into
account in designing systems for ACTDs, therefore, would appear
to be prudent, especially in cases (such as the endurance UAVs)
where a unit price cap is a determining factor in the success
of the program. The DarkStar program office is currently
examining high-payoff reliability improvement measures for the
system. The committee directs Department to provide the results
of this review and any actions taken by February 15, 1998.
The committee also requests the Department to sponsor a
study of the operational benefits of adding a moving target
indicator (MTI) radar capability to the DarkStar, and the costs
of doing so. This study should be coordinated with the program
office of the Joint Mobile Target Engagement ACTD, assuming it
gets underway in fiscal year 1998. The study should be
submitted to the Congressional defense and intelligence
committees by April 1, 1998.
Defense airborne reconnaissance office
The budget request included $21.5 million in PE 35209D for
operation of the defense airborne reconnaissance office (DARO).
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
(Public Law 103-160) directed the creation of an organization
to oversee and coordinate the activities of the military
services with respect to the development of airborne
reconnaissance systems. While the committee continues to
support oversight of service developmental efforts to ensure
system interoperability and preclude unnecessary duplication of
efforts, it believes defense reconnaissance system oversight
and guidance would be more effectively accomplished by the
Director of Military Intelligence (DMI) than it has been thus
far by the DARO. The committee further believes that
development and acquisition of reconnaissance systems would be
more properly controlled by the military services rather than
centrally directed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 907)
that directs abolishment of the DARO, and transfer of required
defense airborne reconnaissance program functions to the
Director, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) under his
authorities as Director of Military Intelligence (DMI) and
Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP) Coordinator. The
committee directs the Director, DIA to provide a transition
plan, with a draft DMI DARP charter, to the Congressional
defense and intelligence committees no later than the
submission of the fiscal year 1999 President's budget.
The committee recommends no funding for the DARO, and $7.5
million for continued DARP management, a decrease of $14.0
million.
Digital terrain elevation data
The budget request contained no funds in PE 35206D for
developing a digital terrain elevation data (DTED) collection
capability for aircraft.
The stated requirements for DTED are very stringent and may
cost the Department of Defense more than it can afford using
current and planning collection methods. There are also
indications that the Joint Warfare Capabilities Assessment for
intelligence and reconnaissance casts doubt on the need for
worldwide DTED at the currently required levels (3, 4, and 5).
Instead, the committee believes it may be sufficient to have
the surge capability to collect such data only when needed with
an airborne system. However, no such DTED collection capability
currently exists.
Therefore, the committee, recommends $2.0 million in this
PE for the Department to conduct an analysis to determine
design trades from which to choose an airborne platform to
perform fine DTED data collection. This analysis should
determine whether an embedded system or a ``remove and
replace'' configuration that could be installed as necessary on
an airframe of opportunity makes the most sense. The committee
requests that the results of this analysis be provided to the
defense and intelligence committees no later than April 1,
1998.
DP-2 thrust vectoring system
The budget request contained $82.6 million in PE 63764E for
land warfare technology. The committee recommends an increase
of $14.0 million to continue the DP-2 thrust vectoring system
development and demonstration program.
Endurance unmanned aerial vehicles
The budget request contained $216.7 million in PE 35205D
for endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (EUAV). The request for
high altitude EUAVs contained $96.0 million for Global Hawk and
$54.6 million for DarkStar, while $15.0 million was requested
for the medium altitude UAV Predator.
The committee notes that the Department initiated Advanced
Concept Technology Demonstrations (ACTD) to develop and
demonstrate the two high altitude EUAVs in 1995 in order to
permit the rapid and affordable evaluation of advanced
capabilities. The EUAV ACTD also included the specific
requirement that the two EUAV candidates must prove the ability
to be procured at a unit cost of $10.0 million or less before
being selected to perform the EUAV mission. The committee
understands that the Global Hawk is to provide continuous, all-
weather, day/night, wide-area reconnaissance and surveillance
in direct support of the joint forces commander. The DarkStar
is intended to provide essentially the same capabilities, but
is designed to employ stealth technology to operate in high
threat environments.
While the committee supports the need for determining the
military utility of long-dwell UAVs for broad area coverage, it
remains concerned about the two high altitude EUAVs. The
concern is heightened by the recent DOD Inspector General
report that states a lack of clear military worth of the
current high altitude EUAV efforts. Further, the committee is
concerned that current efforts are pushing the technologies
involved and not specifically demonstrating proven/existing
technologies (a major issue raised in the DOD IG report). The
committee is also aware of system reliability and
maintainability concerns and is concerned that it appears as
though there is an apparent rush to this unproved UAV solution.
In fact, the Department's own documentation shows that roughly
39 percent of the airborne reconnaissance budget is going into
proving UAVs--an extremely high percentage to demonstrate
unproved capabilities that have marginally stated requirements.
The EUAV ACTD management plan states that the number of
Global Hawk and DarkStar EUAVs produced may be changed based on
program status or user input. The committee understands that an
adequate test program can be conducted with four Global Hawk
air vehicles, four DarkStar air vehicles and two ground control
stations, and strongly recommends that the Department complete
the ACTDs, and user evaluations of the EUAV's military worth,
before authorizing a high altitude EUAV acquisition program.
The committee understands that the Department currently
plans to suspend Global Hawk and DarkStar production after
delivery of a total of five prototypes each in fiscal year 1997
until both UAVs have been proven airworthy. The committee
endorses this decision and recommends that all Global Hawk and
DarkStar UAV assets remaining after completion of ACTD testing
be transferred to the Air Force Air Combat Command for
continued evaluation and user operational testing.
The medium altitude EUAV, the Predator, was established as
an ACTD in response to an urgent requirement identified by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in 1993. The committee notes that
while there have been some problems with this system, Predator
is the first ACTD to complete transition to a production
program. The success of the Predator in a number of continental
United States exercises and two operational deployments to
Bosnia has prompted the JCS to seek additional funding for
Predator, including a number of pre-planned product improvement
(P3I) upgrades to be included with production systems. Of the
funds requested for fiscal year 1998, $4.4 million are
designated for beginning development and integration of P3I
upgrades. The committee recommends elsewhere in this report
that additional procurement funding be provided to accelerate
these upgrades.
Facial recognition technology
The budget request contained $29.1 million for the DOD
counter-terror technical support (CTTS) program in PE 63122D.
The CTTS is an interagency program for development and
demonstration of surveillance, physical security, and
infrastructure protection technology. The committee fully
supports use of advanced technology to control access to
critical facilities, and recommends an increase of $5.0 million
for the development and demonstration of biometric access
control technology, including the use of authentication
software and the principal component method of facial
recognition.
Flat panel display initiative
The budget request contained $37.0 million in PE 62708E for
the development of the technology and manufacturing capability
for high definition displays.
In 1994, the President and the Department of Defense
announced a five year Flat Panel Display Initiative and
affirmed the commitment to establishing a viable domestic flat
panel display industry. The objective of the program is to
establish a domestic technical capability for development of
advanced displays using multiple technological approaches,
demonstrate themanufacturing capabilities required for high
resolution military information display systems, and ensure the
availability of advanced technology displays for use by defense
agencies and the military services. The committee notes the success of
the initiative in the development and demonstration of advanced
technologies for high definition displays, in the increased level of
participation in the program and funding provided by industry, and in
the establishment of domestic capabilities for the manufacture of high
definition displays. The ultimate success of the program will be a
viable domestic flat panel display industry and proliferation of the
application of flat panel display technology in the commercial sector
and in the military services. The committee also notes, however, that
the government's share of the program contained in the fiscal year 1998
budget request for the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency is
significantly below that originally projected when the initiative was
announced to Congress in 1994. The committee believes that a stable
funding level should be sustained until the completion of the original
five year program. Such stability in funding is necessary in order to
capitalize on previous investments in the development of high
definition display technology and domestic manufacturing capabilities
and to meet the government's stated commitment to support the
establishment of domestic capabilities for manufacturing of flat panel/
high definition displays and display substrates. Accordingly, the
committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million to sustain the
program at the fiscal year 1997 funding level. The committee also
recommends that the program place increased emphasis on the
demonstration of flat panel displays for various applications by the
military services in order to facilitate the transition of the flat
panel display program to the military services and their use of the
technology for service applications.
High altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle common ground segment
The budget request contained $51.1 million in PE 35205D for
the high altitude endurance (HAE) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
common ground segment (CGS), $9.0 million of which was for
testing.
The committee understands that $10.0 million of fiscal year
1997 funds were authorized and appropriated for this same
testing. The committee also understands that such testing was
not completed due to the delays in both HAE advanced concept
technology demonstrations. Therefore, the committee recommends
$42.1 million, a decrease of $9.0 million.
Joint robotics program
The budget request contained $23.2 million in PE 63709D for
the joint robotics program.
The committee notes that vehicle teleoperation capability
(VTC) technology is becoming mature and recommends an increase
of $10.0 million to evaluate VTC technology.
Joint wargaming simulation management office
The budget request contained $71.3 million in PE 63832D for
the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office activities to
coordinate simulation policy within the Department of Defense,
establish interoperability standards and protocols, promote the
use of simulation within the military departments, and
establish guidelines and objectives for coordination of
simulation, wargaming, and training.
The committee recommends $60.0 million, a reduction of
$11.3 million. The committee believes that aggressive,
innovative use of advanced modeling and simulation will be
necessary if the Department of Defense is to modernize and
perform its mission in the most cost-effective and timely
manner, and will require that simulations be interoperable and
reusable to the maximum extent possible. The committee
understands that this is a key goal of the Department's
Modeling and Simulation Master Plan. The committee also
understands that the Department has successfully developed and
demonstrated a high level architecture (HLA) for advanced
modeling and simulation, which provides a necessary technical
foundation for interoperability and reuse, and that the
Department has a policy which requires HLA-compliance for all
its simulations. The committee agrees with this initiative and
intends to support only those investments in simulations which
are HLA-compliant.
Joint strike fighter
The budget request contained $23.9 million in PE 63800E for
continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter. The
committee understands that defense-wide funding for this
program has been transferred to the Navy and Air Force research
and development accounts, and, therefore, recommends no funds
be authorized in defense-wide research and development accounts
for this program.
Maritime technology program
The budget request contained $37.4 million in PE 63746E to
continue the maritime technology (MARITECH) program.
This program is a five-year Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) initiative to preserve the U.S.
shipbuilding industrial base by improvements in the industry's
commercial competitiveness through the application of advanced
technology. The committee notes the success of the MARITECH
program to date. The program's two-phased acquisition strategy,
which focuses in the near term on the development of
internationally competitive commercial ship designs and
construction strategies and in the long term on the development
of advanced product and process technologies, has resulted in a
significant increase in the level of activity and
competitiveness of the U.S. shipbuilding industry. The
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to support
transition of the technologies developed under the program to
the military services and to expand the opportunities for
participation in the MARITECH program by the smaller,
technologically innovative companies, that have participated in
the DARPA program for development of advanced information
technologies (such as simulation based design, virtual
prototyping, and ship systems automation).
Multi-function self-aligned gate array
The budget request contained $122.0 million in PE 35204D
for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), including $34.5
million for tactical control systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million to
complete the UAV multi-function self-aligned gate array
technology development and demonstration program.
Next generation internet revolutionary applications
The budget request contained $40.0 million in PE 62110E for
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) component
of the Next Generation Internet (NGI) program.
NGI involves DARPA, the National Science Foundation (NSF),
Department of Energy (DOE), National Institute of Science and
Technology (NIST), and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) in a three-year, $100.0 million per year
program to development and demonstrate the technologies,
protocols, and standards for a very high speed, broad bandwidth
NGI that will offer reliable, affordable, secure information
delivery at rates thousands of times faster than today. The
program has three goals: (1) develop the next generation
network and connect universities and Federal research
institutions with high speed networks that are 100 to 1000
times faster than today's Internet; (2) promote experimentation
with the next generation of networking technologies; and (3)
demonstrate new applications that meet important national goals
and missions.
A fundamental objective for the NGI is to demonstrate a
wide variety of nationally important applications that cannot
be achieved over the current Internet infrastructure. Ideally,
these applications will include federal agency mission,
university and other public, and private sector applications.
Potential application areas for the NGI include the following:
health care (telemedicine, digital patient records, and
emergency medical response team support), education (distance
education, shared learning, and digital archives and
libraries), scientific research (energy, earth systems,
climate, and biomedical research), national security (high
performance global communications and advanced information
dissemination), environment (monitoring, prediction, warning,
and response), government (delivery of government services and
information to citizens and businesses), emergencies (disaster
response and crisis management), design and manufacture
(manufacturing engineering and virtual design), and information
security (active and passive protection of defense and
commercial information networks and information data bases).
Many of these areas are of particular federal interest since
they represent federal mission-critical applications that
require advanced networking services and capabilities.
The committee strongly endorses the NGI initiative. The
committee supports the concept of the NGI initiative working
with the applications communities--federal agencies, the public
sector, academia, and private companies--to incorporate new and
existing networking technologies and capabilities developed
under the NGI into applications of importance to each community
and which the community cannot achieve over the current
Internet infrastructure, and the formation of cooperative
ventures with regional consortia established for this purpose
among federal agencies, local governmental authorities,
industry, and academic institutions. The committee expects that
such initiatives would leverage the application specific
funding, knowledge, skills, and methods brought to the venture
by the members of the regional consortium. Accordingly, the
committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million to fund
specific connectivity, functionality, services and software
among the applications communities and regional consortia that
will maximize the value of the infrastructure connectivity and
services deployed by the NGI. The committee directs that
competitive procedures shall be used for awarding all
partnership grants and entering into all partnership contracts,
cooperative agreements, and other transactions under the
program, and encourages the establishment of cost-shared
relationships where feasible.
Pulsed fast neutron analysis technology demonstration
The budget request contained no funds for continuation of a
program for demonstration of the application of pulsed fast
neutron analysis (PFNA) technology to the inspection of cargo
and baggage at ports-of-entry for the presence of drugs,
explosives, nuclear and chemical agents, and weapons of mass
destruction.
Proposals have been made for the development and
operational field demonstration of a relocatable PFNA cargo
inspection system, which would be based upon Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA)'s completed demonstration of a
fixed-site PFNA system; and a total of $11.2 million was
appropriated for this purpose in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. In
March 1997, the Technical Support Working Group initiated a
contract for modification of the fixed-site PFNA demonstrator
to a relocatable system for testing in a controlled operational
environment. The committee understands, based on a recent
General Accounting Office report, that PFNA system technology
has not been adopted by the U.S. Customs Service because of
concerns about cost, size, operations, and safety issues. The
committee also understands that the fixed site system has not
yet demonstrated the ability to detect chemical agents or
special nuclear materials, that an additional $10.0 million
will be required to complete system modification and the
operational testing program, and that the Customs' Service has
not indicated any funding support for the program or intent to
field the system should operational testing be successful.
The committee believes that the ability of fixed-site PFNA
system to detect chemical agents and special nuclear materials
must be demonstrated before the program proceeds to the design
and engineering phase for a relocatable PFNA system, and
recommends no additional funding for the PFNA program in fiscal
year 1998. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a joint assessment of
the PFNA program which addresses Department of Defense and
Department of the Treasury operational requirements for a PFNA
cargo inspection system, demonstrated technical performance of
the fixed-site PFNA inspection system, the ability of a
relocatable PFNA inspection system to meet the operational
requirements, the intention of each Department regarding the
fielding of the PFNA inspection system, and recommendations and
funding requirements for the completion of the testing program
and fielding the system. The results of the assessment shall be
provided to the Congress by December 31, 1997. Should the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Treasury jointly
recommend continuation of the program, the committee would
encourage the reprogramming of fiscal year 1998 funds for that
purpose.
Response to threats of terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction
The budget request contained $49.5 million to improve
emergency response preparedness and coordination with state and
local agencies through First Responder training, interagency
exercises and technical assistance.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1997 (Public Law 104-201) directed the President to take
immediate actions to enhance the capability of the Federal
government to prevent and respond to terrorist incidents
involving weapons of mass destruction, to provide enhanced
support to improve the capabilities of state and local
emergency response agencies to prevent and respond to such
incidents at both the national and local level. The committee
has reviewed the President's January 1997 report to the
Congress, which provided hisassessment of those capabilities,
and the Counterproliferation Program Review Committee's May 1997 report
that provides the details of the Department of Defense role.
The committee notes the actions taken to date by the
Department of Defense to enhance emergency domestic
preparedness and response to terrorist nuclear, biological, or
chemical attacks under the counterproliferation support program
and the CBD program. The committee notes the initial progress
that has been made and that much remains to be done to extend
the program to additional metropolitan areas and local
jurisdictions.
Chemical-biological response team
Public Law 104-201 required the Secretary of Defense to
establish and maintain at least one chemical-biological
domestic terrorism rapid response team. The committee
understands that the Department is establishing a Chemical-
Biological Quick Reaction Force (CBQRF) and directs the
Secretary of the Army, as executive agent for the domestic
emergency response program, to ensure that the plans, programs,
and budget of the CBQRF and its components are reviewed to
ensure full coordination and integration of all DOD assets. The
committee also directs the Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense (Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Program) to
ensure that all research, development, and acquisition efforts
in support of the CBQRF and its components are fully integrated
and coordinated within the Department's chemical and biological
defense program.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense is
examining a new mission for the National Guard which would
involve countering chemical and biological terrorism in the
United States. The committee notes that the Army National Guard
and the Army Reserve include a number of chemical defense units
which could be employed in response to a chemical emergency and
also notes that trained chemical incident response forces are
present at the Army's chemical munitions storage sites. The
committee believes that the availability of the National Guard
chemical defense units to State authorities would make them
particularly useful in response to a chemical or biological
incident.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63122D to accelerate the development and evaluation of
protective masks for emergency response forces that could be
used in the evacuation of casualties and other personnel from a
contaminated area.
Elsewhere in this report the committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million to the Department's chemical and
biological defense program to support on-going development
efforts in detectors, decontamination equipment, and protective
equipment for the CBQRF and its components.
First responder training
The committee understands that an interagency training
strategy is being developed which would initially focus
training under the domestic emergency response preparedness
program on professional emergency response organizations in the
27 cities and metropolitan areas identified by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation as being at particularly high risk and
that the DOD Office of Domestic Preparedness (collocated with
the Army's Chemical-Biological Defense Command) has been
assigned responsibility for development of the first responder
training program. The program objective is to complete first
responder training for 126 major metropolitan areas and cities
within three years. The committee recommends that emphasis also
be placed on training of local volunteer emergency first
response organizations. The training program and priorities
must be coordinated with State emergency management directors.
The committee believes that support of the first responder
training program would be an appropriate mission for the
National Guard and should be considered by the Secretary of
Defense and the involved governors. The committee also believes
that in addition to the ``train the trainer'' approach being
used in the existing program, an exportable training package
should be developed that is oriented toward the training of
volunteer emergency first responders. The committee recommends
an increase of $7.0 million in PE 65160D to support the further
development of the first responder training strategy and the
development of an exportable training package suitable for use
by volunteer emergency first response organizations.
Exercise program
During the committee's review of the budget request,
several proposals were made for the establishment of major
exercise and training facilities at the national or regional
level. The committee endorses the use of training exercises to
test and improve consequence management response capabilities,
but believes that the exercise site requirements should be
based on the training and exercise needs of the agencies to be
exercised, site capabilities, frequency of use, and proximity
to participating agencies. These considerations imply the need
for an overall coordinated training exercise strategy similar
to that developed for training by the Senior Interagency Group.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
65160D to support the development of a training exercise
strategy for domestic emergency response preparedness and
support of pilot training exercises in accordance with that
strategy.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, to provide an annual assessment of progress in
the domestic emergency response preparedness program. The
report should be submitted to the Congressional defense
committees beginning with the fiscal year 1999 budget request
and extending through fiscal year 2001.
Reuse technology adoption program
The budget request contained $105.5 million in PE 62301E
for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
project for development of new information processing
technology concepts that may lead to fundamentally new software
and intelligent systems capabilities. No funds were requested
to continue the Reuse Technology Adoption Program (RTAP).
The committee notes the initial progress that has been made
through the RTAP program in developing the software technology
that would enable the use of software components, which were
developed for a specific weapon system or applications, in
other weapons systems and applications. If successful,
development of this technology would result in increased
productivity and reduced costs in the development of software-
intensive systems by the military services and defense
agencies. The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million
to continue the RTAP initiative. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to make an assessment of the goals and
objectives of the RTAP initiative, results of the program to
date, andplans and funding requirements for the future, and to
submit a report on the results of the assessment to the Congress by
March 1, 1998.
Safeguard
The budget request contained $60.0 million in PE 62384BP
for exploratory development of advanced technologies for
chemical and biological defense in the areas of detection,
identification and warning, contamination avoidance, individual
and collective protection and decontamination.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.8 million to
continue the program, initiated by the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, for proof-of-concept demonstration
and prototype development of multi-spectral sensors for
detection of chemical agent precursors and agents from medium
and high altitude platforms. The committee believes that the
results of the program to date indicate the potential the
technology has for stand-off detection and identification of
chemical agents on the battlefield and for detection of the
production of chemical agents and their precursor chemicals.
Smart unattended undersea sensors
The budget request contained $69.1 million in PE 63763E for
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency marine technology
program, including $21.9 million for development of sensor and
sonar technologies, advanced ship mechanical systems, and
advanced maritime platforms.
The committee is aware that the proliferation of quiet
diesel-electric submarines in the fleets of potentially hostile
nations represents a significant threat to U.S. Naval forces
operating in the shallower waters of the world's littoral
regions, where environmental factors of acoustic propagation,
reverberation and ambient noise degrade the capabilities of
existing acoustic detection systems. While improvements are
being made in active and passive acoustic sensors systems for
surface ships and submarines, the committee believes that the
development of smart unattended undersea sensors capable of
detecting, classifying, and reporting the presence of threat
submarines to a remote monitoring center could significantly
improve the capability of the anti-submarine warfare system of
systems. The committee understands that such sensors could be
capable of both passive listening and active echo reception,
and could exploit recent advances in computer chip technology,
information processing, global positioning system navigation,
and cellular communications. The committee recommends an
increase of $4.0 million in PE 63763E for development and
demonstration of the technology for smart unattended undersea
sensors.
Special operations intelligence systems development
The committee is aware of the significant importance of
mission familiarization for the special operation forces and
the technology investments being made by joint Department of
Defense activities.
The Department, through its development of the Virtual
Light Table, has displayed a highly effective, user friendly
environment that is being adapted by the special operations
forces for mission familiarization. This effort is intended to
serve as a model for infusion of commercial technology into the
DOD training environment. The committee views the Mission
Familiarization Virtual Reality Project (MFVRP) as a
cornerstone for greatly expanded mission familiarization and a
new intelligence dissemination methodology. The committee
recommends that the Special Operations Command pursue
development of the MFVRP virtual reality technology and
recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 1160405BB for this
effort.
Special technology support
The budget request contained $11.8 million in PE 63704D,
for various Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Intelligence
and Security) quick reaction intelligence support projects.
The committee fully supports funding for the Department's
efforts to quickly respond to unforeseen theater and unified
command technical requirements. However, the committee believes
the justifications provided for fiscal year 1998 indicate that
much of the activities in this program do not fall within this
category and ought to be pursued, if at all, by the services or
other DOD technology development agencies.
Therefore, the committee recommends an authorization of
$9.8 million for this project, a decrease of $2.0 million.
Strategic environmental research and development program (SERDP)
The budget request contained $54.9 million in PE 63716D for
Strategic Environmental Research and Development (SERDP).
The Department has stated that the objective of SERDP is to
improve DOD mission readiness by providing new knowledge, cost
effective technologies, and demonstrations in the areas of
environmental cleanup, compliance, conservation and pollution
prevention. In times of increasingly constrained defense
budgets, it is imperative that DOD efforts are focused on high
priority, mission-relevant, defense unique, environmental needs
that are not duplicated by the military services, other
government agencies, or the private sector.
The committee notes with particular interest that the
fiscal year 1998 SERDP program includes projects whose
objectives are the elimination of toxic materials and solvents
from explosives and other energetic materials and the
development of new insensitive materials which meet
increasingly stringent environmental compliance regulations.
The committee understands that these projects could lead to
propellants and explosives that utilize environmentally
compliant energetic materials for undersea, surface, and other
weapon systems, and could result not only in higher weapon
systems performance, but also in significant savings in overall
life cycle costs. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million to accelerate these activities under the SERDP.
Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request contained $122.0 million for Tactical
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (TUAV) in PE 35204D, including $87.5
million for the Outrider Advanced Concept Technology
Demonstration (ACTD) program.
The committee understands that the purpose of the Outrider
ACTD is to assemble and demonstrate a significant new tactical
reconnaissance military capability based on matureadvanced
technology. The Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office (DARO)
established the Joint Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (JTUAV) program
from two previously unsuccessful programs, the close range and the
maneuver UAVs. The DARO conducted a competitive selection which
evaluated nine candidates and awarded a twenty-four month contract for
the Outrider JTUAV in May 1996. The ``best value'' selection was based
on the ability to successfully develop and deliver six ACTD systems,
each consisting of four air vehicles and a ground control station with
associated equipment, within the 24 months schedule, and, in part on
the winning contractor's successful flight demonstration of the Hellfox
air vehicle. The committee is informed that Outrider ACTD is well
behind schedule and experiencing serious performance problems. Its
first flight, scheduled for November 1996, did not occur until March
1997.
The committee supports efforts to streamline the current
acquisition process and enable demonstrated capability to
transition quickly to production. However, the committee is
extremely concerned that the Outrider ACTD appears to have
circumvented important acquisition criteria and milestones,
including the need for the program to address a validated
military requirement. The Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has failed to formally
validate a joint operational requirement for the JTUAV, which
contradicts the Department's own guidance that ACTDs must
address user requirements clearly enough to firmly establish
operational utility and system integrity.
The committee is fully aware of the technical problems that
have plagued development of the Outrider UAV. Outrider is
experiencing serious shortcomings that indicate that the
program is not based on mature technology. The committee
understands that the program is under special review by the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and
is being considered for cancellation by the Department. The
technical problems with the Outrider UAV, and recent
observations/statements by the Director, DARO that the
Department was ``going to cut its losses'' on the program
appear to lend creditability to this notion. The committee
recommends a decrease of $87.5 million, resulting in no funding
for the outrider ACTD. To address urgent service requirments
for tactical UAVs, the committee recommends an increase $10.0
million to support a vertical takeoff and landing UAV
competition that was recently initiated by the DARO. In
addition, the committee recommends an increase of $11.5 million
of the funds authorized be made available to provide a
dedicated Predator UAV system and associated equipment,
including at least two aircraft equipped with synthetic
aperture radar and Ku-band link, for operational
experimentation and testing of the common UAV Tactical Control
System (TCS).
To ensure a viable transition from the Outrider ACTD,
elsewhere in the report the committee recommends an additional
$10.0 million in operations and maintenance, Army, for
operating currently owned Hunter UAVs. Finally, the committee
believes there are a number of existing UAVs, including Hellfox
(from which the Outrider was derived), the Prowler, and others
that could satisfy the Army's tactical short range UAV
requirement. Therefore, the committee recommends $20.0 million
in aircraft procurement, Army, for acquiring an ``off-the-
shelf'' tactical UAV with minimum development. The UAV selected
is to be equipped with a digital data link that is compatible
with the Army digital architecture for the future.
In summary, the committee recommends a decrease of $66.0
million for tactical UAVs. The committee directs the Secretary
of the Army to provide a report to the Congressional defense
committees outlining the short range UAV acquisition strategy
no later than February 1, 1998. None of these funds may be
obligated prior to submission of this report
Three-dimensional microelectronics technology
The budget request contained $192.2 million in PE 62712E
for materials and electronics technology, including $56.8
million for microelectronics device technologies.
The committee understands that the development of micro-
chip integrated circuit technology and the reduction of the
size of the individual circuit elements on the micro-chip are
progressing to the point that the length and density of the
interconnects between the elements of the integrated circuits
are becoming the limiting factor in processing speed and
circuit density. Development of a three-dimensional electronics
architecture with high lateral and vertical off-chip wiring
densities could lead to further reductions in chip size,
significantly increased performance, and reduced micro-chip
costs. To achieve these goals, advances are required in the
development of three-dimensional integrated circuit system
architectures, advanced substrate materials, computer-aided
design tools, and packaging technologies. The committee
recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE 62712E to
accelerate the development of three-dimensional
microelectronics technology and demonstration of three-
dimensional microelectronics systems.
Transfer of cooperative engagement capability operating frequency band
Title VI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
(Public Law 103-66) requires the federal government to provide
a span of radio frequencies aggregating not less than 200 Mhz
for allocation to the public. To minimize negative impact on
the federal government, the act requires that the spectrum to
be reallocated must not be ``required for the present or
identifiable future needs of the Federal Government'' and
should not result in costs to the federal government that
exceed the benefits gained. In February 1995, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, recommended reallocation of 50 MHz from
within the operating frequency band of the Navy's cooperative
engagement capability (CEC) system. In the statement of
managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 3230 (H.
Rept. 104-724), the conferees directed the Secretary of the
Navy to prepare a detailed report on: (1) progress being made
to resolve spectrum interference that would result from the
reallocation of the CEC operating band, and (2) steps being
taken to resolve interference between CEC and other fleet
weapon systems and data links.
According to the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
General Accounting Office (GAO), this transfer could result in
the loss of a total of 200 MHz (one-third of the CEC's usable
operating frequencies) and could severely affect the
operational capability of the CEC. DOD officials have also
indicated to the GAO that current and future spectrum
reallocations could significantly degrade the capabilities of
many major weapons systems in addition to the CEC and could
cost the Department hundreds of millions of dollars to modify
systems and/or rent frequencies from the private sector or
foreign governments. The committee is informed, however, that
the full implications of the 1993 act are not yet known and
that the Department is conducting a comprehensive analysis of
spectrum requirements for critical systems in order to
determine the extent that operational effectiveness of these
systems could be affected by loss ofthe frequency spectrum. The
committee also understands that a recent DOD study indicates that the
Department's top level spectrum management for planning, policy, and
oversight is diffused and weak and that there is no single high-level
DOD point of contact for spectrum management.
In response to H. Rept. 104-724, the Secretary of the Navy
has reported that the Navy is working with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to minimize interference with
civilian applications in the reallocated frequency band and the
effect of the reallocation on CEC performance. The Secretary's
report also states that the Navy's preferred technical option
for resolution of interference between CEC and the LAMPS Mk III
data link is moving the LAMPS data link to the Ku-band. Should
the Navy choose this option for resolution of the problem, the
committee expects that the funding required for the transfer
will be included in the fiscal year 1999 defense budget
request.
The committee concurs with the steps taken by the Navy to
address the issues raised in the House report, but believes
that the problem should be addressed in a more comprehensive
manner by the Secretary of Defense. The committee encourages
the Secretary to assign responsibility for overall radio
frequency spectrum management to a specific organization within
the Department. The committee directs the Secretary to prepare
a report to the Congress, in coordination with the Chairman of
the FCC and the Secretary of Commerce, which addresses: (1)
agreements on measures being taken to resolve the impact of the
transfer of 50 Mhz from the radio frequency operating band of
the cooperative engagement capability (CEC); (2) the impact of
transfers of the federal radio frequency spectrum on other
critical military systems; (3) how the DOD plans to modify the
CEC and other critical systems, including estimated costs and
schedule, to compensate for any operational degradation that
might be caused by losses of the radio frequency spectrum due
to such transfers; and (4) any unresolved issues in joint
frequency spectrum management and impediments to the
resolutions of these issues. The report shall be submitted to
the Congress by March 31, 1998.
United States imagery and geospatial system improvements
The budget request contained $109.4 million in PE 35102BQ,
for the national imagery and mapping agency's (NIMA)
development, procurement and integration of an end-to-end
imagery production capability for geospatial information.
The Director of NIMA has officially embraced the Defense
Science Board's (DSB) direction to move NIMA from production of
products to the maintenance of geospatial information, a move
the committee supports. One of the DSB's recommendation
included trading off production of lower priority products and
less critical functions in order to fund NIMA's more pressing
technical needs, thereby allowing the agency to move more
rapidly in implementing future technical capabilities. However,
judging from the budget request, the committee does not believe
NIMA's technology investment is sufficient to efficiently and
effectively transition to these capabilities.
Therefore, the committee recommends $124.4 million, an
increase of $15.0 million for developing and fielding the
modern imagery and mapping technologies.
University research initiative (URI)
The budget request contained $237.8 million in PE 61103D
for the University Research Initiative. However, the committee
understands that overall funding fiscal year 1998 URI has
increased by $23.0 million above the amount forecast just
months ago in the 1997 Future Years Defense Plan. Requested
funding for URI includes $10.0 million for the defense
experimental program to stimulate competitive research
(DEPSCoR). The committee supports continuation of the DEPSCoR
program to strengthen the infrastructure, enhance research, and
develop human resources to assist the DEPSCoR states to become
more competitive for regular research and training grants.
Therefore, the committee recommends $20.0 million for DEPSCoR
within URI funding. Although supportive of URI, the committee
believes that the overall funding increase is unjustified in
light of other critical underfunded priorities and recommends
$224.8 million, a decrease of $13.0 million.
Verification technology demonstration
The budget request contained $83.4 million in PE 63711H for
verification technology demonstration.
The committee understands that the requested funding
increase of $54.3 million is to initiate a new program for
monitoring associated with the comprehensive test ban treaty
(CTBT), and that this program was previously administered by
the Air Force, with anticipated expenditures for fiscal year
1998 of $29.0 million. The committee finds that the capability
to conduct such activities, with regard to seismic events
within the United States and its territories already exists
within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), an agency of the
Department of the Interior. Therefore, CTBT functions and
obligations associated with seismic events occurring within the
United States should be performed by the USGS, and a redundant
technical capability should not be created within the
Department of Defense. The committee recommends no funds for
use by the Department of Defense for the purpose of
establishing an independent capability to monitor, analyze, and
report on domestic seismic events, as part of the CTBT
functions or obligations.
The committee, therefore, recommends $69.1 million, a
decrease of $14.3 million in PE 63711H. Of the amount
authorized, $11.0 million is recommended to be solely for
seismic research and technology development. Additionally, of
the amount authorized, the committee directs that not more than
$20.0 million may be obligated until memoranda of agreement are
signed between the Department of Defense and the U.S.
Geological Survey delineating relationships associated with
seismic sensing and CTBT monitoring.
Wide bandgap semiconductors
The budget request contained $101.9 million in PE 62173C
for applied research for ballistic missile defense programs.
The committee recognizes the potential of wide bandgap
semi-conductors that operate at higher power, higher frequency
and higher temperature and have the ability to operate in high
radiation environments. The committee recommends an increase of
$10.0 million in PE 62173C to continue the wide bandgap semi-
conductor program for which funds were authorized and
appropriated for fiscal year 1997. The committee directs that
the program continue to involve industry and academia in
applied research in gallium nitride and silicon carbide
material growth, characterization, surface behavior and device
development.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 201--Authorization Of Appropriations
This section would authorize Research, Development, Testing
and Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for fiscal year 1998.
Section 202--Amount For Basic And Applied Research
This section would specify the amount authorized for fiscal
year 1998 for technology base programs.
Section 203--Dual Use Technology Programs
The budget request contained $225.0 million for
continuation of the Dual Use Application Program (DUAP).
The committee understands that the Department is attempting
to structure the DUAP initiative to comply with the guidance
provided in section 203 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201). The committee
remains concerned that this program establishes and enforces
Department guidelines that control the expenditure of valuable
development funds without linkage to service priorities, during
a period when Department research and development funding is
already inadequate to meet critical service requirements. While
$185.0 million was made available for DUAP for fiscal year
1997, the committee understands that none of these funds have
been obligated to date. The committee, therefore, recommends no
funds for DUAP. This provision would direct the Secretary of
Defense to fund the DUAP initiative in the service research and
development accounts.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 211--Manufacturing Technology Program
This section would amend section 2525 of title 10, United
States Code, through fiscal year 2000, to establish a funding
requirement for the manufacturing technology program of 0.25
percent of the amount available for demonstration and
validation, engineering and manufacturing development,
operational systems development, and procurement programs of
the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and Defense Agencies, or the
amount authorized by law for manufacturing technology projects
of the military departments and defense agencies, whichever
amount is greater. To ensure efficient implementation of the
manufacturing technology program, the provision would provide
the Secretary of Defense with the authority to transfer any of
the funds made available to another military department or
defense agency. The provision would require an annual report to
the Congress through fiscal year 2000 which specifies the
investment strategy for the manufacturing technology program
and provides an assessment of program effectiveness; and would
also require in the fiscal year 2000 report an assessment of
the formula by which funding for the program is determined and
any changes recommended in the formula, and recommendations for
extension of the funding authority.
The Department of Defense manufacturing technology program
provides ``seed funding'' for the development of moderate to
high risk materials, process, and equipment technology to
enable production of advanced, high quality weapons systems
with shorter lead times and reduced acquisition costs. The
committee strongly supports the manufacturing technology
program in the areas of electro-optics, advanced composites,
electronics, metalworking, maritime applications, joining,
advanced manufacturing, energetics, technology transfer, best
manufacturing practices, advanced gear manufacturing, and
others. To maintain the Department of Defense manufacturing
technology program at the funding level needed to assure the
availability of advanced manufacturing technology and processes
for use in Defense acquisition programs, the Congress has
provided annual increases to the budget request each year for
the past several years. The funding authority that would be
established by this provision is intended to stabilize the
funding level and eliminate the uncertainty in annual funding
that has reduced the effectiveness and efficiency of the
program. The provision would also tie the funding level and
advanced manufacturing technologies and processes being
developed in the program to the manufacturing technology and
process requirements of the various Defense acquisition
programs in accordance with the purpose of the manufacturing
technology program as stated in subsection 2525(b). In meeting
the funding level needed to support the development of the
manufacturing technologies required by the acquisition
programs, the Department would have the alternatives of
budgeting for the manufacturing technology development programs
in the appropriate military departments and defense agency, or
of funding the manufacturing technology program by a small
percentage tax on the acquisition programs that will benefit
from the technology.
In recommending this provision, the committee reemphasizes
the requirements of section 2525(d) of title 10, United States
Code, for competitive procedures and cost-sharing in the
awarding of grants and entering into contracts, cooperative
agreements, and other transactions under the program.
Section 212--Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report by February 28, 1998 specifying (1) the
defense-unique and mission-relevant aspect of each SERDP
initiative, and (2) certifying that each initiative is not
duplicative of environmentally related research, development
and demonstration activities of other departments and agencies
of the Federal, state and local governments, or of other
organizations engaged in such activities.
Section 213--Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
This section would direct that: (1) no funds be made
available for the Outrider advanced concept technology
demonstration program, (2) that $10.0 million be made available
to carry out a competition for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
capable of vertical takeoff and landing, and (3) that $11.5
million be made available to provide a Predator UAV system to
facilitate development of a common tactical control system.
Section 214--Revisions to Membership of and Appointment Authority for
National Ocean Research Leadership Council
This section would amend section 7902 of title 10, United
States Code to provide that the President shall appoint members
of the National Ocean Research Council who are not already
government officers, to represent the views of the ocean
industries, state governments, and academia, and such other
views as the President considers appropriate. The section would
also provide that the President may delegate the appointment
authority to the head of a department.
Section 215--Maintenance and Repair of Real Property at Air Force
Installations
This section would amend chapter 949 of title 10, United
States Code by adding a new provision to permit the use of both
research, development, test, and evaluation funds and
operations and maintenance funds for maintenance and repair of
real property at Air Force installations.
Section 216--Expansion of Eligibility for the Defense Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
This section would make a technical correction to section
257 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1995 (Public Law 103-337) and would reauthorize the eligibility
of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the United
States Virgin Islands to participate in the Defense
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(DEPSCoR). It would also expand the definition of ``State'' to
include the territories of American Samoa and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Marianas Islands for purposes of the DEPSCoR.
Section 217--Limitation on the Use of Funds for Adaptation of
Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) Program to F/A-
18E/F Aircraft and AV-8B Aircraft
This section would limit the Secretary of the Navy to
obligating no more than 50 percent of the amount authorized to
be appropriated for development of the IDECM program for
adaptation to the F/A-18E/F and AV-8B aircraft until the amount
authorized to be appropriated for development of the IDECM
program for adaptation to the F/A-18C/D aircraft is completely
obligated.
Section 218--Bioassay Testing of Veterans Exposed to Ionizing Radiation
During Military Service
This section would direct the Defense Special Weapons
Agency to make $300,000 available for the Nuclear Test
Personnel Review Program, which conducts bioassay testing of
veterans exposed to ionizing radiation during military service.
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Programs
Section 231--Budgetary Treatment of Amount Requested for Procurement
for Ballistic Missile Defense Programs
The budget request incorporated a major change in funding
policy for BMD programs by transferring all procurement for TMD
programs from the centralized BMD account to the separate
service procurement accounts. The committee is convinced that
the Department, through this action, has placed its professed
highest priority missile defense initiatives at risk by forcing
them to compete with underfunded modernization programs of
higher priority for each individual service. Additionally, in
transferring fiscal year 1998 TMD procurement funding to the
services, the Department did not issue any specific guidance
that outyear funding for these programs was to be sustained or
that TMD programs were to be considered as a service priority.
Without such guidance, the committee believes that TMD
procurement would suffer the same fate as other service
modernization programs which continue to be restructured and
have their schedules stretched due to funding shortfalls.
Finally, despite testimony from the Department on the
importance of TMD programs, the committee is disappointed to
note that funding for all TMD programs is significantly reduced
from the levels provided in fiscal year 1997.
The committee is opposed to the proposed change in the TMD
funding policy. This provision would direct the Secretary of
Defense to transfer all fiscal year 1998 TMD program
procurement funds back to the BMD procurement account. The
provision would also require that all National Missile Defense
program procurement funds be included in the BMDO procurement
account. The committee considers procurement and fielding of
TMD systems to be a priority congressional interest item and
directs the Secretary to retain procurement for these programs
within BMDO.
Section 232--Cooperative Ballistic Missile Defense Programs
This section would establish the ``Cooperative Ballistic
Missile Defense Program'' within the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization, to support on-going and future technical and
analytical cooperative efforts between the U.S. and other
nations that contribute to U.S. missile defense capabilities.
Section 233--Deployment Dates for Core Theater Missile Defense Programs
The committee is disappointed by the Administration's lack
of commitment to the timely deployment of theater missile
defenses. While the Administration concedes that theater
ballistic missiles constitute a clear and present danger to
U.S. forces deployed abroad, Congressional efforts on behalf of
the rapid development and deployment of TMD systems to meet
this threat have been slowed by both Administration action and
inaction.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-106), Congress established first unit
equipped (FUE) dates of fiscal year 2000 for Theater High
Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD), fiscal year 2001 for the
Navy Theater Wide system, fiscal year 1998 for Patriot Advanced
Capability Configuration 3 (PAC-3), and fiscal year 1999 for
the Navy Area Defense system. These dates were based on
Congressional support for the early deployment of a TMD
capability, but they were also based on the assumption of
aggressive and streamlined management as well as robust
funding.
However, within weeks of the dates being approved by
Congress and signed into law by the President, the
Administration took budgetary and programmatic actions that had
the effect ofdelaying each of these programs and their
deployment dates. Compared to the legally directed dates, the
Administration's plan delayed the THAAD deployment date by six years,
the Navy Theater Wide system date by at least four years, PAC-3 by one
year, and the Navy Area Defense system by two years.
In presenting the fiscal year 1998 funding request earlier
this year, the Department asserted that all TMD programs had
been accelerated. Yet in the case of each of these TMD systems,
the fiscal year 1998 request is lower than the amount Congress
appropriated for fiscal year 1997. Despite the requirements of
Public Law 106-104, the Administration target FUE dates for
PAC-3 and Navy Area Defense remained fiscal year 1999 and 2001,
respectively, the dates the Administration unilaterally
established in 1996 contrary to the law. As noted elsewhere in
this report, the Department has still not reviewed the Navy
Theater Wide program to determine if accelerating the program
from its currently anticipated deployment date of 2008 is
feasible. And while Department of Defense announced in January
that the THAAD FUE would be accelerated to 2004, the program's
FUE was immediately slipped back to 2006 following a test
failure.
The committee continues to believe that a THAAD user
operational evaluation system (UOES) can and should be deployed
by fiscal year 2000 and FUE achieved by fiscal year 2004 at an
acceptable risk given the high-value payoff associated with
deployment of an operational THAAD capability. The committee
also understands that BMDO is considering steps that could
provide a more robust THAAD UOES capability, thus providing
greater capability in the field at an earlier date, and
strongly supports any such initiatives. Accordingly, this
provision would require the Secretary of Defense to structure
the THAAD program to achieve a THAAD UOES capability by fiscal
year 2000 and FUE by fiscal year 2004.
The committee reiterates its concern that the Department
still has not defined the Navy Theater Wide program nor
established a program schedule. The committee finds this lack
of focus and commitment unacceptable and elsewhere in this
report has directed the Secretary of Defense to report to the
Congressional defense committees on the earliest feasible Navy
Theater Wide deployment date. The committee reminds the
Secretary of Defense of his obligation under current law and
urges that the Navy Theater Wide program be structured to come
as close as possible to achieving a UOES capability in fiscal
year 1999 and FUE in fiscal year 2001.
Congressional funding increases have helped to accelerate
the Navy Area Defense system into engineering and manufacturing
development and the PAC-3 program into procurement. The
committee also notes the budget request does not propose to
slip the deployment dates of these two systems further into the
future. Given both programs' advanced state of development and
the increasing likelihood that the currently programmed
deployment dates will be met, this section would also repeal
the dates specified in section 234 of the Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) for PAC-3 and the
Navy Area Defense System.
The committee remains committed to fielding effective TMD
systems at the earliest feasible date and once again urges the
Administration to support full funding and aggressive goal-
oriented management for all of these critical systems.
Section 234--Annual Report on Threat Posed to the United States by
Weapons of Mass Destruction, Ballistic Missiles, and Cruise Missiles
The committee believes that awareness of information and
assessments concerning evolving threats to U.S. national
security is essential to informed congressional debate and
decision-making. To that end, the committee believes that a
comprehensive description and assessment of the threats posed
by weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic and cruise
missiles to the U.S. and its allies would be an essential
informational for Congress and the public.
Therefore, this provision would direct the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Director of Central
Intelligence, to prepare and submit to Congress by January 30,
1998, and January 30 of each subsequent year, a report on
threats posed to the U.S. and its allies by cruise missiles,
ballistic missiles, and weapons of mass destruction, and the
proliferation of such technologies. The report should be
prepared in classified and unclassified form, to assure the
most complete information and widest distribution possible.
Section 235--Director of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO)
The committee believes that without appropriate senior
leadership and a streamlined reporting chain, BMDO's ability to
efficiently develop and deploy BMD systems is at risk.
Therefore, this provision would requiring that the position of
director of BMDO be filled by an officer of the armed forces of
the United States with a rank of at least Lieutenant General or
Vice Admiral. The committee believes that three star rank is
essential to provide the BMDO director the stature within the
Department of Defense commensurate with the job's
responsibilities. The committee notes that the current director
of BMDO is a Lieutenant General, and expects that the
requirement established by this section will continue to be
filled from within existing statutory authorizations for
general and flag officers.
The committee also recommends establishing a requirement
that the director of BMDO report directly to the Secretary of
Defense concerning all matters pertaining to the management of
BMDO programs. Such streamlining will help overcome
bureaucratic obstacles and allow issues to be promptly and
definitively resolved.
Section 236--Tactical High Energy Laser Program (THEL)
This section would transfer the THEL program from PE 63308A
to an new PE 63XXXC that would consolidate cooperative
ballistic missile defense programs under Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization management and would authorize $38.2
million for THEL.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW
Funding Priorities
The Administration's fiscal year 1998 defense budget
request provides the illusion that funding for readiness of the
armed forces was increased over past year levels. The
Administration's rationale for this operation and maintenance
(O&M) funding increase is that the preservation of readiness is
a major priority. However, a significant portion of the growth
in the O&M budget results from inflationary adjustments,
additional funding for contingency operations, and in working
capital funds adjustments (mostly to cover prior year
expenses). When these factors are taken into account, the net
effect is that the President's budget request would not
increase military readiness or increase the resources necessary
to arrest the shortfalls that are beginning to impact on
battlefield effectiveness and safety.
In response, the committee's recommendations for fiscal
year 1998 extend a significant priority to sustaining an
acceptable level of readiness for our military forces and
continuing reforms of the administration and infrastructure of
the Department of Defense (DOD). Each of these areas is
extensively discussed elsewhere in this report.
The committee is convinced that reforming the business
operations of the DOD is critical since only 36 percent of the
O&M budget relates directly to force readiness. Although a
portion of the remaining 64 percent contributes indirectly to
mobilization capabilities, the majority is directly related to
the overhead needed to maintain a large and somewhat
inefficient defense bureaucracy. The committee believes that
too much of the current defense budget finances an overly large
defense infrastructure at the expense of resources necessary to
maintain a ready and capable force. The table below shows a
breakdown of the readiness related expenditures contained in
the budget request:
[In millions of dollars]
Land Forces................................................... $3,523.2
Air Operations................................................ 21,306.3
Ship Operations............................................... 7,431.0
Special Operations............................................ 1,169.4
Drug Interdiction............................................. 652.6
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 34,082.5
The remaining $59.5 billion contained in the O&M budget
request has been identified for activities other than training
and operating military forces. Therefore, the committee
believes there is ample room for effecting significant further
efficiencies in the operations of the Department. The
committee's recommendations in this area are detailed below.
Readiness
Over the past few years, the committee has closely
monitored the state of military readiness of our nation's armed
forces. Two years ago, the committee found that the military
services were in the early stages of a long-term systemic
readiness problem. In response, the Congress added additional
funding to the Administration's budget requests to improve
force readiness.
In an effort to assess readiness improvements, the
committee conducted an intensive scrutiny of U.S military units
around the world that revealed, in fact, military readiness is
not improving, and may be declining. This investigation
included numerous interviews and committee hearings with all
ranks; from major military commands to individual military
units, non-commissioned officers, and family members. A
consistent theme voiced by service members was that they could
only maintain their readiness levels by sacrificing other
critical areas such as procurement, modernization, and quality
of life. A recurring statement by many interviewed was that
they are doing more with less, and working harder and longer
just to keep up with peacetime mission requirements. The
committee believes that U.S. military members should not have
to choose between readiness and maintenance of equipment,
facilities and quality of life initiatives.
The committee is concerned that as readiness levels
decline, the quality of military life will erode to the point
at which talented and dedicated Americans will question the
desirability of a career in uniform. As an example, all of the
military services may soon be facing a critical shortage of
experienced mid-level pilots due to increased separations to go
work for a commercial airline industry that is now hiring.
The committee strongly believes that readiness is a
perishable commodity. The committee understands that making the
necessary changes to return U.S. military readiness to an
acceptable level will be difficult, particularly as fewer and
fewer resources are made available. The committee
recommendations contained in this report reflect a concerted
effort to pursue a number of targeted readiness initiatives to
ensure that America maintains the best-trained, best-equipped,
and most effective military in the world. Some of the readiness
enhancements recommended by the committee are as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair............................ $515.0
Maintenance and Repair of Real Property....................... 200.0
Recruiting and Advertising.................................... 22.9
National Training Center...................................... 60.2
Force Protection Enhancements................................. 25.8
Mobility Enhancement.......................................... 25.0
In addition to addressing the underfunding of key
readiness accounts, the committee recommendations includes
several legislative provisions intended to provide Congress
with the necessary information to allow effective oversight of
the readiness programs of the DOD. These initiatives include
several provisions to increase timely andcurrent information on
the management of readiness funding; provisions to enhance and protect
training, particularly combat training; and a provision to improve
readiness reporting by the DOD to address the disconnect between
official readiness reports and the reality in the field.
Reform
After a series of hearings and in-depth reviews, the
committee believes the DOD continues to support outmoded
business practices which divert funding from underfunded higher
priorities. The committee recommendations redirect funding from
elements in the operation and maintenance budget associated
with inefficient procedures, administrative overhead and excess
infrastructure in order to support quality of life and
readiness priorities.
Funding Overview
The budget request contained $95,439.0 million for
Operations and Maintenance and working Capital Funds,
representing an increase of $3.5 billion from the amount
authorized for Fiscal Year 1997.
The committee recommended $94,849.8 million. The committee
recommends approval of the request unless specified otherwise
in the following table.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Budget Request Reductions
Administration and Support Accounts
Due to the necessity to address the shortfalls created by
the revised budgetary scoring of the President's request,
persistent underfunding of key operating accounts, and to
ensure adequate funding of critical readiness accounts, the
committee recommendation includes reductions in program growth
in the administration and support accounts (Budget Activity 4)
of the military departments as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Army..............................................................$210.0
Navy.............................................................. 230.0
Air Force......................................................... 100.0
In addition, the committee believes that the support
structure of the Department of Defense and the various Defense
Agencies is disproportionate to needs of the military services.
The report of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) proposes a
six percent reduction in this area by November 30, 1997.
Therefore, the committee recommends reductions in
administration and management funding for these accounts as
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Office, Secretary of Defense...................................... $81.4
Washington Headquarters Service................................... 42.6
QDR savings....................................................... 168.4
The committee is convinced these recommended reductions
will not directly affect the readiness capabilities of our
combat forces. The committee is mindful, however, that
headquarters and other administrative support for the forces is
important, but must be appropriately sized to be economically
effective.
Bulk Fuel
The committee is concerned that the military departments
have been overestimating their needs for bulk fuel. The General
Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that in fiscal year 1996,
fuel purchases by the services was $440 million below what was
requested in the budget request, and in fiscal year 1997, GAO
estimates the overestimation will total $183 million. The
budget request for fiscal year 1998 includes funding to
purchase 111 million barrels of bulk fuel. Of this total, the
services plan to buy 109.5 million barrels from the Defense
Fuel Supply Center (DFSC) and theremainder from commercial
sources and from foreign governments. Based on actual DFSC sales data,
the GAO estimates that DFSC will sell about 104.2 million barrels to
the services in fiscal year 1998, a difference of 5.3 million barrels
of bulk fuel, or $201.5 million. Because the over budgeting for bulk
fuel seems to be a recurring practice, the committee recommends the
following reductions:
[In millions of dollars]
Army.............................................................. $8.6
Navy.............................................................. 42.5
Air Force......................................................... 44.5
Advisory and Assistance Services
The committee continues to be concerned with the increasing
use of Advisory and Assistance Services (AAS) by the Department
of Defense, which includes contracted experts and consultants,
studies and evaluations, management support and technical
services. The fiscal year 1998 budget request contains a total
of $2,951.0 million for AAS, a 248 percent increase since 1992.
In addition, the various service operation and maintenance
accounts show significant growth from 1997 to 1998 for these
services as follows: Department of the Army, 5.5 percent;
Department of the Navy, 8.4 percent; the Marine Corps, 14.4
percent; Department of the Air Force, 13 percent; and Defense
Agencies, 15 percent.
The committee believes that during this period of
significant downsizing, the current level of funding and
increases for these services are not justified. Therefore, the
committee recommends the following reductions:
[In millions of dollars]
Army.............................................................. $50.0
Navy.............................................................. 50.0
Marine Corps...................................................... 3.0
Air Force......................................................... 50.0
Air Force Reserve................................................. 0.3
Air National Guard................................................ 0.8
Defense Agencies.................................................. 50.0
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure
that, beginning with the budget request for fiscal year 1999,
the Department provide in the justification materials provided
to Congress a discussion on AAS that includes an identification
of each of the military department's requirements for AAS, the
previous two fiscal years' data on AAS expenditures for each
military service and the Defense Agencies, and specific
justification for any proposed increases.
Defense Support Services Reform
Overview
Reform is not a new issue for the Department of Defense
(DOD). The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is the latest of
several studies, including the Defense Science Board,
Commission on Roles and Missions, and the Bottom Up Review,
that have attempted to address improving the efficiency of the
DOD. Despite these studies, the committee is dissatisfied with
the progress being made to challenge the inertia of ``business
as usual.'' The committee believes that in this thirteenth year
of declining defense budgets, combined with an environment of
balanced budget agreements, and funding shortfalls in
modernization, readiness and quality of life programs, DOD can
no longer afford to further study reform.
The committee notes that since 1990, DOD has eliminated
eight Army divisions, 14 Air Force and Navy air wings, 216 Navy
ships, and over 600,000 military personnel. Efforts to reduce
the defense infrastructure supporting the remaining forces lags
far behind. Despite the QDR's focus on shrinking the current
annual infrastructure costs of $146 billion, little detail has
been provided on how the Department intends to implement the
QDR's recommended infrastructure reductions. These details are
crucial, since failure to reduce operations and support
infrastructure will have significantly adverse impacts on
funding national defense priorities in the near future.
Furthermore, the committee believes that the management and
delivery of a number of support services remain outmoded and
inefficient in comparison to equivalent activities in the
private sector. For example, DOD's supply system is roughly
twice as expensive to administer than comparable private sector
systems. As a further example, the military departments often
pay the DOD transportation command upwards of 200 percent more
than the commercial carriers charged DOD to provide similar
transportation services. For these compelling reasons, the
committee recommendation directs a number of reforms within
DOD.
Contracting Out Firefighter and Security Activities at Military
Installations
The General Accounting Office, Defense Science Board, and
Department of Defense (DOD) have stated that section 2465 of
title 10, United States Code, which prohibits the consideration
of Department of Defense firefighter and security guard
functions from outsourcing to the private sector, is an
impediment to providing efficient and cost-effective fire
fighting and security support at defense installations and have
called for its repeal. However, the committee is concerned that
absent a clear definition of what fire fighting functions,
security guard functions, and the related personnel are
essential to providing a safe and secure environment for our
military service members, a repeal of this section could
negatively impact national security.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a plan to the House Committee on National Security
and the Senate Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 1997
that includes the following:
(1) A listing of both the fire fighting and security
guard functions that are considered inherently
governmental and the reasons why, and
(2) An implementation plan for outsourcing fire
fighting and security guard functions, should section
2465 of title 10, United States Code be repealed.
Criminal Investigations and Board on Audits
The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD)
criminal investigative services on their efforts to increase
coordination and reduce duplication of resources through the
Board on Investigations and Regional Fraud Working Groups. The
committee believes that DOD should create a Board on Audits
that would allow DOD to more effectively handle the increasing
workload from the Chief Financial Officers Act and the changing
accounting systems, and reduce duplication of effort through
improved sharing of knowledge and resources among the service
department's audit agencies. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to finalize the working guidance for
the operation of both boards no later than December 31, 1997.
The committee believes that DOD is best served by a productive
and coordinated effort between the military departments and the
DOD Office of Inspector General.
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service Improvements
The committee is concerned that items in the Department of
Defense (DOD) inventory are not assigned the proper
demilitarization when purchased or provided to the Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS) for disposal. An
April 1997 report by the DOD Inspector General (Coding
Munitions List Items Report No. 97-130) revealed that 52
percent of items sampled were assigned improper
demilitarization codes when they were purchased. In addition, a
Congressionally mandated study on consolidating DOD's supply
centers, submitted in November 1996, also highlighted coding
inconsistencies. This report recommended improving the coding
system by establishing a standard code to use when an item is
purchased and when it is sent to DRMS.
Improper coding can lead to unnecessary costs due to
excessive levels of demilitarization and a loss in DRMS sales.
More importantly, improper coding can result in the sale of
sensitive military hardware that should have been
demilitarized. As a result, these coding problems are not only
costly but present a threat to national security. The committee
believes that DOD's reluctance to develop an automated system
for demilitarization codes will seriously delay correction of
this problem. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a report, by December 31, 1997, to the House
Committee on National Security and the Senate Committee on
Armed Services on efforts to:
(1) Identify and correct miscoded inventory items;
(2) Develop an automated system that standardizes the
demilitarization codes across DOD, from the purchase to
surplus of an item;
(3) Dedicate funding for an automated system during
the five year defense plan; and
(4) Implement an automated system during the five
year defense plan.
Defense Supply and Logistics Management
The current costs of the Department of Defense (DOD) supply
system are significantly greater than the private sector, even
after taking into account the need to maintain a wartime
capacity. The committee believes that DOD's supply management
and work processes are ideal business re-engineering
candidates, given the extensive commercial market for these
services and the recent improvements in private sector
practices. In doing so, the committee encourages DOD to revise
the way it provides supply services by making extensive use of
such commercial options as consolidation, outsourcing,
particularly prime vendor and virtual prime vendor deliveries
for most repairable and consumable items. The use of prime and
virtual prime vendors provide the benefit of lowering
distribution, warehousing, and inventory costs, which reduces
the customer rates in the supply and distribution business
areas of the working capital funds.
The committee understands that savings, estimated from
DOD's current initiatives (i.e., ``lean logistics'' and
``velocity logistics'') to reduce the number of inventoried
spare parts and associated storage costs, have been included in
the military services' Operation and Maintenance (O&M) budgets.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
report to the House Committee on National Security and the
Senate Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 1998, on the
savings achieved due to reforms in spare parts inventories and
logistic operations the savings estimated in fiscal years 1998-
2003 from these reforms and an assessment of the risks to
readiness associated with relying on projected savings.
Definition of Mission Essential Support Services
The committee continues to be frustrated by the lack of a
clear definition of the support services and functions that are
essential to the strategic mission of the Department of Defense
(DOD), otherwise known as inherently governmental functions.
The committee is particularly concerned that the military
departments appear to have different definitions and a
different, and often changing, understanding of the
relationship between inherently governmental and commercial
activities. For example, between fiscal years 1994 and 1996,
the Department of the Air Force, without changing their role or
mission, redefined roughly 194,000 personnel from the
commercial activities to inherently governmental categories.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the secretaries of the military departments,
to provide by March 1, 1998, a report to the House Committee on
National Security and the Senate Committee on Armed Services
containing the following information:
(1) A Department of Defense-wide definition for each
of following categories; inherently governmental; core;
national defense-exempted; and exempted from
outsourcing for other reasons;
(2) A listing of all functions and activities that
are considered inherently governmental and the reasons
why;
(3) A listing of all commercial activities, indicating
whether the activity is core or non-core including a
justification for core activities;
(4) A listing of all support services, functions and
activities that have both a core and a non-core
element; and
(5) A listing of all commercial activities that are
exempted for other reasons and the reasons why.
In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the House Committee on National
Security and the Senate Committee on Armed Services, by March
1, 1998, providing an explanation for the shift of personnel,
between fiscal years 1994 and 1996, in the Air Force commercial
activities to the inherently governmental category, a listing
of the specific functions that were changed to inherently
governmental and an explanation why.
Extensively Studied Functions
The committee is aware that within the military services,
there is little consistency for outsourcing non-inherently
governmental base operations functions and services.
Specifically, the military services conduct A-76 studies on
activities that are similar, if not exactly the same, as
extensively studied and outsourced functions in their own
service or in the other military services. This practice not
only unnecessarily duplicates effort, it is costly. The
committee believes that by developing standard ``templates''
based on previous A-76 studies of similar functional areas, the
military services would save time and resources in outsourcing
these functions. The following chart illustrates the percentage
of base operations support activities that were outsourced in
fiscal year 1996, an average of 50 percent or more within the
military services.
[In percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
Base Operating Activity Force Army Corps \1\ Navy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laundry and Dry Cleaning.......... 100 85 81 94
Custodial Services................ 100 88 82 86
Refuse Collection & Disposal
Services......................... 96 84 67 81
Food Services..................... 88 88 42 39
Office Equipment Maintenance and
Repair........................... 100 75 18 100
Contractor-Operated Parts Stores &
Civil Engineering Supply Stores.. 100 71 100 \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Marine Corps figures are as of July 1996; all others are as of the
end of fiscal year 1996.
\2\ Not reported.
Note.--Percentages represent the portion of the workforce that is
outsourced for a given function.
Source: GAO analysis of services' commercial activities inventory
databases.
Multi-Service Contracting of Base Operations Functions
The National Performance Review and the 1995 report of the
Commission on Roles and Missions indicated that expanding the
Department of Defense (DOD) efforts in contracting out multiple
services under a single contract (multi-service contracts)
would achieve significantly greater savings than single
contracts. Since 1977 DOD has entered into only a handful of
such contracts, primarily for base operation support services.
However, little information exists on how these contracts work,
what services are best delivered under such a program, and what
are the actual savings to the military installation. For
example, the Army recently determined that the multi-service
contract at Fort Irwin, California was too cumbersome to
administer.
The committee directs that the General Accounting Office
review the opportunities and problems with multi-service
contracts and provide a report of its findings to the
Congressional defense committees by March 1, 1998. The review
should identify the characteristics of selected multi-service
contracts, what are the lessons learned from past and current
DOD multi-service contracts, what are the cost and efficiency
gains achieved in multi-service contracts in contrast to a
single service contract, what are the implications for small-
business, and what DOD functions are best suited for multi-
service contracts.
Oversight of Outsourced Functions
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has increased efforts to maximize efficiencies and improve
services by planning to study for outsourcing, more than
100,000 civilian positions between fiscal years 1998 and 2003.
The committee has several concerns regarding these efforts.
DOD is pursuing opportunities to outsource services and
functions currently provided by military personnel. The
committee questions the savings estimates from such outsourcing
since the military personnel performing these services will be
retained and contractor costs will be incurred. In addition,
the committee is concerned that services and functions that are
currently used to train military personnel will be outsourced.
A recent report by the General Accounting Office indicates
that DOD does not have the adequate personnel or resources to
conduct or manage new contracts for the planned outsourcing
efforts. For example, the United States Army Forces Command had
about thirty staff dedicated to administering the commercial
activities program during the 1980s. By mid-1996, this staff
had dropped to three.
Furthermore, the committee is concerned that recent
outsourcing efforts do not include studies on whether it would
be more cost effective to return currently outsourced functions
and services to the public sector. Without this review, DOD
cannot ensure that it is receiving the best service for the
taxpayer.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to review the planned outsourcing efforts and report his
findings to the Congressional defense committees by March 1,
1998. The report should address the following questions:
(1) What function and services performed by military
personnel has DOD planned to study for outsourcing
between fiscal years 1998 and 2003?
(2) What is the methodology used in determining the
public costs when reviewing the outsourcing of a
function or service performed by military personnel?
(3) What is the adequate level of staff support
required for ongoing and future outsourcing studies?
(4) What is the adequate staff support necessary to
monitor the resulting contracts?
(5) What are the opportunities for centralizing the
personnel and resources into one office that will
provide defense-wide outsourcing support?
(6) What are the competitive costs and savings from
the planned outsourcing studies?
(7) What studies are planned to review the return of
outsourced services and functions to the public sector?
Procurement and Electronic Commerce Technical Assistance Program
Over the past few years, the acquisition community has
instituted several reforms aimed at streamlining and removing
barriers to the federal acquisition process. The passage of the
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-
335) and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 (Division D
of Public Law 104-106), along with administrative actions taken
by the Executive Branch to streamline the acquisition process
have helped to fundamentally change the federal acquisition
system. However, despite these reforms, little has changed for
the DOD programs that support small business, particularly the
Electronic Commerce Resource Centers (ECRC) and the Procurement
Technical Assistance Centers (PTAC).
Recent findings by the DOD Office of Inspector General
(OIG) (Electronic Commerce Resource Centers, Report No. 97-090
and Department of Defense Procurement Technical Assistance
Cooperative Agreement Program, report No. 97-007) argue that
the ECRC ``has not been efficient or cost effective in
promoting'' the use of electronic commerce or electronic data
interchange technologies between small businesses and
government organizations. The DOD-OIG also states that PTAC is
not complying with its authorizing language in section 2415 of
title 10, United States Code, regarding the requirement to
award grants based on the comparative ranking of applicants and
equitably distribute grants across the Defense Contract
Administration Service regions. Finally, the OIG concluded that
both ECRC and PTAC functions overlap with services provided
elsewhere in the government. For these reasons, the committee
believes the programs should be consolidated to improve service
delivery and ensure the future of the program is consistent
with the fundamental changes sweeping the Federal acquisition
system.
United States Transportation Command
Despite the creation of USTRANSCOM, numerous studies,
including those by USTRANSCOM, have reported that traffic
management processes within the Department of Defense (DOD)
remain fragmented, duplicative, and inefficient, primarily due
to the lack of integrated and standard business practices.
Personnel in each transportation component continue to perform
similar and duplicative functions, resulting in different
component staff separately negotiating rates and processing
claims often related to the same shipment.
The committee is aware that USTRANSCOM is reviewing options
to improve the management of customer requirements and billing
through contracted studies and the Joint Mobility Control
Group. The committee believes that the current transportation
management issues require more aggressive solutions and
encourages the use of standardized business practices that
utilize leading edge technologies. In doing so, the committee
believes that USTRANSCOM services will improve, transportation
and financing systems will be easier to understand, and scarce
resources will be used more efficiently throughout USTRANSCOM.
As a result, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
reduce the workyears in USTRANSCOM to 66,238, or 1,000 workers
below the current fiscal year 1997 levels.
The committee is also aware that DOD transportation costs
are significantly higher than the private sector. According to
a 1996 General Accounting Office (GAO) study, USTRANSCOM
charged its customers as much as 200 percent more than the
private contractor billed for its services. In the GAO study,
DOD explained that this difference was largely due to the cost
of maintaining an additional mobilization or readiness
infrastructure. Separating the mobilization from the peacetime
transportation costs would improve visibility over the true
cost of providing peacetime transportation, and facilitate DOD
efforts to maximize the most efficient business practices,
whether public or private. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide the House Committee on National
Security and the Senate Committee on Armed Services a report,
by March 1, 1998, containing the following:
(1) A description of the charges and services
provided through the working-capital funds to satisfy
transportation requirements in support of war, national
emergency, or contingency operations; and
(2) A description of the changes and services
provided through the working capital funds in support
of peacetime transportation requirements.
Environmental Issues
Air Force Plant #3, Tulsa, Oklahoma
The committee is aware of the desirability of expediting
the environmental cleanup of Air Force Plant #3, located in
Tulsa, Oklahoma, so that the land on which the plant is located
may be expeditiously conveyed and subsequent re-use and
redevelopment accelerated. In view of recently identified
increased funding requirements for the cleanup of environmental
contamination at this site, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Air Force to expedite cleanup of this site to the
maximum extent practicable. In addition, the Secretary of the
Air Force is directed to submit a revised obligation and
cleanup schedule for the facility no later than November 15,
1997.
Compliance Funding
The committee remains concerned about the expenditure of
funding for environmental compliance activities. Theoretically,
such funds are supposed to be used exclusively for those
environmental activities necessary to ensure that the
Department of Defense complies with all applicable
environmental laws and regulations. However, anecdotal
evidence, as well as preliminary assessments made by the
General Accounting Office, suggest that there is considerable
migration of funding into and out of compliance accounts once
such funds are appropriated and obligated as operations and
maintenance funding at the installation level. A recent study
by the General Accounting Office suggests that the Department
of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency both lack
the necessary data relative to environmental compliance
activities to conduct appropriate oversight. In recognition of
this deficiency, in 1994 the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) established a working group to revise the manner
in which the department budgets for and reports execution of
environmental quality programs, including compliance,
conservation and pollution prevention programs. In 1996, the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security)
established new policies for classifying compliance projects
and obtaining data.
Nevertheless, Department of Defense officials concede that
they are unable to provide budget execution data breakdowns by
project and environmental area (such as compliance or pollution
prevention) and that, even where such data does exist, it is
not sufficiently standardized or accurate enough to permit
meaningful cross-service or aggregate comparisons. Therefore,
the Secretary of Defense is directed to develop a standardized
data accumulation system for environmental compliance
activities of the Department of Defense. This all inclusive
system should be designed to yield contract, project and
installation specific data for all environmental compliance
activities, including those under $300,000 in value. Data
accumulated pursuant to such a system should be standardized
among the military departments, should employ standardized,
common accounting procedures, and should yield data that will
permit the tracking of compliance funding from budget request
to authorization and appropriation to obligation and
expenditure. The aim is to develop an easily accessible data
base by which complete and accurate compliance information may
be assembled and analyzed. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to submit to Congress a report by no later than
December 31, 1997, on the development and implementation of
this compliance data system.
Environmental Cleanup at the Washington Navy Yard
Demolition, construction and renovation activities
conducted at Department of Defense facilities are potentially
subject to a variety of environmental strictures, depending on
conditions at contaminated sites. Environmental cleanup of
contaminants found and military installations is regulated
under a variety of laws, including the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the National
EnvironmentalPolicy Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act.
The committee is concerned with the Navy's plan to relocate
the Naval Sea Systems Command to the Washington Navy Yard.
Since the preliminary assessment of environmental contamination
at the yard may not adequately take into account the nature and
extent of pollutants. The Navy Yard has been used for most of
its long history as an industrial weapons production facility,
and the installation has been heavily contaminated with heavy
metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, and other hazardous
substances. The contamination at the Navy Yard is such that the
installation was assigned a hazard ranking score by the
Environmental Protection Agency of 52. A score of 28.5 is all
that is required for designation as a Superfund site, and the
Environmental Protection Agency anticipates making a decision
whether to propose the installation for inclusion on the
National Priorities List as a Superfund site in the fall of
1998.
In recognition of these circumstances, the committee urges
the Department of the Navy to be prudent in undertaking
demolition, construction and renovation of facilities at the
Navy Yard in anticipation of the relocation of the Naval Sea
Systems Command. The committee directs the Navy to comply with
all pertinent environmental laws and ensure the full protection
of human health and the environment for construction workers
and military and civilian personnel as it conducts relocation-
related activities at the Navy Yard. The committee is not
opposed to the relocation of the Naval Sea Systems Command but
does not want to have money obligated for that purpose until
the Secretary of the Navy provides assurance that funds for
that purpose will not be wasted.
Exploring Options to Reduce Environmental Cleanup Costs
The committee is concerned about the growing costs
associated with environmental remediation of active and former
military installations and believes that the Department of
Defense (DOD) should explore the development of policies which
will help minimize costs while accomplishing cleanup
objectives. The committee also believes that the DOD should
undertake an initiative involving policy makers with
scientific, industry and community leaders involved in the
remediation field, to identify opportunities for more efficient
cleanup and to consider the use of risk-management and risk-
based corrective action approaches to create more
environmentally acceptable endpoints and greater incentives for
innovation in environmental cleanups. The committee is
particularly interested in expediting remediations, successful
land transfer and recycling on closed bases and encourages the
DOD to pursue development of a policy product incorporating the
input of scientific, industry and community leaders that
facilitates increased land transfer and acceleration of the
overall cleanup process.
Performance Based Contracting
One of the approaches to environmental cleanup of
Department of Defense installations that has the potential to
generate considerable cost savings concerns performance-based
contracts. In contrast to traditional ``cost-plus'' contracts,
performance-based contracts involve measuring contractor
performance for the purpose of determining the award or fee in
terms of the attainment of performance milestones, such as the
demolition of contaminated buildings or the installation of a
pump and treat system. In effect, contractor performance is
measured against the achievement of a prescribed, outcome-
oriented result, but the methodology by which those results are
to be attained is left to the contractor. The appeal in such an
approach is that it encourages contractors to use smart
business practices in contract performance and alleviates often
cumbersome requirements related to the manner of performance.
In some cases, however, results-oriented performance milestones
may be unacceptable to regulators, who desire to prescribe the
manner in which work under the contract must be done.
Performance-based environmental contracts employed by the
Department of Energy have shown promise in terms of cost
savings and accelerating the time it takes to cleanup sites,
and the committee believes they have the same potential for the
Department of Defense.
Although the Department states that it presently uses
performance-based contracts in its environmental cleanup
activities, it is difficult to assess the extent to which
performance-based contracting is now being employed. There is
no commonly accepted definition of what constitutes a
performance-based contract, despite some guidance from the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy. Further, there is no
readily available data concerning the number, kind and dollar
value of environmental cleanup contracts that might be
characterized as performance-based, so it is difficult to
meaningfully gauge the present and future value of such
contracts as a more cost effective means of cleaning up
contaminated sites. Therefore, the Secretary of Defense is
directed to submit to the House Committee on National Security
and the Senate Committee on Armed Services a report, no later
than December 31, 1997, including the following matters:
(1) A uniform definition of what constitutes a
performance-based contract for environmental cleanup
activities, and how that definition differs from
traditional ``cost-plus'' contracts;
(2) The number of performance-based environmental
cleanup contracts in excess of the simplified
acquisition threshold now being employed in each of the
military departments;
(3) The kinds of cleanup activities covered by such
contracts and whether there are certain kinds of risks
and site characteristics that are favorably or ill
suited to the use of such contracts;
(4) An assessment of the extent to which such
performance-based contracts have the potential to
generate cost savings in the cleanup of contaminated
sites if employed on a broader scale than is the case
currently; and
(5) An assessment of the effectiveness of joint
Department of Defense-Environmental Protection Agency
efforts to identify and reduce or eliminate regulatory
barriers to the use of performance-based contracts or
other outcome-oriented approaches to environmental
cleanup.
The committee anticipates that the results of this report
will permit a determination about the true potential of
performance-based contracts to become a widely employed
technique by which cleanup of contaminated sites may be
accelerated at lower cost to the government than present
contracting practices permit.
Intelligence Matters
Budget Justification Materials
The Congressional Budget Justification Books (CBJBs) for
the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) and the
Congressional Justification Books (CJBs), for the Joint
Military Intelligence Program (JMIP) and Tactical Intelligence
and Related Activities (TIARA) represent the official
documentation provided yearly by the intelligence Community
Management Staff (CMS) and the Department of Defense to the
Congress on the President's intelligence budget request. These
documents provide the official budget numbers, by program, with
which Congress evaluates the President's proposed intelligence
program and renders decisions on individual programs and policy
matters.
However, the committee is concerned that the current budget
documents lack several critical components necessary for the
Congress to ensure the proper alignment of funding within the
funding appropriations categories. Clear identification of each
project; its specific budget request numbers; the appropriation
category (e.g. Other Procurement, Defense-wide; RDT&E, Navy;
etc.); the budget request line number, and, if a research and
development project, the Program Element number is essential to
this task. Further, the committee requires a detailed
accounting of all program reprogramming and reallocation
actions, where unallocated cuts were taken, identification of
total program costs (such as aircraft or spacecraft and
association ground station costs, including system engineering
and systems integration costs and operations support).
Therefore, the committee directs the CMS and the Department to
provide this specific data in all future budget justification
documents.
Finally, the committee is also concerned that past and
current budget justification documents have not consistently
shown all direct and associated funds requests for intelligence
programs. Research and development costs in the Defense
Cryptologic Program, for example, are not identified
specifically with the programs that are the direct
beneficiaries. Also, operations and maintenance costs are often
carried in a service's total obligation authority and not
specifically identified in the CBJBs. The committee cannot
fully understand the magnitude of budgetary actions without
fully and clearly understanding all the costs of a program.
Therefore, the committee directs that in future CBJBs and
CJBs all direct and associated costs, in each budgetary
category (e.g. procurement, research and development,
operations and maintenance, military construction, etc.), be
clearly and completely provided in each program request.
Command and Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence
Integrated Architecture Plan
The budget request contained $3.6 million for the Command
and Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I)
Integrated Architecture Plan (CIAP).
CIAP provides the Commanders in Chief (CINCs) in-depth
analysis of region-centric intelligence issues resulting in
regional intelligence support plans, resource programming and
operational architecture designs. The committee has been very
supportive of this effort, and is concerned that it is once
again underfunded jeopardizing the completion of CIAP plans for
several of the regional CINCs. The committee believes these
plans provide a unique analytical basis for future intelligence
decisions, and that intelligence funding will be most
effectively programmed and expended with such analysis.
Therefore, the committee recommends a total of $9.3 million
for the CIAP efforts, an increase of $5.7 million.
Defense Space Reconnaissance Program (DSRP)
The committee believes there is no longer a need to
maintain the (DSRP), a program within the Joint Military
Intelligence Program (JMIP). The Defense Support Program Office
(DSPO), operated by DSRP funds, was established to provide an
overt coordination mechanism for providing National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO) system capabilities to military
users. Since the NRO is now declassified, the committee
believes that there is no longer a need to maintain this
special DSRP liaison function.
Therefore, the committee directs that, effective October 1,
1998, the DSRP be abolished, and all funds properly apportioned
to the services, defense agencies and the NRO. The committee
further directs that, no later than February 1, 1998, the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command & Control,
Communications, Computers, and Intelligence) and the Director,
NRO provide the defense and intelligence authorizing committees
a joint plan, including the transfer of funding, for
transitioning the functions of the DSPO and the DSRP.
Foreign Instrumentation Intelligence
The budget request contained no funding or personnel
billets in the Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP) for
Foreign Instrumentation Intelligence (FISINT) analysis.
The committee is concerned about the significant reduction
in the number of weapons-specific FISINT analysts. While some
decline in this capability may have been justified following a
decline in Russian missile test activities, it is not
consistent with the corresponding increase in missile
developments and testing by other nations. Numerous countries
that did not retain such weapons capabilities during the bi-
polar Cold War era are now able to obtain or indigenously
develop high technology missiles and components. Many of these
weapons could be used to threaten U.S. and allied forces. The
committee is convinced that weapons FISINT analyst levels have
dropped too far as important analysis of weapons systems have
been postponed, and gaps in U.S. understanding of new weapon
systems are widening.
Therefore, the committee recommends that of the positions
realized as result of the abolishment of the Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office elsewhere in this report, ten military
personnel and five civilian personnel should be made available
to the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, under his
authorities as the Defense General Intelligence Applications
Program Coordinator, to rebuild weapons FISINT analysis
capabilities. The Director, DIA will allocate these billets to
the National SecurityAgency, the National Aerospace
Intelligence Center, the Missiles and Space Intelligence Center, and
the Office of Naval Intelligence as required.
Imagery and Geospatial System Production
The budget request contained $541.8 million for continued
operations of National Imagery and Mapping Agency's (NIMA)
Geospatial System Production and Customer support.
The Director of NIMA has officially stated that, because of
the large operations and maintenance cost of older production
equipment, the Agency will completely phase out the legacy
Digital Production System (DPS) by the year 2000. Although the
overall NIMA operations and maintenance budget decreases
slightly in fiscal year 1998, very little of this decrease is
due to a reduction in legacy system funding. The committee
notes that migration away from DPS began in fiscal year 1997,
and a more significant decline in funding should result in
fiscal year 1998.
Therefore, the Committee recommends $501.4 million for this
activity, a decrease of $40.0 million.
Intelligence System Interoperability
The budget request contained $196.6 million for Command and
Control, Communications, Computer Intelligence (C4I) support
system development and interoperability, and for establishing a
virtual intelligence analysis environment. The systems
identified within this request are contained within the
National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP), the Joint
Military Intelligence Program (JMIP) and the Tactical
Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA) aggregation, and
include the following programs:
(1) Joint Intelligence Virtual Architecture;
(2) Joint Deployable Intelligence Support System
(JDISS)
(3) All Source Analysis System (ASAS);
(4) Joint Maritime Communications Information System
(JMCIS);
(5) Combat Intelligence System (CIS);
(6) Analysis System (IAS); and
(7) JDISS-Special Operations Command Research,
Analysis, and Threat Evaluation System (SOCRATES).
The committee supports the Department's efforts to provide
an interoperable intelligence dissemination architecture and a
``virtual'' analytical environment with which analysts world-
wide can collaborate. However, the committee believes the
various projects reflected in the President's request do not
have the necessary direction and control to require the sharing
of developments and to ensure that duplication of effort is
minimized, as demonstrated by a review of the budget
justification documents.
Further, the committee believes that the systems stated
above can be broken down into the basic components of 1) a high
powered workstation with communications; 2) an operating
environment that, by direction of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (C3I) must be Defense Intelligence Infrastructure (FII)
and Common Operating Environment (COE) compliant; and 3) a set
of applications software. While the common stated goal of the
above systems is to provide support to analysts and operators,
the program managers of these systems rarely, if ever, work
together to achieve common goals by sharing ideas and
developments.
Therefore, the committee is convinced of the need to
establish a management focal point within the Department that
would involve includes representation from each of the service
and agency system program offices. The mission for this
organization would be to provide oversight, integration, and
development of collaborative applications for the associated
C4I systems. The function of this organization should not be to
dictate specific service or agency hardware solutions or unique
software applications, but to provide for the development of
common applications, act as a conduit for sharing analytical
ideas and processes, and to ensure world-wide interoperability
via standards. The committee does not support the concept of
centralizing funding for these efforts, since these systems are
the responsibilities of the various services and agencies.
Therefore, the committee directs that no more than 50
percent of the funds authorized for the above systems be
obligated or expended, until the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(C3I) provides the defense and intelligence authorizing
committees with a plan for creating a management focal point
within the Department with a charter encompassing the goals
outlined.
Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar
The budget request contained $23.2 million to continue
development of the Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar
(IFSAR) mission to collect Digital Terrain Elevation Data
(DTED) level 2 information. The IFSAR mission is scheduled to
fly on the Space Shuttle in the 2000 timeframe. The IFSAR
mission itself will cost $163.3 million, with $98.4 million for
follow-on analysis.
The committee continues to believe that there are other,
more cost-effective alternatives to the IFSAR mission for
collecting DTED level 2 data. One such alternative appears to
be an algorithm developed by commercial industry that allows
DTED level 2 data to be derived from the European Resource
Satellites (ERS-1 and -2). The Canadian RADARSAT also appears
to be able to satisfy this requirement. Additionally, new
processes for aircraft with SAR capabilities hold great
potential. Therefore, the committee recommends cancellation of
the IFSAR mission and a corresponding reduction of $23.2
million in the National Imagery and Mapping Agency budget.
Joint Planning and Program Review
The budget request contained $6.6 million for Defense
Intelligence Agency (DIA) general support to the defense
community. This request included funding for moving DIA
elements within the Pentagon and to leased space due to anti-
terrorism and force protection direction from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
The committee supports new DIA efforts, within this
project, to provide intelligence assessments, intelligence
inputs to Defense Planning Guidance, and other intelligence
support functions. The committee hopes that these efforts are
indeed havingan impact on defense planning and programming. The
committee further notes that the budget justification materials assert
that these DIA assessments have ``determined shortfalls in current
high-cost reconnaissance and surveillance programs and identified/
prioritized specific near-term solutions, which resulted in great
savings across Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP).'' Therefore, the
committee requests that the Director of DIA provide the defense and
intelligence committees a report on these assessments before the fiscal
year 1998 conference.
Further, the Committee does not believe there is adequate
justification in the request for a 35 percent increase in
funding for moving personnel. Therefore, the committee
recommends a limitation on the obligation of $2.0 million of
the request until the Department provides the committee with a
detailed explanation and rationale for the increased costs
incurred by the DIA for these forced moves.
National Imagery and Mapping Agency Civilian Personnel
The budget request contained $680.3 million for running the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency's (NIMA) mapping and
geospatial information operations, including funding for 6,389
civilian personnel positions.
The Director of NIMA has stated that NIMA's Digital
Production System (DPS) will no longer be operational by the
year 2000, and that NIMA's primary role in mapping will evolve
to that of maintaining information databases instead of
producing imagery and other intelligence products. If realized,
this approach should result in a greater decline in required
personnel over the current mandatory downsizing reductions,
since the majority of NIMA personnel currently support the
development of intelligence products. The committee supports
the effort to move away from DPS, however, the committee
believes that NIMA has failed to properly take into account the
effect this plan will have on personnel levels. Therefore, the
committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in civilian
personnel funds to accelerate the downsizing of NIMA's
personnel consistent with the DPS phase out.
Further, personnel costs account for more than half of
NIMA's operations and maintenance request and consequently,
more than half of its budget. The committee believes that NIMA
must drastically reduce its workforce and become more efficient
if it is to be able to fulfill its mission in the information
age. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of NIMA to
submit a personnel plan to the Congressional defense and
intelligence committees containing a forecast of the required
personnel levels over the Future Years Defense Program given
NIMA's new direction in the geospatial arena. This plan should
include an assessment of the types of skills required in the
future versus what NIMA now possesses, a breakdown per year of
the types of personnel positions that shows how NIMA's
demographics will change as the agency moves to its required
skill mix, an assessment of whether cartographer personnel
slots can be transformed into imagery analyst slots and the
potential for retraining cartographers into imagery analysts,
and an assessment of the challenges and obstacles facing the
agency in achieving the necessary personnel reductions,
including suggested remedies for such obstacles. The committee
requests that an interim plan be submitted by August 1, 1997,
with a final plan to be provided by December 1, 1997.
National Imagery and Mapping Agency Mission Support
The budget request contained $147.6 million for National
Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) facilities management.
As NIMA consolidates facilities, the committee expects to
see a marked decline in mission support costs. Such a decline
is not apparent in the budget request justification materials.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
million. Further, the committee requests that the Director of
NIMA submit a facilities plan that lays out locations and
functions of all current facilities, and describes NIMA's
strategy to consolidate and reduce its facility holdings. The
committee requests that an interim plan be submitted by August
1, 1997, with a final plan to be provided by December 1, 1997.
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
The budget request contained $2.2 million in the Army
Operations and Maintenance account for continued operation of
one-to-two Hunter UAV systems currently owned by the U.S. Army.
This request was not, however, reflected in the Army's Tactical
Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA) request.
The committee understands that the Army is operating at
least 2 full Hunter systems and has recently sent a partial
system to the Navy. The remaining systems are in storage. With
the cancellation of Hunter procurement, the cancellation of the
Maneuver UAV, and the delay in the Outrider Advanced Concept
Technology Demonstration, the committee is concerned with the
need to satisfy near-term Army tactical UAV requirements. The
committee believes the best short-term solution is for the Army
to operate the systems it currently owns. Therefore, the
committee recommends an additional $10 million in the Army's
Tactical Intelligence and Related Applications aggregation for
operation of additional Hunter UAVs to satisfy Army tactical
reconnaissance requirements and to refine tactical UAV
operational procedures. The committee does not authorize
additional or attrition Hunter air vehicle purchases, nor does
it authorize technical improvements to the air vehicle or its
electronic systems. Finally the committee notes that this is a
Congressional interest item and directs that the Army receive
prior defense and intelligence committee approval before
redistributing these funds for any purpose other than that
authorized above.
Tactical Information Program
The budget request contained $5.2 million in Operations and
Maintenance, Air Force, partly for operation of the Integrated
Broadcast Service (IBS) executive agency by the Air
Intelligence Agency (AIA).
The committee believes the budget request does not
adequately fund the increased operational demands levied on AIA
as a result of the decision by the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (C3I) to direct the Air Force to manage the development
of the IBS data broadcast program. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $4.0 million for this purpose.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends a reduction
of$3.0 million from PE 0304111F, R-169 and $1 million from
Other Procurement, Air Force, line 113, as an offset for this increase.
Tactical Support
The budget request contained $9.9 for continued support to
the Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities (TENCAP)
programs, to provide management support to intelligence
processes, and for funding contingency operations for Operation
Southern Watch.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee has recommended
reductions to the TENCAP programs, as it believes the
utilization of space has become more commonplace, and therefore
requires less specialized management support. Additionally, the
committee does not believe a funding increase for Operation
Southern Watch is justified.
Therefore, the committee recommends $8.7 million for this
effort, a reduction of $1.2 million.
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues
Deferred Payment Programs of Military Exchanges
Section 337 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) required the Secretary of
Defense to seek to enter into an agreement with a commercial
banking institution under which such institution would finance
and operate the deferred payment programs of the Army and Air
Force Exchange Service (AAFES) and the Navy Exchange Command
(NEXCOM). That section further required the use of competitive
procedures in the awarding of a contract for the financing and
operation of these deferred payment programs. To date, no
request for proposals has been published in the Commerce
Business Daily or otherwise been made public, due in large part
to the complexities of combining the debt and servicing aspects
of two separate deferred payment programs into requirements for
a single solicitation. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to consider entering into separate
agreements with commercial financial institutions for the
existing AAFES and NEXCOM deferred payment programs. If no
request for proposals for the financing and operation of AAFES'
and NEXCOM's combined deferred payment programs is issued by
July 1, 1997, the Secretary is directed to issue a separate
requests for proposals for the financing and operation of
AAFES' and NEXCOM's separate deferred payment programs. The
Secretary of Defense is further directed to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees, no later than December
31, 1997, on the status of the request(s) for proposals,
including the anticipated date for award of the contract(s) and
an assessment of the cost savings to the government or
increased revenues likely to be generated for the military
exchange systems as a result of commercial financing and
operation of deferred payment programs.
MWR Reimbursement from Closure of Foreign Military Installations
The 1988 Base Realignment and Closure Act (title II of the
Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and
Realignment Act, Public Law 100-526) and the 1990 Base
Realignment and Closure Act (title XXIX of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Public Law 101-510)
contemplate the transfer of formerly used American military
installations overseas back to the host country once the need
for our use of such bases has ceased. In cases where these
installations are closed and transferred to the host country
for reuse, the Department of Defense frequently receives
reimbursement from the host foreign country for improvements
made to the installation. Current law requires that that
portion of the proceeds paid to the Department of Defense
attributable to improvements to the installation made with
commissary funds or nonappropriated funds must be deposited
into a Treasury account established for the purpose of
acquiring, constructing and improving commissaries and
facilities for nonappropriated fund instrumentalities.
Recent testimony before the committee suggests that,
despite the requirements of the law, funds paid to the
Department of Defense upon the closure and transfer to the host
country of foreign military installations are not being
deposited into the Treasury account or are otherwise not being
made available for use by commissaries and nonappropriated fund
instrumentalities. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committee on
National Security of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, no later than
December 31, 1997, explaining in detail the following:
(1) The number of foreign installations closed within
the last five calendar years (1992 to the present) in
which the United States Government and/or the
Department of Defense received financial or in kind
payment from the host country for or in connection with
improvements made to the property by the United States;
(2) The total dollar value of payments made to the
United States and/or the Department of Defense, and the
fair market value of any in kind contributions from
foreign countries to the United States and/or the
Department of Defense, for or in connection with
improvements made to military installations transferred
back to the host country;
(3) The total amount equal to the depreciated value
of the investment made on such military installations
with commissary and nonappropriated funds;
(4) The total amount deposited annually for the last
five calendar years into the Treasury account
established for the benefit of commissaries and
nonappropriated fund activities; and
(5) The total amount of funds spent from that account
for commissary and nonappropriated fund instrumentality
projects, and a description of the projects for which
such funds were expended.
The committee anticipates that the data provided in this
report will establish whether remedial legislation is required
in order to secure full compliance with the law.
Pentagon Concessions Committee Activities
The committee is concerned that there are nonappropriated
fund activities of the Department of Defense that operate
without adequate congressional oversight and coordination. In
particular, certain of the nonappropriated fund activities
conducted at the Pentagon Reservation pursuant to authorization
from the Department of Defense's Concessions Committee appear
to be at odds with congressional guidance issued in the past.
Although the activities conducted under the auspices of the
Concessions Committee began in 1943 with a $325,000 start-up
loan from the Army Exchange Service (now the Army and Air Force
Exchange Service (AAFES)), these activities generated sales in
excess of $27 million in fiscal year 1996. Evidence received by
the committee suggests that oversight of these activities by
the Director, Administration and Management, Office of the
Secretary of Defense, has not been sufficient to ensure
consonance with congressional resale policy guidance.
Given the annual sales volume of these activities, better
management oversight may have the potential to yield increased
dividends to MWR programs and an enhanced MWR benefit for
service members. Therefore, the committee directs the
Comptroller General to perform a comprehensive review of all
Concessions Committee operations. The review should include a
detailed financial and management audit, including an
assessment of procurement practices and policies. In addition,
a breakout of the source and amount of appropriated funds
provided in support of these activities should be included. The
review should also include an evaluation of the relationship
between sales, revenues, and the size of the dividend to
morale, welfare and recreation activities from Concession
Committee activities. An assessment also should be made of
whether Pentagon Reservation concession activities should be
included within the Department's on-going exchange integration
study and whether Concession Committee activities should be
formally subsumed within and subordinated to AAFES or one of
the other exchange systems. The Comptroller General is directed
to provide a report resulting from the foregoing review to the
congressional defense committees no later than March 1, 1998.
Report on Black Marketing of Beer in Korea
The committee is aware that black marketing of American
made products sold at commissaries, exchanges and other resale
facilities in Korea remains a serious problem. Military
commanders have a duty to try to eliminate illegal activity,
and the committee strongly supports such efforts. However, at
the same time, command efforts to restrict opportunities for
black marketing by reducing the number of points of sale for
products like beer that have been the subject of black
marketing have the effect of reducing earnings generated by
resale activities. Reduced earnings in turn result in a smaller
dividend paid in support of local morale, welfare and
recreation (MWR) programs. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to submit a report to Congress, no later
than December 31, 1997, explaining specifically what action has
been taken to limit black marketing of beer at Army
installations in Korea and the reasons therefor, and how the
Army intends to ensure funding continuity for MWR programs in
Korea despite a decreased MWR program dividend because of
reduced local beer sales. The report should include an
explanation of changes in the amount of appropriated and
nonappropriated fund support in order to ensure provision of
the same level of benefit for MWR programs in Korea.
Report on Tobacco Sales at Commissaries
In November 1996, the Department of Defense required the
Defense Commissary Agency (DECA) to sell tobacco products at
commissaries at the same price charged at military exchanges.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense's
strategy to generate revenue through the sale of tobacco
products at increased prices at commissaries may not be working
as planned. Preliminary data suggest that tobacco product sales
at commissaries are down significantly for the first four
months of fiscal year 1997. Moreover, grocery volume and total
sales at commissaries are down, although not as much, for the
same period.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate detailing the effect upon tobacco sales volume and
revenue from the decision to raise prices at commissaries. The
report should include a comparative analysis of tobacco sales
from the time tobacco prices were raised through the end of
fiscal year 1997 with tobacco sales figures from the two
preceding fiscal years. The report should also include a
detailed explanation of the use to which the revenue from
tobacco sales at commissaries is being put. This explanation
should indicate how much revenue is being allocated as
increased dividends for MWR activities and what use has been
made of the remaining revenue, as well as the amount of any
handling charge allocated to DECA. Finally, the report should
include a recommendation whether DECA should receive some
percentage of the proceeds from tobacco sales at commissaries
as a way to improve DECA's financial situation. The report
should be submitted no later than February 1, 1998.
Uniform Health Benefit Program for Nonappropriated Fund Employees
Section 349 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) required the Department
of Defense, by not later than October 1, 1995, to take such
steps as necessary to provide a uniform health benefits program
for its nonappropriated fund employees. By letter dated April
2, 1997, the Department notified Congress of its preliminary
determination to adopt the health benefits plan currently
provided by the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) as
the uniform health benefit plan for all nonappropriated fund
employees. The committee is concerned, however, that the
Department does not intend to subject the initial contract for
the uniform plan to a competitive bidding process. Although the
AAFES plan is fully funded and the most generous of the health
benefit plans presently being offered by nonappropriated fund
instrumentalities within the Department of Defense, companies
other than the one administering the AAFES plan may be able to
provide the same level of benefit at a lower cost than is
charged for coverage under the AAFES plan. Therefore,the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to initiate a competitive
bidding process for the contract to provide uniform health benefits for
nonappropriated fund employees.
Defense Commissary Agency Produce Purchasing
The Defense Commissary Agency (DECA) has historically
purchased its produce for sale in commissaries, as well as for
installation mess halls and other dining facilities, from local
produce growers. However, a recent study conducted by the Hay
Group for DECA suggests that DECA could achieve considerable
annual savings in its produce purchasing by buying produce from
a ``prime vendor'' or single, large produce seller that has the
facilities and capability to sell DECA produce and service all
installations within a given region. The committee is concerned
that a decision by DECA to purchase its produce from a large
regional produce vendor might have undesirable consequences.
Service members might not receive the freshest, locally grown
produce. Produce is a perishable commodity, and produce that
must be shipped distances to localities may begin to decay.
Moreover, large produce vendors may not have the same quality
standards or service ethic as local produce growers. In short,
produce quality, freshness and variety may decline under a
prime vendor arrangement. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committee on
National Security of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate explaining the
financial considerations associated with a decision to
undertake a prime vendor contract for the purchase of produce,
and the advantages and disadvantages in terms of delivery
logistics, produce quality, freshness and selection associated
with such a change in practice. The report should also detail
the effect of the change to a prime vendor arrangement upon
small, local produce growers and businesses and should explain
how DECA intends to take into account the interests of these
concerns should it go forward with a prime vendor contract. The
report should be submitted no later than October 31, 1997, and
DECA may not to award any so called ``prime vendor'' contract
for the purchase of produce for commissaries and installation
dining facilities until at least 90 days after the report has
been submitted to Congress.
Other Issues
Army After Next
The committee notes with interest the success of the
initial efforts of the Army's ``Army After Next'' program. With
the support of the committee in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201),
the Army was able to conduct several highly productive
wargaming exercises aimed at determining the future strategic
environment for the employment of land forces and the
technologies, operational concepts and military organizations
that may be required. The committee welcomes the support for
this important and cost-effective program that has been
expressed by the Secretary of Defense and Chief of Staff of the
Army, and encourages the other military services to undertake
similar efforts.
At the same time, the committee remains concerned about the
direction of the Army's future modernization and innovation
efforts, which at the least remain hamstrung by inadequate
budgets. The process of fielding the next-generation ``Force
XXI'' Army will not be complete within the active Army until
well after the year 2020. And one lesson apparent from the
successful Force XXI exercises at the National Training Center
is the need to move more rapidly not merely to digitize current
land systems but to develop more lethal, mobile and deployable
systems for the future.
Therefore, the committee directs that, of the amounts
authorized for Operations and Maintenance, Army, Force-Related
Training, Special Activities under Budget Activity 3, $7.0
million be made available to conduct further analysis for the
``Army After Next'' program. The committee also recommends that
the Army establish a stable funding profile for the program. In
addition to allowing United States Army Training and Doctrine
Command to investigate the possibilities of more radical
change, both in strategic and operational requirements for land
combat, than envisioned under the Force XXI, the program
provides an important hedge should Force XXI funding be reduced
due to overall defense budget shortfalls. The committee
continues to consider the small amount of funding required to
conduct ``Army After Next'' analysis as a wise investment to
ensure the Army's modernization program is responsive to future
threats.
Army Aviation Training
The committee is concerned that currently, there are
approximately 700 Army aviation pilots that were given initial
pilot training on the Army's older aircraft systems and have
now been assigned to units that operate only updated aircraft
systems. As these pilots are not trained on the new aircraft
systems, and the receiving units do not have the training funds
to upgrade these individuals, the Army is unable to fully
utilize these personnel. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $14.0 million to the Army's operation and
maintenance account to support the Army's training plan to
alleviate the excess number of ``non-modernized aviators.''
This funding will greatly increase combat readiness by
providing the Army highly trained aviators in the newer
modernized aircraft systems.
Army Civilian Personnel Management
A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled
``Army Force Structure'' (NSIAD-97-66), determined that the
Army is unable to ensure that its personnel are being used
efficiently or even assess what risks would be assumed by
eliminating civilian positions due to the weakness in its
institutional force requirements process. This weakness has
also been identified by the Army Audit Agency. GAO considers
this problem to be sufficiently significant that it has
recommended its designation as a ``material weakness'' under
the Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act, which would
require the Army to develop a corrective action plan with
milestones for completion.
The committee is similarly concerned that current Army
downsizing and reductions-in-force are not based upon
prioritized workload based staffing requirements. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a
report to the House Committee on National Security and the
Senate Committee on Armed Services not later than March 31,
1998, on efforts to correct the Army's weakness in its force
requirements determination process. The committee also
recommends that the Army Materiel Command automated workload
management system demonstration project be completed by January
1, 1998 and the results included in the above report.
Army Depot Maintenance Funding
The committee is alarmed by the declining trend in funding
for depot-level maintenance and repair within the Department of
the Army. The Army funded 79 percent of total depot maintenance
and repair requirements in fiscal year 1996, 65 percent in
fiscal year 1997, and the budget request for fiscal year 1998
allows for only 58 percent of requirements. The committee
believes this declining trend is unacceptable, and if
continued, could seriously affect the readiness of the Army's
combat weapons systems.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide to the Congressional defense committees by December
1, 1997, a report explaining how the Army plans to reverse the
declining trend in funding for depot-level maintenance and
repair, and an assessment of the readiness implications of
funding this account at less than 80 percent of requirements.
Automatic Document Conversion Technology
The committee believes that there is the potential for
significant savings from automatic document conversion software
for use in weapons systems engineering drawing digitization,
and that the department should increase it efforts to digitize
all weapons engineering drawings by the year 2000. Therefore,
the committee recommends the addition of $10.0 million for
engineering drawings and document storage and retrieval to be
directly managed by the Defense Logistics Agency. The committee
directs that not less than one half of these funds must be used
toward development of a systems solution for document
conversion, studies, analysis and integration.
Budget Justification Materials
The committee continues to be concerned with receiving the
Department of Defense budget justification materials being
received in a timely or useful manner to support Congressional
oversight and decision-making. The justification materials,
particularly for the operation and maintenance accounts, are
currently provided to the Congress late in the committee's
review process, often precluding the ability to conduct
thorough and in depth analysis of the President's budget
request. Although an extensive amount of material is eventually
provided, much of it is in formats that conflict between the
individual services making it difficult to assess trends in
similar functions. As an example, the data concerning depot
maintenance for the Air Force is located in a different budget
activity than found in the Army or the Navy. The complexity of
the multiple displays of budget information also makes locating
information on a specific subject difficult and time consuming.
In particular, details on the allocation of outsourcing and
efficiency savings are either not provided or scattered
throughout several tables.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to convene a working group, consisting of representatives of
the military departments and the appropriate defense agencies,
to develop a single Department of Defensewide standard
formulation for the display of budget justification materials
provided to Congress. The committee urges this working group to
consider eliminating repetitive and redundant budget displays
and directs that budget justification materials provided to
support the fiscal year 1999 budget request confirm to the
maximum extent practicable with a new department-wide
standardized format.
Computer Crimes and Information Technology Security
Although highlighted in the Quadrennial Defense Review, the
committee is concerned by the modest support from the
Department of Defense (DOD) leadership for improving
information security for non-classified systems. The committee
is aware that in response to concerns raised in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-
201), several computer investigations training, computer
forensics laboratory, and hardware and software improvement
programs are under development. To ensure consistency of such
training and system improvements throughout DOD and build on
the efforts of the Air Force and Navy, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to establish a standard training
program, open to participation by members of all relevant
programs in the military departments and defense agencies. This
standard program should provide the necessary training,
forensic laboratory, and hardware and software support to
strengthen DOD's capabilities to identify, respond, and protect
information system vulnerabilities. The committee recommends
that of the funds authorized for Operations and Maintenance for
fiscal year 1998, $9.8 million should be made available to
support these programs.
Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores
The committee continues to be concerned with actions taken
by the Department of the Air Force concerning the operation of
Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Stores (COCESS).
As mentioned in the committee report on H.R. 3230, the Fiscal
Year 1997 Defense Authorization bill (H. Rep. 104-563), the
committee believes that COCESS is an important centralized
supply store function located on military installations to
provide off-the-shelf parts and supplies, similar to the
commercial equivalent of a hardware store. At a time when there
is a great emphasis on outsourcing the supply and service
functions that are not inherently governmental, the committee
supports current efforts to consider the desirability of
contracting out base engineering supply stores.
The committee is aware of recent efforts to change the
existing COCESS contracts on several Air Force installations
that would include the COCESS functions in larger, multi-
service, installation-wide service contracts. The committee
believes that such efforts to combine existing functions that
are already performed by the private sector (such as COCESS)
may not be in the best interest of the government and could
result in the exclusion of small businesses in these areas.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to not combine COCESS functions with other service
functions when considering multi-function service contracts
until a thorough analysis is conducted, including an economic
analysis, assessing the merits of combining these services to
increase efficiencies at Air Force installations. Further, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to not change
the current operation of any COCESS, or to permit any
combinations of supply and services functions in upcoming
procurements, that would violate or circumvent the tenants of
any current COCESS contractual agreement.
Department of Defense Next Generation Weather Radar-Doppler
The committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
Next Generation Weather Radar-Doppler (NEXRAD) weather radars
are an integral part of the National Weather Service (NWS)
weather radar coverage system, and that steps need to be taken
to ensure that DOD NEXRADs function as fully committed elements
of the national weather radar network at the same standards,
quality, and availability as NWS operated NEXRADs. The
committee recognizes the importance of fully operational
NEXRADs for NWS forecasters to accurately monitor, forecast,
and issue severe weather warnings.
Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
consider increasing local stocks of NEXRAD spare parts to
correspond with both the types and quantity of NWS spare part
requirements provide additional common support equipment to be
used during maintenance processes to test and repair NEXRAD
systems provide additional operator training to correspond to
NWS training requirements and establish a NEXRAD mobile
maintenance system. In addition, the committee recommends that
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, consider the relocation of radar product
generators for all NEXRADs from the field locations to the
locations of the unit control positions. The committee believes
that these recommendations will provide the same operational
standards for DOD NEXRADs as the NWS operated NEXRADs.
In addition, the committee recommends that the Secretary of
Defense enlist the National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of DOD
NEXRADs to compare availability and performance as compared to
NWS NEXRADs, and to include the feasibility and benefits of
transferring all DOD NEXRADS to the Department of Commerce.
Emergency Communications Services for Members of the Armed Forces and
Their Families
The committee notes that, as of the end of fiscal year
1997, the Department of Defense (DOD) will no longer provide
direct financial assistance to the American Red Cross for the
delivery of emergency communications services. The committee
believes that the emergency communications services provided to
the DOD by the American Red Cross are very important to
military readiness and to the quality of life for military
service members and their families. Therefore, the committee
urges the DOD to make every effort in maintaining its long
standing, close relationship with the American Red Cross and is
pleased that DOD and the American Red Cross are currently
engaged in discussions that are intended to lead to the
continued delivery of emergency communications services for the
armed forces.
Flying Hour Shortfalls
The committee is alarmed by recent reports of significant
shortfalls in the Navy and Air Force flying hour programs. The
committee has learned that during fiscal year 1997, the Navy is
reporting a funding deficit of $107.0 million and the Air Force
reports a deficit of $171.0 million in their flying hour
programs. Compounding this problem, and adding to the
committee's concerns, is that fact that the Secretary of
Defense recently informed the committee that the budget request
for fiscal year 1998 underfunds the Navy flying hour program by
$350.0 million and the Air Force program by $200.0 million. The
committee finds these trends unacceptable and believes they
raise serious questions about the validity of the services
budget formulation process for these programs.
The military services have explained to the committee that
a significant portion of the shortfalls result from
unanticipated higher costs for aircraft parts, failures in
revised repair initiatives, and errors in the calculation of
their requirements. As an example, the Navy estimate for
aircraft repair parts in the fiscal year 1997 budget request
was 25 percent below the actual costs experienced to date. The
Air Force reported that F-15C/D aircraft are experiencing a 50
percent increase in engine changes. In addition, when the Air
Force changed the source of repair for F-15E engines, they
failed to include relevant costs in their fiscal year 1997
budget request. Both of the services report that repair parts
usage is greatly exceeding program expectations due to aging of
their aircraft. The committee believes that anticipating aging
aircraft repair parts requirements and providing the necessary
internal management for one of the services' most important
combat programs should be a top priority for the Secretary of
the Navy and the Secretary of the Air Force.
As mentioned elsewhere in this report, the committee
understands that the services, and particularly fighter
aviation units, are working harder then ever before. This is
not a new phenomenon, as these units have been stressed for the
last several years. From interviews with aviation personnel and
testimony before the committee, the committee understands that
flying units are extensively using ``work arounds'' to solve
the problems of aircraft breakdowns and parts shortages. The
committee has also heard reports of maintenance personnel
working long hours to take parts from one aircraft to place on
another just to meet operational requirements. The committee
does not understand how the service budgeting systems did not
recognize and compensate for the impact of the extremely high
aircraft operational rates in the past two years.
As these budgeting errors have only recently come to light,
and at a time when overall funding is being strictly rationed
to identified needs, the committee fears that any funds
provided to overcome these shortfalls may not address the true
underlying problem. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Air Force to
conduct a comprehensive review of its current and future years
active and reserve component flying hour programs and provide
to the Congressional defense committees by December 1, 1997, a
report outlining actions taken to correct these budgeting
errors.
Impending Change in Air Force Supply Management Activity Group
The committee understands that the Air Force is planning to
combine its three wholesale supply support divisions into one
division and implement a new way of computing the surcharge
associated with the purchase, warehousing, handling, and
management of repair parts. A major impact of this change will
be to revise the manner in which parts surcharges are computed
and applied. The new procedures provide that condemnations and
the associated replenishment spare purchases will be charged to
the items within the appropriate commodity group rather than
being spread over all items. The committee is concerned that
while this change may better align costs with end items, no
preplanning has occurred with the depot maintenance business
activity group and that items having high condemnations, such
as engines, will have a significant cost growth. While the cost
impact of this change is not known at this time, sales prices
have already been set for fiscal year 1998 with the depot
maintenance customers. Any increases in costs will result in
losses to the depot maintenance activity group. Those losses
will drive outyear price increases to recoup the loss. The
committee believes this change should be postponed until fiscal
year 1999 to allow time for determining the appropriate cost
impact and adjusting the sales prices to recover the costs of
this change.
Logistics Augmentation Programs
The Department of the Army's Logistics Civil Augmentation
Program (LOGCAP) uses a civilian contractor to provide
logistics and engineering services to deployed forces. LOGCAP
is used to provide much of the support to U.S. troops deployed
in support of the Bosnia peacekeeping mission and was also used
extensively to support operations in Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Italy. The General Accounting Office
(GAO) in a report issued this year entitled, Contingency
Operations, Opportunities to Improve Use of Contractor Support
Services (GAO/NSIAD-97-63), stated that both the Air Force and
the Navy have previously relied on the Army's LOGCAP for
support during deployment operations.
Notwithstanding their successful prior use of the Army's
program, the Air Force and the Navy have developed similar
contingency support programs. In August 1995, the Navy awarded
a contract for a similar program called the Navy Emergency
Construction Capabilities Program, and in early 1997, the Air
Force awarded a contract for a program called the Air Force
Contract Augmentation Program. The committee is concerned about
the need for more than one contract for these type of services,
particularly as it relates to the potential for duplication of
effort and unnecessary expense of separate individual
contingency support programs.
In order to determine whether the Department of Defense's
need for civilian augmentation support during operations is met
most effectively and efficiently through individual programs or
some other means such as one service acting as a single manager
for the others, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the Congressional defense committees by
March 1, 1998, that studies the need for individual service
contingency support programs. The study should address the cost
effectiveness and the command and control implications of
having multiple support contractors in a joint command
environment, and should specify the reasons, if any, why a
single service manager program would be unworkable.
Military Affiliate Radio System
Last year, the committee expressed its support for ``the
continuation and expanded use by all services'' of the Military
Affiliate Radio System (MARS). MARS is a low-cost Department of
Defense (DOD) sponsored program that provides DOD and the armed
forces with an auxiliary and emergency communications
capability as an adjunct to normal communications. It also
relies on thousands of highly-trained, volunteer radio
communications personnel to relay morale and quasi-official
communications traffic for the armed forces and U.S. government
civilian personnel stationed abroad. The committee reiterates
its support for a robust MARS program and notes with concern a
decline in the use of the system resulting from the development
of advanced communications modes (e.g., satellites). The
committee notes that advanced modes of communication may not
always be available or cost-effective, and that failing to
exploit MARS resources more aggressively could result in the
loss of this relatively inexpensive auxiliary communications
capability.
In the past, MARS has demonstrated its ability to provide
limited emergency communication support to non-DOD federal
entities. The committee supports the continuation of such
efforts as a way of helping to ensure that a trained and
qualified reserve of MARS operators remains available to DOD in
the event of a national emergency. To this end, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by December
31, 1997 identifying how DOD is utilizing the MARS system and
recommending ways in which it can be expanded. Specifically,
the report should:
(1) Explain DOD oversight of the program, identify
how the individual service programs are currently
organized and configured, and discuss possible mission
expansion, contraction, or adjustments;
(2) Identify ways to improve the reliability of the
MARS system;
(3) Recommend ways to integrate MARS resources in
support of other government agencies, identifying
options for interfacing and linking MARS with regular
DOD communications resources and with other emergency
communications resources and systems;
(4) Propose ways to better organize, train, and
utilize MARS personnel resources;
(5) Identify necessary adjustments and realignments
to the structure, staffing, and grade levels throughout
the MARS program;
(6) Provide an estimate of the costs to DOD of
obtaining MARS-type services commercially or ``in-
house'' using other active DOD personnel and identify
the cost savings to the Department through the use of
MARS; and
(7) Identify the level of funding that will be
required to institute each of the recommendations.
Mobility Infrastructure Enhancement
To improve deployment and mobility of military forces and
supplies through continued investments in en-route
infrastructure, the committee recommends an additional $25.0
million within Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
improvement projects including ammunition loading areas, cargo
staging areas, pier and port facilities, rail-heads, aerial
port facilities, fuel systems repairs, and identification
technology to improve intransit visibility. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the
Congressional defense committees, prior to the allocation of
these funds, a report listing the proposed enhancement
projects. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to seek
the views of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation
Command, in determining how these funds should be applied.
Non-BRAC Caretaker Costs
The committee notes that the Army's budget request
contained a new program called Non-BRAC (Base Realignment and
Closure) Caretaker funding. The committee understands that this
program is designed to reduce the maintenance and repair costs
for buildings no longer used and are scheduled for demolition.
The Army requested $102.0 million for this program with the
intention of using these funds to make safe and ``board up''
these unneeded buildings. The committee commends the Army for
attempting to reduce the cost of unused facilities, but
questions the method by which funding for this program was
calculated. By using a raw square footage of unused floor space
times an amount estimated per foot for the cost of closing up
and securing buildings, the committee believes this program to
be over funded. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction
of $51.0 million.
Repair and Maintenance Projects
It has come to the committee's attention that the military
departments are proposing large individual renovation projects
to be accomplished with real property maintenance and repair
funds. For example, in the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 budget
requests, the Navy proposes large, comprehensive renovations of
two buildings at the United States Naval Academy at $31.5
million and $35.2 million respectively. The committee is
concerned that renovation projects of this size unfairly
compete with what the committee considers the norm for repair
and maintenance projects. In addition, the budget justification
materials for these proposals do not provide the level of
detail that should be provided for high value, complex
projects. The committee does not specifically question the
validity of these projects, but feels that projects of this
size and complexity should be in the military construction
budget request. The committee also understands that there is a
question concerning the definition of a repair and maintenance
project versus a military construction project and addresses
this issue elsewhere in the report. Therefore the committee
recommends, without prejudice, no funds for these two projects
and recommends that they be re-submitted in a future military
construction budget request.
Renovation of Building for Defense Accounting Service Center
Section 373 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) authorized the Secretary
of Defense to transfer operation and maintenance funds to the
General Services Administration (GSA) for the renovation of
Building One, Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, which is owned
by GSA, and is in use by the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service. Section 373 also requires that the transfer of funds
is contingent on an agreement between the Department of Defense
(DOD) and the GSA that provides for the full reimbursement by
GSA to DOD for any funds transferred. The committee notes that
for fiscal year 1997, $9.0 million was authorized for this
project and the budget request for fiscal year 1998, contained
$45.0 million. The committee is concerned that, to date, an
agreement has not been reached between DOD and GSA. In
addition, the committee questions whether high value, complex,
multi-phase renovation projects should be included in the
operation and maintenance budget request and believes that
these types of renovations should more properly be included in
the military construction budget.
Therefore, absent the required agreement between DOD and
GSA, and because of the committee's concerns for using
operation and maintenance funding for large, complex renovation
projects, the committee recommends, without prejudice, no funds
for this renovation project and recommends that after the
agreement is finalized, it be re-submitted in a future military
construction budget request.
Shatter Resistant Window Film
The committee notes that the majority of the more than 200
serious injuries resulting from the bombing of the Khobar
Towers complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia on June 25, 1996 were
caused by shattered window glass. Many of these injuries could
have been avoided if the Air Force had acted on a
recommendation of a vulnerability assessment of this complex
completed in January of 1996, which recommended that a shatter
resistant window film coating be applied to all glass facing
the perimeter of the complex.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense
should make every effort to complete the application of shatter
resistant window film at all appropriate installations to
lessen the chances of serious injuries resulting from shattered
glass due to hostile actions or from weather related incidents.
Travel Reengineering
The committee has several concerns regarding the Department
of Defense (DOD) travel re-engineering study. First, DOD has
not complied with section 356 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106).
Under section 356, the Secretary of Defense was directed to:
(1) establish pilot studies to evaluate options to
improve the DOD travel process at not more than six
military installations, and
(2) one year after the studies begin provide Congress
a report on the implementation of and the evaluation
criteria used for the pilot studies.
Although the Department conducted travel re-engineering pilot
studies, these studies did not comply with section 356. DOD has
also not provided a report on the implementation of these
pilots. Instead, without providing Congress the opportunity to
review the options for re-engineering the Defense travel
process, DOD is planning to issue a request for proposal (RFP)
for a re-engineered travel system.
The committee is also concerned that the planned RFP links
the software development of an automated travel system to
travel agent services. This arrangement combines requirements
and expertise that are not related or linked in the commercial
sector. In addition, this combination potentially prejudices
the contracting system against medium-size and small travel
agencies, creating a process that restricts fair competition in
the travel industry.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to cease all action on the planned RFP until 30 days after DOD
provides to the House Committee on National Security and the
Senate Committee on Armed Services:
(1) The report requested in section 356 of National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106); and
(2) A report demonstrating that there are no adverse
effects from the RFP on small and medium-size travel
agencies.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization Of Appropriations
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding
This section would authorize $92.6 billion in operations
and maintenance funding for the Armed Forces and other
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense.
Section 302--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize $2.3 billion for Working
Capital Funds of the Department of Defense.
Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home
This section would authorize $80.0 million from the Armed
Forces Retirement Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed
Forces Retirement Home, including the U.S. Soldiers' and
Airman's Home and the Naval Home.
Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer not more than $150.0 million from the amounts received
from sales in the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
to the operation and maintenance accounts of the military
services.
Section 305--Refurbishment and Installation of Air Search Radar
This section would authorize $6.0 million for the
refurbishment and installation of the AN/SPS-48E air search
radar for the Ship Self Defense Systems at the Integrated Ship
Defense Systems Engineering Center, Walllops Island, Virginia.
Section 306--Refurbishment of M1A1 Tanks
This section would authorize $35.0 million for the
refurbishment of M1A1 tanks at the Anniston Army Depot under
the Department of the Army's Abrams Integrated Management XXI
(AIM XXI) program if the Secretary of Defense determines that
the program is cost effective. The Department of the Army is
currently validating the cost effectiveness of the AIM XXI
program at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin,
California. If this program is successfully validated, the
committee expects the Army to provide adequate funding in
fiscal year 1999 and beyond to continue the AIM XXI program.
Section 307--Procurement and Electronic Commerce Technical Assistance
Program
This section would authorize $15.0 million for a single
program that consolidates the Procurement and Technical
Assistance Centers and the Electronic Commerce Resource
Centers. The committee recommendation would provide $15.0
million in addition to the $18.0 million in prior-year
unobligated balances remaining in the ECRC program, for a total
of $33.0 million in available fiscal year 1998 funding.
Section 308--Availability of Funds for Separation Pay for Defense
Acquisition Personnel
This section would authorize $100.0 million to fund
separation pay incentives for defense acquisition personnel in
the event that a targeted buyout authority is provided to the
Secretary of Defense.
The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to make
these funds available to the military departments, Defense
Agencies, and responsible for offering the separation pay
incentives.
Subtitle B--Military Readiness Issues
Overview
Based on testimony provided to the committee and in field
interviews with hundreds of military personnel of all ranks and
in all services, it is clear to the committee that today's
operating motto of ``doing more with less'' is incompatible
with maintaining a highly-motivated, well-trained, quality
military force able to execute the demands of the National
Military Strategy. This reality is the result of declining
defense budgets, a smaller force structure, fewer personnel and
aging equipment laboring under a higher pace of operations.
The committee is concerned about the extent to which the
military services must strip people, parts, equipment and funds
from non-deployed units to fill shortfalls in deploying units.
This shell game leaves non-deployed units ill-prepared to
maintain combat skills and increases the burden on those left
behind who must work longer and harder to maintain operations
at home station.
The committee is very disturbed about the loss of combat
proficiency being reported from the military services' training
centers. Degraded combat training, driven in large part by
funding shortfalls and inadequate time to accomplish needed
training at home station due to deployments in support of
contingency operations, strikes at our military forces' ability
to fight and win high-intensity wars quickly, decisively and
with minimum casualties.
Exacerbating the committee's concerns are efforts underway
by some of the military services which appear to erode training
standards and requirements, as a means to address resource
shortfalls and the need to free up funds for modernization
priorities. For example, starting in fiscal year 1998, the Army
plans to require units scheduled for training at the National
Training Center (NTC) to pay for this training out of funds
budgeted for home station training. The committee believes that
this proposal wouldresult in less home station training for
these units which, as noted above, has been identified by the services'
training centers as a significant cause of degraded combat proficiency.
Further, the Army, in briefings to the committee on this matter, has
conceded that starting in fiscal year 1998, units scheduled for
training at the NTC will not be as well prepared as in the past. The
committee finds this troubling, particularly in light of a statement by
Army Chief of Staff, General Dennis Reimer, in a characterization of
the NTC as ``. . . a cornerstone of our training program, and a
cornerstone of our readiness program.'' Additionally, the NTC has
recently begun to reduce NTC live fire exercises by one-third--from
three to two. The committee believes that such actions are short-
sighted and short-change critical high intensity combat training and
diminish the ability of combat units to take full advantage of training
at the NTC.
As another example, the committee understands the Marine
Corps is currently revising its aviation training program.
While the committee recognizes the importance of periodically
reviewing training standards and requirements in light of
operational considerations, it is concerned that this review
may also be driven by the realities of under manning, spare
parts shortages and aging aircraft which cannot support the
current level of training. The committee believes that when
training requirements and standards are changed, the risks
associated with such changes should be fully understood and the
military services should not redefine or rationalize training
standards and requirements as a means of addressing resource
shortfalls. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense and
secretaries of the military departments to ensure that units
are afforded the resources and time at home station to
accomplish critical combat training.
The committee commends efforts to maintain warfighting
skills for units deployed to operations other than war, such as
the Army's establishment of gunnery ranges in Hungary for units
stationed in Bosnia. Notwithstanding the limitations of such
efforts, the committee strongly encourages the Department and
the military services to maximize combat training opportunities
for units deployed in support of operations other than war to
minimize the degradation of combat skills and time needed upon
redeployment to regain combat proficiency.
The committee continues to be concerned over the disconnect
which exists between official readiness reports and the
readiness reality in the field. While senior military and
civilian leaders assert that the readiness of military forces
is as good as it ever has been, reports from military personnel
in the field depict a much different picture. This disconnect
exists partly because the existing reporting system fails to
capture many indicators which would allow for a more
comprehensive readiness assessment. The committee finds it
particularly frustrating, however, that as early as 1994, the
General Accounting Office in its October report entitled,
``Military Readiness: DOD Needs to Develop a More Comprehensive
Measurement System'' (GAO/NSIAD-95-29) identified additional
readiness indicators that would provide a comprehensive
assessment. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense (DOD) has
yet to integrate these indicators into the formal readiness
reporting system.
The committee notes that in June 1994, the Defense Science
Board (DSB) issued a report which stated that the DSB Task
Force on Readiness ``. . . will continue to meet quarterly, or
on call of the Secretary of Defense, to review the status of
the recommendations and/or address other readiness issues as
directed.'' It is the committee's understanding that this has
not occurred. While the committee recognizes the increased
focus on readiness issues by the Department with the
establishment of the Senior Readiness Oversight Council (SROC),
the SROC is, nevertheless, an internal mechanism to track
readiness. Given the disconnect between official readiness
reports and the reality out in the field, the committee
believes that a standing senior group of outside advisors
charged with providing independent assessments of readiness
issues is warranted. The committee urges the Secretary of
Defense to resurrect the DSB Task Force on Readiness or similar
senior body of outside advisors to be available to the
Secretary and the Congress to review readiness issues that
arise.
Finally, severely constrained defense budgets are leading
to the underfunding of many defense accounts resulting in the
movement of funds from readiness related accounts to fill
funding shortfalls. While movements of funds between budget
appropriations accounts are subject to reprogramming actions,
transfers within budget activities are rarely visible in a
timely manner. The committee has had a long-standing concern
over the extent to which funds provided for training,
maintenance and other key readiness accounts are being diverted
to cover shortfalls elsewhere. For instance, according to the
DOD, in fiscal year 1996, the Army shifted $144.8 million from
depot maintenance to cover costs of operations in Bosnia. The
Navy shifted $208.5 million from ship depot maintenance to fund
a range of activities including contingency operations, ship
supplies and underfunded flying hour requirements.
Therefore, the committee's recommendation addresses several
of these concerns and are detailed below.
Section 311--Expansion of Scope of Quarterly Readiness Reports
This section would expand the Quarterly Readiness Report
required by section 361 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) to include data
and analysis on additional readiness indicators which would
provide a more comprehensive readiness assessment. The
committee is concerned with what it views as a growing
disconnect between the readiness picture presented by
``official'' readiness reports and reality out in the field. In
visits to military installations across the country and in
recent hearings before the committee, personnel from all
military services and from all ranks expressed significant
concern over many issues affecting readiness, including
operating tempo, increased deployments, the effects of under
manning, an eroding quality of life, morale, the impact of
peacekeeping operations, and the increasing use of training
funds for other purposes. None of these factors are measured by
the Status of Resources and Training System (SORTS)--the
foundation for senior level readiness assessments.
More than three years ago, the committee identified the
need to develop a comprehensive readiness assessment system. At
the request of this committee, the General Accounting Office
(GAO) conducted a review of the adequacy of the current
readiness reporting system to provide a comprehensive readiness
assessment as well as to provide predictive indicators of
change. As a result of that review, the GAO provided to the
Department of Defense (DOD) specific indicators cited by
military commanders as being critical to readiness assessments
but not included in SORTS. The Departmentagreed that it needed
a more comprehensive readiness measurement system and contracted with
the Logistics Management Institute (LMI) to assess the GAO's indicators
to determine which of the 29 recommended by the GAO have the greatest
potential value for DOD decision makers charged with maintaining high
readiness. The LMI assessment, completed in October 1994, concluded
that 19 of the 29 indicators offered high or medium value for readiness
assessments. That is, those indicators could allow DOD to measure
factors that cause changes in readiness, provide early notice of any
adverse changes, provide the opportunity to improve readiness, and
detect trends that may affect future readiness.
While the committee recognizes that efforts are being made
by DOD to enhance readiness assessments through the Joint
Monthly Readiness Reviews, the Senior Readiness Oversight
Council, and more recently with efforts aimed at developing a
Readiness Baseline, it is concerned by the lack of progress the
DOD has made to integrate the GAO and LMI recommended
indicators into official readiness reports.
Given recent reports of declining ``unofficial'' readiness
indicators, the committee believes that immediate steps must be
taken to ensure that DOD and the military services have a
comprehensive readiness assessment system. This section would
compel the DOD to act expeditiously to integrate these
important indicators into readiness reports, providing
comprehensive, and thereby, more accurate information, to
decision makers on the true current state of readiness.
Section 312--Limitation on Reallocation of Funds Within Operation and
Maintenance Appropriations
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
notify the Congressional defense committees prior to
reallocating operation and maintenance funds above a certain
threshold and to follow procedures currently used when
transferring funds between appropriations accounts.
Section 313--Operation of Prepositioned Fleet, National Training
Center, Fort Irwin, California
This section would provide funding associated with the
operation of the preposition fleet of equipment used by Army
units during training rotations at the National Training Center
(NTC). The committee is very concerned with the Department of
the Army's decision to change the way unit rotations to the NTC
are funded. Currently, the Army provides funding to the
National Training Center from a central account to defray the
costs associated with units' use of pre-positioned equipment at
the NTC. Under a new Army proposal, starting in fiscal year
1998, units scheduled to go to the NTC would have to pay for
the use of the pre-positioned equipment out of the funds
provided for home station training.
The NTC is the only U.S.-based training facility where Army
maneuver units can train against a dedicated opposing force in
an environment which most closely approximates high intensity
combat. It is the premier training event for Army armored and
mechanized units. The committee is troubled by reports that a
lack of training resources and time for home station training
is resulting in units arriving at the NTC less prepared than
they used to be and, consequently, unable to achieve the same
level of proficiency by the time they leave. The committee is
concerned that this policy change will exacerbate this problem
by putting a further strain on the resources available for
units to accomplish home station training.
The committee believes that the Army policy change relating
to NTC rotations funding will have the result of diminishing
home station training, would adversely impact the ability of
units to reach needed levels of proficiency, and degrade the
NTC training experience--the best training currently available
for high intensity combat. The committee recommendation would
also provide additional funding to ensure that the Army has
sufficient funding for NTC rotations as it has in the past. The
committee expects the Army to continue funding unit rotations
at the NTC as it has previously.
Section 314--Prohibition of Implementation of Tiered Readiness System
This section would prohibit the implementation of any
tiered readiness system which would change military service-
specific methods of determining the priority for allocating
funding, personnel, equipment, equipment maintenance, and
training resources to military units--and the associated level
of readiness of those units that result from those priorities--
as they existed on October 1, 1996. Should the Secretary of
Defense determine that a tiered readiness system would be in
the national interest of the United States, this section would
require the Secretary to provide a report on the rationale for
that determination, and a request for enactment of legislation
to implement such a system.
Tiered readiness concepts call for maintaining certain
portions of U.S. military forces at lower levels of readiness
based on their likelihood of being called to respond to a
military crisis and deployment timelines. Units identified to
be maintained in lower tiers of readiness would be manned,
equipped, and trained to a level sufficient only to achieve
that lower level of readiness.
From testimony before the committee and from interviews
with service members of many military units, the committee
understands that currently, in order to meet deployment
standards and a high operations tempo, military units have had
to strip non-deploying units of key officers, non-commissioned
officers, and maintenance personnel due to shortages in key
military occupational specialties. Under a tiered readiness
concept, personnel would be eliminated from the force in order
to achieve cost savings exacerbating the personnel management
problems and creating higher personnel tempo for those
remaining active duty personnel. The committee is deeply
concerned that, at some point, such a readiness system would
lead to an untenable situation from the standpoint of
maintaining a quality, highly motivated all-volunteer force.
During the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), an assessment
was made to determine whether ``tiering'' of the force would
meet strategy requirements and result in savings. The
conclusion of the assessment was that such tiering would
increase the risk to national security at the gain of only
modest savings, and would limit the flexibility required to
execute current war plans.
The committee strongly believes that the military services
have, over time, developed readiness systems that are
specifically tailored to their individual requirements.These
existing systems already represent a form of tiering in that resources
are allocated on a priority basis to military units that are expected
to enter into combat first. The committee believes that any further
tiering of readiness must be carefully assessed to insure that United
States military strategy can be accomplished at all times. The tiering
of military forces solely for fiscal gains would be a short sighted
strategy that largely ignores the demanding reality of the need to
maintain ready military forces able to fight and win decisively and
with minimal casualties in any future contingency.
Section 315--Reports on Transfers From High Priority Readiness
Appropriations
This section would extend through November 1, 2000, the
requirement for the Secretary of Defense to report semi-
annually on transfers from high-priority readiness accounts in
compliance with section 362 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106).
This provision would also expand the number of readiness
accounts to be considered in the report.
Section 316--Report on Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Exercise Program
and Partnership for Peace Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
report by January 15, 1998, on both past and planned joint
training exercises sponsored by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff (CJCS) Exercise Program and the Partnership for Peace
(PFP) program. The report would include the type, description,
duration, objectives, the percentage of service-unique training
accomplished, and an assessment of the training value of each
CJCS and PFP exercise.
In spite of a significant reduction in force structure and
personnel since 1989, the October 1995 Defense Science Board
Task Force on Quality of Life report pointed out that the
number and scope of joint level exercises has continued to
increase. In June 1995, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
issued a report entitled ``Military Capabilities: Stronger
Joint Staff Role Needed To Enhance Joint Military Training''
(GAO/NSIAD-95-109) that noted a large number of the joint
exercises conducted in 1995 had little training value, with
nearly 75 percent conducted for reasons other than training,
such as a show of military presence in a region or to foster
relationships with other nations. In testimony before the
committee, witnesses pointed to the continued growth in the
number and scope of CJCS sponsored military exercises as a
significant contributor to increased operation and personnel
tempos.
The committee is concerned that the number of exercises
under the CJCS Exercise Program and the military service's
participation in the PFP program is exceeding the ability of
the services to meet these requirements in what is already a
high paced operational environment. Admiral Paul Reason,
Commander of U.S. Atlantic Fleet, noted in testimony before the
committee, ``Too many unified CINCs are competing for the same
scarce assets.'' That many of these exercises may have little
or no joint training value compounds the committee's concerns.
Therefore, to address operation and personnel tempo concerns
and reduce the number of joint exercises, the committee also
recommends a reduction of $xx in funding for the CJCS Exercise
Program.
Section 317--Quarterly Reports on Execution of Operation and
Maintenance Appropriations
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
report quarterly on the execution of the operation and
maintenance budget.
Subtitle C--Civilian Personnel
Section 321--Pay Practices When Overseas Teachers Transfer to General
Schedule Positions
This section would provide the Secretary of Defense
authority to adjust a Department of Defense Dependents Schools
educator's salary up to 20 percent when that person is moved
from a position under the Teaching Position (TP) pay system to
a position under the General Schedule (GS) pay system.
Currently, when an overseas educator moves from a TP position
to a GS position, that individual's salary is increased 20
percent based on a GS work year being roughly 20 percent longer
in actual work days than a TP work year. However, some TP
educators, such as principals and assistant principals, work a
longer school year than teachers. When these individuals are
moved to a GS position, a 20 percent salary adjustment is
excessive given that the increase in actual work days may be
significantly less than 20 percent.
Section 322--Use of Approved Fire-Safe Accommodations by Government
Employees on Official Business
This section would require that each government agency
ensure that not less than 90 percent of the commercial-lodging
room nights for employees of that agency be booked at approved
accommodations. This provision would also require that each
government agency establish explicit procedures to meet this
requirement.
Subtitle D--Depot-Level Activities
Section 331--Extension of Authority for Aviation Depots and Naval
Shipyards to Engage in Defense Related Production and Services
This section would extend through fiscal year 1999, the
authority provided by section 1425 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101--510)
for naval shipyards and aviation depots of all the services to
bid on defense-related production and services.
Section 332--Exclusion of Certain Large Maintenance and Repair Projects
From Percentage Limitation on Contracting for Depot-Level Maintenance
This section would exclude from the restrictions contained
in section 2466 title 10, United States Code, an aircraft
carrier or a submarine repair or overhaul project that
represents five percent or more of the total amount made
available to the Department of the Navy for depot-level
maintenance and repair. When there is a large single
maintenance project, such as the complex overhaul of a nuclear
aircraft carrier or a submarine, the size of the project alone
can cause an unintended imbalance in the mix of workload
between the public and private sector. Under current law, not
more than 40 percent of the total funds allocated to a military
service for depot-level repair and maintenance may be expended
for work in the private sector. The committee is concerned that
a large single project should not cause inadvertent disruptions
in the mandated percentages.
Section 333--Restrictions on Contracts for Performance of Depot-Level
Maintenance and Repair at Certain Facilities
This section would establish a definition of depot-level
maintenance and repair that would require the inclusion of all
interim contractor support (ICS) and contractor logistics
support (CLS) to be included in determining the restrictions as
set forth in section 2466 of title 10, United States Code, also
known as the ``60/40 rule.'' The committee understands that
including ICS and CLS would have no effect on current contracts
for depot level maintenance. The provision would also restrict
the Secretary of Defense, or the secretary of a military
department, from entering into a contract for the performance
of depot-level maintenance and repair at any facility that was
approved in 1995 for closure under the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act (BRAC) of 1990 (part A of title XXIX, Public
Law 101-510), unless the following requirements are met:
(1) The secretary concerned certifies to Congress
that all of the other maintenance and repair facilities
of that service are at 80 percent capacity as defined
by the BRAC commission in 1995;
(2) The secretary concerned certifies to Congress
that the total cost of the proposed contract would be
less than if the depot-level maintenance or repair were
accomplished in facilities owned and operated by the
Department of Defense;
(3) All of the data which is used to determine the
total costs are available for examination; and
(4) None of the depot-level maintenance and repair
work proposed under the contract was considered to be a
core logistics capability of the military department
concerned prior to July 1, 1995.
The committee believes that to fully comply with the
recommendations of the 1995 BRAC to close several depot
facilities and to consolidate core depot-level maintenance to
the remaining government-owned facilities or to the private
sector, these restrictions are necessary. The Committee fully
supports the BRAC recommendations and believes that elimination
of excess capacity permits significantly improved utilization
of the remaining DOD depots and reduces DOD operating costs.
Section 334--Core Logistics Functions of Department of Defense
This section would amend section 2464 of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify that it is essential for national
defense that the Department of Defense (DOD) maintain a core
logistics capability that is government-owned and government-
operated. This section would require the Secretary of Defense
to identify those logistics activities necessary to maintain a
core logistics capability that would include the capability,
facilities, and equipment to maintain and repair those weapons
systems necessary to meet the requirements of the National
Military Strategy. This section would also require the
maintenance and repair of all new weapons systems purchased by
the DOD, that are identified as requiring a core logistics
capability, in government-owned and government-operated
facilities within four years of initial operational capability.
Section 335--Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
establish Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence at
existing Department of Defense (DOD) maintenance and repair
depots to encourage the reengineering of industrial processes,
the adoption of best business practices, and to enable public-
private partnerships for the performance of depot-level
maintenance and repair.
Section 336--Personnel Reductions, Army Depots Participating in Army
Workload and Performance System
This section would prohibit any reduction in force of any
civilian employees at the five Army maintenance depots
participating in the demonstration and testing of the Army
Workload and Performance System (AWAPS), until a report is
provided by the Secretary of the Army certifying that the AWAPS
is fully operational and the manpower audits being performed by
the General Accounting Office, the Army Audit Agency, and the
Army Inspector General have been completed.
Subtitle E--Environmental Provisions
Section 341--Revision of Membership Terms for Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program Scientific Advisory Board
This section would amend section 2904(b)(4) of title 10,
United States Code, to provide that appointments for members of
the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
(SERDP) Scientific Advisory Board be for terms of not less than
two nor more than four years. The provision would effectively
allow the staggering of terms for board members to permit
greater continuity of service among members in the event
unexpected vacancies arise.
Section 342--Amendments to Authority to Enter Into Agreements With
Other Agencies in Support of Environmental Technology Certification
This section would expand the authority conferred upon the
Secretary of Defense by section 327 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) to
enter into cooperative agreements with state and local
governmental agencies for the purpose of certifying promising
environmental technologies by authorizing the Secretary to
enter into agreements with Indian tribes. This expanded
authority would be useful to the Department of Defense in those
cases in which environmental activities occur on land where
Indian tribes have jurisdictional authority. The provision
would also remove the restriction in current law that the
technologies being evaluated for certification be limited to
those with applicability to environmental restoration. Thus,
technologies with application for pollution prevention,
environmental compliance, and safety and occupational health
could be evaluated.
Section 343--Authorization to Pay Negotiated Settlement for
Environmental Cleanup at Former Department of Defense Sites in Canada
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
pay the Government of Canada up to $100 million in annual
payments over a ten year period. These payments would be
pursuant to a bilateral agreement between the United States and
Canada in which the United States agreed to pay cleanup costs
associated with the operation by the United States of various
military installations in Canada.
Section 344--Modifications of Authority to Store and Dispose of Non-
Defense Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Currently, section 2692 of title 10, United States Code,
prohibits the Department of Defense from storing or disposing
any toxic or hazardous material, including munitions and
hazardous materials used in conjunction with space launch
programs, that is not owned by the Department of Defense. With
the increasing frequency of multinational military training
operations, and because the Department of Defense operates
certain sites in connection with other federal agencies that
employ hazardous materials, there are occasions in which it is
in the interest of the Department of Defense and the nation to
temporarily store toxic or hazardous materials on military
installations, despite the fact that such materials are not
owned by the Department of Defense. This section would permit
the storage or disposal of toxic and hazardous materials not
owned by the Department of Defense when those materials are
used in connection with an activity of the Department, in
connection with a service performed for the benefit of the
Department, in order to assist law enforcement agencies, or in
connection with the use of a defense facility. Nothing in the
changes made by this section is intended to affect the
authorities and requirements regarding the storage, treatment
and disposal of hazardous materials under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Liability and Compensation Act, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Toxic Substances
Control Act or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Section 345--Revision of Report Requirement for Navy Program to Monitor
Ecological Effects of Organotin
This section would amend section 333 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-
201) to delay and alter the reporting requirements established
in that section. Since enactment of the law, the Navy and the
Environmental Protection Agency have determined that a program
to monitor organotin concentration in certain estuaries and
near-coastal waters of the United States is not required,
obviating the reporting requirements related to monitoring
programs. Instead, the Navy would be required to include in its
report an assessment of the present and future requirement for
the use of organotin in antifouling paints on Navy ships. In
recognition of this additional requirement, the date for
submission of the report pursuant to section 333 would be
delayed until October 30, 1997.
Section 346--Partnerships for Investment in Innovative Environmental
Technologies
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
enter into partnerships with private sector entities in order
to demonstrate and validate innovative environmental
technologies. The secretary would be authorized to enter into
partnerships only if the secretary determines that the
technology has the clear potential to be of significant value
to the Department of Defense in carrying out its environmental
activities. Information about such partnerships would be
included in the Department's annual report to Congress, and the
authority provided by this section would expire three years
from the date of enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.
Section 347--Pilot Program to Test Alternative Technology for
Eliminating Solid and Liquid Waste Emissions During Ship Operations
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
establish a pilot program to demonstrate ``plasma arc''
technology for treating solid and liquid waste aboard Navy
ships. The technology would consist of a compact, stationary,
high alumina refractory hearth, plasma arc melter system that
would incinerate solid and hazardous wastes generated during
ship operations. The secretary would be required to determine,
in advance of establishment of the pilot program, that plasma
arc technology has the potential to be of significant benefit
to the Navy in reducing or eliminating waste disposal problems
aboard Navy vessels. The pilot program, which would operate for
one year, would seek to demonstrate whether the technology is
valid, cost effective, and capable of complying with
environmental laws and regulations. Upon completion of the
pilot program, the Secretary of the Navy would be required to
submit a report to Congress detailing the findings of the
program and recommending whether plasma arc technology should
be implemented on a larger scale on naval vessels and at naval
port facilities.
Subtitle F--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities
Section 361--Reorganization of Laws Regarding Commissaries, Exchanges,
and other Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Activities
This section would reorganize chapter 147 of title 10,
United States Code, so that the chapter deals exclusively with
provisions of law relating to commissaries, exchanges, and
other morale, welfare and recreation activities. Certain
sections of the current chapter 147 not addressing this subject
would be transferred to other chapters of title 10, and other
sections now found in chapter 147 that do concern commissaries,
exchanges, and other morale, welfare and recreation activities
would be redesignated to provide a logical organization of the
chapter.
Section 362--Merchandise and Pricing Requirements for Commissary Stores
This section would amend section 2486 of title 10, United
States Code, to restrict the categories of merchandise that may
be sold in commissaries. Section 2486 currently limits the
categories of merchandise sold in commissaries to those
enumerated in the statute, and this section would permanently
limit the categories of items to those now listed in the
statute, unless new categories are prescribed by the Secretary
of Defense, following advance notice to Congress and a waiting
period of 90 legislative days. In addition, this section would
require that no change in the current commissary surcharge
could occur without a prior authorization in law. Finally, this
section would provide that the Secretary of Defense may not
make any change in pricing policies without advance notice to
Congress and a waiting period of 90 legislative days. This
section would thus prevent consignment sales of exchange items
in commissaries without prior notice to Congress and would
prevent variable pricing based on surcharge adjustments. A
report to Congress detailing merchandise categories now sold on
consignment would be required within 30 days of the date of the
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998.
Section 363--Limitation on Noncompetitive Procurement of Brand-Name
Commercial Items for Resale in Commissary Stores
This section would amend section 2486(e) of title 10,
United States Code, to make more rigorous the standard for
determining brand name commercial items that may be sold by
commissaries. In order to qualify as a brand name commercial
item which commissaries may procure noncompetitively for
resale, current law requires that the item be regularly sold
outside of commissary stores under the same brand name by which
the commercial items will be sold in commissary stores. This
section would establish that, in determining whether a brand
name commercial item is regularly sold outside of commissary
stores, the Secretary of Defense shall consider only sales of
the item on a regional or national basis by multi-store
commercial grocery or retail chains. So called ``discount
brands'' that frequently are not sold by major commercial
grocery or retail store chains would not qualify as brand name
commercial items under the standard that would be established
by this section.
Section 364--Transfer of Jurisdiction over Exchange, Commissary, and
Morale, Welfare and Recreation Activities to Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller)
This section would amend section 135 of title 10, United
States Code, to transfer administrative responsibility within
the Department of Defense for the areas of exchange,
commissary, and nonappropriated fund instrumentalities
regarding morale, welfare and recreation activities from the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). Many of the
responsibilities associated with the management and operation
of exchanges, commissaries and the nonappropriated fund
instrumentalities of the morale, welfare and recreation system
involve first and foremost, financial management decisions. For
this reason, transferring administrative responsibility for
these programs to the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
is appropriate.
Section 365--Public and Private Partnerships to Benefit Morale, Welfare
and Recreation Activities
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to
authorize nonappropriated fund instrumentalities to enter into
leases, licensing agreements, concession agreements and other
contracts with private persons and state or local governments
involving real and personal property under the control of such
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities in order to facilitate
the provision of facilities, goods, or services to authorized
patrons. In order to enter into leases or contracts,
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities would be required to
determine that the use of the property subject to the lease or
contract would contribute to the provision of goods, services
or facilities for a morale, welfare and recreation activity and
that the lease or contract would not be inconsistent with or
adversely affect the mission of the Department of Defense or
the nonappropriated fund instrumentality concerned. Use of the
facilities, goods or services provided under this section would
be restricted to authorized patrons of the nonappropriated fund
instrumentality that is a party to the lease or contract. Funds
generated by money rentals would be restricted to use at the
installation at which the property covered by the lease or
contract is located.
Section 366--Treatment of Certain Amounts Received by Defense
Commissary Agency
This section would provide that amounts received by the
Defense Commissary Agency (DECA) from certain sources be
deposited in the surcharge account. The surcharge account is
used by DECA for capital construction and other improvements to
commissaries. Amounts received by DECA that would be deposited
in the surcharge account would include funds from the sale of
recyclables, the disposal of excess property, license fees,
royalties, incentive allowances, management and other fees, and
funds received from nonappropriated fund instrumentalities. The
authorization concerning funds received from nonappropriated
fund instrumentalities would permit proceeds from the sale of
exchange-owned tobacco products at commissaries to be deposited
into the surcharge account.
Section 367--Authorized Use of Appropriated Funds for Relocation of
Navy Exchange Service Command
This section would provide that the Navy Exchange Service
Command (NEXCOM) shall not be required to reimburse the United
States for appropriated funds allotted to NEXCOM during fiscal
years 1994, 1995, and 1996 for costs incurred in connection
with the relocation of NEXCOM headquarters to Virginia Beach,
Virginia and for the lease of headquarters space.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 371--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies That Benefit
Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
Civilian Employees
This section would authorize $35.0 million for educational
assistance to local education agencies where the standard for
the minimum level of education within the state could not be
maintained because of the large number of military connected
students or the effects of base realignments and closures. The
Department of Education impact aid program provides
supplementary funds to eligible school districts nationwide.
The committee believes that the Department of Education bears
the principal responsibility for providing support for the
education needs of the nation's children, and, therefore, does
not support additional assistance beyond what is authorized in
this section.
Section 372--Continuation of Operation Mongoose
This section would authorize the continuation of Operation
Mongoose through fiscal year 2003. Operation Mongoose is a
program that coordinates the identification, prevention, and
prosecution of fraudulent actions within Department of Defense
(DOD). The section would also establish the Undersecretary of
Defense (Comptroller) as the executive agent for this program
and would require a report on the activities of the operation.
The committee commends the Department's efforts to improve
the integrity of its financial management systems while
reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. However, the committee
believes that these efforts can be improved. First, the
committee supports the acceleration of transportation and
vendor pay reviews. To further this effort, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the
military departments to provide all data requested by Operation
Mongoose on an expedited basis. In addition, the program should
expand its use of the Board of Investigations and its Regional
Working Groups for investigating crimes identified through
Operation Mongoose.
In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the House Committee on National Security
and the Senate Committee on Armed Services by December 31,
1997, on the activities reviewed by Operation Mongoose, the
savings or costs avoidance identified by activity, the number
of cases referred for investigation, and the number of cases
investigated by the investigating agency.
Section 373--Inclusion of Air Force Depot Maintenance as Operation and
Maintenance Budget Activity Group
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force,
beginning in fiscal year 1999, to identify funding for depot
maintenance in a discreet subactivity group.
Section 374--Programs to Commemorate 50th Anniversary of Marshall Plan
and Korean Conflict
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, to
begin to plan, coordinate, and execute a program to commemorate
the 50th anniversary of the Marshall Plan and the Korean
Conflict.
The Marshall Plan's goal was to create lasting peace in
Europe through broad acceptance of democratic values, the
achievement of prosperity through free markets and cooperation
and interdependence among nations. This provision would allow
for the Department of Defense to commemorate the Marshall Plan
by the observance of the 50th anniversary of the Senate's
approval on March 13, 1948, the House's approval on March 31,
1948, and President Truman's April 3, 1948 signing of the
Economic Cooperation Act.
The committee recognizes the success of the efforts by the
Department of Defense to commemorate World War II and expects
the Department to make preparations for an appropriate
commemoration of the Korean Conflict. A criticism of the
preparation for the commemoration of World War II was that
preparation started late which made it extremely difficult to
properly coordinate key events with all interested parties.
This meant that some deserving veterans organizations were
excluded or were notified with such little notice that
participation was limited. This provision would provide the
long lead time necessary to properly plan and coordinate major
activity with the Korean Conflict allies, interested federal,
state and local governments and public officials, veteran
groups, private citizens and other interested parties. The
committee believes this provision would help ensure that our
nation properly honors the sacrifices of men and women who
fought in the Korean Conflict, as well as the sacrifices and
contributions made by their families.
Sec 375--Prohibition on Use of Special Operations Command Budget for
Base Operation Support
This section would amend section 167(f) of title 10, United
States Code to prohibit the use of funds provided for the
Special Operations Command for base operations support expenses
incurred at military installations. The committee notes that
Congress established the Special Operations Command, including
a separate major force budget program (MFP-11), to correct
serious deficiencies in special operations capabilities and to
ensure special operations combat readiness. The committee
believes that using MFP-11 funds for base operations support is
in conflict with the original intent for these funds.
Section 376--Continuation and Extension of Demonstration Program to
Identify Overpayments Made to Vendors
This section would reauthorize, through fiscal year 1998,
section 354 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) which provides for a
demonstration program to identify overpayments made to vendors.
Preliminary data from this demonstration project indicates
there are a significant number of Department of Defense
overpayments made to vendors with a potentially high cost to
the taxpayers. The committee believes that based on these
initial findings, the program should be continued for another
fiscal year to develop a better understanding of the magnitude
of this problem.
Section 377--Applicability of Federal Printing Requirements to Defense
Automated Printing Service
This section would clarify that the Defense Automated
Printing Service (DAPS) shall comply with chapter 5 of title
44, United States Code regarding printing services. The
committee has learned that DAPS, formerly known as the Defense
Printing Service, is violating section 501 of title 44, United
States Code. According to this statute, all government printing
has to be procured by or through the Government Printing
Office. Although DAPS provides printing services to the
military departments and defense agencies, there is no statute
that allows DAPS to provide printing services to non-Department
of Defense federal agencies.
The committee has learned, however, that DAPS has recently
solicited other agencies to provide printing and duplication
services, and the DAPS world wide web page specifically
solicits intra-government printing services. Furthermore,
notifications have been sent to federal agencies indicating
that DAPS and General Services Administration will be merging
their printing and duplication services. All of these actions
violate title 44, United States Code. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to cease all such activity and fully
comply with current statute.
Section 378--Base Operations Support for Military Installations on Guam
This section would prohibit the use of nonimmigrant aliens
(as defined in section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of title 8, United
States Code) for any base operations support contract to be
performed on Guam.
MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW
Based on extensive hearing testimony from military
personnel holding the rank of general through sergeant and from
military spouses, as well as committee staff visits to more
than 50 major units and commands, at more than 30 installations
in the United States and Europe, combined with feedback from
officer, non-commissioned officer, and military spouse focus
groups, the committee believes that significant personnel and
quality of life problems exist across the force. Moreover, the
committee believes that the President's fiscal year 1998
defense budget request fails to adequately address those
problems, and contains initiatives, such as continued
reductions in active end strength, that will exacerbate the
difficult conditions under which most of the military personnel
in the armed forces already labor. Those conditions place
military people under immense stress because of a pervasive
requirement to ``do more with less'' in the face of record
operational tempo levels, and because of significant personal
financial challenges brought on by the continuing inadequacy of
pay and allowances for a military force that is now 65 percent
married.
The message the committee has heard from commanders,
sergeants and military spouses was very clear: People are
overworked and, absent any relief from the financial stress or
operations tempo, it is only a matter of time before
significant retention and recruiting problems will occur. The
message troubles the committee, not only because it was
repeated with remarkable consistency across the force, but also
because it warns that the quality of military life is perceived
to have eroded over a wide range of programs.
After close examination, the committee believes that the
President's military personnel budget request, at best, is
inadequate to provide the forces needed to achieve the current
national military strategy, support the current operations
tempo of the force, and preserve the quality of the people so
important to the future of a smaller force. Nor is the
committee reassured by the preliminary findings of the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) that conclude the future
military missions of the nation can be accomplished with
155,000 fewer uniformed personnel. Until the committee fully
understands that the QDR outcomes were strategy and mission
based, not budget based, it will continue to be highly
skeptical of any proposals by the Department of Defense that
have the effect of requiring fewer personnel to continue doing
more missions with reduced resources. For this reason, the
personnel initiatives proposed in the budget request, as well
as those projected by the QDR, would seem to make worse or
ignore the already significant ``people'' problems. For
example, despite assurances from senior Department of Defense
officials that the drawdown was just about over, the
President's budget request proposes Navy and Air Force manpower
levels a total of 13,400 personnel below the end-strength
floors required by law. Even worse, future years' defense
budgets--based on a suspect rationale that the services have
found economies and efficiencies that can be achieved without
hurting readiness--project additional personnel reductions.
As in past years when the defense budget request
underfunded recruiting and Congress had to step in to add over
$100.0 million, the President's fiscal year 1998 budget request
again contains significant shortfalls in recruiting funding--
more than $160.0 million according to the chiefs of the
military services. This funding shortfall only heightens the
committee's deep concerns that the military services are
already on a slippery slope of eroding recruit quality in order
to meet increasingly difficult accession requirements. For
example, the Army, faced with a potential shortfall of 14,000
recruits from its fiscal year 1997 accession requirement and a
drop in recruit quality to 88 percent high school diploma
graduates, seven percent below its objective, took several
extraordinary measures to meet the crisis, including reducing
its goal for high school diploma graduates to 90 percent from
95 percent. Since traditionally Army recruiting difficulties
have been the precursor of problems in the other services, the
committee fears that the inadequate action proposed by the
defense budget request to address recruiting problems will
jeopardize the quality of the force and put at risk future
combat capability.
The budget request also largely ignored the distressing
financial needs being experienced by the men and women of the
armed forces. An enduring picture of these needs emerged during
committee staff visits to the field last fall and was
emphatically reinforced during committee hearings. Senior
enlisted witnesses and spouses of military members provided
compelling testimony that a pay increase was the highest
priority need for all members, but particularly for the
enlisted force. Despite the clear evidence of the financial
pain among military personnel, and unlike an election-year
effort to provide a pay raise greater than the minimum
prescribed by law, the President's fiscal year 1998 budget
reverted to the ``by-law'' formula by requesting a 2.8 percent
increase. This ``by-law'' formula--one-half of a percent below
the Employment Cost Index (ECI)--insures that the gap between
military and civilian pay will continue to grow from 13.5
percent in fiscal year 1998 to over 15 percent in 2001. The
budget request justified the pay raise decrease by citing the
legal nexus that limits military pay increases to the increase
allowed for federal civilian employees. The committee does not
believe that it is healthy to allow the pay gap to
systematically increase year after year.
The committee also believes that while reforms to both the
basic allowance for subsistence (BAS) and basic allowance for
quarters (BAQ) proposed in the budget request were well
intentioned, the Department's inability to commit sufficient
funding to the reforms compelled an implementation strategy
that not only failed to protect income levels of military
members, but also pitted portions of the armed forces against
one another. For example, the proposed BAS reform called for
reducing military family incomes to fund additional BAS to
unmarried enlisted members. Moreover, the BAS reform did
nothing to correct long standing inequities and unfairness in
the compensation of military personnel deployed to austere
locations and on ships at sea during contingencies and when
training. The loss of income to families resulting from such
deployments was a major theme of military members and their
families in communications with and testimony before the
committee. Additionally, the proposed BAQ reform did nothing to
reduce out-of-pocket housing costs for service members, thereby
reneging for the second year in a row on a three-year old
commitment that the Secretary of Defense launched as a highly
publicized, top priority, six-year initiative. During fiscal
year 1997, Congress had to step in to ensure that the
Department kept its commitment by increasing BAQ by 4.6
percent, 1.6 percent above the increase proposed by the
President.
To the detriment of more than 120,000 federal employees who
also have volunteered to serve as members of the reserve
components, the President's budgetrequest sought so-called
savings by eliminating the military income of most Federal employees
who performed military duty during required annual training. In an
environment when the nation is increasing its reliance on the reserve
components in order to offset the increasing operations tempo of the
active forces, and when the Department of Defense ought to be seeking
ways to provide incentives to reservists, this apparent effort to
reinvent government seems peculiarly counterproductive and
shortsighted. Moreover, rather than setting an example of how an
employer should support the National Guard and Reserve, this
Presidential initiative sends the message that reservists do not
deserve any special consideration. For these reasons, the committee
believes this budget proposal has serious negative implications for
combat readiness in the reserves and private sector employer
cooperation programs.
Finally, the committee finds that for the second year in a
row, the President's budget request significantly under-funded
the Defense Health Program (DHP). The General Accounting Office
(GAO) estimated the shortfall to be between $424.0 million and
$471.0 million. In response to Congressional concerns over this
serious shortfall, the Administration plans to submit a budget
amendment to add $274.0 million to the DHP. The committee is
concerned that the proposed budget amendment still leaves
considerable gaps in the funding level of the Defense Health
Program that could result in a considerable degradation of this
important quality of life program.
Given a continuing commitment to curbing the erosion of
quality of life for military members and their families, the
committee has acted to reverse the major shortfalls in the
Administration's fiscal year 1998 military personnel budget
request. To that end the committee initiatives would:
(1) Mandate that future military pay raises be based
on the full Economic Cost Index (ECI) and not on ECI
minus 0.5 percent;
(2) Require the Secretary of Defense to implement a
system of pay and allowances that would prevent the
loss of income for military personnel when they are
deployed or serving under field conditions at home
station and would authorize $50.0 million to facilitate
the initiative. The requirement is supported by a
restructured deployment pay system including a new
hardship duty pay, an increased family separation pay,
and more flexible rules for payment of Basic Allowance
for Subsistence;
(3) Initiate a major reform of the housing allowances
that would increase allowances in high cost areas and
ensure that military personnel experience the same
amount of out-of-pocket costs regardless of location;
(4) Continue reducing ``out of pocket'' housing costs
toward the goal of having military personnel absorb no
more than 15 percent of the cost of adequate housing;
(5) Reaffirm that the defense budget request must
provide sufficient numbers of personnel to conduct
current national military missions by retaining the
statutory floors on active end strength;
(6) Direct a series of reforms to improve recruiter
performance and reduce recruit attrition and increase
the funding for recruiting advertising by $22.9 million
over the amount requested in the budget;
(7) Retain military leave for Federal civilians in
the selected reserve and restore the $85.0 million cut
from reserve component budgets by the President in the
name of savings; and
(8) Restore $274.0 million to the Defense Health
Program, direct a plan for expanding the TRICARE Prime
(HMO) option and propose improvements to the TRICARE
program designed to ensure beneficiary access to
quality health care providers.
(9) Direct the Secretary of Defense to report to
Congress on the feasibility of extending a mail-order
pharmacy program to all Medicare eligible beneficiaries
who do not live near a military medical treatment
facility.
The committee believes that funding these initiatives is
essential to protecting the quality of life of those service
members and their families who continue to serve. Given the
many priority programs competing for funding within a limited
budget, the committee is electing to suspend the authority for
early retirement during fiscal year 1998 to provide $185.0
million to offset the increases cited above. The committee
believes that a one-year suspension of the early retirement
program is appropriate given:
(1) The committee's continuing commitment to preserve
the active duty end-strength floors needed to support
two major regional contingencies;
(2) That the QDR reductions are proposed for the
post-2003 time frame; and
(3) Congress never intended early retirement to be a
permanent authority.
In addition, the committee believes that action is required
to addresses issues which have emerged as a result of the
committee's ongoing examination of sexual misconduct in the
military. Specifically, the committee directs a review of the
ability of the military criminal investigative services to
investigate crimes of sexual misconduct, and mandate a series
of reforms to drill sergeant selection and training.
The committee also directs the establishment of an
independent panel to assess reforms to military basic training.
The need for such reform comes from mid-level military leaders
who report that many graduates from basic training do not
possess the physical fitness, skill in basic military tasks,
discipline and acculturation to service values needed for the
actual job and readiness requirements of operational units.
Included in the review would be a determination of the merits
of gender-integrated or gender-segregated basic training as a
method to attain the basic training objectives established by
each service.
TITLE IV--MILTARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces
This section would authorize end strengths for the active
forces as indicated in the table below:
FY 98 END STRENGTH--ACTIVE FORCES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Change from fiscal year
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service 1998
Authorized Program Request Recommendation request 1997 program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.......................... 495,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 0 0
Navy.......................... 406,900 402,013 390,802 395,000 4,198 (7,013)
Marine Corps.................. 174,000 174,000 174,000 174,000 0 0
Air Force..................... 381,100 381,087 371,577 381,000 9,423 (87)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 1,457,000 1,452,100 1,431,379 1,445,000 13,621 (7,100)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authorized end strengths for fiscal year 1998 are those
prescribed by law as the minimum necessary to support two major
regional contingencies. By taking this action, the committee
rejects the President's budget request which sought to reduce
end strengths in the Navy by 4,200, and in the Air Force by
9,400, below the statutory minimum manpower levels.
Furthermore, the committee recommends an increase over the
budget request of $5.0 million in the Navy's active military
personnel account and $32.5 million in the Air Force's active
military personnel account to offset the cost of maintaining
end strength in accordance with Congressional mandates on end
strength floors.
The committee's rationale for continuing to maintain the
end-strength floors is founded on the following:
(1) As long as the national military strategy calls
for this nation to fight and win two nearly
simultaneous major regional contingencies (MRC), and
until the committee is convinced that the national
military strategy can be carried out with fewer
personnel than authorized here, the committee believes
that significant manpower reductions should not be
undertaken;
(2) The Department of Defense has an extremely poor
record in predicting actual manpower requirements. For
example, neither the manpower requirements for, nor the
intensity, duration, frequency and numbers of
operations other than war were accurately forecast by
the Bottom Up Review. As a result, the readiness of the
armed forces to train and maintain themselves to
successfully fight high intensity warfare has suffered.
In addition, the men and women in uniform and their
families are being required to pay an increasingly
higher price because an undermanned force is repeatedly
asked to do more with less. There is no reason to
believe that the manpower requirements emerging from
the Quadrennial Defense Review will be any more
accurate about assessing the manpower implications of
operations other than war. Until the committee is
convinced that such requirements have been factored
into the manpower equations, or until there is a
reduction in manpower-intensive operations other than
war, the committee believes that reducing military
manpower only would serve to exacerbate already serious
readiness and personnel shortfalls;
(3) The committee believes that the President's
budget request for fiscal year 1998 is a budget-driven
attempt to ``jump start'' the manpower cuts presaged by
the QDR. Those cuts are not insignificant--90,000
active duty military, 65,000 reservists, and 160,000
civilians. So far the principal rationale provided by
the Department for reducing manpower has been that it
seeks economies, efficiencies and savings. The
committee believes that without a change in strategy or
operational requirements such ``green-eye shade'' logic
is insufficient rationale for cutting people. If the
Department of Defense wishes to reduce people to
achieve savings, the civilian and military leadership
must be able to articulate clearly and explicitly the
reasons why such reductions make sense from a strategy
and operations tempo perspective; and
(4) Despite a specific legal requirement to fully
fund the mandated end strength floors until Congress
authorized the Department of Defense to drop below
them, the President's budget request ignored the
requirement, presumed that Congress would lift the end
strength floors, and took the associated personnel
``savings'' for use in other parts of the budget.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve
This section would authorize end strengths for the selected
reserve as indicated in the table below:
FY 98 END STRENGTH--SELECTED RESERVE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Change from fiscal year
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service 1998
Authorized Program Request Recommendation request 1997 program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARNG.......................... 366,758 366,758 366,516 366,516 0 (242)
USAR.......................... 215,179 215,254 208,000 208,000 0 (7,254)
USNR.......................... 96,304 95,898 94,294 94,294 0 (1,604)
USMCR......................... 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 0 0
ANG........................... 109,178 109,178 107,377 107,377 0 (1,801)
USAFR......................... 73,311 73,311 73,431 73,431 0 120
Coast Guard................... 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 910,730 910,399 899,618 899,618 0 (10,781)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves
This section would authorize the end strengths of the
reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as indicated
in the table below. These end strengths are included within the
total end strengths authorized for the selected reserve above.
FY 98 END STRENGTH--RESERVES ON ACTIVE DUTY IN SUPPORT OF RESERVES (AGR/TAR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Change from fiscal year
Service ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorized Program Request Recommendation 1998 Request 1997 Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARNG......................... 22,798 22,798 22,310 22,310 0 (488)
USAR......................... 11,729 11,804 11,500 11,500 0 (304)
USNR......................... 16,603 16,626 16,136 16,136 0 (490)
USMCR........................ 2,559 2,559 2,559 2,559 0 0
ANG.......................... 10,403 10,403 10,616 10,616 0 213
USAFR........................ 655 655 963 748 (215) 93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................. 64,747 64,845 64,084 63,869 (215) (976)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)
This section would authorize military technician end
strength as indicated in the table below and would require
future defense budget requests to include a legislative
provision specifically detailing the end strength of the dual-
status military technicians to be authorized.
FY 98 END STRENGTH--MILITARY TECHNICIANS (DUAL STATUS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change from fiscal year
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year 98 -------------------------
Service 97 program 98 request recommendation 1998 1997
(DS) (DS) (DS) request program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARNG........................................ 23,125 22,991 23,125 134 0
USAR........................................ 5,503 5,205 5,503 298 0
ANG......................................... 22,853 22,574 22,853 279 0
USAFR....................................... 9,802 9,622 9,802 180 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 61,283 60,392 61,283 891 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(Public Law 104-201) provided that dual-status military
technicians would be authorized and accounted for as a separate
category of Department of Defense civilian employee; and
further provided that reductions in military technician end
strength must be directly related to force structure
reductions.
In consonance with the changes made in fiscal year 1997,
the end strengths authorized above provide only for dual-status
military technicians. The authorizations do not include or
provide for non-dual status technicians who the committee
believes should be funded in the same manner as other federal
civilian employees who are not military technicians. The
committee notes that the President's budget request provides
funding for the following numbers of non-dual status
technicians: Army National Guard, 2259; Army Reserve, 1296; Air
National Guard, 394; Air Force Reserve, none. Furthermore, the
committee notes that the President's budget request sought
reductions in military technician end strength but did not
provide the required details about corresponding force
structure reductions as required by law. Therefore, the end
strengths authorized would establish military technician end
strengths at fiscal year 1997 levels.
Section 414--Increase in Number of Members in Certain Grades Authorized
to Serve on Active Duty in Support of the Reserves
This section would authorize increases in the grades of
reserve members authorized to serve on active duty or on full-
time national guard duty for the administration of the reserves
or the national guard. The provision would authorize 30
additional majors, 5 additional E-9s, and 10 additional E-8s in
the Air Force. The provision would also authorize 16 additional
colonels and 15 additional E-9s in the Army National Guard, and
nine additional colonels and six additional E-9s in the Army
Reserve.
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel
This section would authorize $69,539,862,000 to be
appropriated for military personnel, an increase of $66.1
million from the budget request.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Family Life Assistance Programs
The committee believes that military families face growing
challenges in an environment where high operations tempo,
frequent deployments and long separations create unusual
stress. This stress too frequently manifests itself adversely
in such actions as child abuse. The committee believes that the
military services should continually be seeking better ways to
reduce child abuse and its related ill effects. The committee
has learned of efforts being made by a nationwide consortium of
educational organizations focused on the needs of children and
families to demonstrate and evaluate, in connection with the
Army Chaplain's School, an assistance program for families
affected by child abuse. The program is designed to be
facilitated by military chaplains, but depends heavily on
parent-leadership and mutual support assistance for its
effectiveness. The committee urges the Department of Defense
and the Department of the Army to review this program for
possible testing at military installations.
Increased Support for Military Recruiting
Recruiting sufficient numbers of high quality people to
serve in the armed services remains one of the most difficult
challenges facing the Department of Defense. The committee
views with alarm the Army's inability to meet its recruiting
goals and the resulting Army decision to reduce the accession
goal for new recruits with a high-school degree to 90 percent
of those enlisted from the current 95 percent. The committee is
also concerned that this reduction in the quality standards for
Army recruits presages similar trends in the other services.
The committee, therefore, recommends an increase in funding for
recruiting advertising of $22.9 million over the amount
requested in the budget. The additional advertising funding
would be apportioned: Army: $7.0 million; Navy: $7.0 million;
Air Force: $4.5 million; Marine Corps: $4.4 million.
Investigation of the Deaths of Military Personnel by Self-inflicted
Causes
In response to concerns about how the services handled the
investigations of the deaths of military personnel from self-
inflicted causes, Congress, in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, (Public Law 103-160),
mandated several actions, including a Department of Defense
review of the procedures used by the military departments for
investigating such deaths. That review by the Department of
Defense Inspector General reported in February 1996 a range of
investigative shortcomings, as well as recommendations for
improvements in investigative training, policy and procedures.
In addition, the then-House Armed Service Committee found in
March 1994, as part of its investigation into alleged suicides
by military personnel, that some of the military services were
inept in their dealings with families of the deceased and
needlessly uncooperative in releasing information requested by
the families of the deceased. Finally, the Department's
Advisory Board on the Investigative Capability of the
Department of Defense reported in 1995 that to the extent it
found problems in investigations avoiding self-critical
analysis, it found them in non-criminal investigations; and
also that commander-directed investigations were the most
common but least protected from improper command influence.
Notwithstanding these previous findings and
recommendations, the committee remains concerned that the
military services may not have adequately implemented the
recommended corrective actions. In particular, the committee
has heard concerns about the services' ability to carry out
self-critical, impartial, unbiased, complete death
investigations in cases where service leadership may have been
involved in the circumstances leading to a death from self-
inflicted causes. In addition, the committee continues to hear
reports of family members of the deceased having to go to
extraordinary lengths to obtain a full report of the
circumstances surrounding the death.
For these reasons, and to ensure that past recommendations
for corrective action are being implemented, the committee
urges the Department of Defense to undertake an independent
review of the current military service procedures for
investigating the deaths of military personnel from self-
inflicted causes.
Joint Recruiting Information Support System
The committee is concerned that, despite the high priority
that the Department of Defense attached to effective military
recruiting, the Department is more than 18 months behind
schedule in fielding the Joint Recruiting Information Support
System (JRISS) which promises to greatly assist a frequently
overextended recruiting force. The committee believes that such
a delay is in part due to the fact that JRISS funding has been
decentralized to the training and recruiting accounts of each
of the military services and that services have repeatedly used
these accounts as reprogramming sources to support contingency
operations. In addition, the committee notes that the
President's fiscal year 1998 budget request underfunded this
important program by as much as $57.0 million in the
procurement and operations and maintenance accounts. For these
reasons, the committee believes that increased Department
commitment is essential to put this program back on track.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
consolidate budgeting and funding execution of the JRISS system
at the Department level, and to provide the House Committee on
National Security and the Senate Committee on Armed Services a
report by June 30, 1998, detailing its plan and funding program
to ensure the full, expeditious fielding of the JRISS.
Military Identification Cards
The committee is aware that the identification cards issued
active component service members are a different color from the
cards issued to reserve component service members. The
committee notes that reserve component members have expressed
concern that the color coded identification cards have resulted
in prejudicial treatment of reservists that is not in keeping
with good order and discipline. The committee recommends that
the Secretary of Defense develop a universal identification
card that includes a non-visual identifier, such as a bar code.
Such a card would identify the benefits and privileges
authorized to the card holder while protecting reserve
component members from prejudicial treatment.
Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) Consolidations
The committee is concerned about the elimination and
consolidation of military occupational specialties (MOS) which
have occurred in at least two of the military services. These
actions, used as a management tool to accomplish personnel
downsizing and generate savings, have resulted in skill
shortages and imbalances, particularly in the maintenance
fields. The committee learned through visits to military
installations and interviews with service members that MOS
consolidations have negatively impacted the ability of units to
maintain equipment to standard. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to report to the House Committee on
National Security and the Senate Committee on Armed Services,
no later than March 1, 1998, on the extent to which such
eliminations and consolidations have occurred, the impact of
these eliminations and consolidations on readiness, and any
recommendations or actions being implemented to address the
concerns identified above.
Retention of Military Leave for Federal Civilian Employees Who Perform
Reserve Duty
The committee is disturbed to learn that the President's
budget request proposed to terminate a long-standing
recruiting, retention and readiness incentive for the reserve
components--the ability of 120,000 federal civilian employees
who are members of the reserve components to take military
leave from their federal civilian jobs without penalty to train
during the required annual military training period. Even more
disturbing to the committee is the fact that without apparent
consultation with the military leadership and without analysis
of the potential implications, the Department's reserve
component military personnel accounts were reduced by $85.0
million on the presumption that Congress would agree with the
proposed amendment.
Such presumption is misplaced. The committee believes for a
number of reasons that this budget proposal is misguided, will
not achieve any real savings, and will cause reductions in
readiness and retention. First, despite repeated Administration
claims of the importance of reserve personnel to the military,
the President's initiative would penalize a federal workforce
that not only ably serves government in a day-to-day capacity,
but also has volunteered to go beyond what most citizens are
willing to do by serving the nation as well in a uniformed
capacity. Second, the initiative would single out and penalize
60,000 military technicians. These full-time employees,
required to be members of the reserve components as a condition
of their employment, have been deemed by both the Department of
Defense and the Congress to be critical to reserve component
unit readiness and to providing active units relief from high
operations tempo. Third, rather than setting an example of how
an employer should support the National Guard and Reserve, this
proposal would send an unequivocal message to the employers of
America that reservists do not deserve special consideration.
For these reasons, the committee rejects the President's
proposal and restores $85.0 million to the military personnel
accounts of the reserve components, as follows: Army National
Guard, $33.2 million; Army Reserve, $20.4 million; Air National
Guard, $11.0 million; Air Force Reserve, $8.2 million; U.S.
Naval Reserve, $8.5 million; U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, $3.7
million. As a partial source for the restoration, the committee
recommends a reduction in operations and maintenance funding
for the Youth Conservation Corps ($1.7 million), Starbase ($2.0
million), Civil-Military Innovative Readiness Training ($8.0
million) and reserve support to the commanders-in-chief of the
combatant commands ($2.0 million), as well as a $13.0 million
reduction in personnel funding for the Department directed
reserve component support to the total force program.
Sexual Misconduct in the Armed Services
The committee understands and appreciates the fact that the
vast majority of members of the armed forces of the United
States serve with distinction, dedication and integrity, often
under arduous circumstances. As a result, the committee is very
concerned that recent allegations of serious abuses of
authority and criminal sexual misconduct by some individuals at
U.S. military training facilities and installations around the
world impugn the hard work and honor of the devoted men and
women who proudly serve our country. Such misconduct and abuse
by even a few individuals is unacceptable in our military; it
undermines the espirit d'corps, morale and readiness necessary
for the United States to field an effective fighting force
prepared to defend its interests around the world.
In light of the recent allegations of sexual misconduct and
their adverse impact on the reputation and morale of our
dedicated service members, the committee strongly urges the
Secretary of Defense to take all appropriate steps necessary to
ensure that allegations of abuse of authority or sexual
misconduct are promptly and thoroughly investigated by each
military service. Furthermore, the committee urges the
Secretary to ensure that effective reporting mechanisms and
adequate training methods are identified, implemented and fully
enforced to prevent such abuses of authority and sexual
misconduct, and that proven allegations are addressed promptly
in an appropriate and equitable manner. The men and women who
serve in our armed forces deserve to be treated with the utmost
respect and dignity, and they deserve a work environment that
is free from criminal misconduct and abusive practices.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
Section 501--Limitation on Number of General and Flag Officers Who May
Serve in Positions Outside Their Own Service
Five Department of Defense studies between 1988 and 1996
consistently validated a requirement for no more than 233
general and flag officer positions in joint headquarters and
organizations external to the military services--about 16
percent of all general and flag officer positions validated by
those studies. With seeming disregard for the study results,
the actual number of general and flag officers assigned to
joint and external positions during those same years always
exceeded 240, grew to as many as 280, and consistently required
26 to 27 percent of the total general and flag officers
authorized to be on active duty. Given the tight statutory
constraints on the total number of general and flag officers
who may be on active duty and notwithstanding the continuing
emphasis on jointness, the committee believes that it is
ultimately detrimental to the military services for the
Department of Defense and the Joint Staff to assign to external
positions both numbers and percentages of general and flag
officers that are greatly inexcess of validated requirements.
To the extent that the unconstrained tasking and assignment of general
and flag officers to fill external positions continue, the military
services will feel compelled to seek increases in the statutory limits
on general and flag officers. For example, the dominant rationale
provided by the Marine Corps in its most recent effort to secure
additional general officers was the need for general officers to fill a
growing number of joint positions. Additionally, in order to fill
adequately both the external requirements and internal service
requirements, the military services recently considered seeking an
increase of as many as 54 general officers over the current statutory
limit of 944. Again, increased external requirements was a significant
driver of the proposed increase.
The committee believes that the number of general and flag
officers serving on active duty in external positions must be
tightly controlled and tied directly to the number of general
and flag officers available to fill both external and internal
requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision
(Section 501) that would limit the number of general and flag
officers serving in external assignments to no more than 24.5
percent of the total number of such officers authorized by
Congress.
The committee recognizes that a 24.5 percent limit, while
based on the Department's historical assignment practices, is a
number that could be adjusted as a result of the outcomes of
the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Given the committee's
desire for tight controls on general and flag officers, the
committee expects that the Department would make
recommendations for the adjustment of that 24.5 percent limit
when the Department submits its anticipated post-QDR general
and flag officer study, and that the Department would explain
its strategy for review and validation of additional external
general and flag officer requirements prior to the services
being required to fill them.
Section 502--Exclusion of Certain Retired Officers from Limitation on
Period of Recall to Active Duty
This section would exclude retired military chaplains,
health care professionals and officers serving on the American
Battle Monuments Commission from counting against the statutory
limits on the period of time that recalled retirees may serve
on active duty.
Section 503--Clarification of Officers Eligible for Consideration by
Selection Boards
This section would clarify that officers serving on active
duty and in the reserve components may be excluded from
consideration from promotion to the next higher grade if they
are on a promotion board report, even if that report had not
yet been approved by the President.
Section 504--Authority to Defer Mandatory Retirement for Age of
Officers Serving As Chaplains
This section would permit service secretaries to defer the
retirement of officers serving as chaplains until age 68 if,
during the period of deferment, the chaplains served in direct
support of units and installations, and, in rare cases, beyond
age 68 for the needs of the service, as determined by a service
secretary. In addition, the section would permit the chief or
deputy chief of chaplains of each service to serve until age
68, but not beyond. Under current law, retirement of all
chaplains is required at age 62. The section would also
authorize the Navy's chief and deputy chief of chaplains to be
selected from among officers on the retired list.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Matters
Section 511--Individual Ready Reserve Activation Authority
Under current law, the President may involuntarily recall
to active duty, at times other than during war or national
emergency, up to 200,000 reservists for up to 270 days from
units of the Selected Reserve. This authority is known as the
Presidential Selective Reserve Call-up (PSRC). However, under
PSRC, individuals who are members of the Individual Ready
Reserve (IRR) cannot be recalled to active duty.
During Operation Desert Storm, the lack of authority to
recall members of the IRR as part of the PSRC compelled the
mobilization of portions of late-deploying selected reserve
units in order to fill manpower shortfalls in early deploying
units. This strategy had two major disadvantages. First, unit
cohesion of the later deploying units was damaged. Second, the
military services, particularly the Army, faced the significant
challenge of having to rebuild the late deploying units upon
their mobilization.
This section would build on the lessons learned from
Operation Desert Storm by authorizing the President, under
PSRC, to recall up to 30,000 members of a new category of the
IRR that would be created by this section. The new category of
the IRR would consist of those personnel, in the military
skills designated by the Secretary of Defense, who had
volunteered prior to leaving active duty to become part of this
new IRR category. Such volunteers could remain in the new IRR
category for no longer than 24 months and could be provided
such benefits (less pay and training) as the Secretary of
Defense deemed appropriate.
Section 512--Termination of Mobilization Income Insurance Program
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm involved the
largest activation and deployment of reserve component forces
since the Korean War with more than 246,000 national guardsmen
and reservists from all the armed forces serving on active
duty. Post war surveys indicated that 45 percent of the
officers and 55 percent of the enlisted personnel reported
income losses while activated. Following an extended
examination of the issues and a survey suggesting that
reservists would participate in a premium-based voluntary
income insurance program, the Secretary of Defense proposed a
program for the ready reserve that was included in section 512
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106).
Two problems were encountered during implementation. First,
adverse selection occurred when the insurance enrollment period
coincided with the notification of units that were subject to
activation in support of operations in Bosnia. Second, a three
percent participation rate by reservists was inadequate to
maintain program solvency. As a result, the program was
immediately bankrupted and left with an unfunded liability of
$72.0 million.
In post-implementation reviews designed to understand what
went wrong, the Department of Defense Inspector General and the
United States General Accounting Office concluded during a
coordinated review that the structure of the current program
was actuarially unsound. In addition, they determined that the
Department of Defense Board of Actuaries hadwarned the
Secretary of Defense in an August 9, 1996 memorandum that an extension
of the mission in Bosnia may endanger the fiscal solvency of the
program right away. The committee is severely disappointed that the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs was aware of the
warning and failed to inform the Congress of the consequences of
continuing to implement the program as originally planned.
The committee does not believe it is practical to modify
the current program to make it actuarially sound. Accordingly,
this section would terminate the ready reserve mobilization
income insurance program. The provision would also specify that
all benefit payments that are due will be paid in full.
The committee recognizes that many reservists experience
financial hardships when they are involuntarily called to
active duty. The committee remains receptive to new proposals
from the Secretary of Defense to provide protection against the
loss of income by activated reservists. If the Secretary
desires to submit a new legislative proposal, the committee
recommends that the proposal be accompanied by analysis of
alternative plans to allow comparison with the Secretary's
recommended plan. The alternative plans should include a
mixture of voluntary and mandatory programs with varying
premium levels.
Section 513--Correction of Inequities in Medical and Dental Care and
Death and Disability Benefits for Reserve Members Who Incur or
Aggravate an Illness in the Line of Duty
Section 702 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) authorized for reservists
the same death and disability benefits as active duty members
when the reservist's death or disability occurred in an off-
duty period between successive inactive duty training periods
performed at locations outside the reasonable commuting
distance from the member's residence. This section would
authorize the same coverage for a reservist required to remain
overnight prior to the commencement of inactive duty training.
Section 514--Time-in-Grade Requirements for Reserve Commissioned
Officers Retired During the Drawdown Period
This section would authorize the secretaries of the
military departments to reduce the required time in grade for a
reserve officer to retire in the highest grade held from three
to not less than two years. The provision would limit the
number of officers in a grade approved for retirement to two
percent of the active status reserve strength for that armed
force in that grade. The provision would expire on September
30, 1999.
Section 515--Authority to Permit Non-Unit Assigned Officers to be
Considered by Vacancy Promotion Board to General Officer Grades
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
consider officers not assigned to units of the selected reserve
to compete for promotion to brigadier general and major general
within the same promotion board process.
Section 516--Grade Requirement for Officers Eligible to Serve on
Involuntary Separation Boards
This section would reduce the grade required for officer
separation board members in the reserve components from 0-6 and
above to 0-5 and above.
Section 517--Limitation on Use of Air Force Reserve AGR Personnel for
Air Force Base Security Functions
The committee has learned that the Secretary of the Air
Force sought in the fiscal year 1998 budget request an increase
of 215 in the end strength of the reserves on active duty in
support of the reserves (AGRs). The increase was to provide
base security at four Air Force Reserve bases in the United
States. Use of the AGRs for this security mission would have
replaced 72 Air Reserve technicians and 136 Department of
Defense civilians now providing the base security at those four
bases. The committee does not understand the Secretary's
rationale for seeking additional AGRs for U.S. base security
purposes. First, the use of AGR's is more costly than continued
use of a mixed civilian and technician security force. The
average AGR costs at least $7,000 to $10,000 more than the
average civilian employed in the security force at the four
bases. Second, although it acknowledged to the General
Accounting Office that it has 6,900 fewer security police than
are needed to meet its active duty wartime requirements, the
Air Force has decided not to fill those requirements because
these personnel would not be deployed and would only be
required to provide security at fixed bases in the United
States. Such a shortfall, the Air Force told the General
Accounting Office, could be compensated for in a number of
ways, including hiring civilian security guards. This latter
reasoning seems to directly contradict the Air Force Reserve
proposal to add AGRs--full time, uniformed military personnel--
to provide security at bases in the United States. For these
reasons, this section would prohibit the Secretary of the Air
Force from utilizing AGRs for base security at United States
bases until six months after the Secretary has provided a
report to the House Committee on National Security and the
Senate Committee on Armed Services. The provision would require
the report to address the rationale and cost effectiveness of
such utilization of AGRs compared to the use of Department of
Defense civilians or contractor personnel, as well as a plan
for the re-employment, conversion to AGR status, or retirement
of the current non-AGR workforce. The restrictions proposed to
be established by this section on the use of AGR's for base
security in the United States would not prohibit the proposed
use of 13 AGR's as part of the deployable force protection unit
being established by the Air Force.
Subtitle C--Military Technicians
Section 521--Authority to Retain on the Reserve Active-Status List
Until Age 60 Military Technicians in the Grade of Brigadier General
This section would restore the authority that existed prior
to the enactment of the Reserve Officer Personnel Management
Act (ROPMA) that permitted the Secretaries of the Army and Air
Force to retain brigadier general military technicians on the
active-status list up to age 60.
Section 522--Military Technicians (Dual Status)
The National Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-61) and the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) enacted
provisions defining the term ``military technician'' which were
not completely consistent with one another. This section would
remove the inconsistencies by defining a military technician
(dual status) as a federal civilian employee who is hired in
accord with titles 5 or 32, United States Code, and who, as a
condition of federal civilian employment, must maintain
military membership in the selected reserve, and who also must
be assigned to a position as a technician in the administration
and training of the selected reserve, or to a position in the
maintenance and repair of supplies or equipment issued to the
selective reserve or armed forces. The section would also
require that, unless exempted by law, all military technicians
hired on or after December 1, 1995, (the date of enactment of
Public Law 104-61) would be required to maintain military
membership in the selected reserve unit by which they are
employed as a military technician, or in a unit they are
employed as a military technician to support. Finally, the
section would require the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to
develop a legislative proposal for the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 that would establish or
clarify statutory guidelines in title 5, United States Code,
for the hiring, management, separation, and retirement of Army
and Air Force Reserve military technicians (dual status).
Section 523--Non-Dual Status Military Technicians
In recognition of the important direct readiness
contributions being made by military technicians (dual status),
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) established special rules and protections
that set military technicians (dual status) apart from other
federal civilian employees in the Department of Defense. In
addition, the act established hiring restrictions that were
designed, in part, to reduce the numbers of military
technicians who never were members of the selected reserve, or
for one reason or another after being hired subsequently became
disqualified from selected reserve membership. The committee
understands that at present there are approximately 3,800 such
so-called non-dual status technicians, many of whom are
performing clerical and administrative functions. In addition,
the committee is disturbed to learn that contrary to the
reductions in non-dual status technicians contemplated by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106), the number of non-dual status technicians in the
Army Reserve has grown from almost 800 in fiscal year 1996 to
nearly 1,300 in fiscal year 1997. This section would address
that growth by capping the numbers of non-dual status
technicians permitted in each of the reserve components in
fiscal year 1998, and require the service secretaries in future
years to reduce the number of non-dual status technicians by at
least 10 percent per year. Furthermore, the section would
require the Secretary of Defense to submit, by March 31, 1998,
a plan for eliminating non-dual status technicians. In
developing the plan, the Secretary would be required to
consider elimination or consolidation of functions or
positions, contracting out of functions, conversion of
technicians and technician positions to non-technician
competitive federal positions or employees, and the use of
incentives to facilitate the directed reductions.
Subtitle D--Measures to Improve Recruit Quality and Reduce Recruit
Attrition
Section 531--Reform of Military Recruiting Systems
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
undertake a series of department-wide reforms to:
(1) Improve data collection and analysis of the
reasons for new recruit attrition as part of an effort
to undertake targeted measures to control that
attrition;
(2) Create incentives for recruiters to improve the
qualification screening of prospective recruits;
(3) Assess the trends in the use of waivers to permit
the enlistment of persons with otherwise disqualifying
conditions; and
(4) Ensure the prompt separation from the military
services of new recruits who are unable to complete
basic training.
Section 532--Improvements in Medical Prescreening of Applicants for
Military Service
A General Accounting Office review of matters related to
the 30 percent attrition of all military personnel during first
terms of enlistment concluded that attrition could be reduced
through better medical prescreening of applicants for military
service. The committee strongly concurs with the findings of
the review. Therefore, this section would direct the Secretary
of Defense to undertake a number of reforms, to include:
(1) Requiring each applicant for military service to
provide the name of the applicant's medical insurer,
the names of past medical providers, and a release to
obtain the applicant's medical records;
(2) Revising the questions asked of applicants to tie
the questions more directly to conditions that most
frequently result in medical separations;
(3) Assigning to a contractor or agency other than
the Military Entrance Processing Command (MEPCOM) the
responsibility for evaluating medical conditions of
recruits that are missed during MEPCOM's accession
processing; and
(4) Requiring all applicants for military service be
tested for use of illegal drugs at the MEPCOM station.
Section 533--Improvements in Physical Fitness of Recruits
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
undertake a range of measures to improve the level of physical
fitness of new recruits prior to the start of basic training,
including the use of incentives, monetary and otherwise, for
new recruits in the delayed entry program to voluntarily
participate in supervised conditioning activities. This section
would permit the use of Department of Defense military fitness
facilities for this purpose, as well as the use of military
medical facilities if the new recruit is injured during the
supervised conditioning activities.
Subtitle E--Military Education and Training
Section 541--Independent Panel to Review Military Basic Training
This section would require the establishment of a panel to
review the basic training programs of the Army, Navy, Air Force
and Marine Corps and to make recommendations for improvements
to these programs.
The committee believes that such reform is necessary based
on what it has heard in recent visits to military installations
as well as on the strong, unequivocal statements of non-
commissioned officers and field commanders of all services in
most of the field locations visited by the committee staff last
fall. These mid-level military leaders expressed concern that
graduates of the services' basic training programs were
emerging without the physical fitness, skill in basic military
tasks, discipline, and acculturation to service values needed
for the actual job and readiness requirements of an operational
unit. In the minds of many who shared their views, such
insufficiently prepared basic training graduates represented
significant burdens, not assets, to units already overburdened
by high operations tempo and constrained resources.
Therefore, this section directs the panel on military basic
training to review the course objectives, structure, and length
of each of the military services' basic training programs. With
regard to the review of the basic training programs, the panel
should focus on two key questions:
(1) Do the services' basic training programs produce
graduates who are adequately trained to ensure that
they report to operational units with an appropriate
level of skills, physical conditioning and military
socialization to meet unit requirements and operational
readiness?
(2) Given the demographics, education and background
of new recruits, are the basic training systems and
objectives most efficiently and effectively structured
and conducted to produce graduates who meet service
needs?
This section also would require the panel to review the
basic training policies for each of the military services with
regard to the issue of gender-integrated basic training. As
part of this review, the panel should focus on the historical
as well as the current rationales for integrating or
segregating basic training, particularly with regard to the
relevance of the rationales and their consideration of the
impact on readiness. In focusing on the historical rationale,
the panel should determine and evaluate the reasons the Air
Force and Navy chose to integrate basic training, as well as
the Army's rationale for implementing an integrated basic
training initiative in 1976, then abruptly disestablishing this
initiative in 1982. The panel should also assess the degree to
which different standards have been established or implemented,
and determine whether basic training performance standards are
based on military readiness. Additionally, the panel should
compare the attrition rates and readiness and morale of gender-
integrated basic training units with gender-segregated basic
training units.
This section would require the panel to submit its
completed evaluation of the gender-integrated and gender-
segregated basic training programs, along with recommendations
for changing or improving the current programs, within one year
of the panel's establishment. It also would require Congress,
based on the panel's recommendations, to consider whether to
require by law that the military services conduct gender-
segregated basic training.
Section 542--Reform of Army Drill Sergeant Selection and Training
Process
The committee believes that because drill sergeants perform
one of the most crucial, as well as one of the most difficult
missions in the Army, standards for entrance into and
graduation from training must be rigorous. As a part of a
review of the initial entry training system in the Army,
committee members heard first-hand a range of recommendations
from drill sergeants, drill-sergeant instructors, and drill-
sergeant trainees about needed reforms to improve the selection
and training processes of drill sergeants. Building on those
recommendations, this section would require the Secretary of
the Army to institute a number of reforms, including:
(1) Chain-of-command assessments of the suitability
and qualifications of all drill sergeant candidates;
(2) Psychological screening of all drill sergeant
candidates;
(3) Revision of the drill-sergeant trainee evaluation
system to expand assessments of qualifications and
suitability to include ``whole-person'' evaluations;
such revisions could include the use of drill sergeant
trainee peer evaluations and subjective evaluations
from instructors in the drill sergeant course;
(4) Providing all drill sergeant trainees prior to
graduation with opportunities to work with actual new
recruits in initial entry training; and
(5) Revision of the military personnel records system
to permit certain persons, under conditions prescribed
by the Secretary, to leave drill sergeant training
without penalty or stigma on the person's future
military career.
This last reform stems from the committee's view that it
takes more than being a good soldier--professionally competent,
well motivated, and dedicated to the task at hand--to be a good
drill sergeant, and that an inability to meet all the higher
standards required of a drill sergeant should not prevent good
soldiers from continuing to make professional contributions to
the Army. The section would also require the Secretary of the
Army to provide the House Committee on National Security and
the Senate Armed Services Committee a report by March 31, 1998
of the reforms initiated, or the Secretary's rationale for not
undertaking the prescribed measure.
Section 543--Requirement for Candidates for Admission to United States
Naval Academy to Take Oath of Allegiance
This section would codify what now is implemented by
policy--that persons seeking admission to the United States
Naval Academy take and subscribe to an oath of allegiance to
the United States as a requirement for admission. The change
would make the requirement for an oath consistent in law for
all three service academies.
Section 544--Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred for Instruction at
Service Academies of Persons from Foreign Countries
The committee believes that the Secretary of Defense has
forgotten his responsibility for sound fiscal stewardship in
connection with the attendance of international students at the
U.S. service academies. Current law authorizes up to 40
international students at any one time to attend full-time each
of the respective service academies and requires that the
foreign country sponsoring a student reimburse the U.S.
government for the cost of the instruction, as well as any pay,
allowances and emoluments the U.S. provides to the student. The
reimbursement requirement can be waived in whole or in part by
the Secretary of Defense. The committee is shocked to learn
that of the 115 international students from 39 countries who
are enrolled in 1997 at the service academies, the Secretary of
Defense has waived the full cost of attendance for 106students.
This extravagant use of waivers requires the Department of Defense to
expend $7.2 million annually, including $4.2 million in operations and
maintenance funding and $3.0 million in military personnel funding. The
committee believes this disregard for sound fiscal practice must be
ended and that foreign governments must share a larger burden of
sending their citizens to the service academies. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to re-negotiate current
agreements with the nations who have students in attendance at the
service academies. As an incentive to those negotiations, the committee
recommends a reduction in fiscal year 1998 of $4.2 million in Defense-
wide Operations and Maintenance accounts and a $1.0 million reduction
in the amounts authorized for military personnel in the Army, Navy and
Air Force. In addition, this section would constrain the Secretary of
Defense's waiver authority for international students entering the
service academies after the date of enactment to no more than 25
percent of the per-person cost of attendance by an international
student, but would permit the Secretary, in exceptional cases, to waive
more than 25 per cent of the cost for up to five international students
at each of the service academies. Furthermore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to provide a report no later than April 30,
1998, to the House Committee on National Security and the Senate
Committee on Armed Services detailing the results of the required
negotiations. If there is not substantial improvement in the
reimbursement rates for international students at the service
academies, the committee will consider further constraints on the
program.
Section 545--United States Naval Postgraduate School
This section would amend the current authority governing
admittance of civilians to the Naval Postgraduate School and
create new authority to admit enlisted personnel to the school.
Thus, the section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
admit civilians on a space available basis, with reimbursement
being required either on an in-kind basis or on a cost-
reimbursable basis. In addition, the section would authorize
enlisted members to attend courses on a space available basis.
Section 546--Air Force Academy Cadet Foreign Exchange Program
The President's budget request sought authority for the
Secretary of the Air Force to establish an exchange program at
the Air Force Academy whereby up to 24 academy cadets could
receive up to a semester of instruction at foreign military
academies. In turn, on a one-for-one-basis, the Air Force
Academy would accept students from the foreign military academy
for up to a semester of instruction. This section would
authorize the exchange program but would limit the program to
more than 10 exchanges per year and the academy's annual
expenditure on the program to $50,000. The limitations reflect
committee concerns that the Secretary of Defense has liberally
waived the reimbursement requirements for international
students attending each of the service academies. The result is
that the Department of Defense has borne most of the costs of
international student attendance. While the committee agrees
with the intent of this new Air Force Academy exchange program,
the committee believes that this new program should first
demonstrate an ability to operate on a basis of foreign
governments providing comparable levels of support as are
provided by the Air Force.
Section 547--Training in Human Relations Matters for Army Drill
Sergeant Trainees
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
expand the human relations instruction now provided to drill
sergeant trainees to at least two days of instruction. This
instruction could include such topics as instructor-trainee
relationships, leadership styles, professional conduct, lawful
and unlawful discrimination, sexual harassment and misconduct,
team building and counseling. In developing this instruction,
the committee directs that the Secretary use the capabilities
and expertise of the Defense Equal Opportunity Management
Institute, and also recommends the Secretary review the human
relations training program used by the Air Force in training
its Military Training Instructors.
Section 548--Study of Feasibility of Gender-Segregated Basic Training
This section would require each of the military service
secretaries to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on National Security, within
180 days after the date of enactment, on gender-segregated
basic training. The report should address the feasibility,
implications and cost of conducting segregated basic training
and for requiring drill sergeants of basic training units to be
the same sex as the recruits in those units.
Subtitle F--Military Decorations and Awards
Section 551--Study of New Decorations for Injury or Death in Line of
Duty
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
cooperation with the secretaries of the military departments
and the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the Coast
Guard, to determine the appropriate name, policy, award
criteria, and design for two new decorations. The new
decorations would recognize the services of members of the
armed forces who are killed or wounded under non-combat
conditions and United States civilian nationals who are killed
or wounded while serving in an official capacity with a United
States armed force. The provision would require the Secretary
to submit a legislative proposal to establish the two
decorations and a recommendation concerning the need for the
new decorations to the House Committee on National Security and
the Senate Committee on Armed Services not later than July 31,
1998.
Section 552--Purple Heart to be Awarded Only to Members of the Armed
Forces
This section would limit eligibility for the award of the
Purple Heart to members of the armed services. The provision
would become effective after the end of the 180-day period
beginning on the date of enactment.
Section 553--Eligibility for Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for
Participation in Operation Joint Endeavor or Operation Joint Guard
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
designate participation by service members in Operation Joint
Endeavor or Operation Joint Guard in the Republic of Bosnia
andHerzegovina as sufficient to meet the requirements for award of the
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal.
Section 554--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Certain
Decorations to Specified Persons
This section would waive the statutory time limitations for
the award of military decorations to provide for the award of
those decorations to individuals who have been recommended for
award of the decorations by the secretaries of the military
departments.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 561--Suspension of Temporary Early Retirement Authority
The committee believes that the pace of the drawdown has
sufficiently slowed to allow a one-year suspension of the
authority to retire service members under the temporary early
retirement authority. The committee recognizes that future use
of the authority may be required to shape the force structure
and facilitate additional possible reductions in manpower
levels resulting from the Quadrennial Defense Review.
Additionally, the committee believes that funding within
military personnel accounts should be allocated to directly
address the urgent quality of life concerns expressed by the
service members who will continue to serve. Accordingly, this
section would suspend the authorization for the early
retirement program during fiscal year 1998.
Section 562--Treatment of Educational Accomplishments of National Guard
ChalleNGe Program Participants
The committee notes that the services restrict the
accession of individuals who possess general education
development (GED) certificates, to include participants in
National Guard ChalleNGe programs. The committee believes that
participants in the National Guard ChalleNGe program who
achieved GED certificates as a result of the program have
demonstrated the necessary commitment and discipline to serve
successfully on active duty in the armed services.
Accordingly, this section would deem a GED certificate
achieved as a result of the individual's participation in a
National Guard ChalleNGe program the same as a high school
diploma for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the
person for enlistment in the armed forces.
Section 563--Authority for Personnel to Participate in Management of
Certain Non-Federal Entities
This section would authorize service secretaries to approve
on a case-by-case basis the limited service of military and
civilian personnel in their official capacities as directors,
trustees, or officers of a military welfare society, such as
Army Emergency Relief, or other designated entities. Such
entities include bodies that regulate international athletic
competition and the athletic programs of the service academies,
educational accreditation organizations that evaluate the
service academies and other schools of the armed forces, and
organizations that regulate and support military health care.
Compensation for such service would be prohibited, as would
involvement in the day-to-day operations of the entities.
Section 564--Crew Requirements of WC-130J Aircraft
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to study the manpower requirements for the WC-130J aircraft
engaged in aerial weather reconnaissance and eyewall
penetration of tropical cyclones. The provision would require a
report to the House Committee on National Security and the
Senate Committee on Armed Services upon completion of the
study. The provision also would preclude navigator and other
manpower requirements of units engaged in eyewall penetration
of tropical cyclones from being reduced below the requirements
established as of October 1, 1997 until the end of a six-month
period after the submission of the report.
Section 565 and Section 566--Civil-Military Programs
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) terminated the authority of the Department
of Defense to conduct civil-military cooperative action
programs, an authority that had been enacted in October 1992.
Congress took the action based on a belief that many of the
programs being conducted under the civil-military cooperative
action program had minimal military readiness or training
value. In recognition of the fact that some military mission
training undertaken to accomplish valid unit training
objectives could have an incidental benefit to non-Department
of Defense entities, the Congress created a limited authority
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) to permit military units, under certain
strict criteria, to conduct valid training that would have an
incidental benefit to non-department entities. The committee,
therefore, was chagrined to learn that many of the programs
formerly conducted under the civil-military cooperative program
were still being funded by the Department of Defense under a
slightly revised name: The Department of Defense Civil-Military
Innovative Readiness Training Programs. Even more disturbing to
the committee was the directive issued by one service
headquarters that civil-military and community support programs
would be the number one operational and training priority for
that service's reserve component at all times other than
mobilization. To ensure support for the directive and service
objectives, officers appearing before command selection boards
were being asked to submit a resume of their personal community
support and civil-military program involvement. Although that
service directive was canceled following committee questions
about it, the committee believes that a review of the
Department and service civil-military and community support
programs is needed. Therefore, section 565 would require the
Comptroller General to conduct such a review. In ordering this
Comptroller General review, the committee's intent is not to
quell or deter projects which meet the criteria established by
Public Law 104-106. Rather, the committee's intent is that
current and future training efforts that meet the criteria
established in law should continue apace. In addition, section
566 would prohibit promotion and selection boards from using
involvement in civil-military and community support programs as
a special criteria to evaluate the fitness of members of the
armed forces for promotion, commandor other competitive
selection. Finally, the committee recommends a reduction of $8.0
million in the funding requested for the Department of Defense Civil-
Military Innovative Readiness Training.
Section 567--Continuation of Support to Senior Military Colleges
The section would require that the Secretary of Defense
continue support to the senior military colleges (Texas A&M
University, Norwich University, The Virginia Military
Institute, The Citadel, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, and North Georgia College and State
University) in three principal ways: 1) Retention of the long-
standing commitment by the Army to provide active duty service
for all graduates of the colleges who desire it and who are
recommended for it by their respective professors of military
science; 2) Participation by the active duty personnel assigned
to the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) detachments at
each college in the leadership, academic and military
development of the corps of cadets, beyond ROTC programs; and
3) Continued operation of the ROTC program at each of the
colleges.
Section 568--Restoration of Missing Persons Authorities Applicable to
Department of Defense as in Effect Before Enactment of National Defense
Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1997
This section would restore provisions pertaining to U.S.
prisoners of war, those missing in action, and unaccounted for
persons that were enacted in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) and subsequently
repealed by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201). Specifically, the section would
expand the scope of current law by:
(1) Making it applicable to Department of Defense
civilians and contractors accompanying armed forces in
the field;
(2) Establish a 48-hour suspense for the commander's
initial report of a missing person's status;
(3) Require the theater component commander's
involvement in the initial assessment of a missing
person's status;
(4) Require the status of persons who were last known
alive to be reviewed every 3 years for 30 years
following initial report;
(5) Re-establish criminal penalties for the knowing
and willful withholding of information from a missing
person's file;
(6) Restore the requirement that a status review
board (when making determinations of death) must
provide a description of the location of body, if
recovered, and, if body not identifiable, a
certification by ``a practitioner of an appropriate
forensic science that the body recovered is that of the
missing person;'' and
(7) Restore the ability of certain persons to request
status reviews of a limited number of Korean War cases.
Section 569--Establishment of Sentence of Confinement for Life Without
Eligibility for Parole
This section would add a new article to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice. The new article would establish a court-
martial punishment of confinement for life without parole. This
new punishment could be adjudged for any offense for which
confinement for life is now an authorized punishment. Under
current law, any accused who receives a punishment of
confinement for life may be considered for parole. The section
would also provide that a sentence of life without parole may
only be set aside or modified by the action of the convening
authority, secretary concerned, or other person authorized to
act under normal post-trial review procedures, by court
decision during appellate review, or by presidential pardon.
Punishment of confinement for life without parole would apply
to offenses committed after the date of enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.
Section 570--Limitation on Appeal of Denial of Parole for Offenders
Serving Life Sentence
This section would amend section 952 of title 10, United
States Code, to reflect a change in parole procedures for
individuals convicted by court-martial who receive a punishment
of confinement for life. In the case of a person serving a
sentence of confinement for life who is denied parole, only the
President or the Secretary concerned would be empowered to
grant parole on appeal of that denial. This authority would not
be delegable to subordinate officials.
Section 571--Establishment of Public Affairs Branch in the Army
This section would establish Public Affairs as a special
branch of the Army. The committee expects that as a special
branch, the Army will access, promote, manage, and assign
officers and enlisted personnel of the branch in the same ways
that it does for the other special branches like the Corps of
the Army Medical Department, the Judge Advocate General's
Corps, and Chaplains.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program (AFHPSP)
The President's request contained two provisions that would
allocate $96.4 million to the AFHPSP during fiscal year 1998 to
offset the potential expense to individual scholarship
recipients caused by an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ruling
that the scholarships are taxable as personal income.
The committee is troubled that an IRS ruling can have the
effect of diminishing the effectiveness of a federal program
that must subsequently be revitalized by spending additional
tax revenue. The committee notes that section 747 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public
Law 104-201) expressed the Sense of the Congress that the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Treasury should
work together to find a solution that results in the continued
exclusion of AFHPSP scholarships from gross income. The
committee is disappointed that an agreement could not be
reached, and further, that there is no evidence that the
Secretary of the Defense and the Secretary of the Treasury
personally engaged on this matter when it became clear that an
agreement could not be reached between officials at a lower
management level.
Accordingly, the committee recommends rejection of the two
provisions included in the President's request. The committee
is opposed to the use of tax revenue to reverse the affect of
an IRS ruling in this matter. Before alternative solutions are
considered, the committee requires a joint statement by the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Treasury
explaining why AFHPSP scholarships must be considered taxable.
Communication of Retirement Benefits to New Accessions
The committee is distressed about recent disclosures that
recruiting materials have for decades failed to provide
specific information about the total spectrum of retirement
benefits, or worse, misrepresented the level of benefit that
was authorized. The committee appreciates the anger felt by
many retirees who viewed the commitments made by recruiters
when they entered active duty as promises; promises that the
retirees now know will not be kept.
The committee considers this an intolerable situation that
must be corrected. The committee is aware of initiatives within
the Department of Defense to improve the documents used to
communicate future retirement benefits to recruits.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
report to the House Committee on National Security and the
Senate Committee on Armed Services, not later than January 9,
1998, the full extent of the review of these matters conducted
by the Secretary, a detailed account of the actions taken and
anticipated, a projection as to when all actions will be
complete, and an assessment as to why the Secretary believes
that his plan will provide a lasting solution to the problem.
Additionally, the committee believes that an option should
be considered to guarantee benefits by including the retirement
benefits explanation document as part of the enlistment
contract. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary to
include his assessment of such an option within the report.
Study of Certain Compensation Issues
The committee is concerned about the effectiveness and
efficiency of bonus and pay programs for aviation service,
nuclear trained service members, and sea duty.
The Navy, Marine Corps, and the Air Force have experienced
decreasing retention among aviators as the airline industry has
increased hiring. Since the cost of training a fully qualified
experienced fighter pilot is estimated to exceed $6.0 million,
the committee believes that an effective bonus is essential to
protecting this valuable resource. The committee is aware of
discontent about the structure of compensation for flying
duties among enlisted and non-aviator crew members. A long term
retention problem also exists with nuclear qualified service
members in the Navy. The Navy has operated a series of
retention bonuses to attract and retain the highly skilled
officers and enlisted members needed to safely and effectively
operate the Navy's nuclear power plants. The President's budget
request included a provision to increase the maximum legislated
amounts for the full range of bonuses and pay for nuclear
trained service members. Finally, the committee is aware of
discontent with the level of sea pay and interest within the
Department of the Navy to restructure the program to give
greater incentives for service members to volunteer for sea
duty.
In each case, inflation and changing retention conditions
and attitudes have eroded the effectiveness of these three
compensation programs. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of
the military departments, to study the effectiveness of the
compensation systems used to recruit and retain officers and
enlisted members in aviation service, Navy nuclear duties, and
sea duty. The Secretary should submit a report with the
findings and recommendations resulting from this study to
include three comprehensive legislative proposals to address
the long-term compensation needs within each area of concern to
the House Committee on National Security and the Senate
Committee on Armed Services not later than March 31, 1998.
Tax Deferred Savings Plan
The committee notes that the military services are
considering a proposal to augment the current military
retirement system by permitting military members on active duty
to elect to participate in a tax deferred savings plan. The
plan being considered would limit member contributions to a
maximum of five percent of the member's basic pay and would not
include matching payments by the government. The committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense to report to the
Congressional defense committees his assessment of the program
structure he recommends for adoption and any alternative plans
that were considered in the review process, the potential for
implementation, the contribution of the program to sustaining
the value of the military retirement benefit, and the merits of
the proposal as a tool for shaping and managing the force.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 1998
This section would provide a 2.8 percent military pay raise
as proposed in the President's budget request. Following an
encouraging fiscal year 1997 budget request that for the first
time in four years included a pay raise that kept pace with
inflation, the committee is disappointed that the President's
budget request for fiscal year 1998 reverted back to the ``by
law'' model for military pay raises. The 2.8 percent pay raise
is one half of one percent below the rate of pay increases in
the private sector as measured by the Employment Cost Index
(ECI).
Section 602--Annual Adjustment of Basic Pay and Protection of Member's
Total Compensation While Performing Certain Duty
The committee is concerned that the ``by law'' model
employed by the Department of Defense to set military pay
raises systematically fails to provide the protection against
inflation needed to retain the quality people that serve in the
military today. The decrease to military pay raises described
in the discussion of section 601 results from the legislative
link between military and federal civilian pay increases.
The committee is also concerned that service members are
routinely subjected to reductions in income when they
participate in training exercises. The committee is
recommending provisions in this bill to respond to that
concern. These provisions would authorize additional management
flexibility in the payment of Basic Allowance for Subsistence,
establish a new authority for hardship duty pay, and increase
family separation pay. The committee believes that these
provisions would provide commanders the tools necessary to pay
deployed service members more efficiently and achieve savings
that can be used to protect the level of income of service
members participating in training exercises.
Accordingly, this section would repeal the legislative link
between military and federal civilian pay raises and would
require military pay raises to be independently calculated
using the Employment Cost Index. The provision would also
mandate that a service member's total compensation not be
reduced while assigned to duty away from the member's permanent
duty station or while assigned to duty under field conditions
while at the member's permanent duty station. The provision
would authorize an exception to allow total compensation to be
reduced during periods of such duty when the reductions were
unrelated to the duty being performed. The committee is
committed to ending the financial hardships imposed on members
and their families when the basic allowance for subsistence
(BAS) is terminated during training conducted under field
conditions. Accordingly, the committee authorizes $50.0 million
to pay BAS during training under field conditions and directs
the Secretary of Defense to distribute the funds to the
services according to the priorities established by the
Secretary.
Section 603--Use of Food Cost Information to Determine Basic Allowance
for Subsistence
The committee is concerned that the termination of Basic
Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) during deployment under field
conditions or assignment to sea duty results in financial
hardship for enlisted service members. The committee believes
that service members should not suffer a lower level of income
when deployed than when they are serving at their home station.
Accordingly, this section provides the Secretary of Defense
greater flexibility to continue to pay BAS when rations in kind
are available. The provision would also index the annual growth
in subsistence allowance to increases in the cost of the
moderate food plan of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
repeal the current process of increasing the Basic Allowance
for Subsistence at the same rate as the military pay raise.
The committee believes that the additional flexibility for
paying BAS that would be provided by this section would allow
the Secretary of Defense to maintain income levels for deployed
service members, restore equity in compensation between
different groups of deployed forces, and manage compensation
programs for deployed forces more efficiently.
The committee does not intend that this reform of the BAS
be interpreted as an opportunity to reconsider the tax
treatment of the allowance. The committee firmly believes that
the BAS must remain non-taxable.
Section 604--Consolidation of Basic Allowance for Quarters, Variable
Housing Allowance, and Overseas Housing Allowances
The committee is concerned that the current housing
allowance system comprised of the Basic Allowance for Quarters
and the Variable Housing Allowance, and based on service member
expenditures, is inefficient and rife with inequities. The
committee is also disappointed that the President's budget
request did not include increases in housing allowances above
the level of the pay raise. This is the second year that the
budget request failed to keep the Secretary of Defense's
promise to continue a six year program included in the fiscal
year 1996 budget request to reduce the out-of-pocket housing
costs to the Congressionally established standard of 15 percent
for military members and their families.
Accordingly, this section would consolidate the Basic
Allowance for Quarters and the Variable Housing Allowance and
would authorize $35.0 million to reduce out-of-pocket housing
costs. The new allowance would be based on the cost of adequate
housing for civilians with comparable income levels residing in
the same area as military personnel. The section would index
the annual growth in housing allowances to increases in the
national average monthly cost of housing and repeal the current
process of increasing the Basic Allowance for Quarters at the
same rate as the military pay raise. The provision would also
incorporate the authorities for overseas station housing
allowance and family separation housing allowance and would
protect service members from reductions in the rate of overseas
station allowance not attributable to fluctuations in foreign
currency rates, so long as the member's housing costs have not
been reduced.
The committee does not intend that this reform of housing
allowances be interpreted as an opportunity to reconsider the
tax treatment of military housing allowances. The committee
firmly believes that the housing allowances must remain non-
taxable. The committee does intend that the portion of the new
Basic Allowance for Housing which represents the amount
previously characterized as the Basic Allowance for Quarters
will continue to be reported as earned income for earned income
tax credit purposes.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay
Authorities for Reserve Forces
This section would extend the authority for the selected
reserve reenlistment bonus, the selected reserve enlistment
bonus, the selected reserve affiliation bonus, the ready
reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus, and the prior
service enlistment bonus until September 30, 1999.
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay
Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses, and Nurse
Anesthetists
This section would extend the authority for the nurse
officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for
registered nurses, and the incentive special pay for nurse
anesthetists until September 30, 1999.
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of
Other Bonuses and Special Pays
This section would extend the authority for the aviation
officer retention bonus, special pay for health care
professionals who serve in the selected reserve in critically
short wartime specialties, reenlistment bonus for active
members, enlistment bonuses for critical skills, special pay
for enlisted members of the selected reserve assigned to
certain high priority units, special pay for nuclear qualified
officers extending the period of active service, and nuclear
career accession bonus to September 30, 1999. The provision
would also extend the authority for repayment of educational
loans for certain health professionals who serve in the
selected reserve and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus
until October 1, 1999.
Section 614--Increase in Minimum Monthly Rate of Hazardous Duty
Incentive Pay for Certain Members
This section would increase the amount paid to service
members engaged in certain hazardous duties to $150 a month.
This section would also increase the minimum amount paid to
service members engaged in non-aviator aircrew duties and air
weapons controller aircrew duties to $150 a month, and would
increase the amount paid to service members engaged in free
fall parachute jumping to $225 a month. To provide for the
increases, the committee recommends an increase of $33.6
million in the services' military personnel accounts over the
amount in the budget request.
Section 615--Availability of Multiyear Retention Bonus for Dental
Officers
This section would amend section 301d of title 37, United
States Code, to give the Secretary of Defense discretionary
authority to provide multi-year contracts to dental officers,
particularly critical specialists. These contracts would
obligate dentists for up to four years and would enhance
retention and management of the dental corps. The provision
would require that dentists with a specialty in oral and
maxillofacial surgery with at least eight years of service be
automatically eligible for these contracts.
Section 616--Increase in Variable and Additional Special Pays for
Certain Dental Officers
This section would amend section 302b(a) of title 37,
United States Code, to increase special pay for dental officers
with eight or more years of service. Retention of dental
officers remains a readiness concern for the military services.
Retention of dentists is decreasing for every dental officer
year group. Aggregate retention is 26 percent at 10 years of
service and 13 percent at 20 years, compared to the Army's
ideal force profile which calls for 40-50 percent retention at
10 years and 30-35 percent retention at 20 years. In addition,
the expected length of service was 7.4 years in 1996, down from
11.8 years in 1982.
Section 617--Special Pay for Duty at Designated Hardship Duty Locations
The committee is concerned about inequities in the
compensation of service members when serving in locations that
present quality of life hardships. Furthermore, the committee
believes that service members should not suffer a lower level
of income when deployed or permanently assigned to hardship
locations. Accordingly, this section would establish a hardship
duty pay for service members serving in locations that present
quality of life hardships up to a maximum of $300 a month. The
committee intends that this hardship pay be varied, at the
discretion of the Secretary of Defense, by location, grade,
years of service, or other factors to recognize the level of
hardships at different locations and the frequency and duration
of hardships experienced by individual service members over the
course of a military career.
The committee believes that the payment of hardship duty
pay in coordination with the flexibility authorized in this
bill to pay the Basic Allowance for Subsistence when deployed,
would give the Secretary the compensation tools needed to
ensure that deployed service members are compensated in a fair
and equitable manner.
Section 618--Selected Reserve Reenlistment Bonus
This section would restructure the payment options
available to the secretaries of the military departments for
the selected reserve reenlistment bonus and would extend the
period of eligibility for the bonus from members with less than
10 years total military service to members with less than 14
years service.
Section 619--Selected Reserve Enlistment Bonus for Former Enlisted
Members
This section would restructure the payment options
available to the secretaries of the military departments for
the selected reserve enlistment bonus for former enlisted
members and would extend the period of eligibility for the
bonus from members with less than 10 years total military
service to those with less than 14 years service.
Section 620--Special Pay or Bonuses for Enlisted Members Extending
Tours of Duty Overseas
This section would authorize the payment of a bonus as an
alternative to a monthly special pay to enlisted members who
extend their tours of duty overseas.
Section 621--Increase in Amount of Family Separation Allowance
This section would increase the amount of family separation
allowance paid to service members to $100 a month. To provide
for the increase, the committee recommends an increase of $25.4
million in the services' military personnel accounts over the
amount in the budget request.
Section 622--Change in Requirements for Ready Reserve Muster Duty
Allowance
This section would authorize the payment of the muster duty
allowance not later than 30 days after the service member
performs the duty.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
Section 631--Travel and Transportation Allowances for Dependents of
Member Sentenced by Court-Martial
This section would remove the restrictions on authorizing
travel and transportation allowances to a dependent of a
service member who receives certain court-martial sentences.
Section 632--Dislocation Allowance
This section would establish grade-based rates for
dislocation allowances and would index the annual growth of
dislocation allowances to increases in the national average
monthly cost of housing.
Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters
Section 641--Time in Which Certain Changes in Beneficiary Under
Survivor Benefit Plan May Be Made
This section would remove the requirement that service
members may change the beneficiary for the Survivor Benefit
Plan from a former spouse to a spouse within one year of the
date of remarriage. The committee notes that this provision
does not change any of the other requirements with which the
service member must comply before such a change of beneficiary
could be selected.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 651--Definition of Sea Duty for Purposes of Career Sea Pay
This section would authorize duty on a ship-based staff to
be designated as sea duty for the purpose of qualifying for
career sea pay.
Section 652--Loan Repayment Program for Commissioned Officers in
Certain Health Professions
This section would amend chapter 109 of title 10, United
States Code, to establish an education loan repayment program
for specific health professions. The program would allow the
military departments to repay health professionals' education
loans in return for active-duty service obligations. The
program would serve as an incentive for improving the direct
accession of fully-trained health care specialists needed in
chronically understaffed specialties.
Section 653--Conformance of NOAA Commissioned Officers Separation Pay
to Separation Pay for Members of Other Uniformed Services
This section would remove the limitations on the amount of
separation pay that may be paid to commissioned officers of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
would exclude that portion of separation pay withheld for
income taxes from the amount that must be repaid before
becoming eligible for disability payments from the Department
of Veterans Affairs. This section would conform the separation
pay authority for NOAA commissioned officers with the
separation pay authority for members of the armed services.
Section 654--Reimbursement of Public Health Service Officers for
Adoption Expenses
This section would authorize officers of the Commissioned
Corps of the Public Health Service to receive reimbursement for
adoption expenses in the same manner as members of the armed
forces.
Section 655--Payment of Back Quarters and Subsistence Allowances to
World War II Veterans Who Served as Guerrilla Fighters in the
Philippines
The committee believes that World War II veterans who were
captured by Japanese forces in the territory of the
Philippines, escaped from captivity, and served as guerilla
fighters in the Philippines are deserving of special
consideration regarding the payment of quarters and subsistence
allowances during the period when they served as guerilla
fighters. Accordingly, this section would authorize the payment
of quarters and subsistence allowances to qualified individuals
who served as guerilla fighters during the period from January
1942 through February 1945.
Section 656--Space Available Travel for Members of Selected Reserve
This section would provide authority for members of the
Selected Reserve and their accompanying dependents to receive
transportation on Department of Defense aircraft on a space
available basis under the same terms and conditions that apply
to active duty members of the armed forces and their
dependents.
Section 657--Study on Military Personnel At, Near, or Below the Poverty
Line
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a study of members of the armed forces and their
dependents who subsist at, near, or below the poverty line. The
Secretary would be required to submit the findings of the study
to the Congress not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this act.
Section 658--Implementation of Department of Defense Supplemental Food
Program for Military Personnel Outside the United States
Section 653 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) authorized a supplemental
food program for military members and civilian employees of the
armed services and their families assigned to overseas
locations. The provision specified that the Secretary of
Agriculture would provide the funding to support the program
and the Secretary of Defense would administer the program. The
committee notes that the program has never operated as intended
because funding has never been provided.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense, in
cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to resolve the
funding problem. In the interim, this section would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to use funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense to carry out the supplemental food
program pending receipt of funding from the Secretary of
Agriculture. Additionally, the section would, not later than 90
days from the date of enactment of this act, require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Congress a plan for
implementing the program.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee is concerned that for the second consecutive
year the President's budget request did not provide adequate
funding for the Defense Health Program (DHP). The General
Accounting Office (GAO) estimated the shortfall for fiscal year
1998 to be between $424.0 million and $471.0 million. More
disturbing is the fact that GAO estimated that the health
program costs for fiscal years 1998 to 2003 could be $8.4
billion greater than estimated by the Department of Defense.
In response to Congressional concern that the DHP was once
again used as a funding source for under-funded defense
programs, the committee understands that the Administration
plans to submit a budget amendment to increase the DHP by
$274.0 million. The committee is very concerned that the
proposed budget amendment, which has not yet been received by
Congress, still would not provide for full funding of the
Defense Health Program.
The committee understands that the funding shortfall in the
proposed budget amendment is due in part because the Department
does not provide a cost-growth factor for technology and
intensity of treatment. According to the GAO, the Health Care
Financing Administration and the Institute for Defense Analysis
consider that a cost growth factor of about one or two percent
for technology and intensity of treatment is a reasonable
factor for the Department to apply in estimating the Defense
Health Program budget.
The committee further understands that the President's
budget request contained a $98.0 million reduction in the DHP,
an assumed level of savings from the application of utilization
management techniques. The committee is concerned that a
reduction of this magnitude is not adequately justified. The
GAO concluded that the Department ``did not have managed care
program performance data to permit a more reliable estimate
and, in the absence of such data, did not derive the
utilization management savings assumption from a formal
methodology or analysis.'' The GAO also explained that the
introduction of utilization management generally can be
expected to generate one-time savings, not continuous
additional savings as assumed in the future year defense plan.
In addition to using faulty assumptions to generate
``savings'' in the Defense Health Program, the President's
budget request leaves gaps in the DHP budget by not fully
funding certain programs required by law, such as the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Science.
The consistent under-funding of the Defense Health Program
reflects a serious lack of commitment by the Department to a
key quality of life issue which service members consistently
rank as a top concern. The DHP provides crucial health care
services to millions of men and women who honorably serve or
have served our country. The committee again strongly urges the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that the DHP is fully funded in
fiscal year 1999 and the future year defense plan.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
CHAMPUS as a Second-Payer to Other Health Insurance
The committee is concerned over the Department's recent
policy change in the way the Civilian Health and Medical
Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) provides
reimbursement for health care services after third-party
insurers have paid their share of the service coverage. The
committee understands that CHAMPUS has decided to apply its 115
percent billing limit policy to payments made by other health
insurance. Since many other health insurers reimburse providers
at levels in excess of 115 percent of the CHAMPUS maximum
allowable charge (CMAC), CHAMPUS now rarely pays any remaining
cost to the beneficiary not covered by the other health
insurance. This change is unfair to beneficiaries who have
other health insurance and is seen as a further erosion in
benefits promised to members who made a commitment to serve
their country.
While the committee understands that the new policy is
consistent with Medicare policy, the committee also understands
that the Department of Defense does not have the same ability
to enforce its requirement that health care providers charge
CHAMPUS beneficiaries no more than 115 percent of the CMAC
rate. While Medicare can impose significant fines on providers
who violate the Medicare laws, the Department has no similar
authority. Therefore, the committee strongly urges the
Secretary of Defense to establish mechanisms for enforcing the
requirement that health care providers charge CHAMPUS
beneficiaries no more than 115 percent of the CMAC rate, or
that it continue to pay for health care services when paying as
a second payer to other health insurance under the Department's
previous policy.
Pacific Medical Network
The committee authorizes $5.0 million in procurement to
extend the Pacific Medical Network (PACMEDNET) prototype
capability from Hawaii to the Korean peninsula and other remote
Pacific areas to enhance military readiness and improve the
quality of health care in the Pacific theater. This effort will
ensure that military members and their families stationed in
the Pacific will have access to state-of-the-art medical
expertise and information no matter where in the world medical
experts are physically located.
TRICARE Program
The committee is concerned about several aspects of the
Department of Defense's TRICARE managed health care program.
The committee is most concerned that substantial changes are
being made to the TRICARE program without benefit of a
comprehensive evaluation of the program, as was directed by
section 717 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106). Moreover, the committee
is concerned by a General Accounting Office finding that the
Department does not have a full understanding of the cost
implications of the numerous program changes. Such frequent,
significant and potentially costly changes to this complex
program makes it very difficult to gain a full understanding of
the effectiveness of the program--to accurately measure its
successes, failures and need for modification.
While the committee is pleased with many of the preliminary
findings of a survey of enrollees of TRICARE Prime, the HMO
option--that enrollees are most satisfied with the quality of
medical care they receive through TRICARE Prime, their access
to care through Primeand the convenience of the plan--the
committee believes it is critical for a full evaluation of the program
to be conducted, particularly before significant programmatic changes
are made. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Department hold
the program stable while it conducts a thorough, independent evaluation
of the program's ability to improve beneficiary access to quality
health care in a cost-effective manner.
Stabilizing the program for the period of time needed to
conduct an extensive evaluation would permit the Department to
focus on internal programmatic improvements such as the
portability of enrollment, computer systems support and the
transfer of patient record information to ensure more
appropriate continuity of care and service for beneficiaries.
Additionally, such an evaluation could address concerns being
raised by many health care providers that the TRICARE program
imposes too many administrative burdens on providers, and that
TRICARE reimbursement rates are not adequate in some areas to
attract quality providers. The committee believes that holding
the program stable for the duration of this evaluation would
permit full analysis of these issues so that valid
recommendations for major design changes to improve the program
could then be incorporated into any new or existing contract.
While the committee lauds the Department's effort to
implement capitated budgeting, the committee is concerned that
this effort has not been fully evaluated on a limited basis to
determine whether this concept would result in measurable
improvements to the program. The committee believes that a key
to successful use of capitated budgeting is the strict
enforcement of access standards to ensure that access to care
is not hampered. Without strict enforcement measures, military
treatment facilities may be inclined to enroll more
beneficiaries into TRICARE Prime at the military facility than
the facility can effectively accommodate. As a result, the
primary objective of the TRICARE program--improving access to
care--may be difficult, if not impossible, to meet. Therefore,
while the committee believes that the concept of alternative or
revised financing appears to have merit, the committee
continues to believe that efforts to introduce such financing
mechanisms should be sufficiently tested in only one or two
TRICARE regions prior to full implementation.
Vietnam Repatriated Prisoner of War Program
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in the
Defense Health Program authorization to support the Vietnam
Repatriated Prisoner of War Program (RPOW) at the Center of
Prisoner of War Studies at the Naval Operational Medicine
Institute in Pensacola, Florida. The committee understands that
the RPOW program, a longitudinal study that has been ongoing
for 24 years, is the only repository for prisoner of war case
studies available in the United States and, as such, has
provided a tremendous collection health data on former Navy,
Marine Corps and Air Force prisoners of war (POWs).
Furthermore, the program provides annual physical examinations
to former Navy and Marine Corps POWs who are not eligible for
medical care through the military health services system. The
committee applauds the Naval Operational Medicine Institute for
its efforts in this very worthwhile program.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Health Care Services
Section 701--Expansion of Retiree Dental Insurance Plan to Include
Surviving Spouse and Child Dependents of Certain Deceased Members
This section would amend section 1076c(b)(4) of title 10,
United States Code, to allow the survivors of members who died
while on active duty to participate in the Retiree Dental
Insurance Plan.
Section 702--Provision of Prosthetic Devices to Covered Beneficiaries
This section would amend section 1077(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to allow for prosthetic devices to be
provided to CHAMPUS beneficiaries for significant conditions,
as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
Subtitle B--TRICARE Program
Section 711--Addition of Definition of TRICARE Program to Title 10
This section would amend section 1072 of title 10, United
States Code, to include a definition of the TRICARE Program.
Section 712--Plan for Expansion of Managed Care Option of TRICARE
Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
prepare a plan for expanding the managed care option of
TRICARE--TRICARE Prime--into areas located outside the
catchment areas of military treatment facilities where the
Department determines it is cost effective to do so.
The committee understands that there are certain rural
areas where it would be difficult to establish a provider
network to support TRICARE Prime. However, certain locations
outside catchment areas may be ideal for this option due to the
size of the beneficiary population at the location, as well as
the existence of sufficient civilian health care provider
networks.
This section also would require the Secretary of Defense to
evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of providing a
health care stipend or a reduction in CHAMPUS cost-sharing
requirements to active-duty members stationed in areas where it
is not cost-effective or feasible to establish a managed-care
option because there are few or no civilian health care
provider networks in existence.
Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities
Section 721--Implementation of Designated Provider Agreements for
Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities
This section would amend section 722(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-
201) to clarify the implementation date of the designated
provider program of the Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities
(USTFs). This provision would allow for the USTFs to begin
delivery of health care services as a designated providerwithin
six months of signing the new designated provider agreement with the
Department of Defense, or upon implementation of TRICARE in the USTFs
region, whichever date is later.
Section 722--Limitation on Total Payments
This section would clarify the limitation on total program
payments established in section 726(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201).
Section 723--Continued Acquisition of Reduced-Cost Drugs
This provision would allow the Uniform Services Treatment
Facilities to continue to purchase pharmaceuticals under the
preferred pricing levels applicable to government agency
purchases.
Subtitle D--Other Changes to Existing Laws Regarding Health Care
Management
Section 731--Waiver or Reduction of Copayments Under Overseas Dental
Program
This section would amend section 1076a(h) of title 10,
United States Code, to waive the dental copayment requirements
for family members of active-duty members stationed overseas
when they receive host-nation dental care under the Overseas
Dental Program. The waiving of the cost-sharing requirements
will afford family members the same level of dental benefit
overseas that is available when they are stationed stateside.
Additionally, this provision would eliminate a difficult
administrative requirement to apply and track the application
of cost shares. As a result, host-nation providers would be
more likely to treat beneficiaries since they would no longer
be required to perform these cumbersome administrative
procedures.
Section 732--Premium Collection Requirements for Medical and Dental
Insurance Programs
This section would amend section 1076b(b) and 1076c(c) of
title 10, United States Code, to change the premium method
prescribed for the Selected Reserve Dental Program and the
Retiree Dental Program. Title 10 currently directs the
Secretary of Defense to deduct and withhold the premium for
coverage by the dental plan from the basic pay of a reservist
or the retired pay of a retired member.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) does not
currently have the capability to deduct premium costs from the
basic pay of selected reservists or the retired pay of retirees
and indicates that that capability will not be available for
two years. As a result, in order for the Department of Defense
to meet the October 1, 1997 prescribed start date for these
programs, the premium collection procedures need to be amended.
The committee is concerned that DFAS does not yet have the
capability to collect the premiums for these programs as
directed by the current law. When the Selected Reserve Dental
Program was established in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996, (Public Law 104-106) the committee
understood that DFAS was in the process of preparing to
implement this capability based on the congressional directive
that premiums be withheld from the basic pay of the reserve
member, as well as a requirement for the Department to
establish procedures for retired service members to pay the
annual enrollment fee for TRICARE Prime by allotment. However,
the committee understands that DFAS still has no mechanism in
place for withholding program premiums from either the basic
pay of reserve members or the retired pay of military retirees,
or for allowing retirees to pay their TRICARE enrollment fees
by allotment. As a result, this provision also would require
the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan for the timely
implementation of the necessary capabilities within the DFAS.
Section 733--Consistency Between CHAMPUS and Medicare in Payment Rates
for Services
This section would amend section 1079(h) of title 10,
United States Code, to provide for greater consistency between
CHAMPUS reimbursement rates for health care services and
Medicare reimbursement rates.
The committee has learned that in some cases CHAMPUS rates
are below Medicare reimbursement rates, and that providers
often are reluctant to serve CHAMPUS beneficiaries in these
cases. This provision would require the CHAMPUS rates to be
consistent with Medicare, except in those cases where the
Secretary of Defense determines that higher CHAMPUS
reimbursement rates are needed to ensure access to care. Also,
with the consent of the health care provider, this section
would allow the Secretary to authorize payments below the
Medicare rate.
Section 734--Use of Personal Services Contracts for Provision of Health
Care Services and Legal Protection for Providers
A recent opinion by the Department of Justice has
determined that fee-basis physicians--part-time employees who
provide medical qualification examinations to military-service
applicants at Military Entrance Processing Command stations--
are not covered by the government malpractice liability
coverage that covers civil service employees. This section
would clarify that personal services contract employees
providing health care services, including fee-basis physicians,
are covered by the same malpractice litigation rules as other
Department of Defense health care providers. The section would
also enable the Secretary of Defense the authority to provide
for reasonable attorney's fees in any litigation in which
government attorneys do not provide representation.
Section 735--Portability of State Licenses for Department of Defense
Health Care Professionals
This section would amend section 1094 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize members of the armed forces licensed
to practice medicine and other health professions to practice
such professions in any state, the District of Columbia, or a
territory or possession of the United States while performing
authorized duties for the Department of Defense.
All military health professionals are required to maintain
current professional licenses that authorize them to provide
health services independently as health professionals. The
licenses allow them to provide health care in military
treatment facilities in any state, but they will not allow them
to provide health services outside military treatment
facilities for any purpose, not even for rendering services to
military beneficiaries. This provision would remove the
licensing obstacle that prevents military health professionals
from practicing outside militaryfacilities, consistent with the
Public Health Service Act (section 254f(e) of title 42, United States
Code), that allows Public Health Service members licenses in one state
to provide professional services in any state.
Section 736--Standard Form and Requirements Regarding Claims for
Payment for Services
This section would amend section 1106 of title 10, United
States Code, to eliminate the requirement for non-participating
providers who provide services to Civilian Health and Medical
Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) beneficiaries to
submit claims for payment for services on behalf of the
beneficiary. This requirement has had the unintended effect of
impeding access to care for military beneficiaries.
Section 737--Medical Personnel Conscience Clause
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a uniform policy with regard to a conscience clause
for abortion and family planning services. Under this policy,
medical personnel who, for moral, ethical, or religious
reasons, object to performing an abortion or to providing
family planning services will not be required to perform such
procedures unless their refusal to do so poses life-threatening
risks to the patient.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 741--Continued Admission of Civilians as Students in Physician
Assistant Training Program of Army Medical Department
This section would amend chapter 407 of title 10, United
States Code, to permanently continue a demonstration program
established by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337) that authorized the
Secretary of the Army to allow students from civilian
accredited institutions of higher education to attend physician
assistant training at the Academy of Health Sciences at Fort
Sam Houston, Texas, in return for the provision of certain
academic services from the civilian institution.
The demonstration program, which has helped improve health
care services to medically under-served areas of Texas, was
initiated by the late Representative Frank Tejeda. The
continuation of this worthwhile program is dedicated in his
honor.
Section 742--Emergency Health Care in Connection with Overseas
Activities of On-Site Inspection Agency of the Department of Defense
This section would amend chapter 152 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to pay for
emergency health care services obtained by a military member,
civilian employee, or contractor employee of the On-Site
Inspection Agency while on permanent or temporary duty in a
former Soviet Union or former Warsaw Pact state.
Section 743--Comptroller General Study of Adequacy and Effect of
Maximum Allowable Charges for Physicians under CHAMPUS
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to study the adequacy of the CHAMPUS
reimbursement rates and the effect of these rates on the
participation of physicians in CHAMPUS.
The committee has received numerous complaints from
beneficiaries and providers that physicians are no longer
serving CHAMPUS beneficiaries because providers are not being
reimbursed in a timely manner, and they are not receiving
adequate reimbursement to tolerate such delays. The committee
is concerned that beneficiary access to care not be denied
because of slow reimbursement procedures or low reimbursement
rates. This study is intended to identify possible remedies for
improving access to care.
Section 744--Comptroller General Study of Department of Defense
Pharmacy Programs
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to evaluate the pharmacy programs of the
Department of Defense. The study would examine the merits and
feasibility of establishing a uniform formulary for military
treatment facility pharmacies and civilian contractor
pharmacies.
The committee has received complaints from beneficiaries
about being unable to receive certain prescribed medications at
certain military pharmacies. The committee is concerned that
many military facilities are severely reducing pharmacy
formularies as a cost-saving measure. In some cases, these
efforts may simply result in the shifting of costs from the
individual facility to the Defense Health Program since
beneficiaries may be forced to use TRICARE contractor
pharmacies at an increased cost to both the Department of
Defense and the beneficiary. This study is intended to identify
solutions for providing for more uniform, cost-effective
pharmacy programs.
Section 745--Comptroller General Study of Navy Graduate Medical
Education Program
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to evaluate recommendations made by the Medical
Education Policy Council of the Navy Bureau of Medicine and
Surgery to restructure the Navy's graduate medical education
program. The provision would prohibit the Navy from making any
changes to its graduate medical education program until the
evaluation is completed and a report on the findings of the
evaluation is submitted to Congress. The provision requires the
report to be submitted by March 1, 1998.
Section 746--Study of Expansion of Pharmaceuticals by Mail Program to
Include Additional Medicare-Eligible Covered Beneficiaries
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report to Congress, within six months of enactment of
this act, on the feasibility, advisability and cost of
extending the current mail-order pharmacy program for Medicare-
eligible beneficiaries operating in areas affected by base
closures to all Medicare-eligible beneficiaries who do not
reside near a military medical treatment facility.
Medicare-eligible retirees who live near a military medical
facility may obtain prescription drugs from that facility.
However, a large percentage of these beneficiaries reside
outside of the 40-mile catchment area of a military medical
facility. These beneficiaries either must drive long distances
to receive their prescription drugs or pay full retail prices
to fill their prescriptions. The committee received testimony
from the General Accounting Office that a mail-order pharmacy
program for Medicare-eligible retirees and their families who
do not live near a military medical treatment facility would
fill a significant gap in the medical coverage of military
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries since Medicare generally does
not provide a pharmacy benefit.
The Department of Defense and Congress currently are
evaluating various options for ensuring the continued, full
medical coverage of Medicare-eligible military beneficiaries.
The committee has long supported efforts to enact legislation
that would require the Health Care Financing Administration,
the agency that manages the Medicare program, to reimburse the
Department of Defense for health care services provided to
Medicare-eligible military beneficiaries (a concept known as
``Medicare subvention''). Currently, the committee is
participating in a joint House and Senate task force effort to
enact a Medicare subvention demonstration program. The Medicare
subvention proposal under discussion, which if enacted would be
part of legislation other than the National Defense
Authorization Act, would require the Department to provide
certain ``in-kind'' services, such as a pharmacy benefit.
Therefore, in light of this requirement, and while efforts to
evaluate other benefit options are ongoing, the committee
believes the Department should fully evaluate the feasibility
and desirability of establishing a mail-order pharmacy program
to ensure that all Medicare-eligible military beneficiaries
have access to inexpensive prescription drugs.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Cost Accounting Standards Board
On June 25, 1996, the chairmen of the committees on
National Security and Government Reform and Oversight directed
the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a study
analyzing and assessing the mission of the Cost Accounting
Standards Board in light of acquisition reform. The study was
due at the end of calendar year 1996.
To date, the study has not been initiated or submitted to
the committees. Therefore, the committee reiterates its
interest in the GAO proceeding with the study, as prescribed in
the June 25, 1996 correspondence, and submitting
recommendations to the committees on National Security and
Government Reform and Oversight no later than the end of this
calendar year or as soon as practicable thereafter.
Management Responsibility for Acquisition Policy
In the report on H.R. 1530, the fiscal year 1996 Defense
authorization bill (H. Rept. 104-131), the committee noted that
the Department's current organizational structure may have
unnecessarily bifurcated the functional responsibility for
development and implementation of acquisition policy. The
committee remains concerned that this arrangement has led to
confusion over who within the Department is charged with
determining the scope, pace and overall direction of
acquisition reform policy. The committee is further concerned
over recent efforts to diminish the role and responsibility of
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition Reform)
position, which remains vacant. The committee understands that
the responsibility for entire functions, such as electronic
commerce, have been proposed for transfer to other
organizations, diluting the focus and effectiveness of this
office.
The committee remains convinced that acquisition reform
still needs an internal advocate within the Department to
advance, both internally and externally, the recent reform
initiatives and to continue to move forward with other reforms
where appropriate. Such an advocate should be afforded the
necessary functional responsibility, bureaucratic clout, access
to senior decision makers and staff resources to continue to
guide the Department down the path of aggressive reforms in the
acquisition system. The committee remains concerned that recent
steps by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology may be undermining this goal and strongly urges the
Secretary to take immediate action to ensure that the
acquisition reform function remains an effective component of
the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Training and Education of the Acquisition Workforce
In 1990, the committee conducted a thorough assessment on
the quality and professionalism, as well as the education and
training, of the defense acquisition workforce. The committee's
year long review resulted in the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Improvement Act (DAWIA), enacted as part of the Fiscal Year
1991 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991
(Public Law 101-510). This landmark legislation was aimed at
creating a professional acquisition corps within each military
service-an issue of concern to this day.
In the past, inadequate training of program management and
procurement personnel frequently contributed to the systemic
deficiencies in the defense acquisition system. Today, such
training is essential to the prompt and effective
implementation of recent acquisition reform legislation and
administrative directives. The breadth and depth of these
efforts are dependent upon ensuring that those involved in the
process are fully trained and educated and have incorporated
this knowledge in their day-to-day activities. Indeed, new
procedures and authorities are dependent on the ability of the
workforce to master new skills such as market research, capital
planning and budgeting, and commercial item acquisition.
The committee recognizes that a number of initiatives aimed
at improving the education and training of the acquisition
workforce already have been undertaken. These initiatives
include: the establishment of the Defense Acquisition
University's Acquisition Reform Communications Council,
utilization of the Federal Acquisition Institute, the creation
of the DOD Deskbook, the establishment of a Commercial
Advocates Forum, and the development of the National Council of
Acquisition Professionalism. Most of these new resources are
non-traditional methods of education and training-allowing for
increased distance learning and improved real time access to
new materials. The committee encourages the continued, and
expanded, use of such new and innovative methods of training
the workforce-methods that go beyond the traditional classroom
training (e.g. at specified locations which often requires
extensive travel and time away from the job).
Furthermore, the committee believes that a number of other
steps could be taken to enhance the education and training of
the workforce. For example, greater involvement in curriculum
development by the private sector, in coordination with the
Defense Acquisition University, would add useful and important
perspectives to the development of education and training
materials provided to the workforce. In addition, limited
training and education opportunities are often cited as an
important obstacle to the goal of ensuring that both the
government and industry acquisition personnel are fully
informed of the continuing changes in acquisition policy.
Greater use of innovative and non-traditional educational tools
available in the private sector has the potential to be of
great assistance to the Department in addressing this problem.
Finally, given the significant reductions in the overall
size of the acquisition workforce endorsed by the committee, it
is even more critical that acquisition reform changes be fully
integrated throughout the Department. The sweeping procedural
changes inherent to these reforms should invariably lead to
process, organizational and structural reforms, many of which
should lead to the elimination of existing acquisition
positions. Therefore, in allocating limited acquisition
workforce education and training resources, the committee
strongly urges the Department to ensure that such resources
arefocused on positions that will continue to remain relevant following
the mandated reductions and restructuring.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy
Section 801--Case-by-Case Waivers of Domestic Source Limitations
Section 810 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) extended the Secretary of
Defense the authority to waive application of the domestic
course limitations of section 2534 of title 10, United States
Code, if he determines that such limitations ``would impede the
reciprocal procurement of defense items under a memorandum of
understanding providing for reciprocal procurement of defense
items that is entered into under section 2531'' and also
determines that that country does not discriminate against
U.S.-produced defense products.
Shortly following enactment of this law, the committee
requested clarification from the Department as to how this
expanded waiver authority would implemented. The committee
received a written response from the Director of Defense
Procurement stating that ``We plan to implement the McCain
amendment by permitting case-by-case waivers based on written
determinations by the Military Departments.'' The response also
transmitted the planned changes to the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulations Supplement implementing this policy.
Therefore, the committee was surprised and offended in
receiving word that the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology, a few weeks before his scheduled
departure from that office, issued a determination dated April
7, 1997 invoking a blanket waiver of all limitations under
section 2534 for all countries with which the United States has
memoranda of understanding. This action stands in direct
contradiction and violation of the position communicated to the
committee on how the Department intended to implement the
expanded waiver authority.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec.
801) that would amend section 2534 of title 10, United States
Code, to ensure that the waiver authority contained within this
section can only be exercised on a case-by-case basis and not
in a blanket manner. The committee specifically intends and
directs that this provision render null and void the
``Determination and Waiver'' signed by the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology and dated April 7, 1997.
Finally, the committee is concerned that this episode may
place in doubt its ability to consider future provisions of law
affording the Secretary of Defense discretion in exercising
waivers and other mechanisms of legal convenience. Without some
assurance that the Department's representations to the
committee can be trusted and that deviations to such
representations require, at minimum, an obligation on behalf of
the Department to extend the committee prior notice or
consultation, the committee will be hard pressed but to pursue
the most restrictive course of action in considering future
legislation.
Section 802--Expansion of Authority To Enter Into Contracts Crossing
Fiscal Years to All Severable Services Contracts Not Exceeding a Year
This section would expand the authority of the Secretary of
Defense or the Secretary of a military department to enter into
severable service contracts which begin in one fiscal year and
end in the next fiscal year.
Section 803--Clarification of Vestiture of Title Under Contracts
This section would establish in statute the title vesting
provisions currently used by the Department of Defense in
contractual agreements involving certain forms of contract
financing.
Section 804--Exclusion of Disaster Relief, Humanitarian, and
Peacekeeping Operations From Restrictions on Use of Undefinitized
Contract Actions
This section would amend section 2326 of title 10, United
States Code to add disaster relief, humanitarian, and
peacekeeping operations to the types of operations for which
the head of an agency may waive the limits on the use
undefinitized contracts.
Section 805--Limitation and Report on Payment of Restructuring Costs
Under Defense Contracts
This section would codify in title 10, United States Code,
the policy restrictions contained in section 8115 of the
Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law
104-208) relating to the allowability of restructuring costs
under defense contracts and requiring a determination by the
Secretary of Defense that the proposed business combination
will lead to savings that are at least twice the amount of the
costs allowed. This section would also consolidate the
requirements of section 818 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 into a new title 10,
United States Code, provision.
Section 806--Authority Relating to Purchase of Certain Vehicles
This section would amend section 2253 of title 10, United
States Code by increasing the limit on the cost of purchase of
right hand drive vehicles from $15,000 to $30,000.
Section 807--Multiyear Procurement Contracts
This section would require that no future multiyear
procurement contract may be entered into by the Secretary of
Defense unless such contract is specifically authorized by law
in an act other than an appropriations act. This section would
also codify various requirements that the Secretary of Defense
must meet in order to either enter into or terminate a
multiyear procurement contract.
Section 808--Domestic Source Limitation Amendments
This section would amend section 2534 of title 10, United
States Code, to add shipboard work stations to the list of
naval vessel components required to be procured from domestic
sources. This section would also make permanent the expired
requirement to procure certain valves and machine tools from
domestic sources.
Section 809--Repeal of Expiration of Domestic Source Limitation for
Certain Naval Vessel Propellers
This section would amend section 2534 of title 10, United
States Code, to make the existing limitation on the procurement
of naval vessel propellers permanent.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Section 821--Repeal of Certain Acquisition Reports and Requirements
This section would repeal a number of miscellaneous
acquisition related reporting requirements.
Section 822--Extension of Authority for use of Test and Evaluation
Installations by Commercial Entities
This section would amend section 2681 of title 10, United
States Code, to extend the expiration of existing authority
allowing Department of Defense test and evaluation facilities
to make excess capacity available to the commercial sector.
Section 823--Requirement to Develop and Maintain List of Firms Not
Eligible for Defense Contracts
This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop and maintain a list of firms that have been designated
ineligible for Department of Defense (DOD) contracts because
they are owned or controlled by governments of countries that
support terrorism. This required list would be used to prevent
firms on the list from performing as subcontractors on DOD
contracts. The Department of Defense would provide a copy of
the list to each firm that submits a bid in response to a DOD
solicitation. Such firms responding to DOD solicitations would
not use a firm on the list for equipment, parts, or services in
the performance of a DOD contract.
Under section 2327(a) of title 10, United States Code, a
firm responding to a DOD solicitation must disclose if it is
owned or controlled by the government of a foreign country that
the Secretary of State has determined to repeatedly support
acts of international terrorism. Under section 2327(b), the
Department of Defense cannot award a contract to such a firm.
However, this provision only applies to prime contractors. If a
subcontractor of a firm performing on a DOD contract is owned
by a foreign country that supports international terrorism,
section 2327 does not prohibit their performance as a
subcontractor.
The committee notes that such treatment of subcontractors
owned by governments that support terrorism is inconsistent
with the spirit of section 2327 of title 10. The committee
believes that foreign governments that support international
terrorism must in no way stand to benefit from Department of
Defense contracts.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Armed Services Patent Advisory Board
The committee is aware that the Armed Services Patent
Advisory Board is responsible for coordinating security reviews
of patent applications to determine if they contain sensitive
technical information, the public release of which would be
detrimental to national security. In performing this function,
the Board fulfills the role assigned to the Department of
Defense under chapter 17 of title 35, United States Code. The
Patent Advisory Board is an unfunded program and as such, is
staffed with personnel from the legal offices of the military
departments.
However, the committee notes that the Defense Technology
Security Administration (DTSA) carries out near the same
technology security review function when reviewing export
license applications to determine if the technologies involved
would harm national security if exported to foreign entities.
In fact, the Defense Technology Security Administration and the
Patent Advisory Board confer with many of the same technical
experts at field activities of the military departments. The
DTSA staff possesses technical knowledge that enable it to
prescreen items before resorting to military field activities
for analyses. A DTSA review can therefore be more expeditious
than reviews coordinated by the Patent Advisory Board, since
Board personnel are primarily legal staff members with limited
knowledge of defense technologies.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to terminate the Armed Services Patent Advisory Board and
transfer its functions to the Defense Technology Security
Administration. While the committee recognizes that as an
unfunded program the Board's termination would not necessarily
result in cost savings, the committee believes that transfer of
the security review function to the Defense Technology Security
Administration would result in more expeditious and thorough
reviews.
Defense Acquisition Workforce
In the 104th Congress, the committee addressed specific
concerns with the size and number of acquisition organizations
and positions relative to the declining Department of Defense
(DOD) budget and modernization program. Many of the acquisition
reforms initiated by the committee were intended to ultimately
reduce costs both to the private sector as well as the federal
government. Full implementation of acquisition reforms can, and
should, also result in fundamental changes and reductions in
the structure of the Department's acquisition organizations.
Specifically, it was the intent of the committee in relieving
the Department from the burden of administering various
antiquated and restrictive federal procurement laws that
substantially fewer acquisition personnel would be required.
In seeking to establish a balance between the Department's
diminished modernization program and the Department's
acquisition bureaucracy, the committee supported moderate
reductions in acquisition personnel in section 906 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106) and section 902 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201).
The committee understands that in implementing these
reductions, the Department exceeded the Congressional mandates
in fiscal year 1996 and plans to do so again in fiscal year
1997.
In addition to seeking overall reductions in personnel, the
committee sought to engage the Department in determining the
appropriate structure and organization of its future
acquisition system. Section 906 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)
required the Department to examine consolidation and
reorganization options and report to Congress on its
recommendations. Unfortunately, the report provided by the
Department demonstrated no real effort to consider the various
organizational and management options identified by the law
and, not surprisingly, failed to propose any significant
alterations to the current acquisition structure.
The committee notes the 1995 Commission on Roles and
Missions (CORM) sharply criticized the Department's acquisition
organizations for maintaining redundant staffs and facilities
for many types of common acquisition support activities.
Therefore, the committee rejects the Department's conclusion in
its report to Congress pursuant to section 906 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106) that it has adequately assessed and implemented options
for restructuring its acquisition organizations for the
purposes of improved efficiency.
The committee strongly disagrees with the Department's
assertion that increased downsizing of the workforce would
place at risk the ability of the Department to equip combat
forces and modernize against future threats. Rather, the
committee regards the disproportionate size of the defense
acquisition personnel workforce and infrastructure relative to
the dramatically reduced procurement accounts as a serious
drain upon current and future resources. The committee believes
that the Department's continued refusal to restructure and
streamline acquisition infrastructure will result in the
squandering of resources urgently needed to offset
modernization, readiness and quality of life shortfalls.
Defense Boards and Commissions
The committee is aware the Department of Defense (DOD) has,
in response to Presidential Executive Order 12838,
``Termination and Limitation of Federal Advisory Committees,''
reduced discretionary boards and commissions by almost one-
third since 1993. In compliance with section 1054 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106), the Department of Defense submitted a report to
Congress on the merits of remaining DOD boards and commissions.
The Department failed, however, to propose any significant
further elimination of its advisory committees. The committee
notes the current 53 discretionary and statutorily established
boards and commissions, to include the Advisory Group on
Electron Devices, Armed Forces Epidemiological Board, and
Inland Waterways Users Board, will cost an estimated $16.2
million in fiscal year 1997. The committee is concerned that
many of the Department's statutory and discretionary boards and
commissions may have outlived their original purpose.
Defense Reorganization
The post Cold War global security environment has witnessed
dramatic reductions in the size and capability of the U.S.
military force structure while the organizational composition
of the Department of Defense, especially at the management
level, has remained largely unchanged. Since 1987, the Army has
lost eight active divisions, the Navy has decommissioned three
carriers and over 200 ships, and the Air Force has cut 12
active and five reserve tactical wings. Notably, 1997 active
duty personnel levels are equivalent to 1950 pre-Korean War
levels. Meanwhile, from 1985 to 1996, the Office of the
Secretary increased its staff 40 percent, military department
headquarters continue to maintain redundant staffs, and, in
spite of a 70 percent drop in procurement accounts since 1985,
the Department's acquisition infrastructure has remained
largely static.
The committee maintains that the Department currently has
sufficient authority to reorganize and restructure itself but
has demonstrated little willingness to pursue such reforms. Not
since the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433) has the
defense establishment undergone significant scrutiny and
reform.
To address these disturbing trends, the committee undertook
a number of initiatives during the 104th Congress to encourage
and compel the Department to focus on these matters and arrive
at its own options and solutions. The committee deliberately
chose not to legislate specific prescriptive remedies on the
belief that the Department was better suited to develop such
detail on its own. Therefore, the committee provided the
Department with broad guidance and, where possible, relief from
existing statutory limitations and dictates on organizational
matters. To the committee's continuing disappointment, the
Department's response to these efforts has ranged from passive
resistance to outright defiance of statutory direction. After
two years of attempting a preferred approach of cooperation and
collaboration, the committee finds itself no further along in
effecting the necessary change in the Department's management
and organizational structure.
The committee reaffirms its commitment to pursuing
meaningful management reform of the Department of Defense and
intends to make this goal a principal focus of its oversight
and legislative activities for the remainder of this Congress.
Management Headquarters and Headquarters Support Personnel
The committee continues to be concerned with the size and
cost of the Department's management headquarters and
headquarters support activities. The committee believes the
Department needs to further examine the structure and size of
its management headquarters and headquarters support activities
to eliminate unnecessary duplication, outdated modes of
organization, and wasteful inefficiencies.
The committee notes with concern that the Department has
yet to submit the report and recommendations required by
section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201). While the Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) has cited reducing and streamlining
management headquarters and headquarters support activities as
a priority, it has postponed implementation of reductions until
another internal study reviews the issue and makes
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense by August 29, 1997.
The committee is encouraged with the QDR's assertion that
the reduction of layers of oversight at headquarters and
operational commands and elimination of management and support
personnel will yield 10,000 military and 14,000 civilian
positions. The committee concurs with the need to drawdown
unnecessary infrastructure and supports the Department in this
regard.
The committee is aware of several organizations that have
not been reported by DOD as management headquarters or
headquarters support, but appear to be performing those
functions. These organizations include the Air Force Studies
and Analyses Agency, U.S. Army's Forces Command Field Support
Activity, Air Combat Command's Studies and Analyses Squadron,
and the U.S. Atlantic Command's Information Systems Support
Group. Furthermore, the committee understands only a portion of
the headquarters staffs of the DOD Inspector General and some
Defense Agencies are reported by DOD as being management
headquarters or headquarters support. For example, none of the
headquarters of the numbered air forces are currently reported
(although they were in the past), and the Navy's Program
Executive Offices apparently have not been reported in spite of
the DOD directive requiring their inclusion.
The committee understands the Department will address the
inadequacies of the current definition of management
headquarters and headquarters support activities in its August
29, 1997 report to the Secretary. Accordingly, the committee
expects the aforementioned inconsistencies will be addressed in
the August report.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 901--Limitation on Operation and Support Funds for the Office
of the Secretary of Defense
The committee in the 104th Congress passed a series of
measures designed to improve the organization of the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The basis of the committee's
action was concern with the expanding and evolving scope of OSD
staff responsibilities at the expense of the primary role of
enhancing the Secretary's decision making ability. While active
duty forces were cut 33 percent over the last ten years and
have been required to adapt innovative resource management
techniques, OSD increased its size by 40 percent. The committee
continues to be concerned with OSD's unwillingness to modify
its excessive management structure in spite of the overwhelming
fiscal pressures facing the rest of the Department. The
committee believes OSD has deliberately avoided any downsizing
effort and has elected not to lead the Department by example.
The committee notes with concern the Department's non-
compliance with section 901 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)
requiring a report on specific plans for improving
organizational efficiency and effectiveness of the Office of
the Secretary. The committee was disappointed to learn the
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) postponed consideration of OSD
reorganization pending an internal review panel. The committee
believes the Department has been provided ample time to comply
with section 901 and fails to support the rationale behind
delaying these important issues. Specifically, the QDR states
the Task Force on Reform will commence its examination of OSD
in the spring of 1997 and will report its findings by November
30, 1997, almost two years after the law required.
The committee strongly believes OSD should reduce its size
and report to Congress pursuant to section 901 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106). The committee recognizes OSD is not implementing
personnel reductions at a rate sufficient to achieve the
statutory requirement by October 1, 1997, as specified in
section903 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201). Accordingly, the committee recommends a
provision (sec. 901) that would reduce the funding associated with the
operation and support activities of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense by 20 percent, as reflected within section 301 of this bill,
and would restrict the obligation of 10 percent of authorized funding
until the Department conforms to the statutory requirement to provide
reports as required by section 901 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106) and section
904 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(Public Law 104-201).
Section 902--Components of National Defense University
This section would modify the definition of the National
Defense University by adding the Information Resources
Management College, and would also clarify the authority of the
Secretary of Defense to hire professors, lecturers and
instructors for the Information Resources Management College.
Section 903--Authorization for the Marine Corps University to Employ
Civilian Professors
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
employ civilian professors at any of the seven colleges within
the Marine Corps University whose principal course of
instruction is 10-months or more long.
Section 904--Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs
Section 904 would mandate the establishment of a Center for
the Study of Chinese Military Affairs at the National Defense
University. This center would provide a focus for academic
study to develop understanding of Chinese political, security
and military strategy; military operational art; tactical and
organizational doctrine; and similar and related subjects. The
center is intended to provide senior Department of Defense
officials and the broader policy-making community with
independent analysis of these issues.
The committee emphasizes that the success of the center in
fulfilling its mandate would be dependent upon the quality of
its leadership and scholarship and its ability to operate in a
manner removed from political influence of any kind. The
center's director must be a distinguished scholar and possess
the management skills necessary to shape the center's research
toward a cohesive end. The director also must serve as a strong
advocate for the center's academic independence.
The center's prime mission would be to provide detailed
analysis of Chinese military affairs. However, the center also
should balance this requirement with the requirement to place
military affairs in context. Consequently, the committee urges
the that the center take a comprehensive ``net assessment''
approach to its research. The committee also directs that the
center publish a report summarizing its research and the
conclusions of that research not later than December 31, 1998
and following on an annual basis in succeeding years. This
report should also provide a summary analysis of current and
projected Chinese military capabilities and their relationship
to Chinese strategic goals.
The committee believes a key strategic question for the
United States in the coming century will be the role played by
an increasingly powerful China in military and security
affairs. The committee regards the center as an important tool
for developing a deeper understanding of the factors shaping
the answer to that question. Therefore, the committee directs
that, of the amounts available to the Secretary of Defense for
Defense-wide operation and maintenance, excluding funds
otherwise available for the operations of the National Defense
University and with no offsetting reduction in funds available
to the National Defense University, the Secretary shall make
$5.0 million available for the center.
Section 905--White House Communications Agency
This section would limit funding for the White House
Communications Agency (WHCA) to an amount slightly below fiscal
year 1997 levels. The committee has been concerned that WHCA's
functions and activities have been greatly expanded beyond its
initial mission of providing telecommunications support to the
President.
The limitations proposed by this section are intended to
ensure compliance with the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) which requires the
Secretary of Defense, starting in fiscal year 1998, to ensure
that support services provided on a nonreimbursable basis by
the White House Communications Agency be limited to the
provision of telecommunications support to the President, Vice
President, and related elements. The act also requires the
Secretary of Defense to report to Congress at the end of each
quarter of fiscal year 1997 on the non-telecommunication
support services that were provided by the White House
Communications Agency to the President during the preceding
quarter. The Secretary of Defense provided the first of these
statutorily required reports on May 13, 1997. The report
indicates the total cost of non-telecommunications support
services provided by the White House Communications Agency
during the first quarter of fiscal year 1997 was approximately
$2.2 million.
This section would limit WHCA operation and maintenance
funds to $55.0 million for fiscal year 1998. The budget
justification documents provided to the committee inadequately
support an increase over the fiscal year 1997 level. Further,
limiting WHCA operation and maintenance to $55.0 million
represents a reduction from the fiscal year 1997 level by an
amount equivalent to the cost of non-telecommunication support
services. The committee notes that the White House can still
continue to receive non-telecommunication support services from
WHCA as needed on a reimbursable basis.
The committee further believes there is no justification
for non-telecommunication support services to be provided to
the President by military personnel assigned to the White House
Communications Agency, as non-telecommunication support
services can be just as effectively provided by civilian
personnel. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a review of the services and functions of
the White House Communications Agency to determine which of
those services and functions must be conducted by military,
instead of civilian, personnel for national security reasons.
The committee further directs the Secretary to provide a report
to the congressional defense committees no later than December
31, 1997 incorporating the results of the review and
incorporating a plan to use civilian personnel to provide those
WHCA services and functions that do not require performance by
members of the armed services.
Section 906--Revision to Required Frequency for Provision of Policy
Guidance for Contingency Plans
This section would amend section 113(g)(2) of title 10,
United States Code, to permit policy guidance for contingency
plans to be given every two years or more frequently as needed,
rather than annually.
Section 907--Termination of the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office
This section would abolish the Defense Airborne
Reconnaissance Office (DARO), and transfer specified management
responsibilities for the defense airborne reconnaissance
program to the Director, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
under his authorities as Director of Military Intelligence
(DMI) and Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP)
Coordinator. The Director, DIA would be further required to
provide a transition plan, with a draft DMI DARP charter, to
the Congressional defense and intelligence committees no later
than the submission of the fiscal year 1999 President's budget.
Since creation, the DARO has failed to successfully develop
new unmanned aerial vehicles, except for Predator, which was
under development prior to formation of the DARO. DARO-managed
UAV acquisition programs have been marred with program delays,
cost escalation, technical problems and in general, failure to
provide the services with this critical new capability.
Therefore, this provision is intended to return UAV system
acquisition responsibility to the appropriate military
services, while retaining overall airborne reconnaissance
coordination and oversight responsibility within the Department
of Defense.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Counterdrug Activities
Overview
The budget request for Department of Defense Fiscal Year
1998 drug interdiction and counterdrug activities contained
$652.6 million, plus $156.0 for operational tempo which is
included within the operating budgets of the military services.
This represents a net decrease of $154.4 million from the
fiscal year 1997 appropriated level of $807.0, and an increase
of $5.6 million for operational tempo from the fiscal year 1997
appropriated level of $150.4.
The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year
1998 defense counterdrug activities as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
FY98 Drug Interdiction & Counterdrug Request.................. $652,582
Dismantling Cartels....................................... 54,306
Source Nation Support..................................... 166,763
Detection and Monitoring.................................. 124,686
Law Enforcement Agency Support............................ 223,589
Demand Reduction.......................................... 83,238
Recommended Decreases:
National Imagery & Mapping Agency (Project #1401)......... 800
Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems (Project #1403).......... 4,611
Recommended Increases:
Gulf States Counterdrug Initiative (Project #7406)........ 4,000
Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force (Project #7408)........... 1,000
Optionally Piloted Air Vehicle (PE #305889D).............. 2,500
Southwest Border Fence Project............................ 7,000
Recommendation................................................ 661,671
Items of Special Interest
C-26 aircraft photo reconnaissance upgrade
The budget request does not contain funding for the Common
Airborne Imagery Processing System (CAIPS) and electro optical
(EO) sensors for the Air National Guard C-26 aircraft.
The committee understands that the procurement of EO
sensors and CAIPS would allow the National Guard to upgrade the
current chemical-based imagery capability to a digital system
which could provide near-real time photo-quality imagery to
requesting law enforcement agencies. Accordingly, the committee
urges the Department to evaluate this reconnaissance capability
and consider funding the C-26 upgrade from within the fiscal
year 1998 National Guard program.
Gulf states counterdrug initiative
The committee continues to support the Gulf States
Counterdrug Initiative (GSCI) and is concerned that the budget
request of $1.1 million does not adequately support the funding
requirements of this program. The committee understands that
this funding level does not include sufficient system training
costs or the sustainment of command, control, communications
and computer (C4) capabilities for the states of Alabama,
Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi.
Therefore, the committee recommends an authorization of
$5.1 million, an increase of $4.0 million over the requested
amount to support these program improvements. The committee
maintains that none of these funds should be utilized for
construction or other infrastructure-related costs; rather,
funds authorized for this program should continue to be used in
support of training, on-site support and maintenance of the C4
network and software system. Further, the committee encourages
the designation of non-Department of Defense (DOD) funds for
additional operations and maintenance (O&M) and procurement
costs identified by law enforcement agencies to sustain the
GSCI information system.
Mapping, charting and geodesy
The budget request contained $8.4 million for continued
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) support to the
Defense Intelligence Counterdrug Program's (DICP) mapping,
charting and geodesy (MC&G) requirements.
The committee has taken action elsewhere in this report
intended to modernize and streamline NIMA MC&G operations. This
action would encourage NIMA to move more rapidly toward
privatization and use of geospatial data maintenance rather
than developing paper map products.
Therefore, the committee recommends an authorization of
$7.6 million for this effort, a decrease of $0.8 million.
Mexican, Caribbean and South American initiative
The committee continues to support the essential role of
the Department of Defense (DOD) in reducing the flow of illegal
drugs into the United States. To accomplish this mission,
Congress has charged the DOD to act as the single lead federal
agency for the detection and monitoring of aerial and maritime
transit of illegal drugs into the United States. In addition,
DOD is to integrate appropriate command, control,
communications, and technical assets of the federal government
into an effective communications network. According to the DOD
Counterdrug Program, the Department supports foreign law
enforcement agencies and military governments by providing
initial detection and monitoring, intelligence, operational
planning assistance, training in tactical procedures and
equipment maintenance, infrastructure improvements, and
logistics/communications support. In this capacity, Congress
granted authority to DOD through section 1004 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for FiscalYear 1991, as amended
(Public Law 101-510) and sections 517 and 506(a)(2)(A) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.
Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) expanded DOD authority to
provide equipment and maintenance for the Government of Mexico
to aid in its counterdrug activities. This support was granted
conditionally as a short-term, limited means of enhancing
Mexico's counterdrug capabilities and was not intended to
replace or circumvent the established foreign assistance
authorities or resources of the Department of State. However,
the committee is aware of a provision included in the
Administration's legislative proposal that would expand current
DOD authority to include support for not only Mexico, but
Colombia, Peru and selected Caribbean countries; would increase
the amount of support to $150.0 million over five years; and
would expand the nature of support to include lethal equipment
to enhance the interdiction capability of the recipient
nations.
The committee acknowledges the recent success achieved by
participating nations in their combined efforts to stem the
production and transfer of illegal drugs. Specifically, U.S.
and regional forces under Operation Laser Strike successfully
interfered with narcotrafficking along air routes in the Andean
region and have caused the price of coca to plummet. Analysis
suggests that the narcotraffickers may have adjusted to this
initiative and have begun to transit cocaine along the rivers
of the Andean region and the Amazon basin, particularly in
Peru. Based upon this presumption, the Administration's
proposal outlined above is focused on an enhanced riverine
interdiction plan. While the committee supports the
Administration's strategy to pursue a program which capitalizes
upon the achievements of Operation Laser Strike, the current
proposal is inappropriately resourced and uncoordinated among
the U.S. and regional governments and militaries.
The committee is also concerned with the proposed expansion
of DOD authority to provide funds for a foreign assistance
program from within the Department's counterdrug account.
Although the committee continues to support the mission
established by the DOD Counterdrug Program, it believes that
the direct provision of material and assistance to foreign
nations is not a proper utilization of the unique capabilities
offered by DOD. Rather, the Administration's initiative should
be authorized and resourced more appropriately as a part of the
International Narcotics Control Program of the Department of
State. While the proposed legislation advocates a coordinated
management effort between the Departments of Defense and State,
the lack of coordination thus far between the two agencies has
manifested itself in a major disconnect over strategic planning
between U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and the relevant U.S.
embassies. Given the absence of overall integration in planning
among those responsible for the implementation of the program,
the committee questions the Administration's long-term
commitment to this ambitious riverine strategy.
The committee also notes with concern the assumptions made
by the Administration in developing the enhanced riverine
interdiction plan. Although it seems plausible, there has been
no threat assessment to confirm that narcotraffickers have in
fact shifted their transit routes to the rivers in a magnitude
that would justify such an expansion of DOD authorities and
resources. The relevant U.S. embassies and SOUTHCOM have not
contributed to the proposal a coordinated lessons-learned
evaluation of problems encountered and solutions developed as a
result of previous riverine operations in the region, nor does
the plan include an outcome-based reporting system to measure
the program's success. Further, the committee understands that
the Administration's proposal is based upon the presumed
existence of clear roles and missions within the respective
nations' institutions. On the contrary, long-standing rivalries
are certain to hamper the efforts of the host country military
and national police forces without the establishment of direct
counterdrug authorities to foster interagency cooperation.
In addition, the committee is aware of concerns raised by
the General Accounting Office (GAO) in a February 1997 report
entitled ``Drug Control: Long-Standing Problems Hinder U.S.
International Efforts'' (GAO/NSIAD-97-75). The report concluded
that despite legislation mandating end-use monitoring, past
history has shown that the United States has been unable to
ensure that equipment given to Mexico, Colombia and Peru has
been used by the host nations as intended upon delivery. The
committee is concerned with the transfer of equipment,
especially lethal equipment, to unstable governments struggling
against ``narcoguerrillas'' and other insurgent factions. Also,
given the pervasive influence of powerful drug lords over all
levels of government in the proposed participating countries,
the threat of corruption affecting the use of counterdrug
equipment needs to be more fully addressed by the
Administration. The committee notes the existence of corruption
exhibited most recently in Mexico with the arrest of General
Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, the former Mexican ``drug czar,'' and
by testimony implicating the involvement in drug trafficking of
several other high-ranking Mexican military leaders.
In light of these concerns, the committee strongly urges
the Administration to reevaluate its enhanced interdiction
plan. Should a threat assessment justify the need for an
ambitious riverine effort, coordination between the Departments
of Defense and State needs to preempt any planning at the
SOUTHCOM/U.S. embassy country team level.
Non-Intrusive Inspection Systems
The budget request contained $4.6 million for continued
development of non-intrusive inspection systems, technologies
that enhance the capability to detect narcotics in cargo
container and trucks at U.S. ports of entry.
The committee remains concerned that the agencies involved
with the development of narcotics detection technologies
disagree on the types of systems which need to be developed and
ultimately deployed. According to an April 1997 study by the
General Accounting Office entitled ``Terrorism and Drug
Trafficking: Responsibilities for Developing Explosives and
Narcotics Detection Technologies'' (GAO/NSIAD-97-95), a
detailed procurement methodology has yet to be determined
despite near completion of narcotics detection technology
development. The Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP), responsible for the coordination and recommendation of
counterdrug technology programs; the U.S. Customs Service,
required to deploy the systems developed by the Department of
Defense (DOD); and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
involved in the oversight of Customs' technology plans, are all
currently working to resolve differences in technology
development and deployment. At the request of ONDCP, these
agencies are preparing a five-year technology plan for the
development of non-intrusive inspection systems and currently
estimate a January 1998 completion date of this report.
Since December of 1994, DOD has spent about $30.0 million
to develop technologies which have not been deployed as a
result of concerns with the operational suitability of the
systems. Based upon this experience, the committee recommends
limiting DOD's development efforts until better funding
priorities have been established by the relevant federal
agencies.Therefore, the committee denies the $4.6 million
funding request for non-intrusive inspection system research and
development.
Optionally piloted air vehicle
The budget request contained no funding for the ``Owl''
Optionally Piloted Air Vehicle (OPV).
The committee believes development of this multi-
functional aircraft will provide a unique, low-profile,
airborne observation platform, providing an inexpensive, long-
dwell reconnaissance capability for counterdrug and law
enforcement agencies. The committee understands that funding
for this aircraft would be provided by a federal/private
industry partnership. The majority of funding is to be provided
by the private industry partners.
Therefore, pending the commitment of private industry
funds, the committee recommends $2.5 million for this project
in program element 0305889D.
Southwest border fence project
The committee continues to support the Southwest border
road, fence and lighting project in East San Diego County,
California. The committee notes the need for a reinforced fence
along the fourteen miles of international border east of the
Pacific Ocean, and the construction of second and third fences,
with roads between the fences, to improve border security in
this designated high intensity drug trafficking area (HIDTA).
The committee commends the efforts of the California National
Guard and the Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6) in allocating
sufficient resources for this national priority from within
their respective counterdrug budgets. While the construction of
a triple fence is currently funded from within the immigration
control budget, the committee wishes to ensure the efficient
execution of this project.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0
million to facilitate completion of the Southwest border fence
project from within the law enforcement agencies support
component of the Department of Defense Counterdrug Plan.
Tracker aircraft
The budget request contained $10.0 million for operation of
five specially configured tracker aircraft.
The committee believes the tracker aircraft mission is
more properly aligned with similar missions funded within the
Defense Intelligence Counterdrug Program (DICP) of the Joint
Military Intelligence Program (JMIP).
Therefore, the committee recommends the funding request
for project code 7410, but directs that this amount be
transferred to O&M, Air Force, within the DICP. Further, the
committee directs that future funding requests for this program
be properly identified within the DICP.
Other Matters
Implementation of Whistleblower Protections
The committee is aware of existing concerns over unintended
consequences resulting from the implementation of section 1034
of title 10, United States Code, providing for the protection
of individuals who engage in whistleblower communications with
Members of Congress, the Department of Defense Inspector
General, and any Department of Defense audit, inspection,
investigation, law enforcement organizations, or chain of
command communications. Of particular concern are indications
that the definition of protected communication in the statute
may be overly broad and result in the extension of protections
in a manner that needlessly dilutes available investigative and
other resources. Therefore, the committee directs the
Department of Defense Inspector General to provide the House
National Security Committee and the Senate Armed Services
Committee with a report by March 1, 1998 that examines the
current statutory framework governing the protection of
whistleblower activity, assesses the effectiveness of the
implementation of these provisions and makes any
recommendations for modifications that the Inspector General
finds appropriate.
Intelligence Shortcomings During Persian Gulf War
The Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) has acknowledged
that both during and after the Persian Gulf war:
(1) The intelligence community failed to adequately
alert U.S. military forces to the presence of Iraqi
chemical weapons at the Khamisiyah storage facility;
(2) This failure was the result of avoidable errors
and oversights in processing and analyzing information;
(3) The demolition of Khamisiyah in the aftermath of
the Persian Gulf war on March 4, 1991, by U.S. forces
who were unaware of the presence of Iraqi chemical
weapons stored at the facility, may have inadvertently
exposed U.S. troops to chemical agents.
Furthermore, a study released by the Director of Central
Intelligence on April 9, 1997, acknowledges ``that intelligence
support associated with Operations Desert Shield and Desert
Storm--particularly in the areas of information distribution
and analysis--should have been better. Key issues include
problems with multiple databases; limited sharing of
`sensitive' but vital information; and incomplete searches of
files while preparing lists of known or suspect CW
facilities.'' The study makes a number of general
recommendations for avoiding similar intelligence failures in
the future such as ensuring that intelligence analysts remain
increasingly careful to avoid ``tunnel vision'' in crafting
their judgments.
The committee agrees that these shortcomings in
intelligence analysis and distribution must be corrected so
that similar intelligence failures do not occur in the future.
To that end, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense and
the Director of Central Intelligence to submit a report, not
later than March 1, 1997, to the House Committee on National
Security, the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence describing the actions to be
taken to implement the study's recommendations for avoiding
future situations like those surrounding the Khamisiyah issue.
The report should identify the specific steps planned for
training analysts, reorganizing data bases, and sharing
sensitive information on a broader basis. It also should
outline other steps that will be taken to improve intelligence
analysis and distribution, explain how broadlythese
improvements are being made across functional and regional issue areas,
and indicate when these steps will be implemented.
Resolution of Commercial Disputes in Saudi Arabia
The committee notes that during the 1980's a number of
commercial disputes arose from contracting activity between
American companies, and ministries and agencies of the Saudi
Arabian government. The companies in question claimed they were
due tens of millions of dollars for work performed for the
Saudis. After years of unsuccessful attempts by these companies
to resolve the claims, the Fiscal Year 1994 Department of
Defense Appropriations Act (Public Law 103-139) established a
process by which the Department of Defense was to monitor
progress toward the resolution of these disputes and report to
Congress on their status. The committee understands that as of
April 1997, a number of these claims remained unresolved.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
after consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Commerce, to conduct a review updating information
concerning resolution of commercial disputes between U.S.
companies and entities of the Saudi Arabian government. The
committee further directs the Secretary to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees no later than December 31,
1997 incorporating the results of the review and including a
comprehensive listing of claims that were identified as yet
unresolved. The report shall also identify the circumstances as
to why these claims have not been resolved.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
Section 1001--Transfer Authority
This section would permit the transfer of amounts of
authorizations made available in Division A of the bill for any
fiscal year to any other authorization made available in
Division A upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that
such a transfer would be in the national interest.
Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex
This section would incorporate the classified annex
prepared by the Committee on National Security into the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.
Section 1003--Authority for Obligation of Unauthorized Fiscal Year 1997
Defense Appropriations
This section would authorize certain fiscal year 1997
programs that received appropriations but no authorization.
Section 1004--Authorization of Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal
Year 1997
This section would extend authorization to those items
appropriated by the fiscal year 1997 emergency supplemental
appropriations legislation.
Section 1005--Increase in Fiscal Year 1996 Transfer Authority
This section would increase transfer authority for fiscal
year 1996 to $3.1 billion to facilitate transfers of
authorization necessary to support contingency operations.
Section 1006--Fisher House Trust Fund
This section would authorize the expenditure of funds from
the Fisher House trust fund.
Section 1007--Flexibility in Financing Closure of Certain Outstanding
Contracts for Which a Small Final Payment is Due
This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to
establish an account to transfer funds into for the purpose of
making small final payments on certain outstanding contracts
for which funds appropriated for that purpose have expired.
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Section 1021--Relationship of Certain Laws to Disposal of Vessels for
Export from the Naval Vessel Register and the National Defense Reserve
Fleet
This section would amend three separate titles of the
United States Code in order to permit the sale of obsolete
vessels that are presently contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyl compounds (PCBs).
Under current law, the Toxic Substances Control Act
(section 2601 of title 15, United States Code, et. seq.)
prohibits the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce
or use of any non-totally enclosed PCB after January 1, 1977.
Obsolete Navy vessels, as well as those in the National Defense
Reserve Fleet which is administered by the Maritime
Administration (MARAD), contain PCBs in their wiring system
that meet the definition of being non-totally enclosed. In
order to facilitate the sale and scrapping of such vessels as
targets by the Navy, this section would first amend section
7305 of title 10, United States Code, so that the sale of a
vessel no longer qualifies as a restricted export for disposal
purposes under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Second, this
section would amend section 7306 of title 10, United States
Code, to provide that the sinking of a vessel for military
purposes does not qualify as a prohibited export or disposal of
that vessel under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Third, and
in order to allow MARAD to resume the practice of selling
vessels in approved foreign markets, this section would amend
section 510 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (codified at
section 1160 of title 46 App., United States Code), to provide
that the sale of a vessel from the National Defense Reserve
Fleet for export does not qualify as a distribution in commerce
or an export for disposal under the Toxic Substances Control
Act. Before an obsolete vessel could be sold or otherwise
disposed, PCBs contained in transformers, capacitors, or in
hydraulic or heat transfer fluids would have to be removed.
Finally, this section would amend the National Maritime
Heritage Act (section5405 of title 16, United States Code) to
make certain technical corrections and to extend by two years (until
2001) the deadline for the disposal of obsolete vessels from the
National Defense Reserve Fleet. This deadline extension will permit the
expeditious scrapping of obsolete vessels without flooding the
international scrap market.
Section 1022--Authority to Enter into a Long-Term Charter for a Vessel
in Support of the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor (SURTASS) Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a contract in accordance with section 2401 of title
10, United States Code, for the charter of the vessel RV CORY
CHOUEST through fiscal year 2003 in support of the SURTASS
program.
Section 1023--Transfer of Two Specified Obsolete Tugboats of the Army
This section would allow the Secretary of the Army to
transfer two obsolete tugboats to the Brownsville Navigation
District, Brownsville, Texas.
Section 1024--Naming of a DDG-51 Class Destroyer the U.S.S. Thomas F.
Connolly
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
Secretary of the Navy should name one of the ships of the DDG-
51 class of destroyers the U.S.S. Thomas F. Connolly in honor
of Vice Admiral Connolly, an architect of the modern United
States Navy. Cited for bravery during World War II, Vice
Admiral Connolly also guided the construction of today's
nuclear aircraft carriers and advocated the development of the
F-14 fleet defense aircraft.
Section 1025--Congressional Review Period with Respect to Transfer of
the Ex-U.S.S. Midway (CV-41)
This section would allow for a 30 calendar day
congressional review period with respect to the transfer of the
decommissioned aircraft carrier ex-U.S.S. Midway (CV-41).
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities
Section 1031--Prohibition on Use of National Guard for Civil-Military
Activities Under State Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities
Plan
This section would amend section 112 of title 32, United
States Code, to further clarify authority for federal support
of national guard drug interdiction and counterdrug activities.
While the committee continues to recognize the valuable
contributions of the national guard to the Department of
Defense (DOD) counterdrug program, the committee notes with
concern that community outreach programs, in direct
contravention of congressional direction, have been funded as a
component of the annual national guard state drug interdiction
and counterdrug activities plans.
The committee stands by the decision to repeal the
authority for civilian outreach programs as intended in section
571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (Public Law 104-106). This section specifically terminated
DOD authority for programs currently funded within the fiscal
year 1997 National Guard State Plans, such as Sports Clinics,
Just Say No Puppet Show, AmeriCorps, Kids 'N Kops Day, Adopt a
School, DARE, Jr. Police Cadets, Operation Snowball, The Parent
Project, Teen Spirit Youth Camp, Big Brothers & Sisters, MADD,
Leadership Development Camps, Hooked on Fishing and Fitness for
Life. While these programs are of continuing importance in the
fight against substance abuse, they are significantly removed
from the national security mission of the Department of Defense
and, therefore, inappropriate to fund from within the defense
budget. The committee encourages the development of appropriate
non-DOD sources of funding for these outreach programs.
Therefore, the committee directs that funds for these
community-based activities, estimated at $8.0 million for
fiscal year 1998, be reprioritized to meet more critical demand
reduction needs of the national guard within the Governor's
State Plans for fiscal year 1998.
The committee endorses the Department's demand reduction
strategy involving active duty and reserve forces, DOD civilian
employees and National Guard members--one of the most effective
elements of the DOD Counterdrug Program. The drug deterrence
and testing program; coupled with the drug education, training
and awareness support, continue to increase military readiness
by successfully reducing drug use in the armed forces and the
DOD civilian community. Further, the committee notes that drug
demand reduction programs established prior to the
authorization of the various civil-military programs in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public
Law 102-484), including the Young Marines Programs and other
priority programs of DOD and the military services, should
continue operations as proposed in the fiscal year 1998 budget
request.
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Report Requirements and Repeals
Section 1041--Repeal of Miscellaneous Obsolete Reports Required by
Prior Defense Authorization Acts
This section would repeal miscellaneous provisions of law
that have expired or are obsolete.
Section 1042--Repeal of Annual Report Requirement Relating to Training
of Special Operations Forces with Friendly Foreign Forces
This section would amend section 2011 of title 10, United
States Code, to repeal the requirement that the Department of
Defense prepare an annual report relating to training of United
States Special Operations Forces with the forces of friendly
foreign governments.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 1051--Authority for Special Agents of the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service to Execute Warrants and Make Arrests
This section would provide the Secretary of Defense with
the authority to authorize special agents of the Defense
Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) to execute and
servewarrants and other process issued under the authority of the
United States. The section also would permit the Secretary of Defense
to authorize DCIS special agents to make warrantless arrests in cases
in which an offense against the United States is committed in the
presence of special agents and in the case of felonies cognizable under
the laws for which such special agents have sufficient probable cause.
The authority of a DCIS agent under this section could only be
exercised in accordance with guidelines approved by the Attorney
General of the United States.
Section 1052--Study of Investigative Practices of Military Criminal
Investigative Organizations Relating to Sex Crimes
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide for an independent review of the military criminal
investigative organizations and their ability to effectively
investigate allegations of criminal sexual misconduct in the
armed services. The review would address several specific
issues:
(1) The need for greater organizational independence
from the military department chains of command;
(2) The adequacy of agent training relating to the
investigation of sex crimes, including training on the
proper conduct of subject and witness interviews;
(3) The screening, recruitment and hiring of agents;
(4) The number of allegations of agent misconduct in
the investigation of sex crimes;
(5) The procedures for administrative identification
(known as ``titling'') of individuals suspected of
committing sex crimes; and
(6) The accuracy and timeliness of reporting sex
crimes to the Department of Justice's National Crime
Information Center. A report to Congress would be due
upon completion of the review.
In light of the numerous allegations of sexual misconduct
in the military services, the committee believes it is
important for the military criminal investigative organizations
to ensure that agents are properly trained for conducting
investigations into these most personal crimes in a responsible
and appropriate manner. Further, the committee is concerned
over allegations by some of the recent victims and subjects
that investigators used coercive or inappropriate tactics
during the investigative interview process. The review directed
by this provision would help determine how well prepared the
military criminal investigative organizations are with regard
to investigating sexual misconduct. It also should identify
areas for improvement to ensure these personal cases are
handled in the most professional and appropriate manner.
Section 1053--Technical and Clerical Amendments
This section would make a number of technical and clerical
amendments.
Section 1054--Display of POW/MIA Flag
This section would expand the dates on which the POW/MIA
flag must be flown, as well as the locations where it must be
flown on the prescribed dates. In addition, the section would
repeal existing law that terminates the requirement to display
the POW/MIA flag upon the President's determination that the
fullest possible accounting has been made of all members of the
Armed Forces and civilian employees of the United States who
have been identified as prisoner of war or missing in action in
Southeast Asia.
The committee recommends this action because thousands of
Americans remain missing or unaccounted for as a result of all
conflicts that the U.S. has fought in, not just the one in
Southeast Asia. Furthermore, the committee believes that not
only is it fitting to signify the Nation's continuing
commitment to fully account for all the missing and unaccounted
for from past U.S. wars, but it is also proper to signify a
permanent national commitment to fully account for those
Americans who in future wars may be captured, unaccounted for,
or listed as missing.
Section 1055--Certification Required Before Observance of Moratorium on
Use by Armed Forces of Antipersonnel Landmines
This section would require that, before proceeding with the
implementation of a ban on the military use of antipersonnel
landmines, the Secretary of Defense must provide Congress with
a certification that such implementation would not adversely
impact U.S. military combat capabilities.
Section 1056--Protection of Safety-Related Information Voluntarily
Provided by Air Carriers
This provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
withhold from public release voluntarily-provided air carrier
safety-related information if the Secretary determines that
release of that information would inhibit the provision of such
information, and that such information aids in fulfilling the
Secretary's safety oversight responsibilities under section
2640 of title 10, United States Code. Section 2640 of title 10,
United States Code prohibits the Secretary of Defense from
entering into a contract with an air carrier for the
transportation of members of the armed forces unless that
carrier meets certain requirements. Included are requirements
that the carrier meet government safety standards and pass DOD
technical inspections to become and remain eligible for DOD
business.
The committee is aware that access to a carrier's internal
records, information, and data is essential to determining
whether the carrier meets DOD safety and quality standards. In
that regard, carriers must have confidence that company
information is protected from public release. The Department of
Defense reports that carriers have been increasingly reluctant
to provide information beyond the minimum required for
regulatory compliance for fear that such information would be
subject to public release when requested by a third party under
the Freedom of Information Act. Similar information held by the
Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation
Safety Board previously received statutory protection from
public release. This provision would provide the same level of
protection for information that was voluntarily provided to the
Department of Defense.
Section 1057--National Guard ChalleNGe Program to Create Opportunities
for Civilian Youth
This section would provide the Secretary of Defense, acting
through the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, authority to
conduct a program known as the National Guard ChalleNGe
Program. ChalleNGe is a 22-week, quasi-military, residential
program for drug-free, 16- to 18-year old high school dropouts
who are unemployed and not currently involved with the legal
system. ChalleNGe, which operates in separate state programs,
seeks to improve the life skills and potential for employment
or military service of its participants through military-based
training, supervised work experience, and post graduation
mentoring. This section would authorize the Department of
Defense to provide up to $50.0 million in funding to support
the program. The section would also limit the Department of
Defense share of the costs of operating a program in each state
to 75 percent in fiscal year 1998--with that share decreasing
by five percent a year, to 60 percent in fiscal year 2001.
Finally, the section would increase by $30.0 million the $20.0
million requested in the Department of Defense budget request.
To pay for the increase, the committee reallocates to the
ChalleNGe program the $15.0 million that it had intended to add
to the Army National Guard military personnel accounts for
initial entry and military skill training. In addition, the
committee recommends a reduction in the amounts requested in
the budget for Army and Air National Guard operations and
maintenance funding by $7.5 million each.
Section 1058--Lease of Non-Excess Personal Property of the Military
Departments
This section would require the military departments to
compete any lease in excess of one year for personal property
valued over $100,000 and notify the Congress 45 days prior to
entering into such a lease. The committee is aware that
military department non-excess assets have been leased sole
source for extended periods of time apparently below market
value. While the committee recognizes the need for the military
departments to manage their own equipment inventories, the
committee is concerned that lease arrangements should fully
appreciate the public interest to recoup defense dollars where
possible.
Section 1059--Commendation of Members of the Armed Forces and
Government Civilian Personnel Who Served During the Cold War
This section would commend the members of the armed forces
and government civilian employees who served the nation during
the Cold War, and would express the gratitude of the Congress
for their service and sacrifices that contributed to the
victory in the Cold War.
TITLE XI--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF FORMER SOVIET
UNION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $382.2 million for cooperative
threat reduction (CTR) activities, representing an increase of
$31.3 million over the amounts appropriated for fiscal year
1997. The request includes $63.0 million for core conversion
and chemical weapons production facility elimination in Russia,
and expanded defense and military contact programs throughout
the former Soviet states. Funding for these programs was not
included in last year's CTR budget request, but was authorized
separately in Title XIV of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201).
The Administration is also seeking $210.0 million within
the request for destruction and dismantlement, $100.7 million
for fissile materials and nuclear weapons safety and storage,
$41.0 million for reactor core conversion in Russia, and $30.5
million for other program support, which includes expanded
defense and military-to-military contacts.
The committee recommends a total of $284.7 million for CTR
activities in fiscal year 1998, a reduction of $97.5 million
from the budget request. The committee recommends the request
of $77.9 million for strategic offensive arms elimination
activities in Russia; $76.7 million for strategic nuclear arms
elimination in Ukraine; $7.0 million for fissile materials
storage containers in Russia; and $57.7 million for a fissile
material storage facility in Russia. The committee recommends
the following reductions to the budget request: chemical
weapons destruction ($41.0 million); reactor core conversion
($41.0 million); nuclear weapons storage security ($12.5
million); defense and military contacts ($1.0 million); and
other program support ($2.0 million). The discussion below
provides additional rationale for these reductions as well as
other matters of interest and concern to the committee.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Arms Elimination Projects in Russia
The budget request contained $77.9 million for strategic
offensive arms elimination projects in Russia representing a
significant increase from the fiscal year 1997 appropriated
amount of $52.0 million.
The committee reiterates its support for the accelerated
dismantlement and destruction of strategic offensive weapons in
Russia under the terms of the START I Treaty. To this end, the
committee notes that the Department intends to obligate 115
percent of the appropriated fiscal year 1997 amount for
strategic offensive arms elimination programs in Russia in
accordance with section 1502 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201).
The request includes $50.0 million for new commitments made
last October by former Secretary of Defense Perry, who pledged
additional assistance to Russia as part of the Administration's
effort to encourage Russian ratification of the START II
Treaty. The new commitments pledged by Secretary Perry and
identified by the Department to the committee would be directed
toward accelerating Russian strategic offensive force
reductions to START II levels. While the committee is
supportive of CTR efforts that would directly assist Russia in
the elimination of its strategic offensive forces, the
committee believes that Russia should share in the cost of
these reductions. However, the Russian Duma has not yet given
its support to START II ratification and is unlikely to do so
anytime soon. In addition, at the recent Helsinki summit, the
United States agreed to postpone for several years the 2003
START II deadline for elimination of treaty-covered strategic
systems in another attempt to encourage Russian ratification
and to ease the near-term fiscal requirements on Russia for
eliminating strategic systems. The Russians have asserted that
they lack the fiscal resources to meet START II's reduction
timelines. However, Russia continues to invest resources in the
production of additional land-based and sea-based strategic
offensive arms. For these reasons, the committee recommends a
provision (sec. 1105) that would prohibit the obligation or
expenditure of these funds for START II-related elimination
activities until 30 days after the President certifies to
Congress that these expenditures are in the national security
interest and that the Russians have agreed to share the cost of
such elimination activities. Moreover, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Congressional defense
committees, within 15 days of the date of the above
certification, a report on the specific cost-sharing
arrangements that have been agreed to with Russia.
Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine
The budget request contained $76.7 million for strategic
nuclear arms elimination projects in Ukraine, a 63 percent
increase over the fiscal year 1997 appropriated level.
This increase would fund a new project to eliminate
additional land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles,
associated silos and launch control centers, and supporting
infrastructure. The committee supports these additional efforts
and approves the requested amount for strategic nuclear arms
elimination in Ukraine.
Auditing of CTR Assistance
Under section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), the Department
of Defense is required to submit to Congress an annual report
on CTR assistance. The committee notes that the most recent
report reflected an improvement in how the Department tracks
the provision of CTR assistance, although the report was
submitted almost one year late. The committee welcomes the
increased number of annual audits and examinations conducted by
the Department and expects that this level of effort will
continue.
The committee also notes that recent press reports indicate
Russian officials have been imposing duties and ``taxes'' on
the provision of U.S. assistance, some of which has reportedly
been used to ``pay off'' local officials and to cover various
``overhead'' costs. In particular, the committee is concerned
by reports that equipment deliveries are being taxed and that
the CTR program has been a source of funding for inappropriate
Russian activities. In light of these reports, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 1109) that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress by
September 31, 1997 providing a detailed explanation of whether
and how the CTR program has been used to support such
activities and what actionsthe Department has taken and is
prepared to take to ensure that CTR assistance is not ``taxed'' or
misused by Russia.
Chemical Weapons Destruction
The budget request contained $55.4 million for chemical
weapon destruction activities, including $20.0 million for the
dismantlement and conversion of a chemical weapons production
facility, at Volgograd, to non-weapons use.
Last year, the committee denied the request for $2.2
million in funding to initiate dismantlement of the facility at
Volgograd. In so doing, the committee noted its concern about
establishing a precedent for a new U.S. commitment and program
regarding the destruction of Russia's declared chemical weapons
stockpile despite Russia's ability to destroy such facilities
on its own. The budget request reflects a substantial increase
in funding. However, formal cost estimates of the dismantlement
work at Volgograd have not yet been accomplished. Moreover, the
Department has indicated that the $20.0 million requested for
this activity may be used for other ``Volgograd-like projects''
involving chemical or biological weapons production facilities
elsewhere in Russia.
In addition, the committee notes that the Congress has
previously disapproved the use of CTR funds for defense
conversion purposes such as envisioned in the Volgograd
project. Such activities are currently funded through the
Department of State.
Because of continuing concerns over U.S. involvement in
this project and the uncertainty over the eventual cost and
scope of this activity, the committee reiterates its belief
that Russia should proceed with the destruction of chemical
weapons production facilities on its own. Consequently, the
committee denies the request for this project.
The budget request also contained $35.4 million for the
design and construction of a chemical weapons destruction
facility to be built in Russia. Most of the technology
development for the chemical weapons destruction process is
expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 1997.
Accordingly, the budget request for this purpose is
significantly less than the fiscal year 1997 appropriated level
and is directed toward the design of the destruction facility.
However, because no specific site has yet been chosen for the
facility, actual design costs have not been reliably
determined.
In addition, the committee has a number of other concerns
regarding this project. First, the ultimate cost of the
facility may be as high as $800.0 million, a cost which the
committee views as prohibitive. A more accurate cost estimate
based on a one-third completed design is still unavailable and
is not anticipated by the Department to be available until
January 1999. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has reported
that the U.S. share of these costs remains undefined and
potentially large, and the United States has not agreed to cap
its financial contribution. Indeed, the budget request for
fiscal year 1999 for chemical weapons destruction projects in
Russia is approximately $150.0 million, an increase of 270
percent over the fiscal year 1998 request. Although detailed
cost and program information is supposed to be contained in the
Department's long-term program plan, which is required to be
submitted to Congress annually at the same time as the
President's budget request, the latest plan has only just been
received. Consequently, the committee is unable to fully
evaluate the long-term fiscal implications of this project.
Second, the committee is concerned over Russia's ability to
fulfill whatever financial commitment it makes to this project.
Although Russia has committed the equivalent of $24.0 million
for chemical weapons destruction in fiscal year 1997, none of
these funds have been expended. Russia's chemical weapons
destruction plan was rejected by the Federation Council--
Russia's upper house of parliament--in January of this year. In
April 1997, the State Duma--Russia's lower house of
parliament--refused to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC), only one day after the U.S. Senate had approved it. The
Chairman of the Duma's Foreign Affairs Committee, Vladimir
Lukin, explained the refusal by stating, ``It's simple: There's
a lack of cash.'' Foreign financing to date for this project is
extremely limited. While the United States has said it will
finance a share of the costs of building the facility only, the
Russians insist that associated infrastructure must be financed
and built as well. Without an agreement on this matter, it is
unlikely that construction can proceed.
Third, the facility is designed to destroy only 14 percent
of Russia's declared chemical weapons stockpile and will take
more than 10 years to accomplish even this modest task. It has
been estimated that Russia would need to construct six
additional sites to meet the time frames required by the CWC
for the destruction of the rest of its declared chemical
weapons stockpile.
Fourth, the committee disagrees with the United States'
retreat from its prior insistence that the facility be used to
destroy air munitions--the types of chemical munitions that are
more threatening to U.S. interests--and has agreed to Russian
demands that nerve agent contained in artillery shells be
destroyed first. Because of their deteriorating condition,
these artillery munitions are more of a Russian environmental
concern than a U.S. or allied security concern.
Finally, the committee is concerned by unclassified reports
that Russia is continuing to develop chemical weapons,
including three new and particularly lethal nerve agents. Such
activity is clearly at variance with the commitments Russia
assumed when it signed the CWC and suggests that U.S.
assistance to dismantle older chemical weapons while Russia
continues to produce newer ones amounts to a subsidy of a
lethal Russian chemical weapons modernization program.
The committee believes there are higher priority CTR
programs with potentially greater benefits to U.S. security.
The Department apparently shares this view, as it notified the
Congress that it would transfer $7.8 million of fiscal year
1997 funds obligated for this project to strategic offensive
arms elimination programs. The committee also notes that as of
May 1997, more than $70.0 million in previously appropriated
funds for this project remained unobligated, almost twice the
amount actually disbursed. Consequently, the committee
recommends a reduction of $21.0 million for this project and
does not endorse proceeding with actual construction of the
facility. The committee also recommends a provision (sec. 1106)
that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal
year 1998 funds for chemical weapons facility planning and
design until the Secretary notifies the Congress that the
following conditions have been met:
(1) that Russia has approved a chemical weapons
destruction plan that commits it to sharing the
financial costs of this program;
(2) that the United States has agreed to cap its
financial contribution;
(3) that an agreement has been reached resolving the
issue of who will pay for construction of
infrastructure and facilities associated with the
destruction facility and required by Russia; and
(4) that a specific site has been chosen for
construction of the facility.
Fissile Material Storage Facility
The budget request contained $57.7 million for fissile
material storage activities in Russia. In particular, the funds
requested are to be used to support the design and construction
of a storage facility at Mayak to house materials from
dismantled strategic nuclear weapons. The committee continues
to support efforts to ensure the safe and secure storage of
fissile materials in Russia.
However, the committee notes that significant uncertainties
remain regarding the Mayak facility. The project is
approximately two years behind schedule and further delays are
possible in light of Russia's uncertain commitment to funding
its share of the costs. Although the United States has informed
Russia that the U.S. share of Mayak costs will be capped at
$275.0 million, the projected budget request for fiscal year
1999 reflects a significant increase in funding, including
funds for preliminary work on a second fissile material storage
facility in Russia, although the requirement for another such
facility is unclear. Significantly, a recent GAO report
(``Weapons of Mass Destruction: Status of the Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program,'' GAO/NSIAD-96-222, September 1996)
notes, ``The draft CTR multiyear plan acknowledges that the
program cannot measure the impact of CTR fissile material
storage projects--such as Mayak--on CTR program objectives''
because the Department lacks the necessary information to make
such a determination. Due to the Department's delay in
submitting the latest annual CTR program plan as required, the
committee cannot fully evaluate the long-term fiscal
implications of this project.
The most significant uncertainty is the lack of any
transparency agreements that would allow the United States to
verify the quantity and type of fissile materials stored at
Mayak and the irreversibility of the dismantlements. The
committee believes such agreements are essential to ensuring
that the facility is being used for its intended purpose and
that materials stored there are not capable of being used in
the construction of additional weapons. Prior efforts to
negotiate transparency arrangements with Russia have been
unsuccessful. To date, Russia has not declared the specific
type and quantity of fissile material that will be stored at
Mayak. As the previously-cited GAO report noted, ``Until a
detailed transparency arrangement is agreed upon, the United
States does not know exactly how it will be able to insure that
Mayak is being used as intended. A failure to reach such an
agreement in the future would force the United States to choose
between curtailing support for the facility--after investing
many tens of millions of dollars--and compromising on its
access rights.''
Negotiations are expected to resume later this year, and
the Department has notified the committee of Russia's declared
commitment to agree to transparency measures. However, the
committee believes that continuing to fund this activity in
advance of a formal agreement that clarifies and codifies U.S.
rights weakens the U.S. negotiating position.
Based on the above concerns, the committee conditions its
approval of the budget request for this project on the
conclusion of a written agreement with Russia acknowledging
that the U.S. share of the ultimate cost of the Mayak facility
will be capped at $275.0 million. Moreover, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 1107) that would prohibit the
obligation of fiscal year 1998 funds for Mayak until a
transparency agreement with Russia is signed. Finally, the
committee directs that unobligated prior-year funds not be
obligated or expended on this project until 15 days after the
Secretary provides the Congressional defense committees with a
status report on the issues and uncertainties noted above.
Nuclear Reactor Core Conversion
The budget request included $41.0 million for nuclear
reactor core conversion projects in Russia to support the
elimination of Russian plutonium production by 2000, an
important U.S. non-proliferation objective. The requested
amount is more than four times the amount appropriated for
fiscal year 1997 and is intended to begin preparations for
conversion work. However, to date no implementing agreement has
been negotiated with Russia's Ministry of Energy (Minatom) to
allow this work to proceed. Consequently, the $10.0 million
appropriated in fiscal year 1997--which Congress authorized be
transferred to the Secretary of Energy--is unable to be
obligated until such an agreement is concluded. Reiterating its
support for the goal of eliminating Russian plutonium
production, the committee believes responsibility for this core
conversion project more properly resides within the Department
of Energy (DOE), which initially began this effort in fiscal
year 1996 as a pilot project. For these reasons, the committee
denies the request for fiscal year 1998 Department of Defense
funds to pursue this project, but has added $10.0 million for
core conversion to the appropriate DOE account.
Nuclear Weapons Storage Security In Russia
The budget request contained $36.0 million for projects
designed to ensure the safe storage of nuclear weapons and
materials from dismantled strategic nuclear systems. However,
in March 1997 the Department informed Congress that the Russian
Ministry of Defense has reevaluated its requirement for
supercontainers to enhance the security of Russian nuclear
weapons during transit. As a result, the Department proposes to
reallocate $12.5 million in fiscal year 1996 CTR funds for
other ``higher priority'' weapons storage security projects.
Because these previously appropriated funds are now available
to augment other weapons storage security activities, the
committee recommends a reduction in the fiscal year 1998 budget
request of $12.5 million.
The committee reiterates its support for efforts to ensure
the safe and secure storage of fissile materials and recommends
this reduction without prejudice. However, the committee is
concerned over Russia's unwillingness to allow the United
States access to certain storage sites. This raises questions
about the U.S. ability to ensure that equipment provided is
used solely for its stated purpose.
In its March 1997 notification to Congress of intent to
obligate fiscal year 1997 funds, the Department noted that
``DOD will not be able to perform audits and examinations of
some portions of the assistance provided under these
agreements,'' but intends to impose other restrictions to
ensure that the assistance ``remains under the control of the
Russian Government.'' The committee is concerned that these
arrangements may be insufficient to guard against the improper
use of CTR assistance. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
provision (sec. 1108) that would limit the obligation and
expenditure of fiscal year 1998 funds until a formal agreement
is reached with Russia on a mutually-acceptable arrangement for
conducting audits and examinations; that agreement is provided
by the Secretary to the Congressional defense committees; and
15 days have elapsed from the date the agreement is received.
Other Support Programs
The budget request contained $1.0 million for defense and
military contacts with Belarus. In light of the recent
Presidential de-certification of Belarus as eligible for CTR
funds on the basis of human rights violations, the committee
denies this request. In addition, the committee notes that, as
of May 1997, the Department had obligated only $80.3 million of
the $117.3 million in prior-year funds notified to Congress for
CTR projects in Belarus. The committee expects that the
Department will not obligate the remaining $37.0 million for
projects in Belarus as long as Belarus remains ineligible for
additional CTR assistance.
Program Overhead
The budget request contained $20.5 million for management
and administrative costs, project development, and audits and
examinations. In light of the reductions in various CTR
programs noted above, and the logical reduction in associated
administrative costs, the committee recommends a reduction of
$2.0 million for these activities. The committee notes that the
Department unilaterally reduced the appropriated level of
fiscal year 1997 program support by more than $300,000 to cover
the costs of other higher priorities.
Prohibition of Specified Activities
The committee reiterates its belief that funding for CTR
activities should be directed toward facilitating the safe
transportation, storage, and elimination of weapons of mass
destruction, their delivery vehicles, and components, and for
programs and activities deigned to prevent proliferation. The
committee does not support CTR funding for activities outside
these basic purposes. For this reason, the committee recommends
a provision (sec. 1103) that would maintain a prohibition on
the use of CTR funds for peacekeeping-related activities,
housing, environmental restoration, job retraining, and defense
conversion.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1101--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
This section would specify the kinds of programs to be
funded under this title.
Section 1102--Fiscal Year 1998 Funding Allocations
This section would allocate fiscal year 1998 funding for
various CTR purposes and activities.
Section 1103--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Specified Purposes
This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for
specified activities, including peacekeeping-related, housing,
environmental restoration, job retraining, and defense
conversion purposes.
Section 1104--Prohibition on Use of Funds Until Specified Reports are
Submitted
This section would prohibit obligation or expenditure of
fiscal year 1998 CTR funds until 15 days after various reports
are submitted to Congress.
Section 1105--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of
Certification
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of fiscal year 1998 CTR funds for certain START II-related
strategic offensive arms elimination programs until the
President certifies that such expenditures are in the national
security interest and the Russians have agreed to share the
cost of these activities. It would also direct the Secretary of
Defense of submit a report on the specific cost-sharing
arrangements.
Section 1106--Use of Funds for Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of funds for chemical weapons destruction purposes until the
Secretary of Defense notifies Congress that certain cost-
sharing and site agreements have been reached with Russia.
Section 1107--Limitation on Use of Funds for Storage Facility for
Russian Fissile Material
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of funds for a storage facility for Russian fissile material
until the Secretary of Defense notifies Congress that certain
cost-sharing and transparency agreements have been reached with
Russia.
Section 1108--Limitation on Use of Funds for Weapons Storage Security
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of funds for weapons storage security in Russia until the
Secretary of Defense notifies Congress that an agreement has
been reached with Russia regarding audits and examinations.
Section 1109--Report to Congress on Issues Regarding Payment of Taxes
or Duties on Assistance Provided to Russia Under Cooperative Threat
Reduction Programs
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to Congress on attempts by Russia to tax
assistance provided under the CTR program.
Section 1110--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for a Specified Period
This section would amend title 10, United States Code to
limit the use of all appropriated funds for CTR purposes to a
period of three years.
Section 1111--Availability of Funds
This section would make fiscal year 1998 CTR funds
available for obligation for three years.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
OVERVIEW
Through investigations, hearings, analysis and careful
study, the committee has concluded that there is a lack of
connectivity between defense commitments as an element of the
foreign policy of the United States and the military forces and
resources required to execute these policies in an effective
manner. The effects of inconsistency in policy, exacerbated by
an insufficient and overtaxed military establishment, diminish
the position of the United States as a geopolitical leader in a
chaotic and dangerous world. The committee is concerned that
the increasing number and scope of deployments of U.S. forces
in support of U.S. policies abroad, combined with declining
defense budgets, will erode rather than enhance the security of
the United States.
African Center for Security Studies
The committee report on H.R. 1530, the fiscal year 1996
Defense Authorization bill (H. Rept. 104-131), directed the
Secretary of Defense to develop an African Center for
Securities Studies patterned after the George C. Marshall
Center for European Security Studies located in Germany. This
center would provide a capability to offer advanced study and
training in civil-military relations, the building of
democratic institutions, and related courses to members of the
United States military and to the militaries and defense
civilian personnel of African nations. The committee directed
the secretary to provide the Congressional defense committees
with an implementation plan by December 1, 1995. In March 26,
1996 correspondence to the committee, the Department advised
that the development of the required plan was underway but was
not complete and that the plan should be completed and
forwarded to the Congressional defense committees by mid summer
of 1996. The plan has not yet been received. The committee
fails to understand why the Secretary has not yet responded to
the committee's direction. The Committee remains interested in
monitoring the implementation of U.S. foreign policy and
security interests in Africa and fully expects the directed
plan to be received no later than November 1, 1997. Of the
funds authorized for Operations and Maintenance for fiscal year
1998, $5.0 million should be made available to support
implementation of the plan.
Arms Control Implementation
The fiscal year 1998 budget request contained $315.1
million for arms control implementation programs, representing
a 12 percent increase over the fiscal year 1997 budget request
and a 27 percent increase over the fiscal year 1997
appropriated level.
The budget request is based in large part on planning
assumptions regarding when various arms control treaties will
enter into force. These assumptions have changed repeatedly, as
the entry into force of several treaties--including the Open
Skies Treaty, START II, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT)--has been delayed.
The committee notes that the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC), which was recently ratified by the United States but has
not been ratified by Russia, entered into force on April 29,
1997. This treaty places additional inspection obligations on
the United States requiring an increase in funding for CWC
activities. However, some of the requested increase in funding
is directed toward support for the 1990 Bilateral Destruction
Agreement (BDA) with Russia that is separate from the CWC.
Because the Russians have refused to implement this agreement,
the committee recommends a reduction of $4.1 million for BDA-
related activities.
As has been the case in the past, delays in the entry into
force of other treaties will likely allow some reduction in the
amount of funding authorized for these arms control
implementation programs. For example, the committee believes
that planning assumptions regarding the entry into force of the
Open Skies Treaty are overly optimistic. Accordingly, the
committee recommends a reduction of $1.7 million for Open Skies
treaty implementation activities.
In addition, the budget request would almost double the
amount of funding for research and development (R&D) activities
related to monitoring, implementation, compliance, and
technical support for the CTBT over the fiscal year 1997
appropriated level. The committee is not convinced that such a
significant increase is warranted given that the treaty has not
yet been submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent and
that U.S. ratification is not assured. Moreover, current DOD
planning assumes that the treaty will not enter into force
until late 1999. In addition, some of the specific projects
supported by the R&D request appear to involve the procurement
of items and are not strictly ``research and development''
activities. Finally, the committee has concerns over proposed
DOD operation of seismic monitoring stations currently operated
by the U.S. Geological Survey. Although the Department has
expressed its intention to conclude agreements that delineate
the obligations of each party responsible for a treaty station,
no such agreements have yet been negotiated. Consequently, the
committee directs elsewhere in this report that $13.3 million
of the R&D budget request be fenced until 15 days after the
Secretary of Defense notifies the Congressional defense
committees that the necessary agreements have been concluded.
Moreover, the committee directs the Secretary to provide the
House National Security Committee and Senate Armed Services
Committee with a detailed report no later that September 31,
1997 on how the Department intends to use these CTBT-related
research and development funds.
Finally, the committee notes that Russia has yet to ratify
the START II Treaty. To encourage Russian ratification, the
Administration agreed at the March 1997 Helsinki summit to
postpone the START II deadline for elimination of certain
strategic offensive arms from 2003 to 2007. The committee
understands this step constitutes a substantive amendment to
the START II Treaty and that the administration intends to
submit such changes to the Congress for approval. However, the
committee notes that members of Russia's lower house of
parliament, or Duma, have indicated subsequent to the Helsinki
summit that Russian ratification of the treaty has been
deferred indefinitely. As a result of the agreed slippage in
START II elimination deadlines and the unlikely prospect for
ratification in the near-term, the committee recommends a
reduction to the budget request of $5.4 million, for a total
authorization of $303.9 million.
Defense Logistics Cooperation with the People's Republic of China
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
engaged in a broad range of activities to promote and enhance
U.S. military relations with the Chinese People's Liberation
Army (PLA) through a policy of comprehensive engagement. Some
of the Department's activities with the Chinese government and
the PLA have included frequent and regularexchanges on the
topics of U.S. military strategy, regional security issues and the
transfer of U.S. high-technology to China. In particular, the committee
is concerned that the Department has chosen to advance U.S.-Chinese
military relations by engaging the PLA in detailed discussions and
briefings about advanced defense logistics techniques, infrastructure,
and battlefield employment concepts. The committee's concern arises
from the fact that China's long-term strategic ambitions remain unclear
to U.S. policymakers and to the governments of the Asia-Pacific region.
The committee also observes that the PLA's force modernization
priorities suggest an intent to create a force capable of projecting
and sustaining military power beyond China's borders.
Therefore, the committee urges the Department to reconsider
U.S. military-to military activities with the PLA that could
further enhance the ability of the PLA to project and sustain
military power beyond China's borders. The committee also
expects to be kept fully informed of all future meetings,
exchanges other DOD contacts with Chinese defense entities and
PLA officials for the purpose of discussion on defense
logistics or other military support subjects.
The Khobar Towers Bombing and Force Protection in Southwest Asia
In the wake of the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in
June 1996, the committee notes that several issues related to
force protection remain unresolved. Specifically, questions
regarding the overall authority and responsibility for force
protection issues prior to the terrorist attack remain
unanswered. Moreover, although the Administration has elevated
its emphasis on force protection, it is unclear whether the
proper balance has been struck between mission and risk. In
fact, concerns have been expressed, including within the
military chain of command, that force protection is being
overemphasized to the detriment of mission readiness and that
the requirements of greater force protection may impede the
``freedom of movement'' in theater necessary for U.S. forces
deployed abroad to fulfill their missions.
The committee welcomes the increased attention being given
to force protection issues. Although no level of force
protection is likely to be completely effective in deterring
attack from dedicated terrorists, it is appropriate continually
to reassess the effectiveness of force protection measures and
the balance between mission and risk. The committee is
encouraged by the Department's establishment of a directorate
for force protection issues (J34) and notes that teams from the
services and the Defense Special Weapons Agency are conducting
a series of on-site vulnerability assessments at facilities
where U.S. forces are deployed abroad. Notwithstanding these
initiatives, the committee is concerned by reports that
critical vulnerabilities at several sites in the Persian Gulf
region persist.
With regard to the Khobar Towers bombing, the committee is
concerned that so much of the Department's focus has revolved
around the question of personal culpability for the tragedy. In
spite of continued requests, the committee has not yet been
briefed on the findings of the report prepared by Air Force
Lieutenant General James Record (ret.) on this issue. Neither
has the Department informed the committee about the results of
the reassessment of the Record report's conclusions undertaken
by Air Force officials, reportedly at the insistence of the
Office of the Secretary of Defense.
While the issue of personal accountability is important,
the committee believes that significant organizational,
operational, and intelligence shortcomings contributed to the
lack of preparedness for the bombing. As the committee's August
1996 report on the bombing concluded, and the report of the
Downing Task Force subsequently confirmed, these shortcomings
included the lack of timely and accurate tactical intelligence,
short rotation tours for senior personnel including key
security officers, and the implications of treating a long-term
operation (Operation Southern Watch) as a ``temporary''
contingency mission.
The committee believes that providing effective force
protection to U.S. forces deployed abroad also requires an
ability to work cooperatively with host countries to ensure
that necessary force protection actions are taken in a timely
manner. The issue of host country sensibilities and how to work
with host governments to provide adequate levels of force
protection for U.S. forces is assuming greater importance in
light of the expanding nature of U.S. foreign deployments and
the increased threat of terrorist attacks. In the Khobar Towers
tragedy, it is unclear whether specific guidance was provided
from senior level military and civilian officials to theater
commanders regarding coordination and cooperation with Saudi
government officials on force protection issues. The committee
is still looking for answers to the questions of whether such
guidance was provided, who provided it (and to whom), and
whether the guidance was revised in the wake of the November
1995 Riyadh bombing.
In order to better understand what happened at Khobar
Towers and to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the
future, the committee directs that the Secretary of Defense
provide a classified report to the House National Security
Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee outlining the
following:
(1) The guidance that was provided to theater
commanders prior to the Riyadh bombing regarding how to
approach force protection issues with the Saudis,
including what specific guidance was provided, by and
to whom, and when;
(2) Whether the guidance was revised in the wake of
the Riyadh bombing and, if so, how; and
(3) A detailed explanation of the roles of the Air
Force, U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM), the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense in providing guidance and support for the force
protection mission to all deployed U.S. forces abroad--
with special attention to the forces deployed in the
USCENTCOM area of responsibility--and how their
respective responsibilities have changed since the
Khobar Towers bombing.
The above report should be provided no later than September
31, 1997.
Strategic Force Reductions
The committee notes that the Quadrennial Defense Review
(QDR) endorsed maintaining U.S. strategic nuclear forces at
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I (START I) levels until Russia
ratifies the START II Treaty. Despite the QDR's confirmation of
current policy, the National Defense Panel has advocated
unilateral U.S. nuclear force reductions to the levels
specified in the START II Treaty. Moreover, and contrary to the
QDR, Department of Defense officials also recently expressed
interest in steps that could result in unilateral U.S.
reductions.
The committee believes that strategic nuclear forces remain
central to U.S. national security, and any proposal to alter
the nation's nuclear force structure must be considered on its
own merits. The committee certainly does not believe that
unilateral reductions to nuclear forces should be considered
simply to generate savings for the military services to use to
address program shortfalls, no matter how acute.
Moreover, the committee believes that unilaterally reducing
nuclear force structure below START I levels, prior to Russia's
ratification of START II, would be counterproductive from an
arms control standpoint. Because mutual obligation is the basis
of all arms control agreements, unilateral reductions could
undermine standing agreements and future negotiations.
Unilateral U.S. nuclear force reductions would reduce Russian
incentives to approve the START II Treaty by sending an
unambiguous signal that U.S. reductions will occur with or
without reciprocal Russian action. The committee continues to
believe that any reductions to U.S. nuclear forces should be
based on calculations of national security interest and
implemented only in a mutual and balanced manner with Russia.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1201--Reports to Congress Relating to United States Forces in
Bosnia
The committee notes with concern the Administration's
unilateral decision to extend the participation of U.S. ground
forces in the Bosnia peacekeeping mission. This extension was
made without appropriate prior consultation with the Congress
and in contravention of the President's stated pledge to end
U.S. participation in the peace implementation force (IFOR)
mission after one year. The extended U.S. military presence is
part of a follow-on international ``Stabilization Force''
(SFOR) that is expected to remain in Bosnia until June 1998.
The committee is concerned with the Administration's stated
reasons for extending the U.S. military ground presence and
questions whether the declared intention to withdraw in June
1998 is realistic or credible. The committee is also troubled
with the escalating costs of the Bosnia operation--which now
exceed $6.0 billion; the increased requirements Operation Joint
Guard places on the U.S. armed forces in a time of declining
defense budgets and resources; and the effect of the prolonged
deployment to Bosnia on overall military readiness.
The committee commends the professionalism demonstrated by
U.S. forces in Bosnia in helping to enforce the military
provisions of the Dayton peace agreement. As a result of their
efforts, the military tasks required by the Dayton accord--i.e,
the separation of the warring parties, the cantonment or
destruction of heavy weapons, and the transfer of territories--
have been completed. What remains to be accomplished is the
civilian and humanitarian rebuilding of Bosnia, a task that
SFOR is supposed to facilitate. Unfortunately, this task is
much more difficult, especially when, in the words of former
Secretary of Defense William Perry last November, ``the
conditions for peace still do not exist in Bosnia.''
The Administration's contention that U.S. forces can be
withdrawn in June 1998 is based on an assessment that the
conditions for a stable peace in Bosnia will have taken hold by
then. The committee finds this assumption overly optimistic in
light of recent events, including the fourth postponement of
municipal elections originally scheduled for September 1996;
the heightened incidences of ethnic tension and violence
between Bosnia's ethnically divided communities; and the
deferment for one year of a final decision on the status of
Brcko--located in the hotly-disputed corridor connecting the
eastern and western halves of the Republica Srpska.
Because the current SFOR mission focuses on ensuring the
conditions for an effective rebuilding and rehabilitation of
Bosnia's civilian infrastructure, the prospects for ``mission
creep'' loom large. In particular, the tasks of keeping civil
order, ensuring freedom of movement, supporting the war crimes
tribunal, and providing security for municipal elections all
carry the potential for mission creep. This potential has been
substantially enlarged as a consequence of the difficulties
noted above. The committee is concerned over the potential for
mission creep and notes that there has been no accurate or
timely information provided to the Congress regarding the types
of civilian humanitarian and rebuilding activities that U.S.
troops participating in the Bosnia SFOR are conducting.
In addition, the committee is concerned that the
Administration's fiscal year 1998 budget estimate for Bosnia
operations is based on expectations of near-term political
stability that are unlikely to be met. The Administration has
planned and budgeted for a smaller and lighter ``Deterrence
Force'' (DFOR) to replace SFOR approximately at the start of
the fiscal year and the lower operating costs resulting from
this transition. However, under more realistic political
projections, the planned reduction of the U.S. ground component
from 8,500 soldiers to approximately 5,000 soldiers appears
unlikely and, in the committee's judgment, unwise if U.S.
forces are exposed to undue and increased risk. In fact,
additional tanks have been added to the current SFOR in
response to increased tensions. The committee also notes that
NATO and U.S. Army Europe are reportedly preparing contingency
plans to maintain the SFOR well past the date previously
forecast for the transition to the DFOR.
The apparent military response to deteriorating conditions
in Bosnia suggests that the Administration's plans and funding
for the operation of U.S. ground forces in Bosnia are
unrealistic, and make the likelihood of a supplemental funding
request for fiscal year 1998 very probable. Based upon past
history, the committee is concerned that readiness funding for
U.S. forces will again be jeopardized.
Because of the above concerns, the committee recommends a
provision (sec. 1201) that would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit to the Congressional defense committees two
reports identifying all tasks carried out by U.S. SFOR troops
in Bosnia during the previous quarter that are more
appropriately conducted by civilian organizations, the reasons
why U.S. troops were used to conduct the activities, and the
justification for relying on military forces rather than
civilian organizations or infrastructure to execute these
tasks. The reports should also identify the numbers of troops
involved in each of the activities and whether other SFOR
troops participated. The first report is to be transmitted to
Congress no later than December 1, 1997. The second report is
to be transmitted no later than March 1, 1998.
In addition, the provision would prohibit the expenditure
of more than 60 percent of funds authorized to be appropriated
for the operations of U.S. ground forces in Bosnia until the
President transmits a report to Congress on the political and
military conditions in Bosnia and the costs associated with a
continued U.S. military presence. The report is to be submitted
no later than December 31, 1997. The committee strongly
believes that the report should be submitted in a timely
fashion in order to avoid the need to consider any supplemental
appropriations request under an imminent threat of curtailed
and canceled regular training programs. The committee also
believes that the Administration should speak frankly to the
Congress and the American people regarding the political and
military situation in Bosnia and the Administration's plans
regarding any continued role for U.S. ground forces there.
Section 1202--One-Year Extension of Counterproliferation Authorities
This section would extend the authority through fiscal year
1998 for the Department of Defense to provide support to the UN
Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) under the Weapons of Mass
Destruction Control Act of 1992.
Section 1203--Report on Future Military Capabilities and Strategy of
the People's Republic of China
This section would require that the Secretary of Defense
prepare a report on the future pattern of military
modernization of the People's Republic of China. The report is
similar to one directed in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201), but expands the
scope of research and the time period to be considered.
Section 1204--Temporary Use of General Purpose Vehicles and Nonlethal
Military Equipment under Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreements
This section would amend section 2350(1) of title 10,
United States Code, to permit the Department of Defense utilize
general purpose vehicles and other nonlethal military equipment
under acquisition and cross servicing agreements. Such
authority should facilitate United States contingency military
operations by clarifying the conditions under which the
Department may enter into an acquisition and cross servicing
agreement and more precisely defining the provisions of the
United States Munitions List that should apply under such
conditions.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
PURPOSE
The purpose of Division B is to provide military
construction authorizations and related authority in support of
the military departments during fiscal year 1998. As approved
by the committee, Division B would authorize appropriations in
the amount of $9,123,748,000 for construction in support of the
active forces, reserve components, defense agencies for fiscal
year 1998.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW
The military construction authorization request for fiscal
year 1998 was introduced by request as H.R. 909 on March 4,
1997.
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $4,705,338,000 for fiscal year 1998 for
military construction, including $2,060,854,000 for activities
associated with base closure and realignment, and
$3,668,410,000 for family housing construction and support. The
committee recommends $5,187,875,000 for military construction,
including $2,060,854,000 for activities associated with base
closure and realignment, and $3,935,873,000 for family housing
construction and support for fiscal year 1998.
The committee remains concerned about the condition of the
Nation's military installations and is particularly troubled by
the continuing underinvestment by the Administration in
military facilities and infrastructure. The budget request for
fiscal year 1998 and the preliminary submission of the budget
request for fiscal year 1999 indicate a continuing pattern of
significant deterioration in the funding programmed by the
Administration for military construction despite the evident
requirement. In constant dollars, the budget request is 25
percent less than the Administration sought for fiscal year
1996 and 28 percent lower than the program authorized by
Congress for that fiscal year.
The committee noted one year ago the findings of the
Defense Science Board Task Force on Quality of Life which
reported that 62 percent of barracks and dormitories are
unsuitable and 64 percent of military family housing units are
in a similar condition. The typical military family housing
unit was built 38 years ago and the typical barracks was
constructed in the early 1950s. Yet, the Administration's
budget request proposes, from current spending levels, a 20
percent reduction for the construction of troop housing and a
32 percent reduction in funds available for the development and
construction of military family housing.
Former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, in his March
1996 Annual Report to the President and the Congress, indicated
that ``deteriorated facilities undermine readiness.'' At the
onset of the defense build-up in the early 1980s, the majority
of military facilities were over 25 years old. Currently, the
average age of U.S. military facilities is 45 years. The rate
of facilities recapitalization and modernization for the
military services averages nearly 70 years, far below the
standards established by private industry or other segments of
the public sector, such as public universities.
To alleviate some of the facilities shortfall, the
committee recommends an increase in new budget authority for
these programs of $750,000,000. Approximately 64 percent of
that amount is dedicated to the continuing emphasis of the
committee upon improvements to military housing and
enhancements to other facilities that support the quality of
life for military personnel and their families. The committee
recommends an additional $472,263,000 for military construction
that directly supports improvements in the quality of life for
military personnel. Included in that amount is $269,763,000 for
the construction, replacement, or improvement of military
family housing, $116,700,000 for troop housing construction,
$21,430,000 for child development centers, and $74,600,000 for
other quality-of-life facilities, such as physical fitness
centers and education facilities.
A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in
Division B for fiscal year 1998 follows:
A tabular summary of the military construction projects
included with the authorization of appropriations for fiscal
year 1998 for the BRAC II , BRAC III, and BRAC IV accounts
follows:
TITLE XXI--ARMY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $595,277,000 for Army military
construction and $1,291,937,000 for family housing for fiscal
year 1998. The committee recommends authorization of
$706,027,000 for military construction and $1,349,337,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1998.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Improvements of Military Family Housing
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for improvements of military family housing and facilities, the
Secretary of the Army execute the following projects:
$8,300,000 for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization (32 units) at
Fort Wainwright, Alaska; $14,200,000 for Whole Neighborhood
Revitalization (214 units) at Fort Riley, Kansas; $8,500,000
for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization, Phase IV (86 units) at
Fort Campbell, Kentucky; $5,400,000 for Whole Neighborhood
Revitalization (56 units) at the United States Military
Academy, New York; and $8,000,000 for Whole Neighborhood
Revitalization (98 units) at Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
Planning and Design
The committee directs that, within authorized amounts for
planning and design, $3,100,000 be used by the Secretary of the
Army to conduct planning and design activities for the
construction of the National Ground Intelligence Center,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 1998. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2102--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
1998.
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 1998.
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year
1998. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount
the Army may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2105--Correction In Authorized Uses of Funds, Fort Irwin,
California
This section would correct the authorized use of funds
authorized for appropriation in prior years for a military
construction project at Fort Irwin, California. The provision
would permit the use of previously authorized funds to
construct a heliport at Fort Irwin to support the National
Training Center.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $530,606,000 for Navy military
construction and $1,255,437,000 for family housing for fiscal
year 1998. The committee recommends authorization of
$675,806,000 for military construction and $1,377,219,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1998.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Co-Composting Facility, Naval Education and Training Center, Newport,
Rhode Island
The committee notes the proposal by local municipalities in
the vicinity of the Naval Education and Training Center,
Newport, Rhode Island, to construct and operate a co-composting
facility for joint use with the Department of the Navy on
unimproved real property which would be conveyed to a local
municipality by the Department for this purpose. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct a study of the
feasibility of joint use of such a facility, including an
assessment of the economic benefit to the Department of the
Navy and environmental considerations. The Secretary shall
submit a report on the Department's findings, including any
recommendations, to the congressional defense committees no
later than January 1, 1998.
Improvements to Military Family Housing
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for improvements to military family housing and facilities, the
Secretary of the Navy execute the following projects:
$4,193,000 for Whole House Revitalization (120 units) at Naval
Air Warfare Center China Lake, California; $7,700,000 for Whole
House Revitalization (64 units) at Public Works Center Great
Lakes, Illinois; $12,390,000 for Whole House Revitalization
(123 units) at Naval Air Warfare Center Patuxent River,
Maryland; $11,300,000 for Whole House Revitalization (155
units) at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, North
Carolina; and $4,919,000 for Whole House Revitalization (100
units) at Naval Shipyard Bremerton, Washington.
Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance Facilities, Blount Island,
Jacksonville, Florida
The committee is aware of the completion of the study
required by section 317 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160) on the cost and
operational effectiveness of co-locating afloat prepositioning
maintenance facilities for the Department of the Army and the
Marine Corps. The committee notes the conclusion of the
analysis that the Army and the Marine Corps should maintain and
operate separate, but complementary, prepositioning facilities
in Charleston, South Carolina, and Blount Island, Jacksonville,
Florida, respectively. The committee further notes that the
facilities maintained by the Marine Corps at Blount Island are
leased and acknowledges the estimates provided to the committee
that ownership of those facilities could save the Department of
the Navy between six and seven million dollars annually. The
committee recognizes that the Secretary of Defense, upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy, has provided a
waiver of the current moratorium on land acquisition to permit
the Navy to determine the costs of ownership, to conduct an
environmental assessment, and to make other related studies.
The committee notes its support for the decision of the
Secretary of Defense.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 1998. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2202--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year
1998.
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 1998.
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 1998. This
section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy
may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2205--Authorization of Military Construction Project at Naval
Air Station, Pascagoula, Mississippi, for Which Funds Have Been
Appropriated
This section would authorize $4,900,000 to extend the west
quaywall at Naval Air Station, Pascagoula, Mississippi, for
which funds were previously appropriated pursuant to the
Military Construction Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-
196).
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $495,782,000 for Air Force
military construction and $1,083,362,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends authorization of
$638,447,000 for military construction and $1,171,643,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 1998.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Disposal of Real Property, Hancock Field, Syracuse, New York
The committee notes the pending disposal by the Department
of the Air Force to the General Services Administration of a
parcel of real property consisting of 14.9 acres, with
improvements, at Hancock Field, Syracuse, New York, which is no
longer required for use by the 152nd Air Control Group of the
New York Air National Guard. The committee understands that no
federal agency holds a potential interest in the property. The
committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to work in
cooperation with the Administrator of General Services to
include the condition of the improvements to real property and
demolition as a part of the assessment of the appraisal and
valuation of the property for sale, if available, to the County
of Onondaga, New York.
Improvements to Military Family Housing
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for improvements of military family housing and facilities, the
Secretary of the Air Force execute the following projects:
$10,500,000 for family housing improvements (147 units) at
Travis Air Force Base, California; $5,100,000 for family
housing improvements (50 units) at Dover Air Force Base,
Delaware; $9,700,000 for family housing improvements, phase IX
(64 units) at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam; $8,900,000 for
family housing improvements (147 units) at Cannon Air Force
Base, New Mexico; $4,600,000 for family housing improvements
(60 units) at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma; $10,500,000 for
family housing improvements (98 units) at Shaw Air Force Base,
South Carolina; and $5,500,000 for family housing improvements
(42 units) at Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington.
Inter-Departmental Land Transfer, Bellows Air Force Station, Hawaii
The committee notes the proposed transfer of certain lands
at Bellows Air Force Station, Hawaii, from the administrative
jurisdiction of the Department of the Air Force to the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy for use by the
Marine Corps for training activities. The committee understands
that both military departments are currently assessing the
costs and liabilities expected to accrue to both the Air Force
and the Navy in the operation of the training area. The
committee urges the military departments to expedite this
transfer. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force
and the Secretary of the Navy to report jointly to the
congressional defense committees on issues relating to the
proposed transfer including, but not limited to, an assessment
of the costs and liabilities of each of the military
departments in the management and operation of the training
area, environmental effects of the proposed use of the lands
for training purposes, and a proposed date for the transfer of
jurisdiction from the Air Force to the Navy. The secretaries
shall submit their report to the congressional defense
committees no later than November 15, 1997.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Air Force
construction projects for fiscal year 1998. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2302--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal
year 1998.
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 1998.
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Air Force's budget for fiscal year 1998.
This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount
the Air Force may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2305--Authorization of Military Construction Project at
McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, for Which Funds Have Been
Appropriated
This section would authorize $6,700,000 for a consolidated
education center at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas, for which
funds were previously appropriated pursuant to the Military
Construction Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-196).
TITLE XIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $673,633,000 for defense
agencies military construction and $37,674,000 for family
housing for fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends
authorization of $613,233,000 for military construction and
$37,674,000 for family housing.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects
This section contains the list of authorized defense
agencies construction projects for fiscal year 1998. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2402--Military Housing Planning and Design
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out planning and design activities with respect to the
construction or improvement of military family housing units in
the amount of $50,000.
Section 2403--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make improvements to existing units of family housing for
fiscal year 1998 in an amount not to exceed $50,000,000.
Section 2404--Energy Conservation Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out energy conservation projects.
Section 2405--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Defense Agencies' budget for fiscal year
1998. This section also would provide an overall limit on the
amount the Defense Agencies may spend on military construction
projects.
Section 2406--Correction in Authorized Use of Funds, McClellan Air
Force Base, California
This section would correct the authorized use of funds
authorized for appropriation in prior years for a military
construction project at McClellan Air Force Base, California.
The provision would permit the use of previously authorized
funds to construct an aeromedical clinic addition at Andersen
Air Force Base, Guam, and an occupational health clinic
facility at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma.
Section 2407--Modification of Authority to carry out Fiscal Year 1995
Projects
This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(division B of Public Law 103-337) to provide for full
authorization of military construction projects to support
chemical weapons and munitions destruction at Pine Bluff
Arsenal, Arkansas, and Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $176,300,000 for the NATO
infrastructure fund (NATO Security Investment Program) for
fiscal year 1998. The committee recommends $166,300,000.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
security investment program in an amount equal to the sum of
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for
construction previously financed by the United States.
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO
This section would authorize appropriations of $166,300,000
as the U.S. contribution to the NATO security investment
program.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $172,886,000 for fiscal year
1998 for guard and reserve facilities. The committee recommends
authorization for fiscal year 1998 of $327,208,000 to be
distributed as follows:
Army National Guard .................................... $45,098,000
Air National Guard ..................................... 137,275,000
Army Reserve
.................................................... 69,831,000
Air Force Reserve
.................................................... 40,561,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve ......................... 34,443,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total .............................................. 327,208,000
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTERESTS
Budget Process to Support the Validation of Military Construction
Requirements for the Army National Guard
The committee notes the increase in the requested level of
funding for military construction for the support of the Army
National Guard (ARNG) contained in the budget request for
fiscal year 1998. The committee recognizes and remains
concerned about the often unsafe, undersized, deteriorating,
and inefficient facilities which do not adequately support the
operational, training, and maintenance requirements meeting the
federal mission of the Army National Guard. The committee,
however, is deeply concerned about the budget and planning
process utilized by the Department of the Army to assess and
prioritize facilities requirements for the Army National Guard.
The committee has reviewed the report on ARNG
infrastructure requirements submitted by the Secretary of the
Army as directed by House Report 104-563, the report to
accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997, as well as recent trends in the long-term planning
for ARNG military construction program. While the committee is
pleased to note that the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP)
for fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003 contains a 119
percent increase in funding programmed for ARNG military
construction, the committee also notes with serious concern
that 60 percent of the military construction projects in the
previous FYDP, which the Congress did not authorize for fiscal
year 1997, no longer are in the immediate budget plans of the
Army National Guard.
The committee is concerned about the significant
instability in the ARNG budget and planning process. The
committee strongly urges the Secretary of the Army to undertake
a comprehensive review of the budget and planning process of
the Department of the Army as it concerns the validation and
funding of military construction requirements for the federal
mission of the Army National Guard and to take the necessary
measures to ensure that the Army National Guard adheres to an
integrated department-wide budget and planning process that
defines critical installation shortfalls and facilities
requirements.
The committee authorizes the budget request of $45,098,000
for military construction for the ARNG.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize appropriations for military
construction for the guard and reserve by service component for
fiscal year 1998. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2602--Authorization of Military Construction Projects for Which
Funds Have Been Appropriated
This section would authorize $5,900,000 for the Army
National Guard for additions and alterations to an aviation
support facility at Hilo, Hawaii, and $4,800,000 for the Naval
Reserve for a bachelor enlisted quarters at Naval Air Station,
New Orleans, Louisiana, for which funds were previously
appropriated pursuant to the Military Construction
Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-196).
Section 2603--Army Reserve Construction Project, Salt Lake City, Utah
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
accept financial or in-kind contributions from the State of
Utah for land acquisition, site preparation, relocation, and
other costs in connection with the construction of a reserve
center and organization maintenance shop in Salt Lake City,
Utah.
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To Be
Specified by Law
This section would provide that authorizations for military
construction projects, repair of real property, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities,
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will
expire on October 1, 2000 or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2001, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to
authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated
before October 1, 2000 or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for these projects, whichever is later.
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1995
Projects
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1995 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 1998, or the date of the enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1999, whichever is later.
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1994
Projects
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1994 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 1998, or the date of the enactment of the Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1999, whichever is later.
Section 2704--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1993
Projects
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1993 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 1998, or the date of the enactment of the Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1999, whichever is later.
Section 2705--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1992
Projects
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1992 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 1998, or the date of the enactment of the Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
1999, whichever is later.
Section 2706--Extension of Availability of Funds for Construction of
Over-the-Horizon Radar in Puerto Rico
This section would provide for an extension of authority to
construct a relocatable over-the-horizon radar at Naval Station
Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico authorized by the Defense
Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law 103-335) until October 1,
1998, or the date of the enactment of the Act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 1999, whichever is
later.
Section 2707--Effective Date
This section would provide that Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1,
1997, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is
later.
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Force Protection for Overseas Facilities From Chemical and Biological
Weapons
The committee is concerned about the adequacy of force
protection for military installations and facilities abroad and
is particularly concerned about the condition and ability of
overseas facilities to contribute effectively to the protection
of military personnel in the event of contingencies involving
the use of chemical or biological munitions. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study of overseas
military installations and facilities, with a particular
emphasis on facilities in the Republic of Korea, and the
capacity of those facilities to respond effectively to an
attack in which chemical or biological munitions are used. The
study should include an assessment of the military construction
required to enhance and improve overseas facilities for the
protection of military personnel from chemical and biological
attack. The Secretary shall submit a report on the Department's
findings, including any recommendations, to the congressional
defense committees by March 1, 1998.
Military Construction in the Republic of Korea and Burdensharing
Support for United States Forces, Korea
The committee recognizes the critical facilities shortfalls
at United States military installations in the Republic of
Korea, particularly those that affect readiness and the living
conditions for military personnel. The committee fully supports
the $97,525,000 contained in the budget request for overseas
military construction in the Republic of Korea. The committee
provides authorization for military construction projects for
the Department of the Army at Camp Casey, Camp Castle, Camp
Humphreys, Camp Red Cloud, and Camp Stanley and for the
Department of the Air Force at Kunsan Air Base and Osan Air
Base. The committee is satisfied that these military
construction projects begin to address significant shortfalls
at installations which are central to current U.S. and Korean
defense planning. The committee further notes, however, that
these investments are tied to stationing requirements that may
not be indicative of a long-term, post-reunification U.S.
military presence on the Korean peninsula.
The committee also recognizes the progress made by the
United States in recent years to improve bilateral
burdensharing arrangements with the Korean government. However,
the committee believes that the current level of burdensharing
provided is insufficient given the conditions of facilities in
Korea and the importance of those facilities to the mutual
defense effort. The committee notes the expiration in 1998 of
the Special Measures Agreement (SMA), the framework for current
burdensharing arrangements with the Republic of Korea. The
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to work cooperatively
with the Secretary of State to improve the level of
burdensharing in the follow-on agreement to the current SMA.
Within the context of negotiations with the Government of
Korea, the committee encourages the Secretary of State to
ensure that any future negotiated agreement provide for
adequate and reasonable residual value payments for military
facilities and installations returned to the Republic of
Korea.The committee expects that such residual value would include the
cost of investment by the United States in such facilities and
installations.
Withdrawals of Public Lands for Military Purposes
The committee stresses the importance to military training
and readiness of adequate ranges and maneuver areas. The
committee notes the requirement in the Military Lands
Withdrawal Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-606) that mandates the
preparation by November 6, 1998 of draft environmental impact
statements and applications for the continued withdrawal from
the public domain of the lands comprising the ranges, maneuver
areas, and other training areas covered by that Act for which
the appropriate secretary of a military department intends to
seek continued or renewed withdrawal of those lands. The
committee urges the appropriate military departments to
complete by that date the requirements for Bravo-20 Bombing
Range, Nevada; Nellis Air Force Range, Nevada; Barry M.
Goldwater Air Force Range, Arizona; McGregor Range, New Mexico;
Fort Greely Maneuver Area and Fort Greely Air Drop Zone,
Alaska; and the Fort Wainwright Maneuver Area, Alaska, so that
continued or renewed withdrawal of those lands for military
purposes may be considered by Congress in a timely and
expeditious manner without potential disruption of training
activities at those sites.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Section 2801--Use of Mobility Enhancement Funds for Unspecified Minor
Construction
This section would authorize the use of funds made
available for mobility enhancement for unspecified minor
construction. Under the provision, mobility enhancement funds
could not be used for unspecified minor construction if the
cost of the construction project would exceed $1,500,000.
Section 2802--Limitation on the Use of Operation and Maintenance Funds
for Facility Repair Projects
This section would clarify the definition of repair of
facilities using operations and maintenance funds.
Section 2803--Leasing of Military Family Housing, United States
Southern Command, Miami, Florida
This section would amend section 2828 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to lease
not more than eight housing units in the vicinity of Miami,
Florida, for key and essential personnel, as determined by the
Secretary, for which the annual rental of such units would
exceed the expenditure limitations established by law. This
section would establish certain new expenditure limitations
relating to such housing units.
Section 2804--Use of Financial Incentives Provided as Part of Energy
Savings and Water Conservation Activities
This section would clarify the ability of the military
departments to accept financial incentives or rebates for
specific energy and water conservation activities.
Section 2805--Congressional Notification Requirements Regarding Use of
Department of Defense Housing Funds for Investments in Nongovernmental
Entities
This section would provide for a 30-day notice-and-wait
requirement on requests to use funds appropriated or otherwise
made available under the authority of subchapter IV of chapter
169 of title 10, United States Code, as a cash contribution by
the Department of Defense toward the investment cost in any
project entered into under those authorities.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Section 2811--Increase in Ceiling for Minor Land Acquisition Projects
This section would increase the maximum limit for minor
land acquisitions from $200,000 to $500,000.
Section 2812--Administrative Expenses for Certain Real Property
Transactions
This section would authorize the secretary of a military
department to accept reimbursement from non-federal entities
for the cost of certain real estate services and transactions,
including real estate exchanges, grants, and licenses, done at
the request of, and for the benefit of, those entities.
Section 2813--Disposition of the Proceeds From the Sale of Air Force
Plant 78, Brigham City, Utah
This section would provide that the proceeds from the sale
of Air Force Plant 78, Brigham City, Utah, by the Administrator
of General Services shall be available to the Secretary of the
Air Force for facility maintenance, repair, or environmental
restoration at other industrial plants of the Department of the
Air Force.
Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Section 2821--Consideration of Military Installations as Sites for New
Federal Facilities
This section would require the head of a federal agency to
consult with the Secretary of Defense on the availability of
federal property or facilities at a military installations to
be closed or realigned prior to acquiring non-federal real
property for a new or replacement federal facility of any type.
Section 2822--Prohibition against Conveyance of Property at Military
Installations to State-Owned Shipping Companies
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
conveying, by sale, lease, or other method, any portion of real
property to be disposed under the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law
101-510) to a state-owned shipping company. The section would
also require the Secretary, as a condition on each conveyance
of real property, that the property may not be subsequently
conveyed to a state-owned shipping company. The section would
provide for a reversionary interest of the United States in
such property in the event of a conveyance to, or use by, a
state-owned shipping company.
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances Generally
Part I--Army Conveyances
Section 2831--Land Conveyance, James T. Roker Army Reserve Center,
Durant, Oklahoma
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements in Durant, Oklahoma to Big Five Community
Services, Incorporated. The property is to be used for
educational purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the
conveyance shall be borne by Big Five Community Services,
Incorporated.
Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of unimproved real
property at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia, to Caroline County,
Virginia. The property is to be used for a waste transfer
station. The costs of any surveys necessary for the conveyance
shall be borne by the County.
Section 2833--Expansion of Land Conveyance, Indiana Army Ammunition
Plant, Charlestown, Indiana
This section would amend section 2858 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (division B
of Public Law 104-106) to provide for the additional conveyance
of 500 acres of real property to the State of Indiana.
Section 2834--Modification of Land Conveyance, Lompoc, California
This section would modify the purpose of the conveyance
authorized by section 834(b)(1) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act, 1985 (Public Law 98-407). The modification
would permit the real property to be conveyed by the Secretary
of the Army to the City of Lompoc, California, to be used for
educational or recreation purposes.
Section 2835--Modification of Land Conveyance, Rocky Mountain Arsenal,
Colorado
This section would permit the Administrator of General
Services to enter into a negotiated sale of 815 acres of real
property at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado, to Commerce City,
Colorado.
Section 2836--Correction of Land Conveyance Authority, Army Reserve
Center, Anderson, South Carolina
This section would correct the name of the conveyee in the
conveyance authorized by section 2824 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division B
of Public Law 104-201). The correction would permit the
conveyance to be made by the Secretary of the Army to the Board
of Education, Anderson County, South Carolina.
Section 2837--Land Conveyance, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of unimproved real
property at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to the Town of Spring
Lake, North Carolina. The property is to be used for improved
access to a waste treatment facility and to permit economic
development. The cost of any surveys necessary for the
conveyance shall be borne by the Town.
Section 2838--Land Conveyance, Gibson Army Reserve Center, Chicago,
Illinois
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements in Chicago, Illinois, to the Lawndale Business and
Local Development Corporation. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the Lawndale
Business and Local Development.
Section 2839--Land Conveyance, Fort Dix, New Jersey
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements at Fort Dix, New Jersey, to the Borough of
Wrightstown, New Jersey. The property is to be used for
educational and economic purposes. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the Borough.
Part II--Navy Conveyances
Section 2851--Correction of Lease Authority, Naval Air Station,
Meridian, Mississippi
This section would correct the name of the conveyee in the
conveyance authorized by section 2837 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division B
of Public Law 104-201). The correction would permit the
conveyance to be made by the Secretary of the Navy to the
County of Lauderdale, Mississippi.
Part III--Air Force Conveyances
Section 2861--Land Transfer, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida
This section would authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to transfer, without reimbursement, to the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Air Force a
parcel of real property with improvements at Cape San Blas,
Gulf County, Florida, previously withdrawn for use as the
location of a lighthouse. The Secretary of the Air Force would
incorporate the property as part of Eglin Air Force Base,
Florida.
Section 2862--Study of Land Exchange Options, Shaw Air Force Base,
South Carolina
This section would amend section 2874 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (division B
of Public Law 104-106) to require the Secretary of the Air
Force to conduct a study to identify real property suitable for
exchange to affect the land exchange at Shaw Air Force Base,
South Carolina, authorized pursuant to that law.
Section 2863--Land Conveyance, March Air Force Base, California
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey a parcel of real property at March Air Force Base,
California, to Air Force Village West, Incorporated, of
Riverside, California. As consideration for the parcel to be
conveyed the Corporation shall pay to the United States an
amount equal to the fair market value of the real property as
determined by the Secretary. The section would also make
technical modifications to section 835 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act, 1985 (Public Law 98-407).
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 2881--Repeal of Requirement to Operate Naval Academy Dairy Farm
This section would amend/repeal section 810 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-110)
which prohibits the Department of the Navy from taking any
action to close, dispose, or phase out the operation of the
Naval Academy Dairy Farm.
Section 2882--Long-Term Lease of Property, Naples, Italy
This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a long-term lease, not to exceed twenty years, for
structures and real property relating to a regional hospital
complex in Naples, Italy, that the Secretary determines to be
necessary for purposes of the Naples Improvements Initiative.
Section 2883--Designation of Military Family Housing at Lackland Air
Force Base, Texas, in Honor of Frank Tejeda, a Former Member of the
House of Representatives
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to designate military family housing developments to be
constructed at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, in honor of the
late Frank Tejeda, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas.
TITLE XXIX--SIKES ACT IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2902--Definition of Sikes Act for Purposes of Amendments
This section would clarify references to the Sikes Act.
Section 2903--Codification of Short Title of Act
This section would codify the short title of the Sikes Act.
Section 2904--Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans
This section would amend the Sikes Act to require the
Secretary of Defense to prepare and implement integrated
natural resource management plans on all appropriate military
installations, including installations of the guard and reserve
forces.
Section 2905--Review for Preparation of Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plans
This section would direct the Secretary of each military
department to review, within nine months of the date of
enactment of this title, each military installation under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned to determine the
applicability and appropriateness of integrated natural
resources management plans to those installations. The section
would require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on
the findings of the Secretaries of the military departments.
The section also would provide for a schedule to initiate
implement integrated natural resource management plans on
military installations where appropriate.
Section 2906--Annual Reviews and Reports
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of the Interior to submit annual reports to Congress
regarding the implementation of integrated natural resource
management plans.
Section 2907--Transfer of Wildlife Conservation Fees from Closed
Military Installations
This section would permit fees charged for the purpose of
wildlife conservation at military installations scheduled to be
closed to be transferred to another military installation to be
used for the same purpose.
Section 2908--Federal Enforcement of Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plans and Enforcement of Other Laws
This section would clarify the responsibility of the
Secretary of Defense for enforcement, on military
installations, of federal law relating to the conservation of
natural resources. This section would not affect the
enforcement authorities of the Secretary of the Interior for
the same purpose.
Section 2909--Natural Resource Management Services
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a sufficient number of professionally trained natural
resource management and law enforcement personnel to perform
the duties required by this title.
Section 2910--Definitions
This section would define terms used in this title.
Section 2911--Cooperative Agreements
This section would clarify that cooperative agreements
between and among the Department of Defense, the various
States, local governments, non-governmental organizations, or
other private parties, which are entered into to implement an
integrated natural resource management plan, shall be funded on
a cost-sharing basis.
Section 2912--Repeal of Superseded Provision
This section would repeal certain reporting requirements
and definitions of terms which would be superseded by enactment
of this title.
Section 2913--Clerical Amendments
This section would make various technical and clerical
changes to the Sikes Act.
Section 2914--Authorizations of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for programs on
public lands related to the implementation of this title for
fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2000.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
PURPOSE
Title XXXI would authorize appropriations for the national
security programs of the Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal
year 1998, including management and operations of programs for
research, development, and production in support of the armed
forces, the production of strategic and critical materials for
the armed forces, the protection of critical materials,
materials and information necessary for national defense,
management of defense radioactive wastes, environmental
management, naval nuclear propulsion, and other military
applications of nuclear energy.
OVERVIEW
The fiscal year 1998 budget request for DOE national
security programs totaled $13.6 billion. Of the total amount
requested, $3.6 billion was for weapons activities, $5.0
billion for environmental restoration and waste management,
$2.2 billion for defense fixed asset acquisition, $1.0 billion
for environmental management privatization, $1.6 billion for
other defense activities, and $190.0 million for defense
nuclear waste disposal. The committee recommends $11.0 billion,
a decrease of $2.6 billion. The following table summarizes the
request and the committee recommendations:
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative and Control of Supercomputer
Technology
The budget request contained $204.8 million for the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) and $151.5
million for stockpile computations and modeling. The committee
recommends funding these two programs within the stockpile
stewardship program at the requested level. While the committee
believes that the continued viability of these two programs is
critical to the Department of Energy's ability to certify the
reliability of our nation's nuclear stockpile, it is disturbed
by reports that U.S. manufactured supercomputers have been
transferred to the premier Russian nuclear weapons laboratories
without the required government export licenses. In fact, a
company that recently admitted transferring supercomputers
without an export license to a Russian nuclear weapons
laboratory is a DOE contractor on the accelerated strategic
computing initiative.
Supercomputers can be used to enhance and maintain a
nuclear device by processing complex computer simulations to
determine the effect of modifications of the device. The U.S.
government requires exporters to apply for licenses to export
supercomputers to such Russian nuclear facilities so the
government can review the prospective transfer and determine
the appropriateness of the computer in question for its stated
end-use, the history of the facility in question, and the risk
the computer would be diverted to prohibited end-uses. It is
the stated policy of the U.S. government to deny such exports
for use in proliferation-related activities such as research
on, or development, design, manufacture, construction, testing,
or maintenance of any nuclear explosive device or components
and subsystems of such a device. The use of U.S. supplied
supercomputers in such proliferation-related activities could
have detrimental effects on U.S. national security. The
committee expects the Department of Energy to take a more
assertive role in the export control of sensitive technologies
that have nuclear proliferation implications. The Department of
Energy should take the lead in the preventing hazardous
transfers of nuclear technologies to countries and end-users of
proliferation concern. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Energy to implement the necessary policy and
programmatic changes to ensure that the Department is able to
effectively track and assess the flow of specific technologies
with nuclear applications to countries of proliferation
concern. The committee recommends elsewhere in this title
additional reporting requirements for the Department and the
ASCI contractors to ensure the protection of this program.
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory
The budget request contained $15.7 million for the
incremental component of the construction upgrades at the
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility at Los Alamos
National Laboratory. The total project cost has been estimated
at $174.0 million. The committee has been advised by the
Department that construction has been suspended as the result
of a preliminary review indicating that work was being
performed outside theauthorized scope and that an investigation
has been initiated. The committee is further concerned with reports of
high cost and apparent overruns during the first phase of this project.
Because of the uncertainty and the likely need for substantial
revisions in the estimates of the total project cost, the committee
does not recommend funding of the incremental request. The committee
adopts this position, without prejudice, and upon receipt of additional
information and the results of the investigation will reevaluate the
budget request for incremental funding for this project in this fiscal
year.
Defense Asset Acquisition
The budget request contained $2.2 billion for defense asset
acquisition. The committee rejects the recommendation of
Department to establish a new defense asset acquisition
account. This proposal would have consolidated construction
projects for all DOE national security programs into one
account. The committee believes that this proposal would
unnecessarily complicate its ability to ascertain appropriate
funding levels from year to year in what are clearly distinctly
different programs. The committee also rejects the Department's
proposal to fully fund construction projects in the year they
are first requested. Not only does the Department's proposal
request full funding for projects which are being requested for
the first time in this fiscal year but also for projects which
have been authorized in prior years. The Department's proposal
would require an additional fiscal year 1998 authorization of
$1.5 billion above the funds requested in fiscal year 1997 for
this purpose. The committee recommends authorization of the
fiscal year 1998 incremental funding component for each of the
authorized construction projects in weapons activities,
environmental management, and other defense activities
accounts.
Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
The budget request contained $5.0 billion for the
activities of the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management. The committee recommends an authorization of $5.3
billion.
The committee also recommends transferring $743.6 million
from the subaccount entitled ``environmental restoration'' to
the closure fund for the purpose of accelerating the closure of
the Rocky Flats Environmental Site and the Fernald
Environmental Management Project. This action would allow the
consolidation of management and funding activities for these
sites into one account at the level requested in the budget.
The committee recommends transferring $45.2 million from the
operations and maintenance account within the stockpile
management program to the closure fund. This transfer of $45.2
million represents the costs associated with the provision of
security at the Rocky Flats Site and the Fernald site. The
committee believes that this consolidation of all activities
and the costs associated with those activities will provide
greater control and accountability. The committee is further
designating these sites as ``closure sites'' pursuant to the
provisions of section 3143 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201).
The committee believes that the Department should consider, as
part of its fiscal year 1999 budget request, the continued
consolidation of all national security funding for these two
sites into the closure fund. The committee is disappointed that
the Department chose to include only $15.0 million in the
closure fund in fiscal year 1998.
The committee further recommends an increase of $102.0
million for the closure account. Of this amount, the committee
recommends allocating $69.9 million to the Rocky Flats site and
$32.1 million to the Fernald site. The committee strongly
supports the efforts of the adjacent communities to close these
two sites within the next ten years. The committee intends to
assure through appropriate funding levels that this goal is
achieved. The committee is persuaded that the overall savings
to the Department by accelerating the clean up at these sites
will be measured in the billions of dollars.
The committee also recommends that of the funds authorized
within the subaccount entitled ``waste management'', an
additional $40.0 million be allocated to the Savannah River
site to allow the consolidated incineration facility to operate
at full capacity, as originally intended, to assure that the
Defense Waste Processing Facility operates at its designed
capacity, and that the site has sufficient funds to accelerate
the disposal of transuranic waste. At the funding level
requested, only periodic burning and treatment of benzene
produced in support of the high level waste vitrification
effort is possible. These additional funds will allow the full
time incineration of other low and mixed radioactive wastes,
meet the site treatment plan commitment, and mitigate the use
of the E-Area low level waste vault. Finally, the committee
urges the Department to assess the cost savings that may be
available if it is able to successfully develop a spent fuel or
high level waste storage cask system using high density
concrete. Of the funds authorized in section 3102 of this
title, no more than $3.0 million may be made available for this
demonstration project.
The committee recommends reducing the budget request for
the subaccount entitled ``program direction'' by $100.0
million. The committee recommends reducing support service
contractors, training and other related expenses by $60.0
million and federal employment expenses, including salaries and
travel, by 15 percent or $40.0 million. Despite reductions to
this account in each of the last two fiscal years, the
Department has failed to significantly reduce federal
employment levels as directed by this committee, particularly
at DOE headquarters. Instead, the Office of Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management has chosen to transfer federal
employees and their headquarters function to the field and to
detail individuals to the Environmental Protection Agency. This
action occurred despite protestations from site managers who
were not requesting additional employees.
With respect to the detailing of employees to the
Environmental Protection Agency, the committee is concerned
that scarce DOE funds are being spent on activities which are
unrelated or only tangentially related to the Department's core
remediation effort. The committee notes that the Office of
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management currently has
staffing levels that are almost 20 percent above the levels
recommended by the Department as part of its own Strategic
Alignment Initiative.
Finally, the committee recommends reducing the budget
request for the subaccount entitled ``technology development''
by $75.0 million. The committee does not support the
Department's proposal to create a new technology deployment
initiative office. Based on the supporting documentation
provided to the committee, it appears thatthis program is
really not a program to deploy innovative technology, but rather an
effort to accelerate remediation efforts by using existing commercially
available technology. This appears to be the case at several sites,
particularly at Fernald. The committee notes that the Department has
chosen to reduce the level of funding for this account below last
year's request. The Department apparently agrees with the committee
that this office has been unable to execute a program which was
intended to develop and deploy new remediation technology in a timely
manner.
The committee remains concerned that the fundamental
problems that have resulted in expenditures of over $2.0
billion for technology development over the last several years,
with very little actual field deployment, have yet to be
corrected. With the transition to fixed priced contracts over
the next several years, the role of technology development will
necessarily shift to the private sector. With the proper profit
incentives included in these contracts, the private sector
will, on its own, develop the technologies needed to fulfill
the terms of the contracts. The Department should consider
these facts in preparing its fiscal year 1999 budget request.
Enhanced Surveillance Program at the Production Plants
The budget request contained $60.0 million to implement the
Enhanced Surveillance Program (ESP) within the weapons
stockpile management account. The committee recommends $75.0
million, an increase of $15.0 million. The ESP, involving the
four production plants and the three laboratories, is designed
to develop new technologies for detecting degradation in aging
weapons components in order to ensure, reliability, safety,
effectiveness, and performance of existing weapons beyond their
planned service life. While the committee recognizes that this
is a complex-wide initiative, it expects that the additional
resources provided by this increase will be directed to the
production plants, particularly those engaged in pit
disassembly activities and monitoring of limited life
components. For example, if the Pantex Plant does not receive
additional funds for enhanced surveillance activities, it will
not be prepared, from an engineering and process development
standpoint, to perform its stockpile life extension mission.
Inertial Confinement Fusion
The budget request contained $217.0 million for inertial
confinement fusion (ICF) operating program. The committee
recommends $217.0 million, the amount requested. Within the
total committee recommendation, $26.1 million shall be made
available for the University of Rochester's Laboratory for
Laser Energetics, an increase of $2.5 million.
The committee notes that many non-governmental
organizations have questioned the need and the cost of the
Department of Energy's National Ignition Facility (NIF). The
committee also notes that currently the Department is in
litigation over its Programatic Environmental Impact Statement
on Stockpile Stewardship and Management. The committee urges
the Secretary to ensure that the defense program office manages
the NIF construction project in a manner that does not make
irreversible commitments of resources to construction until the
outstanding environmental process issues are addressed in the
district court.
Peer review is a fundamental element of analyzing,
developing and understanding the answers to the complex
scientific, engineering and technical issues that go into
determining whether or not to continue the substantial
investments required in any facility such as the NIF. The
committee directs the Secretary to request the National Academy
of Sciences to continue to review, operating in full compliance
with applicable law, the scientific and programmatic issues
surrounding the NIF.
Infrastructure and Manufacturing Improvements at Weapons Production
Sites
The budget request contained $588.0 million for
infrastructure programs within the core stockpile management
program. The committee recommends $623.0 million, an increase
of $35.0 million. This increase would assist the production
sites in successfully completing the transition from older,
excess-capacity facilities to smaller, more efficient units.
The committee is concerned that the Department has failed to
address basic infrastructure problems, such as roof repairs,
steam and condensate piping upgrades, power deficiencies,
obsolete smoke detectors, and fire alarm control panels at the
Pantex plant. Pantex is the central facility where the
mechanics of the stockpile life extension program (SLEP) will
be performed for every weapon in the enduring stockpile. A
degraded Pantex places the success of the SLEP into question.
The committee also believes that substantial long-term cost
savings will accrue to the Department if it is able to
accelerate the downsizing initiative currently underway at the
Kansas City plant. With this acceleration, the Department will
need to purchase and install new manufacturing equipment to
enhance the expected efficiencies that should occur. The
committee expects that the remainder of the increase, would be
applied to address the manufacturing problems at these two
sites through implementation of the Advanced Design and
Production Technologies (AdaPT) program and the Process
Development Program (PDP).
Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
The budget request contained $234.6 million for activities
related to the prevention of weapons proliferation within the
office on nonproliferation and national security. The committee
recommends $205.0 million, a reduction of $29.6 million from
the request. The committee recommends that this reduction be
applied against the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
program. The committee remains unconvinced of the merits of
this program and other programs whose goal is to promote long
term stability within the states of the Former Soviet Union.
The committee is further concerned by reports that nearly half
the aid intended for Russian scientists is being siphoned off
by duties, regional taxes, overhead charges and suspected
payoffs.
Laboratory Review of Missile Defenses
In House Report 104-563 accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201),
the committee required the directors of each of the nuclear
weapons laboratories to submit a report that assessed ballistic
missile defense expertise and problem solving capabilities
within their respective organizations. The laboratories have a
long-standing role in nonproliferation, counter-proliferation,
and conventional defense activities, and a history of
significant contributions to missile defense programs. The
committee required this most recent assessment of the
laboratories' capabilities to determine if greater laboratory
involvement could strengthen the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense
(BMD) program. Options for greater involvement by the nuclear
weapons laboratories ranged from the use of supercomputing and
modeling capabilities, which can provide simulation tools to
support risk reduction in BMD system development and
deployment, to the use of the laboratories' Strategic Target
System for Theater Missile Defense and National Missile Defense
test and evaluation.
As a result of this study, the committee recommends,
elsewhere in this title, the establishment of a new program
office that will integrate the existing BMD weapons laboratory
expertise with the Department of Defense Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO). This new program office would be
chaired on a rotating basis by the laboratory directors. Office
staff would be assigned specific-problem solving tasks in
response to requests for assistance by the BMDO. Of the funds
available for core stockpile stewardship in fiscal year 1998,
the committee recommends that $50.0 million be made available
to implement this program. The committee believes that the
laboratories have resources and expertise that can be of great
use to the Department of Defense not only in the areas noted
above, but also in areas such as metallurgy, acoustics and
component analysis. The committee believes that if the
laboratories are successful in solving the problems related to
the BMD program in a cost effective way, then it is likely that
this program will be expanded in future years to such areas as
submarine development and component analysis.
Management and Organization of DOE's Nuclear Weapons Program
Section 3140 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) directed the Department
to conduct a study of the current management structure of the
nuclear weapons program, including an analysis of the functions
performed at headquarters, the operations offices, and the
applicable area and site offices. The study made a number of
recommendations designed to improve the management operations
within the weapons programs. These recommendations were made as
a result of conclusive evidence assembled by the authors of the
report that significant management problems existed between
headquarters and the field offices and that there were too many
employees at both locations. The report concluded that these
excess employees create work not only for themselves but for
others as well, undermining attempts to establish disciplined
staffing processes. The report recommended that DOE
``streamline and reduce headquarters and field staffing--
federal employees and contractors by a least 20-30 percent.''
The committee is concerned over the possible confusion and
inefficiencies that may result from the existing organizational
arrangement. While the committee received a letter from the
Department on June 4, 1997 explaining the actions taken to
date, these actions were long overdue in light of the serious
nature of the report's findings. It remains to be seen whether
the actions proposed will in fact address the fundamental
problems outlined in the report. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Energy to provide a follow-up report
to the congressional defense committees by October 15, 1997, on
the status of the corrective action being taken. Upon receipt
of this follow-up report, the committee intends to schedule a
series of hearings to examine the state of the nuclear weapons
complex, its future missions, and its organizational structure.
Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting Program
The committee recognizes that the development and
implementation of the Materials, Protection, Control, and
Accounting Program for fissile materials in Russia addresses
important national security interests of the United States.
Because fissile materials will remain in Russia for 20 to 40
years before disposition can be safely implemented and
completed, the security of these fissile materials during all
aspects of storage and disposition is of considerable
importance to U.S. national security. Out of the unexpended
balances in the Nonproliferation and National Security account,
the Department is urged to allocate up to $3.0 million for the
implementation of a nuclear materials safety management program
modeled after the best lessons-learned from the joint U.S.-
Russian disposition activities. The committee recognizes the
Amarillo National Resource Center for Plutonium for its leading
work within the Department on joint U.S.-Russian efforts in the
area of nuclear materials safety management. Finally, the
committee recommends that the Department develop a
comprehensive nuclear materials safety management program
budget for fiscal year 1999.
Naval Reactors
The budget request contained $632.5 million for naval
reactors. The committee recommends $678.5 million, an increase
of $43.0 million, to allow the orderly completion of the
prototype inactivation work. This increase would prevent delays
in the A1W-A defueling; expedite related data retrieval from
the plant's core; prevent delays in the inactivation of the
Windsor site and the D1G and S3G reactor plants at the
Kesselring site; and allow planned remediation efforts to
continue on schedule at the naval reactor facility in Idaho.
Nuclear Energy
The budget request contained $81.0 million for nuclear
energy activities, including $25.0 million for nuclear
technology research and development and $50.0 million for the
international nuclear safety program. The committee recommends
$47.0 million, a decrease of $34.0 million. The former
activity, which involves electrometallurgical research, was
funded in fiscal year 1997 by DOE's civilian technology office
and not through an authorization within this committee's
jurisdiction. The committee continues to believe this research
should not be funded within DOE'snational security
authorization and, therefore, recommends $12.0 million be authorized
for this purpose. The committee does not intend to fund this program in
future years. The international nuclear safety program has in the past
been carried out by the Agency for International Development using
foreign assistance funds. The committee believes these activities
should be funded in the foreign assistance budget. Accordingly, the
committee recommends $25.0 million be authorized for this purpose.
Again, the committee does not intend to fund this program in future
years within DOE's national security authorization. Within line items
entitled Nuclear Security and the Chornobyl Shutdown Initiative, the
committee recognizes the United States commitment to its G-7
obligations. However, the committee believes these programs are
essentially civilian programs and should be funded from the foreign
assistance accounts. The committee recommends $10.0 million for
plutonium core conversion, which was funded last year through the
Department of Defense.
Operation of F and H Canyons
The budget request contained $492.3 million for operations
and maintenance within the nuclear material and facility
stabilization account at the Savannah River Site. The committee
recommends $533.3 million, an increase of $41.0 million over
the amount requested, to allow for the operation of both the F-
canyon and the H-canyon facilities at the site and to maintain
the unique capability for the stabilization of aluminum clad
spent nuclear fuel. The committee believes that the long-term
storage and direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel, currently in
wet storage or being shipped to the site, presents significant
risks and costs that can be more appropriately addressed by
using the reprocessing capability of the canyons.
Privatization
The budget request contained $1.0 billion for the defense
environmental management privatization initiative. The
committee does not recommend funding for this initiative. The
committee recognizes that this is an important initiative of
the Department, and it accepts the premise that the remediation
effort undertaken to date at many of the former nuclear weapons
defense sites has been overly costly and, to a large degree,
ineffective. The committee further understands and supports the
desire to reduce costs and to improve efficiencies through the
use of performance-based fixed price contracts. However, the
committee is not persuaded that the privatization proposal has
been properly developed at this point and to the extent
required, considering the amount of money being requested, the
technical complexity of many of the projects, the large margin
of error in the cost estimates, the Department's poor track
record of successful project completion, and the lack of
suitable staff and procedures to oversee the contracting
process and the contractors' activities.
The committee believes it should defer further
consideration of this initiative until the Department's fiscal
year 1999 budget request. While the committee provided funding
for a limited privatization initiative in fiscal year 1997, it
did so based on the assumption that the Department would be
able to support its continuation based upon a rigorous analysis
of projected cost savings that would accrue to the government.
The committee directed the Department to provide that report to
the committee no later than December 31, 1996. The Department
has not submitted the required report nor has it provided the
level of documentation to support a request of this magnitude.
The committee is not persuaded by estimates of cost savings
where the comparisons are between traditional non-competitive
management and operating contracts and ``privatized''
contracts.
The committee believes that several additional comments are
warranted. It is important to note that DOE's privatization
initiative is not a divestiture, which generally involves the
sale of government-owned assets or functions. For all practical
purposes, DOE's activities are already privatized, in that the
private sector contractors already conduct DOE's programs at
its major sites.
What sets the proposed privatization initiative apart from
DOE's traditional approach is the attempt to shift the
responsibility for financing, and much of the risk, to the
contractor. Thus, under the Department's proposal, private-
sector contractors would be responsible for the funding,
construction and operation of the ``privatized'' facility. At
the time the facility is completed, DOE would begin paying the
contractor for the services provided. In fact, as presently
contemplated by DOE, virtually no expenditures of the
government's funds would occur until fiscal year 2003, when
outlays of between $1.0 and $2.0 billion would begin. From the
limited cost estimates available, the projects that are being
requested in fiscal year 1998 are expected to result in
construction costs exceeding $2.8 billion and operating costs
exceeding $5.8 billion.
At least one of the projects chosen for privatization, the
tank waste remediation project, is perhaps the most technically
complex, risky, and expensive environmental remediation project
in the DOE program. DOE has spent about $2.5 billion on this
project alone since 1989 and its life-cycle cost is estimated
to be $36.0 billion. DOE has estimated that the ``privatized''
approach for a portion of the $36.0 billion project would
result in a cost of $9.6 billion. Using DOE's traditional
noncompetitive management and operations approach, the same
project is estimated to cost $13.6 billion. However, a recent
General Accounting Office (GAO) study determined that both
estimates were based on a range of values with a margin of
error of plus or minus 40 percent. That is, the cost of the
privatized approach could range from $5.8 billion to $13.4
billion and the noncompetitive approach, from $8.0 billion to
$18.6 billion. Because of the large margin of error in these
cost estimates, GAO concluded that the ``privatization approach
could be more costly.''
At least eight of the other projects being proposed for
privatization suffer from even less analysis and more
uncertainty regarding cost savings. In many of these cases, DOE
obtained an estimate from its existing management and operating
contractor and apparently arbitrarily reduced it by anywhere
from 10 percent to 35 percent. In several cases, it is clear
that the funding is not required this fiscal year because the
contracts could not be executed. In fact, in the case of the
tank waste remediation project discussed above, it is clear
that DOE may not even obligate in fiscal year 1998 the funds
that were authorized and appropriated for this project in
fiscal year 1997. The rationale and justification for a request
of an additional $427.0 million in fiscal year 1998 for this
project alone is lacking. In other cases, it is apparent that
projects were chosen which were not of the highest priority nor
were required by compliance agreements. It appearsthat these
projects were simply chosen because they would not result in outlays
during the next five years. It is clear to the committee that deferral
of this program for one budget cycle will not result in any irreparable
harm or in any way affect the safety of the nuclear weapons complex.
The committee strongly suggests that the Department consider obtaining
outside independent assessments as to the life-cycle costs for these
projects before continuing to recommend their privatization. Finally,
DOE has cited several examples of successful privatization projects.
Two of these involve the ``privatizing'' of a laundry facility for
contaminated worker clothing. Another involves the remediation effort
at Pit 9 near Idaho Falls which is now the subject of a contract
dispute and which could result in a doubling of the original contract
price of $179.0 million for this one-acre site out of 88 acres that
need to be cleaned up. The committee believes there is substantially
more complexity in managing the tank waste remediation project than in
building a laundry.
The committee's concern is amplified by the knowledge that
of the 80 projects initiated in the last 16 years, only 15 have
been completed, most of which were behind schedule and over
budget. After billions of dollars had been invested, 31 of
these projects were terminated before completion.
In rejecting the blanket approval of the privatization
initiative, the committee is not suggesting that it is
abandoning the effort to develop a successful and cost
effective remediation program across the DOE complex,
particularly at the Hanford tank waste site. In the case of the
Hanford site, the committee recognizes that a substantial
investment by the Department is required for many years,
regardless of the method chosen to finance the effort or the
scope of the effort. Accordingly, the committee recommends
elsewhere in this title a funding level sufficient to allow
this remediation effort to continue on schedule. The committee
believes that the $170.0 million authorized for fiscal year
1997 and which remains unobligated, added to the $54.0 million
which is being paid out this year to the prospective bidders
from fiscal year 1996 funds for the cost of bid preparation,
coupled with the $70.0 million authorized elsewhere in this
title, should be more than sufficient to allow the remediation
effort to continue, whether the project uses private capital or
annual appropriations. In doing so, the committee recommends
that the Department provide substantial and detailed
documentation to the congressional defense committees 30 days
prior to the execution of a contract. The committee will
require that a compelling case be made before it will accept a
proposal of the scope currently being proposed. The committee
believes that the Department should assess the cost and the
need to construct two low-level waste treatment facilities that
will for all practical purposes be performing identical
functions. The committee recommends that the Department
evaluate very carefully the long term advantages and the
disadvantages of privatization to the United States, the State
of Washington, the stakeholders and the contractor or
contractors before it renews its proposal to seek private
sector financing for an activity this complex and this
expensive.
As noted above, the committee remains concerned that many
of the Department's projects have been mismanaged, leading to
cost overruns, delays, and in some cases, project failures. The
committee believes that the Department's excessive red tape,
bureaucracy, and an unclear chain of command make it difficult
if not impossible to manage a large complex project like the
one at Hanford. Regardless of the ultimate method chosen for
financing this project, the committee believes that the
Department should immediately seek to correct these basic
management deficiencies.
Program Direction for Defense Programs
The budget request contained $303.5 million for the program
direction function within the office of Defense Programs. The
committee recommends $208.5 million, a reduction of $95.0
million. Program direction provides funds for all federal
personnel-related expenses, capital equipment, travel, outside
contractual services, and the community assistance program at
Los Alamos. The committee further recommends that this
reduction be obtained by reducing support services, training
and other related expenses by $70.0 million. The committee
recommends that the remaining reductions be obtained by
reducing federal employment, including salaries and travel
costs, by 15 percent or $25.0 million.
Recurring General Provision Relating to Availability of Funds
The committee does not recommend the inclusion of a
provision which would provide that amounts authorized to the
Department of Energy for operating expenses or for plant and
capital equipment remain available until expended. This change
is consistent with the approach adopted by the committee with
respect to Department of Defense authorization and
appropriations accounts. This change would allow greater
financial accountability and would allow a better analysis of
uncosted balances carried over in future fiscal years.
Stockpile Life Extension Program at Y-12 Plant
The budget request contained $1.8 billion for core
stockpile management. Within this program, the committee
recommends an additional $35.0 million for the stockpile life
extension program. Recent risk reduction analysis has indicated
a need for additional funding in fiscal year 1998 to support
near-term W87 workload activities at DOE's Y-12 plant and to
provide additional resources at that plant for future stockpile
extension activities.
Technology Transfer
The budget request contained $60.0 million for technology
transfer. The committee recommends $52.5 million, a reduction
of $7.5 million from the amount requested. Funding is not
provided for projects under the program entitled ``Partnership
for a New Generation of Vehicles.'' The committee believes
that, if this program is meritorious, funding in future years
should be requested within other non-defense programs of the
Department of Energy. Of the remaining amount made available
for technology transfer, the committee recommends $10.0 million
for the American Textiles Partnership project, an increase of
$4.5 million above the amount requested for this activity.
Transfer of Funds Associated with Security at Rocky Flats Site and the
Fernald Site
The committee, as noted above, in the discussion on the
Defense Environmental Management Program recommends
transferring $45.2 million from the operations and maintenance
account within the stockpile management program to the closure
fund. The transfer of $45.2 million represents the costs
associated with the provision of security at the Rocky Flats
site and the Fernald site. The committee understands that the
Department has no objection to this transfer from the stockpile
management account. The committee believes that this
consolidation of all activities and the costs associated with
those activities will provide greater control and
accountability. The committee also believes that this transfer
more accurately reflects the programmatic responsibility for
those costs and the provision of those activities. The
committee believes those costs should be borne by the
environmental restoration and waste management program. The
committee urges the Department to assess other areas and costs
which are not clearly related to the weapons activities
accounts and to consider a realignment in the fiscal 1999
budget request.
Tritium Production
The committee continues to support the Department of
Energy's dual-track strategy for determining the most reliable
and cost-effective method for the production of tritium for
national security, however, it did not receive the
Administration's proposal for legislative changes to certain
underlying statutory provisions affecting tritium production
until after the conclusion of the hearing process on the
Department's annual authorization. These proposed changes are
significant and, in some cases, seek to address issues such as
the sale of power generated from commercial tritium production
facilities which may involve matters within the jurisdiction of
another committee. The committee will seek to address these
technical, policy and jurisdictional issues during the
remainder of this Congress.
Worker and Community Transition
The budget request contained $70.5 million for Worker and
Community Transition. The committee recommends $22.0 million.
The committee further recommends that this program be
terminated at the end of fiscal year 1999.
The worker and community transition program was created
pursuant to section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484). This Act
established requirements and objectives to guide the Department
in its efforts to restructure the private contractor workforce
following the end of the cold war. The build-up in contractor
employment within the Department, especially across the defense
nuclear weapons complex, accelerated during the late 1980s and
reached its peak at the end of fiscal year 1992, when the
Department employed over 148,000 contractor employees. With the
end of the cold war, the Department recognized that the weapons
production mission would need to be reduced and that its
primary mission would shift toward environmental management.
Section 3161 was designed to minimize the impacts on workers
and communities during this transition.
Since the enactment of section 3161, the Department has
spent over $609.0 million to provide benefits to contractor
employees separated in workforce restructuring and downsizing
efforts. In addition, approximately $150.0 million has been
provided to communities affected by the downsizing. Payments to
displaced workers took the form of enhanced severance payments,
relocation allowances, educational benefits, and enhanced
retirement benefits.
The committee recommends that the provisions contained in
section 3161 be phased out by the end of fiscal year 1999. This
recommendation is based on a number of factors. First, most of
the separations have now occurred. At the end of fiscal year
1998, the DOE contractor employment levels will be at 100,000.
Second, with DOE's movement to fixed price contracts,
administration and determination of employment levels will be
within the purview of the contractor, not the government.
Third, much of the upcoming work will be dictated by
environmental compliance agreements and not by nuclear weapons
production demands. Separations that occur to a large extent in
the future will have nothing to do with the end of the cold
war. However, if the weapons complex requires a similar or
significant downsizing at some point in the future, Congress
can, at that time, develop remedies appropriate to those
situations. Fourth, the program has come under significant
scrutiny by the DOE Inspector General and the U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO) for questionable payments and
ineffective administration. For example, the Inspector General
reported that during the first restructuring at the Fernald
weapons plant, of the 255 separations effective in fiscal year
1994, all but 14 of the positions had been refilled within one
year by either previous employees or ones with similar skills--
a 95 percent rehire rate. Moreover, the 255 separated employees
were provided severance payments based on their length of
service, medical benefits, outplacement support, and retirement
benefits at a cost of $2.9 million. Similarly, a subsequent
restructuring plan for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 was uncovered
by the Inspector General at that same site. Had it not been
stopped, it would have cost an additional $12.9 million for
workforce restructuring that would have provided little or no
benefit to the Department. Audits of worker and community
transition programs at DOE sites at Mound, Pinellas, Oak Ridge,
and Rocky Flats, and Las Vegas likewise revealed questionable
or unnecessary expenditures.
In addition, a recent GAO report found that the benefits
paid to these private sector workers varied widely from site to
site and virtually always exceeded payments available to
federal workers. The committee notes that similar programs are
not available to private contractor employees who lose their
jobs when defense facilities like shipyards or aircraft
manufacturers downsize. While the committee is sympathetic to
any contract worker who is displaced, it believes that this
program has largely met its original goal of minimizing the
effects of post-cold war downsizing on workers and local
communities through expenditures exceeding $750.0 million.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--National Security Program Authorization
Section 3101--Weapons Activities
This section would authorize DOE weapons activity funding
for fiscal year 1998.
Section 3102--Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
This section would authorize funds for DOE defense
environmental restoration and waste management activities for
fiscal year 1998.
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities
This section would authorize funds for DOE other defense
activities for fiscal year 1998.
Section 3104--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear
waste disposal activities of the Department for fiscal year
1998.
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions
Section 3121--Reprogramming
This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in
excess of 102 percent of the amount authorized for the program,
or in excess of $1.0 million above the amount authorized for
the program until the Secretary of Energy has notified the
congressional defense committees and a period of 30 calendar
days has elapsed after the date on which the notification is
received.
Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects
This section would limit the initiation of ``general plant
projects'' authorized by the bill if the current estimated cost
for any project exceeds $2.0 million. However, if the Secretary
of Energy finds that the estimated cost of any project will
exceed $2.0 million, the congressional defense committees must
be notified of the reasons for the cost variation. The
committee notes that the Department was required pursuant to
the provisions of section 3122 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) to
submit a report to support increasing the threshold for general
plant projects. The committee has not received that report and
has accordingly not been able to consider the Department's
views.
Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects
This section would permit any construction project to be
initiated and continued only if the estimated cost for the
project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the
amount authorized for the project, or (2) the most recent total
estimated cost presented to the Congress as justification for
such project. To exceed such limits, the Secretary of Energy
must report in detail to the congressional defense committees
and the report must be before the committees for 30 legislative
days. This section would also specify that the 125 percent
limitation would not apply to projects estimated to cost under
$5.0 million.
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority
This section would permit funds authorized by the bill to
be transferred to other agencies of the government for
performance of work for which the funds were authorized and
appropriated. The provision would permit the merger of such
funds with the authorizations of the agency to which they are
transferred. This section would also limit to no more than five
percent the amount of funds that may be transferred between
accounts in the Department of Energy that were authorized
pursuant to this act.
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design
This section would limit the Secretary of Energy's
authority to request construction funding until the Secretary
has certified a conceptual design has been completed, except in
the case of emergencies.
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and Construction
Activities
This section would permit, in addition to any advance
planning and construction design otherwise authorized by the
bill, the Secretary of Energy to perform planning and design
utilizing available funds for any Department of Energy national
security program construction project whenever the Secretary
determines that the design must proceed expeditiously to
protect the public health and safety, to meet the needs of
national defense, or to protect property.
Section 3127--Funds Available for all National Security Programs of the
Department of Energy
This section would authorize, subject to section 3121 of
this bill, amounts for management and support activities and
for general plant projects to be made available for use, when
necessary, in connection with all national security programs of
the Department of Energy.
Section 3128--Authority Relating to Transfer of Defense Environmental
Management Funds
This section would provide the manager of each field
office of the Department of Energy with the limited authority
to transfer defense environmental management funds from a
program or project under the jurisdiction of the office to
another such program or project.
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 3131--Ballistic Missile Defense National Laboratory Program
This section would establish a program within the DOE
weapons laboratories for the purpose of assisting the
Department of Defense in the testing and development of a
ballistic missile defense program.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 3141--Plan for Stewardship, Management, and Certification of
Warheads in the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
report annually on the Department's plan for the Stockpile
Stewardship and Management Program. This report would be
submitted in both a classified and unclassified form and
provided in lieu of a number of other reporting requirements
which have become redundant. The report required by this
section is a consolidation of previous reporting requirements.
Section 3142--Repeal of Obsolete Reporting Requirement
This section would repeal a number of obsolete reporting
requirements.
Section 3143--Revisions to Defense Nuclear Facilities Workforce
Restructuring Plan Requirements
This section would modify and repeal selected provisions of
section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484). Section 3161 provided
authority to the Secretary of Energy to make severance payments
to private contractor employees whose positions were being
eliminated as the result of the end of the cold war and the
downsizing of the nuclear weapons complex. This provision also
granted authority to the Secretary to make grants to
communities which had been affected by the downsizing. The
modifications to section 3161 would eliminate the authority of
the Department to make assistance grants effective upon
enactment, and would eliminate the authority to make severance
payments after September 30, 1999. The modifications to section
3161 would also make it clear that this section does not apply
to federal employees.
Section 3144--Extension of Authority for Appointment of Certain
Scientific, Engineering, and Technical Personnel
This section would extend the authority of the Secretary of
Energy to appoint certain scientific, engineering, and
technical personnel to positions within the Department without
regard to the provisions governing the appointments in the
competitive service, classification schedules, and pay rates
contained in title 5, United States Code.
Section 3145--Report on Proposed Contract for Hanford Tank Waste
Vitrification Project
This section would require prior notice to the
congressional defense committees before entering into a
contract for the Hanford tank waste vitrification project. The
section would also require the submission of a detailed report
describing the activities to be carried out under the contract,
a description of the contractual and financial aspects of the
contract, and an analysis of the cost to the United States of
the proposed contract over the life of the project.
Section 3146--Limitation on Conduct of Subcritical Nuclear Weapons
Tests
This section would require the submission of a detailed
report on the manner in which funds available to the Secretary
for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to conduct subcritical tests
were used. The committee has authorized over $100.0 million for
the conduct of these tests during this and the previous fiscal
year. At the present time, despite substantial support by this
committee for the conduct of such tests, no such tests have
occurred. The Department has again requested substantial
additional sums for fiscal year 1998 for the conduct of such
tests and there are indications that the funds contained in the
budget request may be insufficient to perform the planned
activities. While the committee strongly supports these tests,
it is concerned that over $100.0 million has apparently been
spent without a single test having been completed. The
committee is aware that the costs for the actual tests may be a
relatively small part of the overall costs of this program,
however it is concerned that the Department has potentially
utilized the amounts authorized for the subcritical tests on
other activities. Therefore, the committee expects this report
to detail by site and by detailed line activities, the
expenditures attributable to this program and to submit this
report prior to utilizing funds authorized for fiscal year
1998.
Section 3147--Limitation on Use of Certain Funds Until Future Use Plans
are Submitted
This section would limit the ability of the Secretary of
Energy to spend funds authorized for the office of Policy and
Management within the Defense Environmental Management program
until the draft future use plans and the final future use plans
required under section 3153 (f) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201) are
submitted. The committee understands that the Department has
yet to initiate a program that would allow for the timely
compliance with this requirement. The committee remains
concerned that many of the reportingrequirements are not being
completed on time and hopes this action will encourage the adherence to
the statutory deadlines.
Section 3148--Plan for External Oversight of National Laboratories
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
develop a plan for the external oversight of the national
laboratories. The plan would provide for the establishment of
an external oversight committee comprised of representatives of
industry and academia for the purpose of making recommendations
to the Secretary of Energy and to the congressional defense
committees on the productivity of the laboratories and on the
excellence, relevance, and appropriateness of the research
conducted at the laboratories. The plan also would provide for
the establishment of a competitive peer review process for
funding basic research at the laboratories.
Section 3149--University-Based Research Center
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
establish a university-based research center to coordinate the
collaboration among national laboratories, universities and
industry in support of scientific and engineering advancement
in key Department of Energy defense program areas.
Section 3150--Stockpile Stewardship Program
This section would provide that, as a matter of U.S.
policy, the stockpile stewardship program shall be conducted
consistent with U.S. national security requirements and in
conformity with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty when and if that treaty enters
into force. The stockpile stewardship and management program
has been undertaken to ensure the safety, security,
effectiveness, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile.
Section 3151--Reports on Advanced Supercomputer Sales to Certain
Foreign Nations
This section would require companies that participate in
the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) of the
Department of Energy to report each sale of computers that
operate at a speed of over 2,000,000 theoretical operations per
second (MTOPS) to countries designated as Tier III countries.
The ASCI contractor would be required to submit these reports
to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy on a
quarterly basis. On an annual basis, the Secretary of Energy
would be required to report to Congress on all computer sales
reported by ASCI companies under this provision during the
previous year.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD AUTHORIZATION
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3201--Authorization
This section would authorize $17.5 million for the
operation of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, as
provided in the budget request.
Section 3202--Plan for Transfer of Functions of Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board to Nuclear Regulatory Commission
This section would require the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board (DNFSB) to develop a plan, in consultation with
the Secretary of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), for the transfer the DNSFB's functions to the NRC.
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3301--Authorized Uses of Stockpile Funds
This section would authorize $73.0 million from the
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation
and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal
year 1998. This provision would also permit the use of
additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions
after a notification to Congress.
Section 3302--Disposal of Beryllium Copper Master Alloy From National
Defense Stockpile
This section would authorize the Department of Defense to
dispose of all beryllium copper master alloy from the National
Defense Stockpile, contingent upon certification by the
National Defense Stockpile Manager that any disposal of this
material will not adversely affect the strategic and critical
material needs of the United States.
Section 3303--Disposal of Titanium Sponge in National Defense Stockpile
This section would authorize the Department of Defense to
dispose of 34,800 short tons of titanium sponge contained in
the National Defense Stockpile. The committee is aware that
titanium, needed for critical components of defense weapons
systems, has become increasingly difficult to obtain. The
committee believes that releasing titanium sponge would help
reduce the cost of defense weapons systems. Estimates provided
to the committee indicate that the authority for the disposal
of titanium sponge provided by this section will take
approximately eleven years to execute.
Section 3304--Conditions on Transfer of Stockpiled Platinum Reserves
for Treasury Use
This section would establish conditions for the transfer of
platinum contained in the National Defense Stockpile to the
United States Treasury for minting of platinum coins.
Section 3305--Restrictions on Disposal of Certain Manganese Ferro
This section would repeal section 3304 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-
106) which placed restrictions on the disposal of Manganese
Ferro from the National Defense Stockpile. The committee
believes these restrictions prohibit the Department of Defense
from disposing of high grade Manganese Ferro. The provision
would allow the disposal of less than high grade Manganese
Ferro for remelting only by a domestic ferroalloy producer
unless the President determines that a domestic ferroalloy
producer is not available to acquire the material.
Section 3306--Required Procedures for Disposal of Strategic and
Critical Materials
This section would amend section 6(b) of the Strategic and
Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (section 98e(b) of title
50, United States Code) to clarify the procedures used by the
Department of Defense for the sale of materials from the
National Defense Stockpile.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize $117.0 million for fiscal year
1998 for the Naval Petroleum Reserves.
Section 3402--Price Requirement on Sale of Certain Petroleum During
Fiscal Year 1998
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to sell
petroleum produced for the Naval Petroleum Reserves at
established prices.
Section 3403--Termination of Assignment of Navy Officers to Office of
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
This section would repeal section 2 of Public Law 96-137
which requires the Secretary of the Navy to assign naval
officers to the office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale
Reserves. This requirement was established at the time the
Naval Petroleum Reserves were transferred from the Department
of Defense to the Department of Energy (DOE). DOE is in the
process of selling the major oil producing property in the
reserves, NPR-1 Elk Hills, which is scheduled to be completed
early in 1998. As there will be a substantial reduction in
requirements for U.S. Navy participation in the reserves with
this sale, the committee believes the continued assignment of
naval officers to DOE is no longer needed.
TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Expenditures From Revolving Fund
This subtitle would grant the Panama Canal Commission (the
Commission) authority to make expenditures from the Panama
Canal Commission Revolving Fund within existing statutory
limits. The Commission operates as a wholly-owned government
corporation and is supervised by a nine member supervisory
board, commonly referred to as the Panama Canal Commission
Board of Directors. The Commission does not draw from U.S.
taxpayer funds for the operation of the Canal, but receives
funding to cover its operating, administrative and capital
improvement expenses from tolls and other revenue collected.
The Commission's total operating costs including depreciation
and interest payments in fiscal year 1998 are estimated to be
$673.8 million.
Subtitle B--Facilitation of Panama Canal Transition
Section 3511--Short Title; References
This section would establish the Act as the ``Panama Canal
Transition Facilitation Act of 1997.''
Section 3512--Definitions Relating to Canal Transition
This section would define terms used throughout the Act
which are related to the transfer of the Canal under the Panama
Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements.
Part I--Transition Matters Relating to Commission Officers and
Employees
Section 3521--Authority for the Administrator of the Commission to
Accept Appointment as Administrator of the New Panama Canal Authority
This section would provide Congressional consent for the
Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission to serve
simultaneously as the Administrator of the Panama Canal
Authority (PCA), which is the body expected to be created this
year under Panamanian law to operate the Canal after December
31, 1999. The PCA is expected to be active before the 1999
transfer in drafting, reviewing and adopting regulations that
will be put in place at the time of transfer, as well as
performing other important administrative functions. Allowing
the Administrator of the Commission to also serve as
Administrator of the PCA, prior to the actual transfer, is
designed to facilitate the smooth coordination and continuation
of the Canal's administrative and operating systems by Panama
after the transfer on December 31, 1999.
This section would also exempt the Administrator from
selected ethics provisions which could interfere with his
expected functions during the transition, given the special
circumstances of the transfer of the Panama Canal on December
31, 1999. These exemptions would grant very limited authority
for the Administrator to receive payment from the government of
Panama for per diem and reimbursement of various expenses
related to his Panama Canal Authority service. Absent
congressional consent, either the appointment to the position
or the receipt of compensation by the Administrator could be
considered a violation of the Emoluments clause of the United
States Constitution. New subsection (d) would exempt the
Administrator from the registration and other requirements of
the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended (22
U.S.C. 611 et seq.). New subsection (e) would exempt the
Administrator from coverage of certain criminal conflict-of-
interest statutes. Generally, these rules are applicable to
government employees who later represent or are otherwise
involved with foreign entities. In this case, however, when the
principal functions of a federal agency are being transferred
to a foreign government, normal application of those rules
would interfere with the expected functions of the
Administrator as he continues his service with the PCA.
Section 3522--Post-Canal Transfer Personnel Authorities
This section would authorize exemptions to post-employment
ethics rules for Commission employees who continue their Canal
employment with the Panama Canal Authority (PCA) after December
31, 1999. Without these exemptions, these employees would be
prohibited from direct contact with the United States
Government on Canal-related matters, which would needlessly
hinder any working relationships between federal agencies and
the PCA.
This section would also provide Congressional consent for
current Canal employees who are military retirees or members of
reserve components of the armed forces to continue employment
after December 31, 1999, with the Panama Canal Authority.
Otherwise, each employee so situated would individually have to
gain consent of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the
concerned military component. Blanket authority is appropriate
to allow these employees to continue in their jobs if they have
the opportunity to do so.
Section 3523--Enhanced Authority of Commission to Establish
Compensation of Commission Officers and Employees
This section would revise the Commission's compensation
authorities to no longer mandate a minimum two percent annual
pay adjustment under certain circumstances. It would also,
through a savings provision, guarantee that current levels of
basic pay will be maintained.
Section 3524--Travel, Transportation and Subsistence Expenses for
Commission Personnel No Longer Subject to Federal Travel Regulations
This section would exempt the Commission, beginning on
January 1, 1999, from the requirements of the Federal Travel
Regulations, so that it can develop streamlined travel
regulations which are more business-like, will better
facilitate the dissolution of the Commission and will be more
suitable for adoption by Panama.
Section 3525--Enhanced Recruitment and Retention Authorities
This section would give the Commission authority for
recruitment and retention incentives similar to those in place
for other federal agencies. The Commission's current
authorities are limited to narrow classes of employees, and
cannot be used to attract and retain Panamanian citizens for
most positions. The section would also allow education benefits
to be offered as part of a recruitment or retention package,
when determined to be necessary by the Commission.
Section 3526--Transition Separation Incentive Payments
This section would give the Commission authority for a
limited and specialized transition separation incentive
program, geared towards facilitating the critical succession
planning necessary for an orderly transition. The program would
differ from general government-wide separation incentive
programs in several respects.
First, there would be no requirement to eliminate
positions, as the purpose of the program is not related to
downsizing. Second, the Commission would be allowed to make the
offers during two three-month windows of time, for three months
immediately after enactment of this bill and from October
through December 1998. Third, the general authority would be
for payments of $25,000 or less, but the Commission would be
authorized, for especially critical positions, to offer up to
50 percent of basic pay. The latter special authority may be
used for no more than two incentive payments.
The requirements imposed on the Commission would be similar
to those applicable to federal agencies generally: a strategic
plan must be submitted to the Congress, an amount equal to
fifteen percent of basic pay must be remitted to the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund for each payment made,
and recipients of a separation incentive payment who are
reemployed by the United States Government within five years
must repay the amount in full to the United States Treasury.
Section 3527--Labor-Management Relations
This section would establish guidelines for the resolution
of labor disputes, including pay and working conditions,
between the Commission and the exclusive representative for any
bargaining unit of employees of the Commission during the
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this section
and ending on the date the canal transfers to the Republic of
Panama. This section also would provide a time limit of 45 days
for the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to conclude
its efforts, measured from the date on which either party
requests the assistance. This section would also provide a time
limit of 90 days for a decision by the Federal Services
Impasses Panel, measured from the date on which its services
are requested. Both time limits may be altered by mutual
agreement of the parties. If the Impasses Panel fails to issue
a decision within 90 days, then the efforts of the Panel are
terminated and the Chairman of the Panel would be directed to
determine the matter by a drawing between the last offer of the
Panama Canal Commission and the last offer of the exclusive
representative. The offer chosen would become the binding
resolution of the matter.
This provision is intended to provide reasonable bounds of
time for the mediation and impasse resolution processes, given
the amount of time left for the agency to develop and implement
changes which are important for the transfer of the Canal to
Panama.
Section 3528--Availability of Panama Canal Revolving Fund for Severance
Pay for Certain Employees Separated by the Panama Canal Authority after
Canal Transfer Date
This section would provide authority for the Commission to
transfer funds (derived from Canal revenues) to the Panama
Canal Authority at treaty end to cover service with the
Commission (i.e., periods of employment before December 31,
1999) for employees who may be separated from Canal service
after December 31, 1999. This authority will facilitate an
agreement to have funds committed for this purpose and to
address employee concerns that the Panama Canal Authority will
have the funds in place to make severance payments for the
employees' years of service with the United States Government.
Part II--Transition Matters Relating to Operation and Administration of
Canal
Section 3541--Establishment of Procurement System and Board of Contract
Appeals
This section would grant special authority for the
Commission to issue its own ``Canal'' procurement regulation
for the purpose of facilitating Panama's adoption and
continuous use of that regulation beyond 1999. The Commission
will be required to develop, in consultation with the
Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, an
independent and comprehensive procurement system that preserves
the fundamental operating principles and procedures of the
Federal Acquisition Regulation, while adapting its details and
form for use by Panama after December 31, 1999.
This section would further enable the Commission to waive
the application of U.S. procurement statutes in its new
regulation, except for certain listed statutes and those laws
relating to civil rights, labor standards, or environmental
protection. This authority would permit the new regulation to
be ``delinked'' from U.S. laws and references to them that,
were they to remain in the regulation, would hinder the ability
of Panama to adopt the body of rules for its own use.
This section would also authorize the formation of a Panama
Canal Board of Contract Appeals, which would be empowered to
decide all contract appeals and bid protests. The Board would
be established and would function, with narrow exceptions, in
accordance with the Contracts Disputes Act. The Board would
constitute a forum for the expert, expeditious and transparent
resolution of contract disputes that can be adopted and
preserved by Panama as part of the Canal's comprehensive
procurement system. Currently, these functions are handled,
respectively, by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Board of
Contract Appeals and the General Accounting Office, neither of
which will be available to the Republic of Panama after
December 31, 1999.
Section 3542--Transactions with the Panama Canal Authority
This section would allow United States Government agencies
to sell services to the Panama Canal Authority if they choose
to do so. Currently, many federal agencies provide services to
the Commission on a reimbursable basis. This provision would
enable those agencies to continue providing those services (or
establish new services) to the new Panama Canal Authority on a
reimbursable basis if they choose to do so.
This section would also allow the Commission to provide in-
kind services to the Panama Canal Authority during the
remaining years of the Commission's existence. This authority
would allow the Commission to provide fuller assistance to
Panama in this critical period of intensive work on the
regulations that will govern the Canal after December 31, 1999,
as well as numerous other administrative responsibilities. As
with all of its expenses, funding for this in-kind assistance
would be derived from Canal revenues.
Section 3543--Time Limitations for Filing of Claims for Damages
This section would shorten the time periods applicable to
the filing of vessel accident claims from two years to one
year, as well as shorten the period for filing a civil action
from one year to six months following the final administrative
determination with respect to the claim. These shortened
periods would facilitate the faster disposition of the final
business of the agency, while not significantly affecting the
due process afforded claimants.
Section 3544--Tolls for Small Vessels
This section would allow the Commission to charge a fixed
minimum toll for yachts and other small craft, rather than
basing tolls strictly on the tonnage of those vessels. Before
the Commission could implement a fixed minimum toll for small
vessels, it would be required to first comply with its usual
rulemaking process for adjusting tolls.
Section 3545--Date of Actuarial Evaluation of FECA Liability
This section would advance the date in current law for a
Department of Labor actuarial determination from December 31,
1999, to March 31, 1998 to allow for better advance financial
planning by the Commission to liquidate the FECA liability or
obligation.
Section 3546--Notaries public
This section would authorize the Commission to appoint
notaries public, similar to the authority provided to U.S.
embassies in section 4221 of title 22, United States Code, and
to military attorneys in section 1044a and 1044b of title 10,
United States Code.
Section 3547--Commercial Services
This section would authorize the Commission to conduct and
promote commercial activities related to the management,
operation or maintenance of the Panama Canal, consistent with
the Panama Canal treaty of 1977 and related agreements.
Section 3548--Transfer from President to Commission of Certain
Regulatory Functions Relating to Employment Classification Appeals
This section would remove the President from
responsibilities relating to position classification appeals.
This step is required to complete the change intended by
section 3530 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201), which removed the
President from responsibilities for the administration of the
Panama Canal Employment System, and reconfigured that system.
Section 3548--Enhanced Printing Authority
This section would provide the Commission with more
flexibility in meeting its printing production needs by
eliminating the authority of the Joint Committee on Printing
and the Public Printer over the printing of annual reports, and
paper and envelope contracts. This change would allow the PCC
to operate its printing plant in a manner which best suits its
needs, including the use of timely local procurements when
appropriate.
Section 3549--Technical and Conforming Amendments
This section would carry out various technical and
conforming amendments.
TITLE XXXVI--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3601--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1998
This section would authorize $109.0 million for fiscal year
1998, as requested in the President's budget, for the United
States Maritime Administration. Of the funds authorized, $70.0
million would be for operations and training programs, $35.0
million would be for the costs, as defined in section 502 of
the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, of loan guarantees
authorized by Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as
amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), and $4.0 million would
be for administrative expenses related to these loan guarantee
commitments.
Section 3602--Repeal of Obsolete Annual Report Requirement Concerning
Relative Cost of Shipbuilding in the Various Coastal Districts of the
United States
This section would repeal the obsolete requirement for an
annual report on the relative cost of shipbuilding in the
various coastal districts contained in section 213 of the
Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1271 et
seq.). The report was intended to monitor geographical cost
factors associated with constructing or reconditioning
comparable vessels in U.S. shipyards for the purpose of
determining whether regional cost differential payments under
the construction differential subsidy program (CDS) were
appropriate. The CDS program has not been funded since 1962,
and there is no indication that the cost differential would
ever be justified.
Section 3603--Provisions Relating to Maritime Security Fleet Program
This section would amend section 656 (h)(1)(A) of the
Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1271 et
seq.) to clarify that it does not restrict the operation or
entry of U.S. flag self-propelled tankers in the domestic
trades. The amendments made to section 656 by the Maritime
Security Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-239) were intended to
prevent carriers that receive payments under the Act from using
those payments to compete unfairly with other carriers which do
not receive government payments in these domestic trades. They
were not intended, however, to affect tanker services provided
by existing vessels in the trade or to discourage the
employment of U.S. flag liner vessels under the terms of the
Act by the those owners who operate both tankers and liner
vessels.
This section would also repeal the requirement that U.S.
flag vessels wait for a period of three years, after they have
been documented under the U.S. flag, before they are eligible
to carry preference cargo. This change to current law would
only apply to vessels which are included under an operating
agreement entered into pursuant to the terms of the Maritime
Security Act of 1996. The committee recommendation would ensure
that vessel operators who choose to re-flag their vessels and
enter into an operating agreement are not inhibited or
disadvantaged in the operation of their vessels.
Section 3604--Authority to Utilize Replacement Vessels and Capacity
This section would amend section 653 (d) of the Merchant
Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) to
authorize a U.S. flag operator to utilize a foreign flag
replacement vessel for the carriage of preference cargo if its
U.S. flag vessel is activated by the Secretary of Defense under
the terms of an Emergency Preparedness Agreement or other
primary sealift readiness program approved by the Secretary of
Defense. Current law restricts the use of replacement vessels
to U.S. flag operators who are receiving payments under the
Maritime Security Act (Public Law 104-239). This amendment
would expand that authority to other U.S. flag operators
provided they have entered into a primary sealift readiness
agreement that is approved by the Secretary of Defense.
Section 3605--Authority to Convey National Defense Reserve Vessel
This section would authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to convey a surplus National Defense Reserve
Fleet vessel to the Artship Foundation, a non-profit
organization located in Oakland, California.
DEPARTMENTAL DATA
The Department of Defense requested legislation, in
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by
the correspondence set out below:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, March 12, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense proposes the
enclosed draft of legislation, ``To authorize appropriations
for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other
purposes.''
This legislative proposal is part of the Department of
Defense legislative program for the 105th Congress and is
needed to carry out the President's budget plans for fiscal
years 1998 and 1999. The Office of Management and Budget
advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this
proposal to the Congress and that its enactment would be in
accord with the program of the President.
This bill provides management authority for the Department
of Defense and makes several changes to the authorities under
which we operate. These changes are designed to permit a more
efficient operation of the Department of Defense.
Enactment of this legislation is of great importance to the
Department of Defense and the Department urges its speedy and
favorable consideration.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Miller.
Enclosures.
------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, February 14, 1997.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is proposed legislation to
authorize construction at certain military installations for
Fiscal Year 1998, and for other military construction
authorizations and activities of the Department of Defense.
This legislative proposal is needed to carry out the
President's Fiscal Year 1998 budget plan.
The draft proposal would authorize appropriations in Fiscal
Year 1998 for new construction and family housing support for
the Active Forces, Defense Agencies, NATO Security Investment
Program, and Guard and Reserve Forces. It also establishes the
effective dates within the military construction program and
includes construction projects resulting from base realignment
and closure actions. Additionally, the Fiscal Year 1998 draft
legislation includes General Provisions.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this proposal to Congress,
and that its enactment would be in accord with the program of
the President.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Miller.
Enclosure.
------
COMMITTEE POSITION
On June 12, 1997 the Committee on National Security, a
quorum being present, approved H.R. 1119, as amended, by a vote
of 51 to 3.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC, June 16, 1997.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding that on June 11,
1997, the Committee on National Security ordered reported H.R.
1119, the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 1998.
During the markup of this legislation, the Committee on
National Security adopted a number of provisions which fall
within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. These
provisions include the following:
Sec. 344--Modifications of Authority to Store and
Dispose of Nondefense Toxic and Hazardous Materials;
Sec. 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 1998;
Sec. 602--Annual Adjustment of Basic Pay and
Protection of Member's Total Compensation While
Performing Certain Duty;
Sec. 603--Use of Food Cost Information to Determine
Basic Allowance for Subsistence;
Sec. 604--Consolidation of Basic Allowance for
Quarters, Variable Housing Allowance, and Overseas
Housing Allowances;
Sec. 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonuses and
Special Pay Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates,
Registered Nurses, and Nurse Anesthetists;
Sec. 613--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating
to Payment of Other Bonuses and Special Pays;
Sec. 614--Increase in Minimum Monthly Rate of
Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay for Certain Members;
Sec. 617--Special Pay for Duty at Designated Hardship
Duty Locations;
Sec. 621--Increase in Amount of Family Separation
Allowance;
Sec. 631--Travel and Transportation Allowances for
Dependents of Member Sentenced by Courts-martial;
Sec. 632--Dislocation Allowance;
Sec. 651--Definition of Sea Duty for Purposes of
Career Sea Pay;
Sec. 654--Reimbursement of Public Health Service
Officers for Adoption Expenses;
Sec. 735--Portability of State Licenses for
Department of Defense Health Care Professionals;
Sec. 1021--Relationship of Certain Laws to Disposal
of Vessels for Export from the Naval Vessel Register
and the National Defense Reserve Fleet;
Sec. 3143--Revisions to Defense Nuclear Facilities
Workforce Restructuring Plan Requirements;
Section 3144--Extension of Authority to Appoint
Scientific Personnel;
Title XXXII--Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board;
and
Sec. 3402--Price Requirement on Sale of Certain
Petroleum During Fiscal Year 1998.
Recognizing the need to bring this legislation before the
House expeditiously, the Commerce Committee agrees not to seek
a sequential referral of the bill based on the provisions
listed above. By agreeing not to seek a sequential referral,
the Commerce Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over the
provisions listed above or any other provisions of the bill
that may fall within its jurisdiction. In addition, the
Commerce Committee reserves its right to seek conferees on any
provisions within its jurisdiction which are considered in the
House-Senate conference.
I want to thank you and your staff for their assistance in
providing the Commerce Committee with an opportunity to review
the text of H.R. 1119. I would appreciate your assistance in
including this letter as a part of the National Security
Committee's report on H.R. 1119 and as part of the record
during consideration of this bill by the House.
Sincerely,
Tom Bliley, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, DC, June 16, 1997.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for working with me in your
development of H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization
Act, specifically Section 3143, Revisions to Defense Nuclear
Facilities Workforce Restructuring Plan Requirements and
Section 374, Programs to Commemorate 50th Anniversary of
Marshall Plan and Korean Conflict. As you know, these
provisions are within the jurisdiction of the Education and the
Workforce Committee.
While we did not seek sequential referral of H.R. 1119, the
Committee does hold an interest in preserving its future
jurisdiction with respect to issues raised in the
aforementioned provisions, and its jurisdictional prerogatives
should the provisions of this bill or any Senate amendments
thereto be considered in a conference with the Senate. We would
expect to be appointed as conferees on these provisions should
a conference with the Senate arise.
Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the
amendments to H.R 1119 and look forward to working with you on
these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
Bill Goodling, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC, June 16, 1997.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight agrees to waive jurisdiction over the following
provisions in H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization
Act, that fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight:
Section 321--Pay for Overseas teachers;
Section 332--Fire Safe accommodations for government
employees;
Section 374--Programs to commemorate the 50th
anniversary of the Marshall Plan and Korea;
Section 563--Authority for personnel participation in
management of certain non-federal entities;
Section 821 (e), (f)--Repeal of certain acquisition
requirements and reports;
Section 1055--Display of POW/MIA flag;
Section 1059--Commendation for those who served in
the Cold War;
Section 2813--Disposition of proceeds from AF Plant
#78, Brigham City, Utah;
Section 2821--Consideration of installations as sites
for new federal facilities;
Section 3521--Authorization for Administrator of
Panama Canal Commission to accept appointment as
Administrator of Panama Canal Authority;
Section 3524--Travel, transportation, and subsistence
expenses for PCC personnel; and
Section 3541--Establishment of procurement system and
board of contract appeals.
As you know, House Rule X, Establishment and Jurisdiction
of Standing Committees, grants the Government Reform and
Oversight Committee wide jurisdiction over government
management issues including matters related to Federal civil
service, procurement policy and property disposal. This
Committee also oversees all commemorative legislation. This
waiver is not intended or designed to limit our jurisdiction
over any future consideration of related matters.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your consultation with the
Government Reform and Oversight Committee to ensure that these
provisions address the legislative goals of both Committees as
well as the American taxpayer. I look forward to working with
you on this and other issues throughout the 105th Congress.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Judiciary,
Washington, DC, June 13, 1997.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning H.R.
1119, the Department of Defense Authorization for FY 1998-99. I
understand that your committee has completed its markup of this
bill.
Prior to the markup you kindly made this committee aware of
several provisions which fall within our Rule X jurisdiction.
Specifically:
1. language relating to the trademark concerning the
50th anniversary of the Marshall Plan;
2. language relating to the coverage of National
Guard Challenge Program personnel who shall be
considered to be employees of the United States for
purposes of liability; and
3. language relating to procurement in the Panama
Canal Zone.
We have reviewed these provisions, and due to the
Leadership's desire to proceed in an expeditious manner are
willing to waive our clear right to a sequential referral of
these provisions. We, of course, do not waive our jurisdiction
in any way over the underlying subject matter.
I appreciate the comity between our two committees.
Sincerely,
Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC, June 16, 1997.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that on Thursday, June 12,
1997, the Committee on National Security ordered favorably
reported H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998. The bill includes a number of provisions that
fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on
International Relations pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of
Representatives.
The specific provisions within our committee's jurisdiction
are: (1) Title XI--Cooperative Threat Reduction With States of
Former Soviet Union; (2) Title XII, Matters Relating to Other
Nations--(Sections 1201(b), 1202, and 1204).
Pursuant to Chairman Solomon's announcement that the
Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule
for H.R. 1119 and your desire to have the bill considered on
the House floor this week, and in recognition that both of our
staffs have been consulting on these provisions, the Committee
on International Relations will not seek a sequential referral
of the bill as a result of including these provisions, without
waiving or ceding now or in the future this committee's
jurisdiction over the provisions in question. I will seek to
have conferees appointed for these provisions during any House
Senate conference committee.
I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of
the report on H.R. 1119 and as part of the record during
consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, June 13, 1997.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding
provisions in H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal year 1998, which are within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Resources. These provisions are:
Section 214 (National Ocean Research Leadership
Council) Sections 601 (pay raise), 602 (annual
adjustment of pay), 603 (use of food cost for BAS), 604
(consolidation of BAQ, VHA and OHA), 613 (one year
extension of bonuses and special pay), 614 (increase in
hazardous duty incentive pay), 617 (special pay for
hardship duty), 621 (increase in family separation
allowance), 631 (travel and transportation allowance
for dependents), 632 (dislocation allowance), 651
(definition of sea duty) [as these provisions affect
the NOAA Corps] and 653 (separation pay for the NOAA
Corps) Section 1021 (amendment to National Maritime
Heritage Act) Title XXIX (Sikes Act)
Because of the continued cooperation and consideration you
have afforded me and my staff in developing these provisions, I
will not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 1119 based on their
inclusion in the bill. Of course, this waiver does not
prejudice any future jurisdictional claims over these
provisions or similar language. I also reserve the right to
seek to have conferees named from the Committee on Resources on
these provisions, should a conference on H.R. 1119 or a similar
measure become necessary.
Once again, it has been a pleasure to work with you and Jim
Schweiter, Phil Grone, Michael Higgins and Jean Reed of your
staff. I look forward to seeing H.R. 1119 enacted soon.
Sincerely,
Don Young, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, June 13, 1997.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of June 9,
1997, and the information you have provided on H.R. 1119, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. As
your letter acknowledges, there are several provisions in the
introduced version of the bill and in proposed amendments to it
that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
The Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1119 and
the need to move the legislation expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have jurisdiction over a number of the bill's
provisions and have a valid basis for seeking a sequential
referral, I do not intend to seek such a referral. This is, of
course, based on our mutual understanding that (1) nothing in
this legislation or my decision not to seek a sequential
referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, (2)
agreements worked out by our respective staffs will be effected
without the need for floor amendments by this Committee; and
(3) proposed provisions relating to exclusion of uncontaminated
property from listing requirements and ``war risk'' aviation
insurance are not included in the reported bill. In addition,
the Committee reserves the right to seek to be included as
conferees on any matter within its jurisdiction if this
legislation goes to a House-Senate conference.
Pursuant to Rule X, clause 1(q) of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has jurisdiction over measures relating to
transportation and infrastructure matters, including the Coast
Guard, public buildings and occupied or improved grounds of the
United States, oil and other pollution of navigable waters, and
civil aviation. Accordingly, our Committee has a jurisdictional
interest in various provisions in H.R. 1119 and in those
proposed amendments there to that we have reviewed.
The following topics, addressed through specific references
in your letter, are either in the introduced bill or are
reflected in proposed amendments as the bill goes to markup and
relate to matters within or affecting the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
Personnel compensation and related matters affecting
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the transfer of certain
USCG real property at Eglin AFB.
Displays of POW/MIA flags at federal buildings.
Reporting requirements regarding ecological effects
of organotin.
While not reflected in our letter, we are aware of two
additional provisions relating to matters within or affecting
our jurisdiction:
Storage and disposal of no Defense toxic and
hazardous materials.
Exclusion of uncontaminated real property front
listing requirements of section 120 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
With regard to the provision on the storage and disposal of
nondefense toxic and hazardous materials, I understated the
Committee will include report language to assure that nothing
in the provision affects authorities and requirements under
CERCLA or the Federal Waker Pollution Control Act.
I understand that a provision amending section 120 of
CERCLA regarding exclusions from listing requirements was
considered but will not be included in the legislation. Working
with the Commerce Committee, our Committee plans to move
legislation reauthorizing and reforming CERCLA. As CERCLA
reform discussions proceed, I would be pleased to give further
consideration to proposed amendments to section 120.
I also understand that a provision to extend the so-called
``war risk'' aviation insurance program was considered but will
not be included in the legislation. Since this matter is solely
within the jurisdiction of this Committee and we plan to move
legislation addressing this issue in the coming months, we
would object to inclusion of such a provision in H.R. 1119.
Of course, if additional amendments relating to the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure are adopted during your markup, we reserve the
right to exercise our jurisdictional prerogatives. In that
regard, I would appreciate your continued cooperation in
keeping us informed of any such amendments.
I would also appreciate your including your letter and this
response in your Committee Report.
Thank you again for your cooperation in this matter. I look
forward to continuing to work with you on H.R. 1119 and other
markers of mutual interest to our Committees.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on National Security,
Washington, DC, June 9, 1997.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In the next few days, the Committee on
National Security will mark up H.R. 1119, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. The following
provisions in the bill fall within the legislative jurisdiction
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
(1) Section 344--Modification of authority to store
and dispose of nondefense toxic and hazardous
materials;
(2) Section 345--Revision of Navy report on
organotin;
(3) Section 601--Pay raise;
(4) Section 602--Annual adjustment of basic pay;
(5) Section 603--Use of food cost for BAS;
(6) Section 604--Consolidation of BAQ, VHA, and OHA;
(7) Section 613--One year extension of bonuses and
special pays;
(8) Section 614--Increase in hazardous duty incentive
pay;
(9) Section 617--Special pay for hardship duty;
(10) Section 621--Increase in family separation
allowance;
(11) Section 631--Travel & transportation allowances
for dependents;
(12) Section 651--Definition of sea duty;
(13) Section 1055--Display of POW/MIA flag; and
(14) Section 2861--Land transfer, Eglin AFB, Florida.
The Committee on National Security acknowledges the
jurisdictional claim of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure with respect to these provisions. Nevertheless,
I ask that your committee waive any request for sequential
referral with respect to the sections described above so that
the House can consider H.R. 1119 without undue delay.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter, and I look
forward to receiving your letter in reply. That letter will be
included in this committee's report on the bill.
Sincerely,
Floyd D. Spence, Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC, June 13, 1997.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: According to information provided by
your staff, H.R. 1119, the National Security Authorization Act
for 1998, includes two provisions that change laws within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Those
provisions are found at section 723 of the bill (pertaining to
acquisition of reduced-cost pharmaceuticals) and section 1054
(pertaining to display of the POW-MIA flag at certain
government buildings).
In order to expedite consideration of H.R. 1119, the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs waives the right it would have
under the House Rules to seek a referral of this measure to the
Committee for consideration of these provisions.
Thank you for your courtesy in bringing these matters to my
attention.
Sincerely,
Bob Stump, Chairman.
------
FISCAL DATA
Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual
outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 1998 and the
four following fiscal years. The results of such efforts are
reflected in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is included in this
report pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of House Rule XI.
Congressional Budget Office Estimate
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the cost estimate
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and submitted
pursuant to section 403(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 is as follows:
June 13, 1997.
Hon. Floyd Spence,
Chairman, Committee on National Security, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1119, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Summary: H.R. 1119 would authorize appropriations for 1998
for the military functions of the Department of Defense (DoD)
and the Department of Energy (DOE). It also would prescribe
personnel strengths for each active duty and selected reserve
component of the U.S. armed forces. Assuming appropriation of
the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1119
would result in additional discretionary spending of $264
billion over the 1998-2002 period. The bill would increase
direct spending by $1 million in 1998 and by $5 million over
the five-year period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would
apply. The bill would also authorize asset sales from materials
in the defense stockpile; receipts from these sales would
average about $14 million a year. H.R. 1119 contains one
intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA). However, CBO estimates that the
costs to comply with the mandate would be well below the
threshold established in the act ($50 million annually,
adjusted for inflation). UMRA excludes from application of that
act legislative provisions that are necessary for the national
security. CBO has determined that all other provisions in H.R.
1119 either fit within this exclusion or do not contain
mandates as defined by UMRA.
Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 1119 is shown in Table 1, assuming
that the bill will be enacted by October 1, 1997.
Authorizations of appropriations
The bill would authorize specific appropriations totaling
$268 billion in 1998 for operation and maintenance,
procurement, research, development, test and evaluation
(RDT&E), nuclear weapons programs, and other DoD programs (see
Table 2). These costs would fall within budget function 050
(national defense). The estimate assumes that the amounts
authorized will be appropriated for 1998. Outlays are estimated
based on historical spending patterns.
TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 1119 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION
Spending Under Current Law:
Budget Authority \1\............................ 265,635 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 267,316 91,187 36,212 15,718 6,515 2,997
Proposed Changes:
Authorization Level............................. 0 268,490 14 14 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 0 175,777 55,012 20,281 8,956 3,660
Spending Under H.R. 1119:
Authorization Level \1\......................... 265,635 268,490 14 14 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 267,316 266,964 91,224 35,999 15,471 6,657
ASSET SALES AND DIRECT SPENDING
Asset Sales \2\
Estimated Budget Authority...................... 0 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14
Estimated Outlays............................... 0 -14 -14 -14 -14 -14
Direct Spending:
Estimated Budget Authority...................... 0 1 1 1 1 1
Estimated Outlays............................... 0 1 1 1 1 1
Total Asset Sales and Direct Spending:
Estimated Budget Authority...................... 0 -13 -13 -13 -13 -13
Estimated Outlays............................... 0 -13 -13 -13 -13 -13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1997 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.
\2\ Based on criteria established in the 1998 budget resolution, CBO has determined that proceeds from the asset
sales in this bill should be counted in the budget totals for purposes of Congressional scoring. Under the
Balanced Budget Act, however, proceeds from asset sales are not counted in determining compliance with the
discretionary spending limits or pay-as-you-go requirement.
Note: Costs of the bill would fall under budget function 050 (national defense), except for certain other items
as noted.
In addition, H.R. 1119 would authorize specific
appropriations for other budget functions:
$117 million for the Naval Petroleum Reserve
(function 270).
$70 million for the Maritime Administration (function
400).
$80 million for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
(function 700).
$14 million in 1998, 1999, and 2000 to fund Sikes Act
programs (function 300).
The bill also contains implicit authorizations of
appropriations for other military programs, primarily for
military personnel costs, some of which extend beyond 1998.
Table 3 contains estimates for the authorized amounts and the
related outlays. In addition to the costs covered by the 1998
authorizations in the bill, these provisions would add an
estimated $4.2 billion in costs over the 1999-2002 period that
would have to be covered by appropriations in those years. The
following sections describe the estimated authorizations shown
in Table 3 and provide information about CBO's cost estimates.
Endstrength. The bill would authorize endstrengths for
active and reserve components for 1998 at a cost of more than
$68 billion. Endstrengths for active-duty personnel would total
about 1,445,000--about 13,600 more than in the Administration's
request but about 7,100 below the level estimated for 1997.
DOD's reserve endstrengths would be authorized at about
891,600--the same level requested by the Administration, but
about 10,800 less than the estimated 1997 level.
Also, the bill would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in
1998 for the Coast Guard Reserve, which is the same as the 1997
level and about 400 reservists more than the Administration's
request; this authorization would cost about $67 million and
would fall under budget function 400 (transportation).
Compensation and Benefits. H.R. 1119 contains several
provisions that would affect military compensation and
benefits.
Pay Raises. Section 601 would authorize a 2.8 percent
increase in the rate of basic pay for fiscal year 1998 at a
cost of $1,034 million. Current law links pay raises for
military personnel to those for civilian employees of the
federal government. Starting in 1999, section 602 would make
the pay raise provisions for military personnel independent of
those for civilians and tie them directly to increases in the
Employment Cost Index. As a result, military pay raises would
be 0.5 percent higher than under current law, with additional
costs growing to $998 million in 2002.
TABLE 2.--SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1998, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
[By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
Authorization Level....................................... 69,540 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 66,200 3,023 209 0 0
Operation and Maintenance:
Authorization Level....................................... 92,897 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 69,617 18,274 2,879 971 410
Procurement:
Authorization Level....................................... 46,315 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 9,310 13,633 11,886 6,099 2,424
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:
Authorization Level....................................... 37,276 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 17,998 13,964 3,473 931 448
Military Construction and Family Housing:
Authorization Level....................................... 9,133 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 3,066 2,814 1,706 888 288
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
Authorization Level....................................... 10,969 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 7,984 2,985 0 0 0
Other Accounts:
Authorization Level....................................... 2,293 14 14 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 1,256 376 248 127 110
General Transfer Authority:
Authorization Level....................................... 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 280 -60 -120 -60 -20
-------------------------------------------------
Total:
Authorization Level....................................... 268,423 14 14 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 175,712 55,010 20,281 8,956 3,660
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expiring Authorities. Several sections would extend for one
year certain payment authorities that are scheduled to expire
at the end of 1998. In some cases, renewing authorities for one
year results in costs over several years because payments are
made in installments. Payment of enlistment and reenlistment
bonuses for active duty personnel would cost $148 million in
1999. The cost of extending special payments for aviators and
nuclear-qualified personnel would total $53 million in 1999.
Payment authorities for enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for
the Selected and Ready Reserve would cost $33 million in 1999.
Authorities to make special payments to nurse officer
candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists would
increase costs by $12 million in 1999.
Basic Allowance for Housing. Section 604 would consolidate
several different allowances into a single payment called the
Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). The new allowance would
incorporate the Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ), the
Variable Housing Allowance, the Overseas Station Allowance, and
the Family Separation Housing Allowance. The total funding
available for the new BAH in fiscal year 1998 would equal
funding for its components in 1997 with an increase of 2.8
percent.
In addition to consolidating current allowances, section
604 would increase certain housing benefits. The bill would
increase housing payments to reservists, maintain housing
allowances in cases where a member's new permanent duty station
was in a low-cost area, and authorize funds to reduce out-of-
pocket housing costs. CBO estimates that the adjustments to
housing allowances would cost about $160 million in 1998 and
similar amounts in subsequent years.
Basic Allowance for Subsistence. Section 603 would amend
provisions governing increases in the Basic Allowance for
Subsistence. Instead of increasing at the same rate as basic
pay, the BAS would be indexed to the cost of the moderate food
plan of the Department of Agriculture. In 1998, BAS would
increase by 2.5 percent, an incremental cost of $48 million.
Hazardous Duty Pay. Section 614 would increase the minimum
monthly rates for certain allowances for hazardous duty. CBO
estimates that the increases would cost $32 million in 1998.
Compensation During Contingencies. Under current law, BAS
payments are suspended when service personnel are deployed to
exercises or training under field conditions. Section 602 would
guarantee that a service member's total pay would not decrease
when performing that kindof duty. Continuation of BAS payments
during these periods would cost $28 million in 1998.
TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R. 1119 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY
THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
[By fiscal years, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endstrengths:
Department of Defense:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 68,249 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 64,837 3,303 205 0 0
Coast Guard Reserve:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 67 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 65 2 0 0 0
Compensation and Benefits (DoD):
Military Pay Raise in 1998:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 1,034 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 982 45 3 0 0
Change in Formula for Pay Raises:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 0 186 441 710 998
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 0 177 427 694 981
Expiring Authorities:
Enlistment/Reenlistment Bonuses (Active):
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 0 148 51 35 33
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 0 141 56 36 33
Aviation and Nuclear Special Pay:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 0 53 23 23 17
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 0 51 24 23 17
Enlistment/Reenlistment Bonuses (Reserve):
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 0 33 27 18 13
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 0 31 27 18 13
Special Pay for Nurses:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 0 12 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 0 11 1 0 0
Basic Allowance for Housing:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 160 165 171 178 184
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 152 164 170 177 183
Revised Basic Allowance for Subsistence:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 48 49 51 52 53
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 46 49 51 52 53
Hazardous Duty Pay:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 32 32 32 32 32
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 30 32 32 32 32
Compensation During Contingencies:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 28 29 30 30 31
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 27 29 30 30 31
Family Separation Allowance:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 25 25 25 25 25
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 24 25 25 25 25
Bonus and Special Pay for Dentists:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 15 15 15 15 15
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 14 15 15 15 15
Dislocation Allowance:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 10 10 10 10 10
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 10 10 10 10 10
Suspension of Temporary Early Retirement Authority:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. -185 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................................... -37 -37 -37 -37 -37
Other Compensation:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 3 0 -5 -5 -5
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 3 0 -5 -5 -5
Cap on Military Personnel:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 108 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 103 5 0 0 0
Military Health Care Programs:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 6 6 6 6 6
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 5 6 6 6 6
Long-Term Charter of a Naval Vessel:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. 7 7 8 8 8
Estimated Outlays.......................................... 6 7 8 8 8
Pay of Former Teachers:
Estimated Authorization Level.............................. (\1\) -1 -1 -1 -2
Estimated Outlays.......................................... (\1\) -1 -1 -1 -2
Total Authorizations of Appropriations:
Estimated Authorization Level.................................. 69,607 769 884 1,136 1,418
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 66,265 3,764 1,047 1,083 1,363
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.
Note.--For every item in this table except one, the 1998 impacts are included in the amounts specifically
authorized to be appropriated in the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2. Only the authorization of
endstrength for the Coast Guard Reserve is additive to the amounts in Table 2.
Family Separation Allowances. Section 621 would increase
monthly allowances that are paid to members when their
dependents cannot be accommodated at a new station, when the
member is serving on a ship, or when the member is on temporary
duty (TDY) status. The increase in rates from $75 to $100 would
raise costs by $25 million in 1998.
Special Pay for Dentists. Section 615 would establish a new
multiyear retention bonus for dentists. The new bonus would be
limited to certain dental specialties and service grades and
would cost about $1 million in 1998. Section 616 would increase
the amount of variable and additional special pay for dentists.
Additional costs of the new pay rates would total $14 million
in 1998.
Dislocation Allowance. The dislocation allowance (DLA), a
payment for miscellaneous expenses incurred during a permanent
change of station, is currently equivalent to two and one-half
months of BAQ. H.R. 1119 would separate DLA from the housing
allowance and would establish new monthly rates based on grade
and number of dependents. The higher rates of DLA would cost
about $10 million in 1998.
Suspension of Temporary Early Retirement Authority. Through
1999, current law allows the military departments to offer
early retirement to selected service members having fewer than
20 years of service. Individuals who take this option receive
payments equivalent to their retirement annuity from military
personnel accounts until they qualify for payments from the
military retirement fund. DoD must budget for the full value of
these payments in the year a service member retires. Funds to
cover personnel slated to take early retirement in 1998 total
$185 million. The suspension of early retirement authority
provided in section 561 would yieldthat amount in discretionary
savings.
Other Changes in Military Compensation. The bill contains
other provisions that would affect military compensation, but
which have little or no budgetary impact. One provision would
create an incentive for individuals to extend tours of duty at
specific locations designated by the Secretary of Defense. CBO
estimates that the costs of the bonus would be more than offset
by savings from lower relocation and operational travel costs.
Net savings would total about $1 million in 1998 and $4 million
annually thereafter. Another provision would reduce accession
costs through improved medical screening of recruits. Once
implemented, this program should save about $5 million per
year. Third, grade changes in the Army and Air Force Reserves
would increase their military personnel budgets by about $4
million per year. The net effect of these provisions would be
to raise costs by about $3 million in 1998, but to reduce them
by about $5 million a year annually starting in 2000.
Cap on the Military Personnel Authorization. The bill would
explicitly authorize appropriations for military personnel of
$69,540 million in 1998. Because the estimated costs of other
sections of the bill fall short of this level, this section has
the effect of adding $108 million to the other 1998 costs
identified in Table 3.
Military Health Care Programs. Two provisions of H.R. 1119
would have a measurable budgetary effect on military health
care programs. Section 731 would raise health care costs by
nearly $3 million a year by allowing DoD to waive or reduce
copayments for dependents in the overseas dental insurance
program. CBO assumes that at least half of the 108,000
dependents overseas would benefit from this provision. CBO
assumes that those dependents would use dental services at the
same rates as similar individuals residing in the United
States. The estimate is based on data from the American Dental
Association on average prices and use of dental services.
Section 733 would raise health care costs by about $4
million in 1998 by requiring that, to the extent practicable,
DoD payment rates to private providers be equal to comparable
rates under Medicare. Currently, DOD's rates are lower than
Medicare's for 60 procedures. CBO's estimate is based on
information from DoD as to the frequency of these procedures
and the payment rates.
Other provisions could have budgetary effects, but CBO
cannot estimate the impacts on the federal budget. For example,
a provision authorizing Tricare contractors to use the Federal
Supply Schedule in purchasing pharmaceuticals for covered
military beneficiaries could reduce their costs. Any such
savings could be passed along to DoD in the form of lower
prices for the Tricare contracts. However, many providers
receive discounts on wholesale prices for drugs, which they
negotiate independently. CBO cannot measure savings from this
provision because insufficient data are available to compare
the current federal schedule and the prices Tricare contractors
now pay for drugs.
Long-Term Charter of a Naval Vessel. The bill would
authorize the Secretary of the Navy to charter through 2003 the
vessel RV Cory Chouest. The charter is an operating lease that
would cost about $7 million in 1998 and a total of $46 million
through 2003. The estimate is based on information provided by
the Navy and the owner of the vessel.
Pay of Former DoD Teachers. Current law requires that, when
teachers in DOD's overseas schools transfer to General Schedule
positions, their pay be increased by 20 percent. Section 321
would allow the Secretary of Defense to increase pay by less
than 20 percent. This provision would reduce costs because some
individuals would receive an increase of less than the 20
percent required under current law. Savings would be less than
$500,000 in 1998, but they would increase to about $2 million
in 2002.
Panama Canal Commission. Title XXXV would authorize the
Panama Canal Commission to spend any sums available to it from
operating revenues or Treasury borrowing for operation,
maintenance, and improvement of the canal in fiscal year 1998.
For budgetary purposes, this spending is considered
discretionary. CBO estimates that 1998 collections will be $748
million and that spending will be $716 million, resulting in
net outlays of -$32 million.
Other provisions of this title, which would facilitate the
transfer of the Panama Canal to the government of Panama in
1999, would have no effect on the federal budget.
Direct spending and asset sales
H.R. 1119 contains provisions that would affect direct
spending in 1998 and thus would subject the bill to pay-as-you-
go procedures under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (see Table 4). The
provisions would allow DoD to spend certain reimbursements and
make certain changes affecting military retirement. In
addition, the bill would provide for the sale of materials from
the National Defense Stockpile. Based on criteria established
in the 1998 budget resolution, CBO has determined that proceeds
from the asset sales in this bill should be counted in the
budget totals for purposes of Congressional scoring. Under the
Balanced Budget Act, however, proceeds from asset sales are not
counted in determining compliance with the discretionary
spending limits or pay-as-you-go requirement.
TABLE 4.--ASSET SALES AND DIRECT SPENDING IN H.R. 1119
[By fiscal year, outlays in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSET SALES \1\
Stockpile Sales:
Estimated Budget Authority................................ -14 -14 -14 -14 -14
Estimated Outlays......................................... -14 -14 -14 -14 -14
DIRECT SPENDING
Utility Rebates
Estimated Budget Authority................................ 1 1 1 1 1
Estimated Outlays......................................... 1 1 1 1 1
TOTAL DIRECT SPENDING AND ASSET SALES
Estimated Budget Authority................................ -13 -13 -13 -13 -13
Estimated Outlays......................................... -13 -13 -13 -13 -13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on criteria established in the 1998 budget resolution, CBO has determined that proceeds from the asset
sales in this bill should be counted in the budget totals for purposes of Congressional scoring. Under the
Balanced Budget Act, however, proceeds from asset sales are not counted in determining compliance with the
discretionary spending limits or pay-as-you-go requirement.
Stockpile Sales. The bill would authorize DoD to sell
34,800 short tons of titanium sponge and all beryllium copper
master alloy in the National Defense Stockpile. CBO estimates
that these sales would generate receipts of about $14 million a
year through 2002. Provisions to restrict the sale of manganese
ferro and to place conditions on the transfer of stockpile
platinum reserves to Secretary of the Treasury would have no
budgetary impact because those provisions would not affect
annual sales or prices.
Property Transactions. Section 2812 would allow DoD to
accept and spend reimbursements for certain administrative
expenses that it incurs during property transactions. This
provision would result in no net spending because any increase
in outlays would be offset by an increase in receipts.
Spending of Financial Incentives. Section 2804 would allow
DoD to spend cash rebates from electric and water utilities.
Under current law these funds are deposited in the Treasury.
The direct spending from this provision would total about $1
million annually.
Military Retirement. Several provisions would affect direct
spending through changes to laws governing military retirement.
Those provisions would have little or no impact because few
beneficiaries would be affected.
Section 502 would allow the Secretary of Defense to
recall certain officers to active duty for longer than
the 12 months allowed in current law.
Section 504 would allow Secretaries of the military
departments to defer the retirement of the Chief of
Chaplains or the Deputy Chief of Chaplains until the
officer turns 68 years of age.
Section 514 would allow DoD to reduce from three
years to two years the time-in-grade that certain
reserve officers must have to retire at a higher grade.
Section 521 would allow DoD to retain military
technicians in the grade of brigadier general on the
active-status list until the officer reaches the age of
60.
Section 641 would allow a retiree to change the
beneficiary under the Survivor Benefit Plan from a
former spouse to current spouse at any time after the
beneficiary remarries.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-as-you-go
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that enactment of H.R.
1119 would result in $1 million in direct spending in fiscal
year 1998.
Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments:
H.R. 1119 contains one intergovernmental mandate as defined in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA). However, CBO
estimates that the costs to comply with the mandate would be
well below the threshold established in the act ($50 million
annually, adjusted for inflation). UMRA excludes from
application of that act legislative provisions that are
necessary for the national security. CBO has determined that
all other provisions in H.R. 1119 either fit within this
exclusion or do not contain intergovernmental mandates as
defined by UMRA.
Section 735 would exempt health care professionals from
state licensure requirements in states where they perform
authorized Department of Defense activities as long as they
possess a current license from at least one other state. Since
this provision would preempt state laws governing health care
licensure, it would be considered a mandate as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Health care professionals currently do not need additional
licenses if they are practicing solely in military facilities.
Enactment of this provision would allow these individuals to
practice in civilian hospitals with which DoD has cooperative
agreements without obtaining a medical license in that state as
they must do now. Based on discussions with representatives
from the Department of Defense and medical associations, CBO
estimates that such cooperative agreements may become more
common in the future. Depending upon the degree to which
military doctors are assigned to civilian hospitals, states
could lose between $500,000 and $1,000,000 annually in license
fees.
A number of the bill's other provisions--such as those
pertaining to land conveyances, certain grant programs,
educational assistance to schools districts, and Panama Canal
fees--would affect state, local, or tribal governments. Most of
these provisions would benefit state, local, and tribal
governments in some way, and none would impose any significant
costs on those entities.
Estimated impact on the private sector: The Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act excludes from application of the act
legislativeprovisions that are necessary for the national
security. CBO has determined that all of the provisions of this bill
either fit within that exclusion or do not contain private-sector
mandates as defined by UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost: The estimates for
defense programs were prepared by Valerie Barton (military
retirement), Shawn Bishop (health programs), Kent Christensen
(military construction, operation and maintenance, and other
defense), Jeannette Deshong (military and civilian personnel),
and Raymond Hall (procurement, RDT&E, stockpile sales, and
atomic energy defense activities).
Kathy Gramp prepared the estimates for the Naval Petroleum
Reserve, and Deborah Reis prepared the estimates for the Panama
Canal Commission and Maritime Administration.
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Karen McVey
and Leo Lex.
Impact on the Private Sector: Neil Singer.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Committee Cost Estimate
Pursuant to clause 7(a) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with
the estimate as contained in the report of the Congressional
Budget Office.
Inflation Impact Statement
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee concludes that the bill
would have no significant inflationary impact.
Oversight Findings
With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, this legislation results from
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 308(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not
include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it
provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or
expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations.
Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the
estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
With respect to clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the committee has not received
a report from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 1119.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for
this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States
Constitution.
Statement of Federal Mandates
Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state,
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal
intergovernmental mandates.
Roll Call Votes
In accordance with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, roll call and voice
votes were taken with respect to the committee's consideration
of H.R. 1119. The record of these votes is attached to this
report.
The committee ordered H.R. 1119 reported to the House with
a favorable recommendation by a vote of 51-3, a quorum being
present.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed
is shown in roman):
TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--General Military Law
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
Chap. Sec.
1. Definitions.............................................. 101
* * * * * * *
23. Miscellaneous Studies and Reports........................ [471] 481
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
131. Planning and Coordination................................ 2201
* * * * * * *
[147. Utilities and Services.................................. 2481]
147. Commissaries and Exchanges and Other Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation Activities..................................... 2481
* * * * * * *
152. Issue of Supplies, Services, and Facilities.............[2540] 2541
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
Chap. Sec.
1. Definitions............................................... 101
* * * * * * *
23. Miscellaneous Studies and Reports......................... [471] 481
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 2--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 113. Secretary of Defense
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary of Defense, with the approval of the
President and after consultation with the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, shall provide [annually] to the Chairman
written policy guidance for the preparation and review of
contingency plans. Such guidance shall be provided every two
years or more frequently as needed and shall include guidance
on the specific force levels and specific supporting resource
levels projected to be available for the period of time for
which such plans are to be effective.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 115. Personnel strengths: requirement for annual authorization
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Congress shall authorize for each fiscal year the end
strength for military technicians (dual status) for each
reserve component of the Army and Air Force. Funds available to
the Department of Defense for any fiscal year may not be used
for the pay of a military technician (dual status) during that
fiscal year unless the technician fills a position that is
within the number of such positions authorized by law for that
fiscal year for the reserve component of that technician. This
subsection applies without regard to section 129 of this title.
In each budget submitted by the President to Congress under
section 1105 of title 31, the end strength requested for
military technicians (dual status) for each reserve component
of the Army and Air Force shall be specifically set forth.
Sec. 115a. Annual manpower requirements report
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) In each such report, the Secretary shall include a
separate report on the Army and Air Force military technician
programs. The report shall include a presentation, shown by
reserve component and shown both as of the end of the preceding
fiscal year and for the next fiscal year, of the following
(displayed in the aggregate and separately for military
technicians (dual status) and non-dual status military
technicians):
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(3) Within each of the numbers under paragraph (1),
the numbers of military technicians who are not
themselves members of a reserve component (so-called
``single-status'' technicians), with a further display
of such numbers as specified in paragraph (2).]
Sec. 116. Annual operations and maintenance report
(a) * * *
(b) In this section:
(1) * * *
(2) The term ``major repair work'' means, in the case
of any ship to which [such subsection] subsection (a)
is applicable, any overhaul, modification, alteration,
or conversion work which will result in a total cost to
the United States of more than $10,000,000.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 3--GENERAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 129c. Medical personnel: limitations on reductions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``medical
personnel'' means--
(1) the members of the armed forces covered by the
term ``medical personnel'' as defined in section
[115a(g)(2)] 115a(e)(2) of this title; and
(2) the civilian personnel of the Department of
Defense assigned to military medical facilities.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 4--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 135. Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) shall advise
and assist the Secretary of Defense--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) in establishing and supervising the execution of
policies and procedures relating to the expenditure and
collection of funds administered by the Department of
Defense; [and]
(5) in establishing uniform terminologies,
classifications, and procedures concerning matters
covered by clauses (1) through (4)[.]; and
(6) in the areas of exchange, commissary, and
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities regarding
morale, welfare, and recreation activities.
* * * * * * *
(f) The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) shall be
responsible for investigating evidence of fraud, waste, and
abuse uncovered as a result of the Department of Defense
program (known as Operation Mongoose) established to identify
and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse within the Department of
Defense, particularly fraud, waste, and abuse regarding finance
and accounting matters. The program shall continue through
fiscal year 2003.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 6--COMBATANT COMMANDS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 167. Unified combatant command for special operations forces
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Budget.--(1) In addition to the activities of a combatant
command for which funding may be requested under section 166(b)
of this title, the budget proposal of the special operations
command shall include requests for funding for--
[(1)] (A) development and acquisition of special
operations-peculiar equipment; and
[(2)] (B) acquisition of other material, supplies, or
services that are peculiar to special operations
activities.
(2) Funds provided for the special operations command as part
of the budget for the special operations command under
paragraph (1) may not be used to cover base operation support
expenses incurred at a military installation.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 8--DEFENSE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FIELD ACTIVITIES
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--COMMON SUPPLY AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES
Sec.
191. Secretary of Defense: authority to provide for common performance
of supply or service activities.
* * * * * * *
195. Defense Automated Printing Service: applicability of Federal
printing requirements.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 195. Defense Automated Printing Service: applicability of Federal
printing requirements
The Defense Automated Printing Service shall comply fully
with the requirements of chapter 5 of title 44 relating to the
production and procurement of printing, binding, and blank-book
work.
SUBCHAPTER II--MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSE AGENCY MATTERS
Sec.
201. Certain intelligence officials: consultation and concurrence
regarding appointments; evaluation of performance.
* * * * * * *
203. Director of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 203. Director of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(a) Grade.--The position of Director of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization--
(1) may only be held by an officer of the armed
forces on the active-duty list; and
(2) shall be designated under section 601 of this
title as a position of importance and responsibility to
carry the grade of general or admiral or lieutenant
general or vice admiral.
(b) Line of Authority to Secretary of Defense.--The Director
of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization reports directly
to the Secretary of Defense and (if so directed by the
Secretary) the Deputy Secretary of Defense, without intervening
review or approval by any other officer of the Department of
Defense, with respect to all matters pertaining to the
management of ballistic missile defense programs for which the
Director has responsibility (including matters pertaining to
the status of those programs and the budgets for those
programs).
CHAPTER 9--DEFENSE BUDGET MATTERS
Sec.
221. Future-years defense program: submission to Congress; consistency
in budgeting.
* * * * * * *
224. Ballistic missile defense programs: amounts for procurement.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 224. Ballistic missile defense programs: amounts for procurement
(a) Requirement.--Any amount in the budget submitted to
Congress under section 1105 of title 31 for any fiscal year for
procurement for the National Missile Defense program or for any
system that is part of the core theater missile defense program
shall be set forth under the account of the Department of
Defense for Defense-wide procurement and, within that account,
under the subaccount (or other budget activity level) for the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
(b) Core Theater Ballistic Missile Defense Program.--For
purposes of this section, the core theater missile defense
program consists of the systems specified in section 234 of the
Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995 (10 U.S.C. 2431 note).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 18--MILITARY SUPPORT FOR CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 382. Emergency situations involving chemical or biological weapons
of mass destruction
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Relationship to Other Authority.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to restrict any executive branch authority
regarding use of members of the armed forces or equipment of
the Department of Defense that was in effect before [the date
of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997] September 23, 1996.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 20--HUMANITARIAN AND OTHER ASSISTANCE
Sec.
401. Humanitarian and civic assistance provided in conjunction with
military operations.
* * * * * * *
406. Use of Cooperative Threat Reduction program funds: limitation.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 406. Use of Cooperative Threat Reduction program funds: limitation
(a) In General.--In carrying out Cooperative Threat Reduction
programs during any fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense may
use funds appropriated for those programs only to the extent
that those funds were appropriated for that fiscal year or for
either of the two preceding fiscal years.
(b) Definition of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs.--In
this section, the term ``Cooperative Threat Reduction
programs'' means the following programs with respect to states
of the former Soviet Union:
(1) Programs to facilitate the elimination, and the
safe and secure transportation and storage, of nuclear,
chemical, and other weapons and their delivery
vehicles.
(2) Programs to facilitate the safe and secure
storage of fissile materials derived from the
elimination of nuclear weapons.
(3) Programs to prevent the proliferation of weapons,
components, and weapons-related technology and
expertise.
(4) Programs to expand military-to-military and
defense contacts.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 21--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE MATTERS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL MATTERS
Sec.
421. Funds for foreign cryptologic support.
* * * * * * *
[424. Disclosure of organizational and personnel information: exemption
for Defense Intelligence Agency.
[425. Disclosure of personnel information: exemption for National
Reconnaissance Office.]
424. Disclosure of organizational and personnel information: exemption
for Defense Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance
Office, and National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 22--NATIONAL IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--MISSIONS AND AUTHORITY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 445. Protection of agency identifications and organizational
information
(a) Unauthorized Use of Agency Name, Initials, or Seal.--
[(1)] Except with the written permission of the Secretary of
Defense, no person may knowingly use, in connection with any
merchandise, retail product, impersonation, solicitation, or
commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to convey
the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or
authorized by the Secretary of Defense, any of the following:
[(A)] (1) The words ``National Imagery and Mapping
Agency'', the initials ``NIMA'', or the seal of the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
[(B)] (2) The words ``Defense Mapping Agency'', the
initials ``DMA'', or the seal of the Defense Mapping
Agency.
[(C)] (3) Any colorable imitation of such words,
initials, or seals.
[(2)] (b) Injunctive Relief.--Whenever it appears to the
Attorney General that any person is engaged or about to engage
in an act or practice which constitutes or will constitute
conduct prohibited by [paragraph (1)] subsection (a), the
Attorney General may initiate a civil proceeding in a district
court of the United States to enjoin such act or practice. Such
court shall proceed as soon as practicable to a hearing and
determination of such action and may, at any time before such
final determination, enter such restraining orders or
prohibitions, or take such other action as is warranted, to
prevent injury to the United States or to any person or class
of persons for whose protection the action is brought.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 23--MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS
Sec.
481. Race relations, gender discrimination, and hate group activity:
annual survey and report.
482. Quarterly readiness reports.
483. Reports on transfers from high-priority readiness appropriations.
484. Quarterly reports on execution of operation and maintenance
appropriations.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 482. Quarterly readiness reports
[(a) Requirement.--Not later than 30 days after the end of
each calendar-year quarter, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on National Security of the House of Representatives
a report on military readiness. The report for any quarter
shall be based on assessments that are provided during that
quarter--
[(1) to any council, committee, or other body of the
Department of Defense (A) that has responsibility for
readiness oversight, and (B) the membership of which
includes at least one civilian officer in the Office of
the Secretary of Defense at the level of Assistant
Secretary of Defense or higher;
[(2) by senior civilian and military officers of the
military departments and the commanders of the unified
and specified commands; and
[(3) as part of any regularly established process of
periodic readiness reviews for the Department of
Defense as a whole.
[(b) Matters To Be Included.--Each such report shall--
[(1) specifically describe identified readiness
problems or deficiencies and planned remedial actions;
and
[(2) include the key indicators and other relevant
data related to the identified problem or deficiency.
[(c) Classification of Reports.--Reports under this section
shall be submitted in unclassified form and may, as the
Secretary determines necessary, also be submitted in classified
form.]
Sec. 482. Quarterly readiness reports
(a) Quarterly Reports Required.--Not later than 30 days after
the end of each calendar-year quarter, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and the Committee on National Security of the House of
Representatives a report on military readiness. The report for
a quarter shall contain the information required by subsections
(b) (d), and (e).
(b) Readiness Problems and Remedial Actions.--Each report
shall specifically describe--
(1) readiness problems or deficiencies identified
using the assessments considered under subsection (c);
(2) planned remedial actions; and
(3) the key indicators and other relevant information
related to the identified problem or deficiency.
(c) Consideration of Readiness Assessments.--The information
required under subsection (b) to be included in the report for
a quarter shall be based on readiness assessments that are
provided during that quarter--
(1) to any council, committee, or other body of the
Department of Defense--
(A) that has responsibility for readiness
oversight; and
(B) whose membership includes at least one
civilian officer in the Office of the Secretary
of Defense at the level of Assistant Secretary
of Defense or higher;
(2) by senior civilian and military officers of the
military departments and the commanders of the unified
and specified commands; and
(3) as part of any regularly established process of
periodic readiness reviews for the Department of
Defense as a whole.
(d) Comprehensive Readiness Indicators.--Each report shall
also include information regarding each military department
(and an evaluation of such information) with respect to each of
the following readiness indicators:
(1) Personnel strength.--
(A) Individual personnel status.
(B) Historical and projected personnel
trends.
(2) Personnel turbulence.--
(A) Recruit quality.
(B) Borrowed manpower.
(C) Personnel stability.
(3) Other personnel matters.--
(A) Personnel morale.
(B) Medical and dental readiness.
(C) Recruit shortfalls.
(4) Training.--
(A) Training unit readiness and proficiency.
(B) Operations tempo.
(C) Training funding.
(D) Training commitments and deployments.
(5) Logistics--equipment fill.--
(A) Deployed equipment.
(B) Equipment availability.
(C) Equipment that is not mission capable.
(D) Age of equipment.
(E) Condition of nonpacing items.
(6) Logistics--equipment maintenance.--
(A) Maintenance backlog.
(7) Logistics--supply.--
(A) Availability of ordnance and spares.
(e) Unit Readiness Indicators.--Each report shall also
include information regarding the readiness of each unit of the
armed forces at the battalion, squadron, or an equivalent level
(or a higher level) that received a readiness rating of C-3 (or
below) for any month of the calendar-year quarter covered by
the report. With respect to each such unit, the report shall
separately provide the following information:
(1) The unit designation and level of organization.
(2) The overall readiness rating for the unit for the
quarter and each month of the quarter.
(3) The resource area or areas (personnel, equipment
and supplies on hand, equipment condition, or training)
that adversely affected the unit's readiness rating for
the quarter.
(4) If the unit received a readiness rating below C-1
in personnel for the quarter, the primary reason for
the lower rating, by reason code and definition.
(5) If the unit received a readiness rating below C-1
in equipment and supplies on hand for the quarter, the
primary reason for the lower rating, by reason code and
definition.
(6) If the unit received a readiness rating below C-1
in equipment condition for the quarter, the primary
reason for the lower rating, by reason code and
definition.
(7) If the unit received a readiness rating below C-1
in training for the quarter, the primary reason for the
lower rating, by reason code and definition.
(f) Classification of Reports.--A report under this section
shall be submitted in unclassified form. To the extent the
Secretary of Defense determines necessary, the report may also
be submitted in classified form.
Sec. 483. Reports on transfers from high-priority readiness
appropriations
(a) Annual Reports.--Not later than the date on which the
President submits the budget for a fiscal year to Congress
pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on
National Security and the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives a report on transfers during the
preceding fiscal year from funds available for each covered
budget activity.
(b) Quarterly Reports.--Not later than 30 days after the end
of each quarter of a fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the congressional committees specified in
subsection (a) a report on transfers, during that fiscal year
quarter, from funds available for each covered budget activity.
(c) Matters To Be Included.--In each report under subsection
(a) or (b), the Secretary of Defense shall include for each
covered budget activity the following:
(1) A statement, for the period covered by the
report, of--
(A) the total amount of transfers into funds
available for that activity;
(B) the total amount of transfers from funds
available for that activity; and
(C) the net amount of transfers into, or out
of, funds available for that activity.
(2) A detailed explanation of the transfers into, and
out of, funds available for that activity during the
period covered by the report.
(d) Covered Budget Activity Defined.--In this section, the
term ``covered budget activity'' means each of the following:
(1) The budget activity groups (known as
``subactivities'') within the Operating Forces budget
activity of the annual Operation and Maintenance, Army,
appropriation that are designated as follows:
(A) All subactivities under the category of
Land Forces.
(B) Land Forces Depot Maintenance.
(C) Base Support.
(D) Maintenance of Real Property.
(2) The Air Operations budget activity groups (known
as ``subactivities'') within the Operating Forces
budget activity of the annual Operation and
Maintenance, Navy, appropriation that are designated as
follows:
(A) Mission and Other Flight Operations.
(B) Fleet Air Training.
(C) Aircraft Depot Maintenance.
(D) Base Support.
(E) Maintenance of Real Property.
(3) The Ship Operations budget activity groups (known
as ``subactivities'') within the Operating Forces
budget activity of the annual Operation and
Maintenance, Navy, appropriation that are designated as
follows:
(A) Mission and Other Ship Operations.
(B) Ship Operational Support and Training.
(C) Ship Depot Maintenance.
(D) Base Support.
(E) Maintenance of Real Property.
(4) The Expeditionary Forces budget activity groups
(known as ``subactivities'') within the Operating
Forces budget activity of the annual Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps, appropriation that are
designated as follows:
(A) Operational Forces.
(B) Depot Maintenance.
(C) Base Support.
(D) Maintenance of Real Property.
(5) The Air Operations and Combat Related Operations
budget activity groups (known as ``subactivities'')
within the Operating Forces budget activity of the
annual Operation and Maintenance, Air Force,
appropriation that are designated as follows:
(A) Primary Combat Forces.
(B) Primary Combat Weapons.
(C) Air Operations Training.
(D) Depot Maintenance.
(E) Base Support.
(F) Maintenance of Real Property.
(6) The Mobility Operations budget activity group
(known as a ``subactivity'') within the Mobilization
budget activity of the annual Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force, appropriation that is
designated as Airlift Operations.
(e) Termination.--The requirements specified in subsections
(a) and (b) shall terminate upon the submission of the annual
report under subsection (a) covering fiscal year 2000.
Sec. 484. Quarterly reports on execution of operation and maintenance
appropriations
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 60 days after the end of
each quarter of a fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on National
Security and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a report containing budget execution data for
each budget activity group (known as a ``subactivity'') within
the annual operation and maintenance appropriations for the
period covered by the report. A report shall cover all
preceding quarters of the fiscal year involved.
(b) Manner of Presenting Data.--The budget execution data
required under subsection (a) shall be displayed for the fiscal
year involved in the same manner used in the operation and
maintenance tables contained in the budget justification
document entitled ``O-1 Exhibit'' submitted to Congress in
support of the budget of the Department of Defense, as included
in the budget of the President submitted under section 1105 of
title 31.
(c) Required Information.--The following information shall be
provided for each budget activity group:
(1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated.
(2) Amounts appropriated.
(3) Direct obligations.
(4) Total obligational authority.
(5) Amounts related to unbudgeted contingency
operations.
(6) Direct obligations related to unbudgeted
contingency operations.
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 36--PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF
OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVE-DUTY LIST
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--PROMOTIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 619. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: time-in-grade
and other requirements
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) A selection board convened under section 611(a) of this
title may not consider for promotion to the next higher
[grade--] grade any of the following officers:
(1) [an] An officer whose name is on a promotion list
for that grade as a result of his selection for
promotion to that grade by an earlier selection board
convened under that section[; or].
(2) An officer who is recommended for promotion to
that grade in the report of an earlier selection board
convened under that section, in the case of such a
report that has not yet been approved by the President.
[(2) an] (3) An officer of the Marine Corps who is an
officer designated for limited duty and who holds a
grade above major.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 39--ACTIVE DUTY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 688. Retired members: authority to order to active duty; duties
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Limitation of Period of Recall Service.--(1) A member
ordered to active duty under subsection (a) may not serve on
active duty pursuant to orders under that subsection for more
than 12 months within the 24 months following the first day of
the active duty to which ordered under that subsection.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the following officers:
(A) A chaplain who is assigned to duty as a chaplain
for the period of active duty to which ordered.
(B) A health care professional (as characterized by
the Secretary concerned) who is assigned to duty as a
health care professional for the period of active duty
to which ordered.
(C) An officer assigned to duty with the American
Battle Monuments Commission for the period of active
duty to which ordered.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 40--LEAVE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 708. Educational leave of absence
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) While on a leave of absence under this section, a
member shall be paid basic pay but may not receive [basic
allowance for quarters or basic allowance for subsistence]
basic allowance for housing under section 403 of title 37,
basic allowance for subsistence under section 402 of such
title, or any other pay and allowances to which he would
otherwise be entitled for such period.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 41--SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS, DETAILS, AND DUTIES
Sec.
711. Senior members of Military Staff Committee of United Nations:
appointment.
* * * * * * *
721. General and flag officers: limitation on appointments,
assignments, details, and duties outside an officer's own
service.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 721. General and flag officers: limitation on appointments,
assignments, details, and duties outside an
officer's own service
(a) Limitation.--An officer described in subsection (b) may
not be appointed, assigned, or detailed for a period in excess
of 90 days to a position external to that officer's armed force
if, immediately following such appointment, assignment, or
detail, the number of officers described in subsection (b)
serving in positions external to such officers' armed force for
a period in excess of 90 days would be in excess of 24.5
percent of the total number of such officers.
(b) Covered Officers.--The officers covered by subsection
(a), and to be counted for the purposes of the limitation in
that subsection, are the following:
(1) Any general or flag officer counted for purposes
of section 526(a) of this title.
(2) Any general or flag officer serving in a joint
duty assignment position designated by the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff under section 526(b) of this
title.
(3) Any colonel or Navy captain counted for purposes
of section 777(d)(1) of this title.
(c) External Positions.--For purposes of this section, the
following positions shall be considered to be external to an
officer's armed force:
(1) Any position (including a position in joint
education) that is a joint duty assignment for purposes
of chapter 38 of this title.
(2) Any position in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, a Defense Agency, or a Department of Defense
Field Activity.
(3) Any position in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Joint Staff, or the headquarters of a combatant command
(as defined in chapter 6 of this title).
(4) Any position in the National Guard Bureau.
(5) Any position outside the Department of Defense,
including any position in the headquarters of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization or any other international
military command, any combined or multinational
command, or military mission.
(d) Assignments, Etc. For Periods in Excess of 90 Days.--For
purposes of this section, the appointment, assignment, or
detail of an officer to a position shall be considered to be
for a period in excess of 90 days unless the appointment,
assignment, or detail specifies that it is made a period of 90
days or less.
(e) Waiver During Period of War or National Emergency.--The
President may suspend the operation of this section during any
period of war or of national emergency declared by Congress or
the President.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 47--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER VII--TRIAL PROCEDURE
Sec. Art.
836. 36. President may prescribe rules.
* * * * * * *
856a. 56a. Sentence of confinement for life without eligibility for
parole.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 856a. Art. 56a. Sentence of confinement for life without
eligibility for parole
(a) For any offense for which a sentence of confinement for
life may be adjudged, a court-martial may adjudge a sentence of
confinement for life without eligibility for parole.
(b) An accused who is sentenced to confinement for life
without eligibility for parole shall be confined for the
remainder of the accused 's life unless--
(1) the sentence is set aside or otherwise modified
as a result of--
(A) action taken by the convening authority,
the Secretary concerned, or another person
authorized to act under section 860 of this
title (article 60); or
(B) any other action taken during post-trial
procedure and review under any other provision
of subchapter IX;
(2) the sentence is set aside or otherwise modified
as a result of action taken by a Court of Criminal
Appeals, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, or
the Supreme Court; or
(3) the accused is pardoned.
SUBCHAPTER VIII--SENTENCES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 858b. Art. 58b. Sentences: forfeiture of pay and allowances during
confinement
(a)(1) A court-martial sentence described in paragraph (2)
shall result in the [forfeiture of pay and (if adjudged by a
general court-martial) allowances due that member] forfeiture
of pay, or of pay and allowances, due that member during any
period of confinement or parole. The forfeiture pursuant to
this section shall take effect on the date determined under
section 857(a) of this title (article 57(a)) and may be
deferred as provided in that section. The pay and allowances
forfeited, in the case of a general court-martial, shall be all
pay and allowances due that member during such period and, in
the case of a special court-martial, shall be two-thirds of all
pay due that member during such period.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER XII--UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 943. Art. 143. Organization and employees
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Status of [certain] Certain Positions.--(1) Attorney
positions of employment under the Court of Appeals for the
Armed Forces are excepted from the competitive service. A
position of employment under the Court that is provided
primarily for the service of one judge of the court, reports
directly to the judge, and is a position of a confidential
character is excepted from the competitive service.
Appointments to [such positions] positions referred to in the
preceding sentences shall be made by the court, without the
concurrence of any other officer or employee of the executive
branch, in the same manner as appointments are made to other
executive branch positions of a confidential or policy-
determining character for which it is not practicable to
examine or to hold a competitive examination. Such positions
shall not be counted as positions of that character for
purposes of any limitation on the number of positions of that
character provided in law.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 48--MILITARY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 952. Parole
(a) The Secretary concerned may provide a system of parole
for offenders who are confined in military correctional
facilities and who were at the time of commission of their
offenses subject to the authority of that Secretary.
(b) In a case in which parole for an offender serving a
sentence of confinement for life is denied, only the President
or the Secretary concerned may grant the offender parole on
appeal of that denial. The authority to grant parole on appeal
in such a case may not be delegated.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 954. Voluntary extension; probation
The Secretary concerned may provide for persons who were
subject to [this] his authority at the time of commission of
their offenses a system for retention of selected offenders
beyond expiration of normal service obligation in order to
voluntarily serve a period of probation with a view to
honorable restoration to duty.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 49--MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 972. Members: effect of time lost
(a) * * *
(b) Officers Not Allowed Service Credit for Time Lost.--In
the case of an officer of an armed force who after [the date of
the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996] February 10, 1996--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 976. Membership in military unions, organizing of military unions,
and recognition of military unions prohibited
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Whoever violates subsection (b), (c), or (d) [shall, in
the case of an individual, be fined not more than $10,000 or
imprisoned not more than five years, or both, and in the case
of an organization or association, be fined not less than
$25,000 and not more than $250,000.] shall be fined under title
18 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, except that,
in the case of an organization (as defined in section 18 of
such title), the fine shall not be less than $25,000.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 977. Operation of commissary stores: assignment of active duty
members generally prohibited
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Exception for Certain Additional Members.--[Beginning on
October 1, 1996, not more than] Not more than 18 members (in
addition to the officer referred to in subsection (b)) of the
armed forces on active duty may be assigned to the Defense
Commissary Agency. Members who may be assigned under this
subsection to regional headquarters of the agency shall be
limited to enlisted members assigned to duty as advisors in the
regional headquarters responsible for overseas commissaries and
to veterinary specialists.
(d) Exception for Certain Navy Personnel.--(1) The Secretary
of the Navy may assign to the Defense Commissary Agency a
member of the Navy on active duty whose assignment afloat is
part of the operation of a ship's food service or a ship's
store. Any such assignment shall be on a nonreimbursable basis.
(2) The number of such members assigned to the Defense
Commissary Agency during any period [before October 1, 1996,
may not exceed the number of such members so assigned on
October 1, 1993. After September 30, 1996, the number of such
members so assigned] may not exceed the lesser of (A) the
number of members so assigned on October 1, 1993, and (B) 400.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 53--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
Sec.
1031. Administration of oath.
* * * * * * *
1033. Participation in management of specified non-Federal entities:
authorized activities.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1033. Participation in management of specified non-Federal
entities: authorized activities
(a) Authorization.--The Secretary concerned may authorize a
member of the armed forces under the Secretary's jurisdiction,
as part of that member's official duties, to serve without
compensation as a director, officer, or trustee, or to
otherwise participate, in the management of an entity
designated under subsection (b). Any such authorization shall
be made on a case-by-case basis, for a particular member to
participate in a specific capacity with a specific designated
entity. Such authorization may be made be only for the purpose
of providing oversight and advice to, and coordination with,
the designated entity, and participation of the member in the
activities of the designated entity may not extend to
participation in the day-to-day operations of the entity.
(b) Designated Entities.--(1) The Secretary of Defense, and
the Secretary of Transportation in the case of the Coast Guard
when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, shall
designate those entities for which authorization under
subsection (a) may be provided. The list of entities so
designated may not be revised more frequently than
semiannually. In making such designations, the Secretary shall
designate each military welfare society and may designate any
other entity described in paragraph (3). No other entities may
be designated.
(2) In this section, the term ``military welfare society''
means the following:
(A) Army Emergency Relief.
(B) Air Force Aid Society, Inc.
(C) Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society.
(D) Coast Guard Mutual Assistance.
(3) An entity described in this paragraph is an entity that--
(A) regulates and supports the athletic programs of
the service academies (including athletic conferences);
(B) regulates international athletic competitions;
(C) accredits service academies and other schools of
the armed forces (including regional accrediting
agencies); or
(D)(i) regulates the performance, standards, and
policies of military health care (including health care
associations and professional societies), and (ii) has
designated the position or capacity in that entity in
which a member of the armed forces may serve if
authorized under subsection (a).
(c) Publication of Designated Entities and of Authorized
Persons.--A designation of an entity under subsection (b), and
an authorization under subsection (a) of a member of the armed
forces to participate in the management of such an entity,
shall be published in the Federal Register.
(d) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary
of Transportation in the case of the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service in the Navy, shall prescribe regulations
to carry out this section.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1060a. Special supplemental food program
(a) * * *
(b) Federal Payments and Commodities.--For the purpose of
obtaining Federal payments and commodities in order to carry
out the program referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of
Agriculture shall make available to the Secretary of Defense
from funds appropriated for such purpose, the same payments and
commodities as are made for the special supplemental food
program in the United States under section 17 of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786). Pending receipt of such
funds from the Secretary of Agriculture for any fiscal year,
the Secretary of Defense may use funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense for that fiscal year for operations and
maintenance to carry out, and to avoid delay in implementation
of, the program referred to in subsection (a) during any fiscal
year.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 55--MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE
Sec.
1071. Purpose of this chapter.
* * * * * * *
1097. Contracts for medical care for retirees, dependents, and
survivors: alternative delivery of health care.
* * * * * * *
[1106. Submittal of claims under CHAMPUS.]
1106. Submittal of claims: standard form; time limits.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1072. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(7) The term ``TRICARE program'' means the managed
health care program that is established by the
Department of Defense under the authority of this
chapter, principally section 1097 of this title, and
includes the competitive selection of contractors to
financially underwrite the delivery of health care
services under the Civilian Health and Medical Program
of the Uniformed Services.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1074a. Medical and dental care: members on duty other than active
duty for a period of more than 30 days
(a) Under joint regulations prescribed by the administering
Secretaries, the following persons are entitled to the benefits
described in subsection (b):
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Each member of the armed forces who incurs or
aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line
of duty while remaining overnight immediately before
the commencement of inactive-duty training, or while
remaining overnight, between successive periods of
inactive-duty training, at or in the vicinity of the
site of the inactive-duty training, if the site is
outside reasonable commuting distance from the member's
residence.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1076. Medical and dental care for dependents: general rule
(a)(1) A dependent described in paragraph (2) is entitled,
upon request, to the medical and dental care prescribed by
section 1077 of this title in facilities of the uniformed
services, subject to the availability of space and facilities
and the capabilities of the medical and dental staff.
(2) A dependent referred to in paragraph (1) is a dependent
of a member of a uniformed service--
(A) who is on active duty for a period of more than
30 days or who died while on that duty; [or]
(B) who died from an injury, illness, or disease
incurred or aggravated--
(i) while on active duty under a call or
order to active duty of 30 days or less, on
active duty for training, or on inactive duty
training; or
(ii) while traveling to or from the place at
which the member is to perform, or has
performed, such active duty, active duty for
training, or inactive duty training[.]; or
(C) who incurs or aggravates an injury or illness in
the line of duty while serving on active duty for a
period of 30 days or less and whose orders are
subsequently modified to extend the period of active
duty to a period of more than 30 days.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1076a. Dependents' dental program
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Care Outside the United States.--The [Secretary]
Secretary of Defense may exercise the authority provided under
subsection (a) to establish basic dental benefits plans for the
provision of dental benefits outside the United States for the
eligible dependents of members of the uniformed services
accompanying the members on permanent assignments to duty
outside the United States. In the case of such an overseas
dental plan, the Secretary may waive or reduce the copayments
otherwise required by subsection (e) to the extent the
Secretary determines appropriate for the effective and
efficient operation of the plan.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1076b. Selected Reserve dental insurance
(a) * * *
(b) Premium Sharing.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(3) A member's share of the premium for coverage by the
dental insurance plan shall be deducted and withheld from the
basic pay payable to the member for inactive duty training and
from the basic pay payable to the member for active duty. In
the case of a member who does not receive basic pay, the
Secretary of Defense shall establish procedures for the
collection of the member's share of the premium for coverage.]
(3) The Secretary of Defense shall establish
procedures for the collection of the member's share of
the premium for coverage by the dental insurance plan.
Not later than October 1, 1998, the Secretary shall
permit a member to pay the member's share of the
premium through a deduction and withholding from basic
pay payable to the member for inactive duty training or
basic pay payable to the member for active duty.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1076c. Dental insurance plan: certain retirees and their surviving
spouses and other dependents
(a) * * *
(b) Persons Eligible for Plan.--The following persons are
eligible to enroll in the dental insurance plan established
under subsection (a):
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) The unremarried surviving spouse and eligible
child dependents of a deceased member--
(A) who [dies] died while in a status
described in paragraph (1) or (2); [or]
(B) who is described in section 1448(d)(1) of
this title[.]; or
(C) who died while on active duty for a
period of more than 30 days and whose eligible
dependents are not eligible, or no longer
eligible, for dental benefits under section
1076a of this title pursuant to subsection
(i)(2) of such section.
(c) Premiums.--(1) A member enrolled in the dental insurance
plan established under subsection (a) shall pay the premiums
charged for the insurance coverage.
[(2) The amount of the premiums payable by a member entitled
to retired pay shall be deducted and withheld from the retired
pay and shall be disbursed to pay the premiums. The regulations
prescribed under subsection (h) shall specify the procedures
for payment of the premiums by other enrolled members and by
enrolled surviving spouses.]
(2) In the regulations prescribed under subsection
(h), the Secretary of Defense shall establish
procedures for the payment by enrolled members and by
other enrolled covered beneficiaries of premiums
charged for coverage by the dental insurance plan. Not
later than October 1, 1998, the Secretary shall permit
a member enrolled in the plan and entitled to retired
pay to pay the member's share of the premium through a
deduction and withholding from the retired pay of the
member.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1077. Medical care for dependents: authorized care in facilities
of uniformed services
(a) Only the following types of health care may be provided
under section 1076 of this title:
(1) Hospitalization.
* * * * * * *
(15) Prosthetic devices, as determined by the
Secretary of Defense to be necessary because of
significant conditions resulting from trauma,
congenital anomalies, or disease.
(b) The following types of health care may not be provided
under section 1076 of this title:
(1) Domiciliary or custodial care.
[(2) Prosthetic devices, hearing aids, orthopedic
footwear, and spectacles except that--
[(A) outside the United States and at
stations inside the United States where
adequate civilian facilities are unavailable,
such items may be sold to dependents at cost to
the United States, and
[(B) artificial limbs, voice prostheses, and
artificial eyes may be provided.]
(2) Hearing aids, orthopedic footwear, and
spectacles, except that, outside of the United States
and at stations inside the United States where adequate
civilian facilities are unavailable, such items may be
sold to dependents at cost to the United States.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1079. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children: plans
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h)[(1) Payment for a charge for services by an individual
health care professional (or other noninstitutional health care
provider) for which a claim is submitted under a plan
contracted for under subsection (a) may not exceed the lesser
of--
[(A) the amount equivalent to the 80th percentile of
billed charges made for similar services in the same
locality during the base period; or
[(B) an amount determined to be appropriate, to the
extent practicable, in accordance with the same
reimbursement rules as apply to payments for similar
services under title XVIII of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
[(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(A), the 80th
percentile of charges shall be determined by the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the other administering
Secretaries, and the base period shall be a period of twelve
calendar months. The Secretary of Defense shall adjust the base
period as frequently as he considers appropriate.
[(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the appropriate
payment amount shall be determined by the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the other administering Secretaries.]
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), payment for
a charge for services by an individual health care professional
(or other noninstitutional health care provider) for which a
claim is submitted under a plan contracted for under subsection
(a) shall be equal to an amount determined to be appropriate,
to the extent practicable, in accordance with the same
reimbursement rules as apply to payments for similar services
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et
seq.). The Secretary of Defense shall determine the appropriate
payment amount under this paragraph in consultation with the
other administering Secretaries.
[(4)] (2) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
other administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations to
provide for such exceptions to the payment limitations under
paragraph (1) as the Secretary determines to be necessary to
assure that covered beneficiaries retain adequate access to
health care services. Such exceptions may include the payment
of amounts higher than the amount allowed under paragraph (1)
when enrollees in managed care programs obtain covered services
from nonparticipating providers. To provide a suitable
transition from the payment methodologies in effect before the
date of the enactment of this paragraph to the methodology
required by paragraph (1), the amount allowable for any service
may not be reduced by more than 15 percent below the amount
allowed for the same service during the immediately preceding
12-month period (or other period as established by the
Secretary of Defense).
[(5)] (3) In addition to the authority provided under
[paragraph (4), the Secretary] paragraph (2), the Secretary of
Defense may authorize the commander of a facility of the
uniformed services, the lead agent (if other than the
commander), and the health care contractor to modify the
payment limitations under paragraph (1) for certain health care
providers when necessary to ensure both the availability of
certain services for covered beneficiaries and lower costs than
would otherwise be incurred to provide the services. With the
consent of the health care provider, the Secretary is also
authorized reduce the authorized payment for certain health
care services below the amount otherwise required by the
payment limitations under paragraph (1).
[(6)] (4) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
other administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations to
establish limitations (similar to the limitations established
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et
seq.)) on beneficiary liability for charges of an individual
health care professional (or other noninstitutional health care
provider).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1089. Defense of certain suits arising out of medical malpractice
(a) The remedy against the United States provided by sections
1346(b) and 2672 of title 28 for damages for personal injury,
including death, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or
omission of any physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or
paramedical or other supporting personnel (including medical
and dental technicians, nursing assistants, and therapists) of
the armed forces, the National Guard while engaged in training
or duty under section 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32,
the Department of Defense, the Armed Forces Retirement Home, or
the Central Intelligence Agency in the performance of medical,
dental, or related health care functions (including clinical
studies and investigations) while acting within the scope of
his duties or employment therein or therefor shall hereafter be
exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason of
the same subject matter against such physician, dentist, nurse,
pharmacist, or paramedical or other supporting personnel (or
the estate of such person) whose act or omission gave rise to
such action or proceeding. This subsection shall also apply if
the physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or paramedical or
other supporting personnel (or the estate of such person)
involved is serving under a personal services contract entered
into by the Secretary of Defense under section 1091 of this
title.
* * * * * * *
(f)(1) The head of the agency concerned may, to the extent
that the head of the agency concerned considers appropriate,
hold harmless or provide liability insurance for any person
described in subsection (a) for damages for personal injury,
including death, caused by such person's negligent or wrongful
act or omission in the performance of medical, dental, or
related health care functions (including clinical studies and
investigations) while acting within the scope of such person's
duties if such person is assigned to a foreign country or
detailed for service with other than a Federal department,
agency, or instrumentality or if the circumstances are such as
are likely to preclude the remedies of third persons against
the United States described in section 1346(b) of title 28, for
such damage or injury.
(2) With respect to the Secretary of Defense and the Armed
Forces Retirement Home Board, the authority provided by
paragraph (1) also includes the authority to provide for
reasonable attorney's fees for persons described in subsection
(a), as determined necessary pursuant to regulations issued by
the head of the agency concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1091. Personal services contracts
(a) Authority.--(1) The Secretary of Defense, with respect to
medical treatment facilities of the Department of Defense, and
the Secretary of Transportation, with respect to medical
treatment facilities of the Coast Guard when the Coast Guard is
not operating as a service in the Navy, may enter into personal
services contracts to carry out health care responsibilities in
such facilities, as determined to be necessary by the
Secretary. The authority provided in this subsection is in
addition to any other contract authorities of the Secretary,
including authorities relating to the management of such
facilities and the administration of this chapter.
(2) The Secretary of Defense may also enter into personal
services contracts to carry out other health care
responsibilities of the Secretary, such as the provision of
medical screening examinations at Military Entrance Processing
Stations, at locations outside medical treatment facilities, as
determined necessary pursuant to regulations issued by the
Secretary.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1094. Licensure requirement for health-care professionals
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) Notwithstanding any law regarding the licensure of
health care providers, a health-care professional described in
paragraph (2) may practice the health profession or professions
of the health-care professional in any State, the District of
Columbia, or a Commonwealth, territory, or possession of the
United States, regardless of whether the practice occurs in a
health care facility of the Department of Defense, a civilian
facility affiliated with the Department of Defense, or any
other location authorized by the Secretary of Defense.
(2) A health-care professional referred to in paragraph (1)
is a member of the armed forces who--
(A) has a current license to practice medicine,
osteopathic medicine, dentistry, or another health
profession; and
(B) is performing authorized duties for the
Department of Defense.
[(d)] (e) In this section:
(1) The term ``license''--
(A) means a grant of permission by an
official agency of a State, the District of
Columbia, or a Commonwealth, territory, or
possession of the United States to provide
health care independently as a health-care
professional; and
(B) includes, in the case of such care
furnished in a foreign country by any person
who is not a national of the United States, a
grant of permission by an official agency of
that foreign country for that person to provide
health care independently as a health-care
professional.
(2) The term ``health-care professional'' means a
physician, dentist, clinical psychologist, or nurse and
any other person providing direct patient care as may
be designated by the Secretary of Defense in
regulations.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1106. Submittal of claims under CHAMPUS
[(a) Submittal to Claims Processing Office.--Each provider of
services under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services shall submit claims for payment for such
services directly to the claims processing office designated
pursuant to regulations prescribed under subsection (b). A
claim for payment for services shall be submitted in a standard
form (as prescribed in the regulations) not later than one year
after the services are provided.
[(b) Regulations.--The regulations required by subsection (a)
shall be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense after
consultation with the other administering Secretaries.
[(c) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense may waive the
requirements of subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that
the waiver is necessary in order to ensure adequate access for
covered beneficiaries to health care services under this
chapter.]
Sec. 1106. Submittal of claims: standard form; time limits
(a) Standard Form.--The Secretary of Defense, after
consultation with the other administering Secretaries, shall
prescribe by regulation a standard form for the submission of
claims for the payment of health care services provided under
this chapter.
(b) Time for Submission.--A claim for payment for services
shall be submitted as provided in such regulations not later
than one year after the services are provided.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 57--DECORATIONS AND AWARDS
Sec.
1121. Legion of Merit: award.
* * * * * * *
1131. Purple Heart: limitation to members of the armed forces.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1129. Purple Heart: members killed or wounded in action by
friendly fire
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) This section applies to members of the armed forces who
are killed or wounded on or after December 7, 1941. In the case
of a member killed or wounded as described in subsection (b) on
or after December 7, 1941, and before [the date of the
enactment of this section,] November 30, 1993, the Secretary
concerned shall award the Purple Heart under subsection (a) in
each case which is known to the Secretary [before the date of
the enactment of this section or] before such date or for which
an application is made to the Secretary in such manner as the
Secretary requires.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1131. Purple Heart: limitation to members of the armed forces
The decoration known as the Purple Heart (authorized to be
awarded pursuant to Executive Order 11016) may only be awarded
to a person who is a member of the armed forces at the time the
person is killed or wounded under circumstances otherwise
qualifying that person for award of the Purple Heart.
CHAPTER 58--BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR MEMBERS BEING SEPARATED OR
RECENTLY SEPARATED
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1151. Assistance to separated members to obtain certification and
employment as teachers or employment as teachers'
aides
(a) * * *
(b) States [with] With Alternative Certification Requirements
and Teacher and Teacher's Aide Shortages.--Upon the
establishment of the placement program authorized by subsection
(a), the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of
Education, shall--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1152. Assistance to eligible members and former members to obtain
employment with law enforcement agencies
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Authority To Expand Placement To Include Firefighters.--
(1) The Secretary may expand the placement activities
authorized by subsection (a) to include the placement of
eligible members and former members and eligible civilian
employees of the Department of Defense as firefighters or
members of rescue squads or ambulance crews with public fire
departments.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 61--RETIREMENT OR SEPARATION FOR PHYSICAL DISABILITY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1204. Members on active duty for 30 days or less: retirement
Upon a determination by the Secretary concerned that a member
of the armed forces not covered by section 1201, 1202, or 1203
of this title is unfit to perform the duties of his office,
grade, rank, or rating because of physical disability, the
Secretary may retire the member with retired pay computed under
section 1401 of this title, if the Secretary also determines
that--
(1) based upon accepted medical principles, the
disability is of a permanent nature and stable;
(2) the disability is the proximate result of, or was
incurred in line of duty after the date of the
enactment of this Act as a result of--
(A) performing active duty or inactive-duty
training;
(B) traveling directly to or from the place
at which such duty is performed; or
(C) an injury, illness, or disease incurred
or aggravated while remaining overnight
immediately before the commencement of
inactive-duty training, or while remaining
overnight, between successive periods of
inactive-duty training, at or in the vicinity
of the site of the inactive duty training, if
the site is outside reasonable commuting
distance of the member's residence;
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1206. Members on active duty for 30 days or less: separation
Upon a determination by the Secretary concerned that a member
of the armed forces not covered by section 1201, 1202, or 1203
of this title is unfit to perform the duties of his office,
grade, rank, or rating because of physical disability, the
member may be separated from his armed force, with severance
pay computed under section 1212 of this title, if the Secretary
also determines that--
(1) the member has less than 20 years of service
computed under section 1208 of this title;
(2) the disability was incurred in the line of duty
as a result of--
(A) performing active duty or inactive-duty
training;
(B) traveling directly to or from the place
at which such duty is performed; or
(C) an injury, illness, or disease incurred
or aggravated while remaining overnight
immediately before the commencement of
inactive-duty training, or while remaining
overnight between successive periods of
inactive-duty training, at or in the vicinity
of the site of the inactive-duty training, if
the site is outside reasonable commuting
distance of the member's residence;
[(2)] (3) the disability is not the result of the
member's intentional misconduct or willful neglect, and
was not incurred during a period of unauthorized
absence;
[(3)] (4) based upon accepted medical principles, the
disability is or may be of a permanent nature; and
[(4)] (5) the disability is less than 30 percent
under the standard schedule of rating disabilities in
use by the Department of Veterans Affairs at the time
of the determination, and was the proximate result of
performing active duty or inactive-duty training or of
traveling directly to or from the place at which such
duty is performed.
However, if the member is eligible for transfer to the inactive
status list under section 1209 of this title, and so elects, he
shall be transferred to that list instead of being separated.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 63--RETIREMENT FOR AGE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1251. Age 62: regular commissioned officers; exceptions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) The Secretary concerned may defer the retirement under
subsection (a) of a health professions officer if during the
period of the deferment the officer will be performing duties
consisting primarily of providing patient care or performing
other clinical duties.
(2) The Secretary concerned may defer the retirement under
subsection (a) of an officer who is appointed or designated as
a chaplain if during the period of the deferment the officer
will be performing duties consisting primarily of providing
direct support as a chaplain to units or installations.
[(2)](3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a
deferment under this subsection may not extend beyond the first
day of the month following the month in which the officer
becomes 68 years of age.
(B) The Secretary concerned may extend a deferment under this
subsection beyond the day referred to in subparagraph (A) if
the Secretary determines that extension of the deferment is
necessary for the needs of the military department concerned.
Such an extension shall be made on a case-by-case basis and
shall be for such period as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
[(3)] (4) For purposes of this subsection, a health
professions officer is--
(A) a medical officer;
(B) a dental officer; or
(C) an officer in the Army Nurse Corps, an officer in
the Navy Nurse Corps, or an officer in the Air Force
designated as a nurse.
(d) The Secretary concerned may defer the retirement under
subsection (a) of an officer who is the Chief of Chaplains or
Deputy Chief of Chaplains of that officer's armed force. Such a
deferment may not extend beyond the first day of the month
following the month in which the officer becomes 68 years of
age.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 69--RETIRED GRADE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1370. Commissioned officers: general rule; exceptions
(a) Rule for Retirement in Highest Grade Held
Satisfactorily.--(1) * * *
(2)(A) In order to be eligible for voluntary retirement under
any provision of this title in a grade above major or
lieutenant commander, a commissioned officer of the Army, Navy,
Air Force, or Marine Corps must have served on active duty in
that grade for not less than three years, except that the
Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a military
department to reduce such period to a period of not less than
two years in the case of retirements effective during the nine-
year period beginning on October 1, 1990.
* * * * * * *
(d) Reserve Officers.--(1) Unless entitled to a higher grade,
or to credit for satisfactory service in a higher grade, under
some other provision of law, a person who is entitled to
retired pay under chapter [1225] 1223 of this title shall, upon
application under section 12731 of this title, be credited with
satisfactory service in the highest grade in which that person
served satisfactorily at any time in the armed forces, as
determined by the Secretary concerned in accordance with this
subsection.
* * * * * * *
(3)(A) In order to be credited with satisfactory service in
an officer grade above major or lieutenant commander, a person
covered by paragraph (1) must have served satisfactorily in
that grade (as determined by the Secretary of the military
department concerned) as a reserve commissioned officer in an
active status, or in a retired status on active duty, for not
less than three years.
* * * * * * *
(F) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a
military department to reduce the three-year period specified
in subparagraph (A) to a period of not less than two years in
the case of retirements effective during the period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph and ending on
September 30, 1999. The number of officers in an armed force in
a grade for whom a reduction is made during any fiscal year in
the period of service-in-grade otherwise required under this
paragraph may not exceed the number equal to two percent of the
authorized reserve active status strength for that fiscal year
for officers of that armed force in that grade.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 71--COMPUTATION OF RETIRED PAY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1408. Payment of retired or retainer pay in compliance with court
orders
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
* * * * * * *
(d) Payments by Secretary Concerned [To] to (or for Benefit
of) Spouse or Former Spouse.--(1) After effective service on
the Secretary concerned of a court order providing for the
payment of child support or alimony or, with respect to a
division of property, specifically providing for the payment of
an amount of the disposable retired pay from a member to the
spouse or a former spouse of the member, the Secretary shall
make payments (subject to the limitations of this section) from
the disposable retired pay of the member to the
* * * * * * *
[(6)](7)(A) The Secretary concerned may not accept service of
a court order that is an out-of State modification, or comply
with the provisions of such a court order, unless the court
issuing that order has jurisdiction in the manner specified in
subsection (c)(4) over both the member and the spouse or former
spouse involved.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1450. Payment of annuity: beneficiaries
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Change in Election of Insurable Interest or Former Spouse
Beneficiary.--
(1) Authorized changes.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Procedures, effective date, etc.--Any
such change of election is subject to the same
rules with respect to execution, revocation,
and effectiveness as are set forth in section
1448(a)(5) of this title (without regard to the
eligibility of the person making the change of
election to make such an election under that
section), except that such a change of election
to change a beneficiary under the Plan from a
former spouse to a spouse may be made at any
time after the person providing the annuity
remarries (rather than only within one year
after the date on which that person marries).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 75--DEATH BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1481. Recovery, care, and disposition of remains: decedents
covered
(a) The Secretary concerned may provide for the recovery,
care, and disposition of the remains of the following persons:
(1) Any Regular of an armed force, or member of an
armed force without component, under his jurisdiction
who dies while on active duty.
(2) A member of a reserve component of an armed force
who dies while--
(A) on active duty;
(B) performing inactive-duty training;
(C) performing authorized travel directly to
or from active duty or inactive-duty training;
(D) remaining overnight immediately before
the commencement of inactive-duty training, or
remaining overnight, between successive periods
of inactive-duty training, at or in the
vicinity of the site of the inactive-duty
training, if the site is outside reasonable
commuting distance from the member's residence;
or
(E) hospitalized or undergoing treatment for
an injury, illness, or disease incurred or
aggravated while on active duty or performing
inactive-duty training.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 76--MISSING PERSONS
Sec.
1501. System for accounting for missing persons.
* * * * * * *
1509. Preenactment cases, special interest.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1501. System for accounting for missing persons
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Covered Persons.--Section 1502 of this title applies in
the case of any member of the armed forces on active duty who
becomes involuntarily absent as a result of a hostile action,
or under circumstances suggesting that the involuntary absence
is a result of a hostile action, and whose status is
undetermined or who is unaccounted for.]
(c) Covered Persons.--Section 1502 of this title applies in
the case of the following persons:
(1) Any member of the armed forces on active duty who
becomes involuntarily absent as a result of a hostile
action, or under circumstances suggesting that the
involuntary absence is a result of a hostile action,
and whose status is undetermined or who is unaccounted
for.
(2) Any civilian employee of the Department of
Defense, and any employee of a contractor of the
Department of Defense, who serves with or accompanies
the armed forces in the field under orders who becomes
involuntarily absent as a result of a hostile action,
or under circumstances suggesting that the involuntary
absence is a result of a hostile action, and whose
status is undetermined or who is unaccounted for.
* * * * * * *
(f) Secretary Concerned.--In this chapter, the term
``Secretary concerned'' includes, in the case of a civilian
employee of the Department of Defense or contractor of the
Department of Defense, the Secretary of the military department
or head of the element of the Department of Defense employing
the employee or contracting with the contractor, as the case
may be.
Sec. 1502. Missing persons: initial report
(a) Preliminary Assessment and Recommendation by Commander.--
After receiving information that the whereabouts and status of
a person described in section 1501(c) of this title is
uncertain and that the absence of the person may be
involuntary, the commander of the unit, facility, or area to or
in which the person is assigned shall make a preliminary
assessment of the circumstances. If, as a result of that
assessment, the commander concludes that the person is missing,
the commander shall--
(1) recommend that the person be placed in a missing
status; and
(2) not later than [10 days] 48 hours after receiving
such information, transmit a report containing that
recommendation to the [Secretary concerned] theater
component commander with jurisdiction over the missing
person in accordance with procedures prescribed under
section 1501(b) of this title.
(b) Transmission Through Theater Component Commander.--Upon
reviewing a report under subsection (a) recommending that a
person by placed in a missing status, the theater component
commander shall ensure that all necessary actions are being
taken, and all appropriate assets are being used, to resolve
the status of the missing person. Not later than 14 days after
receiving the report, the theater component commander shall
forward the report to the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary
concerned in accordance with procedures prescribed under
section 1501(b) of this title. The theater component commander
shall include with such report a certification that all
necessary actions are being taken, and all appropriate assets
are being used, to resolve the status of the missing person.
[(b)] (c) Safeguarding and Forwarding of Records.--A
commander making a preliminary assessment under subsection (a)
with respect to a missing person shall (in accordance with
procedures prescribed under section 1501 of this title)
safeguard and forward for official use any information relating
to the whereabouts and status of the missing person that
results from the preliminary assessment or from actions taken
to locate the person. The theater component commander through
whom the report with respect to the missing person is
transmitted under subsection (b) shall ensure that all
pertinent information relating to the whereabouts and status of
the missing person that results from the preliminary assessment
or from actions taken to locate the person is properly
safeguarded to avoid loss, damage, or modification.
Sec. 1503. Actions of Secretary concerned; initial board inquiry
(a) Determination by Secretary.--Upon receiving a
recommendation under section [1502(a)] 1502(b) of this title
that a person be placed in a missing status, the Secretary
receiving the recommendation shall review the recommendation
and, not later than 10 days after receiving such
recommendation, shall appoint a board under this section to
conduct an inquiry into the whereabouts and status of the
person.
* * * * * * *
(c) Composition.--(1) A board appointed under this section to
inquire into the whereabouts and status of a person shall
consist of at least [one military officer] one individual
described in paragraph (2) who has experience with and
understanding of military operations or activities similar to
the operation or activity in which the person disappeared.
(2) An individual referred to in paragraph (1) is the
following:
(A) A military officer, in the case of an inquiry
with respect to a member of the armed forces.
(B) A civilian, in the case of an inquiry with
respect to a civilian employee of the Department of
Defense or of a contractor of the Department of
Defense.
[(2)] (3) An individual may be appointed as a member of a
board under this section only if the individual has a security
clearance that affords the individual access to all information
relating to the whereabouts and status of the missing persons
covered by the inquiry.
[(3)] (4) A Secretary appointing a board under this
subsection shall, for purposes of providing legal counsel to
the board, assign to the board a judge advocate, or appoint to
the board an attorney, who has expertise in the law relating to
missing persons, the determination of death of such persons,
and the rights of family members and dependents of such
persons.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1504. Subsequent board of inquiry
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Composition.--(1) A board appointed under this section
shall be composed of at least three members [who are officers
having the grade of major or lieutenant commander or above.] as
follows:
(A) In the case of a board that will inquire into the
whereabouts and status of one or more members of the
armed forces (and no civilians described in
subparagraph (B)), the board shall be composed of
officers having the grade of major or lieutenant
commander or above.
(B) In the case of a board that will inquire into the
whereabouts and status of one or more civilian
employees of the Department of Defense or contractors
of the Department of Defense (and no members of the
armed forces), the board shall be composed of--
(i) not less than three employees of the
Department of Defense whose rate of annual pay
is equal to or greater than the rate of annual
pay payable for grade GS-13 of the General
Schedule under section 5332 of title 5; and
(ii) such members of the armed forces as the
Secretary considers advisable.
(C) In the case of a board that will inquire into the
whereabouts and status of both one or more members of
the armed forces and one or more civilians described in
subparagraph (B)--
(i) the board shall include at least one
officer described in subparagraph (A) and at
least one employee of the Department of Defense
described in subparagraph (B)(i); and
(ii) the ratio of such officers to such
employees on the board shall be roughly
proportional to the ratio of the number of
members of the armed forces who are subjects of
the board's inquiry to the number of civilians
who are subjects of the board's inquiry.
* * * * * * *
(4) The Secretary who appoints a board under this subsection
shall, for purposes of providing legal counsel to the board,
assign to the board a judge advocate, or appoint to the board
an attorney, with the same qualifications as specified in
[section 1503(c)(3)] section 1503(c)(4) of this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1505. Further review
(a) * * *
[(b) Frequency of Subsequent Reviews.--The Secretary
concerned shall conduct inquiries into the whereabouts and
status of a person under subsection (a) upon receipt of
information that may result in a change of status of the
person. The Secretary concerned shall appoint a board to
conduct such inquiries.]
(b) Frequency of Subsequent Reviews.--(1) In the case of a
missing person who was last known to be alive or who was last
suspected of being alive, the Secretary shall appoint a board
to conduct an inquiry with respect to a person under this
subsection--
(A) on or about three years after the date of the
initial report of the disappearance of the person under
section 1502(a) of this title; and
(B) not later than every three years thereafter.
(2) In addition to appointment of boards under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall appoint a board to conduct an inquiry with
respect to a missing person under this subsection upon receipt
of information that could result in a change of status of the
missing person. When the Secretary appoints a board under this
paragraph, the time for subsequent appointments of a board
under paragraph (1)(B) shall be determined from the date of the
receipt of such information.
(3) The Secretary is not required to appoint a board under
paragraph (1) with respect to the disappearance of any person--
(A) more than 30 years after the initial report of
the disappearance of the missing person required by
section 1502 of this title; or
(B) if, before the end of such 30-year period, the
missing person is accounted for.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1506. Personnel files
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Wrongful Withholding.--Except as provided in subsections
(a) through (d), any person who knowingly and willfully
withholds from the personnel file of a missing person any
information relating to the disappearance or whereabouts and
status of a missing person shall be fined as provided in title
18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
[(e)] (f) Availability of Information.--The Secretary
concerned shall, upon request, make available the contents of
the personnel file of a missing person to the primary next of
kin, the other members of the immediate family, or any other
previously designated person of the person.
Sec. 1507. Recommendation of status of death
(a) * * *
(b) Submittal of Information on Death.--If a board appointed
under section 1503, 1504, or 1505 of this title makes a
recommendation that a missing person be declared dead, the
board shall include in the report of the board with respect to
the person under that section the following:
(1) A detailed description of the location where the
death occurred.
(2) A statement of the date on which the death
occurred.
(3) A description of the location of the body, if
recovered.
(4) If the body has been recovered and is not
identifiable through visual means, a certification by a
practitioner of an appropriate forensic science that
the body recovered is that of the missing person.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1509. Preenactment, special interest cases
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Special Rule for Persons Classified as ``KLA/BNR''.--In
the case of a person described in subsection (b) who was
classified as ``killed in action/body not recovered'', the case
of that person may be reviewed under this section only if the
new information referred to in subsection (a) is compelling.
[(c)] (d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Korean conflict'' means the period
beginning on June 27, 1950, and ending on January 31,
1955.
(2) The term ``Cold War'' means the period beginning
on September 2, 1945, and ending on August 21, 1991.
(3) The term ``Indochina war era'' means the period
beginning on July 8, 1959, and ending on May 15, 1975.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1513. Definitions
In this chapter:
[(1) The term ``missing person'' means a member of
the armed forces on active duty who is in a missing
status.]
(1) The term ``missing person'' means--
(A) a member of the armed forces on active
duty who is in a missing status; or
(B) a civilian employee of the Department of
Defense or an employee of a contractor of the
Department of Defense who serves with or
accompanies the armed forces in the field under
orders and who is in a missing status.
* * * * * * *
(8) The term ``theater component commander'' means,
with respect to any of the combatant commands, an
officer of any of the armed forces who (A) is commander
of all forces of that armed force assigned to that
combatant command, and (B) is directly subordinate to
the commander of the combatant command.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 81--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
Sec.
1581. Foreign National Employees Separation Pay Account.
* * * * * * *
1585. Carrying of firearms.
1585a. Special agents of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service:
authority to execute warrants and make arrests.
* * * * * * *
1589. Participation in management of specified non-Federal entities:
authorized activities.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1585a. Special agents of the Defense Criminal Investigative
Service: authority to execute warrants and make
arrests
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may authorize any
DCIS special agent--
(1) to execute and serve any warrant or other process
issued under the authority of the United States; and
(2) to make arrests without a warrant--
(A) for any offense against the United States
committed in the presence of that agent; and
(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws
of the United States if the agent has probable
cause to believe that the person to be arrested
has committed or is committing the felony.
(b) Attorney General Guidelines.--Authority of a DCIS special
agent under subsection (a) may be exercised only in accordance
with guidelines approved by the Attorney General.
(c) DCIS Special Agent Defined.--In this section, the term
``DCIS special agent'' means an employee of the Department of
Defense who is a special agent of the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service (or any successor to that service).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1589. Participation in management of specified non-Federal
entities: authorized activities
(a) Authorization.--(1) The Secretary concerned may authorize
an employee described in paragraph (2), as part of that
employee's official duties, to serve without compensation as a
director, officer, or trustee, or to otherwise participate, in
the management of an entity designated under subsection (b).
Any such authorization shall be made on a case-by-case basis,
for a particular employee to participate in a specific capacity
with a specific designated entity. Such authorization may be
made be only for the purpose of providing oversight and advice
to, and coordination with, the designated entity, and
participation of the employee in the activities of the
designated entity may not extend to participation in the day-
to-day operations of the entity.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any employee of the Department
of Defense or, in the case of the Coast Guard when not
operating as a service in the Navy, of the Department of
Transportation. For purposes of this section, the term
``employee'' includes a civilian officer.
(b) Designated Entities.--(1) The Secretary of Defense, and
the Secretary of Transportation in the case of the Coast Guard
when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, shall
designate those entities for which authorization under
subsection (a) may be provided. The list of entities so
designated may not be revised more frequently than
semiannually. In making such designations, the Secretary shall
designate each military welfare society and may designate any
other entity described in paragraph (3). No other entities may
be designated.
(2) In this section, the term ``military welfare society''
means the following:
(A) Army Emergency Relief.
(B) Air Force Aid Society, Inc.
(C) Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society.
(D) Coast Guard Mutual Assistance.
(3) An entity described in this paragraph is an entity that--
(A) regulates and supports the athletic programs of
the service academies (including athletic conferences);
(B) regulates international athletic competitions;
(C) accredits service academies and other schools of
the armed forces (including regional accrediting
agencies); or
(D)(i) regulates the performance, standards, and
policies of military health care (including health care
associations and professional societies), and (ii) has
designated the position or capacity in that entity in
which a Federal employee described in subsection (a)(2)
may serve if authorized under subsection (a).
(c) Publication of Designated Entities and of Authorized
Persons.--A designation of an entity under subsection (b), and
an authorization under subsection (a) of an employee to
participate in the management of such an entity, shall be
published in the Federal Register.
(d) Civilians Outside the Military Departments.--In this
section, the term ``Secretary concerned'' includes the
Secretary of Defense with respect to employees of the
Department of Defense who are not employees of a military
department.
(e) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary
of Transportation in the case of the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service in the Navy, shall prescribe regulations
to carry out this section.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1595. Civilian faculty members at certain Department of Defense
schools: employment and compensation
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Application to Faculty Members at NDU.--(1) * * *
(2) For purposes of this section, the National Defense
University includes the National War College, the Armed Forces
Staff College, the [Institute for National Strategic Study,]
Institute for National Strategic Studies, the Information
Resources Management College, and the Industrial College of the
Armed Forces.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1599c. Veterans' preference requirements: Department of Defense
failure to comply treated as a prohibited personnel
practice
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Veterans' Preference Defined.--(1) In this section, the
term ``veterans' preference'' means any of the following
provisions of law:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(F) Sections 106[(f)](e), 7281(e), and 7802(5) of
title 38.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 87--DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--GENERAL MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1763. Reassignment of authority
[On and after October 1, 1993, the] The Secretary of Defense
may assign the responsibilities under this chapter of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to any
other civilian official in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense who is appointed by the President by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. If the Secretary takes action
under the preceding sentence, he may authorize the
[secretaries] Secretaries of the military departments to assign
the responsibilities of a senior acquisition executive under
this chapter to any other civilian official in the military
department who is appointed by the President by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING AND EDUCATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 101--TRAINING GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2010. Participation of developing countries in combined exercises:
payment of incremental expenses
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e) Not more than $13,400,000 may be obligated or expended
for the purposes of this section during fiscal years 1987
through 1991.]
Sec. 2011. Special operations forces: training with friendly foreign
forces
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e) Reports.--Not later than April 1 of each year, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
regarding training during the preceding fiscal year for which
expenses were paid under this section. Each report shall
specify the following:
[(1) All countries in which that training was
conducted.
[(2) The type of training conducted, including
whether such training was related to counter-narcotics
or counter-terrorism activities, the duration of that
training, the number of members of the armed forces
involved, and expenses paid.
[(3) The extent of participation by foreign military
forces, including the number and service affiliation of
foreign military personnel involved and physical and
financial contribution of each host nation to the
training effort.
[(4) The relationship of that training to other
overseas training programs conducted by the armed
forces, such as military exercise programs sponsored by
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, military exercise programs
sponsored by a combatant command, and military training
activities sponsored by a military department
(including deployments for training, short duration
exercises, and other similar unit training events).]
Sec. 2012. Support and services for eligible organizations and
activities outside Department of Defense
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Treatment of Member's Participation in Provision of
Support or Services.--(1) The Secretary of a military
department may not require or request a member of the armed
forces to submit for consideration by a selection board
(including a promotion board, command selection board, or any
other kind of selection board) evidence of the member's
participation in the provision of support and services to non-
Department of Defense organizations and activities under this
section or the member's involvement in, or support of, other
community relations and public affairs activities of the armed
forces. A selection board may not evaluate a member on the
basis of the member's participation or involvement in, or
support of, such support, services, or activities.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to the
following members:
(A) A member who is in a public affairs career field.
(B) A member who is not in a public affairs career
field, but who is serving, at the time the member is
considered by a selection board, in a public affairs
position specified in service authorization documents
or who served in such a position within three years
before being considered by a selection board.
[(g)] (h) Advisory Councils.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
shall encourage the establishment of advisory councils at
regional, State, and local levels, as appropriate, in order to
obtain recommendations and guidance concerning assistance under
this section from persons who are knowledgeable about regional,
State, and local conditions and needs.
(2) The advisory councils should include officials from
relevant military organizations, representatives of appropriate
local, State, and Federal agencies, representatives of civic
and social service organizations, business representatives, and
labor representatives.
(3) The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall
not apply to such councils.
[(h)] (i) Construction of Provision.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as authorizing--
(1) the use of the armed forces for civilian law
enforcement purposes or for response to natural or
manmade disasters; or
(2) the use of Department of Defense personnel or
resources for any program, project, or activity that is
prohibited by law.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 103--SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS
Sec.
2101. Definitions.
* * * * * * *
[2111a. Detail of officers to senior military colleges.]
2111a. Support for senior military colleges.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2111a. Detail of officers to senior military colleges]
Sec. 2111a. Support for senior military colleges
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Additional Support.--(1) The Secretaries of the military
departments shall ensure that each unit of the Senior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps at a senior military college provides
support to the Corps of Cadets at the college over and above
the level of support associated with the conduct of the formal
Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps course of instruction.
(2) This additional support shall include the following:
(A) Mentoring, teaching, coaching, counseling and
advising cadets and cadet leaders in the areas of
leadership, military, and academic performance.
(B) Involvement in cadet leadership training,
development, and evaluation, as well as drill,
ceremonies, parades, and inspections.
(3) This additional support may include the following:
(A) Advising cadet teams, clubs, and organizations.
(B) Involvement in matters of discipline and
administration of the Corps of Cadets so long as such
involvement does not interfere with the conduct of the
formal Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps course
of instruction or the support required by paragraph
(2).
(e) Termination or Reduction of Program Prohibited.--The
Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military
departments may not take or authorize any action to terminate
or reduce a unit of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps
at a senior military college unless the termination or
reduction is specifically requested by the college.
(f) Assignment to Active Duty.--(1) The Secretary of the Army
shall ensure that a graduate of a senior military college who
desires to serve as a commissioned officer on active duty upon
graduation from the college, who is medically and physically
qualified for active duty, and who is recommended for such duty
by the professor of military science at the college, shall be
assigned to active duty. This paragraph shall apply to a member
of the program at a senior military college who graduates from
the college after March 31, 1997.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit
the Secretary of the Army from requiring a member of the
program who graduates from a senior military college to serve
on active duty.
[(d)] (g) Senior Military Colleges.--The senior military
colleges are the following:
(1) Texas A&M University.
(2) Norwich [College] University.
(3) The Virginia Military Institute.
(4) The Citadel.
(5) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
(6) North Georgia College and State University.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates
(a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person described in subsection
(b) who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and
ending on September 30, [1998] 1999, executes a written
agreement in accordance with subsection (c) to accept an
appointment as a nurse officer may, upon the acceptance of the
agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession
bonus of not more than $5,000. The bonus shall be paid in
periodic installments, as determined by the Secretary concerned
at the time the agreement is accepted, except that the first
installment may not exceed $2,500.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 108--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCHOOLS
Sec.
2161. Defense Intelligence School: master of science of strategic
intelligence.
* * * * * * *
2165. National Defense University: Center for the Study of Chinese
Military Affairs.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2162. Preparation of budget requests for operation of professional
military education schools
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) * * *
(2) The term ``National Defense University'' means
the National War College, the Armed Forces Staff
College, the Institute for National Strategic Studies,
the Information Resources Management College, and the
Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2165. National Defense University: Center for the Study of Chinese
Military Affairs
(a) Establishment.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
establish a Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Center'') as
part of the National Defense University. The Center shall be
organized as an independent institute under the University.
(2) The Director of the Center shall be a distinguished
scholar of proven academic, management, and leadership
credentials with a superior record of achievement and
publication regarding Chinese political, strategic, and
military affairs. The Director shall be appointed by the
Secretary of Defense in consultation with the chairman and
ranking minority party member of the Committee on National
Security of the House of Representatives and the chairman and
ranking minority party member of the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate.
(b) Mission.--The mission of the Center is to study the
national goals and strategic posture of the People's Republic
of China and the ability of that nation to develop, field, and
deploy an effective military instrument in support of its
national strategic objectives.
(c) Areas of Study.--The Center shall conduct research
relating to the People's Republic of China as follows:
(1) To assess the potential of that nation to act as
a global great power, the Center shall conduct research
that considers the policies and capabilities of that
nation in a regional and world-wide context, including
Central Asia, Southwest Asia, Europe, and Latin
America, as well as the Asia-Pacific region.
(2) To provide a fuller assessment of the areas of
study referred to in paragraph (1), the Center shall
conduct research on--
(A) economic trends relative to strategic
goals and military capabilities;
(B) strengths and weaknesses in the
scientific and technological sector; and
(C) relevant demographic and human resource
factors on progress in the military sphere.
(3) The Center shall conduct research on the armed
forces of the People's Republic of China, taking into
account the character of those armed forces and their
role in Chinese society and economy, the degree of
their technological sophistication, and their
organizational and doctrinal concepts. That research
shall include inquiry into the following matters:
(A) Concepts concerning national interests,
objectives, and strategic culture.
(B) Grand strategy, military strategy,
military operations, and tactics.
(C) Doctrinal concepts at each of the four
levels specified in subparagraph (B).
(D) The impact of doctrine on China's force
structure choices.
(E) The interaction of doctrine and force
structure at each level to create an integrated
system of military capabilities through
procurement, officer education, training, and
practice and other similar factors.
(d) Faculty of the Center.--(1) The core faculty of the
Center should comprise mature scholars capable of providing
diverse perspectives on Chinese political, strategic, and
military thought. Center scholars shall demonstrate the
following competencies and capabilities:
(A) Analysis of national strategy, military strategy,
and doctrine.
(B) Analysis of force structure and military
capabilities.
(C) Analysis of--
(i) issues relating to weapons of mass
destruction, military intelligence, defense
economics, trade, and international economics;
and
(ii) the relationship between those issues
and grand strategy, science and technology, the
sociology of human resources and demography,
and political science.
(2) A substantial number of Center scholars shall be
competent in the Chinese language. The Center shall include a
core of junior scholars capable of providing linguistics and
translation support to the Center.
(e) Activities of the Center.--The activities of the Center
shall include other elements appropriate to its mission,
including the following:
(1) The Center should include an active conference
program with an international reach.
(2) The Center should conduct an international
competition for a Visiting Fellowship in Chinese
Military Affairs and Chinese Security Issues. The term
of the fellowship should be for one year, renewable for
a second. The visitor should contract to produce a
major publication in the visitor's area of expertise.
(3) The Center shall provide funds to support at
least one trip per analyst per year to China and the
region and to support visits of Chinese military
leaders to the Center.
(4) The Center shall support well defined,
distinguished, signature publications.
(5) Center scholars shall have appropriate access to
intelligence community assessments of Chinese military
affairs.
(f) Studies and Reports.--The Director may contract for
studies and reports from the private sector to supplement the
work of the Center.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 109--EDUCATIONAL LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS
Sec.
2171. Education loan repayment program: enlisted members on active duty
in specified military specialties.
* * * * * * *
2173. Education loan repayment program: commissioned officers in
specified health professions.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2173. Education loan repayment program: commissioned officers in
specified health professions
(a) Authority to Repay Education Loans.--For the purpose of
maintaining adequate numbers of commissioned officers of the
armed forces on active duty who are qualified in the various
health professions, the Secretary of a military department may
repay, in the case of a person described in subsection (b), a
loan that was used by the person to finance education regarding
a health profession and was obtained from a governmental
entity, private financial institution, school, or other
authorized entity.
(b) Eligible Persons.--To be eligible to obtain a loan
repayment under this section, a person must--
(1) satisfy one of the academic requirements
specified in subsection (c);
(2) be fully qualified for, or hold, an appointment
as a commissioned officer in one of the health
professions; and
(3) sign a written agreement to serve on active duty,
or, if on active duty, to remain on active duty for a
period in addition to any other incurred active duty
obligation.
(c) Academic Requirements.--One of the following academic
requirements must be satisfied for purposes of determining the
eligibility of a person for a loan repayment under this
section:
(1) The person must be fully qualified in a health
profession that the Secretary of the military
department concerned has determined to be necessary to
meet identified skill shortages.
(2) The person must be enrolled as a full-time
student in the final year of a course of study at an
accredited educational institution leading to a degree
in a health profession other than medicine or
osteopathic medicine.
(3) The person must be enrolled in the final year of
an approved graduate program leading to specialty
qualification in medicine, dentistry, osteopathic
medicine, or other health profession.
(d) Certain Person Ineligible.--Participants of the Armed
Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance
program under subchapter I of chapter 105 of this title and
students of the Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences established under section 2112 of this title are not
eligible for the repayment of an education loan under this
section.
(e) Loan Repayments.--(1) Subject to the limits established
by paragraph (2), a loan repayment under this section may
consist of payment of the principal, interest, and related
expenses of a loan obtained by a person described in subsection
(b) for--
(A) all educational expenses, comparable to all
educational expenses recognized under section 2127(a)
of this title for participants in the Armed Forces
Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance
program; and
(B) reasonable living expenses, not to exceed
expenses comparable to the stipend paid under section
2121(d) of this title for participants in the Armed
Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial
Assistance program.
(2) For each year of obligated service that a person agrees
to serve in an agreement described in subsection (b)(3), the
Secretary of the military department concerned may pay not more
than $22,000 on behalf of the person. This maximum amount shall
be increased annually by the Secretary of Defense effective
October 1 of each year by a percentage equal to the percent
increase in the average annual cost of educational expenses and
stipend costs of a single scholarship under the Armed Forces
Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance
program. The total amount that may be repaid on behalf of any
person may not exceed an amount determined on the basis of a
four-year active duty service obligation.
(f) Active Duty Service Obligation.--(1) A person entering
into an agreement described in subsection (b)(3) incurs an
active duty service obligation. The length of this obligation
shall be determined under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, but those regulations may not provide for
a period of obligation of less than one year for each maximum
annual amount, or portion thereof, paid on behalf of the person
for qualified loans.
(2) For persons on active duty before entering into the
agreement, the active duty service obligation shall be served
consecutively to any other incurred obligation.
(g) Effect of Failure to Complete Obligation.--A commissioned
officer who is relieved of the officer's active duty obligation
under this section before the completion of that obligation may
be given, with or without the consent of the officer, any
alternative obligation comparable to any of the alternative
obligations authorized by section 2123(e) of this title for
participants in the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship
and Financial Assistance program.
(h) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section, including standards for
qualified loans and authorized payees and other terms and
conditions for the making of loan repayments.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 137--PROCUREMENT GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2327. Contracts: consideration of national security objectives
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Waiver.--(1)(A) If the Secretary of Defense determines
under paragraph (2) that entering into a contract with a firm
or a subsidiary of a firm described in subsection (b) is not
inconsistent with the national security objectives of the
United States, the Secretary shall remove the firm or
subsidiary from the list maintained under subsection (d)(1) and
the head of an agency may enter into a contract with such firm
or subsidiary after the date on which such head of an agency
submits to Congress a report on the contract.
* * * * * * *
(d) List of Firms Subject to Subsection (b).--(1) The
Secretary of Defense shall develop and maintain a list of all
firms and subsidiaries of firms that have been subject to the
prohibition in subsection (b) since the date occurring five
years before the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. The Secretary shall
make the list available to the public.
(2) A firm or subsidiary included on the list maintained
under paragraph (1) may request the Secretary of Defense to
remove such firm or subsidiary from the list if its foreign
ownership circumstances have significantly changed. Upon
receipt of such request, the Secretary shall determine if
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) still apply to the
firm or subsidiary. If the Secretary determines such paragraphs
no longer apply, the Secretary shall remove the firm or
subsidiary from the list.
(3) The head of an agency shall provide a copy of the list
maintained under paragraph (1) to each firm or subsidiary of a
firm that submits a bid or proposal in response to a
solicitation issued by the Department of Defense.
(4) The head of an agency shall prohibit each firm or
subsidiary of a firm awarded a contract by the agency from
using in the performance of the contract any equipment, parts,
or services that are provided by a firm or subsidiary included
on the list maintained under paragraph (1).
[(d)] (e) Applicability.--(1) This section does not apply to
a contract for an amount less than $100,000.
(2) This section does not apply to the Coast Guard or the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
[(e)] (f) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense, after
consultation with the Secretary of State, shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section. Such regulations shall
include a definition of the term ``significant interest''.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
Chap. Sec.
131. Planning and Coordination................................ 2201
* * * * * * *
[147. Utilities and Services.................................. 2481]
147. Commissaries and Exchanges and Other Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation Activities..................................... 2481
* * * * * * *
152. Issue of Supplies, Services, and Facilities............[2540] 2541
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 131--PLANNING AND COORDINATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2208. Working-capital funds
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(k) The Secretary of Defense shall provide that of the total
amount of payments received in a fiscal year by funds
established under this section for industrial-type activities,
not less than 3 percent during fiscal year 1985, not less than
4 percent during fiscal year 1986, and not less than 5 percent
during fiscal year 1987 shall be used for the acquistion of
capital equipment for such activities.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2220. Performance based management: acquisition programs
(a) * * *
(b) Annual Reporting Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense
shall include in the annual report submitted to Congress
pursuant to section 113(c) of this title an assessment of
whether major [and nonmajor] acquisition programs of the
Department of Defense are achieving, on average, 90 percent of
cost, performance, and schedule goals established pursuant to
subsection (a) and whether the average period for converting
emerging technology into operational capability has decreased
by 50 percent or more from the average period required for such
conversion as of October 13, 1994. The Secretary shall use data
from existing management systems in making the assessment.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2221. Fisher House trust funds
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Use of Funds.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for any
fiscal year from a trust fund specified in subsection (a) any
amount referred to in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) (as applicable
to that trust fund), such amount to be available only for the
purposes stated in that paragraph. With respect to any such
amount, the preceding sentence is the specific authorization by
law required by section 1321(b)(2) of title 31.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 134--MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2253. Motor vehicles
(a) General Authorities.--The Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of each military department may--
(1) provide for insurance of official motor vehicles
in a foreign country when the laws of such country
require such insurance; and
(2) purchase right-hand drive vehicles at a cost of
not more than [$12,000] $30,000 each.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 137--PROCUREMENT GENERALLY
Sec.
2302. Definitions.
* * * * * * *
[2306b. Multiyear contracts.]
2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property.
* * * * * * *
2325. Restructuring costs.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2304. Contracts: competition requirements
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f)(1) * * *
(2) In the case of a procurement permitted by subsection
(c)(2), the justification and approval required by paragraph
(1) may be made after the contract is awarded. The
justification and approval required by paragraph (1) is not
required--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) in the case of a procurement permitted by
subsection (c)(4), but only if the head of the
contracting activity prepares a document in connection
with such procurement that describes the terms of an
agreement or treaty, or the written directions,
referred to in that subsection that have the effect of
requiring the use of procedures other than competitive
[procedures and such document is approved by the
competition advocate for the procuring activity.]
procedures.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2306. Kinds of contracts
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Multiyear contracting authority for the purchase of
property is provided in section 2306b of this title.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2306b. Multiyear contracts]
Sec. 2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property
(a) In General.--To the extent that funds are otherwise
available for obligation, the head of an agency may enter into
multiyear contracts for the purchase of property whenever the
head of that agency [finds--] finds each of the following:
(1) [that] That the use of such a contract will
result in substantial savings of the total anticipated
costs of carrying out the program through annual
contracts[;].
(2) [that] That the minimum need for the property to
be purchased is expected to remain substantially
unchanged during the contemplated contract period in
terms of production rate, procurement rate, and total
quantities[;].
(3) [that] That there is a reasonable expectation
that throughout the contemplated contract period the
head of the agency will request funding for the
contract at the level required to avoid contract
cancellation[;].
(4) [that] That there is a stable design for the
property to be acquired and that the technical risks
associated with such property are not excessive[;].
(5) [that] That the estimates of both the cost of the
contract and the anticipated cost avoidance through the
use of a multiyear contract are realistic[; and].
(6) [in] In the case of a purchase by the Department
of Defense, that the use of such a contract will
promote the national security of the United States.
* * * * * * *
(d) Participation by Subcontractors, Vendors, and
Suppliers.--In order to broaden the defense industrial base,
the regulations shall provide that, to the extent practicable--
(1) multiyear contracting under [paragraph (1)]
subsection (a) shall be used in such a manner as to
seek, retain, and promote the use under such contracts
of companies that are subcontractors, vendors, or
suppliers; and
(2) upon accrual of any payment or other benefit
under such a multiyear contract to any subcontractor,
vendor, or supplier company participating in such
contract, such payment or benefit shall be delivered to
such company in the most expeditious manner
practicable.
* * * * * * *
(i) Defense Acquisitions Specifically Authorized by Law.--(1)
A multiyear contract may not be entered into for any fiscal
year under this section for a defense acquisition program that
has been specifically authorized by law to be carried out using
multiyear contract authority unless each of the following
conditions is satisfied:
(A) The Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress
that the current [five-year] future-years defense
program fully funds the support costs associated with
the multiyear program.
(B) The proposed multiyear contract provides for
production at not less than minimum economic rates
given the existing tooling and facilities.
* * * * * * *
(3) In the case of the Department of Defense, a multiyear
contract may not be entered into for any fiscal year under this
section unless the contract is specifically authorized by law
in an Act other than an appropriations Act.
(k) Multiyear Contract Defined.--For the purposes of [this
subsection] this section, a multiyear contract is a contract
for the purchase of property or services for more than one, but
not more than five, program years. Such a contract may provide
that performance under the contract during the second and
subsequent years of the contract is contingent upon the
appropriation of funds and (if it does so provide) may provide
for a cancellation payment to be made to the contractor if such
appropriations are not made.
(l) Various Additional Requirements With Respect to Multiyear
Defense Contracts.--(1)(A) The head of an agency may not
initiate a contract described in subparagraph (B) unless the
congressional defense committees are notified of the proposed
contract at least 30 days in advance of the award of the
proposed contract.
(B) Subparagraph (A) applies to the following contracts:
(i) A multiyear contract--
(I) that employs economic order quantity
procurement in excess of $20,000,000 in any one
year of the contract; or
(II) that includes an unfunded contingent
liability in excess of $20,000,000.
(ii) Any contract for advance procurement leading to
a multiyear contract that employs economic order
quantity procurement in excess of $20,000,000 in any
one year.
(2) The head of an agency may not initiate a multiyear
contract for which the economic order quantity advance
procurement is not funded at least to the limits of the
Government's liability.
(3) The head of an agency may not initiate a multiyear
procurement contract for any system (or component thereof) if
the value of the multiyear contract would exceed $500,000,000
unless authority for the contract is specifically provided in
an appropriations Act.
(4) The head of an agency may not terminate a multiyear
procurement contract until 10 days after the date on which
notice of the proposed termination is provided to the
congressional defense committees.
(5) The execution of multiyear authority shall require the
use of a present value analysis to determine lowest cost
compared to an annual procurement.
(6) This subsection does not apply to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration or to the Coast Guard.
(7) In this subsection, the term ``congressional defense
committees'' means the following:
(A) The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and
the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
(B) The Committee on National Security of the House
of Representatives and the Subcommittee on National
Security of the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2307. Contract financing
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Vesting of Title.--If a contract made by the head of an
agency provides for title to property to vest in the United
States, such title shall vest in accordance with the terms of
the contract, regardless of any security interest in the
property asserted by the contractor.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2315. Law inapplicable to the procurement of automatic data
processing equipment and services for certain
defense purposes
(a) For the purposes of [the Information Technology
Management Reform Act of 1996] division E of the Clinger-Cohen
Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), the term ``national
security systems'' means those telecommunications and
information systems operated by the Department of Defense, the
functions, operation or use of which--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2325. Restructuring costs
(a) Limitation on Payment of Restructuring Costs.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense may not pay, under section 2324 of this
title, a defense contractor for restructuring costs associated
with a business combination of the contractor unless the
Secretary determines in writing either--
(A) that the amount of savings for the Department of
Defense associated with the restructuring, based on
audited cost data, will be at least twice the amount of
the costs allowed; or
(B) that the amount of savings for the Department of
Defense associated with the restructuring, based on
audited cost data, will exceed the amount of the costs
allowed and that the business combination will result
in the preservation of a critical capability that
otherwise might be lost to the Department.
(2) The Secretary may not delegate the authority to make a
determination under paragraph (1) to an official of the
Department of Defense below the level of an Assistant Secretary
of Defense.
(b) Report.--Not later than March 1 in each of 1998, 1999,
2000, 2001, and 2002, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report containing the following:
(1) For each defense contractor to which the
Secretary has paid, under section 2324 of this title,
restructuring costs associated with a business
combination, a summary of the following:
(A) The amount of savings for the Department
of Defense associated with such business
combination that has been realized as of the
date of the report, based on audited cost data.
(B) An estimate, as of the date of the
report, of the amount of savings for the
Department of Defense associated with such
business combination that is expected to be
achieved in the future.
(2) An identification of any business combination for
which the Secretary has paid restructuring costs under
section 2324 of this title during the preceding
calendar year and, for each such business combination--
(A) the supporting rationale for allowing
such costs;
(B) factual information associated with the
determination made under subsection (a) with
respect to such costs; and
(C) a discussion of whether the business
combination would have proceeded without the
payment of restructuring costs by the
Secretary.
(3) An assessment of the degree of vertical
integration resulting from business combinations of
defense contractors and a discussion of the measures
taken by the Secretary of Defense to increase the
ability of the Department of Defense to monitor
vertical integration trends and address any resulting
negative consequences.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``business
combination'' includes a merger or acquisition.
Sec. 2326. Undefinitized contractual actions: restrictions
(a) * * *
(b) Limitations on Obligations of Funds.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(4) The head of an agency may waive the provisions of this
subsection with respect to a contract of that agency if such
head of an agency determines that the waiver is necessary in
order to support a contingency operation.]
[(5)] (4) This subsection does not apply to an undefinitized
contractual action for the purchase of initial spares.
* * * * * * *
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``undefinitized contractual action''
means a new procurement action entered into by the head
of an agency for which the contractual terms,
specifications, or price are not agreed upon before
performance is begun under the action. Such term does
not include contractual actions with respect to the
following:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) Purchases in support of contingency
operations.
(F) Purchases in support of humanitarian or
peacekeeping operations, as defined in
2302(7)(B) of this title.
(G) Purchases in support of emergency work
and other disaster relief operations performed
pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq.).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2327. Contracts: consideration of national security objectives
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Waiver.--(1)(A) If the Secretary of Defense determines
under paragraph (2) that entering into a contract with a firm
or a subsidiary of a firm described in subsection (b) is not
inconsistent with the national security objectives of the
United States, the Secretary shall remove the firm or
subsidiary from the list maintained under subsection (d)(1) and
the head of an agency may enter into a contract with such firm
or subsidiary after the date on which such head of an agency
submits to Congress a report on the contract.
* * * * * * *
(d) List of Firms Subject to Subsection (b).--(1) The
Secretary of Defense shall develop and maintain a list of all
firms and subsidiaries of firms that have been subject to the
prohibition in subsection (b) since the date occurring five
years before the date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. The Secretary shall
make the list available to the public.
(2) A firm or subsidiary included on the list maintained
under paragraph (1) may request the Secretary of Defense to
remove such firm or subsidiary from the list if its foreign
ownership circumstances have significantly changed. Upon
receipt of such request, the Secretary shall determine if
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) still apply to the
firm or subsidiary. If the Secretary determines such paragraphs
no longer apply, the Secretary shall remove the firm or
subsidiary from the list.
(3) The head of an agency shall provide a copy of the list
maintained under paragraph (1) to each firm or subsidiary of a
firm that submits a bid or proposal in response to a
solicitation issued by the Department of Defense.
(4) The head of an agency shall prohibit each firm or
subsidiary of a firm awarded a contract by the agency from
using in the performance of the contract any equipment, parts,
or services that are provided by a firm or subsidiary included
on the list maintained under paragraph (1).
[(d)] (e) Applicability.--(1) This section does not apply to
a contract for an amount less than $100,000.
(2) This section does not apply to the Coast Guard or the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
[(e)] (f) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense, after
consultation with the Secretary of State, shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section. Such regulations shall
include a definition of the term ``significant interest''.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 138--COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH NATO ALLIES AND OTHER
COUNTRIES
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--ACQUISITION AND CROSS-SERVICING AGREEMENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2350. Definitions
In this subchapter:
(1) The term ``logistic support, supplies, and
services'' means food, billeting, transportation
(including airlift), petroleum, oils, lubricants,
clothing, communications services, medical services,
ammunition, base operations support (and construction
incident to base operations support), storage services,
use of facilities, training services, spare parts and
components, repair and maintenance services,
calibration services, and port services. Such term
includes temporary use of general purpose vehicles and
[other items of military equipment not designated as
part of the United States Munitions List] other
nonlethal items of military equipment which are not
designated as significant military equipment on the
United States Munitions List promulgated pursuant to
section 38(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 139--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2371a. Cooperative research and development agreements under
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980
The Secretary of Defense, in carrying out research projects
through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the
Secretary of each military department, in carrying out research
projects, may permit the director of any federally funded
research and development center to enter into cooperative
research and development agreements with any person, any agency
or instrumentality of the United States, any unit of State or
local government, and any other entity under the authority
granted by section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a). Technology may be
transferred to a non-Federal party to such an agreement
consistent with the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of such
Act (15 U.S.C. 3710, 3710a).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 141--MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT PROVISIONS
Sec.
2381. Contracts: regulations for bids.
* * * * * * *
[2410a. Appropriated funds: availability for certain contracts for 12
months.]
2410a. Severable services contracts for periods crossing fiscal years.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2401a. Lease of vehicles, equipment, vessels, and aircraft
(a) Leasing of Commercial Vehicles and Equipment.--The
Secretary of Defense may use leasing in the acquisition of
commercial vehicles and equipment whenever the Secretary
determines that [leasing of such vehicles] such leasing is
practicable and efficient.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2410a. Appropriated funds: availability for certain contracts for
12 months
[(a) Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for a
fiscal year shall be available for payments under contracts for
any of the following purposes for 12 months beginning at any
time during the fiscal year:
[(1) The maintenance of tools, equipment, and
facilities.
[(2) The lease of real or personal property,
including the maintenance of such property when
contracted for as part of the lease agreement.
[(3) Depot maintenance.
[(4) The operation of equipment.
[(b) The Secretary of Transportation with respect to the
Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy,
may enter into a contract for procurement of severable services
for a period that begins in one fiscal year and ends in the
next fiscal year if (without regard to any option to extend the
period of the contract) the contract period does not exceed one
year. Funds made available for a fiscal year may be obligated
for the total amount of a contract entered into under the
authority of this subsection.]
Sec. 2410a. Severable services contracts for periods crossing fiscal
years
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of
a military department may enter into a contract for procurement
of severable services for a period that begins in one fiscal
year and ends in the next fiscal year if (without regard to any
option to extend the period of the contract) the contract
period does not exceed one year.
(b) Obligation of Funds.--Funds made available for a fiscal
year may be obligated for the total amount of a contract
entered into under the authority of subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 144--MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2432. Selected Acquisition Reports
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) * * *
(2) A limited report under this subsection shall include the
following:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(D) The completion status of the development program
expressed--
[(i) as the percentage that the number of
years for which funds have been appropriated
for the development program is of the number of
years for which it is planned that funds will
be appropriated for the program; and
[(ii) as the percentage that the amount of
funds that have been appropriated for the
development program is of the total amount of
funds which it is planned will be appropriated
for the program.]
[(E)] (D) Program highlights since the last Selected
Acquisition Report.
[(F)] (E) Other information as the Secretary of
Defense considers appropriate.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 146--CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS
Sec.
2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair.
2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required studies and
reports before conversion to contractor performance.
* * * * * * *
2474. Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence: designation;
public-private partnerships.
Sec. 2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair
(a) In General.--In this chapter, the term ``depot-level
maintenance and repair'' means material maintenance or repair
requiring the overhaul, upgrading, or rebuilding of parts,
assemblies, or subassemblies, and the testing and reclamation
of equipment as necessary, regardless of the source of funds
for the maintenance or repair. The term includes all aspects of
software maintenance and such portions of interim contractor
support, contractor logistics support, or any similar
contractor support for the performance of services that are
described in the preceding sentence.
(b) Exception.--The term does not include the procurement of
a major weapon system modification or upgrade, except where the
changes to the system are primarily for safety reasons, to
correct a deficiency, or to improve program performance.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2464. Core logistics functions
(a) Necessity for Core Logistics Capability.--(1) It is
essential for the national defense that Department of Defense
activities maintain [a logistics capability (including
personnel, equipment, and facilities)] a core logistics
capability that is Government-owned and Government-operated
(including Government personnel and Government-owned and
Government-operated equipment and facilities) to ensure a ready
and controlled source of technical competence and resources
necessary to ensure effective and timely response to a
mobilization, national defense contingency situations, and
other emergency requirements.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall identify those logistics
activities that are necessary to maintain the core logistics
capability described in paragraph (1).
(3) Those core logistics activities identified under
paragraphs (1) and (2) shall include the capability,
facilities, and equipment to maintain and repair all types of
weapon systems and other military equipment that are identified
by the Secretary, in consultation with the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, as necessary to enable the armed forces to fulfill the
national military strategy, including the capability and
capacity to maintain and repair any new mission-essential
weapon system or materiel within four years after the system or
materiel achieves initial operational capability.
(4) The Secretary of Defense shall require the performance of
core logistics activities identified under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) at Government-owned, Government-operated facilities of
the Department of Defense (including Government-owned,
Government-operated facilities of a military department) and
shall assign such facilities sufficient workload to ensure cost
efficiency and technical proficiency in peacetime while
preserving the surge capacity and reconstitution capabilities
necessary to meet the military contingencies provided for in
the national military strategy.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2466. Limitations on the performance of depot-level maintenance of
materiel
(a) * * *
(b) Treatment of Certain Large Projects.--If a maintenance or
repair project concerning an aircraft carrier or submarine that
is contracted for performance by non-Federal Government
personnel and that accounts for five percent or more of the
funds made available in a fiscal year to a military department
or a Defense Agency for depot-level maintenance and repair
workload, the project and the funds necessary for the project
shall not be considered when applying the percentage limitation
specified in subsection (a) to that military department or
Defense Agency.
* * * * * * *
[(e) Report.--Not later than January 15, 1995, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to Congress a report identifying, for
each military department and Defense Agency, the percentage of
funds referred to in subsection (a) that was used during fiscal
year 1994 to contract for the performance by non-Federal
Government personnel of depot-level maintenance and repair
workload.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2469. Contracts to perform workloads previously performed by
depot-level activities of the Department of
Defense: requirement of competition
(a) Requirement for Competition.--The Secretary of Defense
shall ensure that the performance of a depot-level maintenance
[or repair] and repair workload described in subsection (b) is
not changed to performance by a contractor or by another depot-
level activity of the Department of Defense unless the change
is made using--
(1) merit-based selection procedures for competitions
among all depot-level activities of the Department of
Defense; or
(2) competitive procedures for competitions among
private and public sector entities.
(b) Scope.--Subsection (a) applies to any depot-level
maintenance [or repair] and repair workload that has a value of
not less than $3,000,000 and is being performed by a depot-
level activity of the Department of Defense.
* * * * * * *
(d) Restriction on Contracts at Certain Facilities.--
(1) Restriction.--The Secretary of Defense may not
enter into any contract for the performance of depot-
level maintenance and repair of weapon systems or other
military equipment of the Department of Defense, or for
the performance of management functions related to
depot-level maintenance and repair of such systems or
equipment, at any military installation where a depot-
level maintenance and repair facility was approved in
1995 for closure under the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public
Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note). In the preceding
sentence, the term ``military installation'' includes a
former military installation closed under the Act that
was a military installation when it was approved for
closure under the Act.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with
respect to an installation or former installation
described in such paragraph if the Secretary of Defense
certifies to Congress, not later than 45 days before
entering into a contract for depot-level maintenance
and repair at the installation or former installation,
that--
(A) not less than 80 percent of the capacity
at each of the depot-level maintenance and
repair activities of the military department
concerned is being utilized on an ongoing basis
to perform industrial operations in support of
the depot-level maintenance and repair of
weapon systems and other military equipment of
the Department of Defense;
(B) the Secretary has determined, on the
basis of a detailed analysis (which the
Secretary shall submit to Congress with the
certification), that the total amount of the
costs of the proposed contract to the
Government, both recurring and nonrecurring and
including any costs associated with planning
for and executing the proposed contract, would
be less than the costs that would otherwise be
incurred if the depot-level maintenance and
repair to be performed under the contract were
performed using equipment and facilities of the
Department of Defense;
(C) all of the information upon which the
Secretary determined that the total costs to
the Government would be less under the contract
is available for examination; and
(D) none of the depot-level maintenance and
repair to be performed under the contract was
considered, before July 1, 1995, to be a core
logistics capability of the military department
concerned pursuant to section 2464 of this
title.
(3) Capacity of depot-level activities.--For purposes
of paragraph (2)(A), the capacity of depot-level
maintenance and repair activities shall be considered
to be the same as the maximum potential capacity
identified by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission for purposes of the selection in 1995 of
military installations for closure or realignment under
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990,
without regard, after 1995, to any limitation on the
maximum number of Federal employees (expressed as full
time equivalent employees or otherwise), Federal
employment levels, or the actual availability of
equipment to support depot-level maintenance and
repair.
(4) GAO review.--At the same time that the Secretary
submits the certification and analysis to Congress
under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall submit a copy
of the certification and analysis to the Comptroller
General. The Comptroller General shall review the
analysis and the information referred to in
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) and, not later than
30 days after Congress receives the certification,
submit to Congress a report containing a statement
regarding whether the Comptroller General concurs with
the determination of the Secretary included in the
certification pursuant to subparagraph (B) of that
paragraph.
(5) Application.--This subsection shall apply with
respect to any contract described in paragraph (1) that
is entered into, or proposed to be entered into, after
January 1, 1997.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2474. Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence: designation;
public-private partnerships
(a) Designation.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
designate each depot-level activity of the military departments
and the Defense Agencies (other than facilities approved for
closure or major realignment under the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law
101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note)) as a Center of Industrial and
Technical Excellence in the recognized core competencies of the
activity.
(2) The Secretary shall establish a policy to encourage the
Secretary of each military department and the head of each
Defense Agency to reengineer industrial processes and adopt
best-business practices at their depot-level activities in
connection with their core competency requirements, so as to
serve as recognized leaders in their core competencies
throughout the Department of Defense and in the national
technology and industrial base (as defined in section 2500(1)
of this title).
(b) Public-Private Partnerships.--The Secretary of Defense
shall enable Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence to
form public-private partnerships for the performance of depot-
level maintenance and repair and shall encourage the use of
such partnerships to maximize the utilization of the capacity
at such Centers.
(c) Additional Work.--The policy required under subsection
(a) shall include measures to enable a private sector entity
that enters into a partnership arrangement under subsection (b)
or leases excess equipment and facilities at a Center of
Industrial and Technical Excellence pursuant to section 2471 of
this title to perform additional work at the Center, subject to
the limitations outlined in subsection (b) of such section,
outside of the types of work normally assigned to the Center.
[CHAPTER 147--UTILITIES AND SERVICES]
CHAPTER 147--COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGES AND OTHER MORALE, WELFARE, AND
RECREATION ACTIVITIES
Sec.
[2481. Utilities and services: sale; expansion and extension of systems
and facilities.]
2481. Morale, welfare, and recreation activities: leases and other
contracts to benefit.
* * * * * * *
[2483. Sale of electricity from alternate energy and cogeneration
production facilities.]
* * * * * * *
[2490. Utility services: furnishing for certain buildings.]
2490a. Combined exchange and commissary stores.
[Sec. 2481. Utilities and services: sale; expansion and extension of
systems and facilities
[(a) Under such regulations and for such periods and at such
prices as he may prescribe, the Secretary concerned or his
designee may sell or contract to sell to purchasers within or
in the immediate vicinity of an activity of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, as the case may be, any of
the following utilities and related services, if it is
determined that they are not available from another local
source and that the sale is in the interest of national defense
or in the public interest:
[(1) Electric power.
[(2) Steam.
[(3) Compressed air.
[(4) Water.
[(5) Sewage and garbage disposal.
[(6) Natural, manufactured, or mixed gas.
[(7) Ice.
[(8) Mechanical refrigeration.
[(9) Telephone service.
[(b) Proceeds of sales under subsection (a) shall be credited
to the appropriation currently available for the supply of that
utility or service.
[(c) To meet local needs the Secretary concerned may make
minor expansions and extensions of any distributing system or
facility within an activity through which a utility or service
is furnished under subsection (a).]
Sec. 2481. Morale, welfare, and recreation activities: leases and other
contracts to benefit
(a) Leases and Other Contracts Authorized.--The Secretary of
Defense may authorize a nonappropriated fund instrumentality to
enter into leases, licensing agreements, concession agreements,
and other contracts with private persons and State or local
governments involving real property (and related personal
property) under the control of the nonappropriated fund
instrumentality in order to facilitate the provision of
facilities, goods, or services to authorized patrons of the
nonappropriated fund instrumentality.
(b) Conditions.--A nonappropriated fund instrumentality may
enter into an authorized lease or other contract under
subsection (a) only if the nonappropriated fund instrumentality
determines, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense,
that--
(1) the use of the property subject to the lease or
contract will provide appropriate space, or contribute
to the provision of goods and services, for a morale,
welfare, or recreation activity of the nonappropriated
fund instrumentality;
(2) the lease or contract will not be inconsistent
with and will not adversely affect the mission of the
Department or the nonappropriated fund instrumentality;
and
(3) the lease or contract will enhance the use of the
property subject to the lease or contract.
(c) Access to Resulting Facilities, Goods, or Services.--The
use of a lease or contract under subsection (a) to provide
facilities, goods, or services shall not be construed to permit
the use of the resulting facilities, goods, or services by
persons who are not authorized patrons of the nonappropriated
fund instrumentality that is a party to the lease or contract.
(d) Lease and Contract Terms.--Subsection (b) of section 2667
of this title shall apply to a lease or contract under
subsection (a), except that references to the Secretary
concerned shall be deemed to mean the nonappropriated fund
instrumentality that is a party to the lease or contract.
(e) Money Rentals.--Money rentals received pursuant to a
lease or contract under subsection (a) shall be treated in the
same manner as other receipts of the nonappropriated fund
instrumentality that is a party to the lease or contract,
except that use of the rentals shall be restricted to the
installation at which the property covered by the lease or
contract is located.
(f) Definition.--In this section, the term ``nonappropriated
fund instrumentality'' means the Army and Air Force Exchange
Service, Navy Exchange Service Command, Marine Corps exchanges,
or any other instrumentality of the United States under the
jurisdiction of the armed forces which is conducted for the
comfort, pleasure, contentment, or physical or mental
improvement of members of the armed forces.
Sec. 2482. Commissary stores: operation
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Treatment of Certain Receipts.--(1) The Defense
Commissary Agency shall deposit amounts received from the
sources specified in paragraph (2) into the same account in
which the proceeds from the adjustment of, or surcharge on,
commissary store prices authorized by subsection (a) of section
2685 of this title are deposited. In such amounts as provided
in appropriations Acts, the amounts deposited under this
paragraph shall be available for the purposes described in
subsection (b) of such section.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to amounts
received by the Defense Commissary Agency from--
(A) the sale of items for recycling;
(B) the disposal of excess property;
(C) license fees, royalties, incentive allowances,
and management and other fees; and
(D) a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the
United States.
[Sec. 2483. Sale of electricity from alternate energy and cogeneration
production facilities
[(a) The Secretary of a military department may sell,
contract to sell, or authorize the sale by a contractor to a
public or private utility company of electrical energy
generated from alternate energy or cogeneration type production
facilities which are under the jurisdiction (or produced on
land which is under the jurisdiction) of the Secretary
concerned. The sale of such energy shall be made under such
regulations, for such periods, and at such prices as the
Secretary concerned prescribes consistent with the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.).
[(b)(1) Proceeds from sales under subsection (a) shall be
credited to the appropriation account currently available to
the military department concerned for the supply of electrical
energy.
[(2) Subject to the availability of appropriations for this
purpose, proceeds credited under paragraph (1) may be used to
carry out military construction projects under the energy
performance plan developed by the Secretary of Defense under
section 2865(a) of this title, including minor military
construction projects authorized under section 2805 of this
title that are designed to increase energy conservation.
[(c) Before carrying out a military construction project
described in subsection (b) using proceeds from sales under
subsection (a), the Secretary concerned shall notify Congress
in writing of the project, the justification for the project,
and the estimated cost of the project. The project may be
carried out only after the end of the 21-day period beginning
on the date the notification is received by Congress.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2486. Commissary stores: merchandise that may be sold; uniform
surcharges and pricing
(a) In General.--Commissary stores are similar to commercial
grocery stores and may sell merchandise similar to that sold in
commercial grocery stores.
[(b) Merchandise sold in commissary stores may include items
in the following categories:]
(b) Authorized Commissary Merchandise Categories.--
Merchandise sold in, at, or by commissary stores may include
items only in the following categories:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(11) Other categories designated in regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of a military department
and approved by the Secretary of Defense.]
(11) Subject to the congressional notification
requirements of subsection (f), such other merchandise
categories as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe.
(c) Uniform Sales Price Surcharge or Adjustment.--An
adjustment of or surcharge on sales prices in commissary stores
under section 2484(b) or 2685(a) of this title or for any other
purpose shall be applied as a uniform percentage of the sales
price of all merchandise sold [in commissary stores.] in, at,
or by commissary stores. The uniform percentage in effect on
the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 may not be changed except by a law
enacted after such date.
[(d) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations
establishing uniform pricing policies for merchandise
authorized for sale by this section. The policies in the
regulations shall--
[(1) require the establishment of a sales price of
each item of merchandise at a level which will recoup
the actual product cost of the item (consistent with
this section and sections 2484 and 2685 of this title);
and
[(2) promote the lowest practical price of
merchandise sold at commissary stores.]
(d) Sales Price Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense
shall establish the sales price of each item of merchandise
sold in, at, or by commissary stores at the level that will
recoup the actual product cost of the item (consistent with
this section and sections 2484 and 2685 of this title).
(e) Special Rule for Brand-Name Commercial Items.--The
Secretary of Defense may not use the exception provided in
section 2304(c)(5) of this title regarding the procurement of a
brand-name commercial item for resale [in commissary stores]
in, at, or by commissary stores unless the commercial item is
regularly sold outside of commissary stores under the same
brand name as the name by which the commercial item will be
sold [in commissary stores] in, at, or by commissary stores. In
determining whether a brand name commercial item is regularly
sold outside of commissary stores, the Secretary shall consider
only sales of the item on a regional or national basis by
commercial grocery or other retail operations consisting of
multiple stores.
(f) Congressional Notification.--(1) Any change in the
pricing policies for merchandise sold in, at, or by commissary
stores, and any addition of a merchandise category under
subsection (a)(11), shall not take effect until the Secretary
of Defense submits written notice of the proposed change or
addition to Congress and a period of 90 days of continuous
session of Congress expires following the date on which notice
was received.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the continuity of a
session of Congress is broken only by an adjournment of the
Congress sine die, and the days on which either House is not in
session because of an adjournment or recess of more than three
days to a day certain are excluded in a computation of such 90-
day period.
(g) Special Rule for Certain Merchandise.--(1)
Notwithstanding the general requirement that merchandise sold
in, at, or by commissary stores be commissary store inventory,
the Secretary of Defense may authorize the sale of items in the
merchandise categories specified in paragraph (2) as
noncommissary store inventory. Subsections (c) and (d) shall
not apply to the pricing of such items of merchandise.
(2) The merchandise categories referred to in paragraph (1)
are as follows:
(A) Magazines and other periodicals.
(B) Tobacco products.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2490. Utility services: furnishing for certain buildings
[Appropriations for the Department of Defense may be used for
utility services for--
[(1) buildings constructed at private cost, as
authorized by law; and
[(2) buildings on military reservations authorized by
regulation to be used for morale, welfare, and
recreational purposes.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 148--NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE
REINVESTMENT, AND DEFENSE CONVERSION
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--DEFINITIONS
Sec.
[2491. Definitions.]
2500. Definitions.
[Sec. 2491.] Sec. 2500. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY AND DUAL-USE ASSISTANCE
EXTENSION PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2525. Manufacturing Technology Program
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Funding Requirement.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary of Defense shall make available each fiscal year for
the Manufacturing Technology Program the greater of the
following amounts:
(A) 0.25 percent of the amount available for the
fiscal year concerned for the demonstration and
validation, engineering and manufacturing development,
operational systems development, and procurement
programs of the military departments and Defense
Agencies.
(B) The amount authorized to be appropriated by law
for the fiscal year concerned for projects of the
military departments and Defense Agencies under the
Manufacturing Technology Program.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies to fiscal years 1998, 1999, and
2000.
(f) Transfer Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may
transfer funds made available pursuant to subsection (e) from a
military department or Defense Agency to another military
department or Defense Agency to ensure efficient implementation
of the Manufacturing Technology Program. The Secretary may
delegate the authority provided in the preceding sentence to
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
Authority to transfer funds under this subsection is in
addition to any other authority provided by law to transfer
funds (whether enacted before, on, or after the date of the
enactment of this section) and is not subject to any dollar
limitation or notification requirement contained in any other
such authority to transfer funds.
(g) Report.--(1) At the same time the President submits to
Congress the budget for fiscal year 1999 pursuant to section
1105(a) of title 31, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report that--
(A) specifies the plans of the Secretary for
expenditures under the program during fiscal years
1998, 1999, and 2000; and
(B) assesses the effectiveness of the program.
(2) The Secretary shall submit an updated version of such
report at the same time the President submits the budget for
each fiscal year after fiscal year 1999 during which the
program is in effect.shall include--
(A) an assessment of whether the funding of the
program, as provided pursuant to the funding
requirement of subsection (e), is sufficient; and
(B) any recommendations considered appropriate by the
Secretary for changes in, or an extension of, the
funding requirement of subsection (e).
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2534. Miscellaneous limitations on the procurement of goods other
than United States goods
(a) Limitation on Certain Procurements.--The Secretary of
Defense may procure any of the following items only if the
manufacturer of the item satisfies the requirements of
subsection (b):
(1) Buses.--Multipassenger motor vehicles (buses).
(2) Chemical weapons antidote.--Chemical weapons
antidote contained in automatic injectors (and
components for such injectors).
(3) Components for naval vessels.--(A) * * *
(B) The following components of vessels, to the
extent they are unique to marine applications:
gyrocompasses, electronic navigation chart systems,
steering controls, pumps, propulsion and machinery
control systems, [and] totally enclosed lifeboats, and
shipboard work stations.
* * * * * * *
(c) Applicability to Certain Items.--
(1) Components for naval vessels.--Subsection (a)
does not apply to a procurement of spare or repair
parts needed to support components for naval vessels
produced or manufactured outside the United States.
(2) Valves and machine tools.--(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Subsection (a)(4) and this paragraph shall cease
to be effective on [October 1, 1996] October 1, 2001.
(3) Ball bearings and roller bearings.--Subsection
(a)(5) and this paragraph shall cease to be effective
on October 1, 2000.
[(4) Vessel propellers.--Subsection (a)(3)(A)(iii)
and this paragraph shall cease to be effective on
February 10, 1998.]
(d) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may [waive
the limitation in subsection (a) with respect to the
procurement of an item listed in that subsection if the
Secretary determines] waive, on a case-by-case basis, the
limitation in subsection (a) in the case of a specific
procurement of an item listed in that subsection if the
Secretary determines, for that specific procurement, that any
of the following apply:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Satisfactory quality items manufactured by an
entity that is part of the national technology and
industrial base (as defined in section [2491(1)]
section 2500(1) of this title) are not available.
(5) Application of the limitation would result in the
existence of only one source for the item that is an
entity that is part of the national technology and
industrial base (as defined in [section 2491(1)]
section 2500(1) of this title).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 152--ISSUE OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES
Sec.
2541. Equipment and barracks: national veterans' organizations.
* * * * * * *
2549. Provision of medical care to foreign military and diplomatic
personnel: reimbursement required; waiver for provision of
reciprocal services.
2549a. Emergency health care: overseas activities of On-Site Inspection
Agency.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2549a. Emergency health care: overseas activities of On-Site
Inspection Agency
(a) Authority to Pay Expenses.--From funds appropriated for
the necessary expenses of the On-Site Inspection Agency of the
Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense may pay or
reimburse an employee of the Agency, a member of the uniformed
services or a civilian employee assigned or detailed to the
Agency, or an employee of a contractor operating under a
contract with the Agency, for emergency health care services
obtained by the employee, member, or contractor employee while
permanently or temporarily on duty in a state of the former
Soviet Union or the former Warsaw Pact.
(b) Initial Deposits.--The expenses for emergency health care
that may be paid or reimbursed under subsection (a) include
initial deposits for emergency care and inpatient care.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 157--TRANSPORTATION
Sec.
2631. Supplies: preference to United States vessels.
* * * * * * *
2646. Space available travel: members of Selected Reserve.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2640. Charter air transportation of members of the armed forces
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Authority to Protect Safety-Related Information
Voluntarily Provided by An Air Carrier.--(1) In any case in
which an air carrier voluntarily provides safety-related
information to the Secretary for purposes of this section, the
Secretary may (notwithstanding any other provision of law)
withhold the information from public disclosure if the
Secretary determines that--
(A) disclosure of the information would inhibit the
air carrier from voluntarily providing safety-related
information to the Secretary; and
(B) the information would aid--
(i) the Secretary in carrying out his
responsibilities under this section; or
(ii) the head of another agency in carrying
out the safety responsibilities of the agency.
(2) If the Secretary provides to the head of another agency
safety-related information described in paragraph (1) with
respect to which the Secretary has made a determination
described in that paragraph, the head of that agency shall
(notwithstanding any other provision of law) withhold the
information from public disclosure.
[(h)] (i) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section, including requirements
and identification of inspecting personnel with respect to
preflight safety inspections required by subsection (b)(3).
[(i)] (j) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The terms ``air carrier'', ``aircraft'', ``air
transportation'', and ``charter air transportation''
have the meanings given such terms by section 40102(a)
of title 49.
(2) The term ``members of the armed forces'' means
members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2646. Space available travel: members of Selected Reserve
(a) Availability.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
regulations to allow members of the Selected Reserve in good
standing (as determined by the Secretary concerned), and
dependents of such members, to receive transportation on
aircraft of the Department of Defense on a space available
basis under the same terms and conditions as apply to members
of the armed forces on active duty and dependents of such
members.
(b) Condition on Dependent Transportation.--A dependent of a
member of the Selected Reserve may be provided transportation
under this section only when the dependent is actually
accompanying the member on the travel.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 159--REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF
NONEXCESS PROPERTY
Sec.
2661. Miscellaneous administrative provisions relating to real
property.
* * * * * * *
2672. Acquisition: interests in land when cost is not more than
$200,000.
2672. Acquisition: interests in land when cost is not more than
$500,000.
2686. Utilities and services: sale; expansion and extension of systems
and facilities.
* * * * * * *
[2692. Storage and disposal of nondefense toxic and hazardous
materials.]
2692. Storage, treatment, and disposal of nondefense toxic and
hazardous materials.
* * * * * * *
2695. Acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses relating to
certain real property transactions.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2667. Leases: non-excess property
(a) * * *
(b) A lease under subsection (a)--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) shall provide[, in the case of the lease of real
property,] in the payment (in cash or in kind) by the
lessee of consideration in an amount that is not less
than the fair market value of the lease interest, as
determined by the Secretary; and
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) If a proposed lease under subsection (a) involves only
personal property, the lease term exceeds one year, and the
fair market value of the lease interest exceeds $100,000, as
determined by the Secretary concerned, the Secretary shall use
competitive procedures to select the lessee.
(2) Not later than 45 days before entering into a lease
referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall
submit to Congress written notice describing the terms of the
proposed lease and the competitive procedures used to select
the lessee.
[(g)] (h) In this section, the term ``base closure law''
means each of the following:
(1) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10
U.S.C. 2687 note).
(2) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments
and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100-
526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(3) Section 2687 of this title.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2672. Acquisition: interests in land when cost is not more than
$200,000]
Sec. 2672. Acquisition: interests in land when cost is not more than
$500,000
(a)(1) The Secretary of a military department may acquire any
interest in land that--
(A) the Secretary determines is needed in the
interest of national defense; and
(B) does not cost more than [$200,000] $500,000,
exclusive of administrative costs and the amounts of
any deficiency judgments.
(2) This section does not apply to the acquisition, as a part
of the same project, of more than one parcel of land unless the
parcels are noncontiguous, or, if contiguous, unless the total
cost is not more than [$200,000] $500,000.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2681. Use of test and evaluation installations by commercial
entities
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Termination of Authority.--The authority provided to the
Secretary of Defense by subsection (a) shall terminate on
[September 30, 1998] September 30, 2000.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2684. Cooperative agreements for management of cultural resources
(a) * * *
(b) Application of Other Laws.--Section 1535 and chapter 63
of title 31[, United States Code,] shall not apply to a
cooperative agreement entered into under this section.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2686. Utilities and services: sale; expansion and extension of
systems and facilities
(a) Under such regulations and for such periods and at such
prices as he may prescribe, the Secretary concerned or his
designee may sell or contract to sell to purchasers within or
in the immediate vicinity of an activity of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, as the case may be, any of
the following utilities and related services, if it is
determined that they are not available from another local
source and that the sale is in the interest of national defense
or in the public interest:
(1) Electric power.
(2) Steam.
(3) Compressed air.
(4) Water.
(5) Sewage and garbage disposal.
(6) Natural, manufactured, or mixed gas.
(7) Ice.
(8) Mechanical refrigeration.
(9) Telephone service.
(b) Proceeds of sales under subsection (a) shall be credited
to the appropriation currently available for the supply of that
utility or service.
(c) To meet local needs the Secretary concerned may make
minor expansions and extensions of any distributing system or
facility within an activity through which a utility or service
is furnished under subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2692. Storage and disposal of nondefense toxic and hazardous
materials]
Sec. 2692. Storage, treatment, and disposal of nondefense toxic and
hazardous materials
(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the
Secretary of Defense may not permit the use of an installation
of the Department of Defense for the [storage] storage,
treatment, or disposal of any material that is a toxic or
hazardous material and that is not owned either by the
Department of Defense or by a member of the armed forces (or a
dependent of the member) assigned to or provided military
housing on the installation.
* * * * * * *
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to--
(1) the storage, treatment, or disposal of materials
that will be or have been used in connection with an
activity of the Department of Defense or in connection
with a service to be performed on an installation of
the Department for the benefit of the Department;
[(1)] (2) the storage of strategic and critical
materials in the National Defense Stockpile under an
agreement for such storage with the Administrator of
General Services;
[(2)] (3) the temporary storage or disposal of
explosives in order to protect the public or to assist
agencies responsible for [Federal law enforcement]
Federal, State, or local law enforcement in storing or
disposing of explosives when no alternative solution is
available, if such storage or disposal is made in
accordance with an agreement between the Secretary of
Defense and the head of the [Federal agency] Federal,
State, or local agency concerned;
[(3)] (4) the temporary storage or disposal of
explosives in order to provide emergency lifesaving
assistance to civil authorities;
[(4)] (5) the disposal of excess explosives produced
under a Department of Defense contract, if the head of
the military department concerned determines, in each
case, that an alternative feasible means of disposal is
not available to the contractor, taking into
consideration public safety, available resources of the
contractor, and national defense production
requirements;
[(5)] (6) the temporary storage of nuclear materials
or non-nuclear classified materials in accordance with
an agreement with the Secretary of Energy;
[(6)] (7) the storage of materials that constitute
military resources intended to be used during peacetime
civil emergencies in accordance with applicable
Department of Defense regulations;
[(7)] (8) the temporary storage of materials of other
Federal agencies in order to provide assistance and
refuge for commercial carriers of such material during
a transportation emergency;
[(8)] (9) the storage of any material that is not
owned by the Department of Defense if the Secretary of
the military department concerned determines that the
material is required or generated [by a private person
in connection with the authorized and compatible use by
that person of an industrial-type] in connection with
the authorized use of a facility of the Department of
Defense[; and] including the use of such a facility for
testing materiel and training personnel;
[(9)] (10) the treatment and disposal of any material
that is not owned by the Department of Defense if the
Secretary of the military department concerned
determines that the material is required or generated
[by a private person in connection with the authorized
and compatible commercial use by that person of an
industrial-type] in connection with the authorized use
of a facility of that military department and the
Secretary enters into a contract [with that person] or
agreement with the prospective user that--
(A) is consistent with the best interest of
national defense and environmental security;
and
(B) provides [for that person's] for the
prospective user's continued financial and
environmental responsibility and liability with
regard to the material[.]; and
(11) the storage of any material that is not owned by
the Department of Defense if the Secretary of the
military department concerned determines that the
material is required or generated in connection with
the use of a space launch facility located on an
installation of the Department of Defense or on other
land controlled by the United States.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2695. Acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses
relating to certain real property transactions
(a) Authority To Accept.--In connection with a real property
transaction described in subsection (b) with a non-Federal
person or entity, the Secretary of a military department may
accept amounts provided by the person or entity to cover
administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary in entering
into the transaction.
(b) Covered Transactions.--Subsection (a) applies to the
following transactions:
(1) The conveyance or exchange of real property.
(2) The grant of an easement over, in, or upon real
property of the United States.
(3) The lease or license of real property of the
United States.
(c) Use of Amounts Collected.--Amounts collected under
subsection (a) for administrative expenses shall be credited to
the appropriation, fund, or account from which the expenses
were paid. Amounts so credited shall be merged with funds in
such appropriation, fund, or account and shall be available for
the same purposes and subject to the same limitations as the
funds with which merged.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 169--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2805. Unspecified minor construction
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), within an amount
equal to 125 percent of the amount authorized by law for such
purpose, the Secretary concerned may carry out [minor military
construction projects] unspecified minor military construction
projects not otherwise authorized by law. [A minor] An
unspecified minor military construction project is a military
construction project that has an approved cost equal to or less
than $1,500,000. However, if the military construction project
is intended solely to correct a deficiency that is life-
threatening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening, [a
minor] an unspecified minor military construction project may
have an approved cost equal to or less than $3,000,000.
(2) A Secretary may not use more than $5,000,000 for
exercise-related unspecified minor military construction
projects coordinated or directed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
outside the United States during any fiscal year.
(b)(1) [A minor] An unspecified minor military construction
project costing more than $500,000 may not be carried out under
this section unless approved in advance by the Secretary
concerned.
(2) When a decision is made to carry out [a minor] an
unspecified minor military construction project to which
paragraph (1) is applicable, the Secretary concerned shall
notify in writing the appropriate committees of Congress of
that decision, of the justification for the project, and of the
estimated cost of the project. The project may then be carried
out only after the end of the 21-day period beginning on the
date the notification is received by the committees. This
paragraph shall apply even though the project is to be carried
out using funds made available to enhance the deployment and
mobility of military forces and supplies.
(c)(1) Except as provided in [paragraph (2)] paragraphs (2)
and (3), the Secretary concerned may spend from appropriations
available for operation and maintenance amounts necessary to
carry out an unspecified minor military construction project
costing not more than--
(A) $1,000,000, in the case of an unspecified minor
military construction project intended solely to
correct a deficiency that is life-threatening, health-
threatening, or safety-threatening; or
(B) $500,000, in the case of any other unspecified
minor military construction project.
(2) The authority provided in paragraph (1) may not be used
with respect to any exercise-related unspecified minor military
construction project coordinated or directed by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff outside the United States.
(3) The limitations specified in paragraph (1) shall not
apply if the unspecified minor military construction project is
to be carried out using funds made available to enhance the
deployment and mobility of military forces and supplies.
(d) Military family housing projects for construction of new
housing units may not be carried out under the authority of
this section.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2811. Repair of facilities
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Congressional Notification.--When a decision is made to
carry out a repair project under this section with an estimated
cost in excess of $10,000,000, the Secretary concerned shall
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
containing--
(1) the justification for the repair project and the
current estimate of the cost of the project; and
(2) the justification for carrying out the project
under this section.
(e) Repair Project Defined.--In this section, the term
``repair project'' means a project to restore a real property
facility, system, or component to such a condition that it may
effectively be used for its designated functional purpose.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2828. Leasing of military family housing
(a) * * *
(b)(1) Not more than 10,000 family housing units may be
leased at any one time under subsection (a).
(2) Except as provided in [paragraph (3)] paragraphs (3) and
(4), expenditures for the rental of housing units under
subsection (a) (including the cost of utilities, maintenance,
and operation) may not exceed $12,000 per unit per year.
(3) Not more than 500 housing units may be leased under
subsection (a) for which the expenditure for the rental of such
units (including the cost of utilities, maintenance, and
operation) exceeds $12,000 per unit per year but does not
exceed $14,000 per unit per year.
(4) The Secretary of the Army may lease not more than eight
housing units in the vicinity of Miami, Florida, for key and
essential personnel, as designated by the Secretary, for the
United States Southern Command for which the expenditure for
the rental of such units (including the cost of utilities,
maintenance, and operation, including security enhancements)
exceeds the expenditure limitations in paragraphs (2) and (3).
The total amount for all leases under this paragraph may not
exceed $280,000 per year, and no lease on any individual
housing unit may exceed $60,000 per year.
[(4)] (5) At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Secretary
concerned shall adjust the maximum lease amount provided for
under [paragraphs (2) and (3)] paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) for
the previous fiscal year by the percentage (if any) by which
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, during the preceding fiscal
year exceeds such Consumer Price Index for the fiscal year
before such preceding fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2830. Occupancy of substandard family housing units
(a)(1) A member of the uniformed services with dependents
may, without loss of the member's [basic allowance for
quarters] basic allowance for housing under section 403 of
title 37, occupy a substandard family housing unit under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned.
(2) Occupancy of a family housing unit under paragraph (1)
shall be subject to a charge against the member's [basic
allowance for quarters] basic allowance for housing in the
amount of the fair rental value of the housing unit. However,
such a charge may not be made in an amount in excess of 75
percent of the amount of such allowance.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY
FAMILY HOUSING
Sec.
2851. Supervision of military construction projects.
* * * * * * *
2867. Sale of electricity from alternate energy and cogeneration
production facilities.
2868. Utility services: furnishing for certain buildings.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2865. Energy savings at military installations
(a) * * *
(b) Use of Energy Cost Savings.--(1) Two-thirds of the
portion of the funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for a fiscal year that is equal to the amount of energy cost
savings realized by the Department, including financial
benefits resulting from shared energy savings contracts [and
financial incentives described in subsection (d)(2)], shall
remain available for obligation under paragraph (2) through the
end of the fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the
funds were appropriated, without additional authorization or
appropriation.
(2) The Secretary shall provide that the amount that remains
available for obligation under paragraph (1) and section
2866(b) of this title, and the funds made available under
[section 2483(b)(2)] section 2867(b)(2) of this title, shall be
used as follows:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Energy Saving Activities.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
shall permit and encourage each military department, Defense
Agency, and other instrumentality of the Department of Defense
to participate in programs conducted by any gas or electric
utility for the management of electricity demand or for energy
conservation or by any utility for water conservation
activities.
(2) The Secretary of Defense may authorize any military
installation to accept any financial incentive, goods, or
services generally available from a gas or electric utility, to
adopt technologies and practices that the Secretary determines
are cost effective for the Federal Government. Financial
incentives received under this paragraph or section 2866(a)(2)
of this title shall be credited to an appropriation account
designated by the Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
(f) Annual Report.--Not later than December 31 of each year,
the Secretary of Defense shall transmit an annual report to the
Congress containing a description of the actions taken to carry
out this section, and the savings realized from such actions,
during the fiscal year ending in the year in which the report
is made. Each report shall also describe the types and amount
of financial incentives received under subsection (d)(2) and
section 2866(a)(2) of this title during the period covered by
the report and the appropriation account or accounts to which
the incentives were credited.
Sec. 2866. Water conservation at military installations
(a) Water Conservation Activities.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall permit and encourage each military department,
Defense Agency, and other instrumentality of the Department of
Defense to participate in programs conducted by a utility for
the management of water demand or for water conservation.
(b) Use of Water Cost [Savings.--] Savings and Financial
Incentives.--(1) Water cost savings realized under this section
shall be used as provided in section 2865(b)(2) of this title.
(2) Financial incentives received under this section shall be
used as provided in section 2865(d)(2) of this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2867. Sale of electricity from alternate energy and cogeneration
production facilities
(a) The Secretary of a military department may sell, contract
to sell, or authorize the sale by a contractor to a public or
private utility company of electrical energy generated from
alternate energy or cogeneration type production facilities
which are under the jurisdiction (or produced on land which is
under the jurisdiction) of the Secretary concerned. The sale of
such energy shall be made under such regulations, for such
periods, and at such prices as the Secretary concerned
prescribes consistent with the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).
(b)(1) Proceeds from sales under subsection (a) shall be
credited to the appropriation account currently available to
the military department concerned for the supply of electrical
energy.
(2) Subject to the availability of appropriations for this
purpose, proceeds credited under paragraph (1) may be used to
carry out military construction projects under the energy
performance plan developed by the Secretary of Defense under
section 2865(a) of this title, including minor military
construction projects authorized under section 2805 of this
title that are designed to increase energy conservation.
(c) Before carrying out a military construction project
described in subsection (b) using proceeds from sales under
subsection (a), the Secretary concerned shall notify Congress
in writing of the project, the justification for the project,
and the estimated cost of the project. The project may be
carried out only after the end of the 21-day period beginning
on the date the notification is received by Congress.
Sec. 2868. Utility services: furnishing for certain buildings
Appropriations for the Department of Defense may be used for
utility services for--
(1) buildings constructed at private cost, as
authorized by law; and
(2) buildings on military reservations authorized by
regulation to be used for morale, welfare, and
recreational purposes.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF
MILITARY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2875. Investments in nongovernmental entities
(a) Investments Authorized.--The Secretary concerned may make
investments in nongovernmental entities carrying out projects
for the acquisition or construction of housing units suitable
for use as military family housing or as military unaccompanied
housing.
* * * * * * *
(e) Congressional Notification Required.--Amounts in the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or the
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing
Improvement Fund may be used to make a cash investment under
this section in a nongovernmental entity only after the end of
the 30-day period beginning on the date the Secretary of
Defense submits written notice of, and justification for, the
investment to the appropriate committees of Congress.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2882. Assignment of members of the armed forces to housing units
(a) * * *
(b) Effect of Certain Assignments on Entitlement to Housing
Allowances.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), housing
referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered as quarters
of the United States or a housing facility under the
jurisdiction of a uniformed service for purposes of [section
403(b)] section 403 of title 37.
(2) A member of the armed forces who is assigned in
accordance with subsection (a) to a housing unit not owned or
leased by the United States shall be entitled to a [basic
allowance for quarters under section 403 of title 37 and, if in
a high housing cost area, a variable housing allowance under
section 403a of that title.] basic allowance for housing under
section 403 of title 37.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2885. Expiration of authority
The authority to enter into a contract under this subchapter
shall expire [five years after the date of the enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996] on
February 10, 2001.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 172--STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2904. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
Scientific Advisory Board
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Members of the Advisory Board shall be appointed for
terms of [three] not less than two and not more than four
years.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Army
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 307--THE ARMY
Sec.
3061. Regulations.
* * * * * * *
3083. Public Affairs Corps.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3064. Special branches
(a) The special branches of the Army consist of commissioned
officers of the Regular Army appointed therein, other members
of the Army assigned thereto by the Secretary of the Army, and
the sections prescribed in this chapter. The special branches
are--
(1) each corps of the Army Medical Department;
(2) the Judge Advocate General's Corps;
(3) the Public Affairs Corps;
[(3)] (4) the Chaplains; and
[(4)] (5) such other special branches as may be
established by the Secretary of the Army under
subsection (b).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3083. Public Affairs Corps
There is a Public Affairs Corps in the Army. The Public
Affairs Corps consists of--
(1) the Chief of the Public Affairs Corps;
(2) commissioned officers of the Regular Army
appointed therein; and
(3) other members of the Army assigned thereto by the
Secretary of the Army.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 403--UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4344. Selection of persons from foreign countries
(a) * * *
(b)(1) A person receiving instruction under this section is
entitled to the pay, allowances, and emoluments of a cadet
appointed from the United States, and from the same
appropriations.
(2) Each foreign country from which a cadet is permitted to
receive instruction at the Academy under this section shall
reimburse the United States for the cost of providing such
instruction, including the cost of pay, allowances, and
emoluments provided under paragraph (1) unless a written waiver
of reimbursement is granted by the Secretary of Defense. The
Secretary of the Army shall prescribe the rates for
reimbursement under this paragraph[.], except that the
reimbursement rates may not be less than the cost to the United
States of providing such instruction, including pay,
allowances, and emoluments, to a cadet appointed from the
United States.
(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2)
may not exceed 25 percent of the per-person reimbursement
amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under
such paragraph, except in the case of not more than five
persons receiving instruction at the Academy under this section
at any one time.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 407--SCHOOLS AND CAMPS
Sec.
4411. Establishment: purpose.
* * * * * * *
4416. Academy of Health Sciences: admission of civilians in physician
assistant training program.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4416. Academy of Health Sciences: admission of civilians in
physician assistant training program
(a) Reciprocal Agreements With Colleges.--The Secretary of
the Army may enter into an agreement with an accredited
institution of higher education under which students of the
institution may attend the physician assistant training program
conducted by the Army Medical Department at the Academy of
Health Sciences at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, during the didactic
portion of the program. In exchange for the admission of such
students, the institution of higher education shall agree to
provide such academic services as the Secretary and the
institution consider to be appropriate to support the physician
assistant training program at the Academy. The Secretary shall
ensure that the Army Medical Department does not incur any
additional costs as a result of the agreement than the
Department would incur to obtain such academic services in the
absence of the agreement.
(b) Selection of Students.--The attendance of civilian
students at the Academy pursuant to an agreement under
subsection (a) may not result in a decrease in the number of
members of the armed forces enrolled in the physician assistant
training program. In consultation with the institution of
higher education that is a party to the agreement, the
Secretary shall establish qualifications and methods of
selection for students to receive instruction at the Academy.
The qualifications established shall be comparable to those
generally required for admission to the physician assistant
training program at the Academy.
(c) Rules of Attendance.--Except as the Secretary determines
necessary, a civilian student who receives instruction at the
Academy pursuant to an agreement entered into under subsection
(a) shall be subject to the same regulations governing
attendance, discipline, discharge, and dismissal as apply to
other persons attending the Academy.
(d) Report.--For each year in which an agreement under
subsection (a) is in effect, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report specifying the number of civilian students
who received instruction at the Academy under the agreement
during the period covered by the report and accessing the
benefits to the United States of the agreement.
(e) Academy Defined.--In this section, the term ``Academy''
means the Academy of Health Sciences of the Army Medical
Department at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Navy and Marine Corps
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 513--BUREAUS; OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5142. Chaplain Corps and Chief of Chaplains
(a) * * *
(b) There is in the executive part of the Department of the
Navy the office of the Chief of Chaplains of the Navy. The
Chief of Chaplains shall be appointed by the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, from officers of the
Chaplain Corps in the grade of commander or above who are
serving on active duty[, who are not on the retired list,] and
who have served on active duty in the Chaplain Corps for at
least eight years.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5142a. Deputy Chief of Chaplains
The Secretary of the Navy may detail as the Deputy Chief of
Chaplains an officer of the Chaplain Corps in the grade of
commander or above who is on active duty[, who is not on the
retired list,] and who has served on active duty in the
Chaplain Corps for at least eight years.
* * * * * * *
PART III--EDUCATION AND TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 601--OFFICER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6912. Aviation cadets: benefits
Except as provided in [section 402(a) and (b)] section 402(c)
of title 37, aviation cadets or their beneficiaries are
entitled to the same allowances, pensions, gratuities, and
other benefits as are provided for enlisted members in pay
grade E-4. While on active duty, an aviation cadet is entitled
to uniforms, clothing, and equipment at the expense of the
United States.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 603--UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY
Sec.
6951. Location.
* * * * * * *
6976. Operation of Naval Academy dairy farm.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6957. Selection of persons from foreign countries
(a) * * *
(b)(1) A person receiving instruction under this section is
entitled to the pay, allowances, and emoluments of a midshipman
appointed from the United States, and from the same
appropriations.
(2) Each foreign country from which a midshipman is permitted
to receive instruction at the Academy under this section shall
reimburse the United States for the cost of providing such
instruction, including the cost of pay, allowances, and
emoluments provided under paragraph (1) unless a written waiver
of reimbursement is granted by the Secretary of Defense. The
Secretary of the Navy shall prescribe the rates for
reimbursement under this paragraph[.], except that the
reimbursement rates may not be less than the cost to the United
States of providing such instruction, including pay,
allowances, and emoluments, to a midshipman appointed from the
United States.
(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2)
may not exceed 25 percent of the per-person reimbursement
amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under
such paragraph, except in the case of not more than five
persons receiving instruction at the Naval Academy under this
section at any one time.
* * * * * * *
(d) A person receiving instruction under this section is not
subject to section 6958(d) of this title.
Sec. 6958. Midshipmen: qualifications for admission
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) To be admitted to the Naval Academy, an appointee must
take and subscribe to an oath prescribed by the Secretary of
the Navy. If a candidate for admission refuses to take and
subscribe to the prescribed oath, the candidate's appointment
is terminated.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6976. Operation of Naval Academy dairy farm
(a) Discretion Regarding Continued Operation.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Navy may terminate or
reduce the dairy or other operations conducted at the Naval
Academy dairy farm located in Gambrills, Maryland.
(2) Notwithstanding the termination or reduction of
operations at the Naval Academy dairy farm under paragraph (1),
the real property containing the dairy farm (consisting of
approximately 875 acres)--
(A) may not be declared to be excess real property to
the needs of the Navy or transferred or otherwise
disposed of by the Navy or any Federal agency; and
(B) shall be maintained in its rural and agricultural
nature.
(b) Lease Authority.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), to the
extent that the termination or reduction of operations at the
Naval Academy dairy farm permit, the Secretary of the Navy may
lease the real property containing the dairy farm, and any
improvements and personal property thereon, to such persons and
under such terms as the Secretary considers appropriate. In
leasing any of the property, the Secretary may give a
preference to persons who will continue dairy operations on the
property.
(2) Any lease of property at the Naval Academy dairy farm
shall be subject to a condition that the lessee maintain the
rural and agricultural nature of the leased property.
(c) Effect of Other Laws.--Nothing in section 6971 of this
title shall be construed to require the Secretary of the Navy
or the Superintendent of the Naval Academy to operate a dairy
farm for the Naval Academy in Gambrills, Maryland, or any other
location.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 605--UNITED STATES NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
Sec.
7041. Function.
* * * * * * *
[7045. Officers of Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard: admission.]
7045. Officers of the other armed forces; enlisted members: admission.
7046. Officers of foreign countries: admission.
[7047. Students at institutions of higher education: admission.]
7047. Civilian students at institutions of higher education: admission.
7048. Conferring of degrees on graduates.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7043. Academic Dean
(a) * * *
(b) The Academic Dean is entitled to such compensation for
his services as the Secretary prescribes, but not more than the
rate of compensation authorized for [grade GS-18 of the General
Schedule under section 5332 of title 5] level IV of the
Executive Schedule.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 7045. Officers of Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard: admission]
Sec. 7045. Officers of the other armed forces; enlisted members:
admission
(a)(1) The Secretary of the Navy may permit officers of the
Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard to receive instruction at the
Naval Postgraduate School. The numbers and grades of such
officers shall be as agreed upon by the Secretary of the Navy
with the Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, and
Transportation, respectively.
(2) The Secretary may permit an enlisted member of the armed
forces who is assigned to the Naval Postgraduate School or to a
nearby command to receive instruction at the Naval Postgraduate
School. Admission of enlisted members for instruction under
this paragraph shall be on a space-available basis.
(b) The Department of the Army, the Department of the Air
Force, and the Department of Transportation shall bear the cost
of the instruction received by the [students] officers detailed
for that instruction by the Secretaries of the Army, Air Force,
and Transportation, respectively. In the case of an enlisted
member permitted to receive instruction at the Postgraduate
School, the Secretary of the Navy shall charge that member only
for such costs and fees as the Secretary considers appropriate
(taking into consideration the admission of enlisted members on
a space-available basis).
(c) While receiving instruction at the Postgraduate School,
[officers] members of the Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard are
subject to [the same regulations] regulations, as determined
appropriate by the Secretary of the Navy, as apply to students
who are [officers] members of the naval service.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 7047. Students at institutions of higher education: admission
[(a) Admission Pursuant to Reciprocal Agreement.--The
Secretary of the Navy may enter into an agreement with an
accredited institution of higher education to permit a student
described in subsection (b) enrolled at that institution to
receive instruction at the Naval Postgraduate School on a
tuition-free basis. In exchange for the admission of the
student, the institution of higher education shall be required
to permit an officer of the armed forces to attend on a
tuition-free basis courses offered by that institution
corresponding in length to the instruction provided to the
student at the Naval Postgraduate School.
[(b) Eligible Students.--A student enrolled at an institution
of higher education that is party to an agreement under
subsection (a) may be admitted to the Naval Postgraduate School
pursuant to that agreement if--
[(1) the student is a citizen of the United States or
lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United
States; and
[(2) the Secretary of the Navy determines that the
student has a demonstrated ability in a field of study
designated by the Secretary as related to naval warfare
and national security.]
Sec. 7047. Civilian students at institutions of higher education:
admission
(a) Admission on Tuition-Free, Exchange Basis.--(1) The
Secretary of the Navy may enter into an agreement with an
accredited institution of higher education (or a consortium of
such institutions) under which students described in subsection
(c) who are enrolled at that institution (or an institution in
such consortium) are permitted to receive instruction at the
Naval Postgraduate School on a space-available, tuition-free
basis in exchange for which the institution of higher education
(or each institution in the consortium) agrees to enroll, on a
tuition-free basis, officers of the armed forces or other
persons properly admitted for instruction at the Naval
Postgraduate School.
(2) Exchange of students under paragraph (1) need not be on a
one-for-one basis.
(3) An exchange under such an agreement shall be on the basis
of in-kind reimbursement, with the total value of the
instruction provided during a year by the Naval Postgraduate
School to civilian students from the institutions that are
parties to the agreement being at least as great as the value
of instruction provided by those institutions to students from
the Naval Postgraduate School.
(4) In determining the value of the in-kind reimbursement for
the instruction provided by the Naval Postgraduate School, the
Secretary shall use the same amount charged by the Secretary
for the provision of the same instruction to a Federal employee
who is not a Department of Defense employee.
(5) The authority of the Secretary to accept an offer of in-
kind reimbursement under this subsection may not be delegated
below the level of Assistant Secretary of the Navy.
(b) Admission on Cost-Reimbursable Basis.--(1) The Secretary
of the Navy may permit a student described in subsection (c)
who is enrolled at an accredited institution of higher
education that is a party to an agreement under subsection (a)
to receive instruction at the Naval Postgraduate School on a
cost-reimbursable, space-available basis.
(2) The Secretary shall ensure that the value of any
reimbursement received under this subsection in the case of any
such student is not less than the amount charged by the
Secretary for the provision of the same instruction to a
Federal employee who is not a Department of Defense employee.
(c) Eligible Students.--A student enrolled at an accredited
institution of higher education that is party to an agreement
under subsection (a) may be admitted to the Naval Postgraduate
School under subsection (a) or (b) if the student--
(1) is a citizen of the United States or is lawfully
admitted for permanent residence in the United States;
(2) has a demonstrated ability, as determined by the
Secretary of the Navy, in a field of study designated
by the Secretary as related to naval warfare, armed
conflict, or national security; and
(3) meets the academic requirements for the course or
courses for which the student seeks admission to the
Naval Postgraduate School.
(d) Standards of Conduct.--Except as the Secretary of the
Navy otherwise determines necessary, a person receiving
instruction under this section is subject to the same
regulations governing attendance, discipline, dismissal, and
standards of study as apply to students who are officers of the
naval service.
(e) Retention of Funds Received.--Amounts received under
subsection (b) to reimburse the Naval Postgraduate School for
the costs of providing instruction to students permitted to
attend the Naval Postgraduate School under this section shall
be credited to the current appropriation supporting the
operation and maintenance of the Naval Postgraduate School.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 633--NAVAL VESSELS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7305. Vessels stricken from Naval Vessel Register: sale
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Relationship to Toxic Substances Control Act.--(1)
Subject to paragraph (2), the sale of a vessel under this
section for export, or any subsequent resale of a vessel sold
under this section for export--
(A) is not a disposal or a distribution in commerce
under section 6 or 12(a) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2611(a)) or an export
of hazardous waste under section 3017 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6938); and
(B) is not subject to section 12(b) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)).
(2)(A) Paragraph (1) applies to a vessel being sold for
export only if, before the sale of such vessel, any item listed
in subparagraph (B) containing polychlorinated biphenyls is
removed from the vessel.
(B) Subparagraph (A) covers any transformer, large high or
low voltage capacitor, or hydraulic or heat transfer fluid.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7306a. Vessels stricken from Naval Vessel Register: use for
experimental purposes or operational training
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Navy may use for
experimental purposes or operational training any vessel
stricken from the Naval Vessel Register.
* * * * * * *
(c) Relationship to Other Laws.--The sinking of a vessel for
an experimental purpose or for operational training pursuant to
subsection (a) is not--
(1) a disposal or a distribution in commerce under
section 6 or 12(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2611(a)); or
(2) the transport of material for the purpose of
dumping it into ocean waters, or the dumping of
material transported from a location outside the United
States, under section 101 of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1411).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 643--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
Sec.
* * * * * * *
7472. Physical examination: employees engaged in hazardous occupations.
* * * * * * *
[7478. Naval War College and Marine Corps Command Staff College:
civilian faculty members.]
7478. Naval War College and Marine Corps University: civilian faculty
members.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 7478. Naval War College and Marine Corps Command and Staff
College: civilian faculty members]
Sec. 7478. Naval War College and Marine Corps University: civilian
faculty members
(a) Authority of Secretary.--The Secretary of the Navy may
employ as many civilians as professors, instructors, and
lecturers at a school of the Naval War College [or at the
Marine Corps Command and Staff College] or at a school of the
Marine Corps University as the Secretary considers necessary.
(b) Compensation of Faculty Members.--The compensation of
persons employed under this section shall be as prescribed by
the Secretary.
(c) Application to Certain Faculty Members.--This section
shall not apply with respect to professors, instructors, and
lecturers employed at a school of the Naval War College [or at
the Marine Corps Command and Staff College] or at a school of
the Marine Corps University if the duration of the principal
course of instruction offered at the school or college involved
is less than 10 months.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 649--QUARTERS, UTILITIES, AND RELATED SERVICES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7572. Quarters: accommodations in place of for members on sea duty
(a) * * *
(b)(1) Under such regulations as the Secretary prescribes, a
member of a uniformed service on sea duty who is deprived of
quarters on board ship because of repairs or because of other
conditions that make the member's quarters uninhabitable and
for whom it is impracticable to furnish accommodations under
subsection (a) may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in
obtaining quarters in an amount not more than [the total of--
[(A) the basic allowance for quarters payable to a
member of the same pay grade without dependents for the
period during which the member is deprived of quarters
on board ship; and
[(B) the variable housing allowance that could be
paid to a member of the same pay grade under section
403a of title 37 at the location where the member is
deprived of quarters onboard ship for the period during
which the member is deprived of quarters on board
ship.] the basic allowance for housing payable under
section 403 of title 37 to a member of the same pay
grade without dependents for the period during which
the member is deprived of quarters on board ship.
(2) A member entitled to receipt of [basic allowance for
quarters] basic allowance for housing may not be reimbursed for
expenses under this subsection when deprived of quarters on
board ship at a location at which the member can reside with
such member's dependents.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7573. Quarters: temporary; transient members
Temporary quarters may be furnished on a rental basis to
transient members of the naval service with their dependents,
for periods not exceeding 60 days, without loss of entitlement
to [basic allowance for quarters] basic allowance for housing
under section 403 of title 37.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 665--NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7902. National Ocean Research Leadership Council
(a) Council.--There is a National Ocean Research Leadership
Council (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the
``Council'').
(b) Membership.--The Council is composed of the following
members:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(11) The President of the National Academy of
Sciences, the President of the National Academy of
Engineering, and the President of the Institute of
Medicine.]
[(12)] (11) The Director of the Office of Science and
Technology.
[(13)] (12) The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget.
[(14)] (13) One member appointed by the [chairman]
President from among individuals who will represent the
views of ocean industries.
[(15)] (14) One member appointed by the [chairman]
President from among individuals who will represent the
views of State governments.
[(16)] (15) One member appointed by the [chairman]
President from among individuals who will represent the
views of academia.
[(17) One member] (16) Not more than four members
appointed by the [chairman] President from among
individuals who will represent such other views as the
[chairman] President considers appropriate.
* * * * * * *
(d) Term of Office.--The term of office of a member of the
Council appointed under paragraph [(14), (15), (16), or (17)]
(13), (14), (15), or (16) of subsection (b) shall be two years,
except that any person appointed to fill a vacancy occurring
before the expiration of the term for which his predecessor was
appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term.
* * * * * * *
(j) Delegation of Appointment Authority.--The President may
delegate the authority to make appointments under subsection
(b) to the head of a department, without authority to
redelegate.
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE D--AIR FORCE
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 903--UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY
Sec.
9331. Establishment; Superintendent; faculty.
* * * * * * *
9345. Exchange program with foreign military academies.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9344. Selection of persons from foreign countries
(a) * * *
(b)(1) A person receiving instruction under this section is
entitled to the pay, allowances, and emoluments of a cadet
appointed from the United States, and from the same
appropriations.
(2) Each foreign country from which a cadet is permitted to
receive instruction at the Academy under this section shall
reimburse the United States for the cost of providing such
instruction, including the cost of pay, allowances, and
emoluments provided under paragraph (1) unless a written waiver
of reimbursement is granted by the Secretary of Defense. The
Secretary of the Air Force shall prescribe the rates for
reimbursement under this paragraph[.], except that the
reimbursement rates may not be less than the cost to the United
States of providing such instruction, including pay,
allowances, and emoluments, to a cadet appointed from the
United States.
(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2)
may not exceed 25 percent of the per-person reimbursement
amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under
such paragraph, except in the case of not more than five
persons receiving instruction at the Academy under this section
at any one time.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9345. Exchange program with foreign military academies
(a) Exchange Program Authorized.--The Secretary of the Air
Force may permit a student enrolled at a military academy of a
foreign country to receive instruction at the Air Force Academy
in exchange for an Air Force cadet receiving instruction at
that foreign military academy pursuant to an exchange agreement
entered into between the Secretary and appropriate officials of
the foreign country. Students receiving instruction at the
Academy under the exchange program shall be in addition to
persons receiving instruction at the Academy under section 9344
of this title.
(b) Limitations on Number and Duration of Exchanges.--An
exchange agreement under this section between the Secretary and
a foreign country shall provide for the exchange of students on
a one-for-one basis each fiscal year. Not more than 10 Air
Force cadets and a comparable number of students from all
foreign military academies participating in the exchange
program may be exchanged during any fiscal year. The duration
of an exchange may not exceed the equivalent of one academic
semester at the Air Force Academy.
(c) Costs and Expenses.--(1) A student from a military
academy of a foreign country is not entitled to the pay,
allowances, and emoluments of an Air Force cadet by reason of
attendance at the Air Force Academy under the exchange program,
and the Department of Defense may not incur any cost of
international travel required for transportation of such a
student to and from the sponsoring foreign country.
(2) The Secretary may provide a student from a foreign
country under the exchange program, during the period of the
exchange, with subsistence, transportation within the
continental United States, clothing, health care, and other
services to the same extent that the foreign country provides
comparable support and services to the exchanged Air Force
cadet in that foreign country.
(3) The Air Force Academy shall bear all costs of the
exchange program from funds appropriated for the Academy.
Expenditures in support of the exchange program may not exceed
$50,000 during any fiscal year.
(d) Application of Other Laws.--Subsections (c) and (d) of
section 9344 of this title shall apply with respect to a
student enrolled at a military academy of a foreign country
while attending the Air Force Academy under the exchange
program.
(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe regulations
to implement this section. Such regulations may include
qualification criteria and methods of selection for students of
foreign military academies to participate in the exchange
program.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9353. Cadets: degree and commission on graduation
(a) [After the date of the accrediting of the Academy, the]
The Superintendent of the Academy may, under such conditions as
the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe, confer the degree
of bachelor of science upon graduates of the Academy.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 949--REAL PROPERTY
Sec.
9771. Acceptance of donations: land for mobilization, training, supply
base, or aviation field.
* * * * * * *
9782. Maintenance and repair of real property.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9782. Maintenance and repair of real property
(a) Allocation of Funds.--The Secretary of the Air Force
shall allocate funds authorized to be appropriated by a
provision described in subsection (c) and a provision described
in subsection (d) for maintenance and repair of real property
at military installations of the Department of the Air Force
without regard to whether the installation is supported with
funds authorized by a provision described in subsection (c) or
(d).
(b) Mixing of Funds Prohibited on Individual Projects.--The
Secretary of the Air Force may not combine funds authorized to
be appropriated by a provision described in subsection (c) and
funds authorized to be appropriated by a provision described in
subsection (d) for an individual project for maintenance and
repair of real property at a military installation of the
Department of the Air Force.
(c) Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Funds.--The
provision described in this subsection is a provision of a
national defense authorization Act that authorizes funds to be
appropriated for a fiscal year to the Air Force for research,
development, test, and evaluation.
(d) Operation and Maintenance Funds.--The provision described
in this subsection is a provision of a national defense
authorization Act that authorizes funds to be appropriated for
a fiscal year to the Air Force for operation and maintenance.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Reserve Components
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1005--ELEMENTS OF RESERVE COMPONENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 10144. Ready Reserve: Individual Ready Reserve
(a) Within the Ready Reserve of each of the reserve
components there is an Individual Ready Reserve. The Individual
Ready Reserve consists of those members of the Ready Reserve
who are not in the Selected Reserve or the inactive National
Guard.
(b)(1) Within the Individual Ready Reserve of each reserve
component there is a category of members, as designated by the
Secretary concerned, who are subject to being ordered to active
duty involuntarily in accordance with section 12304 of this
title. A member may not be placed in that mobilization category
unless--
(A) the member volunteers for that category; and
(B) the member is selected for that category by the
Secretary concerned, based upon the needs of the
service and the grade and military skills of that
member.
(2) A member of the Individual Ready Reserve may not be
carried in such mobilization category of members after the end
of the 24-month period beginning on the date of the separation
of the member from active service.
(3) The Secretary shall designate the grades and military
skills or specialities of members to be eligible for placement
in such mobilization category.
(4) A member in such mobilization category shall be eligible
for benefits (other than pay and training) as are normally
available to members of the Selected Reserve, as determined by
the Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1007--ADMINISTRATION OF RESERVE COMPONENTS
Sec.
10201. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
* * * * * * *
[10216. Military technicians.]
10216. Military technicians (dual status).
10217. Non-dual status military technicians.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 10216. Military technicians
[(a) In General.--Military technicians are Federal civilian
employees hired under title 5 and title 32 who are required to
maintain dual-status as drilling reserve component members as a
condition of their Federal civilian employment. Such employees
shall be authorized and accounted for as a separate category of
dual-status civilian employees, exempt as specified in
subsection (b)(3) from any general or regulatory requirement
for adjustments in Department of Defense civilian personnel.]
Sec. 10216. Military technicians (dual status)
(a) In General.--(1) For purposes of this section and any
other provision of law, a military technician (dual status) is
a Federal civilian employee who--
(A) is employed under section 3101 of title 5 or
section 709 of title 32;
(B) is required as a condition of that employment to
maintain membership in the Selected Reserve; and
(C) is assigned to a position as a technician in the
administration and training of the Selected Reserve or
in the maintenance and repair of supplies or equipment
issued to the Selected Reserve or the armed forces.
(2) Military technicians (dual status) shall be authorized
and accounted for as a separate category of civilian employees.
(b) Priority for Management of Military Technicians (Dual
Status).--(1) As a basis for making the annual request to
Congress pursuant to section 115(g) of this title for
authorization of end strengths for military technicians (dual
status) of the Army and Air Force reserve components, the
Secretary of Defense shall give priority to supporting
authorizations for [dual status military technicians] military
technicians (dual status) in the following high-priority units
and organizations:
(A) Units of the Selected Reserve that are scheduled
to deploy no later than 90 days after mobilization.
(B) Units of the Selected Reserve that are or will
deploy to relieve active duty peacetime operations
tempo.
(C) Those organizations with the primary mission of
providing direct support surface and aviation
maintenance for the reserve components of the Army and
Air Force, to the extent that the military technicians
(dual status) in such units would mobilize and deploy
in a skill that is compatible with their civilian
position skill.
(2) For each fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense shall, for
the high-priority units and organizations referred to in
paragraph (1), seek to achieve a programmed manning level for
military technicians (dual status) that is not less than 90
percent of the programmed manpower structure for those units
and organizations for military technicians (dual status) for
that fiscal year.
(3) Military technician (dual status) authorizations and
personnel shall be exempt from any requirement (imposed by law
or otherwise) for reductions in Department of Defense civilian
personnel and shall only be reduced as part of military force
structure reductions.
(c) Information Required To Be Submitted With Annual End
Strength Authorization Request.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
shall include as part of the budget justification documents
submitted to Congress with the budget of the Department of
Defense for any fiscal year the following information with
respect to the end strengths for military technicians (dual
status) requested in that budget pursuant to section 115(g) of
this title, shown separately for each of the Army and Air Force
reserve components:
(A) The number of [dual-status technicians] military
technicians (dual status) in the high priority units
and organizations specified in [subsection (a)(1)]
subsection (b)(1).
(B) The number of technicians other than [dual-status
technicians] military technicians (dual status) in the
high priority units and organizations specified in
[subsection (a)(1)] subsection (b)(1).
(C) The number of [dual-status technicians] military
technicians (dual status) in other than high priority
units and organizations specified in [subsection
(a)(1)] subsection (b)(1).
(D) The number of technicians other than [dual-status
technicians] military technicians (dual status) in
other than high priority units and organizations
specified in [subsection (a)(1)] subsection (b)(1).
(2)(A) If the budget submitted to Congress for any fiscal
year requests authorization for that fiscal year under section
115(g) of this title of a military technician (dual status) end
strength for a reserve component of the Army or Air Force in a
number that constitutes a reduction from the end strength
minimum established by law for that reserve component for the
fiscal year during which the budget is submitted, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees
with that budget a justification providing the basis for that
requested reduction in technician end strength.
(B) Any justification submitted under subparagraph (A) shall
clearly [delineate--
[(i) in the case of a reduction that includes a
reduction in technicians described in subparagraph (A)
or (C) of paragraph (1), the specific force structure
reductions forming the basis for such requested
technician reduction (and the numbers related to those
force structure reductions); and
[(ii) in the case of a reduction that includes
reductions in technicians described in subparagraphs
(B) or (D) of paragraph (1), the specific force
structure reductions, Department of Defense civilian
personnel reductions, or other reasons] delineate the
specific force structure reductions forming the basis
for such requested technician reduction (and the
numbers related to those reductions).
[(d) Dual-Status Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall
require the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air
Force to establish as a condition of employment for each
individual who is hired after February 10, 1996, as a military
technician that the individual maintain membership in the
Selected Reserve (so as to be a so-called ``dual-status''
technician) and shall require that the civilian and military
position skill requirements of dual-status military technicians
be compatible. No Department of Defense funds may be spent for
compensation for any military technician hired after February
10, 1996, who is not a member of the Selected Reserve, except
that compensation may be paid for up to six months following
loss of membership in the Selected Reserve if such loss of
membership was not due to the failure to meet military
standards.]
(d) Unit Membership Requirement.--(1) Unless specifically
exempted by law, each individual who is hired as a military
technician (dual status) after December 1, 1995, shall be
required as a condition of that employment to maintain
membership in--
(A) the unit of the Selected Reserve by which the
individual is employed as a military technician; or
(B) a unit of the Selected Reserve that the
individual is employed as a military technician to
support.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a military technician
(dual status) who is employed by the Army Reserve in an area
other than Army Reserve troop program units.
(e) Dual-Status Requirement.--(1) Funds appropriated for the
Department of Defense may not (except as provided in paragraph
(2)) be used for compensation as a military technician of any
individual hired as a military technician after February 10,
1996, who is no longer a member of the Selected Reserve.
(2) The Secretary concerned may pay compensation described in
paragraph (1) to an individual described in that paragraph who
is no longer a member of the Selected Reserve for a period not
to exceed six months following the individual's loss of
membership in the Selected Reserve if the Secretary determines
such loss of membership was not due to the failure of that
individual to meet military standards.
Sec. 10217. Non-dual status military technicians
(a) Definition.--For the purposes of this section and any
other provision of law, a non-dual status military technician
is a civilian employee of the Department of Defense who--
(1) was hired as a military technician before the
date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 under any of the
authorities specified in subsection (d); and
(2) as of the date of the enactment of that Act is
not a member of the Selected Reserve or after such date
ceases to be a member of the Selected Reserve.
(b) Fiscal Year 1998 Limitation.--As of September 30 1998,
the number of civilian employees of a military department who
are non-dual status military technicians may not exceed the
following:
(1) For the Army Reserve, 1,200.
(2) For the Army National Guard of the United States,
2,260.
(3) For the Air Force Reserve, 0.
(4) For the Air National Guard of the United States,
395.
(c) Reductions for Future Years.--For each of the 10 fiscal
years beginning with fiscal year 1999, the Secretary of the
military department concerned shall reduce the number of non-
dual status military technicians under the jurisdiction of that
Secretary, as of the end of that fiscal year, from the
authorized number for the preceding fiscal year by not less--
(1) 120, for the Army Reserve;
(2) 226, for the Army National Guard of the United
States; and
(3) 39, for the Air National Guard of the United
States.
(d) Employment Authorities.--The authorities referred to in
subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Section 10216 of this title.
(2) Section 709 of title 32.
(3) The requirements referred to in section 8401 of
title 5.
(4) Section 8016 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-61; 109 Stat.
654), and any comparable provision provided on an
annual basis in the Department of Defense
Appropriations Acts for fiscal years 1984 through 1995.
(5) Any memorandum of agreement between the
Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel
Management providing for the hiring of military
technicians.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1013--BUDGET INFORMATION AND ANNUAL REPORTS TO CONGRESS
Sec.
10541. National Guard and reserve component equipment: annual report to
Congress.
* * * * * * *
10544. Budget information.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 10544. Budget information
(a) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional committees specified in subsection (d), at the
same time that the President submits the budget for a fiscal
year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, a
report on amounts requested in that budget for the reserve
components.
(b) Content.--The report shall include the following:
(1) A description of the anticipated effect that the
amounts requested (if approved by Congress) will have
to enhance the capabilities of each of the reserve
components.
(2) A listing, with respect to each such component,
of each of the following:
(A) The amount requested for each major
weapon system for which funds are requested in
the budget for that component.
(B) The amount requested for each item of
equipment (other than a major weapon system)
for which funds are requested in the budget for
that component.
(c) Inclusion of Information in Next FYDP.--The Secretary of
Defense shall specifically display in the each future-years
defense program (or program revision) submitted to Congress
under section 221 of this title the amounts programmed for
procurement of equipment for each of the reserve components.
(d) Congressional Committees Specified.--The congressional
committees referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate.
(2) The Committee on National Security and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
(e) Exclusion of Coast Guard Reserve.--In this section, the
term ``reserve components'' does not include the Coast Guard
Reserve.
PART II--PERSONNEL GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1201--AUTHORIZED STRENGTHS AND DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12011. Authorized strengths: reserve officers on active duty or on
full-time National Guard duty for administration of
the reserves or the National Guard
(a) The number of reserve officers of the Army, Air Force,
and Marine Corps who may be on active duty or full-time
National Guard duty in each of the grades of major, lieutenant
colonel, and colonel, and of the Navy who may be on active duty
in each of the grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and
captain, as of the end of any fiscal year for duty described in
subclauses (B) and (C) of section 523(b)(1) of this title or
full-time National Guard duty (other than for training) under
section 502(f) of title 32 may not exceed the number for that
grade and armed force in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
[Grade Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major or Lieutenant Commander....... 3,219 1,071 643 140
Lieutenant Colonel or Commander..... 1,524 520 672 90
Colonel or Navy Captain............. 412 188 274 30]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
Grade Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major or Lieutenant Commander....... 3,219 1,071 673 140
Lieutenant Colonel or Commander..... 1,524 520 672 90
Colonel or Navy Captain............. 437 188 274 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12012. Authorized strengths: senior enlisted members on active
duty or on full-time National Guard duty for
administration of the reserves or the National
Guard
(a) The number of enlisted members in pay grades E-8 and E-9
who may be on active duty (other than for training) or on full-
time National Guard duty under the authority of section 502(f)
of title 32 (other than for training) as of the end of any
fiscal year in connection with organizing, administering,
recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components or
the National Guard may not exceed the number for that grade and
armed force in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
[Grade Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9................................. 603 202 366 20
E-8................................. 2,585 429 890 94]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
Grade Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9................................. 627 202 371 20
E-8................................. 2,585 429 900 94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1209--ACTIVE DUTY
Sec.
12301. Reserve components generally.
* * * * * * *
[12304. Selected Reserve; order to active duty other than during war or
national emergency.]
12304. Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready Reserve members;
order to active duty other than during war or national
emergency
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 12304. Selected Reserve; order to active duty other than during
war or national emergency]
Sec. 12304. Selected Reserve and certain Individual Ready Reserve
members; order to active duty other than during war
or national emergency
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12302(a) or any
other provision of law, when the President determines that it
is necessary to augment the active forces for any operational
mission, he may authorize the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard
when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, without the
consent of the members concerned, to order any unit, and any
member not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit of
the Selected Reserve (as defined in section 10143(a) of this
title), or any member in the Individual Ready Reserve
mobilization category and designated as essential under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, under their
respective jurisdictions, to active duty (other than for
training) for not more than 270 days.
* * * * * * *
(c) Not more than 200,000 members of the Selected Reserve and
the Individual Ready Reserve may be on active duty under this
section at any one time, of whom not more than 30,000 may be
members of the Individual Ready Reserve.
* * * * * * *
(f) Whenever the President authorizes the Secretary of
Defense or the Secretary of Transportation to order any unit or
member of the Selected Reserve or Individual Ready Reserve to
active duty, under the authority of subsection (a), he shall,
within 24 hours after exercising such authority, submit to
Congress a report, in writing, setting forth the circumstances
necessitating the action taken under this section and
describing the anticipated use of these units or members.
(g) Whenever any unit of the Selected Reserve or any member
of the Selected Reserve not assigned to a unit organized to
serve as a unit, or member of the Individual Ready Reserve, is
ordered to active duty under authority of subsection (a), the
service of all units or members so ordered to active duty may
be terminated by--
(1) order of the President, or
(2) law.
* * * * * * *
(i) For purposes of this section, the term ``Individual Ready
Reserve mobilization category'' means, in the case of any
reserve component, the category of the Individual Ready Reserve
described in section 10144(b) of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1214--READY RESERVE MOBILIZATION INCOME INSURANCE
Sec.
12521. Definitions.
* * * * * * *
12533. Termination of program.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12533. Termination of program
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall terminate the insurance
program in accordance with this section.
(b) Termination of New Enrollments.--The Secretary may not
enroll a member of the Ready Reserve for coverage under the
insurance program after the date of the enactment of this
section.
(c) Termination of Coverage.--(1) The enrollment under the
insurance program of insured members other than insured members
described in paragraph (2) is terminated as of the date of the
enactment of this section. The enrollment of an insured member
described in paragraph (2) is terminated as of the date of the
termination of the period of covered service of that member
described in that paragraph.
(2) An insured member described in this paragraph is an
insured member who on the date of the enactment of this section
is serving on covered service for a period of service, or has
been issued an order directing the performance of covered
service, that satisfies or would satisfy the entitlement-to-
benefits provisions of this chapter.
(d) Termination of Payment of Benefits.--The Secretary may
not make any benefit payment under the insurance program after
the date of the enactment of this section other than to an
insured member who on that date (1) is serving on an order to
covered service, (2) has been issued an order directing
performance of covered service, or (3) has served on covered
service before that date for which benefits under the program
have not been paid to the member.
(e) Termination of Insurance Fund.--The Secretary shall close
the Fund not later than 60 days after the date on which the
last benefit payment from the Fund is made. Any amount
remaining in the Fund when closed shall be covered into the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1223--RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12733. Computation of retired pay: computation of years of service
For the purpose of computing the retired pay of a person
under this chapter, the person's years of service and any
fraction of such a year are computed by dividing 360 into the
sum of the following:
(1) The person's days of active service.
(2) The person's days of full-time service under
sections 316, 502, 503, 504, and 505 of title 32 while
performing annual training duty or while attending a
prescribed course of instruction at a school designated
as a service school by law or by the Secretary
concerned.
(3) One day for each point credited to the person
under clause (B), (C), or (D) of section 12732(a)(2) of
this title, but not more than 60 days in any one year
of service before the year of service in which [the
date of the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997] September 23,
1996, occurs and not more than 75 days in any
subsequent year of service.
(4) 50 days for each year before July 1, 1949, and
proportionately for each fraction of a year, of service
(other than active service) in a reserve component of
an armed force, in the Army or the Air Force without
component, or in any other category covered by section
12732(a)(1) of this title, except a regular component.
* * * * * * *
PART III--PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-
STATUS LIST
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1403--SELECTION BOARDS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14101. Convening of selection boards
(a) Promotion Boards.--(1) * * *
(2) A promotion board convened to recommend reserve officers
of the Army or reserve officers of the Air Force for promotion
(A) to fill a position vacancy under section 14315 of this
title, or (B) to the grade of brigadier general or major
general, shall [(except in the case of a board convened to
consider officers as provided in section 14301(e) of this
title)] be known as a ``vacancy promotion board''. Any other
promotion board convened under this subsection shall be known
as a ``mandatory promotion board''.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1405--PROMOTIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14301. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: general rules
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Previously Selected Officers Not Eligible To Be
Considered.--A promotion board convened under section 14101(a)
of this title may not consider for promotion to the next higher
[grade--] grade any of the following officers:
(1) [an officer] An officer whose name is on a
promotion list for that grade as a result of
recommendation for promotion to that grade by an
earlier selection board convened under that section or
section 14502 of this title or under chapter 36 of this
title[;].
(2) An officer who is recommended for promotion to
that grade in the report of an earlier selection board
convened under a provision referred to in paragraph
(1), in the case of such a report that has not yet been
approved by the President.
[(2) an officer] (3) An officer who has been approved
for Federal recognition by a board convened under
section 307 of title 32 and nominated by the President
for promotion to [the next higher grade] that grade as
a reserve of the Army or of the Air Force as the case
may be, if that nomination is pending before the Senate
[; or].
[(3) an officer] (4) An officer who has been
nominated by the President for promotion to [the next
higher grade] that grade under any other provision of
law, if that nomination is pending before the Senate.
* * * * * * *
[(e) Reserve Officers of the Army; Consideration for
Brigadier General and Major General.--In the case of officers
of the Army, if the Secretary of the Army determines that
vacancies are authorized or anticipated in the reserve grades
of major general or brigadier general for officers who are on
the reserve active-status list and who are not assigned to
units organized to serve as a unit and the Secretary convenes a
mandatory promotion board under section 14101(a) of this title
to consider officers for promotion to fill such vacancies, the
Secretary may limit the officers to be considered by that board
to those determined to be exceptionally well qualified for
promotion under such criteria and procedures as the Secretary
may by regulation prescribe.]
[(f)] (e) Certain Reserve Officers of the Air Force.--A
reserve officer of the Air Force who (1) is in the Air National
Guard of the United States and holds the grade of lieutenant
colonel, colonel, or brigadier general, or (2) is in the Air
Force Reserve and holds the grade of colonel or brigadier
general, is not eligible for consideration for promotion by a
mandatory promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of
this title.
[(g)] (f) Nonconsideration of Officers Scheduled for Removal
From Reserve Active-Status List.--The Secretary of the military
department concerned may, by regulation, provide for the
exclusion from consideration for promotion by a promotion board
of any officer otherwise eligible to be considered by the board
who has an established date for removal from the reserve
active-status list that is not more than 90 days after the date
on which the selection board for which the officer would
otherwise be eligible is to be convened.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14308. Promotions: how made
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve Promotions To Fill
Vacancies.--Subject to this section and to section 14311(e) of
this title, and under regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of the military department concerned--
(1) an officer in the Army Reserve or the Air Force
Reserve who is on a promotion list as a result of
selection for promotion by a mandatory promotion board
convened under section 14101(a) of this title or a
board convened under section 14502 or chapter 36 of
this title may be promoted at any time to fill a
vacancy in a position to which the officer is assigned;
and
(2) an officer in a grade below colonel in the Army
Reserve or the Air Force Reserve who is on a promotion
list as a result of selection for promotion by a
vacancy promotion board convened under section 14101(a)
of this title may be promoted at any time to fill the
vacancy for which the officer was selected.
* * * * * * *
(g) Army and Air Force General Officer Promotions.--A reserve
officer of the Army or the Air Force who is on a promotion list
for promotion to the grade of brigadier general or major
general as a result of selection by a vacancy promotion board
may be promoted to that grade only to fill a vacancy [in that
grade in a unit of the Army Reserve that is organized to serve
as a unit and that has attained the strength prescribed by the
Secretary of the Army. A reserve officer of the Air Force who
is on a promotion list for promotion to the grade of brigadier
general or major general as a result of selection by a vacancy
promotion board may be promoted to that grade only to fill a
vacancy in the Air Force Reserve in that grade.] in the Army
Reserve or the Air Force Reserve, as the case may be, in that
grade.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14315. Position vacancy promotions: Army and Air Force officers
(a) * * *
(b) Consideration for Vacancy Promotion to Brigadier General
or Major General.--(1) A reserve officer of the Army who is in
the Army Reserve and on the reserve active-status list in the
grade of colonel or brigadier general may be considered for
promotion to the next higher grade under this section if the
officer (A) is assigned to [the duties of a general officer of
the next higher reserve grade in a unit of the Army Reserve
organized to serve as a unit,] duties of a general officer of
the next higher reserve grade in the Army Reserve, (B) has held
the officer's present grade for the minimum period of service
prescribed in section 14303 of this title for eligibility for
consideration for promotion to the higher grade, and (C) meets
the standards for consideration prescribed by the Secretary of
the Army.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1407--FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND INVOLUNTARY
SEPARATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14508. Removal from the reserve active-status list for years of
service: reserve general and flag officers
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Retention of Brigadier Generals.--A reserve officer of
the Army or Air Force in the grade of brigadier general who
would otherwise be removed from an active status under
subsection (a) may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the
Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be, be
retained in an active status, but [not later than the date on
which the officer becomes 60 years of age] not later than the
last day of the month in which the officer becomes 60 years of
age. Not more than 10 officers of the Army and not more than 10
officers of the Air Force may be retained under this subsection
at any one time.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1409--CONTINUATION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS
LIST AND SELECTIVE EARLY REMOVAL
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14702. Retention on reserve active-status list of certain officers
until age 60
(a) Retention.--Notwithstanding the provisions of [section
14506 or 14507] section 14506, 14507, or 14508 of this title,
the Secretary of the military department concerned may, with
the officer's consent, retain on the reserve active-status list
an officer in the grade of major, lieutenant colonel, [or
colonel] colonel, or brigadier general who is--
(1) an officer of the Army National Guard of the
United States and assigned to a headquarters or
headquarters detachment of a State; or
(2) a reserve officer of the Army or Air Force who,
as a condition of continued employment as a National
Guard or Reserve technician is required by the
Secretary concerned to maintain membership in a
Selected Reserve unit or organization.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1411--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14906. Officers eligible to serve on boards
(a) Composition of Boards.--(1) Each officer who serves on a
board convened under this chapter shall be an officer of the
same armed force as the officer being required to show cause
for retention in an active status.
(2) An officer may not serve on a board under this chapter
unless the officer holds [a grade above lieutenant colonel or
commander] the grade of lieutenant colonel or commander or a
higher grade and is senior in grade and rank to any officer
considered by the board.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1609--EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions
officers serving in Selected Reserve with wartime
critical medical skill shortages
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only
in the case of a person first appointed as a commissioned
officer before [October 1, 1998] October 1, 1999.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--National Oceanographic Partnership Program
* * * * * * *
SEC. 282. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Initial Appointments of Advisory Panel Members.--The
National Ocean Research Leadership Council established by
section 7902 of title 10, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a)(1), shall make the appointments required by
section 7903 of such title not later than January 1, 1997.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions
* * * * * * *
SEC. 327. AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES OF OTHER AGENCIES IN SUPPORT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY CERTIFICATION.
(a) Authority.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of
Defense may enter into a cooperative agreement with an agency
of a State or local government, or with an Indian tribe, to
obtain assistance in certifying environmental technologies.
(b) Limitations.--The Secretary of Defense may enter into a
cooperative agreement with respect to an environmental
technology under subsection (a) only if the Secretary
determines--
(1) that the technology has clear potential to be of
significant value to the Department of Defense [in
carrying out its environmental restoration activities];
and
* * * * * * *
(e) Definition.--In this section, the term `Indian tribe' has
the meaning given that term by section 101(36) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(36)).
[(e)] (f) Termination of Authority.--The authority provided
under subsection (a) shall terminate five years after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 333. NAVY PROGRAM TO MONITOR ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ORGANOTIN.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Report.--Not later than [June 1] October 30, 1997, the
Secretary of the Navy shall submit to Congress a report
containing the following:
[(1) A description of the monitoring program
developed pursuant to subsection (a).
[(2) An analysis of the results of the monitoring
program as of the date of the submission of the
report.]
[(3)] (1) Information about the progress of Navy
programs, referred to in section 7(c) of the Organotin
Antifouling Paint Control Act of 1988 (33 U.S.C.
2406(c)), for evaluating the laboratory toxicity and
environmental risks associated with the use of
antifouling paints containing organotin.
[(4)] (2) An assessment, developed in consultation
with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, of the effectiveness of existing laws and rules
concerning organotin compounds in ensuring protection
of human health and the environment.
(3) A description of the present and future use, if
any, of antifouling paints containing organotin on
naval vessels.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle F--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 367. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SUPPORT FOR SPORTING EVENTS.
(a) Authority To Provide Support.--[Subchapter II of chapter]
Chapter 152 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 2554. Provision of support for certain sporting events
``(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such [subchapter] chapter is amended by adding at
the end the following new item:
``2554. Provision of support for certain sporting events.''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
* * * * * * *
SEC. 614. SPECIAL PAY FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE OFFICERS.
(a) * * *
(b) Nonphysician Health Care Providers.--Section 302c(d) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended--
(1) * * *
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking out ``or'' the third place it
appears; and
(B) by inserting before [the period] the
semicolon at the end the following: ``, or an
officer in the Regular or Reserve Corps of the
Public Health Service''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Uniformed Services Treatment Facilities
* * * * * * *
SEC. 722. INCLUSION OF DESIGNATED PROVIDERS IN UNIFORMED SERVICES
HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Effective Date of Agreements.--(1) Unless an earlier
effective date is agreed upon by the Secretary and the
designated provider, the agreement shall take effect upon the
later of the following:
[(1)] (A) The date on which a managed care support
contract under the TRICARE program is implemented in
the service area of the designated provider.
[(2)] (B) October 1, 1997.
(2) The Secretary may modify the effective date established
under paragraph (1) for an agreement to permit a transition
period of not more than six months between the date on which
the agreement is executed by the parties and the date on which
the designated provider commences the delivery of health care
services under the agreement.
(d) Temporary Continuation of Existing Participation
Agreements.--The Secretary shall extend the participation
agreement of a designated provider in effect immediately before
the date of the enactment of this Act under section 718(c) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991
(Public Law 101-510; 42 U.S.C. 248c) until the agreement
required by this section takes effect under subsection (c),
including any transitional period provided by the Secretary
under paragraph (2) of such subsection.
* * * * * * *
(g) Continued Acquisition of Reduced-Cost Drugs.--A
designated provider shall be treated as part of the Department
of Defense for purposes of section 8126 of title 38, United
States Code, in connection with the provision by the designated
provider of health care services to covered beneficiaries
pursuant to the participation agreement of the designated
provider under section 718(c) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510; 42
U.S.C. 248c note) or pursuant to the agreement entered into
under subsection (b).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 726. PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES.
(a) * * *
(b) Limitation on Total Payments.--Total capitation payments
for health care services to a designated provider shall not
exceed an amount equal to the cost that would have been
incurred by the Government if the enrollees had received such
health care services through a military treatment facility, the
TRICARE program, or the Medicare program, as the case may be.
In establishing the ceiling rate for enrollees with the
designated providers who are also eligible for the Civilian
Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, the
Secretary of Defense shall take into account the health status
of the enrollees.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Acquisition Management
* * * * * * *
SEC. 802. EXTENSION OF PILOT MENTOR-PROTEGE PROGRAM.
Section 831(j) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991 (10 U.S.C. 2302 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``[1995] 1996''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``1998''; and
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 829. ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE
AND DEPENDENCY OF BASE ON SUPPLIES AVAILABLE ONLY
FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Periodic Defense Capability Assessments, Including
Foreign Dependency.--(1) * * *
(2) [Section 2502(b)] Section 2502(c) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking out ``the following
responsibilities:'' and all that follows through
``effective cooperation'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``the responsibility to ensure effective cooperation'';
and
(B) by striking out paragraph (2); and
[(3)] (C) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively, and adjusting the
margin of such paragraphs two ems to the left.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 3156. REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEARS AFTER FISCAL YEAR 1997.
[(a) In General.--The weapons activities budget of the
Department of Energy for any fiscal year after fiscal year 1997
shall--
[(1) set forth with respect to each of the activities
under the budget (including stockpile stewardship,
stockpile management, and program direction) the
funding requested to carry out each project or activity
that is necessary to meet the requirements of the
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum; and
[(2) identify specific infrastructure requirements
arising from the Nuclear Posture Review, the Nuclear
Weapons Stockpile Memorandum, and the programmatic and
technical requirements associated with the review and
memorandum.
[(b) Required Detail.--The Secretary of Energy shall include
in the materials that the Secretary submits to Congress in
support of the budget for any fiscal year after fiscal year
1997 that is submitted by the President pursuant to section
1105 of title 31, United States Code, the following:
[(1) A long-term program plan, and a near-term
program plan, for the certification and stewardship of
the nuclear weapons stockpile.
[(2) An assessment of the effects of the plans
referred to in paragraph (1) on each nuclear weapons
laboratory and each nuclear weapons production plant.
[(c) Definitions.--In this section:
[(1) The term ``Nuclear Posture Review'' means the
Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review as
contained in the report of the Secretary of Defense to
the President and Congress dated February 19, 1995, or
in subsequent such reports.
[(2) The term ``nuclear weapons laboratory'' means
the following:
[(A) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
California.
[(B) Los Alamos National Laboratory, New
Mexico.
[(C) Sandia National Laboratories.
[(3) The term ``nuclear weapons production plant''
means the following:
[(A) The Pantex Plant, Texas.
[(B) The Savannah River Site, South Carolina.
[(C) The Kansas City Plant, Missouri.
[(D) The Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.]
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 257. DEFENSE EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE
RESEARCH.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Eligible States.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) In this section, the term ``State'' means a State
of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 818. PAYMENT OF RESTRUCTURING COSTS UNDER DEFENSE CONTRACTS.
[(a) Certification of Cost Savings.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense may not, under section 2324 of title 10, United States
Code, pay restructuring costs associated with a business
combination undertaken by a defense contractor until the
Department of Defense reviews the projected costs and savings
that will result for the Department from such business
combination and an official of the Department of Defense at the
level of Assistant Secretary of Defense or above certifies in
writing that projections of future cost savings resulting for
the Department from the business combination are based on
audited cost data and should result in overall reduced costs to
the Department.
[(2) The requirements for a review and certification under
paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any business
combination for which restructuring costs were paid or
otherwise approved by the Secretary before August 15, 1994.]
* * * * * * *
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3161. AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC,
ENGINEERING, AND TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) EPA Study.--(1) Upon the 50th appointment made by the
Secretary pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B), the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with
the Secretary, shall conduct a study of the effects of the
implementation of such subsection on the conduct of remedial
actions at sites on the National Priorities List.
[(2) The study shall assess whether serious problems have
resulted at any site on the National Priorities List from
appointments made pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B) of persons
whose employment, at the time of the appointment, involved
remedial actions or other similar activities at the site.
[(3) For purposes of this subsection, a serious problem
includes any of the following occurrences:
[(A) A significant delay or significant disruption of
a schedule for completion of a remedial action at the
site.
[(B) A significant escalation of the personnel costs
for the remedial action.
[(C) A significant exacerbation of any shortage in
the number of critical personnel at the site.
[(4) The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary,
shall submit to Congress a report on the study conducted under
paragraph (1). The report shall be submitted not later than 30
days after the date upon which the Secretary has made the 50th
appointment pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B). The Secretary may
not make more than 50 such appointments until the submission of
the report.
[(5) If, as a result of the study conducted under paragraph
(1), the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary,
determines that serious problems have resulted at any site on
the National Priorities List from appointments made pursuant to
subsection (a)(1)(B), the Administrator and the Secretary shall
jointly submit to Congress, together with the report referred
to in paragraph (4), a plan to ameliorate the effects of those
serious problems. Under the plan, the Administrator and the
Secretary shall provide for--
[(A) a reduction in the rate at which persons are
appointed pursuant to such subsection;
[(B) the making of appointments pursuant to such
subsection of persons other than persons whose
employment, at the time of the appointment, involved
remedial actions or other similar activities at sites
on the National Priorities List; or
[(C) any other effective alternative to appointing
persons described in subparagraph (B) that the
Administrator and the Secretary consider appropriate.
[(6) To carry out this section, the Secretary shall regularly
provide to the Administrator the following information:
[(A) The relevant previous places of employment of
each person appointed pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(B).
[(B) The site on the National Priorities List, if the
employment of such person, at the time of the
appointment of that person pursuant to such subsection,
involved remedial actions or other similar activities
at the site.]
(d) Termination.--(1) The authority provided under subsection
(a)(1) shall terminate on September 30, [1997] 1999.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 234 OF THE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ACT OF 1995
SEC. 234. THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE ARCHITECTURE.
(a) Establishment of Core Program.--To implement the policy
established in paragraph (1) of section 233, the Secretary of
Defense shall restructure the core theater missile defense
program to consist of the following systems[, to be carried out
so as to achieve the specified capabilities]:
(1) The Patriot PAC-3 system[, with a first unit
equipped (FUE) during fiscal year 1998].
(2) The [Navy Lower Tier (Area) system, with a user
operational evaluation system (UOES) capability during
fiscal year 1997 and an initial operational capability
(IOC) during fiscal year 1999] Navy Area Defense
system.
(3) The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
system, [with a] to be carried out so as to achieve a
user operational evaluation system (UOES) capability
not later than [fiscal year 1998] fiscal year 2000 and
a first unit equipped (FUE) not later than [fiscal year
2000] fiscal year 2004.
(4) [The Navy Upper Tier (Theater Wide) system, with]
Navy Theater Wide system, to be carried out so as to
achieve a user operational evaluation system (UOES)
capability during fiscal year 1999 and an initial
operational capability (IOC) during fiscal year 2001.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Other Ballistic Missile Defense Provisions
SEC. 251. BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM ELEMENTS.
(a) Elements Specified.--In the budget justification
materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of
Defense budget for any fiscal year after fiscal year 1996 (as
submitted with the budget of the President under section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code), the amount requested
for activities of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
shall be set forth in accordance with the following program
elements:
(1) The Patriot system.
(2) [The Navy Lower Tier (Area) system] Navy Area
Defense system.
(3) The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)
system.
(4) [The Navy Upper Tier (Theater Wide) system] Navy
Theater Wide system.
(5) The Corps Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) system.
(6) Other Theater Missile Defense Activities.
(7) National Missile Defense.
(8) Follow-On and Support Technologies.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources
* * * * * * *
SEC. 354. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY OVERPAYMENTS MADE TO
VENDORS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a
demonstration program to evaluate the feasibility of using
private contractors to audit accounting and procurement records
of the Department of Defense in order to identify overpayments
made to vendors by the Department. [The demonstration program
shall be conducted for the Defense Logistics Agency and include
the Defense Personnel Support Center.]
(b) Program Requirements.--(1) Under the demonstration
program, the Secretary shall, by contract, provide for one or
more persons to audit the accounting and procurement records
[of the Defense Logistics Agency that relate to (at least)
fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995] relating to fiscal years
after fiscal year 1993 of the working-capital funds and
industrial, commercial, and support type activities managed
through the Defense Business Operations Fund, except the
Defense Logistics Agency to the extent such records have
already been audited. The Secretary may enter into more than
one contract under the program.
* * * * * * *
[(d) Bonus Payment.--To the extent provided for in a contract
under the demonstration program, the Secretary may pay the
contractor a bonus in addition to any other amount paid for
performance of the contract. The amount of such bonus may not
exceed the amount that is equal to 25 percent of all amounts
recovered by the United States on the basis of information
obtained as a result of the audit performed under the contract.
Any such bonus shall be paid out of amounts made available
pursuant to subsection (e).
[(e) Availability of Funds.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to section 301(5), not more than
$5,000,000 shall be available for the demonstration program.]
(d) Collection Method.--In the case of an overpayment to a
vendor identified under the demonstration program, the
Secretary shall require the use of the procedures specified in
section 32.611 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, regarding
a setoff against existing invoices for payment to the vendor,
as the first method by which the Department shall seek to
recover the amount of the overpayment (and any applicable
interest and penalties) from the vendor.
(e) Fees for Contractor.--The Secretary shall pay to the
contractor under the contract entered into under the
demonstration program an amount not to exceed 25 percent of the
total amount recovered by the Department (through the
collection of overpayments and the use of setoffs) solely on
the basis of information obtained as a result of the audits
performed by the contractor under the program. When an
overpayment is recovered through the use of a setoff, amounts
for the required payment to the contractor shall be derived
from funds available to the working-capital fund or industrial,
commercial, or support type activity for which the overpayment
is recovered.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Officer Education Programs
PART I--SERVICE ACADEMIES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 533. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR ATHLETIC DIRECTOR AND
NONAPPROPRIATED FUND ACCOUNT FOR THE ATHLETICS
PROGRAMS AT THE SERVICE ACADEMIES.
(a) * * *
(b) United States Naval Academy.--Section 556 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-
337; 108 Stat. 2774) is amended by striking out subsections (b)
and (e) and the amendments made by subsection (b), effective as
of October 5, 1994.
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
SEC. 1001. TRANSFER AUTHORITY.
(a) Authority To Transfer Authorizations.--(1) * * *
(2) The total amount of authorizations that the Secretary of
Defense may transfer under the authority of this section may
not exceed [$2,000,000,000] $3,100,000,000.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XV--TECHNICAL AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS
SEC. 1501. AMENDMENTS RELATED TO RESERVE OFFICER PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
ACT.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Cross References in Other Defense Laws.--
(1) Section [337(b)] 377(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-
337; 108 Stat. [2717] 2737) is amended by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``or who
after November 30, 1994, transferred to the Retired
Reserve under section 10154(2) of title 10, United
States Code, without having completed the years of
service required under section 12731(a)(2) of such
title for eligibility for retired pay under chapter
1223 of such title''.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances Generally
PART I--ARMY CONVEYANCES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2858. LAND CONVEYANCE, INDIANA ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT, CHARLESTOWN,
INDIANA.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--(1) The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the State of Indiana (in this
section referred to as the ``State''), all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
property, including any improvements thereon, that consists of
approximately 1125 acres at the inactivated Indiana Army
Ammunition Plant in Charlestown, Indiana, and is the subject of
a 25-year lease between the Secretary and the State.
(2) The Secretary may also convey to the State, without
consideration, an additional parcel of real property at the
Indiana Army Ammunition Plant consisting of approximately 500
acres located along the Ohio River.
(b) Condition of Conveyance.--The [conveyance] conveyances
authorized under subsection (a) shall be subject to the
condition that the State use the conveyed property for
recreational purposes.
* * * * * * *
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection with
the [conveyance] conveyances under subsection (a) as the
Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the
United States.
* * * * * * *
PART III--AIR FORCE CONVEYANCES
SEC. 2874. LAND ACQUISITION OR EXCHANGE, SHAW AIR FORCE BASE, SOUTH
CAROLINA.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Study of Exchange Options.--To facilitate the use of a
land exchange to acquire the real property described in
subsection (a), the Secretary of the Air Force shall conduct a
study to identify real property in the possession of the Air
Force (located in the State of South Carolina or elsewhere)
that satisfies the requirements of subsection (b)(2), is
acceptable to the party holding the property to be acquired,
and is otherwise suitable for exchange under this section. Not
later than three months after the date of the enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing the
results of the study.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 3153. MASTER PLAN FOR THE CERTIFICATION, STEWARDSHIP, AND
MANAGEMENT OF WARHEADS IN THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS
STOCKPILE.
[(a) Master Plan Requirement.--Not later than March 15, 1996,
the President shall submit to Congress a master plan for
maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile. The President shall
submit to Congress an update of the master plan not later than
March 15 of each year thereafter.
[(b) Plan Elements.--The master plan and each update of the
master plan shall set forth the following:
[(1) The numbers of weapons (including active and
inactive weapons) for each type of weapon in the
nuclear weapons stockpile.
[(2) The expected design lifetime of each weapon
type, the current age of each weapon type, and any
plans (including the analytical basis for such plans)
for lifetime extensions of a weapon type.
[(3) An estimate of the lifetime of the nuclear and
nonnuclear components of the weapons (including active
weapons and inactive weapons) in the nuclear weapons
stockpile, and any plans (including the analytical
basis for such plans) for lifetime extensions of such
components.
[(4) A schedule of the modifications, if any,
required for each weapon type (including active and
inactive weapons) in the nuclear weapons stockpile and
the cost of such modifications.
[(5) The process to be used in recertifying the
safety, reliability, and performance of each weapon
type (including active weapons and inactive weapons) in
the nuclear weapons stockpile.
[(6) The manufacturing infrastructure required to
maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship and
management programs, including a detailed project plan
that demonstrates the manner by which the Government
will develop by 2002 the capability to refabricate and
certify warheads in the nuclear weapons stockpile and
to design, fabricate, and certify new warheads.
[(c) Form of Plan.--The master plan and each update of the
master plan shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may
contain a classified appendix.]
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 3159. REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEARS AFTER FISCAL YEAR 1996.
[(a) In General.--The weapons activities budget of the
Department of Energy shall be developed in accordance with the
Nuclear Posture Review, the Post Nuclear Posture Review
Stockpile Memorandum currently under development, and the
programmatic and technical requirements associated with the
review and memorandum.
[(b) Required Detail.--The Secretary of Energy shall include
in the materials that the Secretary submits to Congress in
support of the budget for a fiscal year submitted by the
President pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States
Code, a long-term program plan, and a near-term program plan,
for the certification and stewardship of the nuclear weapons
stockpile.
[(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Nuclear Posture
Review'' means the Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review
as contained in the report of the Secretary of Defense to the
President and the Congress dated February 19, 1995, or in
subsequent such reports.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
Subtitle A--Authorization of Disposals and Use of Funds
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 3304. RESTRICTIONS ON DISPOSAL OF MANGANESE FERRO.
[(a) Disposal of Lower Grade Material First.--The President
may not dispose of high carbon manganese ferro in the National
Defense Stockpile that meets the National Defense Stockpile
classification of Grade One, Specification 30(a), as revised on
May 22, 1992, until completing the disposal of all manganese
ferro in the National Defense Stockpile that does not meet such
classification. The President may not reclassify manganese
ferro in the National Defense Stockpile after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
[(b) Requirement for Remelting by Domestic Ferroalloy
Producers.--Manganese ferro in the National Defense Stockpile
that does not meet the classification specified in subsection
(a) may be sold only for remelting by a domestic ferroalloy
producer unless the President determines that a domestic
ferroalloy producer is not available to acquire the material.
[(c) Domestic Ferroalloy Producer Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``domestic ferroalloy producer'' means a
company or other business entity that, as determined by the
President--
[(1) is engaged in operations to upgrade manganese
ores of metallurgical grade or manganese ferro; and
[(2) conducts a significant level of its research,
development, engineering, and upgrading operations in
the United States.]
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART III--EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
SUBPART B--EMPLOYMENT AND RETENTION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 33--EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT
SUBCHAPTER I--EXAMINATION, CERTIFICATION, AND APPOINTMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3329. Appointments of military reserve technicians to positions in
the competitive service
(a) For the purpose of this section, the term ``military
reserve technician'' has the meaning given such term by section
8401(30).
(b) The Secretary of Defense shall take such steps as may be
necessary to ensure that, except as provided in subsection (d),
any military reserve technician who is involuntarily separated
from technician service, after completing at least 15 years of
such service and 20 years of service creditable under section
1332 of title 10, by reason of ceasing to satisfy the condition
described in section 8401(30)(B) shall, if appropriate written
application is submitted within 1 year after the date of
separation, be provided placement consideration in a position
described in subsection (c) through a priority placement
program of the Department of Defense [a position described in
subsection (c)] not later than 6 months after the date of the
application.
* * * * * * *
SUBPART D--PAY AND ALLOWANCES
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 53--PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE PAY RATES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5315. Positions at level IV
Level IV of the Executive Schedule applies to the following
positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the
rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of
title 2, as adjusted by section 5318 of this title:
Deputy Administrator of General Services.
* * * * * * *
Chief Information Officer, Department of the
Interior.
Chief Information Officer, Department of Justice.
Chief Information Officer, Department of Labor.
Chief Information Officer, Department of State.
Chief Information Officer, Department of
Transportation.
Chief Information Officer, Department of the
Treasury.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5316. Positions at level V
Level V of the Executive Schedule applies to the following
positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the
rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of
title 2, as adjusted by section 5318 of this title:
Administrator, Bonneville Power Administration,
Department of the Interior.
Administrator of the National Capital Transportation
Agency.
* * * * * * *
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for [Atomic
Energy] Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense
Programs, Department of Defense.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY RATES
Sec. 5334. Rate on change of position or type of appointment;
regulations
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) The rate of pay established for a teaching position as
defined by section 901 of title 20 held by an individual who
becomes subject to subsection (a) of this section [is deemed
increased by 20 percent] shall be increased by such amount as
may be authorized, if any, under regulations issued by the
Secretary of Defense, but not to exceed 20 percent, to
determine the yearly rate of pay of the position.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 55--PAY ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER VII--PAYMENTS TO MISSING EMPLOYEES
Sec. 5561. Definitions
For the purpose of this subchapter--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) ``pay and allowances'' means--
(A) basic pay;
(B) special pay;
(C) incentive pay;
(D) [basic allowance for quarters] basic
allowance for housing;
(E) basic allowance for subsistence; and
(F) station per diem allowances for not more
than 90 days.
* * * * * * *
Chapter 57--Travel, Transportation, and Subsistence
subchapter i--travel and subsistence expenses; mileage allowances
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5707a. Adherence to fire safety guidelines in establishing rates
and discounts for lodging expenses
(a)(1) For the purpose of making payments under this chapter
for lodging expenses incurred in a State, each agency shall
ensure that not less than 90 percent of the commercial-lodging
room nights for employees of that agency for a fiscal year are
booked in approved places of public accommodation.
(2) Each agency shall establish explicit procedures to
satisfy the percentage requirement of paragraph (1).
[(a)] (b) Studies or surveys for the purposes of establishing
per diem rates for lodging expenses under this chapter shall be
limited to [places of public accommodation that meet the
requirements of the fire prevention and control guidelines
described in section 29 of the Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act of 1974] approved places of public accommodation.
The provisions of this subsection shall not apply with respect
to studies and surveys that are conducted in any jurisdiction
that is not a State [as defined in section 4 of the Federal
Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974].
[(b)] (c) The Administrator of General Services may not
include in any directory which lists lodging accommodations any
hotel, motel, or other place of public accommodation that [does
not meet the requirements of the fire prevention and control
guidelines described in section 29 of the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974] is not an approved place of
public accommodation.
[(c)] (d) The Administrator of General Services shall include
in each directory which lists lodging accommodations a
description of the access and safety devices, including
appropriate emergency alerting devices, which each listed place
of public accommodation provides for guests who are hearing-
impaired or visually or physically handicapped.
[(d)] (e) The Administrator of General Services may take any
additional actions the Administrator determines appropriate to
[encourage] facilitate the ability of employees traveling on
official business to stay at [places of public accommodation
that meet the requirements of the fire prevention and control
guidelines described in section 29 of the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974] approved places of public
accommodation.
(f) For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``agency'' does not include the
government of the District of Columbia.
(2) The term ``approved places of public
accommodation'' means hotels, motels, and other places
of public accommodation that are listed by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency as meeting the requirements
of the fire prevention and control guidelines described
in section 29 of the Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2225).
(3) The term ``State'' means any State, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, or any other territory or
possession of the United States.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE XII--DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1205. DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY STRUCTURE
(a) Establishment of Structure.--Not later than October 1,
1991, the Secretary of Defense, acting through the [Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition] Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, shall prescribe
regulations for the initial structure for a defense acquisition
university under section 1746 of title 10, United States Code
(as added by section 1202). The regulations shall include the
following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) An appropriate centralized mechanism, under the
[Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition] Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, to
control the allocation of resources for purposes of
conducting mandatory acquisition courses and other
training, education, and research activities to achieve
the objectives of the university, such as funding for
students to attend courses of instruction, funding to
conduct the courses, and funding to pay instructor
salaries.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XIV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Part B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1425. AUTHORIZATION FOR NAVAL SHIPYARDS AND AVIATION DEPOTS TO
ENGAGE IN DEFENSE-RELATED PRODUCTION AND SERVICES
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Expiration of Authority.--The authority provided by this
section expires on [September 30, 1997] September 30, 1999.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXIX--DEFENSE BASE CLOSURES AND REALIGNMENTS
* * * * * * *
Part B--Other Provisions Relating to Defense Base Closures and
Realignments
SEC. 2921. CLOSURE OF FOREIGN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Negotiations for Payments-in-Kind.--(1) * * *
(3) * * *
(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Appropriations, and the Defense [Subcommittees]
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate.
(f) OMB Review of Proposed Settlements.--(1) * * *
(2) Each year, the Secretary shall submit to [the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives]
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee
on National Security of the House of Representatives a report
on each proposed agreement of settlement that was not submitted
by the Secretary to the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget in the previous year under paragraph (1) because the
value of the improvements to be released pursuant to the
proposed agreement did not exceed $10,000,000.
(g) * * *
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle G--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 386. ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES THAT BENEFIT
DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Eligible Local Educational Agencies.--A local educational
agency is eligible for assistance under subsection (b) for a
fiscal year if--
(1) at least 20 percent (as rounded to the nearest
whole percent) of the students in average daily
attendance in the schools of that agency in that fiscal
year are military dependent students counted under
[section 8003(a)] section 8003(a)(1) of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 [(20 U.S.C.
7703(a))] (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1));
(2) * * *
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Acquisition Management Improvement
SEC. 812. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE IMPROVEMENT.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Fulfillment Standards for Mandatory Training.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, shall develop
fulfillment standards, and implement a program, for purposes of
the training requirements of sections 1723, 1724, and 1735 of
title 10, United States Code. Such fulfillment standards shall
consist of criteria for determining whether an individual has
demonstrated competence in the areas that would be taught in
the training courses required under those sections. If an
individual meets the appropriate fulfillment standard, the
applicable training requirement is fulfilled.
(2) * * *
* * * * * * *
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 3134. REPORTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TRITIUM PRODUCTION
CAPACITY.
[(a) Report by the Secretary of Energy.--(1) The Secretary of
Energy shall annually submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the new tritium production capacity of
the Department of Energy.
[(2) The annual report shall include the following:
[(A) An estimate of the date by which new production
reactor capacity will be necessary in order to maintain
the active and any reserve stockpile of nuclear weapons
of the United States.
[(B) An estimate of the date on which construction of
such capacity should begin in order to maintain the
active and any reserve stockpile.
[(C) An assessment of the technical adequacy of the
methods available for the production of tritium,
including an assessment of the risk that each method
may fail to produce tritium on a reliable basis within
the period necessary for meeting the requirements of
the United States.
[(D) An assessment of the capability of the potential
industrial suppliers of new tritium production
capacity, including reactors, to design and construct
such capacity by the date estimated pursuant to
subparagraph (A).
[(3) The Secretary shall submit the annual report in 1993 and
each year thereafter until the construction of the new tritium
production capacity is completed. The Secretary shall submit
the report not later than 60 days after the date on which the
President submits the budget to Congress under section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code. The report shall be submitted in
unclassified form with a classified appendix if necessary.
[(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that the
technology chosen for new tritium production capacity shall be
the technology that has the highest probability of successfully
sustaining operation, the lowest risk of operational failure,
and the lowest cost of construction and operation (including
any revenues accruing to the United States from such
operation).]
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Defense Nuclear Workers
SEC. 3161. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES WORKFORCE
RESTRUCTURING PLAN.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Objectives.--In preparing the plan required under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall be guided by the following
objectives:
(1) Changes in the workforce at a Department of
Energy defense nuclear facility--
(A) should be accomplished so as to minimize
social and economic impacts; and
[(B) should be made only after the provision
of notice of such changes not later than 120
days before the commencement of such changes to
such employees and the communities in which
such facilities are located; and]
(C) should be accomplished, when possible,
through the use of retraining, early
retirement, attrition, and other options that
minimize layoffs.
* * * * * * *
[(e) Plan Updates.--Not later than one year after issuing a
plan referred to in subsection (a) and on an annual basis
thereafter, the Secretary shall issue an update of the plan.
Each updated plan under this subsection shall--
[(1) be guided by the objectives referred to in
subsection (c), taking into account any changes in the
function or mission of the Department of Energy defense
nuclear facilities and any other changes in
circumstances that the Secretary determines to be
relevant;
[(2) contain an evaluation by the Secretary of the
implementation of the plan during the year preceding
the report; and
[(3) contain such other information and provide for
such other matters as the Secretary determines to be
relevant.
[(f) Submittal to Congress.--(1) The Secretary shall submit
to Congress a plan referred to in subsection (a) with respect
to a defense nuclear facility within 90 days after the date on
which a notice of changes described in subsection (c)(1)(B) is
provided to employees of the facility, or 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
[(2) The Secretary shall submit to Congress any updates of
the plan under subsection (e) immediately upon completion of
any such update.]
(e) Treatment of Federal Employees.--This section does not
apply to employees of the Department of Energy.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION D--DEFENSE CONVERSION, REINVESTMENT, AND TRANSITION ASSISTANCE
* * * * * * *
TITLE XLIV--PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENT, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle F--Job Training and Employment and Educational Opportunities
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4471. NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS AND EMPLOYEES UPON PROPOSED AND ACTUAL
TERMINATION OR SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN MAJOR
DEFENSE PROGRAMS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Loss of Eligibility.--An employee who receives a notice
of withdrawal or cancellation of the termination of, or a
substantial reduction in, contract funding shall not be
eligible for training, adjustment assistance, and employment
services under section 325 or 325A of the Job Training
Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1662d, 1662d-1) beginning on the
date on which the employee receives the notice.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1--DEFINITIONS
Sec.
101. Definitions.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 101. Definitions
In addition to the definitions in sections 1-5 of title 1,
the following definitions apply in this title:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(25) The term ``regular compensation'' or ``regular
military compensation (RMC)'' means the total of the
following elements that a member of a uniformed service
accrues or receives, directly or indirectly, in cash or
in kind every payday: basic pay, [basic allowance for
quarters (including any variable housing allowance or
station housing allowance)] basic allowance for
housing, basic allowance for subsistence, and Federal
tax advantage accruing to the aforementioned allowances
because they are not subject to Federal income tax.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 3--BASIC PAY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 204. Entitlement
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) A member of a reserve component of a uniformed service
is entitled, to the pay and allowances provided by law or
regulation for a member of a regular component of a uniformed
service of corresponding grade and length of service whenever
such member is physically disabled as the result of an injury,
illness, or disease incurred or aggravated--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) in line of duty while remaining overnight
immediately before the commencement of inactive-duty
training, or while remaining overnight, between
successive periods of inactive-duty training, at or in
the vicinity of the site of the inactive-duty training,
if the site is outside reasonable commuting distance
from the member's residence.
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) A member of a reserve component of a uniformed service
who is physically able to perform his military duties, is
entitled, upon request, to a portion of the monthly pay and
allowances provided by law or regulation for a member of a
regular component of a uniformed service of corresponding grade
and length of service for each month for which the member
demonstrates a loss of earned income from nonmilitary
employment or self-employment as a result of an injury,
illness, or disease incurred or aggravated--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) in line of duty while remaining overnight
immediately before the commencement of inactive-duty
training, or while remaining overnight, between
successive periods of inactive-duty training, at or in
the vicinity of the site of the inactive-duty training,
if the site is outside reasonable commuting distance
from the member's residence.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 205. Computation: service creditable
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a commissioned officer
may not count in computing basic pay a period of service after
October 13, 1964, that the officer performed concurrently as a
member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, except
for service that the officer performed on or after August 1,
1979[.], other than for training as an enlisted member of the
Selected Reserve may be so counted.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 206. Reserves; members of National Guard: inactive-duty training
(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned,
and to the extent provided for by appropriations, a member of
the National Guard or a member of a reserve component of a
uniformed service who is not entitled to basic pay under
section 204 of this title, is entitled to compensation, at the
rate of \1/30\ of the basic pay authorized for a member of a
uniformed service of a corresponding grade entitled to basic
pay--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) for a regular period of instruction that the
member is scheduled to perform but is unable to perform
because of physical disability resulting from an
injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) in line of duty while remaining overnight
immediately before the commencement of
inactive-duty training, or while remaining
overnight, between successive periods of
inactive-duty training, at or in the vicinity
of the site of the inactive-duty training, if
the site is outside reasonable commuting
distance from the member's residence.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS
Sec.
301. Incentive pay: hazardous duty.
* * * * * * *
301e. Multiyear retention bonus: dental officers of the armed forces.
* * * * * * *
[305. Special pay: while on duty at certain places.]
305. Special pay: hardship duty location pay.
* * * * * * *
[314. Special pay: qualified enlisted members extending duty at
designated locations overseas.]
314. Special pay or bonus: qualified enlisted members extending duty at
designated locations overseas.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 301. Incentive pay: hazardous duty
(a) * * *
(b) For the performance of the hazardous duty described in
clause (1) of subsection (a), a member is entitled to monthly
incentive pay as follows:
Pay grade: Monthly Rate
O-10......................................................$[110] 150
O-9....................................................... [110] 150
O-8....................................................... [110] 150
O-7....................................................... [110] 150
O-6....................................................... 250
O-5....................................................... 250
O-4....................................................... 225
O-3....................................................... 175
O-2....................................................... 150
O-1....................................................... [125] 150
W-5....................................................... 250
W-4....................................................... 250
W-3....................................................... 175
W-2....................................................... 150
W-1....................................................... [125] 150
E-9....................................................... 200
E-8....................................................... 200
E-7....................................................... 200
E-6....................................................... 175
E-5....................................................... 150
E-4....................................................... [125] 150
E-3....................................................... [110] 150
E-2....................................................... [110] 150
E-1....................................................... [110] 150
(c)(1) For the performance of hazardous duty described in
clauses (2) through (10) of subsection (a), a member is
entitled to [$110] $150 a month. However, a member performing
hazardous duty described in clause (3) of that subsection who
also performs as an essential part of such duty parachute
jumping in military free fall operations involving parachute
deployment by the jumper without the use of a static line is
entitled to [$165] $225 a month.
(2)(A) For the performance of hazardous duty described in
clause (11) of subsection (a), a member is entitled to monthly
incentive pay based upon his years of service as an air weapons
controller as follows:
Years of service as an air weapons controller
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay grade 2 or
less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6 Over 8 Over 10
O-7 and above................ $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200
O-6.......................... 225 250 300 325 350 350 350
O-5.......................... 200 250 300 325 350 350 350
O-4.......................... 175 225 275 300 350 350 350
O-3.......................... [125]
150 156 188 206 350 350 350
O-2.......................... [125]
150 156 188 206 250 300 300
O-1.......................... [125]
150 156 188 206 250 250 250
W-4.......................... 200 225 275 300 325 325 325
W-3.......................... 175 225 275 300 325 325 325
W-2.......................... 150 200 250 275 325 325 325
W-1.......................... [100]
150 [125]
150 150 175 325 325 325
E-9.......................... 200 225 250 275 300 300 300
E-8.......................... 200 225 250 275 300 300 300
E-7.......................... 175 200 225 250 275 275 275
E-6.......................... 156 175 200 225 250 250 250
E-5.......................... [125]
150 156 175 188 200 200 200
E-4 and below................ [125]
150 156 175 188 200 200 200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years of service as an air weapons controller--Continued
Pay grade--Continued -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 12 Over 14 Over 16 Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 25
O-7 and above................... $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $[110]
150
O-6............................. 350 350 350 350 300 250 250 225
O-5............................. 350 350 350 350 300 250 250 225
O-4............................. 350 350 350 350 300 250 250 225
O-3............................. 350 350 350 300 275 250 225 200
O-2............................. 300 300 300 275 245 210 200 180
O-1............................. 250 250 250 245 210 200 180 150
W-4............................. 325 325 325 325 276 250 225 200
W-3............................. 325 325 325 325 325 250 225 200
W-2............................. 325 325 325 325 275 250 225 200
W-1............................. 325 325 325 325 275 250 225 200
E-9............................. 300 300 300 300 275 230 200 200
E-8............................. 300 300 300 300 265 230 200 200
E-7............................. 300 300 300 300 265 230 200 200
E-6............................. 300 300 300 300 265 230 200 200
E-5............................. 250 250 250 250 225 200 175 150
E-4 and below................... 200 200 200 200 175 150 [125]
150 [125]
150
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 301b. Special pay: aviation career officers extending period of
active duty
(a) Bonus Authorized.--An aviation officer described in
subsection (b) who, during the period beginning on January 1,
1989, and ending on September 30, [1998,] 1999, executes a
written agreement to remain on active duty in aviation service
for at least one year may, upon the acceptance of the agreement
by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as
provided in this section.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 301e. Multiyear retention bonus: dental officers of the armed
forces
(a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) A dental officer described in
subsection (b) who executes a written agreement to remain on
active duty for two, three, or four years after completion of
any other active-duty service commitment may, upon acceptance
of the written agreement by the Secretary of the military
department concerned, be paid a retention bonus as provided in
this section.
(2) The amount of a retention bonus under paragraph (1) may
not exceed $14,000 for each year covered by a four-year
agreement. The maximum yearly retention bonus for two-year and
three-year agreements shall be reduced to reflect the shorter
service commitment.
(b) Officers Automatically Eligible.--Subsection (a) applies
to an officer of the armed forces who--
(1) is an officer of the Dental Corps of the Army or
the Navy or an officer of the Air Force designated as a
dental officer;
(2) has a dental specialty in oral and maxillofacial
surgery;
(3) is in a pay grade below pay grade 0-7;
(4) has at least eight years of creditable service
(computed as described in section 302b(g) of this
title) or has completed any active-duty service
commitment incurred for dental education and training;
and
(5) has completed initial residency training (or will
complete such training before September 30 of the
fiscal year in which the officer enters into an
agreement under subsection (a)).
(c) Extension of Bonus to Other Dental Officers.--At the
discretion of the Secretary of the military department
concerned, the Secretary may enter into a written agreement
described in subsection (a)(1) with a dental officer who does
not have the dental specialty specified in subsection (b)(2),
and pay a retention bonus to such an officer as provided in
this section, if the officer otherwise satisfies the
eligibility requirements specified in subsection (b). The
Secretaries shall exercise the authority provided in this
section in a manner consistent with regulations prescribed by
the Secretary of Defense.
(d) Refunds.--(1) Refunds shall be required, on a pro rata
basis, of sums paid under this section if the officer who has
received the payment fails to complete the total period of
active duty specified in the agreement, as conditions and
circumstances warrant.
(2) An obligation to reimburse the United States imposed
under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the
United States.
(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11, United States
Code, that is entered less than five years after the
termination of an agreement under this section does not
discharge the member signing such agreement from a debt arising
under such agreement or under paragraph (1). This paragraph
applies to any case commenced under title 11 after the date of
the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302b. Special pay: dental officers of the armed forces
(a) Variable, Additional, and Board Certification Special
Pay.--(1) * * *
(2) An officer described in paragraph (1) who is serving in a
pay grade below pay grade O-7 is entitled to variable special
pay at the following rates:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(C) $7,000 per year, if the officer has at least six
but less than 10 years of creditable service.
[(D) $6,000 per year, if the officer has at least 10
but less than 14 years of creditable service.
[(E) $4,000 per year, if the officer has at least 14
but less than 18 years of creditable service.
[(F) $3,000 per year, if the officer has 18 or more
years of creditable service.]
(C) $7,000 per year, if the officer has at least six
but less than eight years of creditable service.
(D) $12,000 per year, if the officer has at least
eight but less than 12 years of creditable service.
(E) $10,000 per year, if the officer has at least 12
but less than 14 years of creditable service.
(F) $9,000 per year, if the officer has at least 14
but less than 18 years of creditable service.
(G) $8,000 per year, if the officer has 18 or more
years of creditable service.
(3) An officer described in paragraph (1) who is serving in a
pay grade above pay grade O-6 is entitled to variable special
pay at the rate of [$1,000] $7,000 per year.
(4) Subject to subsection (b), an officer entitled to
variable special pay under paragraph (2) or (3) is entitled to
additional special pay for any 12-month period during which the
officer is not undergoing dental internship or residency
training. Such additional special pay shall be paid at the
following rates:
(A) $4,000 per year, if the officer has less than
three years of creditable service.
[(B) $6,000 per year, if the officer has at least
three but less than 14 years of creditable service.
[(C) $8,000 per year, if the officer has at least 14
but less than 18 years of creditable service.
[(D) $10,000 per year, if the officer has at least 18
or more years of creditable service.]
(B) $6,000 per year, if the officer has at least
three but less than 10 years of creditable service.
(C) $15,000 per year, if the officer has 10 or more
years of creditable service.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302d. Special pay: accession bonus for registered nurses
(a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a
registered nurse and who, during the period beginning on
November 29, 1989, and ending on September 30, [1998] 1999,
executes a written agreement described in subsection (c) to
accept a commission as an officer and remain on active duty for
a period of not less than four years may, upon the acceptance
of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an
accession bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary
concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists
(a) Special Pay Authorized.--(1) An officer described in
subsection (b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November
29, 1989, and ending on September 30, [1998] 1999, executes a
written agreement to remain on active duty for a period of one
year or more may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the
Secretary concerned, be paid incentive special pay in an amount
not to exceed $15,000 for any 12-month period.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302g. Special pay: Selected Reserve health care professionals in
critically short wartime specialties
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Agreement Authority.--No agreement under
this section may be entered into after September 30, [1998]
1999.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 305. Special pay: while on duty at certain places
[(a) Except as provided by subsections (b) and (c), under
regulations prescribed by the President, an enlisted member of
a uniformed service who is entitled to basic pay may, while on
duty at a designated place outside the 48 contiguous States and
the District of Columbia, be paid special pay at the following
monthly rates:
Monthly
[Pay grade: rate
E-9...........................................................$22.50
E-8........................................................... 22.50
E-7........................................................... 22.50
E-6........................................................... 20.00
E-5........................................................... 16.00
E-4........................................................... 13.00
E-3........................................................... 9.00
E-2........................................................... 8.00
E-1........................................................... 8.00]
Sec. 305. Special pay: hardship duty location pay
(a) Special Pay Authorized.--A member of a uniformed service
who is entitled to basic pay may be paid special pay under this
section at a monthly rate not to exceed $300 while the member
is on duty at a location in the United States or outside the
United States designated by the Secretary of Defense as a
hardship duty location.
(b) Exception for Certain Members Serving in Certain
Locations.--Appropriations of the Department of Defense may not
be paid, [as foreign duty pay] as hardship duty location pay
under subsection (a), to a member of a uniformed service who is
a resident of a State, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, a
possession, or a foreign country and who is serving in that
State, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, that possession, or
that foreign country, as the case may be.
(c) Exception for Members Receiving Career Sea Pay.--A member
receiving special pay under section 305a of this title may not
be paid [special pay under this section] hardship duty location
pay under subsection (a) for the same period of service.
(d) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
regulations for the provision of hardship duty location pay
under subsection (a), including the actual monthly rates at
which the special pay will be available.
Sec. 305a. Special pay: career sea pay
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) In this section, the term ``sea duty'' means duty
performed by a member--
(A) while permanently or temporarily assigned to a
ship[, ship-based staff, or ship-based aviation unit]
and--
(i) while serving on a ship the primary
mission of which is accomplished while under
way;
(ii) while serving as a member of the off-
crew of a two-crewed submarine; or
(iii) while serving as a member of a tender-
class ship (with the hull classification of
submarine or destroyer); or
(B) while permanently or temporarily assigned to a
ship [or ship-based staff] and while serving on a ship
the primary mission of which is normally accomplished
while in port, but only during a period that the ship
is away from its homeport.
(2) The Secretary concerned may designate duty performed by a
member while serving on a ship the primary mission of which is
accomplished either while under way or in port as ``sea duty''
for purposes of this section, even though the duty is performed
while the member is permanently or temporarily assigned to a
ship-based staff or other unit not covered by paragraph (1).
[(2)] (3) For the purpose of determining the years of sea
duty with which a member may be credited for purposes of this
section, the term ``sea duty'' also includes duty performed
after December 31, 1988, by a member while permanently or
temporarily assigned to a ship or ship-based staff and while
serving on a ship on which the member would be entitled, during
a period that the ship is away from its homeport, to receive
sea pay by reason of paragraph (1)(B).
[(3)] (4) A ship shall be considered to be away from its
homeport for purposes of this subsection when it is--
(A) at sea; or
(B) in a port that is more than 50 miles from its
homeport.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308. Special pay: reenlistment bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to
any reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an active-duty
reenlistment, in the armed forces entered into after September
30, [1998] 1999.
Sec. 308a. Special pay: enlistment bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to
any enlistment or extension of an initial period of active duty
in the armed forces made after September 30, [1998] 1999.
Sec. 308b. Special pay: reenlistment bonus for members of the Selected
Reserve
(a) An enlisted member of a reserve component who--
(1) has completed less than [ten] 14 years of total
military service; and
(2) reenlists or voluntarily extends his enlistment
for a period of three years or for a period of six
years in a designated military skill, or in a
designated unit, as determined by the Secretary
concerned, in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve
of an armed force;
may be paid a bonus as provided in subsection (b).
[(b) The bonus to be paid under subsection (a) shall be--
[(1) an initial payment of--
[(A) an amount not to exceed $1,250, in the
case of a member who reenlists or voluntarily
extends his enlistment for a period of three
years; or
[(B) an amount not to exceed $2,500, in the
case of a member who reenlists or voluntarily
extends his enlistment for a period of six
years; and
[(2) a subsequent payment of an amount not to exceed
$416.66 upon the completion of each year of the period
of such reenlistment or extension of enlistment during
which such member has satisfactorily participated in
training with his unit.
[(c) No member shall be paid more than one bonus under this
section.
[(d) A member who fails to participate satisfactorily in
training with his unit during a term of enlistment for which a
bonus is being paid to him under this section shall refund an
amount equal to the amount by which the amount of such bonus
exceeds the product of--
[(1) the number of months during that term of
enlistment during which such member participated
satisfactorily in training with his unit; and
[(2) $69.44.]
(b)(1) The amount of a bonus under this section may not
exceed--
(A) $2,500, in the case of a member who reenlists or
extends an enlistment for a period of three years; and
(B) $5,000, in the case of a member who reenlists or
extends an enlistment for a period of six years.
(2) The bonus shall be paid according to a payment schedule
determined by the Secretary concerned, except that the initial
payment to a member may not exceed one-half the total bonus
amount for the member.
(c) A member may not be paid more than one six-year bonus or
two three-year bonuses under this section.
(d) A member who receives a bonus under this section and who
fails, during the period for which the bonus was paid, to serve
satisfactorily in the element of the Selected Reserve of the
Ready Reserve with respect to which the bonus was paid shall
refund to the United States an amount that bears the same
relation to the amount of the bonus paid to the member as the
period that the member failed to serve satisfactorily bears to
the total period for which the bonus was paid.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308d. Special pay: enlisted members of the Selected Reserve
assigned to certain high priority units
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this
section for inactive duty performed after September 30, [1998]
1999.
Sec. 308e. Special pay: bonus for reserve affiliation agreement
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for
a reserve obligation agreement entered into after September 30,
[1998] 1999.
Sec. 308f. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Army
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) No bonus may be paid under this section with respect to
an enlistment in the Army after September 30, [1998] 1999.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or
voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of
the Ready Reserve other than the Selected Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) A bonus may not be paid under this section to any person
for a reenlistment, enlistment, or voluntary extension of an
enlistment after September 30, [1998] 1999.
Sec. 308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus
(a)(1) A person who is a former enlisted member of an armed
force who enlists in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve
of an armed force for a period of three or six years in a
critical military skill designated for such a bonus by the
Secretary concerned and who meets the requirements of paragraph
(2) may be paid a bonus as prescribed in subsection (b).
(2) A bonus may only be paid under this section to a person
who--
[(A) has completed his military service obligation
but has less than 10 years of total military service;]
(A) has completed a military obligation but has less
than 14 years of total military service;
* * * * * * *
[(b) The bonus to be paid under subsection (a) shall be--
[(1) an initial payment of--
[(A) an amount not to exceed $1,250, in the
case of a member who enlists for a period of
three years; or
[(B) an amount not to exceed $2,500, in the
case of a member who enlists for a period of
six years; and
[(2) a subsequent payment of an amount not to exceed
$416.66 upon the completion of each year of the period
of such reenlistment or extension of enlistment during
which such member has satisfactorily participated in
unit training.
[(c) A member may not be paid more than one bonus under this
section and may not be paid a bonus under this section unless
the specialty associated with the position the member is
projected to occupy is a specialty in which the member
successfully served while on active duty and attained a level
of qualification commensurate with the member's grade and years
of service.]
(b)(1) The amount of a bonus under this section may not
exceed--
(A) $2,500, in the case of a person who enlists for a
period of three years; and
(B) $5,000, in the case of a person who enlists for a
period of six years.
(2) The bonus shall be paid according to a payment schedule
determined by the Secretary concerned, except that the initial
payment to a person may not exceed one-half the total bonus
amount for the person.
(c)(1) A person may not be paid more than one six-year bonus
or two three-year bonuses under this section.
(2) A person may not be paid a bonus under this section
unless the specialty associated with the position the person is
projected to occupy as a member of the Selected Reserve is a
specialty in which--
(A) the person successfully served while a member on
active duty; and
(B) the person attained a level of qualification
while a member commensurate with the grade and years of
service of the member.
* * * * * * *
(i) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for
an enlistment after September 30, [1998] 1999.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 312. Special pay: nuclear-qualified officers extending period of
active duty
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
the case of officers who, on or before September 30, [1998]
1999, execute the required written agreement to remain in
active service.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
the case of officers who, on or before September 30, [1998]
1999, have been accepted for training for duty in connection
with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval
nuclear propulsion plants.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 312c. Special pay: nuclear career annual incentive bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) For the purposes of this section, a ``nuclear service
year'' is any fiscal year beginning before October 1, [1998]
1999.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 314. Special pay: qualified enlisted members extending duty at
designated locations overseas
[(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned,
an enlisted member of an armed force who--
[(1) is entitled to basic pay;
[(2) has a specialty that is designated by the
Secretary concerned for the purposes of this section;
[(3) has completed a tour of duty (as defined in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary
concerned) at a location outside the 48 contiguous
States and the District of Columbia that is designated
by the Secretary concerned for the purposes of this
section; and
[(4) at the end of that tour of duty executes an
agreement to extend that tour for a period of not less
than one year;
is entitled, upon acceptance of the agreement providing for
such extension by the Secretary concerned, to special pay for
duty performed during the period of the extension at a rate of
not more than $80 per month, as prescribed by the Secretary
concerned.
[(b) A member who elects to receive rest and recuperative
absence or transportation at Government expense, or any
combination thereof, under section 705 of title 10 is not
entitled to the special pay authorized by this section for the
period of extension of duty for which the rest and recuperative
absence or transportation is authorized.]
Sec. 314. Special pay or bonus: qualified enlisted members extending
duty at designated locations overseas
(a) Covered Members.--This section applies with respect to an
enlisted member of an armed force who--
(1) is entitled to basic pay;
(2) has a specialty that is designated by the
Secretary concerned for the purposes of this section;
(3) has completed a tour of duty (as defined in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary
concerned) at a location outside the 48 contiguous
States and the District of Columbia that is designated
by the Secretary concerned for the purposes of this
section; and
(4) at the end of that tour of duty executes an
agreement to extend that tour for a period of not less
than one year.
(b) Special Pay or Bonus Authorized.--Under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary concerned, an enlisted member
described in subsection (a) is entitled, upon acceptance by the
Secretary concerned of the agreement providing for extension of
the member's tour of duty, to either--
(1) special pay for duty performed during the period
of the extension at a rate of not more than $80 per
month, as prescribed by the Secretary concerned; or
(2) a bonus of up to $2,000 per year, as prescribed
by the Secretary concerned, for specialty requirements
at designated locations.
(c) Selection and Payment of Special Pay or Bonus.--Not later
than the date on which the Secretary concerned accepts an
agreement described in subsection (a)(4) providing for the
extension of a member's tour of duty, the Secretary concerned
shall notify the member regarding whether the member will
receive special pay or a bonus under this section. The payment
rate for the special pay or bonus shall be fixed at the time of
the agreement and may not be changed during the period of the
extended tour of duty. The Secretary concerned may pay a bonus
under this section either in a lump sum or installments.
(d) Repayment of Bonus.--(1) If a member who receives all or
part of a bonus under this section fails to complete the total
period of extension specified in the agreement described in
subsection (a)(4), the Secretary concerned may require the
member to repay the United States, on a pro rata basis and to
the extent that the Secretary determines conditions and
circumstances warrant, amounts paid to the member under this
section.
(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under
paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the United
States.
(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered
less than five years after the termination of the agreement
does not discharge the member signing the agreement from a debt
arising under the agreement or under paragraph (1). This
paragraph applies to any case commenced under title 11 on or
after October 1, 1997.
(e) Effect of Rest and Recuperative Absence.--A member who
elects to receive one of the benefits specified in section
705(b) of title 10 as part of the extension of a tour of duty
is not entitled to the special pay or bonus authorized by this
section for the period of the extension of duty for which the
benefit under such section is provided.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 7--ALLOWANCES
Sec.
401. Definitions.
402. Basic allowance for subsistence.
[403. Basic allowance for quarters.
[403a. Variable housing allowance.]
403. Basic allowance for housing.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 402. Basic allowance for subsistence
[(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, each member of a
uniformed service who is entitled to basic pay is entitled to a
basic allowance for subsistence as set forth in this section.
[(b)(1) An enlisted member is entitled to the basic allowance
for subsistence on a daily basis, of one of the following
types--
[(A) when rations in kind are not available;
[(B) when permission to mess separately is granted;
and
[(C) when assigned to duty under emergency conditions
where no messing facilities of the United States are
available.
[(2) The allowance to an enlisted member, when authorized,
may be paid in advance for a period of not more than three
months. An enlisted member is entitled to the allowance while
on an authorized leave of absence, while confined in a
hospital, or while performing travel under orders away from his
designated post of duty other than field duty or sea duty. The
allowance for an enlisted member who is authorized to receive
the basic allowance for subsistence under this subsection is at
the rate prescribed in accordance with section 1009 of this
title or as otherwise prescribed by law.
[(3) Unless he is entitled to basic pay under chapter 3 of
this title, an enlisted member of a reserve component of a
uniformed service, or of the National Guard, is entitled, in
the discretion of the Secretary concerned, to rations in kind,
or a part thereof, when the instruction or duty periods,
described in section 206(a) of this title, total at least eight
hours in a calendar day. The Secretary concerned may provide an
enlisted member who could be provided rations in kind under the
preceding sentence with a commutation when rations in kind are
not available.
[(4) In the case of enlisted members of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, or Marine Corps who, when present at their permanent
duty station, reside without dependents in Government quarters,
the Secretary concerned may not provide a basic allowance for
subsistence to more than 12 percent of such members under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned. The Secretary
concerned may exceed such percentage if the Secretary
determines that compliance would increase costs to the
Government, would impose financial hardships on members
otherwise entitled to a basic allowance for subsistence, or
would reduce the quality of life for such members. This
paragraph shall not apply to members described in the first
sentence when the members are not residing at their permanent
duty station. The Secretary concerned shall achieve the
percentage limitation specified in this paragraph as soon as
possible after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, but
in no case later than September 30, 1996.
[(c) An officer of a uniformed service who is entitled to
basic pay is, at all times, entitled to the basic allowances
for subsistence at the monthly rate prescribed in accordance
with section 1009 of this title. An aviation cadet of the Navy,
Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard is entitled to the same
basic allowance for subsistence as is provided for an officer
of the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard,
respectively.
[(d) Under regulations and in areas prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation with
respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a
service in the Navy, an enlisted member who is granted
permission to mess separately, and whose duties require him to
buy at least one meal from other than a messing facility of the
United States, is entitled to not more than the pro rata
allowance authorized for each such meal for an enlisted member
when rations in kind are not available.
[(e)(1) The President may prescribe regulations for the
administration of this section, including definitions of the
terms ``field duty'' and ``sea duty'' for the purposes of
subsection (b)(2).
[(2) For purposes of subsection (b)(2), a member shall not be
considered to be performing travel under orders away from his
designated post of duty if such member--
[(A) is an enlisted member serving his first tour of
active duty;
[(B) has not actually reported to a permanent duty
station pursuant to orders directing such assignment;
and
[(C) is not actually traveling between stations
pursuant to orders directing a change of station.
[Sec. 403. Basic allowance for quarters
[(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, a member of a
uniformed service who is entitled to basic pay is entitled to a
basic allowance for quarters at the monthly rates prescribed in
accordance with section 1009 of this title or as otherwise
prescribed by law, according to the pay grade in which he is
assigned or distributed for basic pay purposes. The allowance
authorized by this section may be paid in advance.
[(2) A member of a uniformed service with dependents is not
entitled to a basic allowance for quarters as a member with
dependents unless the member makes an annual certification to
the Secretary concerned indicating the status of each dependent
of the member. The certification shall be made in accordance
with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
[(b)(1) Except as otherwise provided by law, a member of a
uniformed service who is assigned to quarters of the United
States or a housing facility under the jurisdiction of a
uniformed service appropriate to his grade, rank or rating and
adequate for himself and his dependents, if with dependents, is
not entitled to a basic allowance for quarters.
[(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (j), a member
without dependents who is in a pay grade above pay grade E-6
and who is assigned to quarters in the United States or a
housing facility under the jurisdiction of a uniformed service,
appropriate to his grade or rank and adequate for himself, may
elect not to occupy those quarters and instead to receive the
basic allowance for quarters prescribed for his pay grade by
this section.
[(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (j), a member
without dependents who is in pay grade E-6 and who is assigned
to quarters of the United States that do not meet the minimum
adequacy standards established by the Department of Defense for
members in such pay grade, or to a housing facility under the
jurisdiction of a uniformed service that does not meet such
standards, may elect not to occupy such quarters or facility
and instead to receive the basic allowance for quarters
prescribed for the member's pay grade by this section.
[(c)(1) A member of a uniformed service without dependents
who makes a permanent change of station for assignment to a
unit conducting field operations is not entitled to a basic
allowance for quarters while on that initial field duty unless
his commanding officer certifies that the member was
necessarily required to procure quarters at his expense.
[(2) A member of a uniformed service without dependents who
is in a pay grade below pay grade E-6 is not entitled to a
basic allowance for quarters while he is on sea duty. A member
of a uniformed service without dependents who is in a pay grade
above E-5 who is assigned to sea duty under a permanent change
of station is not entitled to a basic allowance for quarters if
the unit to which the member is ordered is deployed and the
permanent station of the unit is different than the permanent
station from which the member is reporting.
[(d)(1) A member of a uniformed service who is assigned to
quarters of the United States or a housing facility under the
jurisdiction of a uniformed service may not be denied the basic
allowance for quarters if, because of orders of competent
authority, his dependents are prevented from occupying those
quarters.
[(2) A member of a reserve component without dependents who
is called or ordered to active duty in support of a contingency
operation (other than a member who is authorized transportation
of household goods under section 406 of this title as part of
that call or order) may not be denied a basic allowance for
quarters if, because of that call or order, the member is
unable to continue to occupy a residence--
[(A) which is maintained as the primary residence of
the member at the time of the call or order; and
[(B) which is owned by the member or for which the
member is responsible for rental payments.
[(e) Notwithstanding any other law (including those
restricting the occupancy of housing facilities under the
jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States by
members, and their dependents, of the armed forces above
specified grades, or by members, and their dependents, of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Public
Health Service), a member of a uniformed service, and his
dependents, may be accepted as tenants in, and may occupy on a
rental basis, any of those housing facilities, other than
public quarters constructed or designated for assignment to an
occupancy without charge by such a member, and his dependents,
if any. Such a member may not, because of his occupancy under
this subsection, be deprived of any money allowance to which he
is otherwise entitled for the rental of quarters.
[(f) A member of a uniformed service without dependents who
is in pay grade E-4 (four or more years' service), or above, is
entitled to a basic allowance for quarters while he is in a
travel or leave status between permanent duty stations,
including time granted as delay en route or proceed time, when
he not assigned to quarters of the United States.
[(g) An aviation cadet of the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,
or Coast Guard is entitled to the same basic allowance for
quarters as a member of the uniformed services in pay grade E-
4.
[(h) The Secretary concerned, or his designee, may make any
determination necessary to administer this section with regard
to enlisted members, including determinations of dependency and
relationship, and may, when warranted by the circumstances,
reconsider and change or modify any such determination. This
authority may be redelegated by the Secretary concerned or his
designee. Any determination made under this section with regard
to enlisted members is final and is not subject to review by
any accounting officer of the United States or a court, unless
there is fraud or gross negligence.
[(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the basic
allowance for quarters to which an enlisted member may be
entitled as a member with dependents shall not, for such period
as the Secretary concerned may prescribe, be contingent on the
right of such member to receive pay.
[(j)(1) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations
for the administration of this section, including definitions
of the terms ``field duty'' and ``sea duty.''
[(2) The Secretary concerned may deny the right to make an
election under subsection (b) if he determines that the
exercise of such an election would adversely affect a training
mission, military discipline, or military readiness.
[(k) Parking facilities (including utility connections)
provided members of the uniformed services for house trailers
and mobile homes not owned by the Government shall not be
considered to be quarters for the purposes of this section or
any other provision of law. Any fees established by the
Government for the use of such a facility shall be established
in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of maintenance,
services, and utilities and to amortize the cost of
construction of the facility over the 25-year period beginning
with the completion of such construction.
[(l)(1) The Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of
Transportation in the case of the Coast Guard when not
operating as a service in the Navy, may allow the dependents of
a member of the armed forces who dies in line of duty and whose
dependents are occupying family housing provided by the
Department of Defense, or by the Department of Transportation
in the case of the Coast Guard, other than on a rental basis on
the date of the member's death to continue to occupy such
housing without charge for a period of 180 days.
[(2) The Secretary concerned may pay an allowance for
quarters to the dependents of a member of the uniformed
services who dies in line of duty and whose dependents are not
occupying a housing facility under the jurisdiction of a
uniformed service on the date of the member's death or are
occupying such housing on a rental basis on such date, or whose
dependents vacate such housing sooner than 180 days after the
date of the member's death. The amount of the allowance for
quarters shall be the same amount that would be payable to the
deceased member under sections 403, 403a, and 405 of this title
if the member had not died. The payment of an allowance for
quarters under this subsection shall terminate 180 days after
the date of the member's death.
[(m)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), in the case of a
member of a uniformed service who is assigned to quarters of
the United States or a housing facility under the jurisdiction
of a uniformed service and who is authorized a basic allowance
for quarters solely by reason of the member's payment of child
support, the amount of the basic allowance for quarters to
which the member is entitled shall be equal to the difference
between the basic allowance for quarters applicable to the
member's grade, rank, or rating at the with-dependent rate and
the applicable basic allowance for quarters at the without-
dependent rate.
[(2) A member of a uniformed service shall not be entitled to
a basic allowance for quarters solely by reason of the payment
of child support if the monthly rate of that child support is
less than the amount of the basic allowance for quarters
computed for the member under paragraph (1).
[(3) The application of this subsection to a member of a
uniformed service shall not affect the entitlement of that
member to a basic allowance for quarters at a partial rate
under section 1009(c) of this title.
[Sec. 403a. Variable housing allowance
[(a)(1) Except as provided in subsection (b), a member of a
uniformed service entitled to basic allowance for quarters is
entitled to a variable housing allowance under this section
whenever assigned to duty in an area of the United States which
is a high housing cost area with respect to that member. A
member with dependents who is assigned to an unaccompanied tour
of duty outside the United States is entitled to a variable
housing allowance while serving that tour of duty for any
period during which the member's dependents reside in an area
of the United States where, if the member were assigned to duty
in that area, the member would be entitled to receive a
variable housing allowance. The allowance authorized by this
section may be paid in advance.
[(2) In the case of a member with dependents--
[(A) who is assigned to duty inside the United States
the location or the circumstances of which make it
necessary that his dependents reside at another
location; and
[(B) whose dependents reside in an area of the United
States where, if the member were assigned to duty in
that area, the member would be entitled to receive a
variable housing allowance at a rate other than the
rate to which the member is entitled (if at all) in the
area of his duty assignment,
the member may be paid a variable housing allowance as if he
were assigned to duty in the area in which his dependents
reside if the Secretary concerned determines (under regulations
prescribed under subsection (e)) that it would be inequitable
to base the member's entitlement to, and amount of, variable
housing allowance on the area to which the member is assigned.
[(3) In the case of a member with dependents--
[(A) who is assigned to an unaccompanied tour of duty
in Alaska or Hawaii; and
[(B) who would, if his duty station were outside the
United States, be entitled to a family separation
allowance under section 427(a) of this title,
the member may be paid a variable housing allowance at the rate
applicable to a member without dependents serving in the same
grade and at the same location. Payment of a variable housing
allowance under this paragraph shall be in addition to any
allowance or per diem to which the member otherwise may be
entitled under this title.
[(4) In the case of a member with dependents--
[(A) who is assigned to duty inside the United
States;
[(B) who is authorized to receive the basic allowance
for quarters at the rate established for a member with
dependents solely by reason of the payment of child
support by the member; and
[(C) who is not assigned to a housing facility under
the jurisdiction of a uniformed service,
the member may be paid a variable housing allowance at the rate
applicable to a member without dependents serving in the same
grade and at the same location.
[(5)(A) In the case of a member described in subparagraph (B)
who is assigned to duty away from the member's principal place
of residence (as determined under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense), the member shall be considered to be
assigned to duty at that residence for the purpose of
determining the entitlement of the member to a variable housing
allowance under this section.
[(B) A member referred to in subparagraph (A) is a member of
a uniformed service who--
[(i) is a member of a reserve component called or
ordered to active duty (other than for training) or is
a retired member ordered to active duty under section
688(a) of title 10; and
[(ii) is not authorized transportation of household
goods under section 406 of this title from the member's
principal place of residence to the place of that duty
assignment.
[(b) A member of a uniformed service may not be paid a
variable housing allowance--
[(1) in the case of a member who makes a change in
permanent duty station, for the number of days that
travel is authorized between permanent duty stations
(under regulations prescribed under subsection (e));
[(2) in the case of a member with dependents who is
authorized the basic allowance for quarters at the rate
established for a member with dependents solely by
reason of the payment of child support by the member,
if--
[(A) the member is assigned to a housing
facility under the jurisdiction of a uniformed
service;
[(B) the member (i) is assigned to duty
outside the United States or in Alaska or
Hawaii, and (ii) is authorized a station
housing allowance under section 405 of this
title; or
[(C) the member is assigned to sea duty and
elects not to occupy assigned quarters for
unaccompanied personnel, unless the member is
in a pay grade above E-6
[(3) in the case of a member of a reserve component,
while on active duty under a call or order to active
duty specifying a period of less than 140 days, unless
the call or order to active duty is in support of a
contingency operation; or
[(4) unless the member makes an annual certification
(in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary
of Defense may prescribe) to the Secretary concerned
identifying the housing costs of the member.
[(c)(1) The monthly amount of a variable housing allowance
under this section for a member of a uniformed service with
respect to an area is equal to the greater of the following
amounts:
[(A) An amount equal to the difference between--
[(i) the median monthly cost of housing in
that area for members of the uniformed services
serving in the same pay grade and with the same
dependency status as that member; and
[(ii) 80 percent of the median monthly cost
of housing in the United States for members of
the uniformed services serving in the same pay
grade and with the same dependency status as
that member.
[(B) An amount equal to the difference between--
[(i) the adequate housing allowance floor
determined by the Secretary of Defense for all
members of the uniformed services in that area
entitled to a variable housing allowance under
this section; and
[(ii) the monthly basic allowance for
quarters for members of the uniformed services
serving in the same pay grade and with the same
dependency status as that member.
[(2) The rates of variable housing allowance shall be reduced
as necessary to comply with subsection (d).
[(3) The effective date of any adjustment in rates of
variable housing allowance because of a redetermination of
median monthly costs of housing under paragraph (1)(A) or the
minimum amount of a variable housing allowance under paragraph
(1)(B) shall be the same as the effective date of the next
increase after such redetermination in the basic allowances for
quarters. However, so long as a member of a uniformed service
retains uninterrupted eligibility to receive a variable housing
allowance within an area and the member's certified housing
costs are not reduced (as indicated by certifications provided
by the member under subsection (b)(4)), the monthly amount of a
variable housing allowance under this section for the member
within that area may not be reduced as a result of systematic
adjustments required by changes in housing costs within that
area.
[(4) For the purposes of this section, an area shall be
considered to be a high housing cost area with respect to a
member of a uniformed service whenever the median monthly cost
of housing in that area for members of the uniformed services
serving in the same pay grade and with the same dependency
status as that member exceeds 80 percent of the median monthly
cost of housing in the United States for members of the
uniformed services serving in the same pay grade and with the
same dependency status as that member.
[(5) Any reduction required under paragraph (2) and any
determination of median monthly costs of housing or minimum
amount of a variable housing allowance under this subsection
shall be made under regulations prescribed under subsection
(e).
[(6)(A) The monthly variable housing allowance that would
otherwise be paid to a member under this section shall be
reduced by an amount equal to one-half of the amount (if any)
by which--
[(i) the total monthly housing allowance prescribed
for members of the same grade as such member who are
assigned to duty in the same area as such member (or in
the same area in which the dependents of the member
reside, as appropriate), exceeds
[(ii) the monthly housing costs of the member in the
area in which the member is assigned to duty (or in the
area in which the dependents of the member reside, as
appropriate).
[(B) In subparagraph (A), the term ``total monthly housing
allowance'' means, in the case of any member, the sum of--
[(i) the monthly basic allowance for quarters to
which the member is entitled; and
[(ii) the monthly variable housing allowance
prescribed for the same grade as such member for the
area in which the member is assigned to duty (or in the
area in which the dependents of the member reside, as
appropriate).
[(7)(A) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(i), the Secretary of
Defense shall establish an adequate housing allowance floor for
members of the uniformed services in an area as a selected
percentage, not to exceed 85 percent, of the cost of adequate
housing in that area based on an index of housing costs
selected by the Secretary of Defense from among the following:
[(i) The fair market rentals established annually by
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under
section 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(c)(1)).
[(ii) An index developed in the private sector that
the Secretary of Defense determines is comparable to
the fair market rentals referred to in clause (i) and
is appropriate for use to determine the adequate
housing allowance floor.
[(B) The Secretary of Defense shall carry out this paragraph
in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, the
Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
[(d)(1) The total amount that may be paid for a fiscal year
for the variable housing allowance authorized members of the
uniformed services by this section is the product of--
[(A) the total amount authorized to be paid for such
allowance for the preceding fiscal year (as adjusted
under paragraph (3)); and
[(B) a fraction--
[(i) the numerator of which is the military
housing cost index for October of the preceding
fiscal year; and
[(ii) the denominator of which is the
military housing cost index for October of the
fiscal year before the preceding fiscal year.
[(2) The military housing cost index is the housing component
of the Consumer Price Index (as determined by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor), as adjusted under
regulations prescribed under subsection (e). Such regulations
may assign weights to the elements of that housing component
other than those assigned by the Secretary of Labor in order
more appropriately to reflect the distribution of elements of
housing costs of members of the uniformed services.
[(3) In making a determination under paragraph (1) for a
fiscal year, the amount authorized to be paid for the preceding
fiscal year for the variable housing allowance shall be
adjusted to reflect changes during the year for which the
determination is made in the number, grade distribution, and
dependency status of members of the uniformed services entitled
to variable housing allowance from the number of such members
during the preceding fiscal year. In addition, the total amount
determined under paragraph (1) shall be adjusted to ensure that
sufficient amounts are available to allow payment of any
additional amounts of variable housing allowance necessary as a
result of the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) of subsection
(c) and the second sentence of paragraph (3) of that
subsection. Adjustments under this paragraph shall be made in
accordance with regulations prescribed under subsection (e).
[(e)(1) The Secretary of Defense may prescribe regulations
for the administration of this section.
[(2) Any regulations prescribed under paragraph (1) may not
allow--
[(A) an increase in the variable housing allowance
rate for a pay grade in an area solely to prevent the
variable housing allowance rate for a lower pay grade
in that area from exceeding such rate; or
[(B) a failure to lower the variable housing
allowance rate for a pay grade in an area in accordance
with a decrease in housing costs for such pay grade in
that area determined on the basis of the annual
certifications of housing costs of members of the
uniformed services receiving a variable housing
allowance for that area.
[(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to regulations prescribed
with respect to any pay grade in an area for which available
data describe fewer than 50 persons in the pay grade.
[(f) The monthly rate of a variable housing allowance for
members of the uniformed services in the same pay grade and
dependency status in an area may not be reduced pursuant to
subsection (c)(2), a redetermination of median monthly costs of
housing under that subsection, or any other law to the extent
that the total amount of monthly basic pay, basic allowance for
quarters, basic allowance for subsistence, and variable housing
allowance for that grade and status is reduced, as a result of
such a reduction in variable housing allowance, below the
monthly total of those items of pay and allowances for the
month preceding the effective date of the most recent increase
in the rate of basic pay for that grade.]
Sec. 402. Basic allowance for subsistence
(a) Entitlement; Rate; Adjustment.--(1) Except as otherwise
provided by law, each member of a uniformed service described
in subsection (b) or (c) is entitled to a basic allowance for
subsistence. The rate for the allowance shall be prescribed in
regulations by the Secretary of Defense after consultation with
the Secretaries concerned specified in subparagraphs (D), (E),
and (F) of section 101(5) of this title. The allowance may be
paid in advance for a period of not more than three months.
(2) Whenever basic pay is increased pursuant to section 1009
of this title or another law, the Secretary of Defense shall
adjust the basic allowance for subsistence at the same rate as
the most recent adjustment made to the cost of the moderate
food plan of the Department of Agriculture (one of the four
official food plans used by the Department of Agriculture under
the Food Stamp Act of 1977) to reflect changes in the cost of
the diet described by the moderate food plan.
(b) Enlisted Members.--An enlisted member is entitled to the
basic allowance for subsistence on a daily basis if the member
is entitled to basic pay and one or more of the following
applies with respect to the member:
(1) Rations in kind are not available.
(2) Rations in kind are available, but the Secretary
of Defense authorizes the payment of the basic
allowance for subsistence.
(3) Permission to mess separately is granted.
(4) The member is assigned to duty under emergency
conditions where no messing facilities of the United
States are available.
(5) The member is on an authorized leave of absence,
is confined in a hospital, or is performing travel
under orders away from the member's designated post of
duty (except when rations in kind are available and the
Secretary of Defense does not authorizes the payment of
the basic allowance for subsistence.).
(c) Officers.--An officer of a uniformed service who is
entitled to basic pay is entitled, at all times, to the basic
allowances for subsistence. An aviation cadet of the Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard is entitled to the same
basic allowance for subsistence as is provided for an officer
of the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard,
respectively.
(d) Special Rule for Certain Members Authorized to Mess
Separately.--Under regulations and in areas prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Transportation with
respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a
service in the Navy, an enlisted member who is granted
permission to mess separately, and whose duties require the
member to buy at least one meal from other than a messing
facility of the United States, is entitled to not more than the
pro rata allowance authorized for each such meal for an
enlisted member when rations in kind are not available.
(e) Payment for Rations in Kind Actually Received.--The
Secretary of Defense may require a member of the uniformed
services to pay for rations in kind actually received by the
member while entitled to a basic allowance for subsistence.
(f) Administration.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may
prescribe regulations for the administration of this section.
(2) For purposes of subsection (b)(5), a member shall not be
considered to be performing travel under orders away from his
designated post of duty if the member--
(A) is an enlisted member serving the member's first
tour of active duty;
(B) has not actually reported to a permanent duty
station pursuant to orders directing such assignment;
and
(C) is not actually traveling between stations
pursuant to orders directing a change of station.
(g) Percentage Limitation on Enlisted Members Receiving
Allowance.--(1) This subsection apples with respect to enlisted
members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps who,
when present at their permanent duty station and at which
adequate messing facilities of the United States are available,
reside without dependents in Government quarters. The Secretary
concerned may not provide a basic allowance for subsistence to
more than 12 percent of such members under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary concerned.
(2) The Secretary concerned may exceed the percentage
limitation specified in paragraph (1) if the Secretary
determines that compliance would increase costs to the
Government, would impose financial hardships on members
otherwise entitled to a basic allowance for subsistence, or
would reduce the quality of life for such members.
(3) This subsection shall not apply to a member described in
paragraph (1) when the member is not residing at the member's
permanent duty station.
(h) Rations in Kind for Certain Reserves.--(1) The Secretary
concerned may provide rations in kind, or a part thereof, to an
enlisted member of a reserve component or of the National Guard
when the member's instruction or duty periods, described in
section 206(a) of this title, total at least eight hours in a
calendar day. The Secretary concerned may provide the member
with a commutation when rations in kind are not available.
(2) This subsection shall not apply with respect to an
enlisted member of a reserve component or of the National Guard
who is entitled to basic pay.
(i) Use of Messing Facilities.--The Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretaries concerned, shall establish
policies regarding the use of messing facilities of the United
States, including field messing facilities.
Sec. 403. Basic allowance for housing
(a) Components of Basic Allowance for Housing.--The basic
allowance for housing consists of the following components:
(1) A basic allowance for quarters for members of the
uniformed services stationed in the United States and,
under certain circumstances, members on duty outside of
the United States whose dependents continue to reside
in the United States.
(2) A overseas station housing allowance for members
on duty outside of the United States to reflect housing
costs incurred by the members.
(3) A family separation housing allowance for members
with dependents when the movement of the dependents to
the members' permanent station is not authorized at the
expense of the United States.
(b) Eligibility for Allowance.--(1) Except as otherwise
provided by law, a member of a uniformed service who is
entitled to basic pay shall receive the component or components
of the basic allowance for housing to which the member is
entitled under this section at the monthly rates prescribed in
connection with the component under this section or other
provision of law. The amount of the allowance for a member will
vary according to the pay grade in which the member is assigned
or distributed for basic pay purposes and the member's
dependency status.
(2) The basic allowance for housing may be paid in advance.
(c) Effect of Assignment to Government Quarters.--(1) Except
as otherwise provided by law, a member of a uniformed service
who is assigned to quarters of the United States appropriate to
the grade, rank, or rating of the member and adequate for the
member and dependents, if with dependents, is not entitled to a
basic allowance for housing. In this section, the term
``quarters of the United States'' includes a housing facility
under the jurisdiction of a uniformed service.
(2) A member without dependents who is in a pay grade above
pay grade E-6 and is assigned to quarters of the United States
may elect not to occupy those quarters and instead receive the
basic allowance for housing to which the member is otherwise
entitled.
(3) A member without dependents who is in pay grade E-6 and
is assigned to quarters of the United States that do not meet
the minimum adequacy standards established by the Secretary of
Defense for members in such pay grade may elect not to occupy
those quarters and instead to receive the basic allowance for
housing to which the member is otherwise entitled. The
Secretary concerned may deny the right to make an election
under this paragraph if the Secretary determines that the
exercise of such an election would adversely affect a training
mission, military discipline, or military readiness.
(4) In the case of a member with dependents who is assigned
to quarters of the United States at a location or under
circumstances that, as determined by the Secretary concerned,
require the member's dependents to reside at different
location, the member shall receive a basic allowance for
housing as if the member were assigned to duty in the area in
which the dependents reside and did not reside in quarters of
the United States.
(d) Effect of Field Duty and Sea Duty.--(1) The Secretary
concerned may deny the basic allowance for housing to a member
of a uniformed service without dependents when the member is
assigned to field duty with a unit conducting field operations.
(2) A member of a uniformed service without dependents who is
in a pay grade below pay grade E-6 is not entitled to a basic
allowance for housing while on sea duty. After taking into
consideration the availability of quarters for members serving
in pay grade E-5, the Secretary concerned may authorize the
payment of a basic allowance for housing to a member without
dependents who is serving in such pay grade and is assigned to
sea duty.
(3) Notwithstanding section 421 of this title, two members of
the uniformed services in a pay grade below pay grade E-6 who
are married to each other, have no other dependents, and are
simultaneously assigned to sea duty are jointly entitled to one
basic allowance for housing during the period of such
simultaneous sea duty. The amount of the allowance shall be
based on the without dependents rate for the pay grade of the
senior member of the couple. However, this paragraph shall not
apply to a couple if one or both of the members are entitled to
a basic allowance for housing under paragraph (2).
(4) For purposes of this subsection, the Secretary of Defense
shall prescribe, by regulation, definitions of the terms
``field duty'' and ``sea duty''.
(e) Basic Allowance for Quarters.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall determine the costs of adequate housing in a
military housing area for all members of the uniformed services
entitled to a basic allowance for quarters in that area. The
Secretary shall base the determination upon the costs of
adequate housing for civilians with comparable income levels in
the same area.
(2) The monthly amount of a basic allowance for quarters for
an area of the United States for a member of a uniformed
service is equal to difference between--
(A) the monthly cost of housing in that area, as
determined by the Secretary of Defense, for members of
the uniformed services serving in the same pay grade
and with the same dependency status as the member; and
(B) 15 percent of the national average monthly cost
of housing in the United States, as determined by the
Secretary, for members of the uniformed services
serving in the same pay grade and with the same
dependency status as the member.
(3) The rates of basic allowance for quarters shall be
reduced as necessary to comply with this paragraph. The total
amount that may be paid for a fiscal year for the basic
allowance for quarters is the product of--
(A) the total amount authorized to be paid for such
allowance for the preceding fiscal year (as adjusted
under paragraph (5)); and
(B) a fraction--
(i) the numerator of which is the index of
the national average monthly cost of housing
for June of the preceding fiscal year; and
(ii) the denominator of which is the index of
the national average monthly cost of housing
for June of the fiscal year before the
preceding fiscal year.
(4) An adjustment in the rates of basic allowance for
quarters as a result of the Secretary's redetermination of
housing costs in an area shall take effect on the same date as
the effective date of the next increase in basic pay under
section 1009 of this title or other provision of law.
(5) In making a determination under paragraph (3) for a
fiscal year, the amount authorized to be paid for the preceding
fiscal year for the basic allowance for quarters shall be
adjusted to reflect changes during the year for which the
determination is made in the number, grade distribution,
geographic distribution, and dependency status of members of
the uniformed services entitled to the allowance from the
number of such members during the preceding fiscal year.
(6) So long as a member of a uniformed service retains
uninterrupted eligibility to receive a basic allowance for
quarters within an area of the United States, the monthly
amount of the allowance for the member may not be reduced as a
result of changes in housing costs in the area, changes in the
national average monthly cost of housing, or the promotion of
the member.
(f) Overseas Station Housing Allowance.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense may prescribe an overseas station housing allowance for
a member of a uniformed service who is on duty outside of the
United States. The Secretary shall base the station housing
allowance on housing costs in the overseas area in which the
member is assigned.
(2) So long as a member of a uniformed service retains
uninterrupted eligibility to receive an overseas station
housing allowance in an overseas area and the actual monthly
cost of housing for the member is not reduced, the monthly
amount of the overseas station housing allowance may not be
reduced as a result of changes in housing costs in the area or
the promotion of the member. The monthly amount of the
allowance may be adjusted to reflect changes in currency rates.
(g) Family Separation Housing Allowance.--(1) A member of a
uniformed service with dependents who is on permanent duty at a
location described in paragraph (2) is entitled to a family
separation housing allowance under this subsection at a monthly
rate equal to the rate of basic allowance for quarters or
overseas station housing allowance established for that
location for members without dependents in the same grade.
(2) A permanent duty location referred to in paragraph (1) is
a location--
(A) to which the movement of the member's dependents
is not authorized at the expense of the United States
under section 406 of this title, and the member's
dependents do not reside at or near the location; and
(B) at which quarters of the United States are not
available for assignment to the member.
(3) The allowance provided under this subsection is in
addition to any other allowance or per diem that the member is
otherwise entitled to under this title.
(h) Partial Allowance.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may
prescribe a partial basic allowance for housing for a member of
a uniformed service without dependents who is not entitled to
the allowance pursuant to subsection (c) or (d).
(2) In the case of a member of a uniformed service who is
assigned to quarters of the United States and pays child
support, the Secretary of Defense may authorize the payment of
a partial basic allowance for housing, at a rate prescribed by
the Secretary, on account of the member's payment of the child
support. The allowance shall be at a reduced rate to reflect
the member's assignment to quarters of the United States. The
amount of the partial allowance shall not exceed the monthly
rate of the member's child support. The payment of a partial
allowance under this paragraph to a member may be in addition
to any allowance paid to the member under paragraph (1).
(i) Special Rules for Certain Members.--(1)(A) In the case of
a member of a reserve component of a uniformed service without
dependents who is called or ordered to active duty (other than
for training) or a retired member without dependents ordered to
active duty under section 688(a) of title 10, the member shall
be considered to be assigned to duty at the location of the
primary residence of the member at the time of the call or
order for purposes of determining the amount of the member's
basic allowance for housing.
(B) If a member described in subparagraph (A) is called or
ordered to active duty for less than 30 days, the Secretary of
Defense shall prescribe the amount of the basic allowance for
housing to be paid to the member.
(C) This paragraph shall not apply to a member described in
subparagraph (A) if the member is authorized transportation of
household goods under section 406 of this title as part of the
call or order to active duty or if the primary residence of the
member is not owned by the member or the member is not
responsible for rental payments.
(2) A member of a uniformed service without dependents who is
in pay grade E-4 (four or more years' service), or above, is
entitled to a basic allowance for housing while the member is
in a travel or leave status between permanent duty stations,
including time granted as delay en route or proceed time, when
the member is not assigned to quarters of the United States.
Notwithstanding subsection (e)(2), the rate of basic allowance
for quarters for such a member shall be equal to the national
average monthly cost of housing in the United States, as
determined by the Secretary, for members of the uniformed
services serving in the same pay grade and with the same
dependency status as the member.
(3) The eligibility of an aviation cadet of the Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard for a basic allowance for
housing shall be determined as if the aviation cadet were a
member of the uniformed services in pay grade E-4.
(4) In the case of a member without dependents who is
assigned to duty inside the United States, the location or the
circumstances of which make it necessary that the member be
reassigned under the conditions of low cost or no cost
permanent change of station or permanent change of assignment,
the member may be treated as if the member were not reassigned
if the Secretary concerned determines that it would be
inequitable to base the member's entitlement to, and amount of,
a basic allowance for housing on the area to which the member
is reassigned.
(j) Administration.--(1) The Secretary concerned may make
such determinations as may be necessary to administer this
section, including determinations of dependency and
relationship. When warranted by the circumstances, the
Secretary concerned may reconsider and change or modify any
such determination. This authority may be delegated by the
Secretary concerned. Any determination made under this section
with regard to a member of the uniformed services is final and
is not subject to review by any accounting officer of the
United States or a court, unless there is fraud or gross
negligence.
(2) Parking facilities (including utility connections)
provided members of the uniformed services for house trailers
and mobile homes not owned by the Government shall not be
considered to be quarters for the purposes of this section or
any other provision of law. Any fees established by the
Government for the use of such a facility shall be established
in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of maintenance,
services, and utilities and to amortize the cost of
construction of the facility over the 25-year period beginning
with the completion of such construction.
(k) Temporary Continuation of Allowance.--(1) The Secretary
of Defense, or the Secretary of Transportation in the case of
the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy,
may allow the dependents of a member of the armed forces who
dies while on active duty and whose dependents are occupying
family housing provided by the Department of Defense, or by the
Department of Transportation in the case of the Coast Guard,
other than on a rental basis on the date of the member's death
to continue to occupy such housing without charge for a period
of 180 days.
(2) The Secretary concerned may pay an allowance for housing
to the dependents of a member of the uniformed services who
dies while on active duty and whose dependents are not
occupying a housing facility under the jurisdiction of a
uniformed service on the date of the member's death or are
occupying such housing on a rental basis on such date, or whose
dependents vacate such housing sooner than 180 days after the
date of the member's death. The amount of the allowance shall
be the same amount that would otherwise be payable to the
deceased member under this section if the member had not died.
The payment of an allowance under this paragraph shall
terminate 180 days after the date of the member's death.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 404. Travel and transportation allowances: general
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(2) In prescribing such conditions and allowances, the
Secretaries concerned shall provide that a member who is
performing travel under orders away from his designated post of
duty and who is authorized a per diem under clause (2) of
subsection (d) shall be paid for the meals portion of that per
diem in a cash amount at a rate that is not less than the rate
established under section 1011(a) of this title for meals sold
to members. The preceding sentence shall not apply with respect
to a member on field duty or sea duty (as defined in
regulations prescribed [under section 402(e) of this title] by
the Secretary of Defense) or a member of a unit with respect to
which the Secretary concerned has determined that unit messing
is essential to the accomplishment of the unit's training and
readiness.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 405. Travel and transportation allowances: per diem while on duty
outside the United States or in Hawaii or Alaska
(a) * * *
[(b) A station housing allowance may be prescribed under this
section for a member who is on duty outside of the United
States without regard to costs other than housing costs and may
consist of the difference between basic allowance for quarters
and applicable housing cost. A station housing allowance may
not be prescribed under this section for a member who is on
duty in Hawaii or Alaska. A station housing allowance
prescribed under this section may be paid in advance.]
[(c)] (b) Housing cost and allowance may be disregarded in
prescribing a station cost of living allowance under this
section.
[(d)](c)(1) In the case of a member of the uniformed services
authorized to receive a per diem allowance under subsection
(a), the Secretary concerned may make a lump-sum payment for
nonrecurring expenses--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 406. Travel and transportation allowances: dependents; baggage and
household effects
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The allowances and transportation authorized by
subsections (a) and (b) are in addition to those authorized by
[sections 404 and 405] sections 403(f), 404, and 405 of this
title and are--
(1) subject to such conditions and limitations;
(2) for such grades, ranks, and ratings; and
(3) to and from such places;
prescribed by the Secretaries concerned. Transportation of the
household effects of a member may not be made by commercial air
carrier at an estimated over-all cost that is more than the
estimated over-all cost of the transportation thereof by other
means, unless an appropriate transportation officer has
certified in writing to his commanding officer that those
household effects to be so transported are necessary for use in
carrying out assigned duties, or are necessary to prevent undue
hardship and other means of transportation will not fill those
needs. However, not more than 1,000 pounds of unaccompanied
baggage may be transported by commercial air carrier, without
regard to the preceding sentence, under regulations prescribed
under the authority of the Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) * * *
(2) A member referred to in paragraph (1) is a member who--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) is sentenced by a court-martial--
(i) to be confined for a period of more than
30 days,
(ii) to receive a dishonorable or bad-conduct
discharge, or
(iii) to be dismissed from a uniformed
service[,
if the sentence is approved under section 860(c)(2) of
title 10.].
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 407. Travel and transportation allowances: dislocation allowance
[(a) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (d) and
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, a
member of a uniformed service is entitled to a dislocation
allowance equal to the basic allowance for quarters for two and
one-half months as provided for the member's pay grade and
dependency status in section 403 of this title if--
[(1) the member's dependents actually make an
authorized move in connection with the member's change
of permanent station, including--
[(A) a move to join the member at the
member's duty station after an unaccompanied
tour of duty when the member's next tour of
duty is an accompanied tour at the same
station; and
[(B) a move to a location designated by the
member after an accompanied tour of duty when
the member's next tour of duty is an
unaccompanied tour at the same duty station;
[(2) the member's dependents actually move pursuant
to section 405a(a), 406(e), 406(h), or 554 of this
title;
[(3) the member's dependents actually move from their
place of residence under circumstances described in
section 406a of this title;
[(4) the member is without dependents and--
[(A) actually moves to a new permanent
station where not assigned to quarters of the
United States; or
[(B) actually moves from a place of residence
under circumstances described in section 406a
of this title; or
[(5) the member is ordered to move in connection with
the closure or realignment of a military installation
and, as a result, the member's dependents actually move
or, in the case of a member without dependents, the
member actually moves.
If a dislocation allowance is paid under paragraph (3) or
(4)(B), the member is not entitled to a dislocation allowance
under paragraph (1) or (5).
[(b) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned,
whenever a member is entitled to a dislocation allowance under
paragraph (3) or (4)(B) of subsection (a), the member is also
entitled to a second dislocation allowance equal to the basic
allowance for quarters for two months as provided for a
member's pay grade and dependency status in section 403 of this
title if, subsequent to the member or member's dependents
actually moving from their place of residence under
circumstances described in section 406a of this title, the
member or member's dependents complete that move to a new
location and then actually move from that new location to
another location also under circumstances described in section
406a of this title. If a second dislocation allowance is paid
under this subsection, the member is not entitled to a
dislocation allowance under paragraph (1) or (5) of subsection
(a) in connection with those moves.
[(c) A member is not entitled to more than one dislocation
allowance during a fiscal year unless--
[(1) the Secretary concerned finds that the
exigencies of the service require the member to make
more than one change of permanent station during the
fiscal year;
[(2) the member is ordered to a service school as a
change of permanent station;
[(3) the member's dependents are covered by section
405a(a), 406(e), 406(h), or 554 of this title; or
[(4) the member or the member's dependents are
covered by subsection (a)(3), (a)(4)(B), or (b).
This subsection does not apply in time of national emergency
declared after April 1, 1975, or in time of war.
[(d) A member is not entitled to payment of a dislocation
allowance when ordered from his home to the first duty station
or from the last duty station to his home.
[(e) For purposes of this section, a member whose dependents
may not make an authorized move in connection with a change of
permanent station is considered a member without dependents.
[(f) An allowance payable under this section may be paid in
advance.]
Sec. 407. Travel and transportation allowances: dislocation allowance
(a) Basic Eligibility.--(1) Under regulations prescribed by
the Secretary concerned, a member of a uniformed service
described in paragraph (2) is entitled to a dislocation
allowance at the rate set forth in the tables in subsection (c)
for the member's pay grade and dependency status.
(2) A member of the uniformed services referred to in
paragraph (1) is any of the following:
(A) A member who makes a change of permanent station
and the member's dependents actually make an authorized
move in connection with the change, including a move by
the dependents--
(i) to join the member at the member's duty
station after an unaccompanied tour of duty
when the member's next tour of duty is an
accompanied tour at the same station; and
(ii) to a location designated by the member
after an accompanied tour of duty when the
member's next tour of duty is an unaccompanied
tour at the same duty station.
(B) A member whose dependents actually move pursuant
to section 405a(a), 406(e), 406(h), or 554 of this
title.
(C) A member whose dependents actually move from
their place of residence under circumstances described
in section 406a of this title.
(D) A member who is without dependents and--
(i) actually moves to a new permanent station
where the member is not assigned to quarters of
the United States; or
(ii) actually moves from a place of residence
under circumstances described in section 406a
of this title.
(E) A member who is ordered to move in connection
with the closure or realignment of a military
installation and, as a result, the member's dependents
actually move or, in the case of a member without
dependents, the member actually moves.
(3) If a dislocation allowance is paid under this subsection
to a member described in subparagraph (C) or (D)(ii), the
member is not entitled to another dislocation allowance as a
member described in subparagraph (A) or (E) in connection with
the same move.
(b) Second Allowance Authorized Under Certain
Circumstances.--(1) Under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary concerned, whenever a member is entitled to a
dislocation allowance as a member described in subparagraph (C)
or (D)(ii) of subsection (a)(2), the member is also entitled to
a second dislocation allowance at the rate set forth in the
tables in subsection (c) for the member's pay grade and
dependency status if, subsequent to the member or the member's
dependents actually moving from their place of residence under
circumstances described in section 406a of this title, the
member or member's dependents complete that move to a new
location and then actually move from that new location to
another location also under circumstances described in section
406a of this title.
(2) If a second dislocation allowance is paid under this
subsection, the member is not entitled to a dislocation
allowance as a member described in subparagraph (A) or (E) of
subsection (a)(2) in connection with those moves.
(c) Dislocation Allowance Rates.--(1) A dislocation allowance
under this section shall be paid at the following monthly
rates, based on a member's pay grade and dependency status:
COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paygrade Without dependents With dependents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-10............................ $2,061.75 $2,538.00
O-9............................. 2,061.75 2,538.00
O-8............................. 2,061.75 2,538.00
O-7............................. 2,061.75 2,538.00
O-6............................. 1,891.50 2,285.25
O-5............................. 1,821.75 2,202.75
O-4............................. 1,688.25 1,941.75
O-3............................. 1,353.00 1,606.50
O-2............................. 1,073.25 1,371.75
O-1............................. 903.75 1,226.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WITH OVER 4 YEARS OF ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE AS AN
ENLISTED MEMBER OR WARRANT OFFICER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paygrade Without dependents With dependents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............................ $1,461.00 $1,726.50
O-2E............................ 1,242.00 1,557.75
O-1E............................ 1,068.00 1,439.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARRANT OFFICER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paygrade Without dependents With dependents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-5............................. $1,715.25 $1,874.25
W-4............................. 1,523.25 1,718.25
W-3............................. 1,280.00 1,574.25
W-2............................. 1,137.00 1,448.25
W-1............................. 951.75 1,252.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENLISTED MEMBER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paygrade Without dependents With dependents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9............................. $1,251.00 $1,649.25
E-8............................. 1,148.25 1,520.25
E-7............................. 981.00 1,411.50
E-6............................. 888.00 1,304.25
E-5............................. 819.00 1,173.00
E-4............................. 712.50 1,020.00
E-3............................. 699.00 949.50
E-2............................. 567.75 903.75
E-1............................. 506.25 903.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) For each calendar year after 1997, the Secretary of
Defense shall adjust the rates in the tables in paragraph (1)
by the percentage equal to the rate of change of the national
average monthly cost of housing, as determined by the Secretary
under section 403 of this title for that calendar year.
(d) Fiscal Year Limitation; Exceptions.--(1) A member is not
entitled to more than one dislocation allowance during a fiscal
year unless--
(A) the Secretary concerned finds that the exigencies
of the service require the member to make more than one
change of permanent station during the fiscal year;
(B) the member is ordered to a service school as a
change of permanent station;
(C) the member's dependents are covered by section
405a(a), 406(e), 406(h), or 554 of this title; or
(D) subparagraph (C) or (D)(ii) of subsection (a)(2)
or subsection (b) apply with respect to the member or
the member's dependents.
(2) This subsection does not apply in time of national
emergency or in time of war.
(e) First or Last Duty.--A member is not entitled to payment
of a dislocation allowance when ordered from the member's home
to the member's first duty station or from the member's last
duty station to the member's home.
(f) Rule of Construction.--For purposes of this section, a
member whose dependents may not make an authorized move in
connection with a change of permanent station is considered a
member without dependents.
(g) Advance Payment.--A dislocation allowance payable under
this section may be paid in advance.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 420. Allowances while participating in international sports
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Notwithstanding any other law, a member of a uniformed
service who has no dependents is not entitled to the basic
allowances for subsistence and [quarters] housing authorized by
sections 402 and 403 of this title for a period during which he
is subsisted and quartered by the agency sponsoring his
participation in a competition covered by section 717 of title
10.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 427. Family separation allowance
[(a) Allowance Equal to Basic Allowance for Quarters.-- In
addition to any allowance or per diem to which he otherwise may
be entitled under this title, a member of a uniformed service
with dependents who is on permanent duty outside of the United
States, or in Alaska, is entitled to a monthly allowance equal
to the basic allowance for quarters payable to a member without
dependents in the same pay grade if--
[(1) the movement of his dependents to his permanent
station or a place near that station is not authorized
at the expense of the United States under section 406
of this title and his dependents do not reside at or
near that station; and
[(2) quarters of the United States or a housing
facility under the jurisdiction of a uniformed service
are not available for assignment to him.
[(b) Additional Separation Allowance.--] (a) Availability of
Separation Allowance.--(1) In addition to any allowance or per
diem to which he otherwise may be entitled under this title,
[including subsection (a)] including section 403(g) of this
title, a member of a uniformed service with dependents is
entitled to a monthly allowance equal to [$75] $100 if--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(4) A member] (b) Effect of Election to Serve Unaccompanied
Tour of Duty.--A member who elects to serve a tour of duty
unaccompanied by his dependents at a permanent station to which
the movement of his dependents is authorized at the expense of
the United States under section 406 of this title is not
entitled to an allowance under [paragraph (1)(A) of this
subsection] subsection (a)(1)(A). The Secretary concerned may
waive the preceding sentence in situations in which it would be
inequitable to deny the allowance to the member because of
unusual family or operational circumstances.
[(5) Section 421] (c) Effect of Dependent Entitled to Basic
Pay.--Section 421 of this title does not apply to bar an
entitlement to an allowance under [paragraph (1)(D)] subsection
(a)(1)(D). However, not more than one monthly allowance may be
paid with respect to a married couple under [paragraph (1)(D)]
subsection (a)(1)(D) for any month.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 433. Allowance for muster duty
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The allowance authorized by this section may not be
disbursed in kind [and shall be paid to the member on or before
the date on which the muster duty is performed]. The allowance
may be paid to the member on or before the date on which the
muster duty is performed, but shall be paid not later than 30
days after the date on which the muster duty is performed. The
allowance shall constitute the single, flat-rate monetary
allowance authorized for the performance of muster duty and
shall constitute payment in full to the member, regardless of
grade or rank in which serving, as commutation for travel to
the immediate vicinity of the designated muster duty location,
transportation, subsistence, and the special or extraordinary
costs of enforced absence from home and civilian pursuits,
including such absence on weekends and holidays.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 551. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The term ``pay and allowances'' means--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) [basic allowance for quarters] basic
allowance for housing;
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 17--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 907. Enlisted members and warrant officers appointed as officers:
pay and allowances stabilized
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) In determining the amount of the pay and allowances of a
grade formerly held by an officer, incentive pay for hazardous
duty under section 301 of this title, special pay for diving
duty under section 304 of this title, for [duty at certain
places] duty at a hardship duty location under section 305 of
this title, and for sea duty under section 305a of this title,
and proficiency pay under section 307 of this title may be
considered only so long as the officer continues to perform the
duty creating the entitlement to or eligibility for that pay
and would otherwise be eligible to receive that pay in his
former grade.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 19--ADMINISTRATION
Sec.
1001. Regulations relating to pay and allowances.
* * * * * * *
[1009. Adjustments of compensation.]
1009. Certain elements of compensation: adjustment; protection against
change.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1009. Adjustments of compensation
[(a) Whenever the General Schedule of compensation for
Federal classified employees as contained in section 5332 of
title 5 is adjusted upward, the President shall immediately
make an upward adjustment in the--
[(1) monthly basic pay authorized members of the
uniformed services by section 203(a) of this title;
[(2) basic allowance for subsistence authorized
enlisted members and officers by section 402 of this
title; and
[(3) basic allowance for quarters authorized members
of the uniformed services by section 403(a) of this
title.
[(b) An adjustment under this section shall have the force
and effect of law and shall--
[(1) carry the same effective date as that applying
to the compensation adjustments provided General
Schedule employees;
[(2) be based on the rates of the various elements of
compensation as defined in, or made under, section 402
or 403 of this title or this section; and
[(3) subject to subsections (c) and (d), provide all
eligible members with an increase in each element of
compensation, set forth in subsection (a), which is of
the same percentage as the overall average percentage
increase in the General Schedule rates of basic pay for
civilian employees.
[(c)(1) Whenever the President determines such action to be
in the best interest of the Government, he is authorized to
allocate the overall average percentage of any increase
described in subsection (b)(3) among the elements of
compensation specified in subsection (a) on a percentage basis
other than an equal percentage basis; however, the amount
allocated to the element of monthly basic pay may not be less
than 75 percent of the amount that would have been allocated to
the element of basic pay under subsection (b)(3).
[(2) Under regulations prescribed by the President, whenever
the President exercises his authority under paragraph (1) to
allocate the elements of compensation specified in subsection
(a) on a percentage basis other than an equal percentage basis,
he may pay to each member without dependents who, under section
403 (b) or (c), is not entitled to receive a basic allowance
for quarters, an amount equal to the difference between (1) the
amount of such increase under paragraph (1) in the amount of
the basic allowance for quarters which, but for section 403 (b)
or (c) of this title, such member would be entitled to receive,
and (2) the amount by which such basic allowance for quarters
would have been increased under subsection (b)(3) if the
President had not exercised such authority.
[(d)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), whenever the President
determines such action to be in the best interest of the
Government, he may allocate the overall percentage increase in
the element of basic pay that would otherwise be effective
after any allocation made under subsection (c) among such pay
grade and years-of-service categories as he considers
appropriate.
[(2) In making any allocation of an overall percentage
increase in basic pay under paragraph (1)--
[(A) the amount of the increase in basic pay for any
given pay grade and years-of-service category after any
allocation made under this subsection or under
subsection (c) (or under both such subsections) may not
be less than 75 percent of the amount of the increase
in the element of basic pay that would otherwise have
been effective with respect to such pay grade and
years-of-service category under subsection (b)(3); and
[(B) the overall percentage increase in the elements
of compensation specified in subsection (a) in the case
of any member of the uniformed services with four years
or less service may not exceed the overall percentage
increase in the General Schedule rates of basic pay for
civilian employees.
[(e) Whenever the President plans to exercise his authority
under subsection (c) or (d) with respect to any anticipated
increase in the compensation of members of the uniformed
services, he shall advise the Congress, at the earliest
practicable time prior to the effective date of such increase,
regarding the proposed allocation of such increase.
[(f) The allocations of increases made under this section
shall be assessed in conjunction with the quadrennial review of
military compensation required by section 1008(b) of this
title.]
Sec. 1009. Certain elements of compensation: adjustment; protection
against change
(a) Elements of Compensation.--In this section, the term
``elements of compensation'' means--
(1) the monthly basic pay authorized members of the
uniformed services by section 203(a) of this title;
(2) the basic allowance for subsistence authorized
members of the uniformed services by section 402 of
this title; and
(3) the basic allowance for housing authorized
members of the uniformed services by section 403 of
this title.
(b) Annual Adjustment of Basic Pay.--Effective as of the
first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or
after January 1 of each calendar year, the rates of basic pay
of members of the uniformed services shall be increased by the
percentage (rounded to the nearest one-tenth of one percent)
equal to the percentage by which the Employment Cost Index for
the base quarter of the year before the preceding calendar year
exceeds the Employment Cost Index for the base quarter of the
second year before the preceding calendar year (if at all).
(c) Allocation of Adjustment.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2),
whenever the President determines such action to be in the best
interest of the Government, the President may allocate the
percentage increase in basic pay among such pay grade and
years-of-service categories as the President considers
appropriate.
(2) In making any allocation under paragraph (1), the amount
of the increase in basic pay for any given pay grade and years-
of-service category after the allocation under paragraph (1)
may not be less than 75 percent of the amount of the increase
that otherwise would have been effective with respect to such
pay grade and years-of-service category under subsection (b).
(3) Whenever the President plans to use the authority
provided under paragraph (1) with respect to any anticipated
increase in the compensation of members of the uniformed
services, the President shall advise the Congress, at the
earliest practicable time before the effective date of the
increase, regarding the proposed allocation of the increase
among pay grade and years-of-service categories.
(d) Protection of Member's Total Compensation While
Performing Certain Duty.--(1) The total daily amount of the
elements of compensation, described in subsection (a), together
with other pay and allowances under this title, to be paid to a
member of the uniformed services who is temporarily assigned to
duty away from the member's permanent duty station or to duty
under field conditions at the member's permanent duty station
shall not be less, for any day during the assignment period,
than the total amount, for the day immediately preceding the
date of the assignment, of the elements of compensation and
other pay and allowances of the member.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to an element
of compensation or other pay or allowance of a member during an
assignment described in such paragraph to the extent that the
element of compensation or other pay or allowance is reduced or
terminated due to circumstances unrelated to the assignment.
(e) Other Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Employment Cost Index'' means the
Employment Cost Index (wages and salaries, private
industry workers) published quarterly by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
(2) The term ``base quarter'', for each year, means
the three-month period ending on September 30 of such
year.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1012. Disbursement and accounting: pay of enlisted members of the
National Guard
Amounts appropriated for the pay, under subsections (a), (b),
and (d) of section 206, section 301(f), section 402(b)(3), and
section 1002 of this title, of enlisted members of the Army
National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard
of the United States for attending regular periods of duty and
instruction shall be disbursed and accounted for by the
Secretary of Defense. All such disbursements shall be made for
3-month periods for units of the Army National Guard or Air
National Guard under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense, and on pay rolls prepared and authenticated as
prescribed in those regulations.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1014. Payment date for pay and allowances
(a) Amounts of basic pay, basic allowance for quarters, basic
allowance for subsistence, and other payments of military
compensation (other than travel and transportation allowances
and separation allowances) shall be paid on the first day of
the month beginning after the month during which the right to
such compensation accrues.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1--ORGANIZATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 107. Availability of appropriations
(a) * * *
(b) The expenses of enlisted members of the Regular Army or
the Regular Air Force on duty with the National Guard shall be
paid from appropriations for the Army National Guard or the Air
National Guard, as the case may be, but not from the allotment
of a State or Territory, Puerto Rico or the District of
Columbia. Payable expenses include allowances for subsistence
[and quarters] and housing under sections 402 and 403 of title
37 and expenses for medicine and medical attendance.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 112. Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Prohibition on Certain Civil-Military Activities.--Funds
provided under this section may not be used to conduct
activities, including community-outreach programs, designed to
reduce the demand for illegal drugs among persons who are not
members of the National Guard or their dependents.
[(g)] (h) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as a limitation on the authority of any unit
of the National Guard of a State, when such unit is not in
Federal service, to perform law enforcement functions
authorized to be performed by the National Guard by the laws of
the State concerned.
[(h)] (i) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``drug interdiction and counter-drug
activities'', with respect to the National Guard of a
State, means the use of National Guard personnel in
drug interdiction and counter-drug law enforcement
activities authorized by the law of the State and
requested by the Governor of the State.
(2) The term ``Governor of a State'' means, in the
case of the District of Columbia, the Commanding
General of the National Guard of the District of
Columbia.
(3) The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, or a territory or possession of the United
States.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--TRAINING
Sec.
501. Training generally.
* * * * * * *
509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities for civilian
youth.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities for
civilian youth
(a) Program Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary of Defense,
acting through the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, may
conduct a National Guard civilian youth opportunities program
(to be known as the ``National Guard Challenge Program'') to
use the National Guard to provide military-based training,
including supervised work experience in community service and
conservation projects, to civilian youth who cease to attend
secondary school before graduating so as to improve the life
skills and employment potential of such youth.
(b) Conduct of the Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall
provide for the conduct of the National Guard Challenge Program
in such States as the Secretary considers to be appropriate,
except that Federal expenditures under the program may not
exceed $50,000,000 for any fiscal year.
(c) Program Agreements.--(1) To carry out the National Guard
Challenge Program in a State, the Secretary of Defense shall
enter into an agreement with the Governor of the State or, in
the case of the District of Columbia, with the commanding
general of the District of Columbia National Guard, under which
the Governor or the commanding general will establish,
organize, and administer the National Guard Challenge Program
in the State.
(2) The agreement may provide for the Secretary to provide
funds to the State for civilian personnel costs attributable to
the use of civilian employees of the National Guard in the
conduct of the National Guard Challenge Program.
(d) Matching Funds Required.--The amount of assistance
provided under this section to a State program of the National
Guard Challenge Program may not exceed--
(1) for fiscal year 1998, 75 percent of the costs of
operating the State program during that year;
(2) for fiscal year 1999, 70 percent of the costs of
operating the State program during that year;
(3) for fiscal year 2000, 65 percent of the costs of
operating the State program during that year; and
(4) for fiscal year 2001 and each subsequent fiscal
year, 60 percent of the costs of operating the State
program during that year.
(e) Persons Eligible to Participate in Program.--A school
dropout from secondary school shall be eligible to participate
in the National Guard Challenge Program. The Secretary of
Defense shall prescribe the standards and procedures for
selecting participants from among school dropouts.
(f) Authorized Benefits for Participants.--(1) To the extent
provided in an agreement entered into in accordance with
subsection (c) and subject to the approval of the Secretary of
Defense, a person selected for training in the National Guard
Challenge Program may receive the following benefits in
connection with that training:
(A) Allowances for travel expenses, personal
expenses, and other expenses.
(B) Quarters.
(C) Subsistence.
(D) Transportation.
(E) Equipment.
(F) Clothing.
(G) Recreational services and supplies.
(H) Other services.
(I) Subject to paragraph (2), a temporary stipend
upon the successful completion of the training, as
characterized in accordance with procedures provided in
the agreement.
(2) In the case of a person selected for training in the
National Guard Challenge Program who afterwards becomes a
member of the Civilian Community Corps under subtitle E of
title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12611 et seq.), the person may not receive a temporary
stipend under paragraph (1)(I) while the person is a member of
that Corps. The person may receive the temporary stipend after
completing service in the Corps unless the person elects to
receive benefits provided under subsection (f) or (g) of
section 158 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12618).
(3) In the case of a person who is selected for training in a
State program conducted under the National Guard Challenge
Program and who obtains a general education diploma in
connection with such training, the general education diploma
shall be treated as equivalent to a high school diploma for
purposes of determining the eligibility of the person for
enlistment in the armed forces.
(g) Program Personnel.--(1) Personnel of the National Guard
of a State in which the National Guard Challenge Program is
conducted may serve on full-time National Guard duty for the
purpose of providing command, administrative, training, or
supporting services for the program. For the performance of
those services, any such personnel may be ordered to duty under
section 502(f) of this title for not longer than the period of
the program.
(2) A Governor participating in the National Guard Challenge
Program and the commanding general of the District of Columbia
National Guard (if the District of Columbia National Guard is
participating in the program) may procure by contract the
temporary full time services of such civilian personnel as may
be necessary to augment National Guard personnel in carrying
out the National Guard Challenge Program in that State.
(3) Civilian employees of the National Guard performing
services for the National Guard Challenge Program and
contractor personnel performing such services may be required,
when appropriate to achieve the purposes of the program, to be
members of the National Guard and to wear the military uniform.
(h) Equipment and Facilities.--(1) Equipment and facilities
of the National Guard, including military property of the
United States issued to the National Guard, may be used in
carrying out the National Guard Challenge Program.
(2) Activities under the National Guard Challenge Program
shall be considered noncombat activities of the National Guard
for purposes of section 710 of this title.
(i) Status of Participants.--(1) A person receiving training
under the National Guard Challenge Program shall be considered
an employee of the United States for the purposes of the
following provisions of law:
(A) Subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5 (relating
to compensation of Federal employees for work
injuries).
(B) Section 1346(b) and chapter 171 of title 28 and
any other provision of law relating to the liability of
the United States for tortious conduct of employees of
the United States.
(2) In the application of the provisions of law referred to
in paragraph (1)(A) to a person referred to in paragraph (1)--
(A) the person shall not be considered to be in the
performance of duty while the person is not at the
assigned location of training or other activity or duty
authorized in accordance with a program agreement
referred to in subsection (c), except when the person
is traveling to or from that location or is on pass
from that training or other activity or duty;
(B) the person's monthly rate of pay shall be deemed
to be the minimum rate of pay provided for grade GS-2
of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5;
and
(C) the entitlement of a person to receive
compensation for a disability shall begin on the day
following the date on which the person's participation
in the National Guard Challenge Program is terminated.
(3) A person referred to in paragraph (1) may not be
considered an employee of the United States for any purpose
other than a purpose set forth in that paragraph.
(j) Supplemental Resources.--(1) To carry out the National
Guard Challenge Program in a State, the Governor of the State
or, in the case of the District of Columbia, the commanding
general of the District of Columbia National Guard may
supplement funds made available under the program out of other
resources (including gifts) available to the Governor or the
commanding general. The Governor or the commanding general may
accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations of money, other
property, or services for the National Guard Challenge Program.
(k) Report.--Within 90 days after the end of each fiscal
year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report on the design, conduct, and effectiveness of the
National Guard Challenge Program during the preceding fiscal
year. In preparing the report, the Secretary shall coordinate
with the Governor of each State in which the National Guard
Challenge Program is carried out and, if the program is carried
out in the District of Columbia, with the commanding general of
the District of Columbia National Guard.
(l) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``State'' includes the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the territories, and the District of
Columbia.
(2) The term ``school dropout'' means an individual
who is no longer attending any school and who has not
received a secondary school diploma or a certificate
from a program of equivalency for such a diploma.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 7--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 709. Technicians: employment, use, status
(a) * * *
(b) [Except as prescribed by the Secretary concerned, a
technician] A technician employed under subsection (a) shall,
while so employed--
(1) be a member of the National Guard;
(2) hold the military grade specified by the
Secretary concerned for that position; and
(3) wear the uniform appropriate for the member's
grade and component of the armed forces while
performing duties as a technician.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 8106 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996
(Public Law 104-61)
[Sec. 8106. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense during fiscal year 1996 may be obligated or expended to
support or finance the activities of the Defense Policy
Advisory Committee on Trade.]
----------
SECTION 4 OF THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT
training and service
Sec. 4. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(k)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(10) Each person inducted into the National Security
Training Corps shall be compensated at the monthly rate of $30:
Provided, however, That each such person, having a dependent or
dependents [as such terms are defined in the Career
Compensation Act of 1949, shall be entitled to receive a
dependency allowance equal to the sum of the basic allowance
for quarters provided for persons in pay grade E-1 by section
302(f) of the Career Compensation Act of 1949 as amended by
section 3 of the Dependents' Assistance Act of 1950 as may be
extended or amended] shall be entitled to receive a dependency
allowance equal to the basic allowance for quarters provided
for persons in pay grade E-1 under section 403 of title 37,
United States Code, plus $40 so long as such person has in
effect an allotment equal to the amount of such dependency
allowance for the support of the dependent or dependents on
whose account the allowance is claimed.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 9 OF THE COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY COMMISSIONER OFFICERS' ACT
OF 1948
Sec. 9. (a) * * *
(b)(1) In the case of an officer who has completed five or
more years of continuous active service immediately before that
separation, the amount of separation pay which may be paid to
the officer under this section is 10 percent of the product of
(A) the years of active service creditable to the officer, and
(B) twelve times the monthly basic pay to which the officer was
entitled at the time of separation[, or $30,000, whichever is
less].
(2) In the case of an officer who has completed three but
fewer than five years of continuous active service immediately
before that separation, the amount of separation pay which may
be paid to the officer under this section is one-half of the
amount computed under paragraph (1)[, but in no event more than
$15,000].
* * * * * * *
(d)[(1)] A period for which an officer has previously
received separation pay, severance pay, or readjustment pay
under any other provision of law based on service in a
uniformed service may not be included in determining the years
of creditable service that may be counted in computing the
separation pay of the officer under this section.
[(2) The total amount that an officer may receive in
separation pay under this section and separation pay, severance
pay, and readjustment pay under any other provision of law
based on service in a uniformed service may not exceed
$30,000.]
(e)(1) * * *
(2) An officer who has received separation pay under this
section may not be deprived, by reason of receipt of that pay,
of any disability compensation to which the officer is entitled
under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, but there shall be deducted from that disability
compensation an amount equal to the total amount of separation
pay received, less the amount of Federal income tax withheld
from such pay (such withholding being at the flat withholding
rate for Federal income tax withholding, as in effect pursuant
to regulations prescribed under chapter 24 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986). Notwithstanding the preceding sentence,
no deduction may be made from disability compensation for the
amount of separation pay received because of an earlier
discharge, separation, or release from a period of active duty
if the disability which is the basis for that disability
compensation was incurred or aggravated during a later period
of active duty.
----------
SECTION 221 OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
rights, privileges, etc. of officers and surviving beneficiaries
Sec. 221. (a) Commissioned officers of the Service or their
surviving beneficiaries are entitled to all the rights,
benefits, privileges, and immunities now or hereafter provided
for commissioned officers of the Army or their surviving
beneficiaries under the following provisions of title 10,
United States Code:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(16) Section 1052, Reimbursement for adoption
expenses.
* * * * * * *
----------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1986
* * * * * * *
TITLE IX--PROCUREMENT POLICY REFORM AND OTHER PROCUREMENT MATTERS
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 913. MINIMUM PERCENTAGE OF COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENTS
[(a) Annual Goal.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish
for each fiscal year a goal for the percentage of defense
procurements to be made during that year (expressed in total
dollar value of contracts entered into) that are to be
competitive procurements.
[(b) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the term
``competitive procurements'' means procurements made by the
Department of Defense through the use of competitive
procedures, as defined in section 2304 of title 10, United
States Code.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE XIV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Part D--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 1437. REPORT ON RETENTION OF BASIC POINT DEFENSE MISSILE SYSTEM
[(a) Requirement for Report by Secretary of the Navy.--The
Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report on
the removal of the Basic Point Defense Missile System from
naval amphibious vessels.
[(b) Replacement of the Basic Point Defense Missile System.--
(1) The report shall consider the current plans to replace the
Basic Point Defense Missile System on amphibious vessels with
the Close-in Weapon System (CIWS).
[(2) The report shall include an assessment of the
effectiveness of the anti-air warfare capabilities of
amphibious vessels. This assessment shall be used by the
Secretary of the Navy in considering augmenting rather than
replacing the Basic Point Defense Missile System on amphibious
vessels with the Close-in Weapon System.
[(c) Limitations on Removal of Basic Point Defense Missile
System.--The Secretary of the Navy may not remove the Basic
Point Defense Missile System from amphibious vessels until the
report is submitted.]
* * * * * * *
----------
OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY ACT
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act is
as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 27. Procurement integrity.]
Sec. 27. Restrictions on disclosing and obtaining contractor bid or
proposal information or source selection information.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 6. AUTHORITY AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) The functions of the Administrator shall include--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) providing for and directing the activities of the
Federal Acquisition Institute (including recommending
to the Administrator of General Services a sufficient
budget for such activities), which shall be located in
the General Services Administration, in order to--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(J) perform other career management or
research functions as directed by the
Administrator[.];
(6) administering the provisions of section 37;
* * * * * * *
(12) developing policies that will promote
achievement of goals for participation by small
businesses, small businesses owned and controlled by
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,
and [small business] small businesses owned and
controlled by women; and
* * * * * * *
SEC. 20. ADVOCATES FOR COMPETITION.
(a) * * *
(b) The advocate for competition of an executive agency
shall--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) identify and report to the senior procurement
executive of the executive agency designated pursuant
to section 16(3)--
(A) opportunities and actions taken to
achieve full and open competition in the
procurement activities of the executive agency;
and
(B) any condition or action which has the
effect of unnecessarily restricting competition
in the procurement actions of the executive
agency; [and]
[(4) prepare and transmit to such senior procurement
executive an annual report describing--
[(A) such advocate's activities under this
section;
[(B) new initiatives required to increase
competition; and
[(C) barriers to full and open competition
that remain;]
[(5)] (4) recommend to the senior procurement
executive of the executive agency goals and the plans
for increasing competition on a fiscal year basis;
[(6)] (5) recommend to the senior procurement
executive of the executive agency a system of personal
and organizational accountability for competition,
which may include the use of recognition and awards to
motivate program managers, contracting officers, and
others in authority to promote competition in
procurement programs; and
[(7)] (6) describe other ways in which the executive
agency has emphasized competition in programs for
procurement training and research.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 25. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATORY COUNCIL.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Functions.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(4)(A) Under procedures established by the Administrator, a
person may request the Administrator to review any regulation
relating to procurement on the basis that such regulation is
inconsistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
[(B) Unless the request is frivolous or does not, on its
face, state a valid basis for such review, the Administrator
shall complete such a review not later than 60 days after
receiving the request. The time for completion of the review
may be extended if the Administrator determines that an
additional period of review is required. The Administrator
shall advise the requester of the reasons for the extension and
the date by which the review will be completed.
[(5) If the Administrator determines that a regulation
relating to procurement is inconsistent with the Federal
Acquisition Regulation or that the regulation should otherwise
be revised to remove an inconsistency with any policies issued
under section 6(a) of this Act, the Administrator shall rescind
or deny the promulgation of the regulation or take such other
action authorized under section 6 as may be necessary to remove
the inconsistency. If the Administrator determines that such a
regulation, although not inconsistent with the Federal
Acquisition Regulation or such policies, should be revised to
improve compliance with such regulation or policies, the
Administrator shall take such action authorized under section 6
as may be necessary and appropriate.
[(6) The decisions of the Administrator shall be in writing
and made publicly available. The Administrator shall provide a
listing of such decisions in the annual report to Congress
required by section 8 of this Act.]
* * * * * * *
[(g) Reports.--The Administrator for Federal Procurement
Policy shall--
[(1) publish a report every 12 months relating to the
development of procurement regulations to be issued in
accordance with subsection (c) of this section; and
[(2) include in each report published under paragraph
(1)--
[(A) the status of each such regulation;
[(B) a description of those regulations which
are required by statute;
[(C) a description of the methods by which
public comment was sought with regard to each
proposed regulation in accordance with section
22 of this Act, and to the extent appropriate,
sections 3504(h) and 3507 of title 44, United
States Code;
[(D) regulatory activities completed and
initiated since the last report;
[(E) regulations, policies, procedures,
practices, and forms that are under
consideration or review by the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy;
[(F) whether the regulations have paperwork
requirements;
[(G) the progress made in promulgating and
implementing the Federal Acquisition
Regulation; and
[(H) such other matters as the Administrator
determines would be useful.]
* * * * * * *
SEC. 35. COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE OFF-THE-SHELF ITEM ACQUISITIONS: LISTS
OF INAPPLICABLE LAWS IN FEDERAL ACQUISITION
REGULATION.
(a) * * *
(b) Covered Law.--Except as provided in subsection (a)(3),
the list referred to in subsection (a)(1) shall include each
provision of law that, as determined by the Administrator,
imposes on persons who have been awarded contracts by the
Federal Government for the procurement of commercially
available off-the-shelf items Government-unique policies,
procedures, requirements, or restrictions for the procurement
of property or services, except the following:
(1) A provision of law that provides for criminal or
civil penalties.
(2) A provision of law that specifically refers to
this section and provides that, notwithstanding this
section, such provision of law shall be applicable to
contracts for the procurement of [commercial]
commercially available off-the-shelf items.
* * * * * * *
----------
MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 213. The Secretary of Transportation shall make studies
of and make reports to Congress [on--] on the following:
[(a)] (1) The scrapping or removal from service of
old or obsolete merchant tonnage owned by the United
States or in use in the merchant marine[;].
[(b)] (2) Tramp shipping service and the advisability
of citizens of the United States participating in such
service with vessels under United States registry[;].
[(c) The relative cost of construction or reconditioning of
comparable ocean vessels in shipyards in the various coastal
districts of the United States, together with recommendations
as to how such shipyards may compete for work on an equalized
basis; reports under this paragraph shall be made annually on
the first day of October of each year.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--CONSTRUCTION-DIFFERENTIAL SUBSIDY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 510. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i)(1) The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to
acquire suitable documented vessels, as defined in section 2101
of title 46, United States Code, with funds in the Vessel
Operations Revolving Fund derived from the sale of obsolete
vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet. For purposes of
this subsection, the acquired and obsolete vessels shall be
valued at their scrap value in domestic or foreign markets as
of the date of the acquisition for or sale from the National
Defense Reserve Fleet; except that, in a transaction subject to
this section, the value assigned to those vessels will be
determined on the same basis, with consideration given to the
fair value of the cost of positioning the traded-out vessel to
the place of scrapping. All costs incident to the lay-up of the
vessel acquired under this subsection may be paid from balances
in the Fund. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 9 and
37 of the Shipping Act, 1916, vessels sold from the National
Defense Reserve Fleet under this subsection may be scrapped in
approved foreign markets.
(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the sale under this
subsection of a vessel from the National Defense Reserve Fleet
for export, or any subsequent resale of a vessel sold from the
Fleet for export--
(i) is not a disposal or a distribution in commerce
under section 6 or 12(a) of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2611(a)) or an export
of hazardous waste under section 3017 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6938); and
(ii) is not subject to subsection (b) of section 12
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2611).
(B)(i) Subparagraph (A) applies to a vessel being sold for
export only if, before the sale of such vessel, any item listed
in clause (ii) containing polychlorinated biphenyls is removed
from the vessel.
(ii) Clause (i) covers any transformer, large high or low
voltage capacitor, or hydraulic or heat transfer fluid.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--VESSEL OPERATING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Maritime Security Fleet Program
* * * * * * *
operating agreements
Sec. 652. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Regulatory Relief.--A contractor of a vessel included in
an operating agreement under this subtitle may operate the
vessel in the foreign commerce of the United States without
restriction, and shall not be subject to any requirement under
section 801, 808, 809, or 810. Participation in the program
established by this subtitle shall not subject a contractor to
section 805 or to any provision of subtitle A. The third
sentence of section 901(b)(1) shall not apply to a vessel
included in an operating agreement under this subtitle.
* * * * * * *
national security requirements
Sec. 653. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Temporary Replacement Vessels.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subtitle or of other law to the contrary--
[(1) a contractor may operate or employ in foreign
commerce a foreign-flag vessel or foreign-flag vessel
capacity, as a temporary replacement for a United
States-documented vessel or United States-documented
vessel capacity that is activated under an Emergency
Preparedness Agreement; and]
(1) a contractor or other person that commits to make
available a vessel or vessel capacity under the
Emergency Preparedness Program or another primary
sealift readiness program approved by the Secretary of
Defense may, during the activation of that vessel or
capacity under that program, operate or employ in
foreign commerce a foreign-flag vessel or foreign-flag
vessel capacity as a temporary replacement for the
activated vessel or capacity; and
* * * * * * *
noncontiguous domestic trades
Sec. 656. (a) * * *
(b)(1) Subsection (a) shall not apply in any way to provision
by a contractor of service within the level of service provided
by that contractor as of the date established by subsection (c)
or to provision of service permitted by subsection (d).
(2) Subsection (a) shall not apply to operation by a
contractor of a self-propelled tank vessel in a noncontiguous
domestic trade, or to ownership by a contractor of an interest
in a self-propelled tank vessel that operates in a
noncontiguous domestic trade.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 6 OF THE NATIONAL MARITINE HERITAGE ACT OF 1994
SEC. 6. FUNDING.
(a) Availability of Funds From Sale and Scrapping of Obsolete
Vessels.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the amount of funds credited in a fiscal year
to the Vessel Operations Revolving Fund established by
the Act of June 2, 1951 (46 App. U.S.C. 1241a), that is
attributable to the sale of obsolete vessels in the
National Defense Reserve Fleet that are scrapped or
sold under section 508 or 510(i) of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1158 or 1160(i)) shall be
available until expended as follows:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Use of Amounts for Program.--
(1) * * *
(2) Use for interim projects.--Amounts available for
the Program under subsection (a)(1)(C) that are the
proceeds of any of the first 6 obsolete vessels in the
National Defense Reserve Fleet that are sold or
scrapped after July 1, 1994, under section 508 or
510(i) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. 1158
or 1160(i)) are available to the Secretary for grants
for interim projects approved under section 4(j) of
this Act.
* * * * * * *
(c) Disposals of Vessels.--
(1) Requirement.--The Secretary of Transportation
shall dispose of all vessels described in paragraph
(2)--
(A) by September 30, [1999] 2001;
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND OTHER NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
Part B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 117. MANAGEMENT OF CERTAIN DEFENSE PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS
[(a) Stretchout Impact Statement.--The Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress, at the same time the budget for any
fiscal year is submitted to Congress under section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code, a statement of what the effect
would be during the fiscal year for which the budget is
submitted of the stretchout of a major defense acquisition
program if either of the following applies with respect to that
program:
[(1) The final year of procurement scheduled for the
program at the time the statement is submitted is more
than two years later than the final year of procurement
for the program as specified in the most recent annual
Selected Acquisition Report for that program.
[(2) The proposed procurement quantity for that
fiscal year is less than 90 percent of the procurement
quantity proposed for the same fiscal year in the most
recent annual Selected Acquisition Report for that
program.
[(b) Changes in Certain Costs To Be Included.--A statement
under subsection (a) with respect to a major defense
acquisition program shall contain an estimate of the projected
increase in unit cost and the projected increase in total
program cost for the system being procured under the program
compared to the program specified in the most recent annual
Selected Acquisition Report for that program.
[(d) Limitations.--(1) Subsection (a) shall apply only for
major defense acquisition programs for which procurement is
proposed at a rate of six or more units per year.
[(2) Subsection (a) shall not apply if the total procurement
quantity has been increased, compared to the program specified
in the most recent annual Selection Acquisition Report for that
program, and subsection (a)(2) does not apply.
[(e) Report on Establishing Maximum Production Rates.--Not
later than March 15, 1989, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives a report on the feasibility and
effect of establishing maximum production rates by December
1990 for certain major defense acquisition programs. The report
shall identify and discuss ten programs, of which seven shall
be programs for the procurement of conventional, tactical, or
dual-capable systems.
[(f) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``major defense acquisition program'' has the meaning given
that term in section 2430 of title 10, United States Code.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE XIV--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1436. NUCLEAR TEST BAN READINESS PROGRAM
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Energy shall submit to
Congress each year an unclassified report (with a classified
annex as necessary) that describes the progress made to the
date of the report in achieving the purposes of the program
required to be established under subsection (b).]
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1990 AND 1991
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
Part B--B-2 Aircraft Program
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 115. ONGOING INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF B-2 AIRCRAFT PROGRAM
[(a) Independent Assessment.--The Secretary of Defense shall
provide for an ongoing independent assessment of the
technological capabilities and performance of the B-2 aircraft.
The Secretary shall appoint a panel of experts and shall use
the resources of federally funded research and development
centers (FFRDCs) to conduct the assessment. The Secretary shall
provide the panel such resources as are necessary, including
technical assistance by private contractors and the United
States intelligence community, to assist the panel in
conducting the assessment. Individuals appointed to the panel
shall be independent of the Air Force and shall have no
arrangements with the Air Force that would constitute a
conflict of interest.
[(b) Report.--The panel shall submit periodic reports of its
findings to Congress. The first such report shall be submitted
not later than April 1, 1990. Subsequent reports shall be
submitted every six months thereafter until B-2 aircraft
procurement is completed. Such reports shall be submitted in
both classified and unclassified form. Each such report shall
address the following matters:
[(1) The capability of air defenses of the Soviet
Union to defeat the B-2 aircraft during the designed
service life of that aircraft, taking into
consideration in particular--
[(A) the low radar signature and anticipated
performance of the aircraft;
[(B) technological capabilities of the Soviet
Union;
[(C) developments by the Soviet Union of
alternatives to defeat the B-2 aircraft; and
[(D) the estimated cost to the Soviet Union
to defeat the B-2 aircraft.
[(2) The rationale for building the B-2 aircraft as a
manned penetrating bomber, taking into consideration in
particular--
[(A) the missions of the aircraft;
[(B) the capabilities of the aircraft to
complete those missions; and
[(C) the capability of the aircraft to search
for, identify, and destroy strategic
relocatable targets.
[(3) The opportunity costs associated with the B-2
program as compared to other available or emerging
technologies and operational concepts that could
perform the missions of the B-2 aircraft at lesser
costs.
[(4) The planned service life of the B-2 aircraft and
the potential for growth in that planned service life
through the incorporation of preplanned product
improvements and other modifications.
[(5) The requirements for any follow-on aircraft or
system that incorporates both low observable technology
and high speed maneuverability.
[(6) An assessment of the capability of the United
States to defeat, identify, and destroy low observable
vehicles, including manned aircraft and unmanned
systems.]
* * * * * * *
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Part D--Environment, Safety, and Management
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 3143. MAJOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
[(a) Major Program Defined.--In this section, the term
``major Department of Energy national security program'' means
a research and development program (which may include
construction and production activities), a construction
program, or a production program--
[(1) that is designated by the Secretary of Energy as
a major Department of Energy national security program;
or
[(2) that is estimated by the Secretary of Energy to
cost more than $500,000,000 (based on fiscal year 1989
constant dollars).
[(b) Required Reports.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(3), the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committees on
Armed Services and the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and House of Representatives at the end of each
calendar-year quarter a report on each major Department of
Energy national security program.
[(2) Each such report shall include, at a minimum, the
following information:
[(A) A description of the program, its purpose, and
its relationship to the mission of the national
security program of the Department of Energy.
[(B) The program schedule, including estimated annual
costs.
[(C) A comparison of the current schedule and cost
estimates with previous schedule and cost estimates,
and an explanation of changes.
[(3) A report under this section need not be submitted for
the first, second, or third calendar-year quarter if the
comparison between current schedule and cost estimates and
schedule and cost estimates contained in the last submitted
report shows that there has been--
[(A) less than a 5 percent change in total program
cost; and
[(B) less than a 90-day delay in any significant
schedule item of the program.
[(c) Submission of Report.--Each report under this section
shall be submitted not later than 30 days after the end of each
calendar-year quarter. The first report shall cover the fourth
quarter of 1989 and shall be submitted not later than January
30, 1990.
[(d) Identification of Programs.--Not later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Energy shall submit a report to the Committees on Armed
Services and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
House of Representatives that identifies all programs of the
Department of Energy that are major Department of Energy
national security programs, as defined in subsection (a).]
* * * * * * *
----------
THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 845. AUTHORITY OF THE DEFENSE DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS
AGENCY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN PROTOTYPE PROJECTS.
(a) Authority.--The Director of the Defense Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency may, under the authority of section
2371 of title 10, United States Code, carry out prototype
projects that are directly relevant to weapons or weapon
systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department
of Defense.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3138. STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Report.--Each year, at the same time the President
submits the budget under section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code, the President shall submit to the Congress a
report covering the most recently completed calendar year which
sets forth--
[(1) any concerns with respect to the safety,
security, effectiveness, or reliability of existing
United States nuclear weapons raised by the Stockpile
Surveillance Program of the Department of Energy, and
the calculations and experiments performed by Sandia
National Laboratories, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, or Los Alamos National Laboratory; and
[(2) if such concerns have been raised, the
President's evaluation of each concern and a report on
what actions are being or will be taken to address that
concern.]
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1992 AND 1993
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
Part A--Acquisition Process
* * * * * * *
SEC. 807. GOVERNMENT-INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ON RIGHTS IN TECHNICAL DATA.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Government-Industry Committee.--(1) Not later than 60
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Defense shall appoint a government-industry committee for
the purpose of developing regulations to recommend to the
Secretary of Defense for purposes of carrying out subsection
(a).
(2) The membership of the committee shall include, at a
minimum, representatives of the following:
(A) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Technology.
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Part G--Miscellaneous Matters
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 1084. DISPLAY OF POW/MIA FLAG.
[(a) Display of POW/MIA Flag.--The POW/MIA flag, having been
recognized and designated in section 2 of Public Law 101-355
(104 Stat. 416) as the symbol of the Nation's concern and
commitment to resolving as fully as possible the fates of
Americans still prisoner, missing, and unaccounted for, thus
ending the uncertainty for their families and the Nation, shall
be displayed--
[(1) at each national cemetery and at the National
Vietnam Veterans Memorial each year on Memorial Day and
Veterans Day and on any day designated by law as
National POW/MIA Recognition Day; and
[(2) on, or on the grounds of, the buildings
specified in subsection (b) on any day designated by
law as National POW/MIA Recognition Day.
[(b) Specified Buildings for Flag Display.--The buildings
referred to in subsection (a)(2) are the buildings containing
the primary offices of--
[(1) the Secretary of State;
[(2) the Secretary of Defense;
[(3) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and
[(4) the Director of the Selective Service System.
[(c) Procurement and Distribution of Flags.--Within 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator
of General Services shall procure POW/MIA flags and distribute
them as necessary to carry out this section.
[(d) Termination of Flag Display Requirement.--Subsection (a)
shall cease to apply upon a determination by the President that
the fullest possible accounting has been made of all members of
the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the United States
who have been identified as prisoner of war or missing in
action in Southeast Asia.
[(e) POW/MIA Flag Defined.--As used in this section, the term
``POW/MIA flag'' means the National League of Families POW/MIA
flag recognized officially and designated by section 2 of
Public Law 101-355 (104 Stat. 416).]
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1121 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS
1988 AND 1989
SEC. 1121. COUNTERINTELLIGENCE POLYGRAPH PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Limitation on Number of Examinations.--The number of
counterintelligence polygraph examinations that may be
administered [under this section--
[(1) may not exceed 10,000 during each of fiscal
years 1988, 1989, and 1990; and
[(2) may not exceed 5,000 during any fiscal year
after fiscal year 1990] under this section may not
exceed 5,000 during any fiscal year for which a
specific number is not otherwise provide by law.
(d) * * *
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 309 OF THE FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT OF
1949
SEC. 309. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this title--
(a) * * *
(b) The term ``competitive procedures'' means procedures
under which an executive agency enters into a contract pursuant
to full and open competition. Such term also includes--
(1) * * *
(2) the competitive selection of basic research
proposals resulting from a general solicitation and the
peer review or scientific review (as appropriate) of
such proposals; [and]
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 6 OF THE CONTRACT DISPUTES ACT OF 1978
decision by the contracting officer
Sec. 6. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a
contractor and a contracting officer may use any alternative
means of dispute resolution under subchapter IV of chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code [(as in effect on September 30,
1995)], or other mutually agreeable procedures, for resolving
claims. In a case in which such alternative means of dispute
resolution or other mutually agreeable procedures are used, the
contractor shall certify that the claim is made in good faith,
that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best
of his or her knowledge and belief, and that the amount
requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which
the contractor believes the Government is liable. All
provisions of subchapter IV of chapter 5 of title 5, United
States Code [(as in effect on September 30, 1995)], shall apply
to such alternative means of dispute resolution.
(e) The authority of agencies to engage in alternative means
of dispute resolution proceedings under subsection (d) shall
cease to be effective on October 1, 1999, except that such
authority shall continue in effect with respect to then pending
dispute resolution proceedings which, in the judgment of the
agencies that are parties to such proceedings, require such
continuation, until such proceedings terminate. In any case in
which the contracting officer rejects a contractor's request
for alternative dispute resolution proceedings, the contracting
officer shall provide the contractor with a written
explanation, citing one or more of the conditions in section
572(b) of title 5, United States Code [(as in effect on
September 30, 1995)], or such other specific reasons that
alternative dispute resolution procedures are inappropriate for
the resolution of the dispute. In any case in which a
contractor rejects a request of an agency for alternative
dispute resolution proceedings, the contractor shall inform the
agency in writing of the contractor's specific reasons for
rejecting the request.
----------
SECTION 16 OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT
Sec. 16. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) Whoever misrepresents the status of any concern or
person as a ``small business concern'', a ``small business
concern owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals'', or a ``small business [concerns]
concern owned and controlled by women'', in order to obtain for
oneself or another any--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Any representation of the status of any concern or person
as a ``small business concern'', a ``small business concern
owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged
individuals'', or a ``small business [concerns] concern owned
and controlled by women'' in order to obtain any prime contract
or subcontract enumerated in subection (d) of this section
shall be in writing.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1505 OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CONTROL ACT OF 1992
SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Sources of Assistance.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The total amount of the assistance provided in the form
of funds under this section, including funds used for
activities of the Department of Defense in support of the
United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, may not exceed
$25,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, $20,000,000 for fiscal year
1995, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, [or] $15,000,000 for
fiscal year 1997, or $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1998.
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary
of Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates
at the close of fiscal year [1997] 1998.
* * * * * * *
----------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.
This division may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXII--NAVY
SEC. 2201. AUTHORIZED NAVY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2204(a)(1), and, in the case of the projects described in
paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 2204(b), other amounts
appropriated pursuant to authorizations enacted after this Act
for the projects, the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Navy: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
State location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona....................... Navy Detachment, Camp $3,920,000
Navajo.
California.................... Marine Corps Air-
Ground Combat
Center, Twentynine
Palms............... $4,020,000
Marine Corps Air
Station, Camp
Pendleton........... $6,240,000
Marine Corps Base,
Camp Pendleton...... $51,630,000
* * * * * * *
Mississippi................... Navy Project, Stennis $7,960,000
Space Center.
Naval Air Station, $4,990,000
Pascagoula.
* * * * * * *
Naval Undersea
Warfare Center,
Keyport............. $6,800,000
CONUS Various................. Defense access roads. $300,000
------------------
Total:............. [$589,992,000]
$594,982,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NAVY.
(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1996, for military construction, land acquisition, and military
family housing functions of the Department of the Navy in the
total amount of [$2,213,731,000] $2,218,721,000 as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the
United States authorized by section 2201(a),
[$579,312,000] $584,302,000.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
SEC. 2301. AUTHORIZED AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(1), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Air Force: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
State location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ Maxwell Air Force Base. $7,875,000
* * * * * * *
Kansas......................... McConnell Air Force [$19,130,000]
Base. $25,830,000
* * * * * * *
Washington..................... Fairchild Air Force $18,155,000
Base.
McChord Air Force Base. $57,065,000
Wyoming........................ F.E. Warren Air Force $3,700,000
Base.
---------------
Total:............... $603,834,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, AIR FORCE.
(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1996, for military construction, land acquisition, and military
family housing functions of the Department of the Air Force in
the total amount of [$1,894,594,000] $1,901,294,000 as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the
United States authorized by section 2301(a),
[$603,834,000] $610,534,000.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SEC. 2601. AUTHORIZED GUARD AND RESERVE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years
beginning after September 30, 1996, for the costs of
acquisition, architectural and engineering services, and
construction of facilities for the Guard and Reserve Forces,
and for contributions therefor, under chapter 1803 of title 10,
United States Code (including the cost of acquisition of land
for those facilities), the following amounts:
(1) For the Department of the Army--
(A) for the Army National Guard of the United
States, [$59,194,000] $65,094,000; and
(B) for the Army Reserve, $55,543,000.
(2) For the Department of the Navy, for the Naval and
Marine Corps Reserve, [$32,779,000] $37,879,000.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances
PART I--ARMY CONVEYANCES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2824. LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE CENTER, ANDERSON, SOUTH
CAROLINA.
(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the [County of Anderson,
South Carolina (in this section referred to as the ``County'')]
Board of Education, Anderson County, South Carolina (in this
section referred to as the ``Board''), all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
property, including improvements thereon, that is located at
805 East Whitner Street in Anderson, South Carolina, and
contains an Army Reserve Center.
(b) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance authorized under
subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the
[County] Board retain the conveyed property for the use and
benefit of the Anderson [County] Board Department of Education.
(c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to
the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the
[County] Board.
* * * * * * *
PART II--NAVY CONVEYANCES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2837. LEASE TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION OF RESERVE CENTER, NAVAL
AIR STATION, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI.
(a) Lease of Property for Construction of Reserve Center.--
(1) The Secretary of the Navy may lease, without reimbursement,
to the [State of Mississippi (in this section referred to as
the ``State'')] County of Lauderdale, Mississippi (in this
section referred to as the ``County''), approximately five
acres of real property located at Naval Air Station, Meridian,
Mississippi. The [State] County shall use the property to
construct a reserve center of approximately 22,000 square feet
and ancillary supporting facilities.
(2) The term of the lease under this subsection shall expire
on the same date that the lease authorized by subsection (b)
expires.
(b) Leaseback of Reserve Center.--(1) The Secretary may lease
from the [State] County the property and improvements
constructed pursuant to subsection (a) for a five-year period.
The term of the lease shall begin on the date on which the
improvements are available for occupancy, as determined by the
Secretary.
(2) Rental payments under the lease under paragraph (1) may
not exceed $200,000 per year, and the total amount of the
rental payments for the entire period may not exceed 20 percent
of the total cost of constructing the reserve center and
ancillary supporting facilities.
(3) Subject to the availability of appropriations for this
purpose, the Secretary may use funds appropriated pursuant to
an authorization of appropriations for the operation and
maintenance of the Naval Reserve to make rental payments
required under this subsection.
(c) Effect of Termination of Leases.--At the end of the lease
term under subsection (b), the [State] County shall convey,
without reimbursement, to the United States all right, title,
and interest of the [State] County in the reserve center and
ancillary supporting facilities subject to the lease.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 2401 OF THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1995
SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in section 2405(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense
may acquire real property and carry out military construction
projects for the installations and locations inside the United
States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Installation or location Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction...... Anniston Army Depot, Alabama................ $5,000,000
Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas................ [$115,000,000]
$134,000,000
Tooele Army Depot, Utah..................... $4,000,000
Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon................. [$186,000,000]
$187,000,000
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
SECTION 204 OF THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS AND BASE CLOSURE
AND REALIGNMENT ACT
SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) * * *
(b) Management and Disposal of Property.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5)(A) Except as provided in [subparagraph (B)] subparagraphs
(B) and (C), the Secretary shall take such actions as the
Secretary determines necessary to ensure that final
determinations under paragraph (1) regarding whether another
department or agency of the Federal Government has identified a
use for any portion of a military installation to be closed
under this title after the date of the enactment of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, or
will accept transfer of any portion of such installation, are
made not later than 6 months after such date of enactment.
* * * * * * *
(C)(i) Before acquiring non-Federal real property as the
location for a new or replacement Federal facility of any type,
the head of the Federal agency acquiring the property shall
consult with the Secretary regarding the feasibility and cost
advantages of using Federal property or facilities at a
military installation to be closed or realigned under this
title as the location for the new or replacement facility. In
considering the availability and suitability of a specific
military installation, the Secretary and the head of the
Federal agency involved shall consult with the redevelopment
authority with respect to the installation and comply with the
redevelopment plan for the installation.
(ii) Not later than 30 days after acquiring non-Federal real
property as the location for a new or replacement Federal
facility, the head of the Federal agency acquiring the property
shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of the
consultation under clause (i) and the reasons why military
installations referred to in such clause that are located
within the area to be served by the new or replacement Federal
facility or within a 200-mile radius of the new or replacement
facility, whichever area is greater, were considered to be
unsuitable or unavailable for the site of the new or
replacement facility.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 2905 OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990
SEC. 2905. IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) * * *
(b) Management and Disposal of Property.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5)(A) Except as provided in [subparagraph (B)] subparagraphs
(B) and (C), the Secretary shall take such actions as the
Secretary determines necessary to ensure that final
determinations under paragraph (1) regarding whether another
department or agency of the Federal Government has identified a
use for any portion of a military installation to be closed
under this part, or will accept transfer of any portion of such
installation, are made not later than 6 months after the date
of approval of closure of that installation.
* * * * * * *
(C)(i) Before acquiring non-Federal real property as the
location for a new or replacement Federal facility of any type,
the head of the Federal agency acquiring the property shall
consult with the Secretary regarding the feasibility and cost
advantages of using Federal property or facilities at a
military installation to be closed or realigned under this part
as the location for the new or replacement facility. In
considering the availability and suitability of a specific
military installation, the Secretary and the head of the
Federal agency involved shall consult with the redevelopment
authority with respect to the installation and comply with the
redevelopment plan for the installation.
(ii) Not later than 30 days after acquiring non-Federal real
property as the location for a new or replacement Federal
facility, the head of the Federal agency acquiring the property
shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of the
consultation under clause (i) and the reasons why military
installations referred to in such clause that are located
within the area to be served by the new or replacement Federal
facility or within a 200-mile radius of the new or replacement
facility, whichever area is greater, were considered to be
unsuitable or unavailable for the site of the new or
replacement facility.
* * * * * * *
----------
THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1985
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
PART C--REAL PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS
* * * * * * *
land conveyance, lompoc, california
Sec. 834. (a) * * *
(b)(1) The conveyance authorized by subsection (a) shall be
subject to the condition that the real property conveyed shall
be used by the City--
[(A) for the Lompoc, California, Western Spaceport
Museum and Science Center as a permanent site for a
space science museum;
[(B) for educational and recreational purposes
related to the purpose described in subparagraph (A);
or]
(A) for educational and recreational purposes;
(B) for open space; or
* * * * * * *
land conveyance, riverside county, california
Sec. 835. (a) * * *
(b) In consideration for the conveyance by the Secretary
under subsection (a), the Corporation shall pay to the United
States an amount of money equal to the fair market value (as
determined by the Secretary) of the land authorized to be
conveyed under [subsection (b)] subsection (a).
(c) The land referred to in subsection (a) is a portion of
March Air Force Base, California, composed of one parcel
containing approximately 150 acres. The tract of land is on
west March Air Force Base bounded on the east by [Clark Street,
on the west by Allen Street, on the south by 5th Street, and
the north is an extension of 11th Street between Allen and
Clark Streets.] Village West Drive, on the west by Allen
Avenue, on the south by 8th Street, and the north is an
extension of 11th Street between Allen Avenue and Clark Street.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 5 OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ACT OF
1992
SEC. 5. DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT THE ARSENAL FOR
COMMERCIAL, HIGHWAY, OR OTHER PUBLIC USE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Transfer for Sale.--(1) The Secretary of the Army shall
transfer to the Administrator of the General Services
Administration those parcels of the area of real property
described in subsection (a)(1). [The transferred property shall
be sold in advertised sales] The Administrator shall convey the
transferred property to Commerce City, Colorado, in a
negotiated sale, as surplus property under the provisions of
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
(40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.), except that the provisions of such Act
relating to reduced- or no-cost transfers to other governmental
entities shall not apply to this property.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 810 OF THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1968
[Sec. 810. (a) The Naval Academy Dairy Farm is a self-
supporting operation, an economic and morale-building asset to
the Department of the Navy, and shall continue in its present
status and function.
[(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.)
or any other provision of law, the real property located in
Gambrills, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and comprising the
Naval Academy Dairy Farm shall not be determined excess to the
needs of the holding agency or transferred, reassigned, or
otherwise disposed of by such agency, nor shall any action be
taken by the Navy to close, dispose of or phase out the Naval
Academy Dairy Farm unless specially authorized by an Act of
Congress.]
----------
ACT OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1960
(Public Law 86-797, Commonly Known as the ``Sikes Act'')
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Sikes Act''.
TITLE I--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON [MILITARY RESERVATIONS] MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS
Sec. 101. (a)(1) The Secretary of Defense [is authorized to]
shall carry out a program of planning for, and the development,
maintenance, and coordination of, wildlife, fish, and game
conservation and rehabilitation [in each military reservation
in accordance with a cooperative plan] on military
installations. Under the program, the Secretary shall prepare
and implement for each military installation in the United
States an integrated natural resource management plan mutually
agreed upon by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the
Interior, and the appropriate State agency designated by the
State in which [the reservation] the installation is located,
except that the Secretary is not required to prepare such a
plan for a military installation if the Secretary determines
that preparation of such a plan for the installation is not
appropriate.
(2) Consistent with essential military requirements to
enhance the national security of the United States, the
Secretary of Defense shall manage each military installation to
provide--
(A) for the conservation of fish and wildlife on the
military installation and sustained multipurpose uses
of those resources, including hunting, fishing, and
trapping; and
(B) public access that is necessary or appropriate
for those uses.
(b) Each [cooperative plan] integrated natural resource
management plan entered into under subsection (a)--
(1) shall provide for--
(A) fish and wildlife habitat improvements or
modifications,
(B) range rehabilitation where necessary for
support of wildlife,
(C) control of off-road vehicle traffic,
[and]
(D) specific habitat improvement projects and
related activities and adequate protection for
species of fish, wildlife, and plants
considered threatened or endangered[;],
(E) wetland protection and restoration, and
wetland creation where necessary, for support
of fish or wildlife,
(F) consideration of conservation needs for
all biological communities, and
(G) the establishment of specific natural
resource management goals, objectives, and
time-frames for proposed actions;
(2) shall for the military installation for which it
is prepared--
(A) address the needs for fish and wildlife
management, land management, forest management,
and wildlife-oriented recreation,
(B) ensure the integration of, and
consistency among, the various activities
conducted under the plan,
(C) ensure that there is no net loss in the
capability of installation lands to support the
military mission of the installation,
(D) provide for sustained use by the public
of natural resources, to the extent that such
use is not inconsistent with the military
mission of the installation or the needs of
fish and wildlife management,
(E) provide the public access to the
installation that is necessary or appropriate
for that use, to the extent that access is not
inconsistent with the military mission of the
installation, and
(F) provide for professional enforcement of
natural resource laws and regulations;
[(2)] (3) must be reviewed as to operation and effect
by the parties thereto on a regular basis, but not less
often than every 5 years;
[(3) shall, if a multiuse natural resources
management plan is applicable to the military
reservation, be treated as the exclusive component of
that management plan with respect to wildlife, fish,
and game conservation and rehabilitation; and]
(4) may stipulate the issuance of special State
hunting and fishing permits to individuals and require
payment of nominal fees therefor, which fees shall be
utilized for the protection, conservation, and
management of fish and wildlife, including habitat
improvement and related activities in accordance with
the [cooperative plan] integrated natural resource
management plan; except that--
(A) the Commanding Officer of [the
reservation] the installation or persons
designated by that Officer are authorized to
enforce such special hunting and fishing
permits and to [collect the fees therefor,]
collect, spend, administer, and account for
fees therefor, acting as agent or agents for
the State if the [cooperative plan] integrated
natural resource management plan so provides,
and
(B) the fees collected under this paragraph
may not be expended with respect to other than
the military [reservation] installation on
which collected, unless that military
installation is subsequently closed, in which
case the fees may be transferred to another
military installation to be used for the same
purposes.
(c) After [a cooperative plan] an integrated natural resource
management plan is agreed to under subsection (a)--
(1) no sale of land, or forest products from land,
that is within [a military reservation] a military
installation covered by that plan may be made under
section 2665 (a) or (b) of title 10, United States
Code; and
(2) no leasing of land that is within [the
reservation] the installation may be made under section
2667 of such title 10;
unless the effects of that sale or leasing are compatible with
the purposes of the plan.
(d) With regard to the implementation and enforcement of
[cooperative plans] integrated natural resource management
plans agreed to under subsection (a)--
(1) neither Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-76 nor any successor circular thereto applies to the
procurement of services that are necessary for that
implementation and enforcement; and
(2) priority shall be given to the entering into of
contracts for the procurement of such implementation
and enforcement services with Federal and State
agencies having responsibility for the conservation or
management of fish or wildlife.
(e) [Cooperative plans] Integrated natural resource
management plans agreed to under the authority of this section
and section 102 shall not be deemed to be, nor treated as,
cooperative agreements to which the Federal Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 (41 U.S.C. 501 et seq.)
applies.
(f) Public Comment.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide
an opportunity for public comment on each integrated natural
resource management plan prepared under subsection (a).
(g) Reviews and Reports.--
(1) Secretary of defense.--The Secretary of Defense
shall, by not later than March 1 of each year, review
the extent to which integrated natural resource
management plans were prepared or in effect and
implemented in accordance with this Act in the
preceding year, and submit a report on the findings of
that review to the committees. Each report shall
include--
(A) the number of integrated natural resource
management plans in effect in the year covered
by the report, including the date on which each
plan was issued in final form or most recently
revised;
(B) the amount of moneys expended on
conservation activities conducted pursuant to
those plans in the year covered by the report,
including amounts expended under the Legacy
Resource Management Program established under
section 8120 of the Act of November 5, 1990
(Public Law 101-511; 104 Stat. 1905); and
(C) an assessment of the extent to which the
plans comply with the requirements of
subsection (b)(1) and (2), including
specifically the extent to which the plans
ensure in accordance with subsection (b)(2)(C)
that there is no net loss of lands to support
the military missions of military
installations.
(2) Secretary of the interior.--The Secretary of the
Interior, by not later than March 1 of each year and in
consultation with State agencies responsible for
conservation or management of fish or wildlife, shall
submit a report to the committees on the amount of
moneys expended by the Department of the Interior and
those State agencies in the year covered by the report
on conservation activities conducted pursuant to
integrated natural resource management plans.
(3) Committees defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``committees'' means the Committee
on Resources and the Committee on National Security of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed
Services and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate.
Sec. 102. The Secretary of Defense in cooperation with the
Secretary of Interior and the appropriate State agency is
authorized to carry out a program for the conservation,
restoration and management of migratory game birds on [military
reservations] military installations, including the issuance of
special hunting permits and the collection of fees therefor, in
accordance with [a cooperative plan] an integrated natural
resource management plan mutually agreed upon by the Secretary
of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior and the appropriate
State agency: Provided, That possession of a special permit for
hunting migratory game birds issued pursuant to this title
shall not relieve the permittee of the requirements of the
Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act as amended nor of the
requirements pertaining to State law set forth in Public Law
85-337.
Sec. 103. The Secretary of Defense is also authorized to
carry out a program for the development, enhancement,
operation, and maintenance of public outdoor recreation
resources at [military reservations] military installations in
accordance with [a cooperative plan] an integrated natural
resource management plan mutually agreed upon by the Secretary
of Defense and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation
with the appropriate State agency designated by the State in
which [such reservations] such installations are located.
Sec. 103a. (a) * * *
(b) A cooperative agreement shall provide for the Secretary
of Defense and the other party or parties to the agreement--
(1) to contribute funds on a [matching basis] cost-
sharing basis to defray the cost of programs, projects,
and activities under the agreement; or
(2) to furnish services on a [matching basis] cost-
sharing basis to carry out such programs, projects, and
activities,
or to do both.
(c) Cooperative agreements entered into under this section
shall be subject to the availability of funds and shall not be
considered, nor be treated as, cooperative agreements to which
chapter 63 of title 31, United States Code, applies, and shall
not be subject to section 1535 of that title.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 106. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT OF OTHER LAWS.
All Federal laws relating to the conservation of natural
resources on Federal lands may be enforced by the Secretary of
Defense with respect to violations of those laws which occur on
military installations within the United States.
SEC. 107. NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
The Secretary of each military department shall ensure that
sufficient numbers of professionally trained natural resource
management personnel and natural resource law enforcement
personnel are available and assigned responsibility to perform
tasks necessary to comply with this Act, including the
preparation and implementation of integrated natural resource
management plans.
SEC. 108. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Military installation.--The term ``military
installation''--
(A) means any land or interest in land owned
by the United States and administered by the
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a
military department; and
(B) includes all public lands withdrawn from
all forms of appropriation under public land
laws and reserved for use by the Secretary of
Defense or the Secretary of a military
department.
(2) State fish and wildlife agency.--The term ``State
fish and wildlife agency'' means an agency of State
government that is responsible under State law for
managing fish or wildlife resources.
(3) United states.--The term ``United States'' means
the States, the District of Columbia, and the
territories and possessions of the United States.
Sec. 109. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall expend such
funds as may be collected in accordance with the integrated
natural resource management plans agreed to under sections 101
and 102 and cooperative agreements agreed to under section 103a
of this title, and for no other purpose. All funds that are so
collected shall remain available until expended.
(b) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
of Defense not to exceed $1,500,000 for each of the fiscal
years 1983 through 2000, to carry out this title, including the
enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat and the development of
public recreation and other facilities, and to carry out such
functions and responsibilities as the Secretary may have under
cooperative agreements entered into under section 103a. The
Secretary of Defense shall, to the greatest extent practicable,
enter into agreements to utilize the services, personnel,
equipment, and facilities, with or without reimbursement, of
the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out the provisions of
this section.
(c) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary
of the Interior not to exceed $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 1983 through 2000, to carry out such functions and
responsibilities as the Secretary may have under integrated
natural resource management plans to which such Secretary is a
party under this section, including those for the enhancement
of fish and wildlife habitat and the development of public
recreation and other facilities.
(d) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the
Interior may each use any authority available to him under
other laws relating to fish, wildlife, or plant conservation or
rehabilitation for purposes of carrying out the provisions of
this title.
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ON CERTAIN PUBLIC LAND
* * * * * * *
Sec. 209. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated [the
sum of $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1983, 1984,
1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993, to
enable the Secretary of the Interior] $4,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2000, to enable the Secretary of the
Interior to carry out his functions and responsibilities under
this title, including data collection, research, planning, and
conservation and rehabilitation programs on public lands. Such
funds shall be in addition to those authorized for wildlife,
range, soil, and water management pursuant to section 318 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1748), or other provisions of law.
(b) There are authorized to be appropriated [the sum of
$12,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1983, 1984, 1985,
1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993, to enable
the Secretary of Agriculture] $5,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 1998 through 2000, to enable the Secretary of Agriculture
to carry out his functions and responsibilities under this
title. Such funds shall be in addition to those provided under
other provisions of law. In requesting funds under this
subsection the Secretary shall take into account fish and
wildlife program needs, including those for projects,
identified in the State comprehensive plans as contained in the
program developed pursuant to the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1601-1610).
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 27, 1986
AN ACT To enhance the carrying out of fish and wildlife conservation
and natural resource management programs on military reservations, and
for other purposes.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 2. NATURAL RESOURCES AND FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ON MILITARY
RESERVATIONS; REPORT ON MILITARY EXPENDITURES FOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT.
[(a) Natural Resources Management.--The Secretary of each
military department shall manage the natural resources of each
military reservation within the United States that is under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary--
[(1) so as to provide for sustained multipurpose uses
of those resources; and
[(2) to provide the public access that is necessary
or appropriate for those uses;
to the extent that those uses and that access are not
inconsistent with the military mission of the reservation.
[(b) Fish and Wildlife Management Services.--The Secretary of
each military department shall ensure, to the extent feasible,
that the services necessary for the development,
implementation, and enforcement of fish and wildlife management
on each military reservation within the United States under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary are provided by the Department of
Defense personnel who have professional training in those
services.
[(c) Fish and Wildlife Management Report.--The Secretary of
each military department shall submit to each House of the
Congress, before the close of the 180-day period occurring
after the close of fiscal year 1986, a detailed report setting
forth the amount and purpose of all expenditures made during
fiscal year 1986 for fish and wildlife management on each
military reservation in the United States under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary.
[(d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
[(1) The term ``military department'' means the
Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and
the Department of the Air Force.
[(2) The term ``United States'' means the States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and the territories and possessions of the United
States.]
----------
SECTION OF THE 210 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND MILITARY
APPLICATIONS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1981
[restriction on licensing requirement for certain defense activities
and facilities
[Sec. 210. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by
this or any other Act may be used for any purpose related to
licensing of any defense activity or facility of the Department
of Energy by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.]
----------
SECTION 6 OF THE STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MATERIALS STOCK PILING ACT
stockpile management
Sec. 6. (a) * * *
(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d),
acquisition of strategic and critical materials under this Act
shall be made in accordance with established Federal
procurement practices, and, except as provided in subsections
(c) and (d) and in section 7(a), disposal of [materials from
the stockpile shall be made by formal advertising or
competitive negotiation procedures.] strategic and critical
materials from the stockpile shall be made in accordance with
the next sentence. To the maximum extent feasible--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER 12, 1979
AN ACT To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1980 for
conservation, exploration, development, and use of naval petroleum
reserves and naval oil shale reserves, and for other purposes.
[Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with the
Secretary of Energy, shall insure that commissioned officers of
the Navy on active duty continue to be assigned to key
management positions within the Office of Naval Petroleum and
Oil Shale Reserves in the Department of Energy. The position of
Director of such Office shall continue to be filled by a
qualified officer of the Navy on active duty in the grade of
captain.]
----------
PANAMA CANAL ACT OF 1979
* * * * * * *
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sec. 1. Short title.
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATIONS
* * * * * * *
Chapter 2--Employees
* * * * * * *
Subchapter II--Wage and Employment Practices
[Sec. 1210. Travel and transportation.]
Sec. 1210. Air transportation.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1215. Basic pay.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1219. Salary protection upon conversion of pay base.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1225. Minimum level of pay; minimum annual increases.]
* * * * * * *
Subchapter III--Conditions of Employment and Placement
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1233. Transition separation incentive payments.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Chapter 1--Procurement
Sec. 3101. Procurement system.
Sec. 3102. Panama Canal Board of Contract Appeals.
* * * * * * *
definitions
Sec. 3. (a) * * *
(b) Subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of this
section, for purposes of applying [the Canal Zone Code or other
laws of the United States and regulations issued pursuant to
such Code or other laws] laws of the United States and
regulations issued pursuant to such laws with respect to
transactions, occurrences, or status on or after [the effective
date of this Act] October 1, 1979--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Any reference set forth in subsection (b) of this section
shall apply except as otherwise provided in this Act or unless
(1) such reference is inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act, (2) in the context in which a term is used such reference
is clearly not intended, or (3) a term refers to a time before
[the effective date of this Act] October 1, 1979.
(d) For purposes of this Act:
(1) The term ``Canal Transfer Date'' means December
31, 1999, such date being the date specified in the
Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 for the transfer of the
Panama Canal from the United States of America to the
Republic of Panama.
(2) The term ``Panama Canal Authority'' means the
entity created by the Republic of Panama to succeed the
Panama Canal Commission as of the Canal Transfer Date.
TITLE I--ADMINISTRATION AND REGULATIONS
Chapter 1--Panama Canal Commission
* * * * * * *
general powers of commission
Sec. 1102a. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) The Commission may appoint any United States citizen
to have the general powers of a notary public to perform, on
behalf of Commission employees and their dependents outside the
United States, any notarial act that a notary public is
required or authorized to perform within the United States.
Unless an earlier expiration is provided by the terms of the
appointment, any such appointment shall expire three months
after the Canal Transfer Date.
(2) Every notarial act performed by a person acting as a
notary under paragraph (1) shall be as valid, and of like force
and effect within the United States, as if executed by or
before a duly authorized and competent notary public in the
United States.
(3) The signature of any person acting as a notary under
paragraph (1), when it appears with the title of that person's
office, is prima facie evidence that the signature is genuine,
that the person holds the designated title, and that the person
is authorized to perform a notarial act.
[(g)] (h) The authority of the Commission under this section
and section [1102B] 1102b is subject to the Panama Canal Treaty
of 1977 and related agreements, and to chapter 91 of title 31,
United States Code.
specific powers of commission
Sec. 1102b. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) The Commission may conduct and promote commercial
activities related to the management, operation, or maintenance
of the Panama Canal. Any such commercial activity shall be
carried out consistent with the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and
related agreements.
administrator
Sec. 1103. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The Congress consents, for purposes of the 8th clause of
article I, section 9 of the Constitution of the United States,
to the acceptance by the individual serving as Administrator of
the Commission of appointment by the Republic of Panama to the
position of Administrator of the Panama Canal Authority. Such
consent is effective only if that individual, while serving in
both such positions, serves as Administrator of the Panama
Canal Authority without compensation, except for payments by
the Republic of Panama of travel and entertainment expenses,
including per diem payments.
(d) The Administrator, with respect to participation in any
matter as Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission (whether
such participation is before, on, or after the date of the
enactment of the Panama Canal Transition Facilitation Act of
1997), shall not be subject to section 208 of title 18, United
States Code, insofar as the matter relates to prospective
employment as Administrator of the Panama Canal Authority.
(e) If the Republic of Panama appoints as the Administrator
of the Panama Canal Authority the individual serving as the
Administrator of the Commission and if that individual accepts
the appointment--
(1) the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as
amended (22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.), shall not apply to
that individual with respect to service as the
Administrator of the Panama Canal Authority;
(2) that individual, with respect to participation in
any matter as the Administrator of the Panama Canal
Commission, is not subject to section 208 of title 18,
United States Code, insofar as the matter relates to
service as, or performance of the duties of, the
Administrator of the Panama Canal Authority; and
(3) that individual, with respect to official acts
performed as the Administrator of the Panama Canal
Authority, is not subject to the following:
(A) Sections 203 and 205 of title 18, United
States Code.
(B) Effective upon termination of the
individual's appointment as Administrator of
the Panama Canal Commission at noon on the
Canal Transfer Date, section 207 of title 18,
United States Code.
(C) Sections 501(a) and 502(a)(4) of the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.), with respect to compensation received
for, and service in, the position of
Administrator of the Panama Canal Authority.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1110
authority of the ambassador
Sec. 1110. (a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this subsection,
[section 16 of the Act of August 1, 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2680a),]
section 207 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3927)
shall apply with respect to the activities of the Commission.
* * * * * * *
code of conduct for commission personnel
Sec. 1112. (a) * * *
(b) Not later than 60 days after all the members of the Board
of the Commission have been appointed, the Board shall adopt a
code of conduct applicable to the persons referred to in
subsection (a) of this section. The code of conduct shall
contain provisions substantially equivalent to those contained
in part 735 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations on
[the effective date of this Act] October 1, 1979. The code of
conduct shall, at a minimum, contain provisions substantially
equivalent to the following provisions of law:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Effective as of the Canal Transfer Date, section 207 of
title 18, United States Code, shall not apply to an individual
who is an officer or employee of the Panama Canal Authority,
but only with respect to official acts of that individual as an
officer or employee of the Authority and only in the case of an
individual who was an officer or employee of the Commission and
whose employment with the Commission was terminated at noon on
the Canal Transfer Date.
(f)(1) The Congress consents to the following persons
accepting civil employment (and compensation for that
employment) with the Panama Canal Authority for which the
consent of the Congress is required by the last paragraph of
section 9 of article I of the Constitution of the United
States, relating to acceptance of emoluments, offices, or
titles from a foreign government:
(A) Retired members of the uniformed services.
(B) Members of a reserve component of the armed
forces.
(C) Members of the Commisioned Reserve Corps of the
Public Health service.
(2) The consent of the Congress under paragraph (1) is
effective without regard to subsection (b) of section 908 of
title 37, United States Code (relating to approval required for
employment of Reserve and retired members by foreign
governments).
* * * * * * *
Chapter 2--Employees
Subchapter I--Panama Canal Commission Personnel
* * * * * * *
appointment and compensation; duties
Sec. 1202. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) In the case of an individual who is an officer or
employee of the Commission on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Panama Canal Transition Facilitation Act of
1997 and who has not had a break in service with the Commission
since that date, the rate of basic pay for that officer or
employee on or after that date may not be less than the rate in
effect for that officer or employee on the day before that date
of enactment except--
(1) as provided in a collective bargaining agreement;
(2) as a result of an adverse action against the
officer or employee; or
(3) pursuant to a voluntary demotion.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter II--Wage and Employment Practices
[travel and transportation]
air transportation
Sec. 1210. [(a) Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the
Commission may pay travel and transportation expenses for
employees in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 57 of
title 5, United States Code.
[(b) For an employee to whom section 1206 applies, the
Commission may pay travel and transportation expenses
associated with vacation leave for the employee and the
immediate family of the employee notwithstanding requirements
regarding periods of service established by subchapter II of
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, or the regulations
promulgated thereunder.
[(c) For an employee to whom section 1206 does not apply, the
Commission may pay travel and transportation expenses
associated with vacation leave for the employee and the
immediate family of the employee notwithstanding requirements
regarding a written agreement concerning the duration of a
continuing service obligation established by subchapter II of
chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, or the regulations
promulgated thereunder.]
[(d)(1)] (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(except [paragraph (2)] subsection (b)), the Commission may
contract with Panamanian carriers registered under the laws of
the Republic of Panama to provide air transportation to
officials and employees of the Commission who are citizens of
the Republic of Panama.
[(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an] (b) An official or
employee of the Commission [referred to in paragraph (1)] who
is a citizen of the Republic of Panama may elect, for security
or other reasons, to travel by an air carrier holding a
certificate under section 41102 of title 49, United States
Code.
* * * * * * *
panama canal employment system; merit and other employment requirements
Sec. 1212. (a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or the
Panama Canal Act Amendments of 1996, this subchapter, [as last
in effect before the effective date of section 3530 of the
Panama Canal Act Amendments of 1996] as in effect on September
22, 1996, shall continue to apply to an Executive agency or the
Smithsonian Institution to the extent of an election under
paragraph (1) by the head of agency or the Institution,
respectively.
* * * * * * *
uniform application of standards and rates
Sec. 1216. The standards established pursuant to section 1213
of this Act and the rates of basic pay established pursuant to
section [1215] 1202 of the Act shall be applied without regard
to whether the employee or individual concerned is a citizen of
the United States or a citizen of the Republic of Panama.
recruitment and retention remuneration
Sec. 1217. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) The Commission may pay a recruitment bonus to an
individual who is newly appointed to a position with the
Commission, or a relocation bonus to an employee of the
Commission who must relocate to accept a position, if the
Commission determines that the Commission would be likely, in
the absence of such a bonus, to have difficulty in filling the
position.
(2) A recruitment or relocation bonus may be paid to an
employee under this subsection only if the employee enters into
an agreement with the Commission to complete a period of
employment with the Commission established by the Commission.
If the employee voluntarily fails to complete such period of
employment or is separated from service in such employment as a
result of an adverse action before the completion of such
period, the employee shall repay the entire amount of the
bonus.
(3) A relocation bonus under this subsection may be paid as a
lump sum. A recruitment bonus under this subsection shall be
paid on a pro rata basis over the period of employment covered
by the agreement under paragraph (2). A bonus under this
subsection may not be considered to be part of the basic pay of
an employee.
(d)(1) The Commission may pay a retention bonus to an
employee of the Commission if the Commission determines that--
(A) the employee has unusually high or unique
qualifications and those qualifications make it
essential for the Commission to retain the employee for
a period specified by the Commission ending not later
than the Canal Transfer Date, or the Commission
otherwise has a special need for the services of the
employee making it essential for the Commission to
retain the employee for a period specified by the
Commission ending not later than the Canal Transfer
Date; and
(B) the employee would be likely to leave employment
with the Commission before the end of that period if
the retention bonus is not paid.
(2) A retention bonus under this subsection--
(A) shall be in a fixed amount;
(B) shall be paid on a pro rata basis (over the
period specified by the Commission as essential for the
retention of the employee), with such payments to be
made at the same time and in the same manner as basic
pay; and
(C) may not be considered to be part of the basic pay
of an employee.
(3) A decision by the Commission to exercise or to not
exercise the authority to pay a bonus under this subsection
shall not be subject to review under any statutory procedure or
any agency or negotiated grievance procedure except under any
of the laws referred to in section 2302(d) of title 5, United
States Code.
[(c)] (e) Additional compensation provided under this section
may not exceed 25 percent of the rate of basic pay for the same
or similar work performed in the United States by individuals
employed by the Government of the United States.
benefits based on basic pay
Sec. 1218. For the purposes of determining--
(1) amounts of compensation for disability or death
under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to compensation for work injuries;
(2) benefits under subchapter III of chapter 83 or
chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, relating to
retirement;
(3) amounts of insurance under chapter 87 of title 5,
United States Code, relating to life insurance;
(4) amounts of overtime pay or other premium pay;
(5) annual leave benefits; and
(6) any other benefits related to basic pay;
the basic pay of each employee shall include the rate of basic
pay established for his position under section [1215] 1202 of
this Act plus the amount of any additional compensation
provided under section [1217] 1217(a) of this Act.
* * * * * * *
panama canal board of appeals; duties
Sec. 1221. (a) Subject to the provisions of this chapter, the
[President] Commission shall prescribe regulations establishing
a Panama Canal Board of Appeals. The regulations shall provide
for the number of members of the Board and their appointment,
compensation, and terms of office, the selection of a Chairman
of the Board, the appointment and compensation of the Board's
employees, and other appropriate matters relating to the Board.
* * * * * * *
appeals to board; procedures; finality of decisions
Sec. 1222. (a) An employee may appeal to the Panama Canal
Board of Appeals from an adverse determination made by an
agency under section 1220 of this Act. The appeal shall be made
in writing within a reasonable time (as specified in
regulations prescribed by, or under the authority of, the
[President] Commission) after the date of the transmittal by
the agency to the employee of written notice of the adverse
determination.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter III--Conditions of Employment and Placement
transferred or reemployed employees
Sec. 1231. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3)(A) The head of a department or agency of the United
States may grant a sabbatical to any teacher to whom paragraph
(1) of this subsection applies for not to exceed 11 months in
order to permit the teacher to engage in study or uncompensated
work experience which is in the United States and which will
contribute to the teacher's development and effectiveness.
Basic compensation shall be paid to teachers on sabbatical
under this section in the same manner and to the same extent as
basic compensation would have been paid to teachers on
sabbatical while employed in the Canal Zone Government school
system on [the day before the effective date of this Act]
September 30, 1979. A sabbatical shall not result in a loss of,
or reduction in, leave to which the teacher is otherwise
entitled, credit for time or service, or performance or
efficiency rating. The head of the department or agency may
authorize in accordance with chapter 57 of title 5, United
States Code, such travel expenses (including per diem
allowance) as the head of the department or agency may
determine to be essential for the study or experience.
* * * * * * *
transition separation incentive payments
Sec. 1233. (a) In applying to the Commission and employees of
the Commission the provisions of section 663 of the Treasury,
Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1997
(as contained in section 101(f) of division A of Public Law
104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-383), relating to voluntary separation
incentives for employees of certain Federal agencies (in this
section referred to as ``section 663'')--
(1) the term ``employee'' shall mean an employee of
the Commission who has served in the Republic of Panama
in a position with the Commission for a continuous
period of at least three years immediately before the
employee's separation under an appointment without time
limitation and who is covered under the Civil Service
Retirement System or the Federal Employees' Retirement
System under subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter
84, respectively, of title 5, United States Code, other
than--
(A) an employee described in any of
subparagraphs (A) through (F) of subsection
(a)(2) of section 663; or
(B) an employee of the Commission who, during
the 24-month period preceding the date of
separation, has received a recruitment or
relocation bonus under section 1217(c) of this
Act or who, within the 12-month period
preceding the date of separation, received a
retention bonus under section 1217(d) of this
Act;
(2) the strategic plan under subsection (b) of
section 663 shall include (in lieu of the matter
specified in subsection (b)(2) of that section)--
(A) the positions to be affected, identified
by occupational category and grade level;
(B) the number and amounts of separation
incentive payments to be offered; and
(C) a description of how such incentive
payments will facilitate the successful
transfer of the Panama Canal to the Republic of
Panama;
(3) a separation incentive payment under section 663
may be paid to a Commission employee only to the extent
necessary to facilitate the successful transfer of the
Panama Canal by the United States of America to the
Republic of Panama as required by the Panama Canal
Treaty of 1977;
(4) such a payment--
(A) may be in an amount determined by the
Commission not to exceed $25,000; and
(B) may be made (notwithstanding the
limitation specified in subsection (c)(2)(D) of
section 663) in the case of an eligible
employee who voluntarily separates (whether by
retirement or resignation) during the 90-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment
of this section or during theperiod beginning
on October 1, 1998, and ending on December 31, 1998;
(5) in the case of not more than 15 employees who (as
determined by the Commission) are unwilling to work for
the Panama Canal Authority after the Canal Transfer
Date and who occupy critical positions for which (as
determined by the Commission) at least two years of
experience is necessary to ensure that seasoned
managers are in place on and after the Canal Transfer
Date, such a payment (notwithstanding paragraph (4))--
(A) may be in an amount determined by the
Commission not to exceed 50 percent of the
basic pay of the employee; and
(B) may be made (notwithstanding the
limitation specified in subsection (c)(2)(D) of
section 663) in the case of such an employee
who voluntarily separates (whether by
retirement or resignation) during the 90-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment
of this section; and
(6) the provisions of subsection (f) of section 663
shall not apply.
(b) A decision by the Commission to exercise or to not
exercise the authority to pay a transition separation incentive
under this section shall not be subject to review under any
statutory procedure or any agency or negotiated grievance
procedure except under any of the laws referred to in section
2302(d) of title 5, United States Code.
Subchapter IV--Retirement
* * * * * * *
retirement under special treaty provisions
Sec. 1243. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) * * *
(2) The retirement annuity referred to in paragraph (1) of
this subsection with respect to any employee will cover
[retroactivity] retroactively, from October 1, 1979, all
periods of service, described in subparagraph (D) of that
paragraph, by that employee at any permanent duty station in
the Republic of Panama (including the area known before that
date as the Canal Zone) in agencies and instrumentalities of
the Government of the United States during which that employee
was not covered by the United States Civil Service Retirement
System or any other Federal retirement system providing
benefits similar to those retirement benefits provided by the
Social Security System of the Republic of Panama.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter VII--Labor-Management Relations
labor-management relations
Sec. 1271. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) This subsection applies to any matter that becomes the
subject of collective bargaining between the Commission and the
exclusive representative for any bargaining unit of employees
of the Commission during the period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this subsection and ending on the Canal
Transfer Date.
(2)(A) The resolution of impasses resulting from collective
bargaining between the Commission and any such exclusive
representative during that period shall be conducted in
accordance with such procedures as may be mutually agreed upon
between the Commission and the exclusive representative
(without regard to any otherwise applicable provisions of
chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code). Such mutually
agreed upon procedures shall become effective upon transmittal
by the Chairman of the Commission to the Congress of notice of
the agreement to use those procedures and a description of
those procedures.
(B) The Federal Services Impasses Panel shall not have
jurisdiction to resolve any impasse between the Commission and
any such exclusive representative in negotiations over a
procedure for resolving impasses.
(3) If the Commission and such an exclusive representative do
not reach an agreement concerning a procedure for resolving
impasses with respect to a bargaining unit and transmit notice
of the agreement under paragraph (2) on or before July 1, 1998,
the following shall be the procedure by which collective
bargaining impasses between the Commission and the exclusive
representative for that bargaining unit shall be resolved:
(A) If bargaining efforts do not result in an
agreement, the parties shall request the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service to assist in
achieving an agreement.
(B) If an agreement is not reached within 45 days
after the date on which either party requests the
assistance of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service in writing (or within such shorter period as
may be mutually agreed upon by the parties), the
parties shall be considered to be at an impasse and
shall request the Federal Services Impasses Panel of
the Federal Labor Relations Authority to decide the
impasse.
(C) If the Federal Services Impasses Panel fails to
issue a decision within 90 days after the date on which
its services are requested (or within such shorter
period as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties),
the efforts of the Panel shall be terminated.
(D) In such a case, the Chairman of the Panel (or
another member in the absence of the Chairman) shall
immediately determine the matter by a drawing
(conducted in such manner as the Chairman (or, in the
absence of the Chairman, such other member) determines
appropriate) between the last offer of the Commission
and the last offer of the exclusive representative,
with the offer chosen through such drawing becoming the
binding resolution of the matter.
(4) In the case of a notice of agreement described in
paragraph (2)(A) that is transmitted to the Congress as
described in the second sentence of that paragraph after July
1, 1998, the impasse resolution procedures covered by that
notice shall apply to any impasse between the Commission and
the other party to the agreeement that is unresolved on the
date on which that notice is transmitted to the Congress.
Chapter 3--Funds and Accounts
Subchapter I--Funds
panama canal revolving fund
Sec. 1302. (a) There is established in the Treasury of the
United States a revolving fund to be known as ``Panama Canal
Revolving Fund''. The Panama Canal Revolving Fund shall,
subject to subsection (b), be available to the Commission to
carry out the purposes, functions, and powers authorized by
this Act, including [for--] for the following purposes:
(1) [the] The hire of passenger motor vehicles and
aircraft[;].
(2) [uniforms] Uniforms or allowances therefor[;].
(3) [official] Official receptions and representation
expenses of the Board, the Secretary of the Commission,
and the Administrator[;].
(4) [the] The operation of guide services[;].
(5) [a] A residence for the Administrator[;].
(6) [disbursements]Disbursements by the Administrator
for employee and community projects[;].
(7) [the] The procurement of expert and consultant
services[;].
(8) [promotional] Promotional activities, including
the preparation, distribution, or use of any kit,
pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, television,
film, or other media presentation designed to promote
the Panama Canal as a resource of the world shipping
industry[; and].
(9) [the] The purchase and transportation to the
Republic of Panama of passenger motor vehicles,
including large, heavy-duty vehicles.
(10) Payment to the Panama Canal Authority, not later
than the Canal Transfer Date, of such amount as is
computed by the Commission to be the future amount of
severance pay to be paid by the Panama Canal Authority
to employees whose employment with the Authority is
terminated, to the extent that such severance pay is
attributable to periods of service performed with the
Commission before the Canal Transfer Date (and assuming
for purposes of such computation that the Panama Canal
Authority, in paying severance pay to terminated
employees, will provide for crediting of periods of
service with the Commission).
* * * * * * *
printing
Sec. 1306. (a) [Section 501] Sections 501 through 517 and
1101 through 1123 of title 44, United States Code, shall not
apply to direct purchase by the Commission for its use of
printing, binding, and blank-book work in the Republic of
Panama when the Commission determines that such direct purchase
is in the best interest of the Government.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter III--Interagency Accounts
interagency services; reimbursements
Sec. 1321. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated (for any fiscal year beginning after September 30,
1979) to or for the use of the Department of Defense, or to any
other department or agency of the United States as may be
designated by the President to carry out the purposes of this
subsection, shall be available for--
(1) conducting the educational and health care
activities, including kindergartens and college,
carried out by the Canal Zone Government and the Panama
Canal Company before [the effective date of this Act]
October 1, 1979, and
(2) providing the services related thereto to the
categories of persons to which such services were
provided before [such effective date] October 1, 1979.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of
Defense, or any department or agency designated by the
President to provide health care services to those categories
of persons referred to in this subsection, shall provide such
services to such categories of persons on a basis no less
favorable than that applied to its own employees and their
dependents.
* * * * * * *
(e) The appropriations or funds of the Commission, or of any
other department or agency of the United States conducting
operations in the Republic of Panama, shall be available to
defray the cost of--
(1) * * *
(2) educational services provided by schools in the
Republic of Panama or the United States, which are not
operated by the United States, to employees of the
Commission who are citizens of the United States [and
persons], to other Commission employees when determined
by the Commission to be necessary for their recruitment
or retention, and to other persons who were receiving
such services at the expense of the Canal Zone
Government before the effective date of this Act.
Notwithstanding the provisions relating to the availability of
adequate schools contained in section 5924(4)(A) of title 5,
United States Code, the Commission shall by regulation
determine the extent to which costs of educational services may
be defrayed under this subsection.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter V--Accounts With the Republic of Panama
payments to the republic of panama
Sec. 1341. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) The prohibitions contained in this section and in
[sections 1302(c)] sections 1302(b) and 1503 of this Act shall
apply notwithstanding any other provisions of law authorizing
transfers of funds between accounts, reprogramming of funds,
use of funds for contingency purposes, or waivers of
prohibitions.
* * * * * * *
transactions with the republic of panama
Sec. 1342. (a) The Commission may, on a reimbursable basis,
provide to the Republic of Panama materials, supplies,
equipment, work, or services, including water and electric
power, requested by the Republic of Panama, at such rates as
may be agreed upon by the Commission and the Republic of
Panama. Payment for such materials, supplies, equipment, work,
or services may be made by direct payment by the Republic of
Panama to the Commission or by offset against amounts due the
Republic of Panama by the United States.
(b) The Commission may provide office space, equipment,
supplies, personnel, and other in-kind services to the Panama
Canal Authority on a nonreimbursable basis.
(c) Any executive department or agency of the United States
may, on a reimbursable basis, provide to the Panama Canal
Authority materials, supplies, equipment, work, or services
requested by the Panama Canal Authority, at such rates as may
be agreed upon by that department or agency and the Panama
Canal Authority.
* * * * * * *
Chapter 4--Claims for Injuries to Persons or Property
* * * * * * *
Subchapter II--Vessel Damage
injuries in locks of canal
Sec. 1411. (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, the
Commission shall promptly adjust and pay damages for injuries
to vessels, or to the cargo, crew, or passengers of vessels,
which may arise by reason of their passage through the locks of
the Panama Canal when the injury was proximately caused by
negligence or fault on the part of an officer or employee of
the United States acting within the scope of his employment and
in the line of his duties in connection with the operation of
the Canal. If the negligence or fault of the vessel, master,
crew, or passengers proximately contributed to the injury, the
award of damages shall be diminished in proportion to the
negligence to fault attributable to the vessel, master, crew,
or passengers. Damages may not be allowed and paid for injuries
to any protrusion beyond any portion of the hull of a vessel,
whether it is permanent or temporary in character. A vessel is
considered to be passing through the locks of the Canal, under
the control of officers or employees of the United States, from
the time the first towing line is made fast on board before
entrance into the locks and until the towing lines are cast off
upon, or immediately prior to, departure from the lock chamber.
No payment for damages on a claim may be made under this
section unless the claim is filed with the commission [within 2
years after the date of the injury, or within 1 year after the
date of the enactment of the Panama Canal Amendments Act of
1985,] within one year after the date of the injury or the date
of the enactment of the Panama Canal Transition Facilitation
Act of 1997, whichever is later.
* * * * * * *
injuries outside locks
Sec. 1412. The Commission shall promptly adjust and pay
damages for injuries to vessels, or to the cargo, crew, or
passengers of vessels which may arise by reason of their
presence in the Panama Canal, or waters adjacent thereto, other
than the locks, when the injury was proximately caused by
negligence or fault on the part of an officer or employee of
the United States acting within the scope of his employment and
in the line of his duties in connection with the operation of
the Canal. If the negligence or fault of the vessel, master,
crew, or passengers proximately contributed to the injury, the
award of damages shall be diminished in proportion to the
negligence or fault attributable to the vessel, master, crew,
or passengers. In the case of a vessel which is required by or
pursuant to regulations prescribed pursuant to section 1801 of
this Act to have a Panama Canal pilot on duty aboard, damages
may not be adjusted and paid for injuries to the vessel, or its
cargo, crew, or passengers, incurred while the vessel was
underway and in motion, unless at the time the injuries were
incurred the navigation or movement of the vessel was under the
control of a Panama Canal pilot. No payment for damages on a
claim may be made under this section unless the claim is filed
with the Commission [within 2 years after the date of the
injury, or within 1 year after the date of the enactment of the
Panama Canal Amendments Act of 1985,] within one year after the
date of the injury or the date of the enactment of the Panama
Canal Transition Facilitation Act of 1997, whichever is later.
* * * * * * *
actions on claims
Sec. 1416. A claimant for damages pursuant to section 1411(a)
or 1412 of this Act who considers himself aggrieved by the
findings, determination, or award of the Commission in
reference to his claim may bring an action on the claim against
the Commission in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. Subject to the provisions of
this chapter and of applicable regulations issued pursuant to
section 1801 of this Act relative to navigation of the Panama
Canal and adjacent waters, such actions shall proceed and be
heard by the court without a jury according to the principles
of law and rules of practice obtaining generally in like cases
between a private party and a department or agency of the
United States. Any judgment obtained against the Commission in
an action under this subchapter may be paid out of money
allotted for the maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal.
An action for damages cognizable under this section shall not
otherwise lie against the United States or the Commission, nor
in any other court, than as provided in this section; nor may
it lie against any officer or employee of the United States or
of the Commission. Any action on a claim under this section
shall be barred unless the action is brought within [one year]
180 days after the date on which the Commission mails to the
claimant written notification of the Commission's final
determination with respect to the [claim, or within one year
after the date of the enactment of the Panama Canal Amendments
Act of 1985,] claim or the date of the enactment of the Panama
Canal Transition Facilitation Act of 1997, whichever is later.
Attorneys appointed by the Commission shall represent the
Commission in any action arising under this subchapter.
* * * * * * *
Chapter 6--Tolls for Use of the Panama Canal
* * * * * * *
bases of tolls
Sec. 1602. (a) Tolls on merchant vessels, army and navy
transports, colliers, tankers, hospital ships, [supply ships,
and yachts] and supply ships shall be based on net vessel tons
of one hundred cubic feet each of actual earning capacity, or
its equivalent, determined in accordance with the rules for the
measurement of vessels for the Panama Canal, and tolls on other
floating craft shall be based on displacement tonnage. The
tolls on vessels in ballast without passengers or cargo may be
less than the tolls for vessels with passengers or cargo. Tolls
for small vessels (including yachts), as defined by the
Commission, may be set at rates determined by the Commission
without regard to the preceding provisions of this subsection.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Chapter 1--Procurement
procurement system
Sec. 3101. (a) Panama Canal Acquisition Regulation.--(1) The
Commission shall establish by regulation a comprehensive
procurement system. The regulation shall be known as the
``Panama Canal Acquisition Regulation'' (in this section
referred to as the ``Regulation'') and shall provide for the
procurement of goods and services by the Commission in a manner
that--
(A) applies the fundamental operating principles and
procedures in the Federal Acquisition Regulation;
(B) uses efficient commercial standards of practice;
and
(C) is suitable for adoption and uninterrupted use by
the Republic of Panama after the Canal Transfer Date.
(2) The Regulation shall contain provisions regarding the
establishment of the Panama Canal Board of Contract Appeals
described in section 3102.
(b) Supplement to Regulation.--The Commission shall develop a
Supplement to the Regulation (in this section referred to as
the ``Supplement'') that identifies both the provisions of
Federal law applicable to procurement of goods and services by
the Commission and the provisions of Federal law waived by the
Commission under subsection (c).
(c) Waiver Authority.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the
Commission shall determine which provisions of Federal law
should not apply to procurement by the Commission and may waive
those laws for purposes of the Regulation and Supplement.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the Commission may not
waive--
(A) section 27 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 423);
(B) the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), other than section 10(a) of such Act (41
U.S.C 609(a)); or
(C) civil rights, environmental, or labor laws.
(d) Consultation With Administrator for Federal Procurement
Policy.--In establishing the Regulation and developing the
Supplement, the Commission shall consult with the Administrator
for Federal Procurement Policy.
(e) Effective Date.--The Regulation and the Supplement shall
take effect on the date of publication in the Federal Register,
or January 1, 1999, whichever is earlier.
panama canal board of contract appeals
Sec. 3102. (a) Establishment.--(1) The Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Commission, shall establish a board of
contract appeals, to be known as the Panama Canal Board of
Contract Appeals, in accordance with section 8 of the Contract
Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607). Except as otherwise
provided by this section, the Panama Canal Board of Contract
Appeals (in this section referred to as the `Board') shall be
subject to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) in the same manner as any other agency board of contract
appeals established under that Act.
(2) The Board shall consist of three members. At least one
member of the Board shall be licensed to practice law in the
Republic of Panama. Individuals appointed to the Board shall
take an oath of office, the form of which shall be prescribed
by the Secretary of Defense.
(b) Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Appeals.--
Notwithstanding section 10(a)(1) of the Contract Disputes Act
of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 609(a)(1)) or any other provision of law,
the Board shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide an appeal
from a decision of a contracting officer under section 8(d) of
such Act (41 U.S.C. 607(d)).
(c) Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Protests.--The Board
shall decide protests submitted to it under this subsection by
interested parties in accordance with subchapter V of title 31,
United States Code. Notwithstanding section 3556 of that title,
section 1491(b) of title 28, United States Code, and any other
provision of law, the Board shall have exclusive jurisdiction
to decide such protests. For purposes of this subsection--
(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), each
reference to the Comptroller General in sections 3551
through 3555 of title 31, United States Code, is deemed
to be a reference to the Board;
(2) the reference to the Comptroller General in
section 3553(d)(3)(C)(ii) of such title is deemed to be
a reference to both the Board and the Comptroller
General;
(3) the report required by paragraph (1) of section
3554(e) of such title shall be submitted to the
Comptroller General as well as the committees listed in
such paragraph;
(4) the report required by paragraph (2) of such
section shall be submitted to the Comptroller General
as well as Congress; and
(5) section 3556 of such title shall not apply to the
Board, but nothing in this subsection shall affect the
right of an interested party to file a protest with the
appropriate contracting officer.
(d) Procedures.--The Board shall prescribe such procedures as
may be necessary for the expeditious decision of appeals and
protests under subsections (b) and (c).
(e) Commencement.--The Board shall begin to function as soon
as it has been established and has prescribed procedures under
subsection (d), but not later than January 1, 1999.
(f) Transition.--The Board shall have jurisdiction under
subsection (b) and (c) over any appeals and protests filed on
or after the date on which the Board begins to function. Any
appeals and protests filed before such date shall remain before
the forum in which they were filed.
(g) Other Functions.--The Board may perform functions similar
to those described in this section for such other matters or
activities of the Commission as the Commission may determine
and in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Commission.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART III--EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
Subpart D--Pay and Allowances
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 53--PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE AND PAY RATES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5315. Positions at level IV
Level IV of the Executive Schedule applies to the following
positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the
rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of
title 2, as adjusted by section 5318 of this title:
* * * * * * *
[Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 57--TRAVEL, TRANSPORTATION, AND SUBSISTENCE
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATIONS EXPENSES; NEW APPOINTEES,
STUDENT TRAINEES, AND TRANSFERRED EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5724. Travel and transportation expenses of employees
(a) Under regulations prescribed under section 5738 of this
title and when the head of the agency concerned or his designee
authorizes or approves, the agency shall pay from Government
funds--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) upon the separation (or death in service) of a
career appointee, as defined in section 3132(a)(4) of
this title, the travel expenses of that individual (if
applicable), the transportation expenses of the
immediate family of such individual, and the expenses
of moving (including transporting, packing, crating,
temporarily storing, draying, and unpacking) the
household goods of such individual and personal effects
not in excess of eighteen thousand pounds net weight,
to the place where the individual will reside (or, in
the case of a career appointee who dies in service or
who dies after separating but before the travel,
transportation, and moving is completed, to the place
where the family will reside) within the United States,
its territories or possessions[, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, or the areas and installations in the
Republic of Panama made available to the United States
pursuant to the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related
agreements, as described in section 3(a) of the Panama
Canal Act of 1979] or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
if such individual--
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5724a. Relocation expenses of employees transferred or reemployed
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(j) For purposes of subsections (c), (d), and (e), the term
``United States'' includes the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the territories and possessions of the
[United States, and the areas and installations in the Republic
of Panama that are made available to the United States pursuant
to the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements (as
described in section 3(a) of the Panama Canal Act of 1979 (22
U.S.C. 3602(a))).] United States.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 5 OF THE PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION COMPENSATION FUND ACT OF 1988
SEC. 5. FINAL EVALUATION OF THE FUND; DEFICIENCY OR SURPLUS IN THE
FUND.
(a) Final Evaluation of the Fund.--[Upon the termination of
the Panama Canal Commission] By March 31, 1998, the Secretary
of Labor shall, on the basis of an actuarial study conducted by
experts or consultants whose services are procured by the
Secretary of Labor by contract, make a final determination of
the amounts estimated to be necessary to meet expenditures for
workers' compensation benefits and other payments described in
section 3(a), as calculated in accordance with the second
sentence of section 3(b). Amounts in the Fund shall be used to
pay for the final determination under this subsection. The
Secretary of the Treasury shall, in accordance with such final
determination, transfer from the Fund to the Employee
Compensation Fund amounts sufficient to meet expenditures for
workers' compensation benefits and other payments described in
section 3(a).
* * * * * * *
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
----------
DISSENTING VIEWS OF RONALD V. DELLUMS
I voted against reporting H.R. 1119 from the committee for
several reasons. First, the price tag for this bill continues
to be significantly out of line with the military requirements
of this country, out of line with a properly balanced
allocation of expenditures across all national security
accounts, and out of line with the strategic and geopolitical
realities of our world.
The national security agenda of this country contains three
equally important elements, and requires a balance of funding
among the accounts of each element. We must have a vibrant and
energetic economy and an informed, healthy, trained and
educated citizenry in order to maintain our domestic
tranquillity. Second, we must have an engaged foreign policy
and foreign aid program that can promote sustainable
development, a respect for human rights, and the growth of
democracy, all of which are vital for regional stability and
the prevention of war and conflict. Third, we must field a
right-sized, properly equipped and appropriately trained
military force in order to deter violence and aggression,
participate in internationally sanctioned peace keeping and
meet our obligations to support humanitarian operations.
Our national security is as dependent on the amount of the
discretionary budget allocated to the first two of these
accounts as it is to the account that is recommended to be
authorized in this bill and report. To the extent that we over-
fund the defense account, as I believe we have done with this
recommendation, those other elements of our national security
agenda will continue to atrophy.
Second, the committee recommendation would procure too much
of yesterday's technology by adding, for example, funding for
long-lead procurement of nine additional B-2 bomber aircraft as
well as for the purchase of additional tactical aircraft for
which there is no urgent requirement.
Third, the committee recommendation would press forward too
rapidly with national missile defense, notwithstanding that the
committee recommendation implicitly adopts the administration's
so-called three-plus-three strategy for development and
preparation of a national missile defense system. I applaud the
committee's retreat from any effort to implicitly or to
explicitly recommend a program that would exceed the limits of
the ABM Treaty.
Fourth, the committee recommendation fails to offer the
operations and maintenance, personnel and other savings that
could be attained if our force structure were further
realigned. In an era where we will face no peer competitor for
at least a decade, we should undertake such action in order to
meet the near-term and mid-term requirements that will confront
us.
Fifth, I am troubled that the committee recommendation
siphons off important resources from the environmental clean-up
and construction accounts of the Department of Energy's defense
programs in order to finance procurement of the unnecessary
additional items in the procurement account.
Sixth, I am also troubled at the decision to reduce funds
for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, a program that is
essential to our interests in reducing or eliminating threats
that are currently posed by nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons and materials.
Ronald V. Dellums.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JOHN SPRATT
I support most aspects of this legislation and will vote
for it, but I disagree with the diversion of $2.6 billion in
budget authority from the Department of Energy (budget
subfunction 053) to the Department of Defense (budget
subfunction 051). I agree with OMB Director Frank Raines, who
wrote the following to the Chairman of the House National
Security Committee prior to committee mark-up:
The Administration does not support reducing funds
from DOE (subfunction 053) accounts below the
President's 1998 budget request or allocating these
funds to DOD programs. This would be inconsistent with
our understanding of the Budget Agreement reached with
the Congressional leadership.
Of the $2.6 billion diverted, $1.5 billion was designated
to start a ``full funding'' policy of major Department of
Energy (DOE) capital investments. ``Full funding'' simply means
that Congress provides sufficient budget authority to cover the
entire estimated procurement cost of major capital investments
in one year, rather than paying for the project over a period
of years (``incremental funding''). In essence, the DOE was
``banking'' funds needed for large projects, most of which were
for the Stockpile Stewardship program (which ensures the safety
and reliability of our nuclear weapon stockpile) and for
environmental clean-up of sites contaminated by radioactive
waste.
The committee also slashed $936 million from the DOE's
$1.006 billion request to ``privatize'' portions of its
environmental clean-up program. The DOE wants private companies
to build facilities to treat hazardous radioactive waste. In
exchange, the DOE will guarantee that it will pay for the
treatment of the waste at a set price per unit of treated
waste. By law, an agency cannot enter into a contract without
having the budget authority to fully cover the costs of the
contract, so the DOE needs to have the budget authority now in
order to commit to paying for treatment of waste years from
now.
I am not sold yet on DOE's privatization policy, and the
committee may be wise in postponing this policy. But I am sold
on the need to clean up DOE's nuclear weapons facilities, and
whether the clean-up is financed through direct appropriations
or by privatizing some projects, there is a need for
environmental funding. The simple fact is that the committee
diverted these funds to the Department of Defense (DOD) and
created a $936 million hole in the DOE's five-year
environmental clean-up plan. It would have been more prudent to
fence the money, to prohibit DOE from spending it until we are
convinced of the merits of privatization. If the committee
remained unconvinced, Congress could then direct that the funds
be used to clean-up our nuclear weapon sites in more
traditional ways. Diverting the funding to DOD has effectively
cut nearly $1 billion from a sorely needed program.
The committee's actions have created a $2.6 billion
shortfall in the DOE's planned activities over the next five
years. In prior years, this shortfall could have been overcome
by re-adjusting future budget requests. But under the
bipartisan budget agreement, function levels for discretionary
spending have been established for the next five years. The DOE
will be hard-pressed to replace this loss of funding since it
will either mean retrieving the money from future DOD budgets,
or adding funding from other budget functions to the 050
function and violating the budget agreement. This problem is
exacerbated since the $2.6 billion diversion fromDOE to DOD
went into procurement items that will generate future DOD costs, making
it even harder to retrieve the funding from future DOD budgets.
I do not believe that we fully thought through the
implications for environmental clean-up or nuclear weapons,
particularly stockpile stewardship, when we decided to divert
this funding. While I support the overall bill, I hope these
issues will be revisited during the House-Senate conference.
Other important programs at DOE received cuts that seem
unwarranted. The Office Worker and Community Transition was
established by Congress in the early 1990s to ease the impact
of worker layoffs at DOE sites.
On a more positive note, I was pleased by several actions
taken by the committee to address needs at Shaw Air Force Base
and the South Carolina National Guard.
The committee fully funded the Air Force's request for
$6.072 million for the construction of an ``information warfare
sq ops facility.'' The facility will house a new information
warfare unit at Shaw Air Force Base in Sumter, South Carolina.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff state in Joint Vision 2010 that
information superiority will be a key asset in the battles of
the 21st century. The Research & Development and Procurement
Subcommittees held a hearing this week which underscored this
point. Lt. Gen. Douglas Buchholz, Director for Command Control,
Communications and Computer Systems who represented the JCS at
the hearing explained, ``Our successes in the battlespace of
the future, whether combating large, heavily armed forces or
providing peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance, depend upon
the precise application of force across the full spectrum of
missions. The cornerstone of this effort is the ability to get
the right information to the right place at the right time--or
information superiority.'' The Air Force's information warfare
unit at Shaw is tasked with making informational warfare
``operational at the component level.'' In other words, its
work is where the rubber meets the road, developing methods to
make certain that information technology can be used to
tactical advantage.
The committee included language directing the Air Force to
study the acquisition of land near Shaw without appropriated
funds. This language will allow the Air Force to exercise its
authority, granted in the FY96 Defense Authorization Act to
acquire land adjacent to Shaw. This land will provide a
significant enhancement to the base, improving operational
flexibility for the Air Force.
Finally, the committee included funding for 2 Research and
Development projects important to the Navy. The committee
included $2 million to complete the Navy's effort to develop a
second source qualification process for several materials
including carbon-fibers like the Joint Strike Fighter. However,
the Navy has been limited to a single qualified source for
these fibers. As a result, the Navy has not been able to take
advantage of the potential for cost savings and quality
improvements from a second source. The NAWC Materials Division
was organized in part to take advantage of the opportunity to
develop second-sources for materials. However, funding for NAWC
has been so limited that the development of qualification
processes has been impossible. Last year, the committee
corrected this problem by authorizing $5 million for NAWC to
establish second-source qualification procedures for 3 products
including carbon fibers. This funding was included in the final
authorization bill signed into law. However, during the
conference on the defense appropriations bill funding was
reduced to $3 million. This year's authorization bill finishes
the process by authorizing the remaining $2 million.
John Spratt.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JAMES HANSEN, TILLIE FOWLER AND SOLOMON ORTIZ
We strongly support the committee's action to reaffirm the
long-held Congressional position that depot-level maintenance
of mission essential weapons systems and equipment is a core
competency of the Department of Defense. This position was also
reaffirmed by each of the military services in testimony before
the committee. Depots are not the tail but the backbone of our
fighting forces. As such, it is essential for national security
that the Department of Defense maintain a robust, responsive
and cost effective system of organic industrial facilities (air
logistics centers, maintenance depots, shipyards, arsenals,
weapons centers and ammunition plants). This capability is
critical to ensuring competitive options in a downsized and
vertically integrated defense industry. We remain concerned
that any restriction on the public sector's ability to
effectively compete would result in increased costs to the
Department of Defense in a market where over 90% of contracts
are awarded on sole-source basis and where the public sector is
responsible for over 50% of the savings achieved.
We also recognize the critical role the private sector
already plays in depot-level maintenance and logistics support.
Currently, each of the three military departments spends over
35% of the funds made available for depot-level maintenance
directly in the private sector. We encourage privatization of
non-core functions where a highly competitive marketplace
exists and real savings can be achieved. As such, we support
the committee's effort to expand the flexibility of the
Services to pursue public-private competitions and
partnerships, while protecting both current private sector
contracts and the efficient operation of public Centers of
Industrial and Technical Excellence.
It is our view that the key to real savings within the
Department's industrial infrastructure is a prioritized and
sequential process of re-engineering core capabilities,
consolidation of workloads and shedding of expensive excess
capacity, and the full and open competition of non-core
functions. The independent BRAC process is critical to the task
of bringing DOD's infrastructure in line with its force
structure. The Quadrennial Defense Review recommended two
additional rounds of BRAC may be needed. While we have grave
reservations about the magnitude of savings the Pentagon claims
are generated by BRAC, without full faith in the independent
and apolitical nature of BRAC, and without equal treatment for
all facilities and a clear focus on military value, there is in
our view no prospect for additional BRAC authorization.
The Navy and Army have each closed and consolidated over
50% of their respective industrial depot capacity. The Navy
closed 4 of 8 shipyards and 3 of 6 aviation depots. The Army
recommended closure and consolidation for 6 of their 9 depots.
These strategies are paying real dividends and if fully
implemented would provide efficiencies for both the public and
private sector and free up funding for much needed
modernization.
The Air Force depot system continues to be plagued by
costly excess capacity. The BRAC Commission found over 50%
excess capacity across the system and recommended the closure
of the two least efficient and lowest military value
facilities. Their intent was clearly stated in the final BRAC
report: ``The closure of McClellan (and Kelly) AFB permits
significantly improved utilization of the remaining depots and
reduces DOD operating costs.'' The Defense Depot Maintenance
Council (DDMC) was given the authority to decide if individual
workloads would be ``consolidated to other DOD depots or to the
private sector,'' but again the intent was clear: ``move the
required equipment and any required personnel to the receiving
locations.'' Consolidation of workloads and reduction of excess
capacity was the clearintent for both the public and private
sectors. In the case of the San Antonio ALC the Commission specifically
urged ``the Air Force to consolidate engine maintenance activity at
Tinker to reduce excess capacity. The Commission firmly believes that
consolidation of engine activities will result in lower costs and
increased efficiencies.'' In the case of McClellan AFB, ``the
Commission assumed that depot closure and consolidation of work'' would
permit significantly reduced personnel and overhead.
We also note the findings of the Defense Science Board in
this regard, which stated: ``The task force strongly urges DOD
to avoid privatization in-place (PIP) strategy for outsourcing
DOD support functions. Under this approach, DOD transfers the
organic facility, workload, and workforce to a single
contractor or group of contractors. The contractor or
contractors are obligated to perform that workload in the
transferred facility. As a result, PIP often results in the
artificial preservation of surplus capacity and the suboptimal
utilization of resources.'' Even the Governor of California's
CEO Defense Privatization Task Force recognized the problems of
excess capacity, observing that Awhile Privatization in-place
solves the political implications . . . it does not resolve the
issue of excess capacity at the remaining public sector
facilities. Without additional workload, the remaining public
sector facilities will continue to operate inefficiently, and
one or more could be the target of a future round of base
closings.'' This report also noted the effect of PIP on the
private sector. ``Privatization in-place . . . does nothing to
solve the excess capacity problem within the private sector
industrial base.''
We view with great concern the findings of the General
Accounting Office and the Air Force Materiel Command whose
analyses concluded that privatization in-place of workload at
McClellan and Kelly will increase the problem of excess
capacity within the depots and will cost DoD between $468
million and $689 million annually. Privatization in-place,
despite attempts to call it competition, will not only not save
money for critically needed modernization, but will likely cost
us much more. We are also aware that privatization in-place of
workload at Newark AGMC has resulted in an increase in costs by
up to $27 million per year, or over 78%. In these days of tight
defense budgets, any cost increase is simply too much to waste.
Accordingly, we strongly support the Committee's action to
maintain its support for a government-owned, government-
operated core logistics capability, including government
personnel, while also providing important new flexibility to
allow the private sector to perform core maintenance functions
in partnership with the government at government-owned Centers
of Industrial and Technical Excellence. The Secretary retains
the responsibility for identifying those core capabilities, but
must do so in reference to both the national military strategy
and the efficient operations of our Centers of Industrial and
Technical Excellence. This will ensure a ready and controlled
source of technical competence and resources necessary to
provide effective and timely response to any mobilization,
national defense contingency, or other emergency requirement.
Where core capabilities for the sustainment of mission
essential new weapons systems are identified, the Secretary of
Defense must establish the capability to perform these
activities at government-owned, government-operated facilities
within four years of IOC. When appropriate, teaming and
partnership between our national asset organic Centers of
Industrial and Technical Excellence and the private sector for
the performance of these depot maintenance activities should be
encouraged and enabled.
We strongly support the restrictions placed on contracting
for core maintenance activities at depot maintenance facilities
closed or realigned by the 1995 BRAC Commission. Given the
clear intention and advantage to consolidation of this
workload, the requirement that theremaining facilities of the
affected Service be operated at 80% is only reasonable. The 80%
capacity utilization requirement only applies to actions related to
depots closed or realigned by the 1995 BRAC Commission. We strongly
support the committee's position that none of the workload considered
for privatization was considered core by the Air Force prior to
conclusion of the 1995 BRAC Commission deliberations. We understand
that in certified data provided to the BRAC Commission 79% of the
workload at the San Antonio ALC and 87% of the workload at the
McClellan ALC was reported as core.
We recognize that best business practices can and are being
adopted in the public sector industrial base; including much
needed logistics automation and customer-driven, on-time
delivery. We are pleased to see the committee reaffirm its
position that artificial constraints such as Full Time
Equivalent ceilings restrain DOD from getting the best value
for each defense dollar.
We are also pleased to support the committee in reaffirming
its position that the original intent of Title 10 section 2466
was that all funds used to perform depot-level maintenance
regardless of the funding source be accounted for in
determining the distribution of workloads. This has always been
the intent of the committee and is reflected in the
Department's own financial regulations. It is critically
important that the Department of Defense take this clear
Congressional direction into consideration when making workload
decisions. According to data provided by the Defense Depot
Maintenance Council (DDMC), this full and accurate accounting
would not affect any current contracts or the logical extension
of these contracts, nor would it require any work currently
performed in the private sector to be moved into the public
sector.
We are all committed to working with the Secretary to
streamline the Department of Defense infrastructure. Restoring
integrity to the critical, independent BRAC process is one
important step in this process. Competitive privatization of
truly non-core functions will continue to receive our support.
Wholesale privatization of core capabilities which represent
the backbone of our nation's ability to sustain combat forces
and ensure readiness, and the retention of expensive excess
capacity to satisfy political agendas, will not.
James Hansen.
Tillie Fowler.
Solomon Ortiz.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF JAMES M. TALENT
I am pleased that the full committee, after vigorous
debate, soundly rejected efforts to procure a mix of the older-
model F/A-18C/D and the new F/A-18E/F ``Super Hornet,'' and
instead procure only the newer E/F. However, I must express my
profound disagreement with the net result of the House National
Security Committee's action, which was to reduce overall
procurement funding for Super Hornets from the Navy's request
of $2.1 billion for 20 low-rate initial-production aircraft to
$1.348 billion, and to reduce the Navy's research and
development request from $267.5 to $153.3 million. These
reductions are entirely unjustified and will detract from the
Navy's ability to execute its missions in the increasingly
demanding threat environment of the next two decades.
The Secretary of Defense, in his June 10, 1997 letter,
emphasized his ``strong support of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
program,'' stating that ``our warfighters require the most
advanced technology available.'' He further added that ``the
Quadrennial Defense Review clearly validated the need for the
F/A-18E/F. . . . Without the E/F we would be sending our pilots
into combat at the turn of the century with the 1970s
technology of the F/A-18C/D.''
The Chief of Naval Operations, in his own letter to the
chairman and ranking member, expressed his ``strongest possible
support for the F/A-18E/F program . . . It is the cornerstone
of the future of carrier aviation and the Navy's number one
aviation priority.'' Further, he recently stated to Congress
that ``the multi-mission F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a leap
forward in both TacAir design and survivability. The Super
Hornet may look like its predecessor, however it is far larger,
significantly more capable, and most importantly it is a first
strike, every day strike, survivable weapon system for the
foreseeable future.'' The Navy states that the Super Hornet
will dominate all possible threats for at least the next two
decades.
The CNO's letter further states that ``the E/F has
flawlessly progressed through every required milestone to
include operational requirements, mission needs, cost and
threat analysis, and engine development. Admiral Johnson
describes the entire aircraft program as ``a model of
acquisition reform and unprecedented cost performance. The F/A-
18E/F has completed significant portions of the flight rest
program (over 1,100 flight hours) . . . Testing results have
clearly exceeded all specific performance parameters. The
program is on schedule, within budget and under specification
weight.''
In terms of cost, the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Dr.
Kaminski, in his recent Selective Acquisition Report, found
that the Super Hornet would cost only 13 percent more than its
C/D predecessor based on production figures of 1,000 aircraft
per program. His report pegged C/D per-unit cost at $36.5
million and E/F per-unit cost at $41.6 million.
In terms of survivability, the Center for Naval Analysis in
its recent report to Congress, reported that the Super Hornet
would suffer roughly one fifth the losses of an F/A-18C/D
airwing given the same threat environment and warfighter
scenario. The independent Institute for Defense Analysis, in
its report requested by the Joint Staff, determined that the
Super Hornet's survivability characteristics, to include a
radar signature only one-tenth that of the older C/D, reduces
the number of targets considered as ``high risk'' to the pilot
and aircraft by 75 percent over the C/D Hornet it will replace.
Finally, it is essential to point out that the E/F program
is not in competition with the emerging joint strike fighter
concept. The Super Hornet will replace aging F-14s, whose
operational costs the Navy desperately seeks to avoid, and
older Hornets, all of which have reached the limits of their
technological upgradability. The most optimistic forecast for a
Navy version of the JSF is 2010, and even then the service
would not be able to place a meaningful number of aircraft on
its carrier decks until approximately 2015. The Super Hornet is
indeed a ``bridge'' from the F-14 and C/D-model Hornets to the
joint strike fighter, and that bridge by any reasonable
estimate appears to be about two decades in length.
I am pleased that the House National Security Committee,
after careful consideration of these important issues, declared
its overwhelming and bipartisan support for the F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet program.
James M. Talent.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF PATRICK J. KENNEDY
The defense authorization bill as reported out by the House
National Security Committee contains a number of significant
measures, ranging from substantive quality of life initiatives
to research and development investment, that will serve to
further our national security objectives. While I was proud to
vote in support of the legislation, there remain a number of
provisions with which I have serious concern.
It is important that the committee rejected an attempt to
roll-back military training methods by moving toward gender
segregation. The Marine Corps notwithstanding, our committee
heard time and time again that military leaders find it
important to their mission to be able to train as they will
fight. I am pleased the bill contained a number of provisions
that sought to first try and fix the system rather than attempt
to dismantle it. I am also gratified that my amendment to
expand the human relations training received by Army drill
sergeants was adopted by the committee. Currently, in
preparation for their role as Army drill sergeants they receive
only two and a half hours of human relations training. This is
woefully inadequate; if we do not provide our servicemembers
with the necessary tools and skills to perform the tasks we ask
of them, we are doing nothing short of consigning them to
failure.
I am confident that the Army will design a course that
meets the needs of prospective drill sergeants. In designing
that course, the Army has been tasked to engage the experts at
the DOD's premier human relations organization, the Defense
Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI). Because the
services are utilizing DEOMI at a greater rate than ever,
creating a waiting list in most instances, next year I intend
to pursue increasing the resources available to DEOMI.
I am pleased that the committee did not accept the
Administration's proposal to prohibit federally-employed
civilian reservists from taking penalty-free leave in order to
perform their annual two-week military training period. The
federal government should set a positive example with respect
to treatment of the Guard and Reserve members who also are
federal employees. Had such a provision survived, a surely a
negative message would have been sent to other employers
regarding the treatment of Guardsmen and Reservists.
The committee accepted a provision to extend the National
Guard's Youth Challenge program and to provide a waiver to
allow Challenge graduates with a GED to go active duty into any
of the services. This program requires minimal investment yet
it pays tremendous dividends. Not only do the graduates of the
Challenge program receive a GED, their lives are turned around
in a positive direction. Almost all graduates go on to further
their education, find gainful employment or join the military.
By taking former high school dropouts and turning them into
citizens with much to contribute to society, Challenge is a
win-win for America.
This year the committee again worked to ensure a strong
focus remained on anti-submarine warfare (ASW). As a maritime
nation, we must be able to achieve and maintain sea control,
therefore we must invest in ASW to remain effective against
increasingly advanced submarines. In recognition of the
continuing importance of ASW to our national security, as was
done in previous years the committee made a significant
increase to the Administration's request for ASW.
While the committee maintained undersea warfare as a
priority, it failed to accept the proposal put forward by the
Navy and the shipyards with respect to the teaming agreement.
In this instance, I believe we lost an opportunity to take the
most cost effective approach tomodernizing our submarines while
maintaining a hedge against a future threat. By pursuing a plan that
calls for competition of submarine construction at extremely low rates
of production, we will embark upon a prohibitively expensive course
that will force us into the dangerous position of possessing only one
shipyard actively constructing submarines. The Navy's proposal
represented an opportunity to endorse the concept of putting the best
minds in the business together to develop a more effective yet
affordable next generation attack submarine. I am disappointed the
committee did not pursue the teaming route though I am confident that
we will again revisit this issue during the conference process.
I am also disturbed that the committee failed to accept an
amendment which would serve to harm the personal security of
our service women and female dependents living overseas. Again,
as in past years, we did not ensure equal health service access
to all U.S. servicemembers. Today, servicewomen and military
family members living overseas remain barred from using their
own funds to receive reproductive health care procedures
legally available in hospitals located in the U.S. I find such
a measure hypocritical at best, a public health danger at
worst. Women in uniform take very seriously their duty to
protect the Constitutional rights of all American citizens, yet
we have chosen time and time again to deny them the same
protections we extend to women on American soil.
Finally, I would like to express my disappointment that the
committee did not address the issue of sexual orientation and
service in the military. Theoretically, current policy permits
gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they do
not disclose their sexual orientation nor engage in homosexual
activity. I remain steadfast in my belief that servicemembers
should be assessed on their ability to perform the duties their
country asks of them. If anything, the instances of sexual
misconduct and harassment at Aberdeen are indicative that our
military has many more pressing concerns than the presence of
patriotic gays and lesbians among its ranks. Although we are
not there yet, I believe we will someday have a military which
recognizes and values the contributions of all serving in
uniform regardless of sexual orientation.
Patrick J. Kennedy.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF VAN HILLEARY, STEPHEN BUYER, TILLIE FOWLER, ROSCOE
BARTLETT, BUCK MCKEON, JOE SCARBOROUGH, LINDSEY GRAHAM AND JIM RYUN
Two years ago, when President Clinton first began talking
openly about sending American ground troops into the Bosnian
quagmire, many opponents of the idea voiced concern that we may
have been headed for another Vietnam.
Sending Americans into harm's way should only be done when
one of our vital national interests is in danger. Keeping peace
in Bosnia is a well-intentioned goal, but there are many war-
torn areas in the world, and we simply can't risk American
lives every time a war breaks out someplace in the world. The
plain fact is that Bosnia is not critical to our vital national
interests, so American lives should not be risked there.
At the time troops were sent, the President assured
Congress and the public that American troops would only be in
Bosnia for a short time, and that they would be back home by
December 20, 1996. The Clinton administration's second deadline
of March 1997 has likewise passed with no end to the Bosnia
mission. But we are now almost half of the way through 1997,
and the President now says the troops won't be coming home
until June 30, 1998. Additionally, we are concerned that
President Clinton is making plans to continue our military
presence beyond this deadline of June 1998.
While the comparison to Vietnam is certainly still
possible, especially considering the Clinton administration's
vague, open-ended Bosnia policy, American involvement in Bosnia
seems likely to follow one of two unfortunately familiar paths.
The first possible outcome of our current Bosnia policy
might be called the Beirut Resolution. In this conclusion, U.S.
forces would be removed from Bosnia only after some sort of
deadly terrorist attack on our troops. In Beirut, this came in
1983 in the form of a suicide bomber who drove a truck filled
with explosives into barracks housing American servicemen and
women, killing 241 Marines.
At the time, U.S. troops were in a situation which now
seems eerily familiar. Americans were separating historically
bitter enemies who had recently been involved in a regional and
religious conflict. Our mission was not clearly defined, with
no clear exit strategy. And proponents of American involvement
argued that the fragile peace would fall apart if we pulled
out.
Of course, we ended up pulling out of Beirut--but only
after paying an enormously high price. Those who argue that we
should continue military involvement in Bosnia should be ready
to defend this continued involvement even if, God forbid, an
event reminiscent of the Beirut tragedy happens to Americans in
Bosnia.
A second possible outcome of our current involvement in
Bosnia could be called the Korean Resolution, which actually
isn't a resolution to the situation at all. Approximately 40
years ago, American soldiers were sent into Korea, and now, two
generations later, American soldiers remain to enforce an
uneasy peace. They are situated between hostile foreign
military forces, costing the United States billions of dollars
every single year.
While we are not advocating the removal of U.S. troops in
Korea, and we believe our intervention in Korea is important to
our national interests, we do not want to see the Bosnia
mission turn into a multi-generational occupation like the
Korean mission. In other words, we want to make sure our future
grandchildren aren't going to be sent to continue a risky,open-
ended military operation in a place which holds no vital interest for
our nation.
Because the current Bosnia mission has a strong possibility
of becoming another Beirut or another Korea, we believe that
Congress should reassert its oversight authority. It is vitally
important for Congress to exercise its oversight authority now
because with duties such as rounding up war criminals and
enforcing the return of refugees possibly on the horizon for
American troops, we would stop this ``mission creep'' before it
starts. Undertaking these new activities in the Balkans could
easily lead to an indefinite American presence, which could in
turn easily lead to another Beirut-style tragedy or another
Korea-style occupation.
In addition to the dangers of mission creep and nation
building, we believe we should bring our troops home because
Bosnia is essentially a European problem which can and should
be handled by our European allies. Our allies in Europe were
trained to guard against a Soviet invasion, so they are more
than capable of handling the lesser military forces in Bosnia,
who don't even have an air force.
Finally, the price tag for this questionable Bosnia mission
will top $7.7 billion by mid-1998. That's money which comes
directly out of other areas of the defense budget--areas such
as the development and purchase of new technologies and troop
readiness. With all the other cuts the defense budget has been
forced to endure in this decade, funneling nearly $8 billion to
an unnecessary mission in inexcusable.
With all these factors at work in Bosnia--danger to our
troops, the lack of a vital American interest, the danger of
mission creep and the depletion of the defense budget--it seems
clear to us that we must finally set a withdrawal date in stone
and force this administration to explain to the public and the
Congress what the exact mission of our troops is and when their
parents can expect their sons and daughters to come home.
We hope that as this legislation proceeds, it will be
amended to set a date certain for withdrawal while giving the
President the latitude to continue his Bosnian policy if he can
make his case to the public and the entire Congress.
Van Hilleary.
Stephen Buyer.
Tillie Fowler.
Roscoe Bartlett.
Buck McKeon.
Joe Scarborough.
Lindsey Graham.
Jim Ryun.